Springdale Solar Farm

Please see attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Please see my attachment

See attachment

Please find attached my letter objecting to the Springdale Solar Farm

I'm against the proposed Springdale Solar development due to a number of
reasons which will directly or indirectly affect me, but also because
I believe it fails to meet a number of government guidelines / rules
etc which I believe were put in place to ensure these type of
developments achieve the best outcome for all, be it developer,
community and environment.

1. Location.
Sutton doesn't fall within the 3 renewable energy zones identified for
NSW. Being New England, Central West and South West. It is not even
close so why it would even be considered for a state significant
project i've got no idea. Thought location for a start would be a
priority.
2. Failure to meet suitability criteria of "Draft Guidelines for
large-scale solar development". Some of the reasons the project fails
to meet criteria are:
a)energy generation can't be maximised as site is located in a valley
which can have fog sitting in it until early afternoon. See attached
photo taken last week. There were 3 days last week were fog didn't
lift until midmorning or later. Some days in winter its past 1pm
before valley gets any sun.
b)Impacts on rural landscape and scenic values due to its shear size.
Some elevated homes will be subject to looking over the entire
project.
c) Hydrology. The lower part of the site was flooded winter 2016 and
fencing of this site will affect wildlife in both flood and drought
years.
d)Site doesn't meet "preferable site conditions" as it isn;t in a
"localities identified by government as optimal for renewable energy
development"
d) "Areas of constraint" Mulligans flat nature reserve within 5 km of
the project. Rural 5km exclusion zone which would be against this
intensive development supported by, Yass council, NSW Dept of
Environment and ACT government. This makes the proposal for 850 acres
of solar facility seem totally against the proposed purpose of the
surrounding area. Why is it even being considered on this basis only
is puzzling.
e)"Sites with high visibility, such as those on prominent or high
ground positions, or sites which are located in a valley with
residences with elevated views looking toward the site" There are a
number of homes affected by the shear size of the proposed
development. Proposed "screening" proposed will do little to nothing
in protecting the homes from having there rural outlook completely
scarred forever.
f) Visual impacts
"Greater off-site visibility of the site will increase the chances of
impacts such as glint, glare, reductions in visual amenity, and
detraction from the surrounding landscape character including natural,
scenic, historic or cultural landscapes. There may also be road safety
impacts from glint and glare." Due to the proposed sites size and
location the visual impacts will have a significant affect on the
entire area / community. As there will be roads running essentially
through / adjacent the site its hard to know potential impact of glint
and glare. The visual amenity will be affected by some elevated
properties now having to look at 850 acres of a solar facility where
they had once enjoyed views of rural landscape pleasing to the eye.
It'll be the potential harm caused by glint and glare to these
surrounding properties that will be forever affected and no amount of
screening will ever be affective as the proposed solar facility is so
large its visual destruction will never be contained.

See attached

Please see attached

Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001

13th August 2018
ATTENTION: Director - Resources and Energy Assessment

RE: Submission in Objection of the proposed Springdale Solar
Development - Sutton NSW

Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to express my concerns and objections to the proposed
development of a 120 MW solar farm at Tallagandra Lane, near Sutton
NSW.
I have read the Renew Estate Springdale Solar Farm Preliminary
Environmental Assessment report (Sept 2017), and it states in section
1.3 that "Renew Estate is passionate about meeting the goals of all
stakeholders and delivering appropriate and considerate uses of land,
technology and investment". The proposed development of a solar farm
on Tallagandra Lane, Sutton, is clearly NOT an appropriate and
considerate use of this area of land. The proposed development site is
only 3.5kms from the ACT border, and is prime, productive grazing
land. A solar farm should be developed on poorer quality land, with
low agricultural production potential instead.
It is noted in the report at Section 2.1.2. that the largest
agricultural commodities produced in the Yass Valley Council (YVC)
area are livestock, which accounted for 46.7% of the Council area's
total agricultural output value (ABS, 2011). The development of a 350
hectare solar farm on this site at Tallagandra Lane will add to the
number of developments (both residential and commercial) within the
YVC area, that are already significantly impacting on prime grazing
land and primary production potential.
In addition to this, the proposed development site is in a low-lying
gully, which is regularly blanketed in fog through the winter months,
often until midday or later. Without guaranteed sun year round, the
construction of a solar farm on this site would also NOT be an
"appropriate and considerate use of technology and investment" (which
Renew Estate claims it is passionate about delivering). Upon
researching what would make a site most suitable for solar
development, a high solar irradiance profile is very important. I note
that there is a large scale solar farm project at Moree, in
North-Western NSW, and one of the key reasons that the Moree site
location was selected for a solar farm, is because Moree has one of
the highest solar irradiance profiles in NSW. According to the below
map taken from the Bureau of Meteorology (note Map in attached doc),
showing the average solar exposure for NSW/ACT for the 6 month period
February-July, it would appear that the area just north of the ACT
border (where the proposed site of the Springdale Solar Farm is
located) is NOT a region with high solar exposure levels.
The estimated gross CAPEX cost of the Springdale Solar Farm project is
stated to be $150M. If the solar generation capability of the farm is
not as high as it could be if the development was located in a more
suitable area with greater daily solar exposure, surely more careful
consideration needs to be given to the appropriateness of the site, in
order to ensure the project will be a profitable and efficient
investment.

I also note that in Section 3.2., the report states that the proposed
site for the solar farm is "uniquely located to provide the additional
electrical demand in Canberra over the coming decades". This clearly
indicates that it won't be YVC and NSW residents set to benefit from
the solar energy produced by this proposed site, but rather ACT
residents instead. I don't believe the Sutton community would benefit
from the project if the development were to go ahead, as Renew Energy
suggest they will. Renew Energy suggests local businesses will be
supported through services such as food and accommodation. Apart from
some of the employed workers perhaps visiting Sutton Bakery to
purchase lunch on occasion, it is most likely that Gungahlin/ACT
businesses would benefit more from the patronage of any workers, as
they are in closer proximity to the proposed development site, not to
mention the fact that there is very limited accommodation options
available in the Sutton region as well.
Thank you for consideration of my submission.
Regards,
Katherine McClelland
YASS NSW 2582

OBJECTION TO SOLAR PLANT - AS ATTACHED

See attached

I have been a Sutton resident for 30 years and have raised my family in
Sutton. We chose our property because of the views over the beautiful,
serene, pastoral landscape, as many, if not most, residents to the
north and south of Canberra have done. While I am not a resident of
Tallagandra Lane (I live on Mulligans Flat Road), I entirely empathise
with those residents whose properties would overlook the proposed
development because of the loss of amenity.
The evidence is very clear that large scale solar developments should
not only be placed on large, flat acreage, but should also be
surrounded by large, flat acreage, so as to minimise the loss of
amenity to surrounding homesteads. (Renew's projects alone to date
confirm this). This is not the case with the proposed development
which is surrounded by 34 residences whose amenity will be directly
impacted.
Not that the owner of the property on whose land the solar farm is
being built will be living there to experience the impact himself;
neither would the board members of Renew Estate or AECOM who conducted
this EIS. It is entirely disingenuous for the EIS to claim that the
project has the support of the local community and Yass Council when
it does not.
The EIS totally understates the negative impacts on `visual receptors'
with highly subjective statements about the significance of the visual
impact. These do not represent the opinions of the impacted residents
at all.
I also object to the patronising comments in the EIS about how the
project gives the local community a chance to enjoy the socio-economic
and environmental benefits of developing renewable technology. It is
clear from the EIS that the cheaper electricity generated by this
solar farm is for the benefit of ACT residents, not residents of
Sutton or NSW. The compensation being offered to affected residents
and the local community is frankly an insult when compared to their
loss, and the gain to be made by the landowner and Renew shareholders
were this project to proceed.
All this for a project that will be decommissioned in 30 years.

To whom it may concern,
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed Springdale Solar Farm.

I am of the sixth generation of farmers to live on the farm that lies
directly opposite the proposed site. The area holds significant
heritage value to not only my family, but many of the families who
reside in the area.

My parents live atop one of the highest peaks in the region. Their
northerly view looks upon the proposed site and will greatly affect
not only their quality of life in retirement, but the value of their
home.

Since the lawyers from Renew Estate first visited my parents almost a
year ago I have seen them in a state of almost constant mental anguish
and worry. In that time they have felt unable to take a holiday and
have spent countless hours attempting to preserve the heritage of our
region.

As the father of three young boys I would like to provide them with
the opportunity to live on the land, the seventh generation to do so.
Any potential building site would be greatly affected. The idea that
the proposed plant can be screened is ludicrous.

As a child I attended Sutton Primary School. The village of Sutton is
quaint, quiet and provides a peaceful home for hundreds. The
introduction of a large scale solar plant to the region will bring
with it dramatic increases in traffic, grossly effecting the way of
life of those living in the village and potentially the safety of the
children who attend the school.
I am a keen cyclist and often ride along East Tallagandra Lane towards
Sutton. This area is anticipating up to 75 large vehicle movements per
day and 400 small vehicle movements. This poses an unacceptable risk
to the many 100s of cyclists who use this route.

Some years back I watched a large grass fire begin in the same area
where the proposed development would be situated. It started with a
lightning strike, however, was able to be controlled by the local
volunteer brigade due to the easy access of the area. The proposed
development will be fenced and would greatly reduce the ability to
control such a fire before it spread. This not only endangers my
family's property but all the surrounding properties and potentially
Sutton itself.
Large scale solar farms are relatively new and there is insufficient
research on the long term effects of such an installation,
particularly in an area with a number of endangered species, a high
human population and domesticated animals which are purposed for human
consumption.

The National Review (June 2017) refers to a study that demonstrates
that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy
than nuclear power plants. The maintenance of nuclear plants and
disposal of nuclear waste is well regulated, the maintenance and
disposal of solar is not. In most countries solar panels when disposed
of are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or e-waste.
An article in Forbes magazine (May, 2018) states that the problem with
solar panel disposal will explode in full force over the coming
decades. The International Renewable Energy Agency in 2016 estimated
that that there was around 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste.
By 2050 this number is projected to reach 78,000,000 metric tons. The
Forbes article also affirms that the panels often contain lead,
cadmium and other toxic chemicals that aren't easily removed. The
proposed site is a site that is prone to flooding and fire. What
happens to the toxic elements contained within the panels in either
instance? Renew Estate cannot guarantee that toxic elements from the
panels would not enter the water course, in the case of flood, or
become airborne in the case of fire. Proposing a development of this
nature in such a highly built up area is reckless and irresponsible.
If the proposed panels contain cadmium, research suggests that cadmium
can leach from panels after minor damage when exposed to rain water.
In 2015 a storm caused damage to 200,000 solar panels in California.
This is a very real risk that cannot be mitigated against.

Since 2016 numerous solar conglomerates similar to that of Renew
estate have gone bankrupt leaving the cost of removing, and restoring
the site to the taxpayer.

The proposed site does not make sense. It is my belief that the
submission process will shed light on the farcical process to date and
uncover the shortcuts that the developer has taken in preparing their
proposal. The NSW government has an obligation to its people not the
interests of an investment conglomerate interested in powering a
neighbouring territory.

please see attached PDF

Please see PDF submission attached

See attached

See attached. I am sending this again as I did not see an acknowledgment
for the first time I sent it.