Sandy Creek Solar Farm

This Project should not proceed due to the following reasons -
1. Loss of alluvial agricultural land.
2. Impact on the environment - the balance of nature
3. Lack of Transparency in the consultation process. Very secretive and deceitful.
4. Perception of Corporate greed over Landholders liveability.
5. Renewable energy Projects will not deliver energy security.
6. Disharmony has been created between neighbours.
7. Govt behaviour is considered deceptive and lack of trust has resulted as they are not listening to rural communities.
8. Renewable projects are being rushed through.
9. Health issues are unknown and not being addressed particularly Mental Health is of a critical concern.
10. Positioning of the Project ( out of the public eye) eg hidden away from the Highway and considered a low populated area. No
appreciation of the neighbouring properties not involved in the Project having full view of the dreadful blue landscape,
Transmision lines, battery storage etc.

The project will remove valuable agricultural land from production (according to the EIS, up to $2M pa).
The project will adversely impact the community by reducing the farming population in the area.
The project will adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties through its visual impact.

I object to prime farming land being used for a solar ‘farm’. Unfortunately this smacks of political manoeuvring and box ticking. Long term there will be zero benefit in removing someone’s ability to farm quality farmland for the benefit of the majority. People cannot eat solar panels but unfortunately this appears to not be common knowledge amongst our bureaucrats. Shame on our government's short sightedness and willingness to sell out the hand that literally feeds them.

Australia has 4 percent arable land ( for you that do not know what arable means, it is land that can be planted for food)
To power Australasia with solar, requires .5 percent of the available 4 per cent - keeping in mind that much of this land will be poisoned with heavy metals and imbedded dangerous objects in the soil at the end of life

The Dunedoo/ Gulgong rural areas produce food and fibre for the nation. It is an agricultural area not an industrial area. This area consistently provides food and fibre whereas solar is intermittent. The clearing of trees and native flora to build all the solar project's infrastructure is not 'green' nor in the Australia's best interests. Economically, it is a lot of money going overseas to the owners and the manufacturers of all the building materials. It is also cheaper to build infrastructure- the solar to generate power- closer to where the demand and users reside- along the eastern coastline of Australia. This would save a lot on the cost of extra transmission lines. Solar projects are incompatible with grazing of livestock as the stock eat and rub against all objects. Good stock management requires regular supervision, good fences and a good supply of clean drinking water... are the farmers able to move easily around all the solar panels? The cumulative effect of all the proposed renewable projects in the CWO-REZ is destroying our beautiful landscape as well as the very essence of our small rural communities. Many are now fearful of the security risks to their families and property with the proposed influx of hundreds of non-locals to the area for the construction of these projects. Many families are thinking of leaving as they realise the full impact of these developments. This will lead to the demise of lots of small towns and communities as schools, hospitals and business owners have reduced numbers. Suggest, if you have to, build these solar projects on closed coal mine sites and other large vacant land closer to the big coastal urban areas or further out west where it will not impact prime agricultural land. The rural people are getting very tired of decision being made by the politicians and Government personnel that live in urban areas and not impacted by these decisions. If the politicians want more solar development, then place solar panels on the Opera House....the same reasons you say 'no' is the same reasons we don't want solar on our agricultural land.

I am not against renewable energy as I have two properties (Farms 5000 hectares ) powered totally by solar with battery storage . What I am against is agricultural land that has produced food and fibre for Australia been RAPED by the Government to generate unreliable power for people along the coast when they will not join in and do like wise.
This area was RADED not many years ago by the Government for Cobbora Coal , now here we go again!!
For many years I drove judges around this area judging crops for Dunedoo show competition with prize winning .
In heavy rain a lot water floods down Sandy Creek then to Dubbo and on to the marshes, it will be worse with extra water shed off the panels, what about pollution?
Other problems ,fire fighting lack of RFS members, extra traffic on the roads especially the Golden Highway along the Main Street in Dunedoo and to Newcastle which is our export route from western NSW.
Power should be generated where it is used not miles away to save building miles of massive power lines.
It's a pity our leaders don't realise what damage the roll out to renewable energy is going to do to the environment with trees been removed and all the extra fossil fuel used in the development.
To conclude the damage it is doing to families, friends and the mental health to all in the district. THIS WILL KILL DUNEDOO, it relies on the rural industry.
WHY IS IT CALLED RENEWABLE ENERGY BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE BE RENEWED BY 2050111

I strongly object to the Sandy Creek Solar Farm.
The cumulative impacts of this project must be considered in conjunction with all the wind and solar projects, transmission lines, substations, battery energy storage systems and temporary workers’ accommodations within the CWO REZ. The impact of all of these projects is far too great for this community. Community consultation for all projects has not been satisfactory- impacted families and community members have been left feeling unheard and bullied. What I continue to fail to understand, is why this project in particular, as well as all projects within the CWO REZ, are taking over prime agricultural land? This project is proposed on land that produces a significant amount of food and fibre for this country—why??
The EIS provided by Lightsource BP proposes a generation capacity of up to 700MW; this combined with neighbouring projects is far too great. The impact to neighbouring families who object to the project is having a detrimental effect on their mental health- to the point they feel no option but to leave their farm, on which they are 4th and 5th generation family owners- how can these companies continue tearing our communities apart like this? The social impact is enormous.
Of further concern are the visual impacts, increased noise and pollution, increased traffic footprint within the area, safety issues surrounding the increased number of workers in the area, subsequent labour shortages for locals who will lose contractors to these projects, significant water requirements, increased public liability insurance for neighbours who simply cannot afford it, increased bushfire risk (and how much were the local RFS actually consulted here)… the list goes on and on and on.
The amount of time that I as well as the vast majority of landowners within the CWO REZ have had to spend trying to get a voice and make an impact against these projects is enormous and taking its toll. Many of us, like myself, have a young family and we simply do not have the resources to spend the time that we would like in fighting hard against this. Please consider all of the above-mentioned points, and put yourself in the shoes of those directly impacted by the horrific impacts of the solar project. Please put a stop to it. This just isn’t fair.

I object to the Sandy Creek Solar Farm proposal as the provisions for fighting fires are inadequate.

The 10m wide fire break is completely inadequate and fails to take into account the speed of grass fires and ember spotting that occurs.

A 20,000 litres water tank would only provide cover for 7% of a project of this size.

The NSW Fire and Rescue must be consulted in relation to this.

If they use sheep to graze under the panels, what happens to the sheep if a fire breaks out. This has not been addressed.

The fire assessment appears to have been a desk top assessment, not a physical assessment.

The EIS states at page ES9 that :

“The study area will be unavailable for intensive agriculture such as cropping or cattle grazing for the life of the Project; however, sheep grazing amongst the solar panels will be undertaken during the operation of the Project to offset much of the agricultural productivity losses. If fully removed from agricultural land use, the study area would account for 0.27% and 0.19% of the agricultural land in the Dubbo and Warrumbungle LGAs being removed, respectively, which is insignificant.”

The statement fails to add the .27% and .19% to the other land losses in the areas resulting from the development of solar farms and wind farms. A total loss should be taken into account when assessing this application.

The statement also fails to support its assertion that sheep grazing will offset much of the agricultural productivity losses as the statement fails to identify the number of sheep to be grazed.

The EIS fails to identify how those sheep will be watered.

Waste of prime agricultural land. Should be moved to less desirable lower yielding country. Visual pollution caused by sheer number of panels. Disruption of ground dwelling birds lifecycles. Negative Surface water affects

Firstly, this project will see generational farming families lose their land and lifestyle. These families have worked for years to provide for the country meat, grain and fibre. Who will do this now? How will this need be met in the future?
You will also be taking away from the small rural town of Dunedoo as these families move and leave town, impacting the local economy and schools. The workers coming to build the solar project will not stay, they will be here momentarily and once they leave, the town will be a ghost village.
There must be a better way to produce clean energy for our country. Raping prime agricultural land, destroying small country towns, this is not the answer. Please, what happens after these panels wear out? Where do the go? Do they get replaced? What happens to the structure that fixes them into the ground? You are literally slapping a bandaid on with no real solution to climate change. This is a temporary fix with absolutely no long term solution, the only long term impact is the destruction of land and community.

The feasibility of this is short sighted, this is NOT a long term solution for power supply in Australia. This is prime farm land and the objective of all governments, both state and federal is to support farmers. This is evidenced with organisations such as Regional Investment Corporation and then state based services such as RAA, RAC, QRIDA etc. The opportunity to regenerate the land post this - once it is realised how poor this decision is lost. Our prime farm land needs to remain in its primary role. Put panels in the dessert, float them in the ocean - but do not take away the bread and butter of Australian land. I strongly oppose this solar farm, in any viable region of Australia. This is a bad decision, this is short sighted and irresponsible of our government - both state and federal to allow it to proceed.

I do support renewable energy in Australia, I do not support the location of this project.
This project will be placed in prime agricultural land where farmers produce food and fibre in the Sandy Creek community. The farmers who reside there have been there for many generations and contribute immensely to the community. This project may jeopardise their commitment to staying in the community which would impact much community involvement for the future.
The environmental impact would include loss of fertile soil, disruption to local ecosystems and a reduction in biodiversity.
I believe that it is important to take into account the location of the renewable projects in relation to agricultural locations in the state. The placement of the Sandy Creek project would affect this thriving community in a detrimental way and I do not support it.

I have been working with a farmer who is next door to the proposed Sandy Creek Solar farm for roughly the last 7 years. This farm is prime farming / agricultural land which is known for producing excellent crops of Canola Wheat and Barley which are sold into the grain market for either stock feed or human consumption as well high quality Merino Stud Sheep and also lambs which are sold to the processor for human consumption as well. With this proposed Solar Farm this farm will be lost and the production off this well run diverse farm will also be lost as well.

This run is a mix of true mixed cropping/ Livestock production systems which generally produce a high quality product at the other end. As mentioned i have dealt with the owner of the farm which is close to proposed Sandy Creek Solar farm for a number of years and this farmer purchases high end proprietary seed from the company that I am employed by so this will cease if the proposed Sandy Creek Solar Farm goes ahead.

I am sure that there is other non productive agricultural land that can be explored for possible solar farms rather than this highly productive mixed farming/livestock farm that will be impacted by the proposed Sandy Creek Solar farm .

I am opposed to the Sandy Creek solar farm proposal.

While I realise the importance of renewable energies in the Australian economy, I feel that too often the government does not consider the impact that these types of projects have on valuable agricultural land and the farmers that food and fibre to the Australian economy.

The sites of these solar farms need to be strategically considered and this is just one of 3 proposed solar farms in the same area that combined would take up 7000 acres of what is extremely productive and valuable farm land.

While renewable energy is vital, the selection of prime agricultural land for this solar project is hugely problematic. This land is integral to our food and fibre production, sustaining the livelihoods of producers who have established viable enterprises. Displacing these producers will not only undermine their livelihoods but also reduce our agricultural output, having significant environmental and social impacts.
The environmental impact includes the loss of fertile soil, disruption of local ecosystems, and a reduction in biodiversity.

Socially, and perhaps more importantly, the project threatens the sustainable livelihoods of local farmers, forcing them off their land and disrupting the community fabric. It poses a significant risk of injustice to farmers whose lives depend on the production of these natural fibres.

Ensuring that renewable energy projects do not compromise our agricultural resources is essential for maintaining a balanced and sustainable approach to land use. Therefore, the government should consider alternative sites for the Sandy Creek Solar Farm that do not jeopardise our agricultural assets.

While I support a transition to renewable energy, I do oppose the proposed Sandy Creek Solar Farm. The selection of prime agricultural land for this solar project has many negative consequences. For example, agricultural land of this caliber is fundamental to our food and fibre production and it also sustaining the livelihoods of producers who have established viable enterprises. Displacing these producers and their families will not only undermine their livelihoods but also reduce our agricultural output, having significant environmental and social impacts.
The environmental impact includes the loss of fertile soil, disruption of local ecosystems, and a reduction in biodiversity. Socially, and perhaps more importantly, the project threatens the sustainable livelihoods of local farmers, forcing them off their land and ultimately destroying small communities. It poses a significant risk of injustice to farmers whose lives depend on this land. These adverse effects highlight the importance of siting solar farms on non-arable, very low population dense land to reduce the risk of these negative outcomes.
Ensuring that renewable energy projects do not compromise our agricultural resources is essential for maintaining a balanced and sustainable approach to land use. Therefore, the government should consider alternative sites for the Sandy Creek Solar Farm that will not jeopardise such agricultural assets and communities
By doing so, we can continue to support renewable energy development while preserving our essential food and fibre production and mitigating the environmental and social impacts.

Please find attached.

The government's commitment to renewable energy transition is commendable and aligns with the Paris Agreement. I fully support this transition as a crucial step toward sustainability. However, I do oppose the proposed Sandy Creek Solar Farm.
While renewable energy is vital, the selection of prime agricultural land for this solar project is problematic. This land is integral to our food and fibre production, sustaining the livelihoods of producers who have established viable enterprises. Displacing these producers will not only undermine their livelihoods but also reduce our agricultural output, having significant environmental and social impacts.
The environmental impact includes the loss of fertile soil, disruption of local ecosystems, and a reduction in biodiversity. Socially, and perhaps more importantly, the project threatens the sustainable livelihoods of local farmers, forcing them off their land and disrupting the community fabric. It poses a significant risk of injustice to farmers whose lives depend on the production of these natural fibres. These adverse effects highlight the importance of siting solar farms on non-arable land to avoid these negative outcomes.
Ensuring that renewable energy projects do not compromise our agricultural resources is essential for maintaining a balanced and sustainable approach to land use. Therefore, the government should consider alternative sites for the Sandy Creek Solar Farm that do not jeopardise our agricultural assets. More thought needs to be taken when choosing a site. Land with low agricultural and environmental value should be used.
By doing so, we can continue to support renewable energy development while preserving our essential food and fibre production and mitigating the environmental and social impacts.

I oppose the proposed Sandy Creek Solar Farm.
While renewable energy is vital, the selection of prime agricultural land for this solar project is wrong. This land is integral to our food and fibre production, sustaining the livelihoods of producers who have established viable enterprises. Displacing these producers will not only undermine their livelihoods but also reduce our agricultural output, having significant environmental and social impacts.
The environmental impact includes the loss of fertile soil, disruption of local ecosystems, and a reduction in biodiversity. Socially, and perhaps more importantly, the project threatens the sustainable livelihoods of local farmers, forcing them off their land and disrupting the community fabric. It poses a significant risk of injustice to farmers whose lives depend on the production of these natural fibres. These adverse effects highlight the importance of siting solar farms on non-arable land to avoid these negative outcomes.
Ensuring that renewable energy projects do not compromise our agricultural resources is essential for maintaining a balanced and sustainable approach to land use. Therefore, the government should consider alternative sites for the Sandy Creek Solar Farm that do not jeopardise our agricultural assets.
By doing so, we can continue to support renewable energy development while preserving our essential food and fibre production and mitigating the environmental and social impacts.