Wattle Creek Solar Farm

This land was given to Sydney University for carrying on agricultural activities and not to be turned into a large scale industrial development. It is a conflict of land use and an inappropriate development.

The project area is 6350 hectares, the solar component is 580 ha and the BESS is 75 ha. What is the foreign owned company doing with the rest of the project area? What is The University of Sydney allowing to happen to Arthursleigh, a property that was bequeathed to them for the benefit of students? Is 6350 ha now an asset on the Malaysian, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, company?

As for grazing sheep under the solar panels, is this in the best interests of the sheep? Now that MLA require all livestock producers to state, during their LPA audit, if stock graze near transmission, solar or wind turbines, when will stock grazed under solar panels be excluded from sale? Do you honestly think that in the beautifully timbered grassy box gum woodlands at Arthursleigh sheep would choose to stand under solar panels on a hot day rather than natural shade? Surely nobody believes that the same stocking numbers can be carried under solar panels compared to the existing natural environment?

How much diesel will be used in the the construction of the project? How much diesel will be used during project operation given substations are backed up by diesel generators? Will the solar project be built by robots? Are any of the components in the solar panels sourced from slave labour? What is the country of origin for the solar panels? Where will the damaged and obsolete solar panels be disposed?

Do the people living along the transport route know that if a solar laden truck crashes there is no clean up protocol? The broken panels are left to the heavy haulage team to remove, no involvement or investigation by the EPA or Transport NSW. No consideration to the contamination of land from broken solar panels. For example, with just one solar project in the Central West we witnessed three B Double roll overs (all laden with solar panels) in a 6 week period.

This project is not in the public interest.

Our energy grid is becoming more fragile and unreliable due to the growth of intermittent and unreliable VRE/IBR, and just as in Spain and Portugal recently, we will have major blackouts. Having to provide reliable back up power means duplication which is part of the reason for excessive electricity costs to consumers and industry.

We do not need more unreliable solar projects in the State. They are a toxic nightmare if a fire gets into them and surrounding land will be contaminated along with the immediate location. This is inequitable to neighbours and also devalues agricultural land.

I own the property which is directly opposite the proposed solar development. Whilst the company has made an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the development, it will still have a significant impact on our lives. It will considerably reduce the value of the property, we will be viewing construction for two years and after that have a very changed landscape of 495,000 solar panels, and we will have significant disruption on Canyonleigh Rd with traffic. The heat and sound created by the running of the site is also a concern.
I am not opposed to renewable energy and I do see a need for solar. I also acknowledge that up the road from our property is a substation with two ports for renewable energy. My objection is with the inconsistencies in the EIS especially in regards to wild life, water, fire plans, road traffic, visual impact and vague planning. Canyonleigh Rd floods quite significantly. There was a fire at the substation a couple of years ago and the fire fighters could not get in due to the flooding. Someone actually got a boat to ferry them across and they used equipment from the sub station. We were informed that the company would be "training up" rural volunteer fire fighters. How can this be plausible when they are actually supposed to be available for fighting fires elsewhere. They are a limited resource.
Daily we see emus and kangaroos wandering down to the river we live on. I can't imagine them feeling safe to wander through a construction zone. Our life as we know it will be altered for ever. The university property is vast. Why would they need to build the solar farm close to the river? It doesn't make ecological sense. We live in a beautiful, peaceful part of NSW. This will be altered forever.
I also have concerns for the cumulative negative impact of the solar farm with the proposed battery farm and any other development that might be considered by other companies.
Before this project is approved, many aspects need to be significantly addressed to provide clarity around numerous vague and seemingly unscientific aspects.

The University of Sydney is pleased to support park Renewables in relation to their development application (Case ID SSD-63344210) for the Wattle Creek Solar Farm, located on the University’s property in regional New South Wales (Arthursleigh, Brayton). Spark Renewables was selected as the University’s preferred partner following a competitive process, and we have since entered into a long-term collaboration to support the development of a hybrid solar and battery energy storage system (BESS) facility at Arthursleigh. This project represents a significant opportunity to advance the University’s sustainability, research, and education objectives. As part of this agreement, the Wattle Creek Solar Farm will not only contribute to the decarbonisation of the electricity grid, but also serve as a platform for high-impact research and innovation. Under the Research and Education Agreement, the University and Spark Renewables will collaborate on a range of solar-focused research initiatives.
Attached is the letter of support from the University with further detail, signed by the Interim Deputy Vice Chancellor Research, The University of Sydney.

I object to the Wattle Creek Solar Farm for the following reasons:

Human Factor - My family bought our property with the express purpose of getting away from the concrete, steel and glass of the city. Now it feels like the corporations and government are hell bent on turning huge swaths of green agricultural land into industrial energy zones all over NSW. The majority of landowners I speak to object to turning RU1 zoned land into ghastly black hills of glass for the greater good of the state. What about the greater good of our region or my neighbours? Many of my neighbours are deeply affected by the prospect of the developments and their mental health is suffering terribly. It is a shame that in this development, that a Canadian Pension Fund (the owners of Spark Renewables) will come before NSW residents who will bear the burden of the 30 year aftermath(the lifetime of the development) of this development. The tragedy is a devastating loss of agricultural land, especially one with significant heritage value such as Arthursleigh.

Loss of Agricultural Land
‘Electricity generating works’ are prohibited in the RU1 zone.

For the greater good.
“The Project would provide long-term, strategic benefits to the State of NSW:”
And what are the strategic benefits for the region? Of the $540 million in capital for the construction phase only 15% will benefit the 3 local LGA’s. Goulburn Mulwaree Council will bear the brunt of the construction activity, affecting roads, road safety, housing and community. Many houses in the area have their own personal solar power and do not rely on the grid.

Crowded Footprint
This proposed development will join two other approved developments within 500m of each other, those being the 2 Gas-Fired Turbine Power Stations yet to be built by Energy Australia. In addition, there is another developer X-Elio who is proposing another BESS within 500m of the development. This makes FIVE potential developments making it an extremely busy area, which will put untold pressure on residents from heavy traffic movements, poor road conditions (unsealed), noise, dust and road safety.
Further, there is already increased heavy vehicle traffic along Brayton Road from the expanded Gunlake Quarry operations.

Visual Impacts
At the moment, when my mother wakes in the morning, she looks out and see’s green agricultural land and eucalypt forest. Now she will have the potential to see undulating black solar glass, countless new roads, countless white shipping containers (transformers), 2 Batteries, 1 Sub-station, transmission towers and lines and 2 Gas Fired power stations with eight 40m smoke stacks. It will look like disgraceful industrial landscape, for the ‘greater good’, of course! Our property looks down onto the development, no amount of screening and landscaping will hide this massive development. It will be a terrible stain on the landscape and will devalue our property in the process.

Heritage
Arthursleigh is large pastoral holding, developed by Hannibal Macarthur. Upper Lachlan Shire received advice by Dr Jennifer Tracey recommending that listing Arthursleigh be listed as a Heritage Item. No developments should be built on land which has significant heritage value.

Transport and road safety
Canyonleigh Road is unsealed and becomes degraded after storms. There is no plan to seal the road which will potentially have 5 developments (Spark Solar,+BESS, Spark BESS, x-Elio BESS, Energy Australia Gas Fired Power Stations 1 and 2) using it.
Brayton Road already has heavy traffic from Gunlake Quarry. There will be too much traffic for multiple developments at once in a small area.

Fire Safety
The NSW Rural Fire Service has stated that the subject site contains, and is adjoining bush fire prone land.
Is the community going the sacrifice it’s volunteer firefighters on five multi-million dollar developments, which are fully insured? An adequate and global fire strategy needs to be developed for this region.

Housing and jobs
The region has a housing crisis.The local community is already employed. That means the 300 workers for construction will come from outside the region. There is not enough housing to accommodate the workers. If the Gas-fired turbine power stations start development, it will put too much strain on the region. Job opportunities drop from 250 during construction to 20 or less during operation. The long term financial community benefit is not consistent.

For the reasons outlined above, I object to this development.

Submission –Wattle Creek Solar Farm (SSD-63344210)
I am one of the occupiers of dwelling R271, a little more than two kilometres south-west of the proposed solar array. Because of this proximity my family would experience the project’s impacts every day—visually, acoustically and environmentally. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its technical appendices, I object to the proposal in its current form and request that consent be refused or fundamentally redesigned.
Grounds for objection
Biodiversity
Section 6.5.6 of the EIS states the development will directly clear about 265 hectares of native vegetation—14.6 ha of woodland (including roughly 9 ha of the critically endangered White-box / Yellow-box woodland ecological community) and 250 ha of native grassland—all requiring offset credits. The BDAR also identifies the site as potential foraging habitat for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater, both listed as Critically Endangered. Despite this, the EIS offers no explanation of why the layout could not be modestly revised to avoid or significantly reduce clearing of the intact Box-Gum woodland patch. Instead the proponent relies on distant offsets is incompatible with NSW’s serious-and-irreversible policy settings. Off-site credits cannot replace mature woodland lost on the ground.
Water quality in the Sydney drinking-water catchment
The project drains to the Wollondilly sub-catchment. The Neutral-or-Beneficial-Effect (NorBE) model currently fails the total-nitrogen benchmark and the proponent proposes to “refine the model later.” Approving the project before it can pass NorBE contradicts catchment protection policy.
Visual amenity and rural character
(Visual Impact Report, Figures 8–15) show the array occupying more than half the horizon (roughly 150 degrees of 360) from several viewpoints around R271, yet the EIS rates the effect on our residence as “Low”. Describing a vista where more than a third of the horizon is industrial infrastructure as ‘low-impact’ gaslights the reality of nearby residents. Earlier community comments describing a severe loss of rural outlook appear to have been discounted, and cumulative effects with the approved gas plant are not assessed. The proponent has promised to reduce the layout footprint in areas visible to our residence, however images from the EIS contradict promises to reduce visual impact, and the proponent has not responded to questioning regarding this matter.
Heat-island effects
International field studies indicate large photovoltaic arrays can raise near-surface night-time temperatures by one to three degrees within a few hundred metres. The EIS contains no micro-climate modelling and proposes no mitigation, despite the array covering more than 500 hectares.
Traffic, dust and road safety
The Traffic Assessment forecasts up to 330 heavy-vehicle movements per day at the construction peak- an eight-fold increase on present volumes- yet all of that haulage is expected to funnel onto Canyonleigh Road, an unsealed, flood prone, dirt road which already fails under local traffic. Shoulders routinely shear off after rain, leaving trenches. A friend recently swerved to avoid a pot hole and ended up crashing into a crumbled shoulder before having to be towed out. A sink-hole opened outside our property last year and council crews are forever grading the surface back to a passable state. Brayton and Ambrose Roads, though sealed, are continually damaged by quarry haulage and develop deep, dangerous potholes on the descent to the Hume Highway. The EIS offers no binding commitment that the proponent will upgrade and fund these roads before haulage begins. The traffic assessment relies on a single mid-week 12 hr traffic count and offers only light resurfacing. No widening, sealing or shoulder reinforming is guaranteed before haulage begins. There also no provision for cyclist or pedestrian refuges despite many of us in the local community, cycling, running or walking along the road. In short, the application transfers a dramatic escalation of heavy traffic onto a sub-standard rural road network that is already hazardous in wet conditions and heavily used by wildlife.
Bush-fire hazard and emergency access
The co-located 100 MW battery is assigned only 40 kilolitres of fire-water- far below volumes recommended by Fire & Rescue NSW for lithium-ion incidents in rural areas. The Bush-fire Assessment maps much of the footprint as “Category 1 vegetation,’ yet it retains only very few flood-prone access routes. In 2018 when Canyonleigh Road was flooded under there was a fire at the TransGrid Marulan Substation. Rural Fire Service crews could not reach a fire using any access road and only managed their way to the site because a local resident ferried them by boat. The volunteer fire service is staffed and equipped to defend homes and pasture and should no be burdened with the responsibility for multi-megawatt industrial fires. Locating thousands of solar modules and inverter stations in a high-fuel landscape without dual all-weather access routes or an independent water supply raises unacceptable fire risk.
Operational noise
The Noise Assessment predicts continuous operational noise of 28 dB LAeq(15 min) at R271—below guideline limits but above the 24–26 dB night background measured locally. Tonal inverter and transformer noise carries farther than broadband sound, and cumulative noise from the approved Marulan gas plant has not been modelled.
Social equity and property value
Our household, like many neighbours, shoulder visual, dust and noise burdens. The Social Impact Assessment notes concern about property devaluation but offers no analysis or mitigation. Peer-reviewed studies show 5–10 % price reductions within three kilometres of large energy projects.
Requested conditions (if approval is contemplated)
1. Demonstrates NorBE compliance for all pollutants
2. Redesigns the layout to avoid Box-Gum woodland and include full Swift Parrot / Regent Honeyeater surveys and modelling cumulative impacts.
3. Impose a 30 dB LAeq(15 min) night-time noise cap with real-time monitoring and automatic shutdown triggers.
4. Upgrade and seal critical sections of Canyonleigh Road, install traffic-calming measures and pedestrian / cyclist refuges before bulk haulage begins.
5. Require a visual-screening bond of dense native planting along southern and western array edges must reach maturity prior to commissioning.
6. Establish a Property Impact Fund or voluntary acquisition scheme for dwellings within three kilometres.
7. Secure and retire all biodiversity offset credits before any clearing
8. Provides a FRNSW- endorsed battery-fire water reserve of at least 150 kilolitres and commission an independent bush-fire study endorsed by the RFS, ensuring dual-access evacuation.
9. Form an Independent Community Liaison Committee with decision-making rights over the Community Benefit Sharing Program.
Conclusion
Although branded renewable, the Wattle Creek Solar Farm would impose disproportionate environmental, safety and financial burdens on nearby residents, threaten the Sydney drinking-water catchment and erode critically endangered woodland. Given the unresolved biodiversity loss, NorBE failure, understated visual and noise effects, inadequate road mitigation and fire-water provision, the Wattle Creek Solar Farm in its current form is not in the public interest and should be refused or fundamentally redesigned.

This statement summarizes my formal objection (attached with my submission as a PDF) to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wattle Creek Solar Farm (SSD-63344210). My full, detailed submission provides extensive evidence and analysis, and I urge the Department to review it thoroughly to understand why the EIS, in its current form, is not fit for purpose and why the project, as presented, should be refused.

The core of my objection is that the EIS is fundamentally flawed and fails to provide the necessary assurance that this major industrial development can be constructed and operated safely or with acceptable environmental and community impact. It is characterized by a systemic pattern of downplaying significant risks, deferring critical planning, design, and mitigation details to post-approval stages, presenting conclusions that are contradicted by the proponent's own data, and proposing solutions that are demonstrably inadequate or speculative for the scale of the identified problems. Crucially, the EIS frequently fails to meet the explicit Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) set for this project.

Key concerns detailed in my full submission include:

Unacceptable Threat to Public Safety: Grave concerns exist regarding the 100MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) located in a high bushfire risk area. The EIS documents a grossly inconsistent and likely indefensibly insufficient firefighting water supply—with figures varying between 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 litres across key safety documents. These lower figures are orders of magnitude below expert FRNSW guidance for a BESS of this scale. Furthermore, a credible, resourced emergency management strategy is unproven and deferred, and the EIS fails to adequately model or assess off-site consequences like toxic gas plumes from a BESS fire, a critical omission for hazard assessment under the SEARs.

Failure to Meet Environmental Standards & Address Impacts: The project’s own assessment documents a failure to meet mandatory Neutral or Beneficial Effect (NorBE) water quality criteria for Total Nitrogen loads and concentrations in the Sydney drinking water catchment, with the proposed solution deferred despite significant modelling uncertainties and mitigation feasibility concerns. The project will also clear 3.30 ha of critically endangered Box Gum Woodland without a sufficiently justified Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) assessment as mandated by SEARs. The EIS also completely omits any assessment of localized "Heat Island" effects from the extensive 518ha solar array, including within its own Agricultural Impact Assessment.

Fundamentally Flawed Key Assessments:

Traffic: The Traffic and Transport Assessment understates impacts on Canyonleigh Road, deferring crucial resurfacing designs despite acknowledging the road’s inadequacy and a staggering 843.3% cumulative daily traffic increase forecasted with the proponent's adjacent BESS project.

Noise: The Noise Assessment relies on assumed default background noise levels instead of SEARs-required site-specific measurements and uses unverified "library data" for key equipment, likely underestimating true noise impacts on residents.

Agriculture: Impacts on 580ha of agricultural land are downplayed by relying on merely "considered" and speculative agrisolar trials, rather than committed mitigation. Acknowledged "High" risks like property devaluation lack concrete or equitable mitigation strategies.

Inadequate Social Impact Assessment & Mitigation: The proponent's own Social Impact Assessment acknowledges very low community acceptance and trust. Serious community concerns regarding property devaluation are met primarily with the offer of private "Neighbour Benefit Sharing Deeds" which appear designed to contractually silence dissent and limit landowner recourse rather than genuinely mitigate impacts or share benefits. Key social mitigation plans are deferred post-approval.

Improper Assessment of Cumulative Impacts via Project Splitting: The EIS fails to adequately assess the true, combined environmental and safety risks of the entire Wattle Creek Energy Hub, which includes this solar farm and a separate application for a co-located 350MW BESS. The proponent's own "Cumulative Impact Scoping Summary" (Appendix 18) identifies "HIGH" potential for substantial cumulative impacts across nearly all assessment categories from this co-located BESS. Relying on merely "qualitative" assessment for these significant combined impacts is insufficient and fails the SEARs' requirement for a robust cumulative impact assessment.

Due to these systemic and widespread deficiencies, detailed extensively in my formal submission (attached), the EIS is demonstrably inadequate and does not provide the basis for an informed decision that ensures community safety or environmental protection.

Therefore, I strongly urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse consent for the Wattle Creek Solar Farm (SSD-63344210). Should the Department, against this advice, consider the project further, a comprehensively revised and integrated EIS is mandatory. This revised EIS must address all deficiencies highlighted and explicitly demonstrate how each SEAR has been met, rather than deferring critical issues to post-approval.

Contamination and Waste Management are issues that are being swept under the carpet. It’s time government stop putting renewable targets ahead of the nation’s public health and food security. PLease see attachment for further details:

Save Our Surroundings objects to this proposed project as it poses so many risks to the local human and animal populations. Risks still include grass/bush fires, noise, soil and water contamination, very high disposal costs, unclear responsibility for end-of-life cleanup, lack of economic viable recycling of such huge volumes of toxic components, and the risk of obsolescence as much better technologies, such as small nuclear reactors become available over the next few years.

As a committed advocate for sustainable energy and regional development, I fully support the Wattle Creek Solar Farm project. This initiative represents a critical step toward a cleaner, more resilient energy future for our community and beyond.

The project will not only contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions but will also drive local economic growth by creating jobs during construction and operation. Furthermore, it supports Australia’s transition to renewable energy while helping to secure a reliable, affordable power supply.

I believe the Wattle Creek Solar Farm is a responsible and forward-thinking development that aligns with our environmental values and long-term regional interests. I strongly endorse this project and look forward to seeing the positive impact it will have for generations to come.

I strongly support the development of the Wattle Creek Energy Hub due to its potential to deliver significant environmental, economic, and community benefits. The project will contribute to Australia’s clean energy transition by generating renewable electricity and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, helping to meet national and state emissions reduction targets. This is a forward-looking project that aligns with the urgent need for sustainable infrastructure and a resilient energy system. I encourage its approval and timely development.

Great to see a large scale solar site so close to Sydney. Projects like this will lead to significant avoidance of carbon emissions. It just makes sense to build more renewable projects close to where the energy will be used.

I support the construction of the Wattle Creek Solar Farm. I believe it will provide the necessary infrastructure for the Australian transition to renewable energy, stimulate employment in the local area, and provide an ongoing benefit to the community. I also believe the project will boost research and development for renewable energy through The University of Sydney's research association.

This is perfect farm land, why can we not look into options for renewable energy that don’t get destroyed with hail, need replacing, are not recyclable themselves, are not made in Australia ??? And why can these “solar farms” instead run between train tracks, cover car parks, and cover cycle lanes and foot paths instead in urban areas. Don’t destroy beautiful arable land, and biodiverse areas of beauty.

I don't care if the project goes ahead as long as they tar canyonleigh Rd from start to finish and look after it better than gunlake looks after the road

There is already alot of noise and the roads already struggling to support the heavy vehicle also bus stop etc along brayton Rd which would be unsafe

This area is already burdened by other large scale projects that are already causing major problems for the community. They don’t need another one! Considering as there is already two major solar projects being proposed that would cover 15 square kilometres of farm land with a million panels, battery storage etc. if they were to go ahead. It would be a horrible shame to take our beautiful landscape and turn it into a sea of black panels and ruin the environment with chemicals being leached into the land and the water ways, not to mention the toxic fumes from the smoke when there ends up being a fire on site. We’ve seen the videos and we know of people who have had to be evacuated because of said toxic smoke.
It blows me away to witness the recklessness and lies of the companies involved in these projects. They are not about community or the environment, they are purely in it for the government money. Take the government money away and these proposals go away. We’ve seen these businesses take the money, build the projects (or sell them off before the project event begins) and then try to sell them off to some dodgy Chinese company. It’s happening right now!! And what about money up front for decommissioning and regeneration after the short life of the project?? They say 30 years but firstly the panels don’t last half that time and no company will last that long when there’s no money in renewables because the sun doesn’t shine at night and the B.O.M estimates that there is only 70-80 days of full sun in this region. Gas and coal fired electricity is needed most of the time. And what happens to the panels when they are done with???? There is no capacity for them here when they are of no use.
These projects are dead. They will end up being a horrific nightmare, not for you and not the company who installs them and then leaves them behind, but for these communities.
I say I 100% object to this proposal and any other one that is proposed on land that will cause harm to the environment, the wildlife and the communities.

I support the Wattle Creek Solar Farm and the anticipated benefits to the wider community and electricity network.