I want to be clear that I support Solar. I have solar panels at my own home. So, it is not the principle that I object to, although I will say that the proponents of solar do not address the issues of continuous energy availability, because solar is obviously not.

That aside, my objections to the Gundary Solar Farm are firstly that the individuals in the affected area, of which I am not one, are not being compensated for their actual financial loss through property values declining as a result of even the proposal of the project. I have attended a session in Goulburn speaking to the company's' representatives and they seem to have had prepared responses to this issue which did not make sense. The fact is that property values have declined for people. This fact can be established fairly simply but getting all, or a number, of the local real estate agents to submit information on this. Individuals have done this for their own properties and the proposers of the solar farm just keep ignoring them. It is not right that a set of individuals should have to pay such a significant, to them, price for this project. Compensate them properly and a degree of the opposition will subside.

Next, the way that the company have assessed the visual impact it may be an appropriate methodology to use for a city or suburban home but when you live in an area like Gundary the view from the windows of your home are very much a secondary consideration to the view from outside. You buy property in areas like this for what is on the outside. So, the conclusions made about the amount of visual impact where very much underestimated. And as Goulburn extends out towards that direction, and there are already proposals in the works to open new estates there, these people will also have the horrible view of the solar farm from closer and closer. It will affect the ability to grow Goulburn in that direction, which is inside our 10 km area where this sort of facility should not exist.

It also seems that the issues related to the potential for fire management is very much under-played. From the SEPP to the EIS the size of sub-station has doubled from 3 hectares to 6 with the battery increasing in size to 4.5 hectares. All in an area in the middle of houses on Windellama Road, and information for which they did not disclose or have to answer to face to face. The issue of hazardous events occurring from the lithium-ion batteries and transformers was not acknowledged as an important risk. I believe that they have underestimated the strength of the winds in this area and the speed at which fire can spread. Fires have spread as fast as 7.5 km in 10 minutes in this very area. When assessing the impact of this the current and future inhabitants of our city, in the area between where houses are at present right through to where the city is planned to grow, which is right up to the edge of the solar farm, should all be protected but they have been ignored. The second road of proposed access to the site is not suitable in its current state and there appears to be no acknowledgement of this nor funding to make the changes required. The safety of the residents within several kms of the solar farm, and that of the fire fighters required to respond needs a higher priority, or maybe I should say needs priority because it seems to have been brushed aside.

Renewable energy companies have some bad habits that we need to prepare for. Such as the decommissioning of the site. It would be wise to set up a trust fund at the start, and add to it each year, to ensure that the necessary remediations will be funded when the time comes. Protections like this should also be a mandatory inclusion for any new owner of the solar farm - with selling being a loophole where commitments made to the community are erased. The commitments should go with the ownership, whomever that is. And we should have a pool of money at least started in the case where a company closes down.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
Whilst I am making this submission in objection to the project, I hope that the issues can be addressed and greater support for the project obtained.

I am a Farmer whose property is adjacent to Crookwell 3 Wind Farm.

I am in favour of the Gundary Solar Farm, provided that Lightsource BP acknowledges local community disruption and commits to local community benefits.

My own experience with the Crookwell 3 wind farm has been one of ongoing disruption and destruction of natural wind breaks on the border of our property.

I can understand the neighbours of the planned Gundary Solar Farm concerns.

Lightsource BP need to address and compensate neighbours for disruption and the impact of the Solar Farm on their property values etc.

The Gundary solar farm is a needed renewable energy source to help our nation address climate change.
Solar farms have proven to coexist with sheep grazing and other agricultural farms, contrary to the belief of those who oppose renewable energy solutions.
Renewable energy farms provide a guaranteed source of income to farmers, allowing them to buffer the impacts of climate change and drought.

The project should be allowed to proceed so long as it attains a social license to do so by returning value to our Goulburn Community.

There are a number of excellent community benefit models already existing in NSW: Winterbourne wind farm; Pottinger Energy Park; and even our near by Collector Windfarm all contribute significant funds annually to the local communities, both during the construction stage and for each year of operation.

Lightsource BP have not committed to such an undertaking, and so although I am very much in favour of the proposed solar farm, my support is conditional on Lightsource BP stepping up to their obligations to compensate our community and near neighbours.

The Crookwell 3 windfarm, which is to be commissioned on December 12 2024, is managed by a Spanish company, Global Power Group (GPG).
GPG mostly used Spanish staff to manage their construction, with only minor works offered to locals.

The Gundary solar farm offers great possibilities for our Goulburn area, including hiring and training local businesses, contributing to our TAFE development, investing in local community projects, but none of these elements are listed in Lightsource BP’s Environment Impact Statement.
We don’t want another multinational rough riding over our local community for their own capital gain.
We want a solar farm developer who will partner with our Goulburn community to enrich our community across business, education and social areas.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ian Anderson
Farmer
283 Annies Lane
Woodhouselee, NSW 2580

TOXIC POLLUTION & NO POWER will be the result of this destructive, industrialised rubbish - especially with heavy metals & forever chemicals—posing long-term risks of soil and water contamination, poisoning our ecosystems, wildlife, and future generations.

I support this project , please see my PDF attachment

LSBP EIS – November 2024

MENTAL HEALTH OF NEIGHBOURING AND IMPACTED LANDOWNERS.

LSBP DEFINITELY HAS NO SOCIAL LICENCE TO BUILD THIS INSTALLATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GUNDARY PLAINS AMONGST SO MANY LIFE STYLE BLOCKS AND FARMS AND FOR THIS REASON, AMONGST MANY, THEIR APPLICATION MUST BE REJECTED.

Our current landscape in which the families impacted by the proposed Gundary solar factory live comprises undulating hills and/or a valley depending on where we live.

Until we became aware of the proposed 702 hectares (1650 acres), 660,000 panel solar factory at Gundary we lived quietly, asking nothing of anybody and expecting to live here until we either died or moved into town. We all regularly contribute to Goulburn’s economy as it is our main centre. Most of the blocks are lifestyle blocks in addition to a couple of large farms one of which has approval for sub-division into 20 blocks.

Since being made aware of the proposal our lives have been turned completely upside down. The situation has caused unbelievable stress and anxiety to all our families. Instead of thinking normal everyday thoughts our thinking has become saturated with the impact the solar factory is going to have on us visually, financially and health wise. This has had a serious impact on our mental health. We go to bed and lie awake thinking of it, we wake up in the night and our thoughts immediately jump to how we are going to cope with watching the beautiful Plains being ripped up by bulldozers and excavators, and the first thing we think of when we pull up the blinds is the fact that the extensive view we can now see may be gone in two years time replaced by 660,000 glass and metal panels and 164 individual dirty looking batteries.

We struggle to cope with the fact that our futures have been destroyed by a foreign company, British Petroleum (LSBP), which obviously had no idea as to the number of people affected by the proposal and now wont back out. We attach an email from LSBP dated 25.8.23, almost 18 months after the proposal was made public in which they admit that they still did not know how many properties would be highly impacted.

In addition to this is the fact that our current and future financial security has been ripped from us as the value of our homes has plummeted or the home has become unsaleable.

LSBP has lied to the affected land owners from the beginning in relation to their supposed concern for the extreme mental health issues being experienced by many of the badly affected landowners. BP is well aware that a number of land owners have been suicidal. We have an email from Umwelt, BP’s consultant dated 6.5.22 acknowledging this which states:
“Thanks for letting me know about this. The discussion around mental health and suicide has come up in a few conversations so far and is absolutely something I am taking seriously, will reflect seriously in the SIA and am discussing genuinely with Lightsource bp. Similarly, impacts on properly values is something that will be part of the SIA report.”“ (The email has not been attached as it goes on to mention people’s name in relation to another matter.)

LSBP’s strategy in the EIS to address suicidal tendencies and continuing crippling anxiety is completely inadequate i.e. “Lightsource bp will collaborate with other local developers to minimise where possible cumulative social impacts associated with renewable energy development in the area and will continue to engage with local landowners and residents regarding Project implementation and information provision. (What does that mean and how would that help??) The Project will share and connect people to local services to support mental health.” Why haven’t they “shared and connected” prior to this? We have been asking for help for over 2.5 years and the only response we received was a list of organisations such as Beyond Blue. At no time has LSBP offered psychological counselling to us although they have frequently been made aware of the issue including a letter to their CEO Adam Pegg who couldn’t be bothered to reply. In a day and age when we are all supposed to be asking each other whether we are “OK” LSBP couldn’t even answer letters from impacted landowners about the issue. And NO we are not OK!.

My husband and I were told by the person concerned at one stage that that person had spent the previous week planning to kill themselves. For various reasons they didn’t do it. Hearing this was like being punched in the stomach. The family moved because of the unbearable impact of the proposal of their family and suffered a 36% loss on the sale of their property. They would have had a 218 degree view of the solar panels rising from 630m on the Gundary Creek up to 713 metres on the hill in front of them. No landscaping would hide this.

The Gundary Plains has to be one of the most beautiful rural landscape areas in NSW and every single one of us knows their land back to front and inside out and looks after it and the animals, insects, reptiles and birds on it. The animals here are so at home with the residents that one of the affected families had Wedge-Tailed Eagles nesting in their pine trees near the house for two years. We have been told by the local Council that this is very unusual.

The only thing that keeps many of us going is the fact that we have each other. The landowners group is made up of honest, good, thoughtful people who look out for each other and who would never impose something like this on their neighbours nor expect any one else to have to live next to or near it.

It is interesting that the Sydney banker (who has never lived in Goulburn) who is leasing his land to LSBP for the Gundary solar factory did not feel that he could meet with the people whose lives he is impacting so badly. If the project is approved he will receive millions of dollars for his leased land over 40 years. What will we get for the next 40 years?

PROPERTY DEVALUATION.
The proposal has already affected the value of our properties, some of which have mortgages over them and others that are our superannuation. The family who moved away for mental health reasons lost 36% on their sale which was to brothers who did not want to live there but wanted to use the land for stock. This was in addition to having to shut down their business which they had successfully built up over 10 years.
An older person who is right next door to the proposed sub-station has had their place on the market at the beginning of 2022 and again at the end of 2023. They just want to move to town to be near services. Her place has not sold. When it was first on the market the solar farm was not known about and after it was made public she was told by two potential buyers that they would have made offers but for the solar farm. We have had written valuations from three different real estate agents including a Sydney based agent and they all come up with up to 30% loss in value. One owner has had a valuation which stated a loss of between 30% to 60%. That will be a significant loss for all of us assuming that someone will want to live with solar panels 150m from their bedroom or a 14 acre sub-station opposite their lounge room windows. That is a lot of money that we cannot afford to lose. As has been stated, some of us are paying off mortgages on houses now worth very little and others have lost the future financial security they were relying on as they got older.

And who would want to live with a sub-station, the massive battery and solar panels within 1000m of their house where there are no naturally growing trees which might partially screen the sub-station. Any screen trees planted would not screen the sub-station for many years if at all or probably would not survive as trees on the Gundary Plains are not fast growing due to the acidic soil which the residents are aware of but other groups would not be. And LSBP thinks that watering tube stock for 3 months will ensure a good survival rate!!

COMPENSATION

The compensation that LSBP if prepared to pay to adjoining and very close neighbours is insulting and deceitful. LSBP has publicised the benefits to the community which it hasn’t actually explained but has completely “insulted” the families that will be most impacted by the proposal.

Page 16 of Appendix 18 SIA states:
“The Neighbourhood Benefit Sharing Program aims to ensure that residents living closest to the Project can share in its direct financial benefits. ..”
This is completely untrue. If $5,000 a year for 4 families is the extent of what LSBP can afford from its generation of electricity from this proposal they should pull out now.

Companies such as Engie, the owner of the Plains Renewable Energy Park south of Hay NSW was offering compensation to neighbours of their wind farm within 5, 8 and 10kms of the boundary comprising corresponding construction payment of $15,000, $10,000 and $5000 and an annual operation payment of $15,000 plus $1000 per turbine, $10,000 plus $500 per turbine and $5000 plus $250 per turbine i.e. based on distance to wind turbines.

LSBP has offered the following:
(A) Those families whose houses are within 500m of the boundary to the solar farm land - $5,000 yr for 40 years or $10,000 yr for 20 years. There are approximately 4 of these. It doesn’t matter if your house yard has a boundary with the solar farm you will not receive any compensation if you house is not less than 500m from the boundary.

(B) Those houses up to 1000m to the boundary of the solar land will receive a one off construction benefit of solar panels and a battery and if they already have a solar system they will receive $15,000 as part of the Construction Neighbourhood Benefit Sharing Program.

The visual impact of 660,000, 3m high panels on hills over 700m high is significantly more visually confrontational than individually spread out wind turbines. The visual impact of a 14 acre metal and wir

I am opposed to Gundary solar farm project for a number of reason:
Large scale solar projects such as this one is only a short term solution for a long term renewable power issue. I believe the sight was chosen due to its close access to the grid system, without taking into account the viability of the land, the families, and beautiful area so close to a thriving small community. Solar panels/batteries will eventually wear out and need to be disposed of, creating waste that will have an environmental impact. It is not clear in this submission how/where old solar equipment/batteries will be disposed of, who is responsible to pay for this?
The fire risk and fire management proposal is catastrophically under estimated. The fire risk/management plan is undeniably not adequate to deal with the historical extreme dry weather events that the Gundary Plains experiences, this puts more than just neighbours at risk if a fire was to escape the proposed project area.
Property values to the adjoining project have already been negatively impacted and if the project is approved will continue to have a negative impact.
Even though there is proposal to block as much view of the solar farm from homes and road, it just isn't possible to eliminate the eye sore it will be on the land. Why destroy a beautiful area for short term gains? Please stop this project from advancing, it's in a location which is in the wrong area, there are plenty of other unpopulated land, in sunnier locations than Gundary Plains.

I oppose this project because it is very unlikely that the decommissioning, removal and land rehabilitation will occur due to the exorbitant cost that will be involved. The cost in 20 years or so time will likely exceed today's cost to build the project. Unlike mining companies there is no requirement for this developer to lodge a bond to cover this future cost. Who will ultimately pay? The new owner of the plant, the host landholders, the local ratepayers or the State and/or Federal governments. The project must not be approved unless such a bond is in place.

I oppose this project as it is just one of many that will cumulatively destroy our country life-style and country environment, which will be devastating for decades, including for tourists.

The proposed project is the most environmentally damaging of the alternative electricity generation methods. Not just at the local level but globally too. Wind, solar, BESS and pumped hydro projects require massive amounts of resources resulting in the destruction of wildlife ecosystems and threatened and endangered species. The project should not be approved.

The proposed project will negatively impact our energy and national security. The bulk of the components will be made in China, who is not only the world's increasingly higher greenhouse emissions country but has already used trade bans against Australia. This project will make Australia even more dependent on current and future supply of electricity components. Do not approve the project for the sake of our children and their children.

I object to this project. Until the Proponent can fully articulate how its project can, with a medium term capacity factor over 12 months of under 30%, be relied upon to provide electricity 24/7 in the quantities when needed then this project must not be approved. My property requires electricity to run 24 hours a day for my house and my farm operations. Getting electricity for 7.2 hours a day, or on some days zero hours, from this project or any similar project is just unacceptable and ridiculous. To claim the project will supply electricity for "x" number of households is blatantly false. Stop the green washing. Be honest and tell us your project is based on falsehoods.

Your sincerely
An Unhappy Australian