I am making a submission regarding the Orange Grove Solar farm on the
basis that there are unmitigated flood risks associated with the
project which have not adequately been addressed by the developer,
Overland.

The proposed site area is subject to flooding, as shown in the SMEC
study in 2003. The proposed security fence around the perimeter is
likely to have an impact in redirecting flood waters, negatively
impacting property and residents around the solar farm and downstream.

The SMEC study shows that the Orange Grove Sun Farm site is affected,
as demonstrated by the 1984 and 1955 flooding. If repeated in the
future, flood waters would inundate the proposed solar farm.

Because the Orange Grove Sun Farm site is potentially affected by
flooding, further assessments need to be completed with respect to the
distribution of flows, increases in flood levels and changes to
velocities caused by the proposed farm.

I object to the Orange Grove Solar farm on the basis that there are
uncontrolled flood risks as a result of the project which have not
been addressed by the proponent.

The proposed site area is subject to flooding, as shown in the SMEC
study in 2003. The proposed security fence around the perimeter is
likely to have an impact in redirecting flood waters, negatively
impacting property and surrounding residents around the solar farm and
also downstream.

It fails to address the swelling of this watercourse during major
flooding.
The debris that get caught on the fencing will act as a water
diversion and create huge problems in times of flood.

Because the Orange Grove Sun Farm site is affected by flooding,
further assessments need to be completed with respect to the
distribution of water flows, increases in flood levels as required by
the Draft Floodplain Management Plan for the Upper Namoi Valley
Floodplain.

These are the reasons I object to the orange grove sun farm.

-----

I wish to object to this project to construct a Solar Farm on prime
agricultural land on Orange Grove Road Gunnedah. In particular, the
Environmental Impact Study does not address temperature and local
meteorological changes. Barron-Gafford, G. A. et al. The Photovoltaic
Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local
temperatures. Sci. Rep. 6, 35070; doi: 10.1038/srep35070 (2016) showed
an increase in local temperature of over 2 degrees. Also the EIS
states that the project is compatible with the agriculture and other
interests of the adjoining landholders, I do not believe that
sufficient consideration has be taken of the effect to land values,
quality of life for adjoining residents, the loss of agricultural land
nor effect on adjoining agricultural pursuits by Photovoltaic Heat
Island Effect.

I hold deep concerns for the unmitigated flood risk that would result in
the potential success of this application. I believe that this risk
has not been mitigated in the application.

The security fence detailed in this application is likely to have an
impact in redirecting flood waters. This could negatively impact
property and residents around the solar farm and downstream. The EIS
fails to address the actual impact to the solar farm and neighbours
property during a flood.

It is my submission that further studies need to be carried out before
the EIS satisfies the potential risk to neighbours property in
particular.

I'm writing out of concern that the Orange Grove Solar proposal has made
inadequate planning provisions for the site, surrounding farmland and
wildlife habitat. A key concern is the inadequate consideration that
the development is planned for a known floodplain. Addressing this
during or after construction may involve considerable design
modifications which render this planning application deficient. Other
environmental impacts, such as loss of native grassland under the
panels, clearing of remnant bushland and the rendering of neighbouring
farmland unusable have not been sufficiently addressed in the
application. Soil erosion, groundwater contamination via soil seepage
and effects of runoff into the Namoi River have been neglected.
The developers would do well to show how a solar project of this
scale, in planned close proximity to another project of greater size
again, impacts on neighbouring agribusiness. Within this application
or related informational materials the proponents have failed to
obtain and share data from Australian or overseas projects already in
commission to assuage concerns of neighbouring property holders and
communities. Assessment of cumulative impacts and compatibility of the
development with existing land use is equally absent from the
proposal. These concerns have been raised directly through
communications with the company and within their public consultation.
Landowners are therefore compelled to object to this project based on
their considerations of how it will affect their livelihoods and
quality of life. For these reasons Orange Grove's planning application
is demonstrably unsuitable to progress in its current form.

Why does the government insist on not one but two solar farms to be built
so close together and on more food belts in Australia? Why aren't
these being build in deserts ? I am writing to object to Orange Grove
Solar Farm because it is agricultural land and a flood area and has
the potential to be dangerous with fences and without drainage . It is
built too close to nearby residents and everyone should have the right
to protect their own health and income and home they live in. After
years of hard work farming adjoining land will be devalued and no one
is compensated. No one wants to live between solar farms . This is a
cruel government to exploit the rural properties and farmers and put
them in this situation . Please consider that they have to live beside
or between them for 30 years without space.

I am writing to object to the proposal of Orange Grove Solar Farm. It
will be built on a secondary flood zone for convenience to access the
grid - alone. The engineering hazards of a solar farm
that claims it will not affect the environment or surrounding area on
a flood zone and close to a river should be illegal. Conveniently
based on only a 2003 flood. The mesh fence built around the solar farm
perimeter would only collect debris in a flood and water flow would
run back to a public road and adjoining land, causing more flood
storage water and affecting other properties. The company does not
follow development procedures for drainage or run offs of water as is
paramount in urban development. I do not believe two solar farms in
close distance are necessary or appropriate and the farmers and their
income become at risk in between, for their health with EMF's or
constant glint and glare reflected upon them . Coverage by trees would
take years they have to suffer and so will their incomes. The trees
aren't planted around the entire development. I do not think the area
of land for the project Overland design considers any affects on
nearby residents . It shouldn't be developed at all on agricultural
areas. The location needs to looked at.

I am writing to object to the proposed Orange Grove Solar Farm.
My family has known and been apart of the residents lives of R1 for 3
generations. The proposed solar farm project is detrimental to the
property of R1 its value and I object to proposal of the Orange Grove
Solar farm being built on prime agricultural land

I object to the Orange Grove Solar farm on the basis that there are
unmitigated flood risks as a result of the project which have not
adequately been addressed by the proponent.

I am concerned in particular about the site area being in a flood zone
and the issues that the proposed security fence may have on negatively
impacting residents surrounding the solar farm from redirected flood
waters. Therefore I believe because the
Orange Grove Sun Farm site is affected by flooding, further
assessments need to be completed with respect to the distribution of
flows, increases in flood levels and changes to velocities, as
required by the Draft Floodplain Management Plan for the Upper Namoi
Valley Floodplain

I object to the Orange Grove Solar farm on the basis that there are
unmitigated flood risks as a result of the project which have not
adequately been addressed by the proponent.

The potential area is often subject to flooding, as shown in the SMEC
study in 2003. The security fence around the perimeter that has been
proposed will most likely impact the direction of any future flood
waters, this will negatively impact the surrounding properties and
community. Further assessment is need to be completed with respect to
the distribution of flows, increases in flood levels and changes to
velocities, as required by the Draft Floodplain Management Plan for
the Upper Namoi Valley Floodplain.