To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to lodge a formal submission in opposition to the proposed development under SSD-59155459, as outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I make this submission as a potential investor in the Goulburn region who has been considering long-term residential and commercial investment in the area.

After reviewing the proposal and its impacts on the local community, I have serious concerns regarding the lack of meaningful consultation, the inappropriate location of the development, unresolved fire risks, negative impacts on community wellbeing, loss of visual amenity and property value, inconsistency with the intent of relevant NSW State Environmental Planning Policies, and the unfair transfer of financial and legal risk to neighbouring landholders.

Firstly, I am concerned by the lack of genuine and proactive consultation undertaken by the proponent. Engagement appears to have been limited to minimum statutory requirements rather than meaningful dialogue. Many residents have reported limited opportunities to express concerns or receive clear responses. This has contributed to distrust and conflict within the community and has undermined confidence in the planning process.

Secondly, the proposed location of this development is inappropriate and poorly justified. The Goulburn region experiences a relatively high number of cloudy and overcast days, particularly during winter. This raises questions about the efficiency and suitability of locating a large-scale solar facility in this area when more suitable locations with higher solar yield and fewer residential conflicts exist elsewhere in NSW.

The site is also within an area valued for its rural character, scenic qualities, and agricultural productivity. Introducing industrial-scale infrastructure is inconsistent with these established land uses and detracts from the region’s long-term sustainability and investment appeal.

Thirdly, I am deeply concerned about the fire risk associated with the proposed solar and battery infrastructure. Large-scale photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage facilities present well-documented fire hazards, particularly in rural and bushfire-prone landscapes.

Electrical faults, battery failures, overheating components, and damaged cabling can act as ignition sources. In dry conditions, such incidents may escalate rapidly. Given the proximity of farmland, residences, and bushland, any fire could have devastating consequences for lives, livestock, and property.

Emergency response capabilities in rural areas are often constrained by distance, limited water supply, and reliance on volunteer services. The EIS does not adequately demonstrate that these risks have been fully mitigated or that emergency services are sufficiently resourced to respond to large-scale incidents involving energy infrastructure.

In addition to the physical risks, the proposal creates serious financial and legal risks for neighbouring landholders. If a fire originates on private farmland due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents and spreads to the solar facility, farmers may face legal action from the project operator or its insurers, even where no negligence has occurred.

While public liability insurance generally only applies where negligence is proven, affected landholders may still be subjected to lengthy and costly legal proceedings. This places an unfair burden on farmers and rural residents who did not choose to assume this risk and have no control over the design, operation, or maintenance of the energy infrastructure.

The project effectively transfers significant insurance and liability risk from a private commercial enterprise onto surrounding landholders. This risk transfer is not adequately acknowledged or addressed in the EIS and represents a serious social and economic impact.

Fourthly, the ongoing stress and mental health impacts on local residents must be recognised. Many community members have spent months or years opposing this proposal, preparing submissions, attending meetings, and seeking professional advice. This prolonged process has caused anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and financial strain.

The uncertainty surrounding property values, fire risk, insurance exposure, and long-term lifestyle impacts has significantly reduced quality of life. Healthy communities are essential for sustainable regional development, yet this project has already undermined social cohesion and trust.

Fifthly, the proposal will result in a substantial loss of visual amenity and corresponding decline in neighbouring property values. Many properties in this region were purchased for their open landscapes, natural views, and rural character. These qualities are fundamental to both lifestyle and market value.

The installation of extensive solar arrays, fencing, substations, and associated infrastructure will permanently alter the visual character of the area. Proposed screening measures are insufficient to offset the scale and prominence of the development. Evidence from other regions indicates that proximity to large-scale energy infrastructure can reduce buyer demand and depress property values.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the apparent inconsistency between this proposal and the intent and objectives of relevant NSW State Environmental Planning Policies.

While certain SEPP provisions allow electricity generating works in rural zones with consent, these instruments also emphasise the protection of agricultural land, preservation of scenic values, minimisation of land use conflict, and support for sustainable communities. This proposal prioritises technical permissibility over strategic planning intent and undermines integrated land use principles.

From an investor’s perspective, regulatory certainty, policy consistency, and respect for community wellbeing are critical. Approving developments that impose disproportionate risk and disruption on local residents weakens confidence in the planning system and discourages responsible long-term investment.

In summary, I object to this proposal for the following reasons:

- Inadequate and ineffective consultation with affected landowners and residents.
- Inappropriate site selection in an area with limited solar efficiency and high residential sensitivity.
- Serious and insufficiently addressed fire and safety risks.
- Unfair transfer of insurance and legal liability risk to neighbouring landholders.
- Significant negative impacts on mental health, social cohesion, and community wellbeing.
- Permanent loss of visual amenity and decline in property values.
- Apparent inconsistency with the intent and objectives of relevant NSW SEPPs.

While I support renewable energy development in principle, it must be delivered in a manner that is well-located, responsibly managed, and respectful of existing communities. This proposal does not meet those standards.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse development consent, or alternatively require substantial redesign, relocation, and comprehensive risk mitigation and community engagement before any further consideration.

I am writing to express my support for the proposed Merino Solar Farm and the positive contribution it will make to the Goulburn region.
The project has been sensibly located at the end of the Goulburn Airport runway, which makes it compatible with existing infrastructure and avoids limiting future growth of the town. I am also reassured by the level of consultation undertaken with nearby residents, including changes to the original design that reduced the project footprint by removing 8 hectares of solar panels to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties. The offer of a benefit-sharing program for nearby households is another positive outcome of this engagement.
The scale of investment associated with the project will deliver clear economic benefits. A $1 billion investment and the creation of more than 500 construction jobs, along with ongoing operational roles, will provide valuable employment opportunities and support the local economy.
I also strongly support the continued use of the land for agriculture. Agreements with landowners ensure existing farming practices will continue, including long-established sheep grazing. The integration of solar panels with farming, providing shade and improving animal welfare and wool quality, highlights the practical coexistence of renewable energy and agriculture.
It is encouraging to see that responsibility for the project’s full lifecycle has been considered, with commitments in place to fund land rehabilitation and restoration at the end of the project’s operational life. The annual community benefit payments over 35 years will also provide long-term value for the broader community.
For these reasons, I believe the Merino Solar Farm is a well-planned and responsible development and I support its approval.

I support the proposed Merino Solar Farm and believe it will deliver long-term benefits to Goulburn while being thoughtfully designed to fit its surroundings.

The project is well located at the end of the Goulburn Airport runway, making it a sensible neighbour to existing infrastructure and ensuring it does not interfere with future town expansion. I’m also encouraged by the way the proponents have listened to the community, including removing 8 hectares of solar panels from the original design to avoid direct impacts on neighbours and offering nearby households the opportunity to participate in a benefit-sharing program.

The economic benefits for the region are significant. The project represents a $1 billion investment and is expected to create over 500 jobs during construction, along with ongoing roles once operational. This will provide a meaningful boost to the local economy.

I strongly support the fact that farming will continue alongside the solar farm. Agreements with landowners ensure existing agricultural operations remain in place, including long-established sheep farming. The use of solar panels to provide shade for sheep, supporting animal welfare and wool quality, shows how renewable energy and farming can work together.

It is also reassuring to know that plans are in place to fund land clean-up and restoration at the end of the project’s life. In addition, the commitment to community benefit payments over 35 years will deliver lasting value to the wider Goulburn community.

Overall, I believe the Merino Solar Farm is a well-considered project and I support its approval.

I believe that having a Solar farm is a small step to improve the current global climate changes. There are multiple news on adverse weather happening all over the world and by taking this small step, it can make a difference.

I strongly object to the Merino Solar Farm Proposal and any amendments they may make to it. I have these objections due to this proximity to the proposed solar installation to my home at Readers Road Quialigo, 2580, I will be able to see a portion of the panels slated for the proposed site. This large scaled project and the significant amount of acreage that is proposed for solar panels, batteries and required infrastructure is a blemish on the landscape and impactful to the adjoining property's or any property that has a visual view.
My immediate concerns:
*distruction of prime farmland once you build on it, it will never be able to be returned to its original state;
*an eye sore to neighbours, the community and visitors to the area;
*mental health impacts to the families that will be affected due to stressors associated with being faced with such a monumental building project and its ongoing management;
*fire risk and mitigation - our local fire management system is already extremely limited and the addition of this many solar panels will make fire fighting extremely difficult;
*weather in this area is extremely unpredictable, with large hail storms hitting the area annually, not an ideal location due to weather realities to limited sunny days ie cloudy or foggy days;
*disposal of solar panels at the end of there life? Where do they go, who pays for it?
*the solar power that would be generated isn't even for the Goulburn area
*not enough benefits gained for the community, bigger losses than gains.

My home is setup for solar for our personal needs, I am not against solar energy, I'm against Large Scale projects that damage large areas of land.

If our country isn't going to invest in true clean power, then solar panels should be put on every business and homes of all people who use electricity. Storage batteries should be installed within the communities that generate the power and use it there, not generating it to be sent off to the big city. These large scale solar projects only benifit the companies that fund/build them and the government that approves them.

This Large Scale Solar project is NOT the answer to green energy.

My objection is attached

This project will help bring more local jobs to the local community and help the state transition to a more cheaper and renewable energy generation.

Submission is attached