New England Solar Farm

I wish to lodge an objection to the New England Solar Farm Development,
strongly opposing this type of "industrial" development onto
agricultural land.
I am aware that the Uralla Shire Council LEP approves "electricity
generation" however I am also aware that this LEP was implemented
prior to the thought of having "solar farms" or "wind farms"
established onto agricultural land. It is my belief that this
terminology is purposely used in a false attempt to align this type of
development with agriculture when in fact it is certainly not
"agricultural" and at the time of composing all LEP's the agricultural
community would have accepted the wooden power poles and transmission
lines as being of a necessity to carry electricity across the land to
their households, not giving approval for the wide extent of intrusive
arrays of photovoltaic (PV) modules or ugly solar panels which rob our
farmers of agricultural land.
The New England area at Uralla /Saumarez /Arding area is categorised
as land with high agricultural production and a DSE of well above 10.
I believe these solar farms would be better suited to be placed on far
less productive land such as land in western NSW such as Walgett where
the DSE is < 0.75.
The NSW Government should therefore be expending taxpayer's money more
wisely, placing these renewable energy "farms" onto land that is not
so agriculturally productive.
These huge arrays are also unsightly so should be hidden from view to
all residents. Instead this development will be exposed to many
residents and travellers using our regions roads and railroads. I am
confident Sydney residents would not want such ugly development on
display to their residents and tourists - why should rural dwellers be
forced to exhibit this type of development.
Metropolitan / urban areas are the main users of electricity yet these
ugly development are being located in rural areas. Is this not unjust
- locate them in the ocean off Bondi Beach! There would be huge
objection to that development. Our lack of population presents not so
many objections, very unfair!
I am also concerned about the potential sinking of bores to extract
water from underground. I wish to ask what checks will be made to
implement regular checks upon this activity?
I am objecting to the statement that our community will benefit from
employment. The jobs will go to fly in fly out employees for the
initial period of just 3 years whilst the panels are being imported.
Continuing employment is very minimal as compared to the employment
that use of this land for agricultural purposes would provide through
connected trades such as shearing, drenching, dosing, ploughing,
aerial fertilisation etc etc.
As a nearby resident, we will not benefit from the electricity
production. The power is being fed into the grid and could be exported
anywhere - it will not provide any reduction to our power bill or to
the profit of our Australian economy. The overseas firm will be the
benefactors, not Australians!
I also object to the lack of information provided in addressing what
happens to the solar panels when they are no longer in use, be it when
they become damaged in a possible hail storm in a short period or when
they become abandoned in 20-30 years time. Who is responsible for the
waste and has Uralla Shire Council considered where this waste will be
disposed? As a ratepayer in Uralla Shire Council, I certainly object
to contributing towards any cost of this. If the firm becomes
insolvent at any time during this 20-30 year lifetime, who picks up
the bill?
With neighbouring and nearby properties affected by this unfavourable
development, will any compensation be paid to surrounding landholders
- I object to the fact that only those landholders whose property is
being used for the development will receive a monetary benefit -
everyone within a 20km radius should be reimbursed - we will all be
disadvantaged by having this ugly development anywhere nearby us. It
is a scar on our beautiful land that we do not approve of.
Why has the New England zone around Uralla been chosen to receive
these wicked developments? We had no say in this prior to hearing of
the constant applications of renewable energy project developments in
the Uralla area - it is a cumulative impact all created by the
proposed wingback of fossil fuel in the Hunter Region. We do not want
to be known as the "Silicon Region".
We chose to live in an agricultural region not this proposed
industrial zone over which we have little say.

Please see attached submission

Please see attached submission

Please see file attached

(Please refer attached pdf for details)

Close analysis of the Soil Erosion Assessment indicates that soil loss
due to erosion caused by the construction of the New England Solar
(NES) project could total in the order of 550,000 tonnes per year over
the entire 2787 ha footprint. During its operation this could remain
in the order of hundreds of thousands of tonnes per year, each year,
for the life of the project.

The Surface Water Assessment (SWA) indicates the risk that this
erosion will result in the "mobilisation of sediment into receiving
watercourses," potentially millions of tonnes over the life of the
project.

Given the NES project is located entirely within the Salisbury Waters
catchment, adjacent to 5th and 6th order streams, and only some 10km
from Dangars Falls downstream, where it enters the pristine wilderness
of the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, this represents an extreme and
potentially catastrophic environmental hazard.

Given also the NES project location, and the inevitability that
construction, operation and maintenance of the solar arrays will
destroy vegetation, disturb and compact soils and heavily suppress
revegetation over such a large area, it is almost inconceivable that
this scale of erosion could be effectively mitigated, let alone
prevented by any control measures described in the SWA. In the absence
of comprehensive design plans for, and quantitative scientific
analysis of the effectiveness of any such proposed control measures,
any assurances to that effect should be rejected out of hand.

It is an inescapable conclusion that the proposed site is entirely
unsuitable for solar arrays of the scale of the NES project, and the
entire project should be abandoned.

Please see attached pdf

I have seen the EIS submitted by UPC for the proposed New England Solar
Farm.I am objecting to the proposed Southern section of the project on
the following grounds

LAND SITING---------The majority of the Southern section is on BSAL
rated Land. It is the DPEs stated position to protect BSAL land from
mining and fracking .This should also apply to solar.
The land proposed for the Southern section is high rainfall prime
agricultural land sustaining at least 7.5-10DSE. is also used for
cropping. The statement that it is only a minute percentage of
Australia BSAL is manufactured justification .
The reality is that the land is close to the grid and has little tree
cover.
Existing Environment--Qte" exsting Pastures are heavily grazed and in
poor condition" this is the worst drought in memory!!!!
VISUAL IMPACT ------quote "no significant vistas near the development
footprint have been identified" .This is patently wrong. The vista
from Mt Marion on Thunderbolts Way is spectacular .The photograph from
Viewpoint 12 is not representative of reality It is essential that you
you to visit the site to assess the reality.There are other sites from
overlooking neighbouring blocks that have been ignored Thunderbolts
Way is a scenic route and a gateway to Uralla .The claim of growing
trees to screen various areas is to say the least optimistic .This is
a very variable and difficult area to grow trees . Please come and
look at various existing treelines .The claim that tree screens will
screen solar arrays in 2 years is misleading.
It is not possible to screen the arrays from elevated views.
The types of trees proposed include species that simply will not
survive in that environment.

FLOODING----A significant part of the Southern Section is on a Flood
Plain.Local Residents say that flood events occur around every 15
years With predicted major weather events likely to increase in
severity and frequency in the future the statement quote "overland
flooding was not considered major constraint nor risk to the
development and was NOT INVESTIGATED IN DETAIL" is not good enough.

ENGAGEMENT----------there was no attempt at voluntary engagement with
our family or some other neighbours who overlook the site of the
Southern section.

HAZARDS ----
-1.BUSHFIRES,----In spite of classification ,All land is Bushfire
prone
. There have been 3 roadside fires on Thunderbolts Way in proximity to
the proposed Southern Array in recent months .Need clarification of
---------
Protocol for fire response from RFS and Uralla Fire Brigade as to
access and issues of compliance and ability to effectively utilise
appliances in solar environment. Solar farms should be set back a long
way from highways.
2.CONTAMINATION-I understand solar panels can contain toxic substances
including
cadmium, lead,silicon tetrachloride and hexafluoroethane.
If solar panels on a flood plain were damaged by water flow or debris
these toxic metals could be released into the head of the Macleay
catchment .ONE CONTAMINATED CARCASE or sample of Dairy Produce would
be CATASTROPHIC for our export markets .Someone ,either UPC OR DPE or
DPI has to SIGN OFF AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS. The potential
repercussions are very serious.

3 ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ---Presumably ,to mitigate against the
loss of agricultural production,the EIS suggests that sheep grazing
can continue under solar panels.
There is long standing scientific evidence as to the deleterious
effects of forms of EMR on Dairy Cows
To my knowledge this research has not been performed on sheep, but are
,as ruminants ,physiologically similar)
AGAIN SOMEONE HAS TO SIGN OFF AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS if
these claims are to be accepted.


4.OH&S-------The safety of personell in relation to EMF, specifically
to sheep workers and attendant risk,quote Appendix L 6.6 "Duration of
exposure to EMF for personell on site will be transient" This is a
contradictory qualification.
Again someone has to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for this.

INEQUITY-------Participating Landholders are handsomely rewarded but
neighbouring landholders suffer devaluation .Should be a concentric
annual landholder payment according to effect.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT .----It is common knowledge that another very large
solar project is about to lodge a PEA for The Salisbury Plains.
If successful,would overload the Salisbury Plains with Solar and
destroy the ambience of the area.

Due to the volume of material in the EIS and the time constraints it
is not possible to address ,in a short submission, all the issues of
concern in depth.
I think there should be an independent Audit of this EIS


I welcome an onsite visit to explain in more detail .
Yours Sincerely
Dr John Peatfield

Please see attached files as follows:

(1) PDF doc which contains my submission objecting to development (New
England Solar submission - Peter Dawson)

(2) PDF doc showing photo of visual impact from my land (Salisbury 4)

Peter Dawson
0428223141; 0403391394

please see attached

The Preliminary Submission of the Uralla -Walcha Action Group

I wish to object to this development on the grounds that it is
inappropriately located and the net effect will be worse than burning
coal.
The proposing company is being disingenuous in its dealings with the
local population.

My wife Cathie and I own Deeargee, located about 11 km east of Uralla on
the Gostwyck Road. After a period of over 14 months of negotiation we
have agreed with UPC that around 20 % of our farm can be considered
for the project as part of the southern array. This obviously means
that the balance of around 80 % of our farm will remain as a more
traditional farming enterprise.
The Solar Development with UPC is a massive positive for our family
and our business. I cannot be more emphatic about this. It allows us
to drought proof our farm and consider options for succession planning
that will allow Deeargee to continue as a viable farming business for
the next generation. There are many local farming families who are
involved in this project and each have expressed slightly different
variations of this same theme. These families have lived in and around
Uralla for generations. From many round table discussions, we all
believe that this project will be good for our families, good for our
businesses and good for Uralla.
Uralla as a community is seeking a sustainable energy future with a
clear focus towards renewable sources of energy. "Uralla was
successful in being selected to be the Z-NET Case Study Town, in
particular because of its demonstrated track record in working on
sustainability and the very strong support shown by its local
community, business and government to pursue 100% renewable energy"
(Source:
http://z-net.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ZNET-CaseStudy_Uralla_v18.pdf).
I believe that the ZNet example demonstrates an existing high level of
community, business and Council support for a renewable energy
project. With any proposed development there will be detractors. It is
important that as a community we support important initiatives such as
this development whilst ensuring that wherever possible the concerns
of the few are mitigated.
Our land contributes a significant proportion of the total area of the
southern array. The investigation process on our land prior to the
lodging of the DA has identified areas of historical, aboriginal
cultural, floodplain and environmental significance. As a consequence
of these findings UPC has modified the area on Deeargee that may be
developed. I have found UPC to be extremely fair and very professional
in their dealings with my family. I have met with many of the
consultants that have been involved in the EIS process and have
similarly found them very professional and competent in their
undertakings.
In my reading, opposition to the project will focus on issues which
are addressed in the EIS. Their main focus may possibly be on high
value agricultural land (or BSAL- Biophysical Strategic Agricultural
Land), The impact on the view from Thunderbolt's Way and the potential
for the proximity of neighbours to be affected by the development.
Of the development footprint of 2,787 ha approximately 670 hectares
across the three sites, not only in the southern array, are mapped as
high value agricultural land. This represents approximately 2
/10,000's of the total land area mapped as BSAL within NSW (0.0002 of
mapped BSAL in NSW). Included in my agreements (and most other
landholders) with UPC is the potential to graze under the panels
therefore the loss of agricultural production should be negligible. A
lot of work has also been done to ensure that the decommissioning
phase meets the expectations of all parties in returning the
development footprint back to its original condition.
It has been suggested the view from Thunderbolt's Way will be
negatively impacted by the solar panels. This is a very subjective
statement. I actually see this aspect of the development as a clear
positive for Uralla. I believe that the solar development will
showcase the Uralla region as a sustainable energy leader that is
looking to the future. Setbacks from Thunderbolt's Way may be required
however as a long-term resident of Uralla I feel that the tourist and
business benefits of the development being visible should not be
underestimated.
Finally, the impact of the development on neighbouring residents. UPC
and their Partners have been very proactive in trying to address these
issues and concerns. It is my understanding that significant effort
and concessions have already been made to date in terms of buffer
zones, shelter belts and excluding large areas from the development
footprint to accommodate the concerns of affected residents. Indeed,
the area of the southern array has been halved or reduced by around
600 hectares for this reason. I believe the question must be asked of
some individuals of when is enough going to be enough? It is also my
understanding that this work is on-going.
Regional Australia is struggling to remain relevant and attract the
attention of businesses and families with the message that we are a
great place to work and live. The renewable energy development
proposed by UPC is I believe environmentally responsible and will be a
positive for our community. It has massive potential to attract
businesses and therefore families to our town.
Thank you all for your time and listening to what I have to say.

Good Morning,
Please find attached my submission objecting to the current new
england solar farm proposal.

Submission as per attached document.

New England Solar Farm - UPC Renewables
Application: SSD 18_9255
I am writing in objection to the proposed New England Solar Farm
currently on public display. My opposition is specifically with the
Southern Array and Salisbury Plains.
I also support the Uralla-Walcha Community Responsible Solar/Wind
Action Group in their objection to this project.
I propose the Southern Array be removed from the project for concerns
regarding; visual amenity, construction disruption, large land mass,
cumulative impact, prime agricultural land, BSAL, impact on tourism,
inadequate consultation with residences and neighbouring properties,
benefit to landholders leasing, nil compensation for neighbours,
disruption and inconvenience to a family and small business, size of
EIS and limited time frame, drought and weather conditions,
insensitivity to neighbours, missing viewpoints, screening
limitations, water interferences, animal welfare, migratory birds and
Dangars Lagoon, reduction in property values,
I am a resident and business owner within close proximity to the
development. Identified as S9 in UPC Renewables EIS document.
There are a significant amount of concerns and conditions I believe
have not been addressed adequately in the EIS. Due to the extensive
details required I request an extension of 2 weeks to submit a full
objection regarding this SSD project. I will provide my complete
submission by 3/04/2019 to Iwan Davies, Department Planning and
Environment.

Please see Attachment

Please see attached document.

See attachment.

I David Peatfield object to the construction of the Southern Array within
the UPC Renewables' proposal for the New England Solar Farm to be
situated on the Salisbury Plains on the following grounds;

I refer to the `Strategic Regional Land Use Plan New England North
West' released by the state of New South Wales through the development
of planning and infrastructure on September 2012 document number ISBN
978-0-7313-3578-7. This document confirms the parcel of land
identified as the Southern Array within the Proposed New England solar
farm as Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) I also refer to
5.5.2 Existing environment part iv Agricultural land and figure 5.5 of
the New England Solar Farm Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
confirming that "of the land within the three array areas
approximately 670ha are mapped as BSAL" and "this represents
approximately .02% of the total land area mapped as BSAL within NSW".
Please also see Appendix A - BLSA Across the sate (MAP). This map
provides a visual representation of the scarcity of BSAL in NSW. NSW
has an area of 80.9444 million hectares, 2.8 million hectares has been
identified as BSAL constituting 3.46% of the state. Given the scarcity
of this quality BSAL, the acceptable impact should be zero.

The NSW government have released a plan for safeguarding our
agricultural land, lets not compromise it for short term benefits. The
New England Solar EIS clearly states that the proposed solar farm is
being constructed on land classified under the aforementioned plan as
BSAL. While the EIS report discusses having refined the design to
reduce the impact on the BSAL, it does not outline any measures to
offset the impact of the development on the BSAL land it impacts. The
EIS seeks to negate the impact and significance of this important
agricultural asset by referring to the impact as a percentage of
overall state wide BSAL while 24% of the proposed development area is
on BSAL. Approving any unnecessary impact on BSAL is an unacceptable
compromise. The Southern array of the New England Solar Farm should
not be allowed to proceed unless the project can scientifically prove
that the development will have zero impact, at any stage of the
project, on the productivity of what is identified by the state
government as a valuable asset. Do not let delayed legislation & poor
planning impact the future of agriculture in our great country.

Please see uploaded submission