I am totally opposed to this ridiculous waste of resources for the following reasons:
Having read the proposal from Jinko, and the press release from Murray Watt, I wish to make the following comments:
- the 60,000 homes that would be powered by this monstrosity should ALL have solar panels on their roof. Why is the govt subsidizing these people who chose to not install solar panels??
- will the 234,000 solar panels used in its construction be made in Australia? We all know the answer to that, dont we?! No, they will be made in China and purchased from a company that Jinko has a sweet heart deaql with. NO benefit to local manufacturing!
- the 250 jobs that will supposedly be created will all be taken by over seas based (same country as the owners) workers who will come in on "work visas" and send their pay back home, and leave as soon as the project is completed. Thats how these people operate. Its all "in house" again, WITH NO BENEFIT TO AUSTRALIA.
- as for the five long term local jobs supposedly created, if the land was left to agricultural production as it is now, this would create al LOT MORE THAN FIVE JOBS LOCALLY, BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY.
- NOWHERE in the submission is an EOL Plan (End Of Life) for the project.
What will happen to the 234,000 solar panels when the project is finally scrapped (or gets trashed by the next hailstorm, or bushfire)? No exit plan at all. And no land remediation plan. Unbelievably poor project design by the Proponents and unbelievably poor due diligence by any Govt Dept that approves it.
- Have a good look at the supposed "project benefits" - very little substantiation, if any, of these and no Cost/Benefit Analysis.
- No offer to post an environmental BOND up front, that would be used to compensate any damage that this massive waste of money will create, such as water, soil or airborne pollution, or in the event the organization goes into liquidation.
- and finally, what compensation are you proposing to pay to the surrounding agricultural land owners for the serious and substantial reduction in the value of their land that this planning disaster will precipitate? If this project goes ahead, you will need to have the gap between the land values pre and post development paid to all affected adjacent land owners, UP FRONT, not some pathetic and insulting token offer of $1000 in electricity for 30 years. Quite frankly, THAT IS AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE OWNERS OF ALL NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES.
In summary, Federal Minister Murray Watt, and NSW State Planning Minister Paul Scully, you two are both being played, and taken for a ride.
The Garoo Solar Farm has the potential to be a financial, environmental and most importantly for you two, political disaster.
My qualifications for this assessment?
I am an Agricultural Economist who has spent the last 30 years fixing poorly thought through business decisions. And this proposal has all of the hallmarks of being one of these.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Anthony G Gapes
B Ag Econ, MBA

I support the project because Australia needs more energy supply, and increasing renewable energy generation and storage should help improve the overall balance of the electricity system over time. From an everyday point of view, households and businesses are already under pressure from living and operating costs, so investment in new energy infrastructure is important. While one project on its own will not solve everything, developments like this can still contribute to a more stable and affordable power system in the long term.

As someone working in the IT industry, I see reliable and affordable electricity as becoming more and more important for Australia’s future. Growth in areas like digital infrastructure, data centres, cloud services and AI will depend on having enough power supply to support them. For that reason, I think renewable energy and battery storage projects are important not only from an environmental point of view, but also for the future of Australian industry, innovation and energy security. In my view, projects like this can play a meaningful role in supporting both local development and the country’s long-term economic needs.

By Australian standards, Sydney City Council is a black hole when it comes to public toilets. A major development precinct needs to incorporate toilets to fix this. With water bubblers too. They're also needed

If the applicant wishes to remove all parking, it previously was providing 15 spaces, it is my view that we should let them do so.

Please see attached revised document that does not contain any of my personal details. Please destroy my earlier submission lodged earlier today as I accidentally uploaded a copy containing my personal details.