Sandy Creek Solar Farm

SUBMISSION AGAINST SANDY CREEK SOLAR FARM

Please find attached my submission "THE CWO-REZ - ROBODEBT REVISITED?", which questions the rationale of the CWO-REZ.

Futher to this submissionon on the 4th of April 2024 EnergyCo posted on its website that "at the end of last year the NSW government announced an increase in the ULTIMATE size of the CWO-REZ from 3 gigawatts to 6 gigawatts". An ultimate size of 6 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in the CWO-REZ requires only ONE, rather than the TWO proposed dual circuit 500kV power lines from Wollar to the Merotherie Hub to service the CWO-REZ. The required power line from the Merotherie Hub to the Elong Hub will be even smaller and dependent on the number of projects connecting to the Merotherie Hub.

In addition the NSW government is proposing a "Sun Tax" on rooftop solar to curtail and discourage output from this source, Yet perversly at the same time it is encouraging the building of more solar farms such as Sandy Creek. The reason given for this apparent lack of logic is that the ouput from rooftop solar will "congest" the grid. This "congestion" illustrates the major flaw with solar output, be it from rooftop or solar farm. The output from solar with a midday peak does not match demand with evening and morning peaks. Massive amounts of battery storage will be required to reconcile supply and demand and so stabilise the grid.

In this instance would it not be more sensible to place the requisite battery storage at the residential level to avoid this "congestion" and so maximise the contribution of rooftop solar to the grid? This would lead to a reduction in te number of solar farms required and a consequent reduction in transmission infrastructure, loss of productive agricultural land,enviromental damage and community opposition to renewable energy projects.

But in this context it must be remembered that the AEMO board has representatives from renewable energy developers and transmission line owners, but none from rooftop solar. The profit incentive for these renewable energy and transmission line companies dictates that competition from rooftop solar must be minimised. Rooftop solar as a major competitor threatens their profitability and viability. This "pushback" against rooftop solar by multinational companies must be resisted and the necessity of solar farms such as Sandy Creek questioned.

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.

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 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.

My objections to this project are based on loss of productive agricultural land, the accumulated effect of the multiple projects being planned in our small community, the loss of community members who will be forced to leave if they are surrounded by projects. The sheer scale of projects being forced on such a small community is beyond comprehension, these projects need to be spread out and closer to the cities that will consume it.

Sandy Creek Solar farm is located on quality, arable, agricultrual land, which is a precious resource in this country. It is also without access to major transmission lines, which calls into question the viability of the project. There has been inadequate community consulation and wholly insufficient consideration of neighbours' concerns, including insurance concerns.

I oppose the proposed Sandy Creek Solar The selection of prime agricultural land for this solar project is unacceptable. I urge you to please look at the existing industrial solar estates at Wellington and confirm why this land is best utilised for industrial use over food production.

This land is integral to our food and fibre businesses, sustaining the livelihoods of producers who have established viable livestock, grain, fibre 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 the rural community whose lives depend on the production of food and fibre. 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.

Perhaps the NSW government could place these large industrial eyesores on government land? Why would you place them on arable land that can provide food for our state and nation supporting regional towns? Who is going to grow food in the region? How many people do these industrial estates employ once they are established? Is this corporate going to support local mechanics, butchers, fuel depots, agricultural merchandise stores, tyre shops, schools, accountants, solicitors, banks, sporting teams, car dealerships, pubs & clubs, etc etc etc?

A solar project of this size on productive land is unacceptable.

CWO REZist Inc. objects to this project. See attached submission.

I object to the Sandy Creek Solar project.
• Decommissioning requirements should not be left up to the discretion of the landowner. Full decommissioning including removal of all cabling, concrete, posts and any other materials that might be underground, should be mandatory, to return the land to any sort of agricultural capacity for future generations. A decommissioning/rehabilitation bond should be required to be established by the proponent in line with construction timelines. Wind and solar projects are often on-sold and it is folly to think that an owner, many times removed from the construction, will willingly take on responsible decommissioning/rehabilitation.
• Sheep grazing is just a feel-good statement to try and make it seem as though some agricultural production can be maintained. It has been proven that it is not viable to run sheep under the panels and maintain good animal husbandry practices.
• Vegetation plantings are never sufficient visual “mitigation”.
• I have severe concerns about the toxicity of rare earth metals that may leach from damaged solar panels, poisoning the waterways and land.
• Water usage for construction should not be able to be extracted through bores into acquifers. Surrounding farms and communities rely on that water for domestic and stock use and in a low rainfall year this will be detrimental to other users of the aquifers.
• There has been insufficient consultation in the wider community for this project that is already at the EIS stage. Many in the community have no idea this project is even planned and few have been given the opportunity to learn about it and make suggestions that may have improved the project and lessened the impacts to neighbours and the district.
• The cumulative impact of multiple projects is going to be detrimental to the cohesion and future of local communities and the wider REZ area. The EIS states 50 projects within 100km of this project. By the time it comes to assessment, no doubt the projects will have increased to 70 or 80. In a decade there will be hundreds of projects within 100km. This is not considered by the proponent.

Annette Piper

I am deeply opposed to the Sandy Creek Solar Farm project for several reasons outlined below:
The significant amount of land proposed for this project could otherwise be used for agriculture purposes. I am not opposed to solar energy, just the proposed location. This is prime agricultural land.
As solar farms only produce power when the sun is shining, my strong preference is that solar farms would be far better placed much further west. Not only would this make them a more consistent energy source, but would better utilise marginal lands unsuitable for agriculture.
The proposed location of this project would also have a profound visual impact, being visually intrusive, especially in scenic areas around Sandy Creek.
While solar energy is clean, the manufacturing and disposal of solar panels has a significant environmental impact. What is the plan around disposal of these panels following their lifespan?

If anyone needs some wording to leverage and save time, here you go:


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.

To Whom it may concern,
My name is Danny Tink and I am a licensed stock and station agent for the local central west area. My business is assisting farmers with the marketing of their livestock whether it be sheep or cattle. My role requires drafting or assessing livestock to achieve the highest possible price for my client/farmer. I have been in this industry for over 20 years and cover the local central west area including the farming area around and within the Sandy Creek Solar Farm proposal. Within this proposed area it contains highly productive sheep, cattle and cropping country used for food production and once the solar panels are installed limits the opportunity for current and future landholders to continue this practice. This will no doubt impact in 3 major ways as I can see it.
1. Reduction in food production.
2. Rural families in this area losing their income.
3. The people that rely on farmers for their own source of income like stock and station agents, farm machinery salespersons, transport companies that cart the livestock and grain, merchandise stores that sell animal health and fertiliser to farmers and the list goes on.
I can see the benefit in solar energy but not on highly productive country that has the potential to supply food to not only our country but to an every growing in world population that needs to be fed.

This project must not go ahead. It must be a controlled action. It will impact the ability to produce food for the Australian people as on prime food producing land. The toxic risk from contamination from fire and severe weather advents is is too great. The surrounding lands will be lost forever for food production if an incident occurs. You people need to ask yourselves before approving these unreliable power sources. Where does my food come from?

attached PDF of my submission

I object to the project for the following reasons-
The majority of land in the study area is LDC Class 3 land, suitable for agriculture. The Land should be used for growing food. Once productive agricultural land is taken out in an agriculturally based community, income is taken out, jobs are taken out, businesses are taken out, the whole community suffers.
It is suggested that the project will not be decommissioned to the standard that agricultural land will not be returned to its original productive state.
We live very close this project and know underground water is hard to source. This project will use a huge amount of water for both construction stages and the proposed temporary workforce accommodation facility. Watercourses could possibly be contaminated and run off reduced. We rely heavily on river water, as do many farms along the local Talbragar river.
Possible fire in the solar panels could cause toxic smoke a hazard to our health and also hamper local firefighting efforts.
Increase in feral animal activity would be likely as the solar panels are a haven for the like.
We own property on both sides of the golden highway, as well as having 3 homesteads on the highway. The increase of traffic will make crossing stock extremely hard and make it much more dangerous for local traffic, for example the school bus.
The whole potential negative impact due to the influx of out of area workers will have a huge effect on accommodation and housing, our medical facilities are already stretched, as well as social services and transport and infrastructure.
The visual impact and devaluation of land in the area in general, is extremely stressful for locals, in particularly people like ourselves who have lived and farmed here for generations and also intent to live and farm her for future generations.

I object to the project being constructed on prime farming land. My agronomy business relies on the productivity of this farmland and will hurt my business as farming area is reduced and families leave the area.

The Dunedoo district lost a lot of farming families as a result of the now failed coal mining project and a reduction in farm production will only hurt local communities.

This is prime agricultural land used for food production for both cropping and livestock and should not be used for solar farms. Not only will it impact local farms but also the businesses that support these farms (emphasised by other projects).

With the changing landscape from grassed rolling hills with trees to manmade solar panels it has the potential to impact the local geographical climate causing animal welfare issues or lost production from cropping. With the idea behind the solar farm to reduce carbon, I would question the truth in this as it is removing a healthy carbon reducing biodiversity with improved pastures/crops/trees to a manmade black solar panel environment with no soil microbes and very limited organic matter in the soil.

Once the solar farm has reached its life, I can't see how it would be feasible to remove all the cables connecting the solar panels and contamination so the country can be returned back to its original productive state.

Please let common sense prevail and stop wreaking our productive agricultural land that we need for food production.

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 .

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

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.