Gundary Solar Farm

I believe this project will hugely impact our rural community. It will create direct risk to neighbours and surrounding properties especially during the summer months with the increased fire risk cause loss of property, livestock and income. The country road will
become a main thoroughfare increasing risk to all on the road with the active wild life. This community is such an amazing thing to be apart of and adding this project is just heart breaks for all that love the country.

I object to the Industrial scale solar factory proposed on Gundary Plain. Decommissioning, remediation, fire risk, health and welfare of the residents, destruction of the environment and lifestyle of the residents of Gundary.

I am a young mum of a 4 year old daughter, and for the greatest part of my young daughter’s life, this stuff has been going on! I am concerned about the noise pollution so close to our property, especially having a young child. It has greatly affected everyone, and although I personally have no objection to better energy solutions, I can clearly see this isn’t a good one. It is too close to town. It will ruin beautiful views of people’s precious lifestyles. It will destroy animal habitats here, and damage waterways. The soil erosion will never be restored to previous state. Years ago, we had a cable put through at the top of our block, and interestingly, it is all rock and shale, also has never regrown. The substation is too close to residents, and poses a very real fire risk to everyone, also smoke inhalation dangers. I could go on and on.

I wish to submit my objection to the site chosen. I am a teenager, and this idea has really made a difference to my family’s plan to move from here and build on a smaller block, while my grandmother would move to town. We haven’t been able to proceed with any plans since we heard about the project. It has been hard to have our lives held up like this, and to hear all the conversations going on about all of the objections constantly! agree that the decision to have it here is stupid! Please change the site to a more suitable place with less people involved so that everyone can get on with their lives.

I strongly object to this proposal!
My family paid a lot of money to secure our 25 acres rural land, so close to town. We have had a few grass-eating animals, enjoyed horse-riding and other rural activities and it is truly a beautiful lifestyle, which we have now had for 25 years.
Due to changing family situations, long work hours for family members next door, and my advancing age, we decided to downsize to a small home in town for me and only 6 acres for the family next door.
We placed our property for sale, only to hear of the impending construction of the Solar Farm close-by. We weren’t officially informed by anyone and simply heard of it by the grapevine!
I purchased a small house in Goulburn, and my family next door purchased 6 acres to build on.
Our lives were shattered from that time until today!
Our property was immediately impacted.
It has been three years of hell which can never be compensated with any amount!
Many people simply said ‘no’ if the Solar project was going here! One family said ‘not only would they hate having it visible, but the noise day and night while it was being constructed would be unbearable!’
It really has been a nightmare, and we now feel angry and trapped! The value of our property dropped drastically the minute news emerged about this project, and since it has dragged on and on, nothing can ever make us feel better.
I can’t imagine the impending prospect of ‘hearing the construction of this project, which I believe ‘we have been consulted about!!’, then the ongoing sounds which are inevitable with the daily running ( but … we are supposed to be low-impact (page 165 EIS) and have low level noise pollution! ) we can hear a ‘water truck’ in the area, so I shudder to imagine heavy jackhammers etc day and night.
What a joke, and yet another lie! It will be horrific!
To say there is no conflict with land-owners is a terrible lie! There is conflict with everyone except the person leasing the land for financial benefit - he doesn’t live here, so couldn’t care less!
We haven’t got actual measurements as to the distance we will be from the sub-station but next door has employed a surveyor to see how far they will be and it was 997 meters for them, which must make our property around, or even under 400 meters - too close for both of us!
The ongoing, blatant land destruction so close to our boundary is a nightmare, not to mention the constant fear of fire out-breaks, and knowing there is the insidious, continuous emission of dreadful toxic chemicals into our land, waterways and sky!
There are so many outstanding reasons why this idea has been bungled from the beginning, and over the last couple of years we have discovered many serious, actual negatives to the site chosen.
I did a study on the ‘toxicity’ caused by Solar projects from the beginning to the end, and it was alarming! Haven’t we learnt anything from other countries experiences?
We have been unaware of the problems experienced in other countries.
Everyone needs to know!
Ignorance is no excuse - we should be examining everything!
People have absolutely no idea what is occurring to our country, and the long term effects of this ‘green, renewable energy’ scheme. I had no idea of the truth myself, and when I tell people my findings, they are really shocked. They say ‘why isn’t this information known?’
Everyone believes this is ‘clean and green’ - it is a lie!
(I am attaching my findings with references to my discoveries, and I think you might even be shocked!)
I’m trying to maintain my strength about this ‘invasion’, but it is getting harder as time goes on and I get older!
I love this area!
My mother was born and raised around this district, so it has significant memories for us.
She would be mortified to see what is proposed now!
It is such an unsuitable area for this project, and I also believe it is unlawfully ‘closer’ to town than it should be too.
No amount of tree cover or whatever is planned to hide the ugly view will compensate for the loss of ‘hills and dales’ scenery.
We are supposedly ‘low impact’! What a lie!
We are ‘highly’ impacted and no amount of compensation will ever suffice.
I love nature, and all the creatures we’ve seen living on these plains over the last 25 years, and I hate to think of the devastation around this area if this plan goes ahead - people are always preaching ‘conservation’, and animal protection - (bla bla bla) …. oh so easy to ignore here!
What a farce!
If it is stated that ‘property values are not impacted’, maybe they can purchase our place, and re-sell after the construction! They could stick panels on every roof and square inch of land!
Please God, let common-sense prevail before this, and any similar, lovely landscape is ruined forever.

I and my family have had a connection to the Gundary Plains and Goulburn Community over many generations and I wish to register my objection to the proposed Gundary Solar Farm project which consists of a 400MWdc (320MWac) solar farm and battery energy storage system (BESS), and which is located southeast of Goulburn, New South Wales, within the local government area of Goulburn-Mulwaree Council, in the strongest possible way.
Whilst acknowledging that this joint venture by both Lightsource and BP who are large international corporates with a portfolio of international projects completed, their lack of detailed information, collaboration, consultation (with who and how this “consultation is to take place) and understanding of the fundamental impact this development will have not only on the Gundary Plains, (which falls outside the Renewable Energy Zone (REZ)) but on the wider region, on agricultural viability as well as totally underestimating the detrimental impact this will have on the community of Gundary, Goulburn and surrounding regions.
The project group has failed to follow their own protocols regarding being a responsible neighbour and effectively engaging with the community in a proactive way. They have failed to foster a close engagement with local businesses (including agricultural enterprises) or the community.
Rather, it appears to have just “gone through the motions” of working with local businesses, family farms and farmers and individuals, trying to intimidate and bully their way to their desired end game.
The EIS, prepared by Umwelt pays lip service of the impacts to the local fauna and flora, cultural, visual, and historic heritage, acoustics, water resources, environmental planning, community engagement and social impact assessment. Providing those impacted and affected, just 28 days to read, absorb and respond to this, 319 page, 22 appendices long, bureaucratic speak document. This is typical of companies such as this trying to railroad their project through with little regard to real consultation and dialogue.
We are expected to support a project:
• Where technology and construction materials will be subsidized by Australian taxpayers and imported into Australia. (creating zero jobs)
• Where most of the employment and leadership roles will be internal rather than external Australian local people?
• Where there are no short-term or medium-term returns (other than to the Lightsource/BP organisation) and at the same time they are trying to purchase “future favor” through offering untimed, unqualified, and unquantifiable direct and indirect community benefits, offering local jobs, local procurement, and local construction contracts, a Community Benefit Fund etc.
• Where there is nothing concrete about costings, funding, and effective remediation of all areas during the life of the project and, more importantly at the end of the project’s useful life.
It goes without saying that a cynic might surmise that there is a significant gulf between these lofty ideals and more realistic future realities.
The reasons provided by Lightsource BP as to the location for this project are all self-justifying and make no allowance for external factors. They say the Gundary Plains location was because:
• It gave access to existing transmission infrastructure, close transmission infrastructure and to Goulburn’s population, (thereby reducing energy loss during transmission) This existing infrastructure has been paid for with taxpayer funds and this project is not factoring this into their costings or balance sheet.
• That the land was considered “marginal i.e. not classified as Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) or mapped as Class 1, 2 or 3 under the Land and Soil Capability Mapping for NSW. Some might consider the land “non-strategic” however this is, and has been, for over two hundred years, prime agricultural land capable of viably supporting mixed farming as well as all facets of the sheep industry. Locking up productive agricultural land is not only irresponsible, but short sighted in terms of feeding the Australian people.
• it is a large parcel of land (supposedly with fewer neighbours) This is, unfortunately, because it is because it is such a large parcel of land that the visual impact on all the neighbours is constant, unacceptable, and debilitating.

It is also acknowledged that some window dressing” has been done, things like project layout, changes to infrastructure, current flora considerations (but not however to future hazard mitigation and firefighting risks, given the scarcity and availability of water), the placing of a substation and switching station and potential battery energy storage system (places a huge risk in the event of fire) these changes are again ‘weasel words” to appease impacted parties and hoodwink bureaucrats into making unwise short term decisions, prior to a detailed and robust analysis of things like the EIS, the bushfire assessment plan, the biodiversity assessment, a traffic impact assessment, a noise impact assessment or a comprehensive biodiversity management plan etc.
Remembering that once this project gains approval there is no putting this renewable genie back into the bottle, resulting in catastrophic medium-term and long-term impacts.
Whilst Goulburn has been given a designation as a Regional City under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP) impact the Project? This project limits Goulburn’s ability to grow as a city and expand into surrounding community areas as the population grows.
There project is not sustainable from an environmental, economic, or social perspective. It has no immediate or future benefit to local, regional, or national interests for a project such as this, being commissioned, and as such must be rejected.

Please see attached my objections to this development.

To whom it may concern,

I strongly OBJECT to the proposed Gundary Solar Factory.

For 38 years, my husband has called the Gundary Homestead home—a place his family chose for its stunning views and peaceful lifestyle. This land holds deep meaning for our family and the community so much so that we decided to get married there two years ago.

Key Concerns with the Proposed Gundary Solar Farm are stated below:

1. SEPP Boundary Violations
Over two-thirds of the project lies within the SEPP boundary, established to protect communities from developments like this. By proceeding, BP disregards these protections and acts as though it is above the law. This must not be allowed.

2. Property Devaluation
Residents face up to a 20% decrease in property values, unfairly placing the financial burden of this project on the local community. This loss undermines years of investment and emotional ties to our homes.

3. Fire Risk
The solar farm increases the fire risk, with fenced-off areas, battery storage, and poor access for firefighting. The local RFS has stated they will not enter the site, leaving the community at significant risk of catastrophic fires.

4. Health Concerns
The project has caused widespread anxiety and stress. Additionally, the materials used in solar panels contain carcinogens that could contaminate water and soil, posing long-term health risks that BP has failed to address.

5. Inadequate Access
Windellama Road and Fifes Bridge cannot accommodate the industrial traffic this project would bring without major upgrades. Current infrastructure is unsuitable for this scale of development.

6. Heat Bank Effect
Solar farms can increase local temperatures, disrupting ecosystems and living conditions. BP has ignored this critical concern, failing to assess the full environmental impact.

7. Lack of Compensation
Affected landowners face devalued properties, disrupted lifestyles, and health risks with little to no compensation. BP’s dismissive attitude toward community concerns highlights its lack of accountability.

8. Decommissioning Risks
Unlike the mining industry, solar projects lack enforceable remediation standards. Without upfront funds for decommissioning, future costs could fall on local governments and taxpayers if the site is abandoned. BP’s refusal to commit to remediation demonstrates its disregard for the community and environment.

I have suppled an attachment with our objections.
The photos attached, Is this what we really want?

Please see submission attached

SAVE Gundary Plains conducted 2 paper based petitions. Copies are attached and the number of signatories to each petition is stated.
SAVE Gundary Plains will provide a copy of the signed petitions to the Independent Planning Commissioners as the petitions contain signatories' names and address details.

This project offers very little benefit to our local community and will restrict further growth development of the city. The use of prime agricultural lands for this project is insane, a more appropriate site should be sought. The size of this project with all of its infrastructure ie.lithium batteries, inverters and substations makes it a high fire risk which would have a huge impact on nearby landholders. Little consideration has been given to residents whose property value has decreased because of the proposed solar development.
Dust ,noise and pollution during the 18month to 2year construction period will have a negative effect on nearby residents.BP Lightsource has not made a financial commitment to decommission the site at end of life.
All in all the damage to flora and fauna to this historic food producing area will be felt for decades to come, these solar projects need to be built in appropriate areas where local communities don’t have their lives ruined financially and their mental wellbeing negatively affected which all should be greatly considered when making decisions on these projects.
We live within the 4 km. radius of this project and with another proposed solar development on productive farm land which is on our boundary makes it 14.5 sq.kilometres of solar approximately 1.5 million solar panels between the two sites within 10 kilometres of the Goulburn CBD. The loss of valuable farming land the negative effect on local landholders financially and mentally , the restriction of growth of Goulburn and the little financial gain of our community this solar project should not go ahead.

This solar project will make significant contributions to the fight against climate change, and will have minimal negative environmental and social impacts, as extensively documented in the environmental impact statement. It will make a great contribution to the economy and the environment and it is imperative it is approved without restrictions as soon as possible.

The proposal states that the facility will include:
• 660,000 solar photovoltaic modules
• A lithium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS)
• Infrastructure including underground cable network,
• Onsite substation/switchyard for connection to existing electricity transmission lines,
• Access tracks
• an operations and maintenance facility.
The key areas of concern/ opposition include:
1. Planning impacts
2. Community and Health impacts
3. Climate, Water and Fire impact
4. Installation and remediation concerns

1. Planning impacts
• Local council opposition - Goulburn Mulwaree Council (responsible for local planning requirements and services to the Gundary Plains area) is opposed to the location of the proposed solar facility as it conflicts with their vision for future growth.
• SEPP (Special Environmental Protection Provisions) protects residents within a 10-kilometre zone from the centre of Goulburn City, prohibiting large-scale industrial developments that negatively impact residents' sense of belonging and appreciation of the Gundary Plains. Over two-thirds of the proposed development falls within this 10km zone. The Land and Environment Court recently upheld these provisions, rejecting BP Lightsource's proposal for another solar factory within the 10km zone of Mudgee. Failure to consider these provisions would constitute a broader systemic failing in the environmental protection frameworks applied across the NSW state and could call into dispute previous decisions upholding these provisions (potentially opening NSW Government up to future litigation).
• Roads, Access & Infrastructure - Existing infrastructure around the proposed site is inadequate or would need significant investment to upgrade to handle two years of heavy transport during the proposed establishment phase. It is unclear whether this infrastructure upgrade would be funded by BP Lightsource or the resident tax/rate payers. Even beyond the initial establishment phase, ongoing maintenance/upkeep of the infrastructure would ultimately fall to the council and rate payers.

2. Community and Health impacts
There are 104 families located within a 4km radius of the proposed site. Many of these are small rural holdings and lifestyle residents with 60 families living on / near the solar facility boundary itself.
• Loss of Land Value - Licensed valuers have indicated a potential 20% reduction in property values for Gundary Plains, with longer listing times expected. Neighbours to the facility have faced significant hardship due to the solar factory, with some having to heavily discount their properties to sell. At this stage, BP Lightsource has not offered any compensation.
• Physical and Mental Health - The past 2.5 years since BP announced the project have been devastating for families, impacting their enjoyment of the environment and general and mental health. BP has not recognized or assisted with these impacts.
3. Climate, Water and Fire impact
• Fire Risk - The proposal states that along side the 660,000 solar photovoltaic modules, A lithium-ion battery energy storage system (BESS) is to be installed. There is real concern of increased risk of fires from Lithium-Ion batteries
- Lithium-ion batteries caused more than 1,000 fires during the past year in Australia - ABC News - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-13/lithium-ion-fires-recycling-plants-trucks-vapes-exploding/103582110
- Two killed in NSW house blaze believed to be state's first recorded lithium-ion battery-related deaths, Fire and Rescue NSW says - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/first-deaths-lithium-ion-batteries-nsw-teralba/103548972)
Imagine these articles and examples on an industrial level among an area that is prone to grass fires. The fully fenced solar installation will be difficult to defend if a fire starts or enters the site. Restricted space between rows of panels could trap firefighters, with the local RFS advising they will not enter the fenced area due to safety concerns, (intense north-westerly winds could rapidly spread fire through the solar factory, endangering residents on the eastern side).
Kooringaroo Road, a dead-end with narrow crossings, would not handle firefighters entering at the same time as locals escaping, potentially trapping people and resulting in property loss and possibly loss of life. I note the RFS has been critical of BP Lightsource's fire management provisions.
• Heat Bank Impact - Scientists recognize the heat bank effect during summer months, and the installation and substation will be very close to residents. BP Lightsource should not impact the local environment or modify climate conditions.
• Water - The Gundary Creek, part of the Warragamba catchment, is adjacent to the solar farm. Pollution from the solar farm during establishment, operation, and from deteriorating materials could compromise water quality. additionally, a fire at the solar facility could release toxins into the water supply, posing a disaster for Sydney Water.
4. Installation and remediation concerns
• Installation - As mentioned above, the existing infrastructure is insufficient to support heavy transport during the establishment phase without significant investment / uplift (and ongoing maintenance). It is my view that BP Lightsource (and their landowner stakeholder) have selected the proposed site due to the proximity to infrastructure merely to minimise establishment costs as much as possible (therefore maximising profits derived from accessing taxpayer-funded incentives) and have not fully considered the impact of such a development will have on the families that will be directly impacted (even the landowner stakeholder who not long ago acquired the land resides in Sydney).
• Remediation and Decommissioning - Unlike the mining industry, the solar industry lacks clear guidelines on remediation and decommissioning. This responsibility becomes more opaque facilities are sold and ownership changes over extended time periods without clear obligations and funding committed up front to avoid instances where the end owner may simply declare bankruptcy, leaving local government and tax/rate payers with the costs. BP has not committed to rehabilitating the Gundary Plains.
In Summary:
• There are substantial planning concerns to the establishment and operation of the proposed facility
• The community and health related impacts have already been felt and will increase significantly should this proposal proceed
• There are significant environmental / climate related risks which have not been adequately considered or mitigated for those who are directly impacted.
• There is no clear protections for tax/rate payers associated with the installation and decommissioning of these facilities which may result in significant risk to people, property and livelihoods within the Goulburn district and mean those directly impacted by the proposed facility may ultimately be responsible for picking up the pieces in the future.

Please see attachment.

I am concerned about the wildlife habitat in and around the area. Goulburn doesn’t get many sunny days so I don’t see how it can be affective at generating energy.
It’s going to ruin the landscape and we don’t want it in our area! How will the below be addressed????
1. Fire access on all areas.
2. Within Council housing growth area.
3. No clear rehabilitation strategy
4. Compensation to " whom ".
5. Road infrastructure renewal
6. Close to airport ( both in 3000 acres )
7. Valuation on current properties

Attached are maps for the consideration of decision makers
Maps 1, 3 and 5 will be emailed to the Planner - Cameron Ash

This is a scam.

We already produce too much solar on sunny days during daylight hours...from ROOFTOP solar. We don't need industrial solar destroying our homes, communities and environments.

Stop destroying the environment.

The proponent has no social licence for this project from the immediate community nor the wider community. The general public who have invested in rooftop solar are going to be turned off by AEMO yet these same people are unwittingly funding industrial scale projects such as this one with enormous subsidies. Nobody wants industrial scale solar blighting the landscape. As per AEMO request for emergency powers to turn off rooftop solar during the day, we already produce too much solar during the daylight hours. This project is a total waste of money.

Those of use who live in regional NSW are incensed that developers of swindle factories roam our communities and environment with impunity. Stop destroying our environment.

How much diesel will be used in this project? During construction and "operation". Where will the damaged/obsolete solar panels be dumped?

What guarantee can the NSW government give the community that any conditions of consent will be adhered to? The evidence so far shows that once approved no proponent bothers to adhere to conditions of consent. By design? or because the project is onsold so many times the details get lost in the process?

I strongly object to this project. Not only are mass scale solar farms an absolute eye sore but they also pose a significant environmental risk for pollution in the future at end of life but also a very real fire danger, the proponents have labeled this fire risk as low due to the land being grazed and the grass heights kept to a minimum but being a local for my whole life, I disagree with this statement as the grass on the gundary plains is quite often knee to hip height and a fire under the right conditions would be unstoppable.
The proponents have also failed to offer any reasonable solutions to numerous neighbours objections or concerns and I find it unreasonable that the project should go ahead with so much community angst surrounding it.
Lastly, I believe the NSW and Australian governments should be far more selective which land is being used for these white elephant projects and should focus on delivering energy from sources which require far less of a footprint. The gundary Plains is prime agricultural land and should be treated as such, not sold out to a multinational company to line their pockets with heavily subsidised profits which they have no interest or intent to filter back into the Goulburn community.