Tallawang Solar Farm

I do not beleive that the proposed renewable energy farms be built let alone multiple built in one area.

I am objecting to this proposal because it is causing an unacceptable visual impact to the neighbouring properties. The lay of the land is such that the family along Castlereagh highway, Old Mill road, Shepherds Lane and Black Lead lane are on elevated land, overlooking the proposed solar works site.


Noise impact during construction to the surrounding family homes is not adequately addressed.
Noise impact caused by turning panels to the surrounding homes is not known and is not acceptable

Destruction of the historical nature of the town. The visual impact on the historic town of Gulgong is unacceptable.

Permanent loss of good sheep grazing land.

Increased fire risk 4 - 7km from Gulgong town

Reduction of property values. Distress and mental health impact on surrounding property owners

We have a big country, go elsewhere so you can stop ruining people's lives!

I'm against this solar farm due to it being prime ag land,it being so close to Gulgong town, highly visible from the road side into Gulgong,
We know that the land isn't able to be grazed when the panels are in place, due to live stock damaging the mechanisms, and also getting caught and injured by the mechanisms.
There is so many other places suitable for a solar farm that are non furtile land and in the rez zone.

I object to this developement
1. I am a rural resident who will be viewing these ugly solar panels with no compensation offered and the proposed screening will not grow without at least 3 years of tlc leaving me still viewing the solar panels. Even if the screening does grow it will take at least 5-10 years to actually screen the project.
2. Devaluation of my property.
3. Bushfire risk assessment does not account for any toxic fallout from a major fire. If a serious fire was to begin within the proposed project area and the current owner was to be in bankruptcy who would be held responsible for health issues/death caused by the toxic fall out? This may never have happened but it is a possibility.
4.Economic benefit to our community is neglible as materials for this project will be sourced from overseas. Employment will be sourced from outside our area and accommodation will sideline our tourists with no vacant accommodation for them to enjoy our heritage town.
Once proposed construction is completed there will be no economic benefit to our town.
5.Site decommissioning would need government to underwrite guarantees before this project is approved to guarantee that these solar panels and anything associated will be disposed of in the correct manner and the land rehabilitated accordingly.
6.If sheep grazing is to be approved for this proposed development I feel that the owner of the stock will be severely penalised as the toxic fallout from the batteries and panels on and into the surrounding soil would become a bio security issue.

I object to the project on the basis that Environmental and Social Impact Studies have been completed by a company that has being engaged and paid for by the project developer and therefore may be bias.
At the Community consultation this was not disclosed to the community.

11/11/22
Tallawang Solar Farm
application no SSD-23700028
Puggoon Road, 8 km north-west of Gulgong
RES Australia Pty Ltd
Council Area Mid-Western Regional
No Political donations

I am a fifth generation food producer and object to this development on food producing land. I object strongly to any development being built on our very limited food producing land. The cumulative effect of the multitude of 32 and counting existing, under construction and
proposed wind, solar & BESS projects will severely impact our ability to feed ourselves. We are already too dependent on overseas countries to supply other basic needs.
These projects claim to be green but are far from it. They are very resource and energy hungry. They actually produce more emissions in manufacture, transportation.erection and de-commissioning than they will ever mitigated from producing unreliable energy. 90% of panels are made overseas so transportation cost are enormous.
There will be no long term jobs from this project that will bring economic and employment benefits to the community. These developments only become a stain and headache for the locals before, during ,after commentate and if they get pulled down.
I object to the Tallawang Solar Plant proposal because it is complete waste of agricultural land, which will be needed to produce food for current and future generations of Australians.
Regards A very concerned Food Producer.

Renewable energy is the only future to cut rising fossil fuel cost and pollution.
Australia is rich of solar energy and could have been utilized earlier in large scale in order to fight against inflation and rising energy cost , so this project should be allowed to move forward.

1. Grave concern with bushfires – reduced access to where the solar panels are, will make it much more difficult to contain a bushfire. Who is going to carry out maintenance to reduce fire hazard within the solar farm?
2. Solar panels cause more runoff from rain causing erosion to the area where the panels are and also to the paddocks in close proximity where there are no panels. Erosion will be hard to fix where the solar panels are and more importantly the surrounding gullies and creeks will run harder and faster, causing more problems on the local roads, causeways and bridges.
3. With the introduction of the solar farm all this will change our lives by increasing traffic, people working on the construction and maintaining the panels and turbines etc after construction.
4. Visual impact of solar panels very invasive to residents in close proximity to solar farms.
5. Disturbing local flora and fauna.

I am a landholder on the Golden Highway east of Dunedoo. I am not totally against renewable energy but I am opposed to it taking over valuable farming land. I believe power should be generated where it is being used; why is the government not subsidising solar panels on industrial and residential rooves in metropolitan areas? Solar farms are not only an eyesore for those left looking at them but they, and the powerlines used to move the power, are going to make fire fighting very difficult. It's not that many years since the Sir Ivan Fire in which there was a lot of aerial assistance. All the projects in the REZ are causing major problems in our small communities; there are divisions forming between friends, neighbours and families which could be avoided!

I am having trouble with this website, once I got logged out, and now I cannot find my draft, the comments box is not large enough to see very much of each sentence, and when I copy and paste into this box, only part became pasted. And I have not been able to locate how to print out either a soft, or hard copy of this submission. Although one window states how the submission will appear, that is entirely dependent on zooming in or out. At least it is better than the federal EPBC site. So I start again.
Comment / Message / Submission
There is considerable community push back to renewable projects. In the US over100 solar projects, of which 75 are in the year to October 2022, and 471 wind have been rejected. Source robertbryce.com.
I object to paying subsidies. If it is so good, let it stand on its own merits.
I ask the proponent to itemise
1. Detail the description and $ amount of each subsidy, and other benefit, both direct and indirect, to be received from the public purse, in a time line.
2. The amount of materials needed to manufacture and construct all parts of this project.
3.The amount of CO2 released in all aspects of creating this project, and compare it with the anticipated CO2 to be saved. with timeline.
4. Detail the change to global carbon dioxide levels and temperature to be achieved by this project both in gross terms and net after 3. above.
5. An calculation of energy in to energy out.
6. Detail how the panels will be recycled and material to be disposed of.

I request the DPE
1. To require a bond or irrevocable third party AAA guarantee for damage, removal rehabilitation, and toxicity to third parties.
2. To ensure that NO SLAVERY or CHILD LABOUR be used in the manufacture of any of its components.
3. Require the proponent to pay the full cost of connection to the existing grid.
4. To require all solar panels be made in Australia.
5. To deny the proponent accreditation to receive any government assistance, preferences or advantages.
6. To require the proponent to publicly provide annual reports for the project, including itemisation of each government support, and where those are indirect, an actuarial calculation of their value to the proponent and cost to the economy, and daily generation and supply.
7. To make the project, and its owner to be non transferable.
8. To ensure electricity is supplied within tight tolerance for frequency and voltage.
9. To impose harsh penalties for non delivery of time slots bid for and won and not delivered.
REJECT THE PROPOSAL.

This submission is to object to the proposed installation of a solar farm (Solar Industrial Complex) in the Tallawang area, The Barney Reefs wind turbines and associated power lines, towers and other works related to their construction.
Some of my objections are as follows:
There is no need for all of this detritus to be covering Australia's scarce arable land. The nation is presently purchasing Nuclear Submarines which will need, like it or not, a nuclear industry. In my opinion If we are in such a mad rush to install solar energy at great cost to the nation, why aren't governments proceeding with Nuclear Power generation.
To argue as the paper supporting these installations does, that Nuclear energy is more expensive, to be generous, is totally misleading. The price of power is presently caused by uncertainty created in the market place by government interference in the market place and large companies wanting to follow the money trail. What most have not yet realised is that the huge subsidies paid to these companies allows them to rent land at enormous ongoing cost to the taxpayer and the only beneficiaries are the companies installing the systems, the landowners who provide the land creating conflict in the communities surrounding the projects and perhaps the Local Council obtains a pittance for the inconvenience and damage caused.
While it is quoted that 3900 jobs will be made available from my experience most of the jobs will go to labour from outside the area with a paltry seven jobs permanent to maintain these eyesores. Providing accommodation for itinerant workers will be difficult and create a boom ,bust situation.
Perhaps one of my biggest objections is that presently it is estimated that 573,000 tourists visit the area every year. I am sure they wont be travelling to see an ugly industrial installation spoiling a lovely landscape such as occurs around the Goulburn and other areas where these developments proliferate.
I note that large batteries are to be installed. I don't know if the public is aware that a 500 mw. battery stores only 0.01 percent of N.S.W's energy consumption and in the first place you need the wind to blow and the sun to shine.
I know from experience with government pushing as distinct from what it does for the mining industry this project will go ahead much to the detriment of the local population and the nation as a whole.
There is only one answer to the energy problem we have created for ourselves and that is the provision of nuclear power and limited solar energy when applicable. this is not only to provide affordable cheaper power but also to protect our domestic consumers, our Industrial base ,and most of all I believe our defence security.
Noel Hicks.

See attached submission

I object to this project as the power is not being used in the area it is generated; it needs to be generated close to where power is needed. These types of developments should be done in urban areas where the power is used, and until the urban people start to generate some power why should it be taking up valuable farm land. The government should be promoting solar on every house in the city. A lot of these solar projects are being built on properties with absentee owners so the visual effect is of no consequence to them. Within a sixty kilometre radius of our house there are numerous renewable projects; this is not acceptable.

It is an offence to the many farming communities who provide for our country to have such valuable farming land fragmented for the benefit of so many living in the cities who consume the most power.
Australia has such large areas of poor quality soils & yet the government planners in their haste for the quick fix are destroying our productive farmlands.

I strongly object to this project. This is another project taking away agricultural land from our communities. This EIS talks about the agricultural class of land, regardless of the class, this land has current and future potential to deliver important economic contributions to our communities. The class of land means the stock carrying capacity is different, but it doesn't mean it does not have agricultural value.

The removal of agricultural land, families and potential for farm leases is taking away the social structure of rural communities that has made them so resilient during all the natural disasters.

The EIS talks about trucking in water (3.4ML per year, again different to the volume detailed in other EIS) to clean the solar panels, again, not very sustainable.

Under decommissioning, the EIS states infrastructure will be removed 'as far as practicable'. This vague statement is not acceptable. When we lodged a pool development application, we couldn't make vague statements like that. It is especially important for this application to be specific due to the significant volume of waste that are being considered.

I am happy to meet and discuss these matters further.

I strongly object to this proposed solar farm.

The EIS references the transmission line as part of the Central-West Orana renewable energy zone, and detailed how the proposed development will connect into transmission line. I strongly question how can this application be considered when the transmission line application has not even been lodged with the department?

It is too early in the development of the REZ transmission line to determine this solar development application. The cumulative impacts of the REZ transmission line have not yet been determined. From an analysis of the recently approved solar farms in NSW it takes at least two hectares of agricultural land to deliver 1 megawatt of power. For the development of this REZ, in excess of 10 gigawatts it will result in significant impacts on many communities and more importantly the NSW economy. Removing that amount of agricultural land will have direct and indirect economic impacts felt well into the future. Without the transmission line being determined, it is too early to appropriately determine the cumulative impact.

When I compare the workforce numbers in the various solar EIS documents they vary considerably. This is very concerning for the communities who have to endure the long lasting impacts of these developments.

The details provided for the accommodation of the 580 people during the peak of construction is inadequate. This construction workforce along with all the other renewable developments workforces will result in unacceptable impacts on housing supply and affordability in our communities. Further, the EIS says the workforce will vary from month to month, such a vague statement will have direct impacts on housing in a communities. This will result in homelessness of residents in our communities, as there isn't the housing supply to accommodate the construction workforce for these developers.

Thank you for listening to my concerns and I welcome further discussion and providing you with local insights.
Sarah Armstrong

I object to the planned proposal