e-mail change to soils"soilmaster.com
Dreadful EIS that does not comply with SEAR's.
I have reviewed over 200 EIS's over the year's and this does NOT achieve pass grade. Only an "E"

The Merino Solar Farm will bring meaningful investment to the greater Goulburn region while supporting Australia’s Renewable Energy Target and providing reliable, grid-stabilising electricity to the local grid. Goulburn is often reduced to a handful of landmarks, such as the Big Merino and the supermax prison, which can obscure the town’s capacity for growth and innovation. The development of the solar farm is a clear opportunity to shift that narrative. Hosting renewable energy infrastructure would help position Goulburn as a more serious regional town that plays an active role in Australia’s clean energy transition, and not just a place for yuppies to stop and charge their electric vehicles between Sydney to Canberra.

I object most vehemently to the Merino Solar Farm development proposal. This proposed massive development is "planned" for a completely inadequate location. In fact, its location would result in significant conflict with existing residential and commercial properties operating on land surrounding the development while having clearly an adverse impact on scenic quality and landscape character. The construction problems eg. degradation of roads and infrastructure would be detrimental enough but the projects operation will then subject the local residents to abhorrent noise and glare, bushfire risk, loss of agricultural land and decimation of lifestyle. All this, while having a total lack of community benefit.

To Whom it may concern,
I object to the Merino Solar Farm proposal and request that the consent authority refuse the application or, at minimum, require substantial redesign and further assessment. While I acknowledge the importance of renewable energy, this project presents unacceptable local, cumulative and long-term impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the EIS.
1. Understatement of cumulative impacts
The EIS treats cumulative impacts, particularly with the nearby Gundary Solar Farm, as secondary and manageable. This is not credible.
• Two utility-scale solar farms within approximately 1 km will fundamentally change rural landscape character, not merely create “low to moderate” impacts.
• Combined effects on traffic, housing pressure, visual dominance, community division and agricultural land loss are greater than the sum of individual projects.
• The EIS does not adequately consider future solar and transmission developments in the district, despite strong policy signals that more projects will follow.
Cumulative industrialisation of the Gundary and Tirrannaville rural area is occurring by increment, not by transparent regional planning.

2. Visual and landscape impacts are minimised rather than avoided. The claim that all nearby dwellings experience “low visual impact” is questionable:
• The Project covers hundreds of hectares with industrial-scale infrastructure up to 9 m high.
• No mandatory landscaping or screening is proposed, relying instead on setbacks alone.
• Visual simulations and modelling cannot substitute for the permanent loss of open rural vistas and sense of place.
• The assertion that mitigation is “not required” ignores the lived experience of residents.
This approach prioritises developer convenience over genuine landscape protection.

3. Inappropriate location near a regional city growth area
The Project is located within 10 km of Goulburn, a designated regional city expected to grow.
• The EIS underestimates long-term constraints on Goulburn’s southern expansion, scenic quality and rural-residential interface.
• Industrial-scale solar development so close to a regional city contradicts the intent of orderly land-use planning.
• Once established, this infrastructure will effectively sterilise land for alternative future uses.
4. Agricultural land and soil impacts are downplayed
Although the EIS argues the land is low capability:
• The Project will remove large areas of land from flexible agricultural use for at least 35 years.
• This land is highly productive with the capacity to grow high performance pastures and crops including canola, wheat, barley, triticale, faba beans and lucerne. It would be considered some of the highest productive soils on the Southern Tablelands.
• Soil remediation promises are uncertain and rely heavily on future monitoring and compliance. The area is prone to flooding and soil erosion and contamination on site and further down the water catchment is a real risk.
• Grazing under panels does not replace the full agricultural value or adaptability of open farmland.
• Significant noxious weeds including african lovegrass and serrated tussock would prove very difficult to control within the solar panels. This has not been considered.
• The cumulative loss of productive rural land across the district is not meaningfully assessed.
• This represents a long-term erosion of regional agricultural resilience.

5. Traffic, road safety and rural amenity concerns remain unresolved
The Project will introduce heavy construction traffic onto narrow rural roads used by:
• School buses
• Farm machinery
• Local residents
The EIS relies heavily on management plans prepared after approval, rather than enforceable design limits now. This shifts risk onto the community.

6. Bushfire, battery and emergency response risks
While the EIS concludes that risks are “low”:
• The scale of the proposed BESS is unprecedented locally.
• Fire, evacuation and emergency response planning remains conceptual and no consultation with the local RFS has occurred.
• Grass fires have the capacity to grow in size significantly prior to fire crews being able to access and extinguish the fire placing local residents and assets in elevated danger.
• Rural fire response capacity is already stretched and relied heavily on by volunteers.
• Low-probability, high-consequence risks have not been adequately addressed.

7. Community benefit scheme does not offset impacts
The proposed Community Benefit Scheme:
• Lacks clear governance, guaranteed funding levels or enforceability.
• Does not compensate those most directly affected. Council can direct funds from the scheme to other areas away from the affected residence and landholders. For example, the sealing of Painters Lane will not be completed and money used elsewhere.
• Cannot offset permanent changes to landscape, amenity and land use.
• Community funds should not be used to justify inappropriate siting.

This Project places a disproportionate burden on a rural community for benefits that largely accrue elsewhere. The EIS relies on conservative modelling, deferred management plans and narrow impact framing rather than genuine avoidance.
I request that the Department:
1. Refuse the application, or
2. Require a major redesign with:
o Reduced footprint
o Mandatory visual screening
o Stronger cumulative impact assessment
o Clear regional planning justification

I strongly oppose this development. I am a neighbouring home and land-owner to this development. I purchased my land in 2016 and built a new house in 2021 on the land moving in in 2022. I purchased this land having been amazed at the beautiful view from the property which overlooked a field full of canola which was stunning and in turn I made an offer. The house that I chose to build on this land took this amazing view into consideration and has four huge sliding glass doors with easterly facing views to take in the amazing lanscape from the kitchen, dining, lounge, laundry and master bedrooms. If this project goes ahead, the view from my house will be significantly impacted as we look directly towards this solar farm. The afternoon glare off these solar panels would greatly impact us in a negative way. When I built this property, I was not given any indication that this project was in development. If I had known I may not have purchased and chose to build this way. Although the developers may claim that this project has no impact on property values, I would have to strongly disagree as I know personally I would have not paid the same price for the land had I known. I have also been made aware of neighbours that have had difficulty selling their properties (either accepting less or unable to sell) due to this project or the neighbouring Gundary solar farm.
When purchasing this property I had been told that being within a 10km radius of the town, future development may allow for subdivision in this area. I had this in mind when purchasing this property to hopefully be in a position in the future to subdivide and help my children out in an ever so difficult housing crisis that is happening in Australia. I would also like to put a second residence on the property due to my ageing parents and in laws and to boost market value, however all of these plans are dependent upon this project and the problems that it presents.
If this project is approved, I am led to believe that it will be the largest in Australia, therefore the impacts that come with it will be heightened from any previous developments. There is a real risk with fire danger. Living uphill from this development terrifies me as I know that fire travels uphill. Along with any fires that could occur I fear that the lithium batteries if on fire will need to be left to burn out causing toxic fumes to spread to my property for days. Not something I would care to happen with my young family so close. Along with this there is the uncertainty that insurance would not cover the damage caused by such a fire. The noise of this project would also be a concern, the development of this area with trucks and machinery during construction would take many months (12-24) to complete and would ruin the ambient lifestyle we currently enjoy on our property. Once the project is complete, although the developers insist the noise would be minimal, on a quiet night at my property neighbours are easily heard having conversation due to the layout of the land and the way that the noise travels in this area so I am certain that the noise that is generated by the solar panels moving and the batteries would be irritating.
Since living at this property, we have only once had one person approach us about the development. We have had a few letters in the mail about the development, and any other information has been passed on by neighbours that have been keeping up with the developments online. Considering our house is listed in the EIS as having moderate visual impact from this development and an intermediate assessment be carried out, the lack of consultation at my property with me to photograph from my residence is insulting considering the location of my property to The Merino solar farm project. If my property has had such little direct contact, how many others are in the same category and are unaware of the process to object. The process to object is not an easy one and this gives unfair advantage to this big company to undermine the residents some of whom may not be computer literate. With such a short timeframe given to review the huge documents involved with this project how can anyone truly grasp the information given entirely. I must wholeheartedly object to the Merino Solar Farm development as I believe it will greatly and negatively impact on my existence in such close proximity to this project. The lack of consultation with not only my family but also neighbours in the area has put a great strain on the mental health of us all, the worry that our existence here is soon to be changed for the worse and having this company ignore us and our concerns.
Thank you for your consideration in stopping this solar farm from going ahead.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Merino Solar Farm Project.

Goulburn holds a unique and important place in Australia’s identity. As Australia’s First Inland City, it is renowned for its open green spaces, rolling hills, productive agricultural land and rural character. These qualities are not only part of Goulburn’s history, but are central to its present-day identity, liveability and long-term appeal. The proposed Merino Solar Farm threatens to permanently alter this character in a way that cannot be undone.

The large-scale installation of thousands of solar panels across open farmland would fundamentally change the visual and environmental landscape of the area. What is currently a region defined by expansive views, agricultural activity and natural scenery would become an industrialised energy zone. Once these panels are installed, the landscape will never return to its original form. This represents an irreversible loss of the very attributes that make Goulburn distinct from metropolitan areas.

My family owns property that directly adjoins the area proposed for this development, which is my aunt and uncles home. This property was purchased specifically because of its rural outlook, open views and proximity to productive farmland. The expectation at the time of purchase was that the surrounding land would remain agricultural in nature, consistent with zoning, planning controls and the established character of the area. The introduction of a large-scale solar farm immediately adjoining their land breaches that expectation and significantly diminishes the enjoyment, value and purpose of their property.

Beyond the physical impacts, this proposal has caused significant stress and anxiety for my family. The prospect of living next to an industrial-scale development, with associated visual dominance, potential noise, fencing, lighting and ongoing maintenance activity, is deeply distressing. Their home is meant to be a place of peace and security. Instead, this proposal has introduced uncertainty, worry, and a sense of powerlessness over decisions that will permanently affect their life and wellbeing.

While I support renewable energy and the transition to sustainable power sources, the location of such developments must be carefully considered. Not all land is suitable for industrial-scale renewable infrastructure. Agricultural regions like Goulburn should be protected for food production, rural living, and environmental values. Prime rural landscapes should not be treated as expendable simply because they are outside major cities.

There are numerous alternative locations and approaches that would allow solar energy to expand without sacrificing rural landscapes. Solar infrastructure should be prioritised on already-developed or degraded land, including:

Rooftops of residential homes

Commercial and industrial buildings

Warehouses and shopping centres

Car parks and transport hubs

Existing urban and metropolitan areas

Mandating solar on new homes, encouraging retrofitting of existing buildings, and utilising urban spaces such as car parks and large commercial roofs would generate substantial renewable energy without destroying rural views, farmland, or community identity. These options distribute generation more evenly and avoid placing a disproportionate burden on regional communities.

It is unreasonable for rural landowners to bear the visual, emotional and lifestyle impacts of developments that primarily benefit distant populations. Projects of this scale should not be imposed on communities that have deliberately chosen a rural lifestyle and invested their life savings into properties defined by open space and natural surroundings.

Goulburn’s landscape is not an empty canvas for industrial development. It is a living, working environment with historical, cultural and personal significance to the people who live here. Once lost, this character cannot be replaced.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the Merino Solar Farm Project and urge the decision-makers to reject this proposal. Renewable energy development must be balanced with genuine protection of rural landscapes, community wellbeing and agricultural land. Goulburn deserves thoughtful planning that respects its identity as Australia’s First Inland City, rather than development that erodes the very qualities that make it special.

Thank you for considering my submission.

NSW has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, and with several coal-fired power stations set to close over the coming decades, the state needs significant amounts of new renewable generation to keep the lights on and electricity affordable. This project would help meet that need; a 450MW solar farm at the proposed location would generate enough electricity to power Goulburn and surrounds. The Southern Tablelands are well suited to solar generation, with an excellent sunshine resource.

Like any infrastructure project, the solar farm would create many jobs and plenty of opportunities for local businesses to provide services, materials, and accommodation. Once up and running, the facility would employ a number of people on an ongoing basis for operations and maintenance. Hosting landholders would also receive stable lease payments over the project's 30-plus year lifespan, and Goulburn Mulwaree Council would benefit from rates revenue that could support local services and infrastructure for decades. All of this benefits the local economy.

Regarding concerns about the use of the land, solar farms are generally quite compatible with farming - particularly sheep grazing - which can continue between and beneath the panels. Good project design also typically includes native vegetation plantings and biodiversity corridors that can actually improve ecological outcomes compared to open paddocks. Unlike many other forms of development and contrary to popular belief, solar farms are also reversible—at the end of the project's life, the land can be returned to its previous use.

The Goulburn area is technically well suited to a project like this. Beyond the strong solar resource, the region has relatively moderate temperatures and lower humidity, both of which help solar panels perform efficiently. Grid connection should be straightforward given the proximity to existing transmission infrastructure, and there is suitable cleared land available without significant competing land-use pressures.

We would encourage the proponent to put in place strong community benefit-sharing arrangements, which have become increasingly common for projects of this scale. These might include a community benefit fund, commitments to local hiring and procurement, or even opportunities for local residents to invest in the project. Done well, these arrangements ensure that the people living closest to renewable energy projects share directly in the benefits.

In summary, I supports approval of this solar farm. It represents a sensible and timely investment in NSW's clean energy future, with real benefits for electricity consumers, the local community, and the environment. I encourage the NSW Planning panel to approve the application, with appropriate conditions to address matters such as visual amenity, biodiversity, and ongoing community engagement.

I am writing to express my support for the proposed Merino Solar Farm in the Goulburn region.
This project will contribute to Australia’s clean energy future and will bring economic benefits to the Goulburn region. I note that the solar farm is to be located on land next to the airport which is unlikely to be used for residential development. I also note that the landowners hosting the farm will continue to run sheep on the land, and this will have a positive impact as the panels will provide shade for the sheep. This is a good example of solar and agriculture working together providing benefits to farmers.

Objection Summary – Merino and Gundary Solar Developments
I wish to formally object to the proposed Merino and Gundary Solar developments on the grounds of unacceptable and significant impacts on my family, my property, the local community, and the City of Goulburn.
1. Direct Impact on Property and Daily Safety
Our property is one of 194 identified by the proponent as directly affected by the development, in addition to impacts on the broader Goulburn community and all residents reliant on Windellama Road or Braidwood Road. Our land, zoned Residential and purchased as a rural lifestyle property, is located on Gundary Lane—a purpose‑built rural laneway intended to support fewer than twelve vehicle movements per day. It also lies in close proximity to the Gundary Solar proposal.
2. Significant Personal and Financial Investment
My family has invested heavily in establishing a rural lifestyle and building a long‑term home sanctuary. We intentionally purchased land adjacent to my parents to maintain a close multigenerational family connection in an area my family have lived in for over 100 years. The proposals now threaten the very reasons we chose this location.
3. Unacceptable Cumulative Impacts
The combined effect of the two large‑scale solar “farms” will severely compromise our ability to safely live on, use, or sell our land. Our outdoor‑focused lifestyle will become untenable due to:

increased noise,
environmental disruption,
major traffic impacts,
safety risks from heavy vehicle movements,
and the resulting mental health and wellbeing consequences.

These impacts are incompatible with a rural‑residential environment and represent a profound degradation of our quality of life.
4. Inappropriate Location and Non‑Compliance with SEPP Requirements
This development is fundamentally in the wrong location. The scale and industrial nature of the proposal are inconsistent with the surrounding rural‑residential landscape and its close proximity to Goulburn, a designated regional city.
The Renewable Energy & Regional Cities SEPP requires assessment of land‑use conflict, future growth, and scenic and amenity impacts near regional centres. This proposal fails to avoid or mitigate these conflicts and imposes substantial, long‑term detriment on existing residents and future development potential.
5. Lack of Transparency, Consultation, and Community Support
We would not have purchased or invested so heavily in our property had we been aware of any intention to develop industrial‑scale energy infrastructure in this location. Both the Merino and Gundary proposals have been characterised by:

inadequate communication,
limited or ineffective consultation,
lack of transparency,
and an absence of genuine community engagement or support.

6. Failure to Address Existing Residential Use
The proponent has not demonstrated that the project can avoid significant conflict with existing or approved residential uses. The scale, location, and operational requirements of the developments are incompatible with the established land‑use pattern and community expectations.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the approval of the Merino Solar development. The proposals present unacceptable impacts on residents, contravene the intent of relevant planning frameworks, and are located in an entirely unsuitable area. I respectfully request that consent for the development be refused. I attach further detail in relation to my objection to this project.