New England Solar Farm

I wish to present the follow objections to the proposed Solar Farm.
1. Lack of transparency and secrecy surrounding the proposal.
2. Probable depreciation of land values.
3.Inequitable community compensation for the environmental problems.
The financial benefit should be for the wider community.
4. Incompatibility with long standing agricultural practices in the
district.
5. Visual Pollution for the m locals travelling on Thunderbolts Way as
well as the thousands of tourists passing through.
6. The farm is to be situated on high quality Agricultural land.

I fundamentally support alternate to fossil fuel energy generation,
particularly solar and wind. Therefore I support the New England Solar
Farm particularly the Northern and Central arrays and the eastern
portion of the Southern array. My support for alternative energy
generation is always subject to several conditions:
* Solar panel infrastructure needs to be designed to facilitate
multiple use of the land (ie the height of legs should enable grazing
by sheep).
* Installations on Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) as
defined by the Strategic Agricultural Land Map should be restricted;
and
* The visual amenity of the location should be protected.

It is the visual amenity of the western section of the Southern array
that I have some concern. The Visual Impact Statement (Appendix I of
the Environmental Impact Statement) page 143 of 160 shows the vista
from Site 12. This site is on the Thunderbolts Way overlooking
Salisbury Plain - the western sector of the Southern Array.

At the Macro level: Site 12 photo would indicate that solar panels
would be absorbed into the landscape. However the vista from a site
approximately 400 metres north of Site 12 travelling South on the
Thunderbolts Way would provide the driver (as well as passengers) a
panoramic view of the Salisbury Plain. This is because it is a 45°
right hand curve in the road with a drop off to the left. The solar
panels would undoubtedly be prominent at that point. I would suggest
that the Site 12 assessments on page 66 of Low, Low and Slight for
Magnitude of Change, Visual Sensitivity and Evaluation of Significance
respectively would not apply from a more northerly viewpoint. I would
suggest that the Evaluation of Significance could be greater than
slight and should be taken into consideration.

Thunderbolts Way is a significant tourist route for independent
travellers, particularly motor cycle riders and family groups, with a
significant economic benefit to the townships of Walcha and Uralla.
Therefore the macro visual amenity needs to be considered. There is an
attraction in man-made structures in the natural environment that
needs to also be evaluated. As a frequent overseas traveller to the
northern hemisphere I have admired the majestic sight of symmetry of
movement of wind turbine blades in North Eastern Washington State in
the USA, throughout Spain and Portugal and the offshore turbines at
Gwynt y Mór off Wales. They are tourist attractions to many - although
opposed by many as well.

At the Micro level: Care must be exercised to ensure that there are
viable setbacks from neighbouring residences, especially on the
Northern Tablelands - a natural grassland - where growing trees is
difficult and slow with high mortality rates in plantings. Planting
Management Plans need to have requirements for continual replanting of
unsuccessful plantings.

As a land holder on Big Ridge Road I am concerned with the level of
communication I have had with UPC renewables My original communication
was in 2018. After much persistence from myself I was granted a
meeting in March 2019.
When I asked questions pertaining to the project I was not given
satisfactory answers, I felt brushed off and was answered many times
with "it's a given and doesn't need to be stated"

My concerns are;

1. Boundaries and their locations, which were discussed at our
meeting. But I still didn't get clarification on potential boundaries
versus set boundaries
2.Why the project is listed as both a 25 and a 30 year project in a
number of publications.
3.Solutions for lack of water, water transfer, waste management and
sewerage management. The EIS states water will be trucked in. Where is
this water sourced? Is this viable in a drought season when land
holders are having difficulty sourcing water carriers
4.The visual impact on the area and why regeneration practices cannot
be implemented at beginning of the project, especially when only 60%
of proposed area is being used for panels
5. Due to stringent testing for my stock sales I have requested soil,
water and radiation analysis to be undertaken and reports made public.
This allows me to comply with market requirements. Radiation testing
is was a requirement for the Satellite so why not Solar? I was told
this was an extreme request. I think this was dismissive with little
understanding of diverse farming livelihoods
6.Why my land is a strip enclosed by BSAL and my land pocket is not
classified BSAL. Was testing or visual inspection of my property
undertaken without my knowledge? This could not be answered
7. Noise assessments were undertaken at the corner of Munsies and Big
Ridge road intersection. Why only there? Why not an average of many
points along the road that will lead to the proposed village and the
village itself
8. Native flora and fauna corridor consideration. Koalas have been
seen in the area but no consultation with locals made regarding this.
Also migratory birds were not considered in the EIS
9. Traffic concerns include dust increase and its management. At the
meeting I was told Big Ridge Road did not require sealing. I also have
concerns regarding the figure raised as current traffic usage. This
was adapted via a formula. Was this formula adjusted for rural
circumstances. From the sealed road their are 4 residential and 2 non
residential. This figure does not seem indicatave of road use
10. A natural water course cuts through Big Ridge Road. I have
concerns as to erosion of the road and surrounds. In areas the road
would be considered "single lane" with drainage troughs on both sides.
These were not addressed in the EIS
11. Establishment of a Village will take place if they cannot employ
700 workers from the local area. Does this mean that the village will
go ahead as 700 is a large number of people to source from our local
area or does it mean that locals will not be given priority of
employment?
12. As a single woman on the land with children I have concerns
regarding local policing ratios and vandalism that may occur at the
proposed site.
13. As indicated at my meeting the fire hazards are at inverter and
sub station points. this raised concerns regarding the added pressures
placed on our local fire services and first responders. As there are
no rural fire service on Big Ridge road where do these services come
from?
14. Why was Urallas prime agricultural land chosen over areas that
have longer daylight hours and poorer agricultural land?
15. Can we be assured that the Solar farm can be connected into
current power network in the Uralla Area? And if not what extensions
to project work would be required?
16. I would also like more clarity on the money being placed back into
our community. Is this direct, regional or indirect? And why on the
UPC renewable page monies are being paid to groups prior to the
project being passed at state level?

I am in support of renewables however I feel I need to be more
informed to make a knowledgeable decision on any support I may give to
such a project

The Uralla Shire Business Chamber represents our membership of business
owners and operators in the Uralla Shire and as a group we have
recognised that the construction of a Solar Farm on Salisbury Plains
would be a step in the right direction for renewable energy and a
financial benefit for the Uralla Shire. However, the Chamber does have
reservations regarding the concerns that have been recognised in the
EIS currently on display, but we feel not well enough. Recommendations
from the Solar/Wind Commissioner support a thorough plan from Council,
conditions applied to the project, with set-backs, visual amenity and
neighbour agreements. The construction of this project and life span
is 25 years with possible "repowering" for an extended period. This is
a very important issue for Uralla and should not be taken lightly.
Removal of the southern array will not stop the project from going
ahead but we believe this would be acting responsibly.

I believe that Australia has to seriously look at renewables however I
feel that a lot of questions need to be addressed before we are
comfortable with accepting a project as being good for us.
I would like to address concerns with the current project of The New
England Solar Farm, 6kms from Uralla. These concerns were not full
addressed by representatives of UPC renewables,

1. Why has the Uralla area been chosen for the site of solar farm over
areas that may not have such a strong productive agricultural history?
2. Truck access to proposed village? In particular the access to the
Northern and Central Array is a dirt road and will need much upgrading
to be B Double or large combination ready. I was told by a UPC
representative that it was already used by B Doubles, however this is
not a B Double graded road and I feel this statement to be misleading.
As a rate payer I am hoping that the upgrade and maintenance of these
access is not directed back to the community
3. Dust control; The representatives believed unsealed roads did not
require sealing as this was not an issue. I fail to see how this can
be an accurate assessment of the rural road network. This dust does
not just impact as an environmental issue alone, but it creates a
visual hazard on many of these roads that are extremely narrow
4. Weed management; Burr and noxious weed control is to be controlled
from vehicles via a high-pressure water wash bay. Given the lack of
water in these areas where will the water be sourced from? It is
suggested that water will be carried into these areas will this water
be recycled in this process as to maintain the ethos of renewables.
5. Chemical contamination of heavy metals not addressed. High
contamination times being construction and pull-down periods. UPC
renewable representatives were unsure of the percentages and
possibilities of this and could only assure me that it was minor. For
meat and milk producers bordering the solar farm this can be
detrimental to their futures.
6. In the Aboriginal and Cultural section of the EIS it is suggested
that movable aboriginal artefacts will be taken to Armidale Keeping
Place. Why is this the option? Uralla has recently gained a grant from
Regional Cultural Fund Grant for its Aboriginal Artefact Cultural
Display. If this is the attitude of the project as a whole how will
that effect Uralla's local tourism
7. Money back into community has started before the project has
started. Is this the normal process?
8. Will the ownership of the project remain in Australian hands with
benefits and money not being directed off shore?
9. Increased stress on local emergency services, e.g. fire, police and
ambulance. Many of our local services are not manned 24 hours? Who
will provide specialized training if it is required?
10. Are all community promises made by the developer adhered to for
the life of the project?
11. Increase to employment is short term for (36 months). Is there a
plan to lower the impact this will have on the Uralla community?
12. It was suggested that lighting of an evening will be for security
reasons. What is the visual impact of this lighting? Are there natural
screening techniques that can be developed to lesson the visual impact
of the project?
13. What is the planned disposal of the panels at the end of the
project? This will require transport from the site to a facility that
is equipped for such disposals.
14. Traffic increases to the Northern array, Centre Array and Village.
In this access area there is a school. The EIS did not fully address
the impact this would have on the bus stop and high child area, not
just during school hours but during OOSH operating hours as well.

I am not convinced that this project is sustainable. I have questions
about whether or not waste, both human and refuse generated by the
project can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner, and
if the solar panels are manufactured in a environmentally friendly
manner from renewable materials, plus whether the manufacture is done
by fair-trade labour (ie, non-exploited labour). I am also concerned
about the impact on the land and water table and also the fairly
permanent and longterm affect on the environment by the use of the
land, becoming heat islands and also reducing the rich agricultural
land which this proposal is using. I question the benefits to the
local environment and economy, I have doubts about the tourism or
other boosts to our area. My concern is that this is a shortterm and
artificial imaginary boost which will bring devestation to our
community in a few short years after construction is completed. I am
not convinced that enough concern is evident about the nature of the
environment and wonder why the project cannot be done on land which is
in an underpopulated area where it won't matter that it will be an
unattractive eyesore or detract from the region's attractive tourism
nature.

I am concerned about the financial viability of this project and the
impact it will have on the fragile environment, flora and fauna in the
area.

My understanding from the UPC Renewables Website is funding will be
from;

"It is anticipated that for a project of this size a combination of
local and international sources of finance would be required. UPC
Renewables has experience working with a wide range of financiers for
these sorts of projects."

Not very transparent for a multi-million dollar project that is
looking for local some funding from local sources? Hopefully not
through government subsidies?

The enormous land size 2700 hectares is very large and the impact it
will have on the eco-system would be significant despite what they
infer. Having such a large area covered in solar panels will certainly
act like a huge heat trap substantially raising air temperatures in
the immediate vicinity during the day.

The impact that solar farms have on individual species can send
ripples throughout entire ecosystems. For example, animals like
burrowing owls in California's Mojave Desert rely on burrows dug by
desert tortoises for shelter. When solar farms harm or remove species
within a habitat, they also remove the valuable ecosystem services
that they provide to the habitat. The habitat becomes less liveable
for plants and wildlife that have adapted to its specific conditions.

A report published in the Journal of Environmental Research Letters,
titled "Solar Park Micro-climate and Vegetation Management Effects on
Grassland Carbon Cycling", claims that there could be severe
temperature reductions beneath solar installations by as much as 5
degrees Celsius in the hot season. This could affect plant growth in
the surrounding areas.

For solar farms to provide 24/7 energy to homes, some type of storage
capacity must be installed with the panels. This capacity stores
excess energy that can be distributed during the overnight hours. A
battery is one such example of a storage system. According to Energy
Sage, the price of solar batteries can range from $400-$750 per
kilowatt hour required. The Tesla Powerwall 2.0 is priced at $5,500
and it offers 13.5 kilowatt hours of storage.

However, there does not seem any provision for battery storage in the
proposal?

We just don't know enough about what happens to the soil, plants and
wildlife in areas where ground mounted PV parks are constructed. The
phenomenon is still a new one and rapid development is taking place on
the basis of ignorance. But the effect the PV panels have on the local
climate and what impact this has on the plants and soil is very
important.

Soil is the most significant player in storing carbon - containing
more than vegetation and the atmosphere combined - and the interaction
between soil and plants regulates carbon storage and the release of
greenhouse gases. So the expansion of solar parks matter for the
carbon cycle, the growth rate of plants, the amount of carbon locked
up in the soil, the release of greenhouse gas emissions to the
atmosphere and the types of species that can live in the new
conditions. Mass use of solar farms over time will increase the areas
affected and the scale of the new phenomenon.

I would recommend the Government defer the project until the questions
about the financial viability of the project can be fully investigated
and the impact the panels will have on the environment is fully
understood.

I am a strong supporter of renewable energies and wish, over time to see
the states electricity production move away from coal fire powered
generation. I do however object to the proposed New England Solar Farm
located east of Uralla.

The site comprises of high value grazing lands with reliable rainfall.
This combination of good soils and reliable rainfall is restricted to
relatively small areas of the state of NSW and should not be alienated
from agricultural production for 30 years or more for utilization for
an industrial sized power production plant.

A number of the sections of this proposal are highly visible from both
minor and major roads within the district. The Thunderbolts Way and
Gostwyck Road are designated Tourist Drives. Although

There are many areas of the state that are suitable for renewal energy
production and with some additional infrastructure such as substations
and power grid would be of great value to the local and broader state
community.

The renewal energy industry is many ways just beginning to become
establish and there exists the opportunity to set sensible guidelines
that will protect community values, agricultural production and
environmental values while at the same time giving companies certainty
for their projects.

Hello, I am opposed to the New England Solar Farm Development. I am not
opposed to Solar or to large scale developments. I am opposed to this
development as the environmental survey locations are not relevant to
where the fauna live. The roads are not what the EIS suggest they are.
The development is bad for the town that I live in.
I own residential and commercial properties in town. I do not see any
benefit for my community- bar the $$$ donation to community groups
that kind of feels like trading manhattan for blankets and mirrors.
We are just starting to kick goals with tourism, arts and food. This
has been a long haul for long time proponents - I have newspaper
clippings for an arts village from the 70s. We might be a bit useless
and slow but right now to have the solar panels right on the roads -
that tourists and residents travel - replacing the rolling (usually)
green rolling hills of the 'New England' with limited area specifc
planning will destroy all that has been worked towards for so long.
Maybe if we could consider regions specific planning. Such as
Infrastructure not seen from the road or neighbouring properties etc.
Not near waterways. Not in known fauna and flora endangered areas. It
would go a long way to dot the i's and cross the t's and set up a
protocol for all of the other companies that are scrambling to set up
in the region.
I am requesting good planning, that takes into account neighbours,
environemnt
and other forms of income for our region as a whole.
this is the first of many developments in the region for 'clean
energy' and it would be great if this one set the standard.

As the next generation of the area, I am deeply concerned for the
environment in regards to the recent and on going drought and safety
of the road users being confronted by a detrimental increase in
vehicles along Gostwyck Road and Munsies Road.

The HSC Agriculture course in which I am studying this year provides
excessive evidence against the compaction, erosion and man made soil
structure damage and how it destroys the fertility of the soil for
many years to come. Although the climate change issue is pushing
towards renewal energy, the drought suffered by up to 50% of Australia
with an already 18% being classified as desert land.
Compacting the fertile soil of the New England during this period will
cause nothing but a disastrous affect to the current Grade 2 land in
which my family farms on.

Growing up on a sheep and cattle property, I am strongly against the
will to build a 1000 HA solar farm neighbouring our property. The soil
in which we farm on was used in the early 50's for cropping, since
then we have maintained and improved the soil quality.

We cannot control the impact of the drought, but the payout is not a
quick fix to the damage that will be caused to land for years to come.

As a young driver who takes Gostwyck Road, at least twice daily, I am
already in a constant fear as the road is an accident waiting to
happen.
I have almost encountered and witnessed head on collisions by trucks,
caravans, trailers, utes and town cars - often the driver is not to
blame, the unsafe width, condition and steepness of corners has been
the cause and I do not want to be at hand when this results in a fatal
accident because of the mass accumulation of vehicles.
I do not feel comfortable driving as it is, and I certainly do not
feel anymore finding out that an increase in vehicles will be
travelling along this road, and Munsies Road which happens to be of
lesser width.

I wish to formally record my objection to the project, with particular
focus on the southern array which adjoins my family's property as a
5th generation farmer myself. I wish to formally object to this for
the following reasons. In that respect, my position is that the
southern array is ill-conceived, inappropriately located on prime
agricultural land.
LAND USE. The New England Tablelands in general is recognised as a
highly productive agricultural area with, on average, good seasonal
rainfall to support that productivity. Specific pockets of that area
contain very rich alluvial basalt soil - one such area being the
Salisbury Plains which is a target area for the southern array. The
Salisbury Plains lends itself to both farming and grazing activities
which, on any agricultural assessment, is the envy of most
professional agriculturalists.
VISUAL. This project lends itself to visual impact of the southern
array in the EIS is mainly assessed via certain viewpoints.

WATER. The treatment of water and flooding by UPC in the EIS is a
major concern
looks at the flood modelling map from the state government planning
department..... This statement and the `1 in 100 year/event flood
modelling' Namely, a large flood event normally occurs every 10-20
years with the last one being 2009/10.
* ar panels on a recognised flood plain is an untenable proposition.
Further, the EIS does not accurately reflect the reality of the water
and flooding issues.

* The land use shortfall highlights the need to protect high value
agricultural land for future generations. The entirety of the southern
array is predominately high value alluvial basalt soil and is
classified as BSAL. The floodplain is alluvial to a significant depth.
The EIS offers no answer to quarantining important strategic land
other than the glib position that we didn't take as much as the
original footprint proposed. This is unacceptable.

* The assumed economic and social benefits to the local area and town
are nothing more than shallow assumptions that need to be tested via a
rigours study. The EIS offers no supporting evidence for these
assumptions.

* The cumulative impacts for other developments coming on line in the
Salisbury Plains area is cause for grave concern in terms of massive
overdevelopment. Now is the time to set ground rules and benchmarks
and it is incumbent on DPE to drive this as urgently as possible.

Areas of concern which I feel must be addressed:
* Road upgrades- The Barley Field and Big Ridge roads leading on to
Munsies Rd. The current traffic using this road has already increased
significantly, with the initial construction phase the increased
traffic will not only disrupt existing land holders but also
maintenance to these roads will need to be a priority.
*Safety of recreational uses- Barley Fields rd and Big Ridge rd are
very popular areas for people walking and bike riding. This has been
an issue raised with council in the past, however with a very big
increase of traffic there must be a safe walking/riding track
designated for recreational use.
*There needs to be a commitment to dispose of all equipment and panels
in an environmentally friendly way in a reasonable time frame when the
project ceases.
*I feel land holders in the affected areas (including roads leading to
sites ie Big Ridge Rd) need to be guaranteed land values wont be
affected by this project, including independent valuation now and in
the future on each parcel of land.
*Every single local business needs to be supported without having to
submit tenders, a need to make local business a priority.
*A specialist fire plan needs to be put in place and distributed to
all areas and land holders including those on connecting properties
and roads.
*The company undertaking this project should be made have insurance to
cover each and every property in the event of a fire.
*We as land holders need in writing that land rates will not increase
due to the project and zoning will remain as is.
*Each land holder including on connecting properties and roads should
be included in all information sessions and have written
correspondence on a regular basis.
* When building our home in this area less than 5 years ago, we needed
a wildlife survey completed in which several species were identified
including koalas, echidnas and rare birds.Where are the impact
statements that show this as its within a 10 km radius of
construction.

Areas of concern which I feel must be addressed:
* Road upgrades- The Barley Field and Big Ridge roads leading on to
Munsies Rd. The current traffic using this road has already increased
significantly, with the initial construction phase the increased
traffic will not only disrupt existing land holders but also
maintenance to these roads will need to be a priority.
*Safety of recreational uses- Barley Fields rd and Big Ridge rd are
very popular areas for people walking and bike riding. This has been
an issue raised with council in the past, however with a very big
increase of traffic there must be a safe walking/riding track
designated for recreational use.
*There needs to be a commitment to dispose of all equipment and panels
in an environmentally friendly way in a reasonable time frame when the
project ceases.
*I feel land holders in the affected areas (including roads leading to
sites ie Big Ridge Rd) need to be guaranteed land values wont be
affected by this project, including independent valuation now and in
the future on each parcel of land.
*Every single local business needs to be supported without having to
submit tenders, a need to make local business a priority.
*A specialist fire plan needs to be put in place and distributed to
all areas and land holders including those on connecting properties
and roads.
*The company undertaking this project should be made have insurance to
cover each and every property in the event of a fire.
*We as land holders need in writing that land rates will not increase
due to the project and zoning will remain as is.
*Each land holder including on connecting properties and roads should
be included in all information sessions and have written
correspondence on a regular basis.
* When building our home in this area less than 5 years ago, we needed
a wildlife survey completed in which several species were identified
including koalas, echidnas and rare birds.Where are the impact
statements that show this as its within a 10 km radius of
construction.

I'm writing in support of Richard and Corinne of Sunhill Dairy Goats that
a solution can be found for the impossible situation at present that
you presented to them at this time. This business has had a positive
impact on the community from Walcha to Armidale plus the tourist
trade. We ask you to be fair and reasonable in finding a equitable
solution for this family, where at present the proposal put to them is
completely unfair and leaves them a long term untenable situation to
live in.

i disagree with the use of prime agricultural land for this development.
The southern array is to be built on a flood plane. Damage to solar
panels could see the leeching of contaminants into rivers and under
ground water courses.
Loss of wild life habitate
effects on migratory birds in the area
Visual pollution on surrounding areas.
inadequate roads to accommodate increased traffic
Devaluation of adjoining properties and no compensation offered to
owners as it is with wind farms
project life far greater than the technologies productive life

I object to the use of prime agricultural land in the southern array.
I object to the visual degradation of the surrounding landscape and
the devaluation of the neighbouring properties.
I object that there is no adequate compensation to affected
landholders.
This project should be situated in barren land where there is no
agricultural use

I am in support of Corinne and Richard of Sunhill Dairy, this Solar
enterprise has shown no consideration for a well established business
that is important to the local community and tourism. I request that
your company show understanding and find a suitable solution that a
large company such as yours certainly has the capacity to compensate a
small business that will be devastatingly effected by your lack of
planning or thought.

I am not personally affected by this encroachment of solar panels however
there are people who are and will be.
I wish to support the voice of Sunhill Farm and the effect this
development will have on their livelihood and future.
I support Option 1 of their proposal and see the financial gain that
farmers have been offered to be a poor use of this productive land.
At best if the project continues in some form, Option 2 would
definitely need to be implemented with strong consideration to
aesthetics to reduce the impact on the beauty of the landscape but
also out of consideration that those who support the project to also
support those who are immediately impacted..
As for Option 3 as proposed by Sunhill Farm, I see no reason there
should be any development to be approved that is significantly
impacting any other farmer and their situation to cause them to need
to relocate and therefore the decision in my opinion would not have at
its roots been based on sound values from complete community
discussion about the options for future development and the good of
all.
I hope due consideration is made to support the long term benefit of
all farmers.

I reserve my Right to provide this opinion without necessarily
providing my personal information and that this in no way detracts
from the information and is in no way intended to be misleading or
invalid.
I thank you for your time to call upon the communities voice in this
matter.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I would like to provide some input regarding the effect the solar farm
may have on the further development of tourism offerings in the area.
I am a Director of New England Brewing Co. which operates in Uralla.

Unfortunately, as currently planned the solar farm will significantly
impact one of our areas most proactive and successful farm-tourism
businesses Sunhill Dairy.

Sunhill Dairy has worked hard to grow and be part of a small cluster
of like minded businesses and the proprietors have been recognised
accordingly for their work. I would suggest that the positive
externalities that this business generates be included in a decision
regarding the boundary of the solar farm.

The most concerning issue is that I am personally a strong believer in
renewable power generation. However, if this development becomes an
example of a project with local "losers", in an economic sense, then
it may prove more difficult to maneuver large scale solar farms
through the planning process in the future.

Kind Regards

Ben Rylands

To whom it may concern.

My name is Max Wilton and my electrical contractors number is 181004
c. I have called Uralla home for the last 46 years. I have been an
electrician for 40 years and have worked in four different States in
this great country.

When I was an apprentice I stood at the massive turbines at Liddell
Power Station and watched in awe as the massive amount of coal and
water being used to generate power for our state. Back then we didn't
have a choice and this was the only option.

As a young electrician I had the privilege to work at White Cliffs and
again stood in or of the first thermal solar power plant in Australia
if not the world to be powering a little town directly from the sun.
My passion for renewable energy was born and it has only increased
over time.

I have no affiliation with any solar company, landowner for or against
council or anyone personally. I think I am one of the few that can say
I'm beholden to no one only my passion for the survival and
enhancement of my local community my country and the world. This
project and other renewable energy projects in Uralla Shire are much
bigger and more important than all of us.

In this submission I could speak at great length on the technical
sides of this issue including farm placement and energy security for
our state in very strategic position, but I would just like to make
three main observations based on fact.

It is my understanding that solar farms and large renewable projects
come under electrical generation categories within the department.
This does a great disservice to the industry as it lumps them in with
all the fossil fuel power generation plants across the state. Solar
power is a very very simple process of an electronic leaf absorbing
energy rays from the sun and converting it into electrical energy and
all the principles that are associated with it. Strictly speaking it
is a simple energy conversion panel. In my view it is power stations
and coal mines that are ugly and remain ugly to the eye, the mind and
the heart long after they are finished with. I don't profess to know
the answer nor do I blame anyone but I think it's time we had a new
category that truly reflects the industry and the future of our energy
needs full stop

I believe with that everyone in the community has a right to their
opinion but it concerns me when a few which I believe have used
misinformation to gather together a coalition of people agitating for
no change. Let me add some information as I see it so it May enhance
the debate.
The Goat Farm that is often mentioned in the VIA and much comment, is
about 5 hectares of land. They have about a dozen goat or so. It has
been said that it will ruin their farm and their business by being
able to see solar panels in the distance. Income for this farm is
gained by off farm work for the government. By any business standard
it is a very very small hobby farm that may bring in some net income.
By their own admission they say that they sell online product is
dropped to people including wineries and they go to small market days
to sell their Wares. By my estimation 90% of their product is sold off
farm so I simply don't understand how they can calculate that the
visual amenity of distant panels can ruin this business and devalue
their property. They also say that the solar panels will be ugly yet
they have them on their own roof and a clearly visible and maybe don't
notice them. My view only

The last point I would like to make is that every new renewable
project causes concern and much debate about visual impact. That
assumes a negative impact where quite often once the project is
finished, it is a positive impact. This is rarely talked about. Moree,
Glen Innes, and now Gunnedah, have just been through this. And this
company is now going through this. I have been unable to find anywhere
in this state in this country and in the world where the community 5
years on see solar farms as still ugly and agitate for their removal.
In fact tourism is built up around many projects which I believe is
possible here being on the New England Highway. There is definitely
increased traffic past Cottage Industries which gives them the
capacity to increase the sale of their wares. And roadside pull offs
with raised platforms and storyboards including car parking spaces are
installed for people to add this to their tourism experience. Quite
often as I've experienced, the car parks are full.

I'll leave you with this. I drove into a little town last year in
Central Queensland where renewable energies were around about. I
bought a coffee and the sandwich board out the front said your coffee
is brewed by the rays directly from the sun

Thank you
Max Wilton