Mayfair Solar Farm

The project is located too close to neighbouring properties and will impact the amenity of these neighbours

Submission objecting to the Mayfair Solar Farm and BESS (MSFB) Project being granted a planning permit or in any way proceeding to construction.
1. The MSFB is a parasitic Solar Farm and Battery complex that is only able, (because of a shortage of weather fuel, sunshine) to operate for a maximum of eight hours a day (33%) and because of clouds and rain, the MSFB only averages six hours a day or 25% of each day. If it was not subsidised, investors would never consider it as a worthwhile investment.
The MSFB website prospectus claims it is going to power 27,000 homes? The reader appears to be led to believe that the 27,000 homes are going to be powered for the 24 hours of every day?

I believe this is grossly misleading, as we have seen (above) by the lack of availability of fuel (Sunshine), the 27,000 homes can only expect to be powered for a maximum of 6 hours a day. But even that cannot be guaranteed and the 27,000 homes would need to have an alternative source of electricity for at least 18 hours a day, as well as being available at all times in the event the MSFB supply fails, as it will do on a great many days.
2. The MSFB will permanently pollute the farmland it is on, and the agricultural production will be lost each year for the next 100 years or more. Note: At present the MSFB land is producing each year, a good amount of agricultural produce, that economically benefits the farmer, surrounding towns, cities and eventually Australia with economic stimulation and jobs. As previously stated this will be a very large negative against the MSFB forever.
3. Adding a BESS to the MSFB, is completely unnecessary and worthless. To add a BESS to the mix, does not produce one MWh of power and actually loses 16% of the power, having to convert it from AC to DC current going into the BESS. And again converting the current via Inverters from DC to AC current when transferring out of the BESS. This loss via conversion only increases the price to the end user. High prices do as much damage to economies as shortages of supply.
4. The MSFB does nothing to reduce the World’s emissions. This is because all the Federal and State Net Zero emission goals, Emission Reduction goals and Carbon emission limits on big polluters, are all a waste of money, effort, and will not reduce Global emissions by one iota. The reason is that while Australia’s emissions of Co2 are approximately 1.3% of the World’s emissions at the same time China, India and now the USA will be outside the Paris Agreement and emits 60% of the World’s emissions and is still growing. Any reduction in Australia’s emissions will be quickly replaced by China, India and the USA’s emissions.
5. The MSFB is totally reliant on Climate Change subsidies and mandated energy retailer policies, without which it would never be built. Or if the subsidies, etc are removed this MSFB will be abandoned. Further if the MSFB cannot afford the cost of building the HV Transmission necessary to connect to the Grid. It is ridiculous for electricity consumers and taxpayers to have to pay for the connecting HV Transmission Lines.
6. Importantly this MSFB has not made adequate provision for the outbreak of a wildfire. Firebreaks are grossly inadequate and fixed water tanks are next to useless, particularly in BESS fires. In Victoria CFA fire fighters are refusing to enter Renewable Factories. Water bombers would not water bomb the MSFB because of the risk of explosions The risk to surrounding rural residents is frightening.
5. As well the MSFB has made no financial provision for the dismantling and restoration of the site. Or the cost of the disposal of the toxic, batteries and associated toxic junk. This is why the MSFB is not a net contributor to the electricity generation system or a viable economic proposition and should never be built.

Objection submission attached

I object, destruction of our country side needs to stop. Solar factories manufactured by China and installed by mainly overseas companies (boosted by subsidies) does NOTHING to change the climate. It makes a few individuals rich and makes our country poor. We need strong reliable and cheap power which we currently have in abundance - coal, gas, uranium. Stop the madness.

I write to formally object to the proposed Mayfair Solar Electricity Generating Works (60 MW) and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) (60 MW/240 MWh) located on RU1 Primary Production Land at Stubbo, Mid-Western Council. My concerns are detailed below, focusing on the potential impacts on land use, agricultural viability, environmental integrity, and community wellbeing.

1. Inappropriate Land Use on RU1 Primary Production Land
The proposed development site spans 217 hectares, with a significant 140-hectare footprint on RU1-zoned land, designated for primary production. This zoning is specifically intended to safeguard agricultural activities, which are vital for local and regional economies.
The current use of the land as dryland grazing for fodder crops and small-scale wheat cropping underscores its productive value. The development of such a large-scale solar and BESS facility on this land would permanently remove it from agricultural use, contradicting the objectives of RU1 zoning to:
* Protect and maintain productive agricultural land.
* Ensure rural character and agricultural activities are preserved.
The removal of this land from agricultural production could set a concerning precedent for future development on prime agricultural land, undermining the long-term food security and economic sustainability of the region.

2. Hydrological Impacts on Local Watercourses and Creeks
The site is bordered by Slapdash Creek, which flows into Wialdra Creek, and contains several mapped hydrolines across the property. While observed dry during the site visit, these waterways are part of a seasonal hydrological system crucial for downstream ecosystems and agricultural irrigation.
Concerns include:
* Soil Compaction and Erosion: The large construction footprint risks altering natural drainage patterns, increasing erosion, and degrading soil quality.
* Water Quality Contamination: Potential runoff during construction and operation could pollute watercourses with sediment, oil, and chemicals, impacting local water supplies.
* Cumulative Hydrological Impacts: The cumulative impact of this project alongside other developments in the region has not been adequately assessed, posing further risks to hydrological networks.

3. Inadequate Agricultural Impact Assessment
The consultation report claims no specific agricultural impacts were identified, yet this assertion appears superficial and dismissive. The surrounding area is primarily used for modified pastures and cropping, and any disruption to agricultural operations (e.g., through changes to hydrology, dust, or land degradation) could adversely affect nearby farms.
Furthermore, the project overlooks indirect impacts such as:
* Biosecurity Risks: Construction and maintenance activities may introduce invasive species or pests that harm crops and grazing land.
* Loss of Productive Land: The development will remove a significant portion of land from agricultural use, reducing the availability of productive farmland in the region.
* Community Fragmentation: By prioritising industrial-scale infrastructure over agriculture, the project risks alienating the agricultural community and disrupting the rural character of the area.

4. Environmental Impacts on Biodiversity and Native Vegetation
The northern portion of the site contains grazing native vegetation, which may harbor local biodiversity. Large-scale clearing and construction pose risks, including:
* Habitat Destruction: The development could displace native fauna and reduce biodiversity corridors.
* Fragmentation of Native Vegetation: Remaining vegetation will be isolated, reducing ecosystem connectivity.
A comprehensive ecological assessment is needed to address these concerns and provide mitigation measures for any loss of biodiversity.

5. Visual Amenity and Rural Character
The scale of the proposed solar farm and BESS facility will significantly alter the visual character of the area. A 140-hectare industrial-scale facility is inconsistent with the surrounding rural landscape, which is defined by open pastures and cropping fields. The visual impact will deter tourism and diminish the appeal of the region’s rural identity.

6. Potential Fire Risks
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are known to pose significant fire risks, especially if thermal runaway occurs. The Stubbo region is susceptible to bushfires, being predominant Bushfire Prone Land and adding a BESS facility introduces:
* Increased risk of fire ignition.
* Challenges in fire containment and management, given the nature of lithium-ion battery fires.
* Contamination risk from BESS fires of surrounding land, drinking water tanks & waterways
The safety of neighboring properties and the local community could be jeopardized by inadequate fire safety measures.

7. Inadequate Community Consultation
The consultation report highlights engagement with neighboring landholders and the Gulgong community but fails to identify specific concerns. This lack of detail raises questions about the depth and inclusivity of the consultation process. Meaningful community engagement is essential to address legitimate concerns and ensure transparency in decision-making.
The proposal does meet community consultation guideline requirements.

8. Cumulative Impacts and Strategic Oversight
This project must be evaluated within the broader context of cumulative impacts from similar developments in the Mid-Western region. Without strategic oversight, the region risks being overburdened by solar farms, leading to:
* Loss of agricultural land at a regional scale.
* Increased pressure on local infrastructure and resources.
* Fragmentation of rural communities.

Conclusion
The proposed Mayfair Solar Electricity Generating Works and BESS development raises significant concerns regarding land use, hydrology, agricultural viability, environmental integrity, fire safety, and community wellbeing.
I urge the Department of Planning to reject this proposal and save the community from ongoing stress.

I strongly object to the Mayfair solar farm. These companies all have the same text book. They throw money at the kids of the community, bully the locals and write up their reports full of misinformation and ambiguous statements. No one in the department check this out. We have seen this time and time again.
This is more food producing land the will be lost to the people of Australia. You must ask yourself where do you think your food comes from. It comes of from this type of good quality country. The toxic pollution will ruin thesoils forever. Panels are now coated in PFOS a highly toxic man made chemical which is a hormone disrupter and linked to fertility issues. Once this gets into the water who knows where it will end up.
https://youtu.be/WfEUZotRyLI?si=Y_Qd707sQ4Kl_Oif
Please watch this documentary Dollars and Destruction done to educate the wider community what these companies are doing to rural Australia.

We oppose the Project as it reduces land available for agriculture. A rural lands study should be required before any agricultural land is converted to wind or solar. Such a rural lands study would be required by the Department of Planning if agricultural land wast to be covered for urban use.

I object to the construction, operation and decommissioning of a 60MW solar farm including associated infrastructure and battery. Why? Because of the following information that is not transparently disclosed to constituents:
Production Tax Credits (PTC), other Federal handouts given to REZ courtesy of the taxpayer, REZ being in debt to communist China who loaned Australia a trillion dollars to build wind turbines, the tremendous cost of the dangerous high voltage transmission lines, Dutch auction costs, auxiliary power cost, no penalties for REZ for non-compliance, payments for non-usage, direct and indirect host community costs, the high cost of the wind supply chain, deindustralisation, utility conflict exposed, loss of serenity, loss of community and a very high bushfire risk due to the dangerous and massively expensive high voltage transmission lines attached to the wind turbines, solar farms, lithium-ion battery facilities, as well as Marinus Link (if it goes through), where bushfires could and have already broken out from wind turbines, solar farms and lithium-ion battery facilities, which could potentially lead to another Black Saturday where 173 lives were lost due to 6 out of 11 fires being caused by high voltage transmission lines. 01 02 2024, www.abc.net.au.

https://open.substack.com/pub/criticallythinking/p/the-true-cost-of-wind-energy-updated?r=yhss0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Mayfair Solar Farm Submission

Application Number SSD-60074458


22/1/2025


As we have had our tariffs from our own rooftop solar been cut due to oversupply of solar to the grid, when it is working, I would like an explanation of why more of our agricultural land is being placed under panels that will obviously add to ensuring the grid is unbalanced while not supplying base-load power.

With the decommissioning plan by our NSW State Government being "hands off" is there any certainty that A) is there plans to establish the funds for the decommissioning plan B) are the landowners involved aware that they are ultimately responsible for decommissioning and what those costs are likely to be?

As the NSW Solar Guidelines state that all infrastructure must be removed, but with this being ignored by decommissioning plans for other developments are the guidelines being ignored here also with only the infrastructure to 50mm being planned for removal?

With the assumed only reasons for this loss of land being 1) lower power prices 2) lowering of "emissions" could the proponents and or the department please provide empirical evidence of 1) anywhere in the world that the price of energy has been lowered by a combination of solar and wind 2) evidence of any adverse event, effect or temperature rise caused by emissions of CO2, carbon dioxide, which is plant food and is currently at a historical low in the atmosphere.

The hugely expensive and destructive roll-out of "renewables" infrastructure must surely be backed by solid real world evidence, in light of the apparent fact that an 82% reduction in "emissions" has no budget restraints, social upheaval boundaries, is more important than food security and there are no environmental restraints on its uptake.

As the USA leaves expensive and pointless net-zero policies behind, we must ask if it is best for Australia to continue down this economy-destroying path.

I strongly object to this project as it is taking good agricultural land out of production as are all the projects in the CWOREZ. It will cause environmental destruction as well as causing extra bushfire risk. There is also risk of water and soil contamination due to the run off from the panels. The cumulative impacts of the more than 50 projects (and more to come) in the CWOREZ have not been taken into account. Power should be generated where it is needed as none of the power generated in the Mayfield Solar Factory will benefit the locals. Where will all the food and fibre come from if all the agricultural is taken out of production? More thought should be put into these projects before just bulldozing ahead. Are they really going to work after destroying many peoples livehoods, homes and communities?

All projects to put subsidised and mandated intermittent inputs of wind and solar power on the grid are undesirable because they don't deliver any power on windless nights. This means that we will need to keep all the coal power we have until nuclear can replace it.
Trillions of dollars have been spent to advance the penetration of unreliable energy in the grids of the Western world and the result is more expensive and less reliable power along with massive damage to forests and farmland.

Large Solar Works Objection and reasons listed below
I am an owner of a property withing the vicinity of the proposed Mayfair Solar Farm works. My house is on Shepherds Lane and was constructed 5 years ago. My land extends to Wyladra creek and my house is closer to Wyaldra Creek. My living area, kitchen and bedrooms are directly facing the proposed project area. My house is not indicated on the maps that are included in the EIS although it is within the vicinity of the proposed project. My family home was not assessed for visual impact, noise impact and I was not included in the impacted property owner’s consultation process.
Visual impacts
The EIS include a statement that visual impact will be minimal but that is not correct in relation to my property and family home.
My property is severely impacted by the project. My children’s bedroom, my bedroom, kitchen, and family room have large, glazed sections all look out onto the project area. I am asking for the EIS to include my property for visual and noise impact assessment. If the Minister approves inspection of the project area, I am happy for the inspectors to attend at my property and see for themselves how the visual impact is horrendous to my family, yet our family home is not even noted on the impacted houses map that is included in the EIS.
Cumulative impact of numerous solar works is overwhelming. There will be a sea of panels around Gulgong and this impacts the visual amenity of the town and surrounding property owners. Why can’t these works be shared among different communities to reduce cumulative noise and visual impact on one rural community? The government should consider the rural communities wellbeing just the same as they consider the wellbeing of people in the cities. Our wellbeing is being impacted by the never-ending cover of our surroundings with glass panels. Beryl solar, Bellambi Heights solar, Stubbo sola, Birriwa solar and proposed wind farms are all located next to each other (250m between Tallawang solar and Bellambi). The cumulative noise of turning thousands of solar panels is unacceptable to the community.
Although my property is impacted, I have not heard anything about the said shared Benefit Strategy. I only read about it in the EIS.
The houses on Black Lead lane will be severely impacted visually as they are on a hill and overlooking the project site. They were not assessed for visual impact.
The continuous glare will severely impact properties. Many properties on Black Lead Lane & Shepherds Lane and Old Mill Road are exposed due to the lay of the land. The houses are constructed on hills and are overlooking the project site. How is that going to be minimised when the affected houses are not even noted on the EIS map?
Continuous noise to impacted residences. What are the long-term health impacts of the continuous noise. Can they provide a confirmation from a Medical Health body or institution to confirm that the continuous noise will not cause long term health impacts to the families who reside around the proposed site.
Flora and fauna
Kangaroos’ movement and black swans’ movement is going to be restricted by the fencing of extensive area. Noting that Mayfair Solar works is proposed next to Bellambi Heights solar works and Tallawang solar proposed sites, animals cannot move across the area.
Risk of weeds growing between solar panels and spread by wind to adjacent farms including my farm
Impact on historic outlook of Gulgong Town and tourism
The town hosts an annual Henry Lawson festival which celebrates the historical nature of Gulgong. The town’s tourism business sector supports the community. This project will impact the historical outlook of the town and ring-fence it with industrial solar works. This is going to destroy tourism business and jobs. This will have huge negative social and economic impacts.

Loss of rich farming land and associated jobs in exchange of temporary jobs and industrial outlook.
Fire risk
The fire risk plan to Gulgong town and surrounding homes is not properly assessed. There is no concrete evidence or information from local Rural fire service (RFS) confirming that the extensive solar works do not pose a risk to Gulgong town. There is no plan provided on how RFS will protect the homes near the solar works in the event of a fire, considering the fumes that the solar works will produce is there is a fire.

Loss of property value
Are there any reports from reputable real estate agents that confirm that extensive solar works does not reduce surrounding property values? No-one wants to buy a property adjacent to a solar farm. The works are enriching various developers and landowners who do not live in Gulgong and is writing off the value of other residents’ properties in the process. Fellow Australians should be treated with reasonable concern. It is heartbreaking to see how property owners are suffering because of these works that are mushrooming around their family homes.

Objectives of production of climate friendly energy can be achieved by placing these solar works in positions or areas where they do not negatively impact rural communities.
The Paris Agreement is not achievable without ruining Australians livelihoods. The rural communities are completely ignored by politicians and are treated as low value people, yet we contribute the same as the people in the cities.

This project has definitely not gained a social licence.

My objection is attached.

Please refer to the attachment for my reasons for objecting to this project.

The objection by Save Our Surroundings Central West NSW (SOS-CWN) to the Mayfair Solar and BESS project is attached.

Dear Minister, I am writing to you in TOTAL OPPOSITION of the Mayfair Solar construction and in total support of those already affected by the proposed installation of a solar factory at 204 Jacksons Lane STUBBO (Application SSD-60074458 Mayfair Solar Farm). These developments are ripping rural communities apart before they are even built. These communities are the very ones who voted for you, who are supposed to best represent and protect them and their long vested interests in the agricultural sector. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the development of these insideous, environmentally dangerous and economically unviable "electricity generating works". One doesn't have to look very far these days to become aware of the dangers and concerns surrounding solar factories. I urge you and all associated to research and investigate renewables more thoroughly and not just "tick off" these projects. It is YOUR DUE DILIGENCE to be totally informed about what you are signing off on. This incredible push by the Government towards so called green and renewable energy sources, for it's selfish, self-centred, megolomaniac push towards the net zero promise is wrong, poorly researched and incredibly dangerous to the environment, economy but most of all to existing and future generations of Australians. The placement of these facilities on arable farm land is yet another major threat to our future. Less than 5% of Australia is arable. It is an irreplaceable resource. There is just no place for renewables on arable farming land and much more consultation needs to be sought before these installations are pushed through in ANY area. There is so much that cannot be undone once these developments are pushed through and approved and worse yet, built. PLEASE, I urge you, do not approve these developments. Yours sincerely, Karen Masson

Please refer to my attached submission.

I object to Mayfair Solar farm, a number of reasons for my objection are:
Environmental damage

Slavery, including child slavery in mining in Africa and manufacturing in China

Loss of agricultural land

Loss of wildlife directly or through loss of habitat

Responsibility of disposal, who pays?

Contamination of soil and waterways.

I Object to Elgin’s Mayfair SolarElectricity Generating Works & BESS for the following reasons:-
• It is destructive to native flora and fauna;
• Construction will leave a legacy of land destruction that is unlikely to be rectified by the builder;
• It is an abomination on the natural landscape.
• It is part of a system that costs billions, does not work reliably and attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, in other words useless and irresponsible use of public funds;
• All such infrastructures should be built at developer’s expense, NOT on public funds.
As we are constantly told wind and solar are the cheapest, well prove it, remove all subsidises - DO NOT build this system on public funds;
• The TOTAL cost has not been verified by independent experts;
• There is NO verified scientific basis for reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere so this project is a total waste of public money, along with all other such projects. 
There is in fact reliable verifiable scientific proof that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and by extension to human life on earth.