Oxley Solar Farm

23/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-4-submission-for-oxley-solar-farmredacted.pdf (PDF, 376.42 KB)

Rain forest reserves

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

rainforest-reserves-australia-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 280.7 KB)

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-2-submission-for-oxley-solar-farmredacted.pdf (PDF, 383.43 KB)

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

beth-white-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 997.2 KB)

SOS

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

sos-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 1.94 MB)

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-3-submission-for-oxley-solar-farmredacted.pdf (PDF, 173.39 KB)

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

jenna-walsh-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 133.5 KB)

22/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-1-submission-for-oxley-solar-farmredacted.pdf (PDF, 368.4 KB)

21/11/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 157.31 KB)

21/11/2023

Comment

Email

community-alliance-for-responsible-energy-development-for-the-new-england-submission-for-oxley-solar.pdf (PDF, 892.63 KB)

21/11/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 93.33 KB)

21/11/2023

Comment

Email

karyn-herbert-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 104.44 KB)

16/11/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-submission-for-oxley-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 93.33 KB)

26/10/2023

Comment

Email

l-lablack-25102023.pdf (PDF, 221.77 KB)

New South Wales

24/10/2023

Comment

Website

Our family owns a property , Edington, along the eastern boundary of the proposed Oxley Solar Development. We have a water supply for the farm which is pumped from the Gara river. The pump shed is located on Richard Waters’ farm , Silverton West which is part of the Oxley Solar Development. The pipeline is situated on the northern side of Gara road and along the eastern side of Silverton Road. The pipeline is on the road easement. The pipeline is a PVC pipe. We need the integrity of the water supply maintained as it is our major water supply source. We would need guaranteed access to the pump shed and the pipeline from the river to the tank at ALL times to ensure our water supply and to carry out necessary repairs. We would prefer Any exclusion fencing to be constructed on the north side of this pipeline and the pump shed to allow access for maintenance and repair at any time as required . Oxley Solar Development is to liaise with Edington partnership ( our business) and any future owners when ANY entrance point to the Oxley Solar Development site off Gara rd ,east of the Gara river, is constructed as it crosses over the existing pipeline. Any damage to the pump shed or the pipeline is immediately repaired and the pipeline primed with water at NO cost to the our business ( Edington partnership ) or any future business operators. Any realignment is at the cost of Oxley Solar Development and must be done in a timely manner to ensure water supply. Mark and Lesleann Waters Edington Partnership 691 Silverton Road Armidale NSW 2350 ◼◼◼◼

25/10/2023

Support

Website

I am in full support of the proposed Oxley Solar Development (OSD). Having review the documents on the NSW Independent Planning Commission website, I strongly consider this project to be of benefit to the local community and State of NSW. As such, its approval is in the public interest. The project promises to deliver positive outcomes to the local community (job creation), help to move Australia forward in the renewable energy sector, and sustain the community as the impacts of climate change become increasingly undeniable. I recognise that the project plan has been amended to respond to concerns raised in the public submissions. This is commendable and demonstrates a willingness to cooperate to achieve positive outcomes for our community. The OSD site has been over cleared and as such, now consists of primarily (90.71ha) of derived native grassland. The project amendments address the biodiversity concerns, and any residual impacts are to be mitigated through adaptive management measures. The planning screen planting will increase the vegetation in the area, and simultaneously mitigate the visual impact of the development. I note that Heritage NSW have expressed satisfaction that screen planting between the site and the National Park will reduce the visual impact of the OSD. Seeing both the solar farm and new vegetation is something I look forward to. The location of the proposed OSD is within an already recognised renewable energy zone of the Armidale New England area. This project is a strategic fit with the national and global commitment to renewable energy. The cooperation between local council and the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) is encouraging. I note particularly the financial contribution that such a development will bring to the local Armidale community (up to 300 construction jobs, 5 operational jobs, nearly $2.8 million on construction commencement followed by nearly $140 000pa) and infrastructure. The local infrastructure of particular note is the proposed upgrade to Gara River Causeway on the Gara Road. This causeway is well-known as a dangerous, and particularly prone to flooding, rending this section of the road impassable. As a resident of the immediate vicinity for a number of decades, I am encouraged to see that positive steps are being taken to secure the future of the local Armidale community through renewable energy sources. As caretakers of the land, each generation has an opportunity to make their mark. I feel a deep sense of social responsibility to support this project. We have an opportunity to make a direct positive change to our community that is in turn of benefit to the State of NSW.

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Support

Website

I fully support the proposed development of the Oxley Solar Farm. I consider this site to be appropriate for this project due to the following: * Prime location – proximity to existing electrical network enabling connection to two existing transmission lines. The footprint has already been heavily cleared of vegetation and measures have been undertaken in the project to minimise biodiversity impacts. * Extensive consultation process – through consultation the project has been amended to better mitigate any potential risks raised. For example, measures have already been undertaken to avoid environmental constraints by reducing the footprint to increase the distance from residences and National Park land; and the footprint has been significantly reduced in size through prior consultation to successfully accommodate concerns raised. * Accessibility – the site will be accessed by an existing road (Waterfall Way) with an extension of this road then connecting to another existing road (Gara Road). The project proposes improvements to all noted roads. Only two non-associated residences will be affected by the construction to improve access roads, noting that an alternative route can be taken to avoid any road works. The result of improved roads, will provide a safety benefit via widening of road, sealing and raising of the Gara River causeway (some residents have been swept of the crossing whilst trying to cross). * Visual impact – screen planting will aid visually coupled with the location of the footprint being below the crest of a hill to the closest non-associated residence. * Continued use of agricultural land – livestock such as sheep will still be able to graze under the solar panels. The footprint will also be able to return to agricultural use following the removal of solar panels. This provides dual benefits for the one location. * Policies – the project is in line with Government Policies and relevant targets such as the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target, the NSW’s Climate Change Policy Framework and the Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020 – 2030. This project supports Australia’s shift towards ensuring secure and reliable energy in Australia and more specifically, NSW. * Benefits to local community and NSW – creation of jobs for the local community of Armidale, NSW which in turn injects money into local businesses and boosts the township. The Armidale Regional Council will receive a payment of almost $3 million with annual payments of approximately $140,000 per annum to benefit the community. There will also be an injection of $370 million into the NSW economy via capital investment. Ultimately, cleaner energy will be provided to the people of NSW. After thorough investigation, the Department of Planning and Environment has considered the proposed development of the Oxley Solar Farm to be in the public interest and approvable. I agree with this ruling and support the Oxley Solar Farm.

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Support

Website

Please see uploaded document.

oxleysolarfarmtrevorbrownsubmissiondocxpdf_redacted.pdf (PDF, 123.91 KB)

Community Power Agency

New South Wales

24/10/2023

Support

Website

25 October 2023 TO: The Panel Independent Planning Commission RE Oxley Solar Farm Dear Chair, On behalf of Community Power Agency, I thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed Oxley Solar Farm project. Community Power Agency has been working over the past decade to improve practice of the renewables industry in a number of ways including authoring a number of State and industry guidelines and training, including: - Clean Energy Council’s Guide to Benefit Sharing in Large-scale Renewable Energy Projects - Victorian Community Engagement and Benefit Sharing in Renewable Energy Development A Guide for Renewable Energy Developers - Chairing the Social Evaluation Panel for ACT Government’s Renewable Energy Auction - Drafting the Tasmanian Guidelines for Community Engagement, Benefit Sharing and Local Procurement for large scale renewable energy development - Designing and delivering the first professional development course on community engagement and benefit sharing. The Socially Responsible Renewable Energy Development short course was delivered with the Centre for Systems Innovation (Griffith University) and tailored to the renewable energy sector. Community Power Agency began in Armidale 11 years ago to support community-owned renewable energy projects around Australia. In the current context of medium to large-scale renewable energy, our work involves collaborating with a range of stakeholders - community groups, councils and developers - for better outcomes for these projects - particularly social, economic and environmental. My role is engagement coordinator, and I carry out the work of CPA on the ground in the New England region. I am a resident of the Armidale Regional Council Local Government Area. I will focus on two topics as they relate to the Oxley Solar Farm proposal. The first is the opportunity to improve biodiversity on the site. After the EIS submission period ended, the proponents amended their proposal to reduce the size of the development footprint by 627ha, and to increase the set-back from the OWR National Park. They also committed to working with Armidale Tree Group on wildlife corridor connectivity. I saw the amendment report as evidence of the proponents being responsive to feedback, and of them recognising the value of the local environment. I spoke with Bruce Howard in January, and several times since then. I’ve found him to be responsive and open to ideas to improve the project and local outcomes. I am currently working with researchers from UNE and local ecologists on developing guidelines for improving biodiversity outcomes on solar farm sites. I am also a facilitator of the New England Biodiversity Reference Group. We are working with Bruce on strategies that could rejuvenate the site - most of which has been heavily grazed for many years, and is struggling, particularly in the dry. Some of the strategies discussed include revegetation of riparian zones, which would prevent erosion and improve water quality in the Gara River flowing into the National Park. Revegetation works along the river would also significantly improve wildlife connectivity across the site, and with the national park, and neighbouring properties who might be interested in exploring biodiversity stewardship arrangements. We’re also looking at native pasture grasses, shelterbelts, vegetative screening and habitat measures for birds and other species. The other topic I’d like to discuss is the Voluntary Planning Agreement that was negotiated between the proponent and Armidale Regional Council. The VPA includes a community benefit contribution totalling $5.9 million over 20 years. The general terms of the benefit sharing package are: - Lump sum of $2.79 million on commencement of construction. - Annual payment of $139,500 for 20 years - An agreement to provide assistance with purchasing solar panels and steel components on behalf of Council at corporate rates. - Annual sponsorship of Project Zero30 (a joint Council, business, university and community initiative to achieve carbon neutrality) of $20,000 for 10 years - Provision of four EV charging stations - In many respects, it’s a great example of a VPA. There is an aspect missing though and I hope this is able to be coordinated. At the time of negotiation, Council hadn't developed a governance structure for the management of community benefit funds from developers. Last month, Council put a draft framework on exhibition but detail on this part of the framework - that is how decisions will be made on how these annual funds will be used - is still required. It's really important that local residents from the Castle Doyle, Dangarsleigh and surrounding areas, as well as the Armidale region more broadly, can shape the projects that this money will fund. Research shows the importance of host communities having agency in, and benefiting from, such funds. A governance model that includes a community panel, for example, can enable this. It is important for a representative from the Oxley Solar Farm to have an opportunity to be on the panel, too. This is one way that the relationship between the developer and the community can be ongoing throughout the life of the project, and collaboration on projects can occur. The governance structure needs to be transparent, with representatives serving set terms, so involvement and opportunity is shared. Now would be a good time to review how that governance structure would look to ensure that at least a portion of the money is used for local community-led projects, and then for projects more broadly across the region. Sincerely, Heidi McElnea on behalf of Community Power Agency

New South Wales

24/10/2023

Support

Website

I am writing to express my support for approval of the Oxley Solar Development (OSD). Having the reviewed the documentation provided on the NSW Independent Planning Commission website I note the following features, in addition to the proposed conditions of consent which in my opinion adequately prevent, mitigate or offset any impacts from the proposed development. • Location of the development within the already recognised renewable energy zone of NSW in the New England Region • Fit of the project in the current global and national commitment to renewal energy, reduction in green house gas emissions and reduction in the use of fossil fuels for our ongoing energy requirements • Developer carries capital cost and risks associated with construction cost escalations • Benefits to the local community in the way of, o capital injection created by construction o construction jobs o ongoing permanent jobs o contributions to council both development and ongoing o some local infrastructure improvements • Developer’s willingness to accommodate community concerns raised in initial objections via alterations to the project, including scaling down, as is depicted in current revised development proposal

New South Wales

21/10/2023

Support

Website

I completely support the Oxley Solar Farm. For 30 years, I have lived in and respected the environment around the proposed development site. I am a young person and for me, I only see clear, positive impacts and gains for the local community, our nation and the world. In my understanding, solar power is part of the answer for creating a decent future for the children and lives of tomorrow. Here are some points noting why I support the solar farm: * Solar power is sustainable, renewable, efficient and has minimal pollution. * Electricity makes life comfortable and by harnessing power from the sun, it is guilt free, compared to using alternative power sources like coal. * As science and technology advances, I believe that experts will find solutions for effectively recycling the solar panels. * The Solar Farm will provide employment opportunities for nearby residents and specialists, ranging from transport and maintenance to electricians and engineers. * The proposed area was severely over cleared and has since been used for livestock grazing. There would be no loss of habitat, neither plants nor animals. The area is flat, barren and has no rocks, posing an ideal site for solar panels. * Sheep can continue to graze under the panels, therefore, the wool and lamb industry would carry on alongside the Solar Farm. * The proposed site is a good distance from the Gara Gorge National Park, presenting minimal machinery noise nor visual disturbance. * From a visual aspect, I think solar farms echo contemporary art. They look like a shiny silver art installation, stimulating thought and conversation about the natural environment, and the state of the world on a global scale. * Many people suffer from the 'not in my backyard' perception. However, if humanity continues developing and investing in nonrenewable industries, the effects of Climate Change will become unbearable for sustaining any form of life. In my opinion, the Australian society could all benefit from taking a step back from their own small, sheltered individual world, and make a positive step forward, considering the bigger picture, for the greater good of environmental conservation and future generations. When considering all submissions, both in support or objection, please spare a thought for the fact that, you have the power, responsibility and choice, to create change for the better.

New South Wales

16/10/2023

Support

Website

I write in support of the proposed Oxley solar development. I am encouraged to see the connection and cooperation between OSD and Armidale Regional Council. The financial contribution to the community provided by OSD, the 4 EV charging stations and access to corporate rates for future solar panel purchase is welcome and beneficial to ARC and the wider community. ARC and OSD also showed their willingness to work together on the relocation of the landfill gates. Also for the benefit of users of the Waterfall Way with the intersection to the landfill deemed suitable. Utilising the existing road infrastructure results in no road work required and therefore no disruption to motorists. If the commission is to approve this project I request the following: I would like the commission to consider the amount of dust that will be created at peak morning and afternoon times on the newly constructed access road. As this will remain a working farm, I request that dust suppression occurs at these peak times, particularly around the working areas/livestock yards. I note there is condition B22 which is specific to dust but believe that 'minimise' is ambiguous and open to interpretation. I request that the commission recognise in B11 Traffic management plan that the access road traverses through a working farm and as such will be a permanent stock zone as livestock will need to cross this road. Please add to section B11 that all Drivers must respect the use all livestock signage and give way to livestock and any associated vehicle. (LLS 2014) In the conditions of consent document I have seen no mention of the preservation measures for an existing water pipeline. It runs from the river to a pump house on the eastern bank of the Gara River at the causeway, running east, mostly parallel to Gara Road where it crosses the road at the intersection with Silverton Road. This water is used for livestock, working dogs and domestic water. Any disruption to this waterline is a huge animal welfare issue as it provides the only water source for livestock for many paddocks covering hundreds of acres. I would like the commission to consult with the owner of this property and suggest the following conditions be imposed should approval of the project be granted. -That any exclusion fencing is constructed on the north side of this water line to allow access for repairs and maintenance at any time. -That the integrity of the line is maintained or immediately repaired when Access point 3 is constructed, trenching works for cables or any other earthworks that could or will damage the line. -That the land owner be immediately notified if the line is damaged by OSD or any of its contractors. - That any damage or loss of integrity to the line by OSD or any of its contractors is repaired immediately and the cost is the responsibility of OSD -That any realignment is done in consultation with the landowner and at the cost of OSD and done in a timely manner.

New South Wales

15/10/2023

Support

Website

I truly consider the Oxley Solar Farm to be of great value to our local community and Australia. Its development will assist the New England to become a Renewables Hub. Huge changes need to be made now in our attempts to move toward Net Zero. The socio economic benefits to our area will be massive. Millions of dollars have been promised to the Armidale Regional Council over a 20 year time frame . Electric vehicle charging stations are also promised. Monetary benefits for the community will happen in the construction as well as the operational stages. For access, the project will use the already existing Council Landfill road off the Waterfall Way, with an extension through to the Gara road. A section of the Gara road will be sealed and widened . The causeway (Gara River crossing) will be realigned and raised by 1.3 m and this in turn will reduce the number of flood impassable days . This is a huge safety benefit for residents of the Gara and Silverton roads. The river rises very quickly and in the past , as well as in recent times, residents have come close to losing their lives on this crossing. The footprint of the actual solar panels has been greatly reduced to significantly lessen their visual impact. The closest neighbours have a hill, with many trees, in between them and the array. It is also proposed that there will be tree screening in many belts around the Solar Farm , further alleviating any issues. We are living with the affects of climate change. For me, the visual impact barely rates anymore. The “Not in my backyard” approach is extremely near sighted. The proposed site is not considered high quality cropping land. I came to this location over 48 years ago, and the land had been heavily over cleared by previous generations. Grazing of sheep and cattle has taken place for well over 100 years. Tree plantings have been made , but there still appears to be very little bio diversity of flora and fauna. A very positive benefit flowing from the installation of the Oxley Solar Farm is the intention of researchers from the University of New England becoming involved in finding better better grasses to grow under panels. It is also noted that establishment of a wildlife corridor from Oxley Wild Rivers National Park to the Gara Dam is proposed. Use of this land for the Oxley Solar Farm will be far more beneficial for us now and for our children of tomorrow. The actual Gara Station homestead, wool shed and other sheds would not be impacted by the Oxley Solar Farm. The Historic Heritage of the proposed site would be preserved. Also, there would not be any interference with the bordering National Park. I believe the developers of the Oxley Solar Farm have more than adequately prevented, mitigated and offset any adverse impacts , especially those suggested by community members. I am in full support of the proposed development as I see it as a way forward to help save our planet.

New South Wales

15/10/2023

Support

Website

I fully support the proposed Oxley Solar Farm. As stated in the studies all of the above issues have been addressed. Socioeconomic. During construction many jobs and flow on to the community. Cash injection into the Armidale Regional Council over the life of the project. Action on climate change will save money for the community long term. Traffic and Transport. As the construction and on going traffic, will be using the existing intersection of Waterfall Way and Council Landfill road to gain access to the site, traffic on local roads will be non existent. Up grade to Gara River crossing will be a vast improvement for local residents during times of flood. This is something that is well overdue. Fish and other river life will greatly benefit from moving freely under the new causeway. Environmental. The establishment of a solar farm on this site has minimal impact to the environment as the land has been used for grazing purposes for 150 plus years. Amenity. Tree Screening will address this. So to conclude, I fully support the Development of the Oxley Solar Farm as it will help us to reduce our emissions so future generations may enjoy a lifestyle similar to ours.

New South Wales

30/09/2023

Support

Website

Having read the original 78 objections to the Oxley Solar Development OSD and The Recommended Conditions of Consent and the Department of Plannings Assessment Report I 100% support the OSD due to the following reasons. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OSD WILL BRING TO ARMIDALE AND THE STATE OF NSW. * 300 construction jobs utilizing locals where possible, having a huge economic flow on effect to the Armidale community. *Initial Armidale community benefit fund payment from OSD to the Armidale council of $2790000 and annual payments of $139500. *Benefit to the Armidale council via the commitment of OSD to help source steel and solar panels for council use at OSD corporate rates. *$370000000 investment into the NSW state economy and the flow on economic benefits this creates to the entire state of NSW. *In the short term renewable electricity supply is needed to help stabilize power prices and in the the long term lower them, helping everyone in NSW with our current and future cost of living crisis. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GARA RIVER HYDRO ELECTRICITY SCHEME. *The scheme came to fruition in 1895, one of the first renewable hydro electricity schemes in Australia. Armidale and nearby Hillgrove were one of the first adopters of renewable energy via the scheme. Water for the scheme was gathered from the Gara River at the Blue Hole. Remnants of the scheme are still visible and are able to be explored in the National Park adjacent to the OSD. The ability to now generate a new form of renewable electricity adjacent to the old and being able to see a little bit of each could be marketed to tourists, thus creating more economic benefits to the Armidale community. BUSHFIRE RESPONSE. *As part of the OSD the solar farm will have its own fire management and safety plan. Within that plan OSD will have the ability to rapidly respond to any fires on its or neighboring properties. This added rapid response ability to fires nearby the OSD would be of help to the Rural Fire Service and provide additional safety to nearby landholders. GARA RIVER CAUSEWAY AND ROAD UPGRADE *The upgrade to the Gara Rd and the existing concrete causeway crossing the Gara River will increase the safety to any vehicles traversing the crossing which is currently frequently covered by water with regular unseen deep and dangerous gravel washouts of the road where it joins the existing causeway. The upgrade to the causeway will dramatically improve this situation and provide added safety enabling the crossing of the river by vehicles at times where it is now not safe to do so as the river height rises. FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCURSIONS TO THE REGION *With the development of the OSD adjacent to the old Gara River hydro electricity scheme and the future potential development of a wind farm on the nearby Doughboy Mountain the Armidale region has the potential to tap into these projects to entice school based excursions to the region in one of the few areas in Australia that will have had renewable hydro, solar and wind electricity generation. CONCLUSIONS OF THE NSW DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND THE COOPERATION OF THE ARMIDALE COUNCIL *The NSW department of planning having taken the conditions of consent into account in regards to the OSD has deemed the project to be of economic benefit to the local and state communities and that any impact to residents near to the project will be Nil or very low, and as such the project is an approvable project. In my opinion the conditions of consent adequately prevent, mitigate or offset any adverse impacts from the proposed development. *The Armidale council has been a supporter of the project demonstrated by its consultation with the OSD and its preparedness to allow the use of and design adjustments to the Armidale Regional Landfill facility access road, thus enabling access to the land to be used for the OSD. This negates the need for any alterations to the Waterfall Way, which would have created lengthy disruption to traffic flows on the Waterfall Way. Taking the above positives for the local and state communities and the lack of any substantial negative impacts to nearby residents I 100% support the OSD.

New South Wales

29/09/2023

Support

Website

I am a smaller beneficiary of the Oxley Solar Farm Development. I own a property, ◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼ Road, where I lived for my first 80 years. I now live in Armidale. I applaud the proposed upgrade of the low level crossing of Gara River on Gara Road, being a part of this development. Over the years i have witnessed several vehicles being washed off that crossing; one only two or three years ago. Fortunately there have not been any fatalities. That I believe is more to do with good luck than good management. Most of the cluster of houses in that locality are on the far (east) side of the river and quite close to the Gara River crossing. When approached from the Armidale side, and if the river carries a small flood, people are tempted to cross rather than retreat and travel a much longer route (eg a distance of about 28 Kilometres) when they are only 2 - kilometres from their destination. I don't know if it was the Armidale Regional Council or Oxley Solar Farm who proposed the crossing upgrade, but it will be a very sound and welcome safety measure. As there is an alternate route bypassing this crossing, It is highly unlikely that the local Council would be committing a substantial sum to remedy this problem in the foreseeable future.

25/10/2023

Object

Website

I object to the hideous solar plantation because components have been made by slave labour. I think Australia has anti slave labour legislation in place. Mine cobolt in the Congo is slave labour when people only receive a couple of $$ a day and mine with their bare hands with their children for a few extra $$. This solar plant have a huge embedded cost coal fire electricity is used to make , supply, transport and install. If there is a strong ie hail when the cells are damaged, what them . Heavy metal on the ground to leach into the ground, follow into water ways with the rain fall. They are just a money make exercise for some one!! They will not provide base load power nor will the start the grid when it is down. They will destroy the land forever! Is this the legacy you want to leave your children? You are part of the decision-making. I wonder if you’ve ever read a seminar by Professor Williams Happer, a physicist, who understands and weather. Go and listen to a few of his speeches do it for your children and your grandchildren.

img1595jpeg.jpeg (JPEG, 781.41 KB)

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Object

Website

Contamination to waterways, soil profiles and waste management arising from solar components is acknowledged worldwide as a ticking time-bomb. Contamination is of particular concern regarding this proposed solar farm as it is within the vast Macleay Catchment and all run-off from the project will flow directly into the Blue Hole, then through UNESCO World Heritage Listed Gondwana Rainforest and then onto the Maclaey Coastal Region. Please find attached correspondence 6th April 2021 from the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) confirming that under Schedule 1 of the POEO Act 1997, electricity works that generate electricity through the use of solar are not scheduled. Tha means that the EPA is absolved from any responsibility regarding contamination caused or waste management arising from solar generation. Furthermore, the EPA note that the Local Government Authority (LGA) is the appropiate regulative authority regarding these matters. This was further confirmed by discussions I had last year with a representative of the DPE at a formal meeting in Armidale NSW when I asked "what waste management plan the DPE has for solar components". The reply was that "the DPE has no plan". So who then is responsible. Until such time as this conundrum has been resolved and an environmentally acceptable plan is legislated, I call on the NSW government to apply the 'Precautionary Principal' and initiate a moretorium on all solar farm applications.

rorwoutletterresponsetomslynetteleblackbomensolarfarmeunonyvalleyregionciramno_redacted.pdf (PDF, 144.3 KB)

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Object

Website

Mr Chris Wilson Chair Independent Planning Commission Oxley Solar – SSD -10346 Dear Chairmen and Committee Members We wish to make this supplementary objection to this project for the following reasons. No Social Licence a) The Project was a poor site selection by the Proponents – it was based entirely on grid access with no regard to the surrounding environment -the people and their place and to need to protect precious public assets -the UNESCO Heritage Gondwana Rainforest and Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. b) The Project presents as flip development play by Proponents not interested in a long-term energy management opportunity. It presented as an opportunity by the Proponents Chinese -Australian through their Australian accounting practice to deploy monies ex China into the Australian renewables market. This was done through a Hong Kong incorporated entity Megawatt Holdings Ltd. c) The Proponents remained largely opaque through the development process and important milestones such as the DPE Scoping Meeting invited no community scrutiny -and there is no evidence that the DPE validated the Proponents credibility as financing or development expertise. There no community participation in this part of the process and there was minimum community consultation apart from ‘a tick a box’ DPE supported disingenuous bare minimum. There was no physical presence in the New England and as far as the Community was aware there was no physical presence in Sydney apart from a registration in Wis Partners a Chinese accounting practice in Margaret St Sydney. The Proponents behaviour throughout the development process was to ‘make little to no eye contact’. d) The NSW State Member Hon Adam Marshall is on record in media in Legislative Assembly as reporting the project has no social licence and should be ‘hit for a six’. e) The Project on exhibition attracted 78 objections and not one supporting submission. f) The Project one assumes has ambitions in REZ -Electricity Infrastructure Investment Act 2020 context of achieving access to grid connection and perhaps a LTESA LTES pursuant to the Act and Regulations. As the Commission appreciates one of the clear merit criteria the Consumer Trustee under the Act -Regulations – Guidelines is whether the project presents with requisite social licence -quiet clearly it doesn’t. DPE Recommendation The DPE’s lamentable role in allowing this project to be initiated is highlighted above. They have not distinguished their position as keeper of the important objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Project is obviously poorly sited with obvious loss of visual amenity to neighbours and travellers on Waterfall Way. The Proponent maintains a sufficient modification have occurred to warrant consent. These modifications still leave a considerable foot print ; a) Adjacent the National Park and important heritage assets. Disappointingly the DPE misrepresented in their submission to the IPC that setback from the Park’s boundary was 1200M this is incorrect it is only 300M. b) Exposed to runoff into the Gara River and Commissionaire Waters -important tributaries of the Macleay River. Pursuant to NSW Law -the Armidale Council are liable for pollution management. Solar Generation is not scheduled under the POEO Act c) The Proponents offer a token contemplation of Fire Management despite 2019 Bush Fire threats – there is no fire management plan. d) Referring to the Department of water submission. There is no water available from Gara River for the project and they will not issue a license and this could represent a commercial risk for the project. Inconclusion the DPE’s recommendation is symptomatic of their Government’s desperation to get some projects permitted. This shouldn’t mean that inappropriate projects are consented and thrust unfairly onto a community . This Project has to be seen for what it is – poor motive poor location. Regards, ◼◼◼

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Object

Website

Add: A Lie named Climate Change. A Hideous Lie that will cause Our area - on the Great Divide Northern Tablelands Drainage Divide to Four Major Vital Upper Tributary Catchments - Loss of Moisture, already Seen in my region named Armidale. A Awful way to treat Land that is Sacred in every way you should know, but don't , and why. A abuse of the Gara River Upstream Catchments to a Vital Rainforest area, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, where a World Heritage area of the Rarest Type, NB , Type, NB, Type of Rainforest is. Gondwana. This area is to be Respected please. To Be Respected. Cumulative Impacts are not even including Impact to Cloud on Country up on the Top of the Range you see, where this government, named Australian, still is Unaware our area , named Australia, Is A Dry Continent, Is, NB, Is, Is, Is, Our area of Armidale is in a Dry Drought, part of which is Increased Impacts to a Dry Continent, that is Still Unnoticed by All who live here. We are In a Dry Drought. Why ? I Demand a Moratorium on Every Single proposal made by a Foreign Entity that has absolutely No Right to be Taking Over our Land you see. I Demand a Inquiry into the Independent Planning Commissioners who Ignored the Speakers, who spoke in Dangarsleigh Hall, Tuesday last week. I had a need to speak on the proposal but had a Issue on the Tuesday because the Wednesday session was Cancelled, hmmmmm. I was astounded at the Commissioners looking at Paperwork as people spoke. Rifling through papers. I Need you in an Inquiry , you 3 Commissioners at Dangarsleigh Hall. You had Absolutely No Interest in anything anyone said. I watched you. All of you. What do you think you are doing, eh. I Demand you undergo an Inquiry, the Blonde lady, and the man, I watched rifle through papers as people spoke. Who do you think you are. I must say this. I have to say this. Ban Solar Farms, and Ban them Immediately. Immediately. Immediately. I will say why, because i Have to Save a World Heritage Listed Rainforest, The Rarest Type on Planet Earth, Gondwana Rainforest that is already under Threat from 84 Cumulative Impacts that occur Upstream. Don't add any more, please, government, Australian, Unable to offer care for Country to a World Heritage Listed Area, 180 Million Years it has taken this Rainforest to evolve. But what happens is this. White man Destroys Nature. Still is. A comment I need from whoever is reading this. Thanks. Give me your address please. Place the Oxley Solar Farm outside your backyard. It will be there for about 4 years. Won't be used after that. Won't. Why ? Solar farms will be Banned as A Climate Impact in a Dry Continent, and On Planet Earth. I Research Human Impact To Mother Earth. I Research Human Impact to Vital upper Tributary Catchments and Vital Upland Wetlands on the Top of the Range of the Drainage Divide of the Great Divide of the Northern Tablelands of the Eastern Seaboard of Australia every day. I will leave Australia in about 4 years because it won't be Raining on it, The Great Divide. I do know why. You don't. You do not. Below is my Spoken Submission to Three people I do need entering an Inquiry themselves, because they haven't listened to Speakers who are Experts. Experts. Yes. Experts. The ones I heard are all Experts. You didn't hear them. I watched you. You, three as Commissioners, with No Knowledge at all, I do say. Here is my Spoken Submission. Read it out Aloud so you can Hear it and Feel it. Get Off My Nation, the Beijing entity. Get Off My Place now, the Beijing Entity. Get Off My Country now, Beijing entity. You are Unaware of a Dry Continent. I Demand a Royal Commission into Renewables. I Demand Cessation of All Projects , termed Renewables, Wind Farms, Solar Farms, BESS, Hydro in a Dry Continent, For God's Sake, A u s t r a l i a I s A D r y C o n t i n e n t, Unlike Any Other on Planet Earth. Not one Government employee knows this. Not one. Not one. And we are Now in Another Serious Drought, One after Another After Another After Another, after another, After Another After Another After Another After Another After Another that takes us to 1942, when a War took out the Intelligent people , named Australians, and replaced them with the American way of living, NB, the American way of living, an Excess Extraction Lifestyle way of Living, Still Here Now, I n A C l i ma t e E m e r g e n c y. Go Coal. Cease and Desist the export of Coal to China, to China, to China, and know why. Who makes These Things, called Solar Panels, Toxic, hm. Toxic. In a Area adjacent to a National Park. How Dare You, gov.au. In my Own region of Armidale an Addition to Cumulative Impacts, Here Now, Here Now, will Decimate the Macleay River, the Macleay River Catchments, and Upper Tributary Catchment Farmland, which is Watered by Cloud. Cloud. What is it ? Ask the Question. What is Cloud ? Air. Atmosphere. Cloud itself, which can be a Raincloud, or a Front of Clouds, or a few Clouds, or Storm Clouds, or Fog, or Mist, or Dew, or overnight moisture WE ARE NOT RECEIVING IN 2023, YOU SEE. I demand a Royal Commission into Solar Farms, especially Uralla Solar Farm, on a Catchment on the Top of the Range of the Drainage Divide of the Macleay Catchments. This Particular Solar Farm I do Need Researched Immediately as a Climate Impact to a Cool Climate region, Northern Tablelands, that has not received any Rainfall since 4th May 2023. This Increased the Temperature you see, this Solar Farm. Increased the Temperature of a Cool Climate Region. a Cool Climate Region, Now Not. What does that mean ? Work it out . Hottest Winter On Record in 2023. Hottest September in 2023. Add Driest September in 2023. Warmest August ever recorded in 2023. I have to Do something and it Must be Stop Solar Farms Immediately. They Are A Climate Impact, and I need a Royal Commission into Renewables, and Transmission Lines, and BESS Toxic To , and Hydro on the upper Tributary Catchments of Our Poor Poor Poor Upper Tributary Catchments Area , affected by 86 Cumulative Impacts Now. I Need a Intelligent gov.au human asking questions to me please about Vital Upper Tributary Catchments, affected by 86 Cumulative Impacts, Increasing aren't they, government, not Decreasing, hm. There isn't anyone in government that understands Vital Upper Tributary Catchments, or we Would Not be doing what we are doing to them. That you have no idea about, do you, gov.au. You have No idea about Cumulative Impacts on Vital Upper Tributary Catchments of the Macleay River System. I Walk Land in Awareness. You do not. You have No knowledge of it. Obvious. How Dare you accept a plan, altered, yet quite Harming to the Gara River itself, a Upper Tributary of the Macleay River, a Precious National Park System , can we Keep Protected. In 3 years time we will have El Nino. I understand Catchments. You have No idea what they are. If someone can Please Stop Oxley Solar Farm as a Toxic Threat to a World Heritage Listed Rare Gondwana Rainforest Region. What are you doing in this area? What ? Stop this Nonsense please re Renewables or our Dry Continent will not Rain. I Demand a Royal Commission into Solar Farms and the Australian Government , who support Renewables, Why, why why why ? Stop Them, Solar Farms, Outright, and I Know Why, and You don't. Add 86 Cumulative impacts that are Impacts Not mentioned in a Document called EIS and Altered Plan For Oxley Solar Farm. I Must Have A say in the Presence of Someone Intelligent in government, and there's No-One I can say is Intelligent in government, all Departments. There is No-one in government who knows Australia Is a Dry Continent, therefore you are Unable to choose a source of Electricity so Harming to a World Heritage area you don't even know , do you, do you. God. Bless Intelligence in a few. God, and it is God I Ask you see. God. I know why Solar Farms must be Banned from Australia, and Planet Earth, drying. Drying. Drying. Drying. Aka , Heating. Heating. Heating. Heating, isn't it, eh. Yes. It's Obvious , Isn't it, eh. My Cool Climate will not Ever be a Cool Climate again, unless government Cease and Desist. There will be a Issue in the Northern Tablelands If Renewables are approved from now. If they are approved then this Australian Government Must Take Full Responsibility for El Nino , Unlike ever Before in a Dry Continent. You Fools in the positions , somehow you are in, and are in, and are. You Fools are Fools who Threaten Australia, Yes. If another Solar Farm accesses Vital Upper Tributary Catchments, then it cannot be this one, Oxley Solar Farm. Why ? If 180 Million Years of Evolution means anything to anyone , eh you , you. If 180 Million Years of Evolution means anything to anyone, Choose Coal Now, until its Magnetic free Energy Future, which Had a position once upon a time, once upon a time, and can Again, eh Nikla Tesla, eh. Coal has No Toxic Residue Threat To. Fossil Fuels Increase in use and are a Threat to Biosphere, Yes. Extraction of minerals required for a hideous Hideous method of Energy Generation called Renewable Electric Future is a Threat to Sacred Lands in A Dry Continent of Aquifers as the Water Source to a Nation, Without Glaciers, and Ice, and Snow. Do you understand that statement ? Australia as a Continent, is Unlike any other on Planet Earth. Australia is watered from Aquifers, Aquifers, Aquifers, and Rainfall Only these days. Did you read that. Rainfall Only these days. What was here 800 years ago is not here now. What Was here 200 years ago is not here now. What was here 5 years ago, Is Not Here Now. Aquifers. Gone. That's Impact to a Dry Continent over Time, over Time. If we are getting Hotter and No-one is taking Notice of that, then I Need a Royal Commission. I have a Lot to say and I want To say a Lot about White Man Impact to A Dry Continent, the Driest it's been , So Far. So Far. I Vehemently Object to Oxley Solar Farm, upstream from a Gondwana Rainforest, Rarest Type On Planet.

New South Wales

25/10/2023

Object

Website

Dear Chairman and Committee Members, I wish to make a submission of OBJECTION to the proposed Oxley Solar Farm for the following reasons; 1. Visual amenity - from the location of our place we can see a significant footprint of the project. This inhibits our amazing views we currently experience. I have taken a photo of the current view we can see and I have added in the screening that we could possibly be having following consultation with the proponent if this project is successful. This screening is unacceptable. We did not choose to live in such a magnificent space, for it to be blocked by trees, grasses and shrubs. See the images attached for a visual representation. How dare they think it is okay to take away our scenery. How dare they show no empathy and think that this will make it better. unacceptable! 2. Environment - I am truly concerned about the animals that are local to our water ways. The platypus, Black Swans, Pelicans, water hens and fish to name a few are in abundance in that water way. It is one of the healthiest waterways around. We heard from the owner of the property on the morning of the site visit that they were worried about the damage that could be caused do to the runoff from hills. They mentioned when the waste management facility was constructed the first big rain caused a huge concern in the waterway and tuned the Gara River green. They said this was disgusting and a cause for concern with the development of the proposed farm. It would be impossible to control the sediment run off on such undulating ranges. If panels are damaged where will they go? They cannot go into landfill here in Armidale. The space these would take up would be huge. This has not been thoroughly thought through and certainly not being dumped here in our land. 3. Decommissioning and rehabilitation - this is something that I cannot get my head around. How can they possible return the paddocks that have had panels on them for a number of years back to how they are now? That is a huge cost and one that I believe would not be full filled.

img2942jpg.jpg (JPG, 97.2 KB)

img2943jpg.jpg (JPG, 119.95 KB)

New South Wales

24/10/2023

Object

Website

ATTENTION: NSW Independent Planning Commission I write to you with the greatest concern for my, and my family’s, well-being, both physical and emotional, as well as the impact this development could potentially have on us financially. Being the closest resident to the proposed development, with a dwelling 615m east of Oxley Solar Farms first solar panel array-25 and a business owner who has nothing to gain from the proposed development but much to lose, the amendments provided have not adequately addressed the concerns that I previously raised in my first submission. My concerns in fact have increased significantly and the related stress is impacting on myself, my wife as well as my elderly parents, given that our property is a family business. The communication and consultation from Oxley Solar since June 2021, when they met us on site has been minimal and generic in nature. This lack of transparency and personal consultation has, as mentioned previously, exacerbated our stress rather than alleviated it and has negatively affected many aspects in our lives. Having reviewed the amendments I will outline my concerns below which relate to Lot 6- in particular solar panel arrays 25, 28 and 26. Firstly, in my original submission, I outlined reasons for wanting, at a minimum, arrays 25 and 28 removed from Lot 6 DP625427. These arrays are simply too close to my family home and are visible from our adjacent land. The visual amenity we enjoyed in our bush setting for decades will be significantly changed. I note that there was a minor setback, totalling 69m, in the amendment for array 25. This is not a ‘significant setback’ as was recorded in the IPC minutes-12.10.2023. I can only assume this setback was because it was located in a water course. I note, interestingly, that many arrays have been removed for the residence/receptors of the Castledoyle area. However, there has been no comparable consideration for R5. In fact, there has been no net change to Lot 6 and what has been removed from numerous arrays in Lot 6 has been added to other arrays in Lot 6. So, my original concerns have been totally dismissed. Why is our well-being so readily ignored when a comparable setback as that on the Castledoyle side would at least show us that you are prepared to be evenly considerate to all those negatively impacted? During the construction phase I am most concerned about the noise levels given our close proximity and the fact that this will be operational 6 days week. I am curious to know how the noise levels were established in table 2.1 “Receiver Locations” and table 4.4 dB (A) “Construction noise levels at receiver locations”. My curiosity is based on the data provided that estimates that noise levels for R7, which is 1390m SW of the development, is in the same range as R5, which is 650m from the proposed development. For example, a small pile driving rig is 20-39dB(A) at R5 and yet at R7 it is 20-40dB(A). The 3 noisiest plants operating concurrently are 20-48 dB (A) at R5 and yet at R7 are 20-45dB(A). Based on these two examples alone, I think that the data provided in this table is highly questionable as there is a significant difference in distances and yet the construction noise levels for these receivers are almost the same. In summary, we are highly concerned that the noise levels from Lot 6 will be too loud for R5. I note also in the amendments that array 26 on Lot 6 is within 40m of a significant riparian zone. I find it extraordinary that array 26 has got this far through the process. This would leave no room to mitigate any potential problems. Despite the amendment report from Oxley Solar Farm stating, “In response to the public and agency submissions, the Oxley Solar Farm has made substantive additional changes to the Proposal. In comparison to the BDAR v2.2, further ‘avoid and minimise’ actions were undertaken and are documented in BDAR v3 (Appendix D). Relevant to reducing biodiversity impacts, these included: Increased setbacks to Gara River in the central section of the site.” However, this is not evident on the revised plans, where from what I can see, panels have been added to the western side of array 26, rather than removed. I have similar concerns for array 23. Where are the ‘substantive additional changes’ that ameliorate the impact on the eastern side of the Gara River? Clearly, the development will have a major impact on this unique ecosystem, which is home to platypus and numerous bird species, all of which have been outlined in the biodiversity report. In the recent IPC meeting held on 12/10/23 it was stated, “...there would be limited biodiversity impacts.” I ask the question; would this be the case after a severe hailstorm where panels would be damaged and contaminants from the panels washed directly into this riparian zone? A riparian zone that has significant heritage and a rich biodiversity. I struggle to understand how this is in keeping with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 which relates to the conservation of biodiversity. On a positive note, I was most thankful to hear from Iwan Davies (NSW Department of Planning) on 17.10.2023 in the public forum held at Dangarsleigh Hall Armidale, that use of Silverton Road throughout the life of the proposed development would be ‘prohibited’. This is the only positive that has been offered to me over several years of uncertainty. My family and I trust that there may be more, and await communication of what these concessions may be so that the quality of our lives, and the eco-system around us, are not severely impacted.

Not Applicable - see my response to question 3 above.

23/10/2023

Object

Website

Please see the attached .pdf. This is my submission.

submissiontoipcoxleysolarfarmplusbesspdf.pdf (PDF, 247.84 KB)

Save Our Surroundings (SOS)

New South Wales

22/10/2023

Object

Website

Further to our verbal submission at the 17/10/23 at Dangarsleigh Hall, 2350/874 Dangarsleigh Rd, Dangarsleigh 2350 NSW meeting we herein provide a more detailed written submission of our objections to the proposed Oxley Solar Works. Our submission consists of three uploaded documents: * SOS submission • "Wind and Solar Electricity Generation Are the Answer. Seriously" • " BESS Deficiencies"

sos-attachment-bess-deficiencies-v1pdf.pdf (PDF, 1.96 MB)

sos-research-paper-november-2022pdf.pdf (PDF, 4.56 MB)

sos-sbm-to-ipcn-on-oxley-sw-231022-v1pdf.pdf (PDF, 818.27 KB)

22/10/2023

Object

Website

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed installation of the Oxley Solar Farm and associated battery energy storage system (BESS) in this community. While I understand the importance of renewable energy and the need for innovative solutions to address our energy challenges, I believe that this project, in its current form, raises serious concerns and risks that must not be overlooked. Increased Fire Risk: Instances of BESS-related fires are not unique to Australia. Globally, there have been numerous incidents where BESS installations caught fire, raising concerns about fire risks. For example, in the U.S., the McMicken BESS facility in Michigan experienced a significant fire in 2019, releasing hazardous smoke and posing risks to nearby residents. Recent incidents, such as the fire at Victoria Big Battery near Geelong, and the 50MW/2Hr Bouldercombe BESS near Rockhampton in Central Queensland on 26 September 2023 exemplify the heightened fire risk associated with BESS, even when newly installed. The fire not only posed a danger to residents from toxic smoke fumes, including warnings for residents to stay indoors, but also required substantial firefighting efforts and monitoring while waiting for them to ‘burn out’. This incident underscores the potential risks to communities living near BESS installations. Firefighting Challenges: Lithium-ion battery fires, common in BESS, are recognized as difficult to combat worldwide. The 2019 Arizona Energy Storage Facility fire in the United States serves as a stark example. Firefighters had to use specialized techniques and equipment to control the blaze safely due to the release of highly toxic gases during the fire. As a Queensland rural fire-fighter, I and my fellow volunteers do not have the necessary training to enter and combat fires of this type. It is my understanding that similar preventative measures would also be enforced in NSW to protect volunteers from toxic emissions from panels and batteries when ignited. Given the rural location of this solar energy facilities, urban firefighters would take some time to attend with the necessary protective equipment and the risk of the fire spreading is enhanced due to this time delay. My absence from providing verbal evidence at the hearing on 17 October 2023 was due to my brigade attending a fast-moving wildfire that had been ignited from a sub-station west of Rockhampton, and quickly moved to threated multiple homes and farm structures. When RE projects are sited across our regional and rural landscapes, they also require substation at each project, which is increasing the fire risk for neighbouring communities. Short Lives of Batteries: The limited lifespan of BESS components is a global concern. For instance, the Tesla-built Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, while celebrated for its capabilities, will require periodic and costly battery replacements due to the natural degradation of lithium-ion batteries, mirroring concerns in other countries. There is yet to be an adequate system to recycle these components increasing the volume of landfill or waste that will need to be managed in the not-to-distant future. Limited Job opportunities in the post-construction phase: Beyond construction, there will be limited full-time, skilled jobs for local people so this project does not create skilled jobs for the future. Inefficient Energy Conversion: The inefficiency of BESS systems is a common global issue. Research from the University of California, Irvine, has shown that BESS installations waste approximately 20-30% of the stored energy due to charging and discharging losses, impacting energy grid efficiency, as seen in various countries. Unreliability: BESS systems' dependence on intermittent renewables is a worldwide concern. The 2021 Texas power crisis, triggered by a severe winter storm, exposed the vulnerability of energy grids relying heavily on wind and solar, illustrating the global challenge of BESS reliability during adverse weather conditions. Agricultural Land Usage: The conversion of agricultural land for BESS is a concern worldwide. The Warwick Solar Farm in Queensland, while boosting renewable energy capacity, reduces the land's potential for food production, a recurring issue in many regions seeking to balance energy needs with agriculture. No rehabilitation bond required: There is no bond system for the eventual decommissioning and rehabilitation of the site. This is dependent on a 'guarantee' given by whoever owns the project at the time, and due to the nature of the business structure, there are concerns for who will be responsible for the decommissioning and clean-up of this site at the end-of-life of this project. Energy Consumption: The continuous energy input required for cooling BESS battery packs is a common global requirement. The Neoen Bulgana Green Power Hub in Victoria, Australia, is an example of the electricity consumed 24/7 to maintain battery temperatures, mirroring challenges in other countries. Supply Chain Concerns: Ethical concerns surrounding the mining of materials for BESS batteries are global. Reports link cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a significant source of cobalt, to unethical labour practices, including child labour, raising questions about the global supply chain for BESS materials. These practices are in direct contradiction of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act. Increased Greenhouse Emissions: BESS installations can contribute to increased greenhouse emissions, as the production of lithium-ion batteries emits substantial carbon dioxide. A study published in Nature Communications highlighted that the production of batteries contributes to emissions, a concern shared worldwide https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04826-0 Mining Impact: The expansion of mining activities for BESS materials has environmental consequences globally. The Greenbushes Lithium Mine in Western Australia, one of the world's largest lithium mines, has faced criticism for its environmental impacts, including habitat destruction and water pollution, similar to concerns raised in other regions. Transportation Emissions: The transportation of BESS components over long distances and road transport raises environmental issues globally. The logistics of shipping large batteries and equipment can lead to road damage, increased diesel consumption, and additional emissions, reflecting challenges in various countries. Risk of Contamination: The risk of soil contamination from BESS installations is not unique to Australia. Chemicals and materials used in battery production and maintenance can leak into the ground, potentially contaminating soil, a concern seen in other parts of the world where BESS facilities are situated. https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22026518/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint In conclusion, these examples and evidence from similar situations emphasize the need for comprehensive research, safety measures, and rigorous environmental assessments when considering BESS installations. Addressing these concerns is vital to ensure the safety, well-being, and sustainability of communities affected by these energy storage systems. Thank you for you consideration of my submission.

N/A

New South Wales

18/10/2023

Object

Website

1 DECOMMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION – Oxley Solar Project Grossly Inadequate obligations of the Applicant pursuant to Condition B38. Within 18 months of the cessation of operations, unless the Planning Secretary agrees otherwise, the Applicant must rehabilitate the site to the satisfaction of the Planning Secretary. This rehabilitation must comply with the objectives in Table. Table 3: Rehabilitation Objectives Site • Safe, stable and non-polluting • Minimise the visual impact of any above ground ancillary infrastructure agreed to be retained for an alternative use Solar farm and ancillary infrastructure • To be decommissioned and removed, unless the Planning Secretary agrees otherwise Land use • Restore land capability to pre-existing. The Applicant, Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd, is an Australian Proprietary Company, registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission in NSW. The Company is limited by shares. It is a private company with an Ordinary Class share structure with 9,794,854 shares issued. Solar Megawatt Holding Pty Ltd, incorporated on 10 October 2017, is a private Chinese company limited by shares and was registered in Hong Kong. It is the beneficial owner of 8,650,000 fully paid shares in Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd. Australasia Agriculture and Food Holding Group Pty Ltd is an Australian Proprietary Company, registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission in NSW. The Company is limited by shares and is the non-beneficial owner of 1,144,854 fully paid shares in Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd. The sole Director, Gesheng Shen, is also a Director of Australia Eco-Technology Pty Ltd, the exclusive supplier of Tongwei Solar panels which are manufactured in China. Mining companies in NSW are required to pay a rehabilitation bond prior to the issue of a mining licence. This is to ensure that there are funds available for rehabilitation of the mine site at end of life if the mining company goes into liquidation. The Applicant, Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd, could be liquidated prior to the end of life of the project with the beneficial owner, Solar Megawatt Holding Pty Ltd having received, through dividends, all income earned by Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd during the life the project. The beneficial owner of Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd, Solar Megawatt Holding Pty Ltd, as a condition of approval of this application, should be required to pay a Rehabilitation Bond. The amount of the Bond should be determined by an independent registered quantity surveyor or such other competent valuer, to be nominated by the Independent Planning Panel. This is to ensure that funds are available for the decommissioning of the solar infrastructure which is then disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Environmental Protection Agency. Then the land is to be fully restored to its pre-existing capability. Currently, there is no incentive for the Applicant to comply with Condition B38. There are many abandoned solar and wind projects in the USA and Europe where entities have gone into liquidation and left the landowner to decommission, remove the infrastructure and rehabilitate the property. 2 Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Threatened Flora and Fauna The collective approval of solar projects, wind projects and HV transmission projects is a threat to the survival of Australia’s unique flora and fauna. Currently a documentary is being produced by Steve Nowakowski, a noted environmentalist. The documentary is entitled “Transition to Extinction”. No one wants our unique flora and fauna to meet the same fate as the “Tasmanian Tiger”. We have to speak for them. 'The EPBC search (undertaken on 20 November 2018 with a 10km buffer of the site) identified three threatened ecological communities, 32 threatened species and 14 migratory species of relevance to the site. Threatened species either known to occur or with the potential to occur include: • 7 bird species 3 Critically Endangered, 2 Endangered and 2 Vulnerable o Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera Phrygia) Critically Endangered o Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) Critically Endangered o Red goshawk (Erthrotriorchis radiatus) Endangered o Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) Vulnerable o Swift Parrot (Lathamus Discolor) Critically Endangered o Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) Endangered o Black-breasted Button-quail (turnix melanogaster) Vulnerable • 2 amphibians Yellow-spotted Tree Frog, Yellow-spotted Bell Frog (Litoria castanea) Critically Endangered o Peppered Tree frog (Litoria piperata) Vulnerable • 8 mammals 5 Vulnerable, 3 Endangered o Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) Vulnerable o Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) Endangered o Greater Glider (Petauroides volans) Endangered o Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata) Vulnerable o Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) Endangered o Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus tridactylus) Vulnerable o New Holland Mouse, Pookila (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) Vulnerable o Grey-headed Flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) Vulnerable • 12 plants 1 Critically Endangered, 3 Endangered, 8 Vulnerable o Callistemon pungens Vulnerable o White-flowered Wax Plant (Cynanchum elegans) Endangered o Bluegrass (Dichanthium setosum) Vulnerable o Small Snake Orchid, Two-leaved Golden moths, Golden Moths, Cowslip Orchid, Snake Orchid (Diuris pedunculata) Endangered o Narrow-leaved Peppermint, Narrow-leaved Black Peppermint (Eucalyptus Nicholii) Vulnerable o Euphrasia arguta Critically Endangered o Beadle’s Grevillea (Grevillea beadleana) Endangered o Gnarled Corkbark, Fraser’s Hakea (Hakea fraseri) Vulnerable o Tall Velvet Sea-berry (Haloragis exalata subsp. Velutina) Vulnerable o Macadamia Nut, Queensland Nut Tree, Smooth-shelled Macadamia, Bush Nut, Nut Oak (Macadamia integrifolia) Vulnerable o Hawkweed (Picris evae) Vulnerable o Austral Toadflax, Toadflax (Thesium australe) Vulnerable • 2 reptiles 1 Vulnerable, 1 Unlisted o Border Thick-tailed Gecko, Granite Belt Thick-tailed Gecko (Uvidicolus sphyrurus) Vulnerable o Bell’s Turtle, Western Sawshelled Turtle, Namoi River Turtle, Bell’s Saw-shelled Turtle (Wollumbinia belli) Unlisted 3 Soil Erosion and Pollution of waterways For the information of the Panel, a major Australian University is currently preparing a paper on the legal ramifications of soil erosion caused to adjoining properties as a result of the construction and operation of solar projects. MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Four companies that developed solar energy facilities in Alabama, Idaho and Illinois have agreed to pay a total of $1.3 million for violating construction permits and rules for handling groundwater, authorities said Monday. A statement by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency said the companies used a common construction contractor. In each case, the government alleged companies failed to take steps to control runoff water. In Alabama and Idaho, sediment from construction sites got into nearby waterways, the government said.

210120thedarksideofrenewableenergypdf_redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.35 MB)

230529--uncontrolled-runoff-from-solar-projectpdf.pdf (PDF, 422.2 KB)

230606--solar-farm-runoff-pollutes-propertypdf.pdf (PDF, 129.47 KB)

Regulation Economics

Victoria

17/10/2023

Object

Website

Oxley Solar Submission by Alan Moran The key assessment considerations include energy security. If the project proceeds it will deliver electricity at excessive costs with unacceptable reliability. The project is said to contribute 215 MW of renewable energy to the National Electricity Market, including a battery storage facility with a capacity of 50 MW / 50 MWh. The battery is falsely billed as having, “the potential to contribute to increased grid stability and energy security.” Though commercial for the sponsors, the project’s cost to the community is considerable. The Oxley Solar Farm, in addition to its market revenue, will obtain a subsidy through the Large Scale Generation Certificate scheme that is currently $52 per MWh. The wholesale price of electricity before renewable energy subsidised supplies started to eat into the coal fired generators’ market, and thereby cause them to be uneconomic, was rather less than $52 per MWh. The subsidy from the electricity consumer of about $30 million per year. Last year the wholesale price in NSW was $145 per MWh. The direct subsidies to renewables dominate their revenues and the effect of subsidised renewable energy supplies forcing out cheaper coal, has been a 3-4 fold increase in the wholesale market price to the great disbenefit of the community as a whole. The ABS data shows that general prices this year are double their 2000 level, while electricity prices are three and a half times their year 2000 levels. That price trajectory will continue. Though renewables are said to be cheaper than coal (and gas and nuclear) this is only the case if costs of firming of the intermittent renewables are excluded and if we exclude the costs (now set to rise considerably) of providing the increased transmission. Firming costs are incurred because the proposed facility’s unreliable high-cost renewable energy must be balanced. We cannot rely on electricity to be supplied only during daylight hours and subject to the vagaries of weather. The project itself incorporates a proposal for 50 MWh of battery. In fact, the storage required for system reliability with solar is far more than this. 1. Because a solar facility can only operate for one third of the day, even if operating at 100 per cent during daylight hours, the 215 MW facility is actually only 72 MW, producing (72*8) 576 MWh per day. 2. To back this up, even for a perfect day, batteries of 144 MW providing 1,152 MWh storage are required. The 50 MWh proposed is less than a twentieth of this. 3. If we also factor-in provision for five cloudy days (120 hours of storage) the de facto capacity of 72 MW requires additional storage of 8,640 MWh These are very conservative numbers that do not take into account losses in storage and in charging/discharging but even then, the facility with a stated capacity of 215 MW (but actual capacity of less that 70 MW) needs 9,812 MWh of storage. At an optimistic battery cost of $300,000 per MWh (according to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory). That means a $3,000 million additional cost for batteries, which would need to be replaced every 10 years. The project sponsors would not incur these costs themselves, but the replacement of existing coal capacity, on which the project is founded, requires such an additional cost to allow present levels of reliability. To achieve this, the community will incur costs sixfold the stated cost of the project itself. On top of this, increased transmission is necessary because renewable energy involves a less dense and more diffuse supply. In this respect, the plan’s costs of additional transmission expenditures compound the high cost of solar energy as generated. That transmission is only necessary because of the nature of the generation to be supplied. It is unnecessary for the consumer, who pays for it, and constitutes a further subsidy to the solar electricity provider. The proposal is clearly against the public interest and on grounds of energy security alone, the Commission should reject it.

oxley-solardocx.docx (DOCX, 133.56 KB)

Red4NE

New South Wales

17/10/2023

Object

Website

This Objection confirms 10 principles evident to the Community’s assessment o The fragility of SSD planning pathway has been easily influenced to the domination of the ‘convenience of connectivity’ development factor over the ‘socio-economic wellbeing of a local community’. o That procedural fairness must be the hall mark of any effective public law framework. o The importance of meaningful community consultation throughout the development process based on full inclusion and openness.This project offered a paucity of tick box consultation -There was no social licence - 78 objections to 0 support. It is impossible on a merit consideration for this project to secure grid connection and LTESA LTSA under the NSW EII Act 2020. o That a cornerstone of any intergenerational equity ambition must be Australian ownership retention of Australian agricultural land. o National Parks, such Oxley Wild Rivers, are places of immense public interest. They present for the preservation of the national environment -they protect endemic species and places of importance to the regional Aboriginal People. Consultation with the Aniwan People was farcical o That large scale solar and storage rollout is still early days - many of the risks and therefore liabilities associated with life-cycle analysis are yet to be fully assessed -project developers, project owners, consent authorities and local government authorities need to adopt an abundance of ‘precaution’ in exercising approval. o That developers need with complete transparency to table their development credentials and underwrite their financial creditability.

objectioncastledoylesolarfarmactiongrouppdf_redacted.pdf (PDF, 769.33 KB)

Save Our Woodlands

New South Wales

16/10/2023

Object

Website

Submission to Oxley Solar My name is Arleen Packer, I have a degree in Rural Science with Honours, from the University of New England (UNE), a Diploma of Education, (UNE) and a Graduate Certificate in Regeneration Agriculture, (Southern Cross University). I have taught Agriculture at TAFE NSW for the past 35 years. I also represent and Environmental Group known as Save Our Woodlands Inc. our website is http://saveourwoodlands.org To the Independent Planning Commission. I object to the Oxley Solar Farm on the following grounds: 1: The Oxley Solar Farm has no social licence. There were sixty five objections to the project and no-one is in favour of the project. I assume that the one, already extremely wealthy, landholder supports the project, and also the overseas companies who will make large amounts of money on the project but is the wealth of these few, more important than the negative effect of environmental contamination and the impact on the lives of the hundreds of people? 2: Solar and wind energy is not going to solve our shortage of electricity in the future. Both solar and wind energy are intermittent and will not provide our base power supply. We will need coal, gas or nuclear energy to provide base power into the future. Germany as an example of a country with large amounts of wind and solar energy production, Germany imports power from France, which is nuclear. The latest figures are here: “Germany Electricity Imports: France data was reported at 1,485,644.000 MWh in May 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 489,358.000 MWh for Apr 2023. CEIC Data (2023).” South Australia the one so called “green” state in Australia, imports brown coal based power from Victoria. 3: When solar farm are decommissioned can the area be returned to agriculture? Solar panels carry toxic waste in the form of heavy metals, (lead, cadmium, lithium, strontium, nickel, barium, zinc, and copper) and metalloids (selenium). We cannot envisage that a huge solar farm will have no broken panels during its lifetime. Panels are broken during construction, they are broken during the life of the project and large numbers can be broken if there is a major storm event such as the one in Armidale in October 2021. Robertson et al. (2019) states that Selenium, strontium, lithium, nickel, and barium levels measured in soil samples increased significantly in samples close to PV (solar) systems. The heavy metals then contaminate the land and the water surrounding the land. As these substances do not disintegrate the land can never be returned to agriculture. This project is situated on the Gara River directly above the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. What we are creating here is a toxic waste dump which will be impossible to remediate. 4: Can solar panels be recycled? Peplow (2022) states “today’s technologies for recycling these units are inefficient and rarely deployed. That is an enormous problem. PV panels contain toxic materials, like lead and cadmium, that can cause environmental pollution, yet many are dumped in landfills when they die. They also contain valuable materials that could be reused to make new solar cells, but today these resources are mostly wasted.” Armidale landfill accepts solar panels as “hard waste.” When I asked about dumping of solar panels at the new regional land fill I was told, by the current mayor, that they have no idea how many panels have been dumped. Anecdotal evidence from the truck drivers, delivering broken panels from the Uralla solar farm, indicates that one whole bay is already full of broken solar panels. This is toxic waste dumped directly above the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park and no-one in authority has even commented. It appears that the Armidale Council's lust for money completely over rides their care for the environment. 5: There is no provision in the legislation for the decommissioning of solar or wind farms. If a company wants to set up a mine, they have to pay a bond for the remediation of the area but a solar of wind farm does not have to pay anything. Our planning bodies hope that the final company owning the farm will remediate the area, as promised, but what if they just say, “Too bad, we're leaving?” These are overseas companies, and we have no recourse. Then the land holder becomes liable, and after they declare bankruptcy, it will be up to the people of NSW, via the Government to clean up the mess. Our Government's planning process needs some serious rethinking. If solar and wind power production solved our electricity needs perhaps we could tolerate the destruction of our environment (hopefully not), but when they are not going to provide base power, why are we allowing the development of toxic waste dumps, which will contaminate our pristine land and water forever? References: CEIC Data (2023) https://www.ceicdata.com› electricity-imports-and-exports Robinson, S. & Meindl, G. (2019), Potential for leaching of heavy metals and metalloids from crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. 10.5027/jnrd.v9i0.02. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339029474_Potential_for_leaching_of_heavy_metals_and_metalloids_from_crystalline_silicon_photovoltaic_systems Peplow, M ( 2022), Solar Panels Face Recycling Challenge, ACS Cent. Sci. 2022, 8, 3, 299–302 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.2c00214

New South Wales

10/10/2023

Object

Website

These are a ◼◼◼. Impact on land, don’t have any affect on lowering omissions, while china make them and keep omissions high the ◼◼◼ in Australia keep buying off them. Wake up Australia

New South Wales

09/10/2023

Object

Website

This area of the New England ranges is not suitable for mass scale renewable energy. Transmission of this type of energy requires the building of new large scale lines. These solar panels are not efficient at producing the amount of energy needed by our State into the future. They need maintenance which makes them questionable on the grounds of recycling. The only truly renewable form for the future is nuclear, which is what powers sunlight. Our sun is a giant nuclear reactor.

New South Wales

08/10/2023

Object

Website

Contamination to waterways, soil profiles and waste management arising from solar components is acknowleded worldwide as a ticking time-bomb. This is particularly relevant to this proposal in respect to its proximity to The Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, which contains UNESCO listed Gondwana Rainforest Wilderness Area. All runoff from this project will flow directly through the Gondwana Rainforest and then into the Macleay catchment. Under Scedule 1 of the POEO Act 1997, electricity works that generate electricity through the use of solar is not scheduled. That means that the DPE, EPA and presumanbly any LGA is absolved from any resonsibility regarding contamination caused or waste management arising from solar generation. So who then is resonsible? Until such time as this conundrum has been resolved and an environmentally acceptable plan is legislated, I call on the NSW government to initiate a moretorium on all solar farm applications.

essential document management pty ltd

New South Wales

03/10/2023

Object

Website

The continuing destruction of the Australian countryside is unacceptable to Australian citizens who support farmers, graziers and regional Australians in their campaign against the irrational development of wind projects and solar projects, which are environmentally destructive. When determining any planning application, primary consideration should be given to the principles of ecologically sustainable development as stated in: Federal Legislation - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 3A Principles of ecologically sustainable development The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development: (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; 3A (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations When considering environmental issues there is a dark side to renewable energy. Much emphasis is placed on the worldwide production of carbon dioxide by the burning of fossil fuels. What isn’t discussed is the life cycle of PV solar panels which includes the sourcing and mining of raw materials to enable the manufacture of PV solar panels and their associated infrastructure. Solar projects are considered to be short term installations and the push for nuclear energy in Australia and the rest of the world to provide reliable, sustainable, affordable energy while not emitting carbon dioxide will, in my opinion, see this project, if approved, become a stranded asset. Social impacts include, what is increasingly being reported as the use of forced labour by some manufacturers in the production of PV solar panels. ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-24/forrest-group-walk-free-warns-slavery-threat-solar-panels/102383470 3A (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation Again, there are threats of serious and irreversible environmental damage associated with the manufacture, installation and decommissioning of PV solar panels. PV solar panels are not recyclable and are currently buried. Toxic elements in the panels then leak into the water table and poison the groundwater. Currently there is no effective waste management plan for the decommissioning of PV solar panels. The soil below the panels is rendered useless for future agricultural use. (UTS 2019 Report) Mining leases are required to provide bonds for the rehabilitation of mined areas at the completion of mining operations. No such rehabilitation bonds are currently required for solar projects which has resulted in many abandoned solar projects overseas being left as ghost structures dotting the landscape. 3A (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; Rural lands, developed for solar projects, have been used for agricultural production for well over 100 years. Managed properly they could continue to be used for agricultural production for centuries to come. Solar projects are short-term installations and will not provide meaningful jobs for the local community during their short lifetime as opposed to ongoing employment for locals if the land is continued to be available for agricultural and grazing production. 3A (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should not only be considered in relation to the local areas. The life cycle of solar projects should always be considered in relation to ecologically sustainable development elsewhere. Adjoining landowners downhill from solar projects have suffered significant loss because of the uncontrolled rainwater runoff from the denuded land under the PV solar panels. The landowner of the property upon which the proposed solar power station is to be built should be made aware of the tort liability of nuisance and the law regarding negligence. It is ridiculous that Australia is currently not effectively using its abundant coal, gas and uranium resources to provide an affordable, sustainable and reliable energy generation network for its citizens and businesses. In conclusion, the Federal Government needs to legislate to remove the prohibition on nuclear energy, which is required to meet Australia’s national security needs and not rely on supply chains that are becoming more tenuous.

210120thedarksideofrenewableenergypdf_redacted.pdf (PDF, 501.26 KB)

230529--uncontrolled-runoff-from-solar-projectpdf.pdf (PDF, 422.2 KB)

230606--solar-farm-runoff-pollutes-propertypdf.pdf (PDF, 129.47 KB)

29/09/2023

Object

Website

This is a commercial solar farm in amongst residential land. These things belong in industrial areas. It will ruin the landscape and devalue my property which is the biggest asset most people have which will affect my retirement and my children’s future. Not only that, but it will be foreign owned and ugly. It also doesn’t belong on prime agricultural land. There’s a shortage of farmers as it is.

New South Wales

26/09/2023

Object

Website

◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼ Road ◼◼◼◼◼◼ NSW ◼◼◼◼ Objection to Oxley Solar Farm-SSD No 10346 I am writing to lodge my strong objections to Oxley Solar Farm-SSD No 10346 on many grounds. I am objecting on behalf of all those who have been, or will be placed in this awful position! We are subjected to an unwanted monstrosity placed in an environmentally, inappropriate area until regional plans and policy are put in place that clearly outline acceptable, and welcomed areas in which to place industrial solar plants in the New England region. I am supportive of solar energy, have solar panels installed on our property and understand the important part it will play in the future of renewable energy for generations to come. I also fully endorse the group objection put forward by Castledoyle Solar Farm Action Group. Firstly, may I begin by saying that you, as the Approving Authority, are placed in an extremely difficult position as the expectation on you to be Industrial Solar Plant experts to evaluate this proposal accurately, is enormous. The technical breadth needed to analyse the impacts of an industrial solar plant proposal encompass a wide range of well-regarded professions and is perhaps more suited to independent experts. Our first impression was that the Oxley Solar Farm DA was well presented and looked to be thorough, but upon reading more closely and then more widely of other similar DA’s, it became obvious that large parts of the DA are misleading, understated, overstated or missing altogether, it is simply a desktop, tick-the-box development application. Two recent documents that will provide you with great insight and information & be very useful to cross reference with the Oxley Solar Development are: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) – BOOKAR Renewables Pty Ltd (Infinergy Pacific) vs Corangamite Shire Council - 15th August 2019 https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/bookaar-renewables-pty-ltd-v-corrangamite-shire-council NSW Farmers Renewable Energy Landholder Guide (RELG) has been produced by the NSW Farmers’ Association (NSWFA) with funding from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – 09/19 to be of assistance to both landholders and solar farm proponents: http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/NSWFA/Content/IndustryPolicy/Resource/Renewable_Energy_Landholder_Guide.aspx Objections based on the Consultation Process “The community engagement principles that should inform a plan are: • mutual benefit • mutual respect • relationship-building • authenticity • appropriateness • ongoing engagement • transparency and responsiveness” (A Guide for Renewable Energy Developers p7 https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/91377/Community-Engagement-and-Benefit-Sharing-in-Renewable-Energy-Development.pdf ) and on all these principles, Oxley Solar Development’s approach would be deemed a complete failure. The whole planning process is strongly weighted in favour of the solar proponent having had a very long lead time. The proponent’s planning process is secretive and divisive in rural communities where neighbours and the locals rely on each other for physical and emotional support, particularly in very trying times of drought and other natural disasters. Solar proponents sneak around rural communities speaking to Councils and scoping favourable sites from which they can make the most money. No regard is given to the local community – it is simply a money grab to find places closest to power lines that they can tap into to save themselves masses of money. Individual landholders are quietly approached and then sign confidentiality agreements as part of their contracts that prevent them from talking to their families or neighbours. Years later, with no forewarning, letters appear in some mailboxes in the surrounding area, and I mean only some! This is the first step of the solar companies’ consultation process. RELG 0919 states “At a minimum, neighbours and their community should be informed about the project once the project enters the planning stage.” Oxley Solar Developing Pty Ltd’s attempts at engaging with the local community were laughable. Whilst they ‘tick the boxes’ for community consultation, it is disingenuous and selective. None of what they have done could be seen as a professional and genuine attempt at community engagement. Following this initial consultation period, it then becomes incumbent on those few people in the local community who were informed, to inform the very large number who weren’t. Were this not to happen, the process would play beautifully into the proponents hands as Oxley Solar Developing Pty Ltd’s DA would have very few objectors and would sail through the Approval process unopposed. Again, a weak attempt by Oxley Solar Developing Pty Ltd to inform locals honestly and openly, is an underhand attempt to get through the Approval process easily and I object to this strongly. With Oxley Solar Developing Pty Ltd having had a few years in which to gather all the information necessary for their DA, and it also being their field of expertise, once it is lodged, the local community on which the DA will have the greatest impact, has only very limited time in which to respond. Responding involves lodging a submission and not everyone is comfortable with this procedure. To add credence and value to an Objection, involves reading and understanding many large legal and jargon-loaded documents, searching for appropriate Government regulatory authorities and documents, personnel and information to gain an understanding of all that is involved. This is an enormous undertaking and again is strongly weighted in favour of the solar proponent, and I adamantly object to this process. With no National, State, regional or local policy that prescibes guidelines for the location of solar energy facilities, individuals are placed in this horribly difficult position we are experiencing. It is hugely unfair! I continue to implore the Armidale Regional Council to become proactive, show great leadership and work with other Councils to declare areas within their region where renewable energy facilities would be welcomed by the community, set boundaries valuing the natural and agricultural assets of their region where renewable energy facilities would not be welcomed and set guidelines for renewable energy proponents to adhere to. This would then mitigate the emotional, financial and physical stress experienced by anyone placed in the reactive situation we have been, whilst trying to maintain their full time jobs and busy lives. As Armidale is a designated hotspot for renewable energy, the sooner this is done the better. The total lack of consultation with the local aboriginal community is reprehensible. Objections based on Site selection As mentioned earlier, I am not against solar energy production but I am against the inappropriate placement of industrial solar plants, and the location of the industrial Oxley Solar development is totally inappropriate for the following reasons: Section 4.6 Solar site selection (RELG) states that “When searching for potential locations for hosting a solar farm, developers will typically consider the following key factors: • Distance from existing transmission lines (preferably less than 25km) and available network capacity; • Topography (preferably less than 1 per cent slope)” With Oxley Solar factory being proposed on a topographic slope of 5% and greater, and completely at odds with other successful proposals where they are well hidden, sited appropriately and built on relatively flat land. The placement of the Oxley Solar development in the Castledoyle area is a demonstrably inappropriate one. “The introduction of an industrial sized solar power station will not sit well in this ‘inappropriate’ setting. Its introduction will change this landscape from a rural ‘grass’ vista to an unnatural ‘glass’ vista. It will introduce a massive industrial feature into the pleasant rural landscape.” VCAT Finding p 39 The photographs of the Castledoyle area, used by Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd in their documentation, are staged to support their development but totally misrepresent the ‘real’ picture of the landscape. Any professional photographer given a brief to photograph this potential solar development would be aghast at what has been submitted. It is highly insulting to the local community, totalling misleading to anyone making a judgement on this DA and an opportunistic, dishonourable attempt to ‘sell’ a proposal. Zoom lenses are used and photographs, taken at inappropriate vantage points, are stitched together to hide the real impact this solar development will have on the local community and our world recognised tourist attraction. This is a wilful attempt to mislead those vested with the decision on this DA. It is a gross overstatement that solar factories must be located close to transmission lines for the financial viability of the development. This belief just exemplifies the true nature of their DA – purely financial gain for their own benefit with little regard for anything else. The planned Uriarra proposal near the ACT was relocated 60kms away from the initial site based on informed community objections. A quote from a very current document Section 4.6 Solar site selection (RELG) quotes solar factories can be located at “a distance of preferably less than 25kms.” The site selection criteria of minimal environmental constraints and minimal impact & proximity to residential settlement considered by Oxley Solar Development Pty Ltd are almost laughable as they fly in complete contradiction to where the site is proposed, the environment it affects and the community surrounding it. Objections based on Tourism Contrary to the NSW Government Regional Plan to 2036, (New England and North West) Primary Goal 1, Direction 8 - Expand tourism and visitor opportunities “The proposal will do nothing to enhance

commissioner-objection-2023pdf.pdf (PDF, 757.54 KB)