Bendemeer Solar Farm

I do not want this project to be built because I know solar projects catch fire and people hate living near them because they are so ugly. Look at better energy like nuclear power

What a great opportunity for the region of Bendemeer to grow and strive. The location and land use type that the solar farm is planned to be construction on is very balanced for this development. Yes, as the EIS states, there will be some initial direct impacts, though these impacts are low and the long-term benefit to supply Eastern Australia with cleaner energy options will outweigh the initial impact. Stringent offset measures and high level of regulatory processes through state and federal planning laws should ensure the solar farm is constructed and run with a very low risk of adverse economic, social, and environmental impacts.

As a local, this project will provide unparalleled potential for our town (i.e., schooling, health, sporting, other services, etc.) and local job opportunities, with the potential to retain our younger population where this is not currently available for all. Renewable energy projects in our area will also help shape the local agricultural sector to be more resilient and sustainable into the future.

I don't like solar projects, there is one down the road and it is really bright and shines in my eyes of an afternoon, also there is lots of dust that makes my asthma bad, I don't want people in this area to feel like I do

We are graziers in the Bendemeer district and have followed with interest the progression of the Bendemeer Renewable Energy Hub Solar Farm project and have recently read the extensive Environmental Impact Statement.
A large project like this will always have an impact locally, regionally, nationally and internationally especially in the context the acute need to remodel our global carbon generation.
The site selection has been comprehensive to mitigate the potential adverse environmental factors connected to a large project like this and this is further validated with the comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment that has provided a balanced objective overview of the project.
We are respectful of the concerns of the minority group opposing this development proposal and have listened to their views, however unfortunately their concerns to date appear to be based on subjective ‘nimby’ type issues that are not substantiated with current scientific data to refute the facts used to assess the project in the Environmental Impact Assessment. Their criticisms seem to be beyond the ambit of accepted International Global Warming resolutions, National carbon reduction goals, State Environmental Instruments ( SEPP, REP & LEP’s).
There are wide ranging benefits for our globe, nation and relative small district of Bendemeer that need this project to be approved in a positive step to help us contribute to a world good in terms of sustainable development initiatives to tackle the climate change challenge we all face.
James & Belinda Hook
“Rushbrook”
Bendemeer

I have registered a submission (Sub-61321212). Attached is a more detailed explanation of my objection to the whole project as solar will desiccate its proposed area by clearing the area. If the proposer is allowed to do this it will then want to establish wind towers which will do even more substantial damage to the environment and the aura of this beautiful area which is populated by many long term residents and new ones moving in for its wonderful lifestyle.
All of this irrational development will be obvious to Bendemeer residents therefore spoiling their rural aura for ever.
None of this development would be allowed in major urban areas particularly within sight or sound of residential areas.

Submission (SUB – 61321212) Bendemeer August 23rd 2023.

This project is unsuitable for the New England Area. It is predominantly high quality agricultural land capable of producing premium livestock, crops, forage, horticulture and viticulture.
It is also proven to be a prime region for revegetation and re-establishment of its recyclable tree and grass environment where numerous farmers are leading the way at their own expense.
Government backed research efforts are showing excellent results which are much different than the downgraded ratings supplied by “environmentalists” supporting such projects.

The following issues are either caused by or consequences of this development because:-

• This project will cause large scale environmental damage – landscape, trees and wildlife are precious.
• Erosion - water contamination – will flow on through the Gwydir, Barwon, Darling, Murray basins.
• Solar plants will require cleared land hence more trees lost and usually no native species replanted, more erosion.
• It has now been proven in practice that large scale commercial solar plants are not suitable for grazing sheep. Small solar installations built to power farms which can also supply power to the grid are usually able to accommodate sheep and lambs because they are built higher off the ground. This will not apply to the proposed solar areas.
• It should be noted that solar plants once erected are mostly operated remotely and externally, often from offices which are overseas. Apart from repair crews there are few staff.
• The NSW Government has so far not been able to confirm who will put out fires within the solar plant area and at a recent incident near Armidale adjacent solar plant staff were withdrawn away from efforts to put out a nearby grass fire on a grazing farm.
• Wind towers require large gravel access roads in the development area causing significantly more tree clearing, deeper earthworks to carry heavy loads and wide equipment such as large cranes. Will the developer maintain these roads or will the landowner do so? Will the landowners prevent erosion from them?
• There will be damage by access roads not included in the project site which aren’t capable of continual heavy traffic in construction and maintenance. Typically they aren’t maintained so more erosion will be caused. (Who will maintain them and prevent future damage? Is it the landowner again?)
• What damage will these roads cause to neighbours? Who will pay compensation?
• All the development will become the responsibility of the lessor, that is the landowner. What clause in the lease documents requires the lessee to maintain the site for weeds, erosion, environmental damage and wildlife, fencing from Highways and public roads?
• Fire control is in dispute and the NSW Government does not have to answers when asked publicly.
• What power does the NSW Government have to force the Lessee to control wild fires near electric equipment and what compensation will the Government guarantee to pay neighbours and the communities for fire damage caused by onsite fires? Will the landowner be responsible and if so, will the landowner be required to provide a bank guarantee to pay the insurance premiums?
• Highways may overused typically no contribution is available from developer. Will NSW Government budget for the continual maintenance of these roads/highways? Usually, the Governmental budgets for regional main roads are not sufficient let alone for extra heavy and wide loads.
• Rubbish produced from packing material left behind will be an onsite contamination, again flowing into the rainwater flows.
• Damaged or worn-out equipment who recycles this? Does the Government provide funds for Council recycling?
• Will there be Government managed long term fund established and charged against the developers or once again will the landowner be responsible?

Jobs:-

• During construction are usually fly/drive in teams therefore apart from some temporary local participation the local community will find itself bereft of a reliable workforce.
• Accommodation? Energy Co has stated that the influx of renewables will require hundreds of labourers but has made only vague suggestions of temporary “villages”. Who will provide these and the wide range of water, sewerage, medical, children’s education and recreation facilitations? Will Councils once again have to pay staff to sort out the planning mistakes?
• After construction? The only viable option is to establish a trust fund to pay for cleaning up offsite damage and waste.

Community benefits?

• What funds?
• Are they based on the amount of power sold?
• Who will hold the funds?
• Who will allocate benefits, will it be the developers?
• Will councils be compensated for their contribution to the projects?

The process of establishing renewable energy projects in farming areas has been very disjointed starting with the virtual exclusion of Local Government by the Department of Planning which has continually overridden objections against the location and type of generation and connection lines.
The same applies to smaller local communities who will see little if any benefit from the $billions of energy income and the despoiling of there landscapes.

At no stage has Energy Co agreed to the possibility of farms or local communities being able to set up community owned networks using the Essential Energy Network. Rather Energy Co and the NSW Government have planned to provide massive networks of powerlines located to suit foreign investors who are seeking profitable investments and markets for their renewable energy equipment.

At no stage have Governments provided Certifications or Guarantees to farmers such as:-

• Certification of Developers before they are allowed to request access to farms by appointment. There is a need for retrospectivity for the ones who have already broken all laws of access and courtesy.
• Transgrid/Transmission Builders must have similar access certificates
• Certification of developer/farmer contracts that guarantee the status of developer’s financial credibility. Farmers are not lawyers or financial experts, but study of the financial media does cast many doubts.
• Government must establish a Decommissioning Trust Fund based on a fee on approval plus a percentage of energy sold.

Therefore, I object to this project, New England does not need it or its production, what New England does need is to retain and develop the wonderful assets of its location and its attraction to sensible and environmentally sound growth.

Richard Croft.
0428668065

It's great to see development in the renewable energy sector in the region. Creation of local jobs and employment is paramount on these projects so the region benefits as a whole.

I support renewable energy projects being developed in the Bendemeer district.
I think the solar project is well sited in regards to the village of Bendemeer, and with multi row tree plantings to screen "over looking" of the site by other landholders it should be relatively unseen by most.
I support the new income stream that the project will bring to the district in the form of jobs both in construction and running of the solar farm. The shops, pub and other community assets like hall, tennis courts, rural fire service will all get a much needed increase in people using these businesses or volunteering their time to help out.

With the push for renewables from the current government & no other back up plans in the pipeline.
I believe the use of the less and non profitable farming land is most desirable.
I would rather see the projects in these type areas preserving the best of agriculture land for farming purposes.
Bendemeer having less fertile soil such as granite on the flat and the ever overgrowing hilly country being ideal in my opinion.
I see the use for local contractors (where available) being a great thing to keep revenue in the New England/ Tamworth Area.

Regards

In a sunny country like Australia, the more solar farms we can build to generate electricity and move away from coal power plants, the better for the environment and our future generations. Solar and other renewable power regeneration sources are the only way to secure the financial and envirmental security for all Australia's future generations and humanity as a whole. To deny this, is to deny a future the children of Australia!

I believe this project will be great for everyone. The environment especially but also future generations.

I support this project as the world is chasing renewable energy resources I believe it is a great opportunity for the Bendemeer area to have a boost in its economy with jobs as well as the community fund proposed to support and enhance the quality of life for local people all while helping the environment well into the future .

Save Our Woodlands would like to object to the solar farm at Bendameer, because the project is just over 1km from Bendameer village - no other such development has been located as close to a rural village as this proposed development (Uralla solar 6kms from township) - protections in place via 10km buffer for Tamworth; Armidale; Wagga; Goulburn; Dubbo; Mudgee but no such protections for Bendameer
The New England has long periods of damp weather and the solar radiation level is average at most
The host land is beside Macdonald River and across hills that feed into this source of village water supply
This is bushfire prone land (fire April 2023 stopped just before solar land host boundary)(Moonbi Complex Fires 2019 - village cut off from Tamworth several day
There is a cumulative impact - Bendameer straddles the New England Highway and at the junction of the Oxley Highway therefore all NE projects will travel through Bendameer.
The land is not cleared and there will be a significant loss of woodlands, during construction and later on.
Solar panels are toxic and there is a considerable loss on panels in the construction process which have to go into local land fill.
Once the project is complete we will be left with a toxic waste dump which the people of NSW will have to remiadiate.

I support the Bendemeer Solar Farm Project because I live in Tamworth which is 40 km from Bendemeer and this area needs more sources of alternate green power.
Fossil fuels will be phased out and the more alternate supplies of green power which becomes available will hasten this process.
Fossil fuels are detrimental to peoples health so this solar farm will benefit the health of the whole community.
Having seen the location of this solar farm I consider it to be aesthetically pleasing.
The owner of the property on which the solar farm is located and the farmer who is leasing this land both support the project. One of the benefits is that the condensation of water will enhance the grass growing under the panels which will be beneficial for the sheep grazing on the farm . The panels will also provide shade.
Therefore I strongly support the Bendemeer Solar Farm project
Yours sincerely
Robyn English
21.8.23

I fully support renewable energy and this project.

I am against the solar industrial development on agricultural land and it being so close to the edge of our village. This land was very close to the Moonbi Complex fire 2019 and this year there was another fire on the northern boundary of this development only stopped from entering this property by our rural fire brigade. If a fire gets to the BESS we will have an electrical fire which will not be able to be put out, emitting toxic fumes, and if the wind is blowing towards Bendemeer, we will have to evacuate.

I have worked in the agricultural sector for over 40 years, following a 25 year stint as a specialist research officer with NSW Soil Conservation Service and CSIRO Canberra, then a broad ranging consultant in the farming industry throughout Australia.
I object to this and similar projects as they put pressure on a limited soils resource and interupt the broader farming system by:
1. Sterilising land areas;
2. Interrupt the landscape and farming systems;
3. Produce likely dangerous leachates;
4. Produce large scale run-off to adjoining landholders and the stream system, causing erosion and sedimentation;
5. Cannot be recycled after the decommissioning of a panel farm;
6. Do not have a bond to protect the community from further costs after decommissioning or the failure of a proponent or where the system is on-sold;
7. Do not reach economic viability tests as these systems do not have to show the line linkage as an economic part th be included in the application;
8. Disrupt the passage of locally existing fauna;
These are serious concerns and MUST NOT be put aside by the use of "offsets", as these are only used as excuses/ mechanisms by proponents.

Pls find attached

Attached

Bendemeer Solar Project Submission
I object to the Bendemeer Solar project on the grounds that:-

Claims to return the land to its original state is not substantiated by:
-significant testing of land. The land must be thoroughly tested for the proportional composition of all minerals and elements prior to the construction. How can the complexity of these ever hope to be reconstituted in exactly the same way, post construction without adequate pre-testing (or ever)? The soils in Bendemeer area are particularly difficult to manage with regards to wash, erosion, porosity, water logging and stability. Shifting the dynamics of rainfall on the landscape, along with shade and shadow diminishes the prospect of effectively grazing within the project area.
Furthermore the proposal to install panels onto this land exposes the entire ecosystem to the dangers of contamination, leaching contaminating metals including lead, as they age as well as in any instance when they may incur damage, for instance , by hail.
-Soils and waterways,- - The landscape is traversed by minor streams feeding to the MacDonald River. This is a site where Bells Turtles have been purposely bred and reintroduced in an effort to save the species within their natural environment. It is lunacy to endanger their existence and that of other native and migratory species by interrupting their existence here by operational and post operational contamination. These contaminants will defy the capacity of proponents to restore the land to the original condition – ever! The imposition of infrastructure will alter the microbiology which will be unrecoverable. Roads stabilisation for traffic and construction methods on those soil types require diversion of water which in turn impact productivity across the landscape. This land is not suited to a multiplicity of roadworks across the ground.
-Air- the “heat island” effect on the atmosphere within the project area has neither been adequately assessed nor accounted for. The impact of Heat Island effect will alter the ‘small water cycle’ and damage the local landscape due to changes to the weather systems locally – destroying the locality in order to “save’ it. How can this be allowed?
-Claims to contribute so much to removing CO2 for the environmental benefit fail to capture the true marginal analysis of the project. The in depth analysis of the project must consider all aspects of mineral resources, their mining, transportation, manufacture all component loading, shipping, freight and transportation. Honest assessment of true cost of transmission is not and cannot be separated from including transmission. Access to transmission is vital and the costs of transmission must be included in the equation for without which there would be no project. In addition to transmission, the very necessity for a battery proposal confirms the inadequacy of solar to supply adequate energy to meet the known needs of community. Included in the assessment of the true cost of the project must include the cost of “Base Load Power”. I understand the term preferred within the renewable energy terminology is “Spinning Reserve” but either term is recognition that intermittent energy supply is completely inadequate. The cost in both monetary terms and CO2 terms must include this aspect in which case the proposal defies logic.
-Accountability for the subsidies which underpin business yielding to Government regulation of the “generous community benefit funds” that are glossed over in the guise of unspoken profit.
-Where is evidence of an assurance that the project will comply with conditions of the Modern Slavery Act 2018? Imported components are subject to this Act.
-Recycling at the end of the lifetime is referred to as a simple ‘end of life’ statement, however the methodology and the true disposal is understated. It is a fact that all end of life for panels will not fall in thirty years. Evidence informs us that from the very beginning there will be inoperable components for whatever reason. Separation of components into recyclable and non recyclable does not adequately account for the destination of either product. Where do recyclables actually go and what is their end? What processes are in place for non-recyclables? How is their destination protected from further contamination? How is their end costed in both monetary terms and in terms of ‘carbon’?
Given the short fall of adequate safeguards I cannot find the introduction of solar and battery to be acceptable to the motive of protecting the community from its “energy habit” – its energy consumption.
I cannot accept this project it is neither viable nor acceptable.