Stratford Pumped Hydro and Solar

I believe the whole Gloucester community will truly benefit from the awesome opportunity to have this project go ahead. The Jobs it will create will close the void from the mining closure and help the community out greatly.

as a member of the community for the past 38 years I'm in support of the proposed hydro hub in our area, this initiative has the potential to bring much needed economic growth and job opportunities to our community, without this the area will face challenges for young people for future employment with the local coal mine that is closing and has supported the local community for many years, this transition i believe will have a positive effect on the local area.

I’ve worked at the Stratford site for 16years
I think the use of the land would be a positive thing
Not only for green energy but for the future of employment of small local community

I support the project

Hopefully create jobs

It would be great for local businesses

I need a job.

Future jobs
Greener future

Great for the area and this will assist with employment and growth of the region.

The SREH is an exciting project for the local community as it will provide jobs during construction and ongoing operational jobs. The SREH could create up to 350 full time jobs over the four-year construction period. During normal operations, it could employ approximately 10 full-time workers, which will increase to around 30 workers during periodic maintenance activities. The site’s natural topography, land holdings and proximity to existing electricity transmission infrastructure and demand centres makes it an ideal location for pumped hydro energy storage. As water is already available at the Stratford Mine Complex to charge the pumped hydro, there would be no impacts to water resources in the Gloucester Valley.

To Whom it may concern.

We are absolutely devastated by this proposal of a renewable energy hub at Stratford. Our stunning, beautiful pristine valley would be destroyed by this proposal. Our property sits on the hillside at 501 woods road Craven and would be overlooking this atrocity!!!.
The existing view is uninterrupted from Craven right up to the buckets and the mountains beyond Gloucester, taking in all the valley. We had planned to retire on this property if this atrocity goes ahead that will not be happening. The value of our property would be drastically affected, would we be compensated for this huge loss? both financially and emotionally. Who wants to overlook the appalling reflection from hundreds of solar panels, especially when glimmering in the sun it would be horrendous! The visual simulation carried out is not a true reflection on us overlooking the hill at the site, which is in our direct line of sight.

We can't oppose this proposal strongly enough, the impact would be intolerable !!!!!!!

For some reason your portal isn't uploading my files please refer to Jarrod Galvin community liaison officer for Stratford mine for feedback letter from us.

The plan requires destruction of natural bushland for the upper dam and taking over usable agricultural land for the solar array.
The solar array requires constant cleaning. How will the run-off be managed?
The mine will not rehabilitate the area as it is obliged to do but instead receive government funding.

Application Number
SSI-73368213
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure

Submission on behalf of Gloucester District Historical Society (GDHS)

The GDHS is concerned about the future of the Craven Village, specifically: the Union Church, Craven Schoolmasters residence and The Glen – Craven Logging Railway.

Craven Village
The Historic Heritage Assessment (HHA) for this Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the historical significance of the village of Craven and its surrounds. Although these were clearly noted as of local heritage significance in the Assessment made for the Stratford Extension Project Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment in March 2012.

The value of Craven village as an historical entity is also made clear in the study Craven a History prepared by Dr Gerald McCalden, which provides a detailed history.
It is available at the link below.
https://www.gloucestermuseum.com.au/uploads/1/2/6/1/126115770/craven_a_history_april20_1.pdf
The village is only expected to be retained as a buffer zone throughout the life of the SREH. It is likely that the buildings will deteriorate further as they are not properly maintained.

The Glen – Craven Logging Railway
This entity has local heritage significance and is listed in the Gloucester LEP and draft Mid-Coast LEP on lots 284, 311 to 314 (DP979573) adjoining The Glen Road.
The REH application pays no attention to conservation of the Glen-Craven railway alignment, except to say site would be avoided. A formal site analysis and recognition could be considered.

We would suggest that, although Craven Village is outside the area of disturbance for of the Stratford REH, approval the conditions of consent should include a heritage recognition and a conservation management plan of the Craven Village and the Glen – Craven Logging Railway.

submission of objection attached.

To whom it may concern @ Stratford Renewable Energy Hub
I would like to strongly advise you of our opposition to the solar panel farm project you are trying to pass at the Stratford mine.
The visual impact of the solar panels in the proposed positions are 100% in Direct Line of sight from our property and would not only be aesthetically offensive to the environment and ourselves, but the impact of losing our views of mountains and paddocks and replacing it with solar panels, metal and glare would not only be psychologically distressing but would also drop the price of our property if we were to sell in the future by hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it economically Damaging to those properties impacted by this proposed project.
Could you please also tell us how long you proposed these solar panels would be in use for and of visual disturbance for the people that live and travel through this area?
What and where do these panels go at the end of Your license or lifespan of the solar panel. We speak of clean, green energy and recycling with no pollution but with current estimates, it costs between $20 to $30 to recycle one panel, while sending it to landfill costs a mere $1 - $2.00, In some circumstances it can be classified as hazardous waste due to small amount of cadmium and lead in these panels with solar panels being the next big green thing, the sheer volume of discarded panels will soon pose a risk of existentially damaging proportions.
Can you assure us that these so-called green clean energy panels do not get buried as landfill, as the majority of the panels are silicon and glass, which is a non-biodegradable and an environmental nightmare.
Silicon is abundant but converting sand to silicon comes at a high price and is an energy intensive project which seemed to defeat the purpose of making the solar panel as the refining process involves hot carbon, which then becomes CO2, and is this not what we are trying to reduce??
Another thing that will be blamed on the cows farting and a tax being passed onto farmers instead of big corporations that are poisoning our lands in the name of clean, green energy, What a joke... It is all about money and carbon tax credits.
The environmental concerns are just lip service from the authorities.
It is also expected that 50% of the world's stores of silver are being used in the production of solar panels driving up prices of this precious metal and leaving limited stocks for other industries such as medical supplies.
I thought The town of Stratford being an entry into the Australian World Heritage Area of the Barrington Tops, a top tourist destination known for its unspoiled wilderness and wildlife, its national parks and heritage rainforests, being listed in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization would be negatively impacted by the sight of thousands of man-made panels lining the road in that were formally once pristine green Paddocks.
Thousands of tourists come to hike, camp, and take in the unspoilt beauty of the surrounding areas NOT to drive past thousands upon thousands of solar panels lining the buckets way and spoiling the surrounding country landscapes of hills, trees, dairy farms, and wilderness that they had come and expected to see.
I also have major concerns regarding the impact of our local Koala population that call the Stratford mine home, on many occasions myself and neighbors have sighted koalas in the bushland in and around the mine.
How do these man-made solar panels integrate with the native Flora and Fauna and what consequences will we see on the local animal populations?
So, in conclusion, my main problems with this huge solar panel area are.
- The visual impacts affecting landowners' general well-being seeing the destruction of their aesthetically pleasing views of green countryside and paddocks being converted to manufactured metal, glare and solar panels, rows of manufactured environmental destruction of what had once been productive green paddocks and majestic natural views over farmland and hillsides.
- Major economic disadvantages and property price losses because of the ascetic outlook onto a solar farm from those properties that are impacted by this project.
- this “so-called green energy” ... What are the impacts of creating these panels?
Is it not environmentally damaging?
The chemicals used are not biodegradable and leach chemicals into our soil thus poisoning the planet and causing disease for humans.
The solar E-waste glut is coming, with the big, bulky sheets of electronic waste expected to form up to 78,000,000 metric tons of solar panels by the year 2050. (As per the International Renewable Energy Agency's) figures, 6 million metric tons of new solar waste annually being produced.
- The negative environmental aesthetic impact entering a World Heritage area of the Barrington Tops being disrupted, it is known for its unspoiled beauty and wilderness... Not man-made solar panels scarring our countryside and degrading our landscape, and visual beauty which lends itself to outdoor activities and tourism that provides service this township.

Please note I am a permanent resident of Gloucester.

My OBJECTION to the Project is for the following reasons –

1. Destruction of native vegetation and impact on threatened species.
Yancoal has chosen a pumped hydro system rather than using batteries which means that they will have to build a new dam. Overall, the Project proposes clearing of 145 hectares of native bushland. If batteries were used to save the electricity, then most of this clearing would be unnecessary.
The environmental destruction from needing to flood an undisturbed valley to build the upper dam is significant. 20 Threatened species and 2 threatened ecological communities will be impacted.
3 species affected by the bushland clearing are rated ‘Seriously and Irreversibly Impacted'. Scrub turpentine tree, the Sooty Owl and the Stuttering Frog.
The critically endangered scrub turpentine, of which there are 217 stems, would need removing in the upper reservoir area. Yancoal is proposing to donate $250,000 to a species recovery program to remove these critically endangered trees. This proposal is not feasible and will almost certainly not be successful.
The suggestion that they can relocate the tree hollow used by the pair of Sooty Owls also has a low chance of success.
The Stuttering Frog which is assumed to be present, as well as the other frog species will not be able to survive the land clearing.
The koala, an iconic endangered species whose habitat was greatly reduced in the 2019 drought and bushfires in the Mid North Coast, is present in this area. It reproduces very slowly and so under the best of conditions it will be slow to recover. It seems inconceivable to put further stress on these animals which will inevitably reduce their numbers.

2. The Proponent has failed to adequately address the traffic generating potential of the Project and the Project’s potential impact on the Bucketts Way, including its intersection with the Pacific Motorway.

The Bucketts Way is a lifeline for Gloucester which is yet to be completed to a standard that is adequate for existing traffic, let alone increases that can be attributed to the Project.

It should be well known to the Department, from multiple DAs for hard rock quarries in the Port Stephens and Dungog LGAs (either approved, being assessed or in preparation) that the Bucketts Way and Pacific Highway intersection is a dangerous intersection in need of full grade separation.

The Traffic Impact Assessment trivialises the potential impact of use of OSOM vehicles, relying an anecdotal rather objective analysis.

The TIA relies on a conceptual design of the Project. There is a large “unknown” regarding the potential use of on-site material to build the upper dam, enlarge the lower dam and manage voids associated with SMC and its rehabilitation.

Potentially, the construction could involve a large quantity of imported material if the on-site material is not adequate for the building of the Project (particularly the upper dam).

Prior to a recommendation or decision on the Project, the Department should engage an expert to give it impartial advice on potential scenarios involving greater levels of traffic generation than suggested in the EIS. This assessment should also look more closely at the cumulative impact of the Project and all the hard rock quarry Projects affecting the Bucketts Way / Pacific Highway intersection. It should also address the public roadworks on all local roads that need to be undertaken over the life of the Project at the Proponent’s cost. The consultant should identify traffic generation “thresholds” related to public roadworks required under the alternative scenarios.

If the Department recommends approval of the Project, there should be a Condition that states that the importation of raw fill from outside the Project area is prohibited.

Alternatively, a Condition should be included that requires the Proponent to report on any deviations to assumptions to the Project’s traffic generation model through the detailed investigation and design process. This Condition will provide that additional roadworks will be required to be funded by the Proponent based on thresholds established by the Department’s independent consultant (above).

The Department should also devise an effective public road maintenance consent Condition to be applied to any approval.

I object as I am outraged by the continual rise in electricity prices driven by speculative investments in unproven technologies such Industrialised Solar & PHES that leave us financially drained.

Many families are already struggling to keep the lights on.
The push for costly experimental energy solutions will plunge even more Australians into energy poverty, limiting their ability to meet basic needs.
I object to this China benefiting plan as we need far superior, affordable, secure Australian Power.

I object to this foolish plan as the current push for unreliable renewable sources jeopardizes our national energy security, leaving us vulnerable to outages and shortages—an unacceptable risk for everyday consumers.