Sandy Creek Solar Farm

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.
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 see submission attached, strongly opposing the Sandy Creek Solar Development.

Given the vast scale of the project, consideration must be given to the neighbouring properties of the project who may be impacted by visual blight yet may not have compensation available. Some of these properties have homesteads directly overlooking the project area. Consideration must also be given to implications these landholders may face in obtaining adequate insurance. Finally, consideration should be given as to whether the use of the land for solar panels is the highest and best use. Tying up so much land in panels will likely reduce agricultural productivity which in turn reduces employment opportunities and viability of the small rural towns.

The construction of the Sandy Creek solar project will result in a huge loss of prime agricultural land. The Project has not been considerate enough of neighbours who are heavily impacted by these projects. Having seen firsthand the impacts of similar projects in the ‘REZ’ zone ie Wellington solar and Suntop solar projects the division it will cause in the community is significant and the blight on the landscape is undeniable

I have lived on the land for 25 years and now work in the livestock industry. I ask that the solar farms around Sandy Creek NSW be stopped. The area is valuable farming land and the water is necessary for the farmers in the district. Primary Producers are constantly under attack from people with money wanting to take advantage of them and these solar farms are just another way to ruin the innocent lives of hard working families who are trying to keep our country functioning on its own produce instead of importing goods. How many home grown businesses in Ausralia have died because of greed and this is what these solar farms will do to our hard working farmers.
Please stop this. If they want to run Solar, please have it in the arid parts of our country where our prime farming country isn't affected and lives aren't ruined.
Thank you.

I object on the basis of the impact to local farmers. While I believe there is a necessity for renewables including solar farms, prime agricultural land should not be used for this purpose. There are huge amounts of land further west where projects such as this would be welcomed by local communities.

My concerns in the attached document include the impact the solar farm will have on our quality agricultural land, social impacts on our community, environmental impacts and visual impacts.

I object to this project as the social & economic impact of the multiple renewable energy projects happening in our area has not been accurately assessed as a whole. The proposed sight is productive farm land that assists in feeding & clothing our nation, of which our locals are proud of. This project will force farmers off the land & destroy the small rural community that we cherish.

Please consider visual impact, cumulative impacts, road and local infrastructure needs and planning for worker accommodation in an appropriate location.

I object to this project due to the inability to fight fires in industrial solar projects. Local fire fighter should not have to risk their lives and future health to protect unwanted government failures. This project is unwanted by all the local people that have to live near it and by the many locals whose responsibility it will be to fight fires when they break out in these projects. They are on fire prone agricultural land, the risk of fire is significantly greater in these areas. This project does not belong here and will not be supported by the local people.

I support the Orana REZ and am happy with wind turbines being put on hilly rocky outcrops that are windy, and on less productive land. However I object to taking up vast tracts of highly productive land with solar farms. The large area, perhaps 3500 acres of land north of the township of Wellington where the Wellington and Wellington North Solar Farms have been built is a prime example. This is prime agricultural land that has been taken out of production. I have no problem with solar farms being built on low production land, but not high production land. I also have an issue with the visual impact. I have passed this Wellington Solar farm recently and it is an eyesore. The wind turbines I have no problem with visually but the solar I do. For nearby residents, I see no problem with the visual impact of wind turbines however if I was placed next to a solar project I would hope there was an obligation on the project manager to compensate or acquire impacted landholders. Lookout out over this every day would be a terrible outcome, taking prime agricultural land that has been taken out of production and turned from a tranquil landscape and covered with solar panels and steel.

I object to this project because our local housing cannot support the influx of workers that it will take to build this project. I have seen what has happened at Wellington, all the local accommodation gets taken up leaving families and young people living in Wellington homeless. This is not ok, Dunedoo has even less houses and places for locals to live, we are being forced out of our local area, this can't keep happening

Submission SUB 72404736
Name: Stan Moore
Project Name: Sandy Creek Solar Farm
Position: Object
Date: 24 June 2024

Acknowledgment to Agriculture
“I would like to begin by acknowledging the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases and government policy all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation”.

REMEDIATION AND REHABILITATION
It is an outrage that renewable energy facilities are not obliged to establish financial assurances for the future remediation and rehabilitation of proposed solar energy facility sites in NSW.
LightsourceBP are likely to be long gone when it comes to decommissioning, remediation and rehabilitation.
Lightsource BP has a track record of “asset recycling” having sold 5 of its developments to Beijing Energy Company, therefore who has the responsibility for decommissioning, remediation and rehabilitation.
The current incentive for end of life solar factory remediation and rehabilitation is to go bankrupt and walk away from the site.
There is no incentive for a company to carry out remediation and rehabilitation of solar energy generation sites. A company is able to either expense or depreciate their investment and therefore the value of the solar energy generation site is written-off and is of no value on their books prior to decommissioning. Also, once the solar energy site stops generating there is no income, only expense as the recycling of panels and materials and the remediation and rehabilitation are an expense. Given this, there is an incentive to go into liquidation just prior to decommissioning the solar energy generation site and leaving an abandoned site for the Government and taxpayer to foot the bill of remediation and rehabilitation.
A Rehabilitation Security Deposit would provide incentive to rehabilitate solar factory sites.
LightsourceBP should be subject to the same rules that apply to other land and sea developers such as mining, resources and oil and gas sectors.
To provide incentive to the company that holds a solar energy generation site at the time of decommissioning, the Solar Energy Facility Developers, the Owners of the facility and the Landowners of the land on which the facilities are to be built should jointly or severally provide a financial assurance by way a rehabilitation security deposit lodged with the NSW Government to cover estimated rehabilitation costs in the unlikely event that the company cannot fulfil its financial obligations and to ensure these costs are not borne by the NSW government or taxpayers.
Remediation is a requirement as there is a high probability that solar factory sites will be contaminated because of leaching of toxic chemicals from panels, panel damage such as hail storm, panel fires, inverter fires, BESS fires and sub-station fires. A precautionary principle would be to ensure that a security bond is held by the government.

PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
Farm businesses usually hold $10 to $20 Million Public Liability Insurance. The quantum and premium level is assessed based on a farm business having primary production farms as its neighbours.
The Public Liability increases massively when a neighbour hosts a large scale solar energy generation factory. These developments usually range from $300M to $1,000M. By way of example, should a fire inadvertently start on a farm and it was to burn on to the neighbouring large scale solar energy generation factory and burn a significant amount of the infrastructure, the liability could be in the $100s of Millions.
A farm business is currently unable to get Public Liability Insurance to cover such a potential liability and the premium cost would be prohibitive if it was available. This increased cost is caused by having a large factory as a neighbour (not a farm) – your farm and farms in the vicinity of these factories are therefore effectively uninsurable.
A possible solution would be for the large scale solar energy generation factory developer/operator to indemnify neighbours for any Public Liability Insurance claim greater than $10M. Governments including their Planning Departmments should require the developers/operators of large scale solar energy generation projects to indemnify their neighbours and primary producers in the vicinity for any damage to the solar factory caused by an incident on the neighbouring farm or vicinity.

BASELINE SOIL AND WATER TESTING WATER ON SITES PROPOSED FOR SOLAR FACTORIES.
Baseline soil and water testing of the site for a range of chemicals and elements that are found in solar panels, inverters, batteries and substations should be conducted prior to the commencement of construction and operation of large scale solar energy generation factories. A baseline test will provide a reference point for assessment of the site following decommissioning and for the requirements of the remediation.
Currently there is no requirement for developers to undertake baseline soil and water testing of the site and therefore no measure for assessment for the purpose of remediating the soil to what it as before the construction of the solar factory. Some say that developers do not do these baseline assessments so they cannot be held accountable for the damage done to the soil and possible contamination.
There is a risk that soil and water could be contaminated from solar panel leaching (leaching is contested however there are some long-term tests which indicate this could occur) and broken panels, especially if there is a severe hailstorm, are highly likely as occurred at LightsourceBP’s Woolooga solar factor in 2023. This will severely impact the potential to farm the land or graze animals again.
The inverters, BESS (batteries) and sub stations have been known to catch fire and therefore may be a further source of contamination of soils and water.
The currently known chemicals which may be in solar panels are:
Lead
Cadmium
Cadmium telluride
Chromium
Copper
Selenium
Antimony
Silver
Gallium
Tellurium
Arsenic
Copper Indium Selenide
Hexa Fluorethane
Polyvinyl Fluoride
Many of these are toxic and some are carcinogenic.
END.

I object to this project because it is transforming our beautiful natural environment into a dystopian landscape. This affects my mental health and makes me feel like I don't belong here any more. Do not destroy my home

This project will destroy lots of farm land and stop native animals being able to pass over the land. I have seen lots of kangaroos trapped in the Wellington Solar farms, I object to this project

I object wholly to this project. This project will significantly impact the livelihoods of the neighbours, making it unviable for them to continue to operate as successful and highly productive farming businesses. This is a violation of human rights and should not be approved.

I strongly object to the proposal for the Sandy Creek Solar Farm.
As a member of the community within the CWO REZ, I feel that this project will have devastating effects on the area.
Amongst the reasons for my objection include loss of prime agricultural land, an increase in labour shortages for local farmers, visual impacts, increased bushfire risk and limitations in fighting them, increased public liability insurance for neighbouring properties, many environmental issues, and negative impacts on the local roads within the project's proposal. The cumulative impacts of this and all the projects currently proposed within the CWO REZ is far too great for the community to bear.
I seek the opportunity to discuss my concerns and reasons for objection in front of the Independent Planning Committee.

I strongly object to the Sandy Creek Solar Factory as attached.

I do not support projects such as this on prime agricultural land. The madness to rush renewable projects through at the expense of agricultural and environment is mind blowing.
I am yet to see any economics around the true cost of building these projects when mining to build panels and batteries is included let alone transmission lines to connect.
I do no support the Sandy Creek Solar Farm and feel very sad for the local farming community who will be greatly impacted.
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. 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.

I write this submission to express my concerns with the construction of the ‘Sandy Creek Solar Farm’ in its current proposed location, in Dapper, NSW.
First and foremost, the proposed solar farm construction site is situated on some of the most productive agricultural land in NSW. This land is versatile, with the potential to produce quality beef, lamb, fibre, grains and oilseeds year in – year out.
While this project does have profound social and impacts on the families, businesses and the fabric of the community in the surrounding area, I believe that the Government should recognise the wider reaching long-term impacts of constructing a solar farm on versatile and productive agricultural land.
It is undeniable that there is currently a large shortfall between the amount of food that is produced globally, and the amount that is needed to feed a growing population. It is anticipated that by 2050, there will nearly be 10 billion people on Earth, which equates to almost 2 billion more mouths to feed over the next 26 years, or 77mln additional mouths annually. As incomes rise and developing countries continue to globalise, I believe that the world population will become ever-more reliant on the production of food and fibre to survive, consequently increasing the reliance on existing productive agricultural land.
For further context, in 2010 the world resources institute noted a 56 percent food gap between crop calories and those needed in 2050 under “business as usual growth”. Additionally, there was a 593 million – hectare land gap between global agricultural land area and expected expansion by 2050.
Consequently, farmers such as those in the proposed sandy creek solar farm area have been faced with the challenge of increasing food and fibre production on existing agricultural land, with the prospect of buying additional land becoming ever- more costly and harder to obtain.
While I can see the benefits of the solar power in the correct location, I along with many others am fundamentally opposed to the construction of a solar farm on productive agricultural land that contributes to feeding the rapidly growing world population. Given this, I strongly urge the NSW government to re-consider the project.