New England Solar Farm

I object to the southern section of the UPC Renewables' proposal for the
New England Solar Farm to be situated on the Salisbury Plains, six km
from the historic town of Uralla, NSW.
I am very much pro solar energy, but done in the right way, with
planning and foresight to avoid negative impacts on communities.
My main objection is to the Southern Array section - part of which
lies directly on Thunderbolts Way part of the tourist drive between
Walcha and Uralla. I would like to make 5 key points as to why I
strongly object to this going ahead.
1. Proper planning for solar farms.
a. Instillation of Solar and Wind farms need proper planning and
legislation to ensure that the right approach is taken and it doesn't
have a negative impact on communities. There does not seem to be
enough pre planning and long-term foresight for these projects, and a
lack of current legislation and guidelines around the implementation.
2. UPC, along with a number of the organisations tendering for this
work are foreign owned, meaning that many of the profits will be taken
out of local areas and sent overseas. While there will be a short-term
boost to the local economy during construction, this will create a
false market longer term, without ongoing financial benefits locally.
3. This proposal has divided an otherwise tightknit community; there
has been a lack of a whole of community consultation.
4. The key to this is a need for consistent regulation across mining,
solar and wind - The NSW Government has introduced a range of measures
designed to deliver greater protection to agricultural land from the
impacts of mining and coal seam gas (CSG) activity. Solar farm
regulation needs to fall in line with these initiatives.
a. Implementing coal seam gas exclusion zones across 2.7 million
hectares of NSW, covering current and future residential land and
Critical Industry Clusters in the Upper Hunter
b. Safeguarding 2.8 million hectares of biophysical strategic
agricultural land across the state by applying the Gateway process for
State significant mining and coal seam gas proposals
c. Implementing Critical Industry Clusters for the equine and
viticulture industries in the Upper Hunter to ban new coal seam gas
activity within those areas, and ensure proposals for State
significant mining projects are scrutinised via the Gateway process
d. Establishing a Mining and Petroleum Gateway Panel to scientifically
assess mining and coal seam gas impacts on strategic agricultural land
and its associated water resources
e. Introducing regulations governing exploration activity, overseen by
the Land and Water Commissioner
f. Introducing an Aquifer Interference Policy
g. Developing Guidelines and technical notes for preparing an
Agricultural Impact Statement for State significant development
applications
h. Introducing Codes of Practice; one for fracture stimulation and
another for well integrity
i. Making all CSG activity subject to an environment protection
licence issued by the EPA
j. Implementing the findings of the Independent review into CSG
activity in NSW by the Chief Scientist and Engineer
k. implementing the NSW Gas Plan
5. Solar farms should not interfere with Biophysical Strategic
Agricultural Land (BSAL). BSAL is land with high quality soil and
water resources capable of sustaining high levels of productivity.
According to the planning.nsw.gov.au website;
* BSAL plays a critical role sustaining the State's $12 billion
agricultural industry.
* A total of 2.8 million hectares of BSAL has been identified and
mapped at a regional scale across the State.
* In October 2013, 1.74 million hectares of BSAL were mapped in the
Upper Hunter and New England North West regions. In January 2014, the
NSW Government finalised mapping for an additional one million
hectares of BSAL across the rest of the State.
* A site verification process has been developed under the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and
Extractive Industries) 2007 (view the Mining SEPP), to determine the
existence of BSAL at the site of a potential development.
I am 100% behind renewable energy, however I believe it should be
planned and considered so that we can have the greatest long-term
impact. It is important to look ahead to determine if in 20 or 30
years the infrastructure we build today will be relevant and
responsibly situated.

I am uploading my submission.

I firmly believe that prime farm land with regular rainfall in Australia
should "not" be used for the installation of large solar panel arrays.
Australia has more than enough room to accommodate these sites in non
arable areas.

My reasons for the support of the proposed solar farm are:

1. Drought proofs my farm for the future of my children
2. Creates employment
3. Cheaper electricity costs not only for my family but also for the
communities of Walcha and Uralla
4. Renewable energy is the way of the future and this incorporates
solar, wind and hydro
5. A chance to diversify from sheep and cattle
6. Increases the economy for both Uralla and Walcha communities
7. Could be far worse and have a ":dirty great big hole in the ground"
?

Growing up in Uralla and frequently working on my family's farm during
school holidays from ag college, I object to the development of the
Solar Farm. Although solar is a renewable engird being researched as
an alternative for climate change, I do not agree that the solar farm
should be placed in the historic town of Uralla. Not only will it ruin
the aesthetic culture and history of Uralla, the environmental impact
on the soil and fertility of the soil.

I object to UPC Renewables' proposal for the New England Solar Farm to be
situated on the Salisbury Plains, Specifically the Southern Array on
the following grounds

1. Sections of the solar farm are situated on Biophysical Strategic
Agricultural Land. I do not consider this an acceptable outcome.

2. The visual impact the development will have on the landscape along
a key road (Walcha road). There have been no 3D renders submitted with
the development application. for a development of this scale 3D
renders should be provided with all Viewpoints in order to help
visualise the actual development impact. The photomontages are of a
poor quality (pixelated) and some appear to be done on overcast days
with photomontages from viewpoint 2 being taken from behind localised
landscaping in order to hide the extent of panels. This raises concern
over the accuracy of the Development proposal.

3. Development of electrical infrastructure within a flood pain does
not seem reasonable & I am not comfortable that the potential risks
have been adequately addressed in the submission. The surface water
assessment talks about raising panels 300mm to account for flooding or
grazing of sheep. (Only new born lambs will fit under these panels).
Is there potential for the panels to contaminate the water course?

4. There is limited information on the presence of Acid Sulphate Soil.
Has testing been done and how will it be managed during construction.

To whom it concerns

My husband & I have owned rural property on the Western side of Uralla
since 1972. We have both grown up and lived in the New England area
all our lives, reared and educated our children and now watching our
grandchildren grow, so our hearts & souls are entrenched in New
England. I must admit we are somewhat envious and offer our full
support for the rural landholders involved in the New England Solar
Farm Project. The guaranteed financial gain offered to them would
certainly be a comfort and enable them to forward plan, to some
extent, with some assurity. This financial support may prevent many
families from needing to seek off-farm employment and so be more able
to concentrate on their farming pursuits. Happy farming families with
less stress, supporting one another instead of rushing out the door to
off-farm work when there is an emergency, or even a minor dilemma,
with livestock, children, fires or water crises. The consequences of
over stressed farmers is a very real problem widely reported.

New England, like all rural Australia, offers a large and beautiful
landscape. If dotting this landscape with renewable energy
infrastructure is seen as a blot by some that is unfortunate. We MUST
make these steps to reverse and attempt to rectify our wrongs and
there will always be individuals personally inconvenienced and
objecting to these changes no matter where they take place. Many areas
see their renewable energy developments as a tourist attraction, and
this is a positive aspect. We must be careful not to treat our
environmental ventures as dirty underwear and try to hide them. They
should be something for the whole of our community to be proud of. The
UPC Renewables proposed region ( 0.87% of Uralla Shire LGA) in New
England appears to have a lot of positive features to enable the best
outcome. Maximum efficiency needs to be a high priority in the choice
of placement and that makes the landholders in the proposed areas, who
choose to opt in, the lucky ones if this project goes ahead.
At this present time the youth of the world are uniting and speaking
out, loud and clear, for climate change to be taken seriously and to
be prioritised by our world leaders. Let's give the youth of Uralla
and New England something to be very very proud of and show them that
we, the adults, care for their future and the future of their planet.

Sincerely
Sandra Croft

I have empathy for communities throughout rural Australia experiencing
the entry of a renewables developer in their landscape.
Renewables have come to symbolise society acting to reverse climate
change. We want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, but do not want to
change our behaviour (charged devices, air-conditioned homes,
multi-car ownership, world travel).
As NSW Government planning assessment stands, residents have no
security in their decision to buy a rural property seeking peace,
quiet, and an agrarian environment. Under Local Government Rural
Zoning, renewables developers can enter any community and threaten the
enjoyment of residents' homes, land, and businesses.
Department of Planning and Environment Major Projects Determinations
suggest there are enough renewables in the pipeline to meet national
and state targets.
Yet the spread of renewables continues, seemingly without specific
targets, creating turmoil in previously harmonious communities,
de-motivating volunteering and co-operation, and halting investment in
new building projects and land purchases.
Current planning goals of encouraging relocation of urban residents to
country NSW and the unstrategic spread of renewables across the same
landscape, are incompatible.
If local, state and federal governments want to encourage
decentralisation and increase populations in rural Australia,
potential investors need security that the piece of paradise they
choose, will not be devalued and industrialised by large scale wind or
solar farms.
Hopefully future developments will be thoughtfully sighted in
appropriate landscapes, not approved at any cost, especially the
wellbeing and contentment of people who have chosen to invest their
money and time in contributing to rural Australian communities.

1. I write to you in support of the proposed solar farm development by
UPC in Uralla, NSW. My Husband and I own 2 rural properties in the
Uralla Shire. One of the properties on the Eastern side has some
acreage in the proposed solar project area.

2. I was born and raised in Uralla and, in turn, have chosen to raise
my children in the area. The proposed development will bring a number
of benefits to my business and family, as well as many other
businesses and farming families in the surrounding district. Extreme
weather conditions and drought over the past few years has had a major
detrimental impact on the rural community generally, and particularly
in Uralla. There are many examples in the New England and surrounding
areas of farmers suffering the effects of economic stress, and indeed
committing suicide.

3. In the year to date, there has been lower than average rainfall and
winter is fast approaching. Farmers in the Uralla area are rapidly
destocking their farms of young dry cattle and breeding stock. At
present, `yarding' or number of cattle offered for sale at auction in
our local area is unusually high, and the return to farmers trying to
sell their cattle at auction is unusually low. By way of example, my
family's farming income for this year is projected to be one-quarter
of what it was in the previous year due to cattle deaths, decrease in
the herd numbers and poor market returns. Uralla has a strong beef
cattle history and the hardships my family has endured, and will
continue to endure, are felt by farmers across the whole of the Uralla
area.

4. Moving forward we need to be able to bring our stock numbers up
when it rains. That takes time and is a costly process. At the end of
an extended period of extreme weather, the process of bringing stock
numbers back up will cost money we do not have.

5. As an alternative measure, we need to be able to diversify our
streams of income. Without the ability to diversify, young families
buying in and committing to the rural industry will be at the mercy of
drought, flood and pests, on top of what is an already highly
competitive and exacting marketplace.

6. The NSW Government has recognised the hardships faced by farming
families and is currently offering low interest loans to drought proof
our properties. The development proposal compliments the NSW
Government's policy of supporting rural New South Wales by providing
farming families with an opportunity to drought proof their properties
on an effective, stable and long-term basis through diversification.
The prospect of establishing solar production on our farm alongside
grazing is an exciting prospect. It is also an opportunity that may
make it possible for farming families to continue with rural
enterprise long term. That is a major concern for the Uralla area, and
rural New South Wales generally, given the uptake of farming by
younger generations is at an all-time low.

7. The agricultural sector and farming families have a major
commercial contribution to Uralla. By offering stability in rural
enterprise through diversification and supporting the agricultural
industry, there is a flow on effect of financial support for our
community, town shops, and local services. With the proposed solar
farm encompassing parts of multiple properties and families'
businesses it will strengthen the regions commercial enterprises and
ensure ongoing Australian ownership of rural farm land in our local
area.

8. Eighteen months ago, my family's business employed four extra
people on our farm and we were moving forward into new enterprises.
The effects of the drought, the high cost of stock feed and low
returns on the sale of stock have put a stop to this. We now employ
one-person part time. With even a small part of our business returning
a stable income from solar, we would be in a position to return to
what were previously standard operations, and once again provide
employment and training opportunities for locals. This in turn helps
local families stay in the area and grows local business, schools and
services. When we look at employment and growth it is far wider
reaching than what UPC will contribute directly. Employment and growth
will be fuelled by the ongoing income stream generated by the proposed
development for local farmers.
9. From a climate perspective we have the community and our youth in
Australia calling for action to move towards a zero emissions target.
As a farmer and community member with young children (6 &7) I too have
an interest in the effects of climate change. The proposed development
is a particularly exciting opportunity from a climatic and global
perspective. It is expected that co- grazing with the panels will
exist and I have read copious studies that show the benefit to land
holders and the land. Not only financially but also benefits to the
land beneath the panels. It has been clearly shown in trials that
livestock can still feed off the undergrowth and that a myriad of
crops can be grown under the panels to create higher degree of
biodiversity. Sheep that graze on solar farm land have been shown to
have an increase in fertility rates and higher surviving lamb
percentages as a result of the shade and shelter offered by the
panels. It is shown that in conjunction with appropriate management
techniques co-grazing can assist in land management and control of
weeds. The extra capital support would also allow farmers the
opportunity to work on pasture management and perhaps make further
environmental improvements through carbon increases in soils, less
heavy grazing, and less pasture degradation during dry times.

10. Opportunities such as the proposed development are not offered to
every small town. Business and farming practices need to evolve and
change as conditions and economies vary. The proposed development is
an opportunity for local farmers in Uralla to secure their futures on
the land. The proposed development will allow our local farmers the
autonomy to fully develop grazing and commercial practices that best
suit their individual business, stock and land management needs.

Abby Croft and Steven Guyett.

I object to the Southern Array of the New England Solar Farm
east of the rural township of Uralla which has been proposed
by UPC Renewables. I am NOT opposed to renewables I support them.
However, I feel that this particular project needs more thought as to
the placement of such a protruding eyesore.
I object to PRIME Agricultural Land being used for such purposes, when
Australia has so little of this type of quality land ,compared to the
vast majority of dry arid land. I also object to the proximity to two
main attractions in the New England area, being Thunderbolts way &
Sumarez Homestead. This would have a negative visual impact on the
scenic character of the Salisbury Plains District. which is part of
the beautiful vista of New England,s tourist route.

I wish to object to the southern end of the New England Solar Farm
Proposal.As a farmer I have a fundamental objection highly productive
agricultural land with solar panels .Solar farms have their place and
should be on low value land ,and not impinge on the scenic aspect of
communities.

*Road upgrades including Barley Fields rd, Big Ridge Rd and Munsies rd
*safe disposal of equipment
* As a long serving community member I know very little about this
project and find this very alarming for the majority of our community.
Facebook advertising is very unreliable especially for people who can
not access the internet.
*My family members live on this road and I feel this will now be an
unsafe road to travel to visit them without significant upgrades
including tared laybacks to each property.
*Does everyone coming to work on this project have police checks? Past
convicted criminals could have a devistating effect on our tight nit
community.
*There is nothing to ensure local business will benefit, saying they
will do their best to support local business isnt good enough.
*How can they ensure property values won't decrease
*Will there be turning lanes put in place turning off new england
highway on to barley fields rd, this is already very dangerous and
with increased traffic will be even more so.
*how does this impact schooling? we have already had reduced options
for high school, if that many people will be residing here, what is
the impact.

*Road upgrades including Barley Fields rd, Big Ridge Rd and Munsies rd
*safe disposal of equipment
* As a long serving community member I know very little about this
project and find this very alarming for the majority of our community.
Facebook advertising is very unreliable especially for people who can
not access the internet.
*My family members live on this road and I feel this will now be an
unsafe road to travel to visit them without significant upgrades
including tared laybacks to each property.
*Does everyone coming to work on this project have police checks? Past
convicted criminals could have a devistating effect on our tight nit
community.
*There is nothing to ensure local business will benefit, saying they
will do their best to support local business isnt good enough.
*How can they ensure property values won't decrease
*Will there be turning lanes put in place turning off new england
highway on to barley fields rd, this is already very dangerous and
with increased traffic will be even more so.
*how does this impact schooling? we have already had reduced options
for high school, if that many people will be residing here, what is
the impact.

Hi, my Name is Dan and I have grown up and been involved in the rural
industry of Uralla on and off my whole life. From the perspective of
someone who has and still does spend time working as a rural
contractor I think that the growth and development offered by a
large-scale project such as this in the area is an exciting and
beneficial project.
I know that the tough current climate has affected the rural land
holders in this area on and off for years and this has a flow on
effect to all aspects of the community. When stock prices and carrying
capacities are high, then farmers are employing and spending resources
with local services. Plenty of contract work for me and numerous local
men and women just like me. When times are tough, we are all affected.
I believe the fact that this project encompasses sections of many
farms rather then dealing with just one or two large landholders is
another great aspect of this project. It means that the benefits are
distributed more widely throughout the community and opportunities for
growth in the area will also have more span.
On a wider scope now, I have worked in a number of contrasted
locations and roles around the world and i speak from first hand
experience when i say planet earth is in a heap of trouble. Our global
population is increasing alarmingly and it can no longer be ignored
that our species is having an adverse impact on the environment.
Pollution, depleted resources, increasingly extreme weather patterns
and events. Even the most cynical are starting to view climate change
as a frightening reality. Renewables is widely regarded (by most) as
the future of energy production.
I was heartened and truly excited when i first heard of this
progressive proposed development happening right here in Uralla. I
have had ties with the community here for over 40 years and i have
enjoyed watching Uralla grow and evolve as a time has passed. I think
this proposed development is an amazing opportunity for Uralla to
continue to grow and evolve in a rapidly changing world. There are
hundreds of small rural communities throughout Australia, many are
struggling, most wont have an oppurtunity of this ilk avail itself. I
think it would be a tragedy to not move forward with this development
and indeed to have any part of it at all halted or delayed to placate
a vociferous ill informed, ( some might say selfish) minority. The
world badly needs and is indeed in many places rapidly moving towards
renewable energy. Let Uralla be part of that movement.

I am the owner of the property classified as S17 in the EIS on
Thunderbolt's Way, south of Uralla. We received a letter from NSW
Government Planning and Environment dated 12 February 2019. This
letter advised us that we are an adjoining land owner of the proposed
development.
We have never been contacted by the proponents of the Solar Farm. So
much for their consultation with adjoining land owners.
In the EIS S17 is identified as having a slight/moderate visual
impact. I believe this to be wrong. Our neighbour at S16 has a higher
visual impact rating at moderate. As they are further away and at a
lower viewing angel if their moderate level is correct. Then the
visual impact at our S17 would be rated at extremely high as we will
be only the width of a road away from the solar panels.
In the EIS S17 is identified as having noise levels of 53 dB LAmax for
predicted noise levels which is above the allowed levels.
At this point I object to the proposed southern area.
If the proponents were prepared to complete the partially established
vegetation screening with advanced plants for the length of the Solar
Panels along Thunderbolt's Way and the use of PV Modules as outlined
in Figure 2.6, Option B, 2.2 meters high. This should reduce the
visual impact to us.
If the proponents strictly apply to their Noise Mitigation Measures as
outlined in Section 5.7.4. I would be in a position to review my
opposition to the solar farm proposal.

I have reviewed the EIS and have also driven around the different sites
that are affected under the proposal. The land is largely cleared
farming land and there would be minimal impact on vegetation or native
animals if the proposed solar farm is to be approved. From what I
understand, it would be possible to continue sheep grazing in some of
the same paddocks. However it may be of benefit to rest some of the
land as it is quite eroded in some parts with little groundcover due
to hot and dry conditions and constant grazing.

From what I have witnessed, the project staff from UPC is taking care
to listen to community feedback and consult with those who are living
near or potentially impacted by the development. I believe the
Community Benefit initiative is one of several ways that they have
invested in the local community.

Renewable energy developments are a positive step toward a more
responsible mode of energy generation, as long as they are sited well.
The proposed New England Solar Farm is a sound development and I
support its approval.

I hope that whichever construction company is awarded the contract
that they prioritise local suppliers, services and businesses wherever
practicable.

I wish to object to the submission by UPC in it's current form as I feel
that significant social and environmental issues have not been
sufficiently addressed. Further, I wish to submit my opinion that
given the scale and longevity of this project, that the time period in
which the local community has been engaged and informed has not been
sufficient to gauge whether the better interests of the community in
which I live and work, and bring my children up in, are being served
by UPC's proposal.
This is not a knee jerk reaction in response to renewable energy
development. I am a proponent of renewable energy , however in viewing
the proposal, it would appear that the overriding benefit here is to
UPC, in that this is a purely commercial decision based on the
suitability of the landscape (flat terrain and proximity to the
Transgrid) without regard to the potential adverse consequences to the
community at large, now and well into the future.
My objections specifically are as follows:
* The land on which the proposed solar farm is to be sited is prime
farming land. Given the climactic changes we are currently
experiencing, I feel that this land will be better suited to
agricultural use now, and especially in the future. I am concerned
that the land will be degraded by the solar farm citing trials at Glen
Innes which have shown no significant grazing use under panels and
significant increases in weeds, which have also invaded adjacent land
* The Uralla township already has issues with water infrastructure,
and a limited life within its landfill area. The proposed 700 workers
will place undue pressure on this infrastructure. Given that the
entire locality is under at least Level 1 water restrictions, where
will water be sourced from to meet the day to day needs of an at least
25% increase in population? If this is not sourced locally, there will
also be an increase in demand on the local road infrastructure, as
well as an increased demand on waste management. Whilst the solar farm
proposes to be of local benefit, from my viewpoint, this will be
limited to some businesses and local landholders, and only limited
employment opportunity given that the operating employment will only
be 15 once development is complete. There is no guarantee of local
employment opportunity in the long term. This would appear to benefit
UPC in the main, and a select few others, and be of no significant
benefit to the community at large.
I would hope that the submission is viewed not only from the
perspective of UPC having ticked boxes on its requirements for a
development application, but also from a wholistic viewpoint of the
long term consequences to the community as a whole.

1.​My name is Carly Wright and I make this submission to support
the solar development by UPC in the Uralla area. I work part time in
the rural sector, and I am studying a Certificate V in Agriculture at
TAFE. I also have a significant interest in the environment and
sustainable farming practices.
2.​I have been watching debate over the solar development unfold
in Uralla (both in person and on social media) and I have some
concerns regarding the publication of poorly researched, uninformed
and wrong information by a minority of local community members.
3.​The original concerns raised by a minority group in the local
community related to visual amenity. I have followed the project since
the inception and refer to the adjusted footprint map that displays
some of the major concessions made by UPC to meet those criticisms
with revisions to vast hectares of land (over 600 removed). Screening
and adjustment proposals have been made in the direct vicinity to also
appease these individuals needs. I have read large parts of the EIS
and seen the thorough and informed task UPC has done to mitigate
impacts for these people directly but also for the whole community. I
continue to be concerned as despite the adjustments, consultations and
direct action to meet the purported criticism, a number of parties
continue to implore the public to assist them to stop this project.
4.​When questions of visual amenity were addressed, the next
concern became the placement of the panels on "high rainfall prime
agricultural land". An interesting turn of phrase given the drought. I
digress. That argument did not gain traction, given that stock can fit
under the panels, the panels provide areas of shade and shelter for
stock and water is able to run off the slanted panels. That argument
seemed to fall out of favour relatively quickly.
5.​Interest then turned to the effect the solar farm would have
on tourism in Uralla. A small minority of residents were concerned
that Uralla's apparently booming tourism industry would come to a halt
if the project were to go ahead. Whilst we residents of Uralla are
rightly proud of our local attractions, such as Captain Thunderbolt's
Rock, Captain Thunderbolt's Grave and the ever popular Wooldridge
Recreation and Fossicking Area - Uralla is, sadly, not often mentioned
in the same breath as far more cliched and overdone tourist
destinations such as London, Paris, New York and Rome. The tourism
argument against the project sunk under its own weight.
6.​Then came the "thin end of the wedge" argument - namely, if
the development were approved in Uralla, that would set a precedent
for other communities around New South Wales. For obvious reasons,
that logical fallacy met a humane end. I do not intend to bore you
with the fate of other arguments raised against the proposed solar
farm - such as pollution caused by the panels, loss of revenue,
concerns about the occupational health and safety for farmers,
concerns about the occupational health and safety of farm animals
(?!), concerns that the panels would absorb photons emitted by the sun
and plants in the local area would not be able to photosynthesise
(yes, really) and the yet unidentified effect the solar panels will
have on native wildlife.
7.​The mercurial nature of the minority who oppose the project
has been evident from the beginning. Their reasons for objecting to
the development have shifted like the sands in the Sahara. In
fairness, the true motives behind the opposition are now becoming
apparent. The current raison d'etre for the minority opponents is said
to be the "inequitable compensation for neighbouring real estate while
participating landholders are compensated". In a word, avarice. Those
who oppose the development, in the main, appear to be motivated by the
fact that they will not obtain the direct benefit associated with
having the array built partially on their property, and if they cannot
have it then no one can. That malevolent outlook, combined with equal
doses of NIMBYism and pre-Copernican obscurantism, has informed a lot
of the local debate over the proposed solar farm.
8.​Uralla, and its surrounding areas, are populated by a large
community with many family owned enterprises. Investment in the local
area is sorely needed to avoid the evils that come with unemployment
and the financial stress being placed on local farmers. The
development will inject funds into the local economy, cement rural New
South Wales as a market leader in renewable energy sources, and be an
example to other rural communities of alternative, and sustainable,
land and stock management.
9.​For the record, I have no direct financial interest in the
proposed development and, although I am a resident of Uralla, I am not
a landowner and do not stand to benefit should the development be
approved. In making this submissions, it is my hope that the views of
a vocal minority may be put in their proper context.

Yours Sincerely
Carly Wright

As landholders included in "New England Solar Farm" proposed development
for the Uralla area by UPC renewables in the southern array part of
the project. We would like to give our perspective in supporting the
WHOLE project proceeding. We acknowledge the financial benefits our
family will obtain from part of this proposed solar farm been on our
property. We would like to draw your attention to the long-term
benefits to our wider community.

As the fifth generation landholders, the opportunity to be involved in
this project is an exciting idea. To -be able to diversify our farming
practices in today's climate of continual dry- to extreme drought
conditions and fluctuating commodity prices. UPC has advised us that
we will be able to graze sheep underneath the panels which enables us
to continue with our current grazing practices. To incorporate Solar
farming would enable us to become more sustainable for future
generations.

We can see the benefits of this proposed project not only benefiting
our family but the wider community of the Uralla area. The proposed
contribution by UPC to the Uralla community of approximately $200
000.00 each year for the life of the project will enable so many
programs to be fully funded without the need for fundraising, this has
to be seen as a win-win for all.

Like so many families in our community, we have seen our children have
to move away from home to secure employment. The employment
opportunities with this project in the building stage -500 and in the
ongoing maintenance -20 will inject much-needed prosperity into our
local community. We feel the majority of the Uralla area community are
in favour of this whole project proceeding.

UPC Renewables has held four public meetings & have been very upfront
about the project from the start. UPC Renewables have already reduced
the footprint in the southern array by 50% to have the least possible
impact on neighbours. Some of the closest neighbours to the southern
array of the proposed solar farm are fully supportive of the whole
project proceeding.

It is evident that those opposing the development of the southern
array only of the proposed "New England Solar Farm" are doing so with
only self-interest in mind, as they are not opposed to the rest of the
project proceeding and are not looking at the benefits such a project
would bring to the whole Uralla area community.

Kind regards
Tony & Lisa Heagney
Greg & Carmel Heagney

Renewable Energy Projects near Uralla and Walcha

My family and I live in the New England area and are greatly concerned
about the UPC and Walcha Energy Project renewable energy developments
being proposed in this area. A friend who will likely be directly
impacted by these developments brought this issue to my attention as I
had heard nothing about it despite negotiations going on for over 10
years! I would have thought a better effort at community consultation
would have been made before now.

We are in favour of renewable energy but the size of these projects
seems massive and the placement concerns us greatly. We have a number
of objections to the New England area being used for solar and wind
industrial development and they are outlined below:

Much of the New England area is prime high rainfall agricultural land.
We have a finite amount of this precious land which is a major part of
Australia's food and fibre production. To cover vast areas of this
land in solar panels defies logic. There is much of Australia that is
much less suitable for agricultural use and that is much less
populated. Surely this type of land could be used for large solar and
wind power generation stations.

The New England area is a scenic part of Australia. To flood this area
with solar panels and wind turbines would be a tragedy. Not only will
the visual amenity be ruined with the panels and turbines, but the
infrastructure of the electrical power line upgrades required to
transport the power generated will also be impacting the visual beauty
of this area. People who are receiving rental income from these
inappropriate developments may be tempted to overlook the negative
impacts in return for financial gain. Indications that the community
may be in favour of large scale wind and solar projects may be based
on such biased views.

We fear town and rural property prices will drop due to the proposed
industrialisation of our area. We have noticed a gradual increase in
property prices since moving here, which in part is due to new people
moving to the area. We believe that once these industrial landscapes
are built, the attraction to move here will be destroyed and our
lovely country towns will suffer as a result.

Some areas that we feel require further research and investigation
before major projects such as UPC and Walcha Energy Project are
considered in any detail, include:

* What long term socio-economic benefits are there for the Uralla and
Walcha communities? FIFO staff will be the main source of labour
during construction. Once completed the operation is run remotely and
maintenance is done by only a couple of people locally. Will
agricultural jobs be lost as agricultural land is industrialised? Will
jobs in town be lost as if tourism and population decreases? The
paltry community fund offers very little to compensate for the
negative impacts.

* How are weeds controlled under solar panels? Grazing does not seem
to be a realistic option, despite some of the overly optimistic
information provided by the project developers. Long term herbicide
use can be harmful to soil, groundwater and waterways as well as lead
to growth of herbicide resistant weeds.

* What radiation impacts exist for both stock and farm workers?

* What are the impacts of chemical cleaning of solar panels on soil,
groundwater and waterways?

* What are the impacts of altered micro-climates under solar panels on
insects and soil microbiology?

* How will erosion control occur from concentrated runoff from solar
panels?

* Who removes defunct panels, turbines and other infrastructure if the
company meant to be responsible for them disappears in years to come?

* What can land be used for after completion of project? What
remediation/decontamination is required to restore paddocks back to
grazing use? Who pays for it (especially if the company disappears)?

* What are the impacts on humans from wind turbine droning, both
audible and non-audible? The media has reported some serious health
impacts for those living in the vicinity.

* What are the impacts on animals from wind turbine droning, both
audible and non-audible? The ABCs Catalyst program highlighted the
importance of communication of insects at different sound wave
frequencies. Does the noise made from wind turbines interfere with
insect communication? If we lose entire species from areas, what are
the flow-on impacts re pollination, pest control, food source etc. on
the whole ecosystem?

We believe large renewable energy projects should be located within
very large landholdings on very poor agricultural land where the
impacts to surrounding landholders and townships would be negligible.

Consultation with whole communities, not just a biased few, should
take place as a first step in a large project. Identifying the New
England region as a "renewable energy zone" seems to be an error in
judgement by someone. The impact on many individuals and communities
is likely to be negative at best and catastrophic at worst. Please
consider these concerns when making decisions for the New England
area.