I would like to begin by acknowledging the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia today. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases, and government policy, all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation
We need to unite and fight these developers and the Australian government for forcing this upon us.
CONFIDENTIAL:
I object because Solar and BESS projects are too damaging to the communities, landscapes, environment and animals. what happens when they catch fire? How will the noise from BESS impact livestock and native wildlife? Not only are they dangerous, they are an absolute eye-sore. Let's put these closer to the cities so all the NIMBYs can marvel at what their vote has given them. Leave our landscapes alone and our government needs to do better.
Noting the Livestock Producer Assurance accreditation application, they recognise and acknowledge that agricultural land WILL BE POISONED by batteries and solar panels. Given this significant fact, these projects should NOT go ahead as they compromise our food security and environmental safety.

I am worried about the fires that Lithium _ion batteries can create. I am also concerned about the proximity to the Township of Manildra. Concerned that this is a Modification instead of going through more rigorous BESS requirements.
Currently these fires i have been informed are not able to be contained with normal fire fighting extinguishers. Concerned that any smoke from fires can be toxic
Thank you

The proposed modification to the approved solar farm represents a major and consequential alteration to the originally exhibited development. A Battery Energy Storage System was never included in the initial public exhibition, documentation, or impact assessments. The public was consulted on a solar farm only, not on a combined solar and large scale battery installation.
The introduction of a Battery Energy Storage System significantly changes the project footprint, operational risks, fire safety requirements, noise profile, and environmental considerations. These are not minor technical adjustments but substantial additions that alter the nature and intensity of the development.
To characterise this as a simple modification is misleading. The original exhibition did not contemplate battery storage infrastructure, nor were the associated impacts placed before the community for review. The addition of such infrastructure fundamentally transforms the proposal.
This level of change clearly warrants a fresh exhibition process. The community must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and respond to the revised proposal in its entirety, as it now differs materially from what was previously approved and publicly exhibited.

This solar farm modification constitutes a substantial and material change to what was originally exhibited to the public. The inclusion of a Battery Energy Storage System was never part of the original exhibition documents, assessments, or community understanding. The footprint, operational characteristics, risk profile, fire management requirements, noise generation, and potential contamination pathways associated with a battery installation are fundamentally different from those of a standalone solar farm.
A Battery Energy Storage System introduces additional infrastructure, altered environmental impacts, and different safety considerations that were not assessed or scrutinised during the initial exhibition period. The community was not given the opportunity to consider or respond to these impacts because they were simply not presented at that time.
Given the scale and nature of this modification, it is not a minor amendment but a significant expansion in both scope and intensity. The addition of a Battery Energy Storage System changes the character of the development and materially alters the environmental and safety assessment framework.



This absolutely and unequivocally warrants the project being placed on a new public exhibition so that the community can properly review, understand, and respond to what is now being proposed.

This is not a proper exhibition. When it id a substantial change a new exhibition is warranted.
This is not being transparent with the population

Contaminated run off during heavy rainfall or firefighting events poses a serious environmental concern, so what happens if containment systems fail under extreme conditions?

The risk of PA contamination entering soil or groundwater through leaks, accidents, or fire events has not been clearly addressed, so who will monitor and remediate impacts over decades?

The potential PFAS risks associated with battery infrastructure and fire suppression systems have not been transparently detailed, so who can guarantee there will never be long term contamination?

Developers appear able to progress and enlarge proposals while residents struggle to keep up with technical documentation, so where is procedural fairness in this process?

No public meeting or community consultation has been held prior to submissions being called, so how can genuine community awareness be claimed?