Glanmire Solar Farm

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

jim-blackwood-submission.pdf (PDF, 98.23 KB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-submission-1-redacted.pdf (PDF, 154.16 KB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

ewan-chandler-submission.pdf (PDF, 839.13 KB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

jonty-boshier-hennessy-dowd-lawyers-on-behalf-of-peter-hennessy-redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.46 MB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

sally-newton-chandler-submission-redacted.pdf (PDF, 457.97 KB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-submission-2.pdf (PDF, 163.74 KB)

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

paul-lalich-hwl-ebsworth-lawyers-redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.75 MB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

anita-heubel-submission.pdf (PDF, 102.08 KB)

21/12/2023

Comment

Email

juanita-kwok-submission-redacted.pdf (PDF, 138.9 KB)

Save our Surroundings Submission

19/12/2023

Comment

Email

save-our-surroundings--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm-2.pdf (PDF, 1.07 MB)

Save our Surroundings Submission

19/12/2023

Comment

Email

save-our-surroundings--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm-1.pdf (PDF, 789.92 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-5-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 315.03 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

peter-rogers-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 578.11 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

warwick-fish--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 278.83 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

christine-ray--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 36.92 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 108.63 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

sally-newtownchandler--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.23 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

andrew-gee--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 404.19 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

ewan-chandler--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.25 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-leblack--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.28 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-3-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 432.82 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

peter-hennessy-on-behalf-of-glanmire-action-group_redacted.pdf (PDF, 566.04 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

ashlee-petch--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm.pdf (PDF, 63.9 KB)

Glanmire Action Group

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

glanmire-action-group--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 44.58 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-6-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 6.6 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

polly-bonanno--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 37.79 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

william-hetherington--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 87.87 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

david-harbison-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 64.83 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

newton-rural--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.27 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

sam-bonanno--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 351.33 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

andrew-petch--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 199.85 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-1-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 473.79 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-4-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 501.29 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

peter-rogers-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm-1_redacted.pdf (PDF, 2.96 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

stacey-fish--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 238.09 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

bob-king--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 826.04 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-7-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 88 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

dirk-heubel--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 226.83 KB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

fitzsummer--submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.86 MB)

12/12/2023

Comment

Email

name-redacted-2-submission-for-glanmire-solar-farm_redacted.pdf (PDF, 435.87 KB)

30/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-video-3.mov (MOV, 22.6 MB)

30/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-video-1.mov (MOV, 37.85 MB)

30/11/2023

Comment

Email

lynette-lablack-video-2.mov (MOV, 28.66 MB)

Governance Services and Solutions

30/11/2023

Comment

Email

governance-services-and-solutions-submission_redacted.pdf (PDF, 294.39 KB)

Glanmire Action Group

29/11/2023

Comment

Email

glanmire-action-group-submission-2__redacted.pdf (PDF, 5.25 MB)

Glanmire Action Group

29/11/2023

Comment

Email

glanmire-action-group-submission-3_redacted.pdf (PDF, 5.22 MB)

Glanmire Action Group

29/11/2023

Comment

Email

glanmire-action-group-submission-1__redacted.pdf (PDF, 349.44 KB)

New South Wales

01/12/2023

Object

Website

Australia has an area of 7.7 million square kilometres, with so much of it useless for farming, yet here is a proposal that is sacrificing prime agricultural land for the benefit of corporate greed and the Federal (ALP) Government's grossly flawed energy policy! Let's not kid ourselves, if it was not for the outrageously generous government subsidies (the Australian people's taxes), non of these renewable energy projects would proceed! Corporations see an opportunity to profit and they are making the most of it at the expense of the Australian tax payers and residents! Australia has abundant natural resources (coal, gas and uranium) and these should be utilised for the electricity grid's base load power. Renewable energy can be utilised to supplement such or utilised in remote areas not connected to the electricity grid, but not at the expense of prime agricultural land! On the subject of greenhouse gases, Australia produces (let's say) 1% of the world's total, yet Australia mines coal, ships it to Asia which produces more than 60% of the world's greenhouse gases and that's OK. Logic would dictate that if one wants to reduce greenhouse gases, start at the 60% total first! But no, in Australia, the Federal (ALP) Government is going to save the world by reducing Australia's greenhouse gas contribution (from 1% to an even more immaterial percentage) and in so doing commit financial and economic suicide! The Federal (ALP) Government cannot control Australia's cost of living, but it will save the world from greenhouse gases!

New South Wales

30/11/2023

Object

Website

I strongly oppose the proposed Glanmire solar plant. I understand the need for large solar projects, however these projects need to be placed in the appropriate locations, well away from communities and on land that can not be used for agriculture, especially land of this calibre which can be used for cropping. The risks and detriment a project such as this brings to neighbouring properties and the local community needs to be considered.

New South Wales

30/11/2023

Object

Website

1. In appropriate use of prime agricultural cropping land. I personally farmed Woodside the proposed land for 16 years and it is some of the best cropping land in the Bathurst area. I grew crops every year I leased the property. I also farmed 4 neighbouring properties as well and know it capabilities. The country from Browns Hill to Bathurst has been cropped since the foundation of Bathurst and has feed the colony from then. I have seen the knockoff points and draft horse shoes all through the property when farming it and the other four properties. 2. Food security with productive land rapidly shrinking world wide. 3. Environmental impact including micro heat effects on rainfall etc. 4. Value of neighbouring land. 5. Effect weather future generations with building restriction on neighbouring properties. 6. Effect of disaster on water supply Bathurst. 7. Insurance unaffordable. I can’t get insurance over 30million. 8. Visual impact. 9. Fire risk.

New South Wales

30/11/2023

Object

Website

I object to the proposal

New South Wales

29/11/2023

Object

Website

The approval of this project could lead to a significant increase in insurance costs for these farmers, jeopardizing their ability to sustain and operate their businesses. The elevated insurance expenses associated with the solar plant pose an undue financial burden on our agricultural community, potentially hindering the livelihoods of those who rely on farming for their income. It is imperative to recognize the interconnectedness of our local economy and the potential ripple effects that such increased insurance costs may have on the fabric of our community. Please thoroughly assess the potential economic implications on neighboring farmers and consider relocating this development to the renewable energy zone (REZ). It is crucial to strike a balance between renewable energy goals and the economic viability of local businesses, particularly those in the vital agricultural sector.

New South Wales

29/11/2023

Object

Website

Inappropriate land for this proposed development as it would removal PRIME agricultural land from the local, state, and national economies. This prime piece of land has been consistently cropped with canola, oats, barley, and wheat for many decades when the developer (Elgin Energy) is claiming it is land that has only been used for grazing therefore not of high grade so suitable for the proposed solar plant, which is a LIE and FALSE information. IT IS PRIME CROPPING LAND. Value of the surrounding land will be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced particularly in light of the visual impact, the insurance concerns, and the water damage from surface movement from this proposed solar plant. People have worked their whole lives to be able to afford their own piece of prime land in this beautiful part of Glanmire, just out of the main city being Bathurst and the devaluation of their land now will be more than 60% due to this destructive proposed plant. There are specifically allocated land barrier areas for these to be constructed into, why not use them, and stay out of this PRIME spot, saving the Bathurst community the value of land, sanity of not dreading summer fires start on the proposed spot and potentially burning their homes and negatively impacting peoples state of mind. The large majority of the submissions to date (133 of the 147 submissions responding to the EIS in 2022 have been Bathurst community objections. The locals do not want this eyesore on the main entrance to Bathurst, on prime land and can see the many risks that associate with this proposed development. The food security is an increasing issue as we fell the effects of climate change and should be protecting the prime cultivation land instead of trying to construct this proposed solar plant on this land. Having no bond for the future to protect this land is another major issue – what happens if there is no money set aside to ensure the financial costs to safely remove the proposed plant infrastructure at the end of its life and remediate the land (which will take multiple years after to restructure and be as productive). The lack of consultation throughout this whole process from Elgin Energy and the DPIE has been horrible and misinformative to say the least. The proposed 20,000L fire response water tank is completely inadequate especially with a battery system proposed as well. That isn’t going to stop a large grass fire let alone a fire to break out in amongst the proposed solar plant. The 167 vehicle movements at the intersection of the Great Western Highway, Glanmire Lane and Brewongle Lane at the peak of constructions is concerning. The roads aren’t satisfactory now let along hundreds a construction cars, Utes and trucks and heavy machinery driving on it consistently, will make the road even more undrivable that it currently is and potentially be the main source of many accidents. The Planning process is skewed in favour of developers who have up to 2 years to produce an Environmental Impact Statement, and the community only has 28 days to reply to that EIS. How does that one seems fair. The inadequate and poorly planned visual impact management is yet another issue. The visual impact is not going to be mitigated by the proposed tree planting – it would take the lifespan of the panels (40 years) for the trees to mature to the desired height to screen the visual pollution of the proposed solar plant. So what, in the meantime we get to look at baby trees “covering” the solar panels… good job that’s going to be for the next 40 years. Finally, the insurance impact on neighbouring farming operations. The fact that no neighbouring farmer will be able to afford to operate adjacent to the proposed plant because of the prohibitively high cost of getting insurance to cover the risk of fire from their farms damaging the solar panels. Not only fire, but the corrosive effects of the spray drift from farming operations will impact the revenue generation of the solar plant which is another insurance risk to cover farmers. The Planning Authority has been made aware of the critical issue of insurance for neighbouring farmers and has done nothing to suggest they understand the impact it will have across the state at all renewable sites. The proponent has not addressed this insurance issue with any evidence detailing how it will be managed or mitigated.

New South Wales

29/11/2023

Object

Website

1. covering arable land with solar panels is a loss of good agricultural production being grazing meat animals or cropping 2.visual impact will be seen for many kilometres, I have seen other solar plants and they are very shiny and glary 3. environmental impacts - this would be creating an environmental impact when the time comes to dispose of "use by date" of the solar panels. What are the responsibilities of the developer or the future owners of the solar plant? 4. there is no compatibility of a solar plant in the proposed area - why are solar plants being considered in "out of zone" areas? There can be no cropping or grazing of the land that will be covered with solar panels.

Queensland

27/11/2023

Object

Website

I object to this project because I want my electricity bills to go down, not up. Large-scale wind and solar cannot reduce electricity bills for the following reasons: 1. Retail electricity bills reflect the cost of the entire electricity delivery system which includes several components: wholesale, networks, environmental, retail. 2. Wind and solar can only reduce the wholesale component of the bill, and only when they set the wholesale price. Wind and solar almost never set the wholesale price, and when they do it is for a very short duration, with almost no effect on the average price. So large-scale wind and solar rarely determine the average spot market price. Further, almost all large-scale wind and solar projects sell their entire output at a fixed price with no regard for the wholesale market. Additionally the inverter-based generators increase costs of maintaining system stability and backup capacity, eliminating any potential savings. 3. Wind and solar increase the cost of transmission and distribution networks, whose cost recovery is determined by the value of the asset – the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). Increasing the RAB increases the total costs recovered. There is no link between costs and network utilisation. 4. Current government policies intend to massively expand the transmission network by at least 10,000 km. 5. Large-scale wind and solar cannot reduce the costs of the distribution network. Cost of upgrading the distribution network to integrate small-scale solar, batteries and EVs are unknown. These costs are also subject to RAB increases that must be recovered from consumers. 6. Do large-scale wind and solar reduce environmental costs and retailer overheads? No. Any environmental cost reductions are predicted to stem from reduced subsidies to rooftop solar. Retail overheads are projected to increase because of the additional costs incurred in the distribution network required to deal with rooftop solar and batteries. Summary • Retail bills reflect total system costs, including o Retail overheads o Environmental costs o Network costs o Wholesale costs • Large-scale wind and solar can only increase system costs o No reduction in retail or environmental costs due to large-scale wind and solar o No reduction in wholesale prices

New South Wales

22/11/2023

Object

Website

Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak against this proposed solar farm. Whilst I am generally in favour of alternative energy, the location of this this project is totally unsatisfactory. When Lachlan Macquarie first travelled to the Bathurst district he was very impressed with the fertility of the soils and "garden-like" Evans Plains. The residents of New South Wales should not be subjected to an industrial landscape as they descend from the Blue Mountains. The proponent has been less than honest in its representation of the visual impact, using suspect photographic projections that bare very little nexus to reality. New South Wales has designated renewable energy zones and, as such, the proponent should adhere to zoning regulations, as every other developer is obliged to do. The bounds of State Significant Development are exploited and, in my opinion, are undemocratic because the objectors have no recourse through the judicial system. This project has absolutely no merit, with the proponent having very little substance and will, no doubt, seek to off-load the project as soon as Consent is granted.

New South Wales

20/11/2023

Object

Website

In reference to the proposed solar power station at Glanmire, I would hope government recognises and listens to people’s concerns. 1. We need our food bowl. This is prime agricultural land, which is used for cultivation. 2. Fire risk for land owners. They are not able to afford the insurance required, in the event of the solar power station being burnt out. This is quite possible, in harvest season. 3. The location of this solar power station is less than 5 Kilometres, to the start of the city of Bathurst’s entrance and airport. 4. The solar power station I believe is meant to be 10 kilometres, or more from the edge of the city, which encroaches on the present urban development and future growth will be even closer. Isn’t that a state ruling? 5. Bathurst is the oldest inland city. I don’t believe it is a good look for our heritage as you approach the city. Thank you ◼◼◼

New South Wales

20/11/2023

Object

Website

In my original sub-mission to the Department of Planning I raised a number of issues why this Solar Farm should not go ahead. These issues or hurdles have not changed since my first submission, things such as Problems obtaining insurance for the neighbours, The downgrading of property values in the area with the local neighbours losing money on their nest eggs or retirement funds(Their Property).To cover this with landscaping or Buffer Zone only adds fuel to the fire. But one of my main concerns is this proposal is well and truly outside of the RED Zone. It encroaches on Prime agricultural land, land that the Government is trying to protect. I was blown away by how misleading the original soil report was, after being a Stock and Station agent with 30 years experience as well as a stud manager for many years with one of the countries leading Murray Grey Stud ( What ever the studies find I can assure you This is Prime Agricultural Land for the Bathurst district). The second Report from minesoils has now upgraded the soil studies to now say it includes 40 Ha of LSC class 3 a quarter of the site with 132 Ha being class LSC class 4 In the NSW Central Tablelands some of the richest soil for agriculture is found on ancient volcanic rocks deposited some 400 million years ago. Referred to as Ordovician Volcanic, they extend from around Blayney through Orange and up to the north of wellington. Bathurst does not have this rich volcanic soil we have loamy granite Because the Bathurst Area is so short on Class 3 and 4 soils that every small loss of this precious commodity is a big loss to the local area. Lets put the solar farm in the red Zone and leave the small amount of farming land to farming

New South Wales

20/11/2023

Object

Website

I strongly object to this proposed development because of the site chosen. The land in question is extremely valuable farming ground and the loss of food production capability were the project approved to go ahead (in this site) is significant. The site is included in land that has often been described as "the Food bowl" of his area as it is known for producing award winning crops and for producing sheep and cattle. With food scarcity an ever growing concern in our current economic climate, I believe that a project such as the one proposed would be better suited to an area that has little or no farming value. Fertile productive farming ground should not be utilised for this purpose.

New South Wales

26/11/2023

Support

Website

I support the proposal as outlined in documents presented herein by the IPC. Objectors have not demonstrated that agricultural production would be at all diminished. Indeed, I recommend that Elgin consider regenerative and creative methods to rehabilitate and use the under-panel vegetation and unique ecologies so generated. With over 30 houses in a 2km radius of the project, the 'industry' located closest to the development appears to be hobby farms and building suburban houses on subdivided rural land. It is perhaps inevitable that the 'urban sprawl' meets a 'rural dream' meets the urgent need for renewables in this way. It is thus also all the more imperative.to locate the project among and clearly seen by all,

New South Wales

24/11/2023

Support

Website

The proposal should be approved on the following grounds 1. Energy generation. The development of cheap energy sources is essential given the need to replace the progressive decommissioning of thermal power plants. Failure to do so will clearly impact negatively on the economic conditions of the district and the state as well as the wellbeing of the local and the wider community. 2 the argument regarding prime agricultural land is self serving, spurious and disingenuous. Opponents have raised no objections to the building of four lane highways and the development of housing estates on the same class of land within a few kilometres of the proposed solar development. There is no apparent concern about this land never being returned to agricultural use in the future. There is no reason that profitable agriculture cannot co-exist with the solar farm. The solar farm outside Dubbo and agriculture do so quite successfully. 3. The development will be of direct economic benefit to the Bathurst community both in the construction phase and ongoing operation with maintenance and likely efficiency upgrades over the life of the project. 4 The solar farm has substantial support within the Bathurst community. Its approval should not be stymied by a small group of NIMBYs who refuse to acknowledge the widespread importance and benefits of the proposal. 5. The presence of the farm will contribute to the image of Bathurst as a progressive and technologically advance community contributing to the ongoing economic and social development of the local area and the state more widely.

New South Wales

23/11/2023

Support

Website

I wish to express strong support for the Glanmire Solar Farm. Solar farms on agricultural land are an appropriate way that the Bathurst region can do its bit to work towards a low-carbon future. While not supporting any and all renewable energy projects (there may be good reasons to reject some), projects like these must be seen in the light of the unrolling catastrophe that is climate change. We need to find ways to fuel our economy and our lives without putting human civilisation at risk. While this might seem an extravagant and over-the-top way of expressing it, it is entirely in line with the latest scientific reports on the impacts of climate change. Issues such as visual impact need to be seen in light of this: an aesthetic preference (or property values, or landscape views) must be assessed against this greater, existential threat. On compatibility of proposed land use, a solar farm (unlike, say, open cut mining) is relatively easily removed if there is a decision at a later date to return land-use to agriculture. There is also the point that agriculture and solar panels *can* co-exist, with examples around the world of sheep enjoying the shade of the panels. It is also possible to grow vegetables and other crops on land that is also being used as a solar farm. See for example Pascaris, A. S., Schelly, C., Burnham, L., & Pearce, J. M. (2021). Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Research & Social Science, 75, 102023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962100116X Local resistance from residents on other farms in the locality is heavily based on the idea of the need to preserve agricultural land, as well as the visual impact. The first of these is not reflected in the science of mixing agriculture and solar panels and the second of these is relatively trivial considering the urgent need for every locality to do its bit in the face of climate change and the need to switch to a fossil-free economy.

Bathurst Community Climate Action Network

New South Wales

21/11/2023

Support

Website

I am a retired Bathurst General Practitioner ( 40 years ), from a rural background, with many involvements in my local community and regional issues. I am Vice President of Bathurst Community Climate Action Network.(BCCAN) My ongoing contacts with local community members are numerous, and wide ranging. BCCAN strongly supports the development of the Glanmire Solar Farm, and are aware that there is strong broad based support locally. We believe that the views of a group of residents close to the proposed development do not represent those of the wider community. It is vital that we rapidly transition to renewable energy sources, and that some of this occurs locally. The agricultural values of the (relatively small) area of land involved is debatable, and should not be prioritised over other uses ,such as a solar farm. Those objecting have never expressed concern about loss of genuinely highly productive agricultural land in Bathurst ( eg prime vegetable growing river flats to car parks, or basalt soil orchards on Mount Panorama to car parks ) There are overwhelming long term benefits to our local area from the development of the Glanmire Solar Farm.