Why are any so-called renewable energy projects like Wattle Creek Solar approved when it is well known that there is no compulsory decommissioning legislation for any of these projects? Seemingly the reason the original Crookwell wind turbine development still stands as the agreement between the original proponent Pacific Power is null and void with the Upper Lachlan Shire Council the then approving authority as the project was on sold by Pacific Power years ago thus the decommissioning agreement has fallen through?
This lack of compulsory decommissioning legislation will soon "come back to bite" both host landholders and approving authorities.

NREN opposes the Wattle Creek Solar project.

Please find attached.

We object to this planned industrial solar project.

There will be major inconveniences to residents during the lengthy construction process. The increased traffic will negatively impact residents and local road users, increasing travel times to locals and travellers. The construction noise is also a major concern to residents near to the site – construction traffic will dramatically increase, particularly on the local roads.

Solar panels are NOT environmentally friendly – made with a toxic mix of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium, and heavy earth materials. Solar panels deteriorate, resulting in lost efficiency, total failure or even fire. They get damaged by hail, wind and fire and potentially leach their toxic chemicals into the soil and water courses. Major damage does happen – such as with the Beryl Solar plant in 2020 with impacts from heavy rain, a lightning strike, inverter damage and other failures. The contamination risks to the land and through the water courses will not be tolerated by the local community.

PV solar systems are also prone to fires from panel and electrical equipment failures causing risk to nearby farms, native bush and the community, as accessing the fires on/near a solar site is difficult and limited for safety reasons. Gunnedah Rural Fire Service has confirmed that firefighters can only fight fires in a solar plant from the perimeter due to dangerous high voltages and the possibility of toxic gases. In August 2022 a small grass fire near Beryl solar plant required a dozen emergency vehicles and three water-bombing helicopters to protect the solar plant and nearby farm. A small fire of this size could potentially be put out by easily and quickly by minimal fire crew, yet this small fire took four hours and multiple crew to bring the situation under control.

Huge solar plants are not visually appealing and will impact near and not-so-near neighbours. As well as potentially impacting the value of neighbouring properties, the natural beauty will be impacted. Placing solar panels over scenic farmland will likely deter tourists visiting as the once productive farming land will be a reflective sea of solar panels.

Apart from removing land from productive farming for up to 35 years there is the likely long-term damage to the soil. The long term impact to the soil (from compaction and potentially leaching of toxic chemicals into the soil) could ruin its ability to be productive farmland in the future.

A Malaysian based developer wants to build this solar development for the benefit of the environment and the residents of NSW, really? Does anyone really believe this will project will power 55,000 households? Maybe it will but only if the 55,000 homes want electricity for a period equivalent to 2 days out of 7.

And apparently 290,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be offset, how is this? Trees are being cleared not just in the project area (which is a whopping 6350 ha (15,691 acres) but also the entire transport and transmission route. Pretty sure the calculation for the carbon dioxide emissions reduction is selective in terms of inputs. For example the mining of the materials, the transport of those raw materials, the production of the solar panels and then the transport to Australia, then transport to site is not included. What about the diesel generators used during construction and during operation? What about the diesel used by earthmoving and land clearing contractors, plus the diesel used by ships and trucks. At just one solar project in the Central West of NSW one contractor used 9000 litres of diesel each week during construction, there were 15 contractors on site. Pretty sure emissions reduction calculation excludes diesel use and removal of trees.

This project is contributing to environmental destruction and undoubtedly contributing to the extinction of protected, vulnerable, and threatened species of flora and fauna that get in the way of this foreign developer.

This project is not in the public interest.

How is this good for NSW residents, electricity consumers and taxpayers?

No solar at night, no solar on rainy or cloudy days, project will need to be rebuilt in less than 15 years, potential for heat island impact, negative for wildlife, shocking that a foreign owned company has the lease on over 6000 ha of this property, toxic waste, traffic impacts for all road users between port and the project, more quarrying for materials for roads and infrastructure, increased cement production, impact on local ground water supplies given the amount of water required for dust suppression. How much diesel will be required each week during construction? How much each week during operation? How many diesel generators will remain on site after construction? Who is putting out the bushfires in this project area? Is this project sharing the same 40,000 litre water tank for fire fighting as the BESS project?

Does USYD know they are totally responsible for the decommissioning and rehabilitation of this land at the projects (solar and BESS) end of life?

The Wattle Creek Solar Installation is a proposed large-scale renewable energy project located in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales, on the Arthursleigh property, approximately 12 km northeast of Marulan, spanning the Upper Lachlan Shire and Goulburn Mulwaree LGAs. The land is owned by the University of Sydney, with the project being developed by Spark Renewables.
While the project is framed as clean energy infrastructure, it raises serious environmental concerns that are being dangerously overlooked—particularly the issue of microplastics, which are now recognised as a significant pollutant entering our soils, waterways, and food systems.
Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5mm. They come from the breakdown of larger plastic materials like packaging, synthetic fibres, and construction composites. With industrial-scale installations like Wattle Creek—featuring hundreds of thousands of PV modules, kilometers of cabling, synthetic sheeting, and transport activity—microplastic particles will inevitably be released over time through wear, weathering, and mechanical damage.
Microplastics: How They Harm us
These particles settle into soil and dust, get washed into local water catchments, and are taken up by plants or consumed by livestock. They enter the food chain via contaminated crops, water, and animals—and ultimately, end up in our bodies.
Unlike in oceans, where clean-up technology is developing (e.g., Ocean Integrity), there is currently no effective way to remove microplastics from groundwater or soil.
Prevention must be the goal.
Rural Australia at Risk
Wattle Creek is located in a productive agricultural region, and projects like this risk covering prime farmland with industrial materials that shed particles into the environment for decades. Once in the soil and water, microplastics cannot be extracted, and their impact on soil health, crop quality, and animal health remains uncertain but alarming.
f these industrial-scale energy installations continue to spread unchecked across food-producing land in all states, we face the systematic degradation of rural Australia—both environmentally and economically.
Key Questions
What mitigation is being put in place at Wattle Creek to limit the release of microplastics from solar panels, cables, and associated infrastructure?
Have these long-term environmental risks been formally assessed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Why aren’t renewable energy companies—which now function as industrial-scale land users—held to the same pollution accountability as mining or manufacturing?
Australia banned plastic microbeads in 2012 due to the environmental & human risk.

This project is a waste of taxpayers and electricity consumers money. This project will be lucky to supply power for the equivalent of 2 days our 7 given no energy production when the sun goes down and cloudy/rainy days. The project life span is likely less than 15 years given that weather damage will reduce efficiency of panels, then the whole project has to be built again! Meanwhile all waste is toxic and unrecyclable on the scale that NSW is building. This is not saving the planet, this is destroying the planet. The amount of mining, the use of slave and child labour, the intermittent nature of solar energy and the vast amount of transport and mining required will ensure we are poorer financially and environmentally.

Why is the NSW Government allowing a foreign owned developer to lease 6000 plus ha of NSW agricultural land for this project?

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.