MOD 1 - Panel Height Increase

As a local business owner I support this proposal, it will bring investment and growth to our area and it is something we desperately need. With all the difficulties we have had during covid this would provide hope and jobs to our community.

We are a Walla Walla business and support the amendments to the Solar Farm

Clean Electricity for the future should be supported

I live and work in Walla Walla. I am raising my family here and I am supportive of the Walla Walla solar farm and the proposed changes.
Happy to expand on my view if it is required or would help see this important project progress.

I still support this project and its amendments, the economical and renewable benefits far outway the agricultural benefits on marginal land use.

Sustainable projects need to be a high priority on marginal land to support the economy and renewable targets. By supporting projects on low productive land keeps projects of Highly Productive agricultural lands, while still allows grazing, even if reduced.

Benefits outway the Negatives.

I operate a small business that involves several students from Walla area and operate from both public and private schools located in the township.

I’m a local contractor and would really think this will benefit the local community and surrounding area in lot of ways.

I am the CEO of a major 4 day Festival in the region and I believe that Solar Power is essential and I support the Walla Walla Solar Farm and its amendments.

It’s disappointing that after all the processes we have been through, investigation, analysis and approvals that this project needs to be modified in a way that will negatively impact us.

The height if the substation you want to go from something that was appropriately 6 stories tall to near 11 stories. Why?? That’s was a big miscalculation. Something this tall does not belong here.

A route was in the plans for the construction why does it need to change now surely with the the years you have been working on this project modifying and fine tuning. Now after all the approvals you want to make changes to make your life easier, save money. When is FRV considering the neighbours?

Why does the height of the of the solar modules need to change? If it was due to the size of then panels changing prior to the submission of the project then why did these details get missed.

I am a little confused, the project is still 300 MW and was approved for 300 MW, no more advised in the modification. So, if this company proposes to increase the efficiency of the infrastructure then they should be able to reduce the number of panels in the development to reduce the visual eyesore for neighbours otherwise leave the panels at the height they originally advised???
I think these companies continually try to push the boundaries, truly giving little thought about the community around them. What will the next modification be… increase the capacity of the development? Then battery storage? Where does it stop? Where is the tree planting up to that they advised would commence prior to construction? I believe that the trees should be fully grown prior to installation of the development to meet their purpose of mitigation of the visual impact. An aim of the Greater Hume LEP is to protect and retain productive agricultural land; to protect, conserve and enhance natural assets, and, the objectives of the RU1 Primary Production Zone includes to maintain the rural landscape character of the land and to encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base. I do not believe these modifications do anything to contribute to these aims nor does the previous approval of the project. I implore the NSW Department of Planning to look at this land now, many of the crops look amazing and far too valuable to be covered in solar panels.
This development consists of mined, manufactured, metal and reflective structures that will change a great area of beautiful green and productive farming area to a sea of black reflective panels and ugly metal structures greatly opposing our LEP. I continue to fear that these very large developments in the beautiful shire of Greater Hume are a serious mistake that locals will regret years into the future. I am concerned about the local roads and the modification to allow increased traffic along the ordinary dirt Benambra road that should not be acceptable particularly due to the poor capacity of this road during wet periods. Other developments such as Bomen have had significant visual impacts including glare issues to elevated areas requiring the involvement of the EPA, is this modification to increase panel height going to affect landowners along the elevated Coach road to the east? I would like to know how increased traffic will be prevented along the also poor Schneiders road which through recent rainfall has been an absolute shambles. Greater Hume Council should be requesting that the modification to allow traffic on Benambra Road should include sealing of the full length of this road and a guarantee by the company that workers through construction will not use Schneiders Road. It should be strongly noted that in periods of heavy rainfall that Benambra Road is sometimes closed in the location of the waterway due to the floodway.
In relation to the substation, I have never been able to understand why the substation has been pushed to the northern most part of the development close to elevated neighbours with a significant visual impact. These neighbours will also have the visual impact of the proposed Culcairn Solar Farm to their north. Is the northerly location of the substation placed to keep the eyesore of the ugly structure the furthest away from leaseholders homes as they do not want to see it? Why should the neighbouring landholder at Mountain View be so heavily affected. Why not place the substation further south to minimise impact to uninvolved neighbours and direct the greatest impact to those that receive a financial gain and choose to partake in such a venture. I do not believe this is fair and the modification will significantly increase the visual impact for which I believe neighbouring landholders that are not included in the projected should be compensated for.

The submission has been removed from publication due to potentially defamatory content, however the Department in assessing and making any recommendations in relation to this modification application will take into consideration such of the submission that is of relevance.

I am writing to object with the proposed changes to the Walla Walla Solar Project.

The increased heights of the the power poles for the onsite substation from 21 meters to 36 meters is absurd, 15 meter increase in height will be clearly visible to all impacted neighbours even with vegetation buffer once fully established which will take years to achieve.

The increased heights of the solar panels by almost one meter will greatly impact the residence R1a with such close proximity to the property. The property is on raised land in comparison to the proposed site, with a vegetation screen that will take a good 20 years to establish and the panels being located a very short 210m from the house the increase in height is clearly going to visually impact the residence even more than first indicated with the height of 4 meters. To have NGH ascertain that they believe there is minimal change to highly impacted neighbours just shows the care that we have received from this company and their proposals. Screening, even once fully established is not going to mitigate the visual impact of the size of this project. The increase in the panel surface area is going to project more glare than the first proposed panels, effect neighbours within a further radius to the project than first reported. This in turn effects more properties with little concern or mitigate displayed regarding this matter to impacted parties. This paired with the panel height is displaying the lack of research and responsibility shown in the initial planning, researching and reporting stages completed by the company, it makes us question what else has been missed or over looked.

The amendment to the construction and transport route for the substation construction is a large impact to our property R1a and b. FRV have indicated that they will have a water cart operating in front of the trucks using this section of unsealed road to access the substation construction site. The increase to traffic will indicated to be minimal with local traffic including agricultural machinery, trucks and busses will increase the dust entering the residence and the water supply, this will in turn potential create respiratory issues for the residence of these properties. We have spoken with the council on several occasions, and so did the previous owners, about bitumen the road to reduce the dust travelling into the residence and the water supply. With increased traffic from light vehicles, trucks and buses on a daily basis is a huge impact. We have expressed this concern to the company FRV who have indicated in the report that the traffic with be coming from the Olympic highway and into the main access point on the eastern boundary, within this report it is indicated the Benambra Road unsealed section will be used on a daily basis for the workers and contractors with is contrary to the information that FRV have provided to us as highly impacted adjoining neighbours. With increased number of vehicles travelling on Benambra Rd is reported the number of times a day these particular vehicles will be travelling up and down this section of road is not. The report states that there will be decreased movements along the unsealed section of Benambra Rd when FRV indicated that all traffic entering and exiting the property would be from the eastern main access point coming from Benambra Rd to mitigate the dust and noise concern that we first raised and are now wanting to change that. The council have also expressed their concerns with the increased proposed traffic due to the poor condition of the road, the road is not safe in wet conditions as this year has shown with increased traffic it will potentially make in impassable.

The concerns that us as neighbours have raised from the beginning of this project have not been addressed or mitigated appropriately, they are going back on their words of what they have told us at every step and every opportunity. This company keep changing and altering plans and staff and it is not giving us any confidence in the ability of the company and what they are planning. There is not protection, laws or regulations supporting the neighbours or the community against the large companies pushing to build the solar projects. We're farmers trying to provide for our country and our families.

refer to attachment

When is it enough? This is a project that has been in the planning for at least the last 3 years. The project was approved based on what was submitted. How did FRV get such important information so wrong? What else is incorrect that has been managed to be shoved under the carpet? When wanting to make these modifications at what time did FRV consider the neighbours and the impact it has on their lives?

Now that it has been approved, it seems we will have amendments. Are they not happy with their result?
Any increase in size will further impact on those who have already been impacted. (including increase in size of transmission towers.)
Your Correspondence states the modification will be on public exhibition, including dates, but only can be accessed online, apparently. This is not good enough.
Many of us do not have reliable access to internet services. Even the written notification is submitted at the last minute.
We want clearer idea of what is proposed, including visual examples. We have endured enough without more intrusions to placate urban citizens, at the cost of our lifestyles.

Being a neighbour we are negatively impacted by the increased height of almost 1 metre to the solar panel modules. This is unsatisfactory as the plans keep changing since the project submission.
And the substation going from 6 stories to 11 stories will double the already negative impact.
No amount of trees will hide this eyesore...

1. The height of the panels was a topic heavily discussed in the original process. When the 200,000 were removed from the south-east corner, the question by the community, neighbors and then by the IPC specifically was how the company intended to maintain the 300MW with such a reduction to the amount of panels. The response was that they had sourced a more efficient panel that would still maintain the original size, distance and layout of the plant. This was answered prior to original approval, so the due diligence should have been done. But now comes with a higher panel and the distance being brought closer together which they advised the IPC that this would not happen, they would maintain the spacing for the aesthetics, growth, airflow and ability of animals to graze under them.
I object to both the spacing and the change in height. Less space between the panels reduces the airflow hence creating more heat within the plant. When the wind blows this heat moves across onto neighboring paddocks. As well as the height of the panels in rotation and tilting is when the reverse reflection will be the issue. It will take longer for these to rotate and a higher surface space for reflection which will impact potentially on properties. this is outside what was promised, and we are not talking about a few panels we are talking of a ground area of more than 1000acres. The eastern hills of the tabletop mountains will be the properties that will be potentially impacted by the rotation glare as the panels tilt back at the end of the day. It has been a major issue at Bowmen Solar farm and was acknowledged by the EPA. Bowmen is a lot smaller than this project with panels nowhere near this size and height. While being provided documents on zero glare affect, it is a reality in Bowmen and something that cannot be ignored as the elevated properties on the ridge are and have always been visually impacted by this solar plant as they all face the west, looking over it. The company need to revert to what they promised the community and deliver within these boundaries. Not exceeding the original height and a minimum distance of 8m between the panels. This was a promise that this would not happen when the additional panels were removed. They can not make promises to seek approval and then backflip because it was all made up at the time and the focus was purely on gaining approval for that site capacity. They should be held to this, .
2. Use of Benambra rd, as a local that uses this road to drive children to school, we are able to see firsthand the condition of the road. It is not as easy as saying 10 trucks and 15 light vehicles as these vehicles may travel up and down this road multiple times a day. The proponent also stressed throughout the process that they would not be using Benambra Rd, which was of concern to the local community and now after approval the request has been made. another back flip on promises made!
If they want to use this road in any form for construction, then they should be made to TAR it. this will help reduce the dust impact on the houses as well as maintain the integrity of the road. This increase in traffic over a prolonged period will have impact, we all have dirt tracks and are well aware of the impacts of increased traffic on them. Not to mention can they guarantee that workers will not use this road daily through construction again further increasing the traffic in the morning and afternoon when locals are more likely to use it. Council raised their concerns and as a regular user and rate payer I don't believe that we should have to pay for the deterioration with a promise to have it returned to its original state. Is the original state in winter, summer or at a time they choice fit, it is very ambiguous!!!
3. Increase in height of the poles of the substation - there are 2 parts to this, how could an Australian standard have not been met in the design, and why not move the substation in the requested modification to one of the southern poles closer to those that have signed up their land and not the neighbor on R2a. FRV made a big deal about the fact that they moved the substation 100m from R2a but yet they are now trying to move it 30m closer to R2a this should be rejected and they should be made consider moving it to one of the southern poles closer to the land owners that signed up for this with less visual impact to R2a. It is not an administration error, and it is in the original EIS about the distance it was moved. This should remain standard at the 930m as it currently states.
I would like to also bring like to this process and something learnt recently, I realized in a meeting that the construction of the Sub station would happen prior to the plan for boundary planting which is a condition of consent. When I questioned this I was told that they would prefer our support on this, but after a brief discussion as this was a huge issue with the vegetation buffers I was informed that they would just go to the secretary and have the change made.
What is the point of conditions of consent and what is the point of this process of approval if anything we raise and have been promised means nothing and can be flipped and manipulated in favor of the company.
These modifications are not small and will have large impacts on neighbors despite the report advising no impacts. It is the small ones that are not highlighted such as the distance between panels changing from 8m min to 4.5m min is concerning and if the design warrants it, it could end up being the distance between a majority. Which is nothing more than a manipulation of words to hide a real outcome. Strong promises where told to the community, council and IPC and these should be upheld as it is already ethics on this particular project that can be considered questionable when the employee of the department responsible for the recommendations and providing advise, answering our questions through out the process and to what we believe was private, confidential and neutral in this process is now the project manager on the approved project.

I write to advise that I am General Manager of a “local to Walla” Major Commercial Construction Company.
I support Walla Solar farm and its amendments. I see this as a great move forward for the Region which will create jobs and provide low cost clean Energy.

As an electrician I am aware of the positive uses for renewable energy and believe that anyway we can increase the amount of solar power that we can produce is a positive

As previous owners of the land.
We 100% support the project and the amendments to the project.