Quorn Park Solar Farm

I'm against the use of prime and productive agricultural land for solar farms

The QPSF is being proposed for prime agricultural land which is of great importance in the PARKES area. I’m concerned that the increase amount of these farms may increase even further in the future to greatly impact the gross revenue of contractors, agronomists, shearer’s, local chemical and fertiliser resellers etc.
The solar farms however do provide jobs for contractors which boost the local community it is not sustainable as they leave the town and the impact of the land loss from in for of income is substantial. Upwards of $1000/ha in average seasons go back into the local community on a annual basis.

I object to the proposed solar farm with my reasons attached in the file
----Notes
To whom it may concern
I would like to add to my earlier submission.
If the project is to go ahead a bond should be set up so all contractors are paid and any problems that occur during the life of the project plus clean up.
Yours sincerely
Graeme Somers
Delete this submission? No

We have concerns as there is alerady a solar farm in the area that has been approved there doesnt need to be more and there is a school on that road and a bus , as it is a dirt road not suitable for a lot of traffic. There are other options available in the area other than more solar farm, this is prime production land that should not be used soley for one purporse of solar famring espcialli since there are already solar farms available.

To whom this may concern.

I am writing to you on behalf myself and my partner Erica Ryan to say we object to the Quorn Park Solar fam Parkes NSW

We have concerns as our family farm adjoins to the Quorn Park Solar farm. We think it would be more beneficial if it was on a less productive farm land as we.
We are concerned about the hazards with the planned position off power grid and battery bank
Especially with having young children around,
Not to mention the view from our homestead.
We are also concerned that the panels will increase the temperature off the surrounding area having an impact on our crops the we rely on to make a living.

Kind regards Lachlan and Erica Ryan

As an interested local and a potential land buyer in the area I have a few questions regarding this project:
Executive Summary
Can you please provide a justification for the selection of a radius of 2 km for visual impacts.
Please provide details of the “relevant guideline criteria” for noise.
Whilst the EIS indicates that there “is not a threat to continued primary production activities” are there any other threats to other neighbouring property future developments (and land values) e.g. potential subdivision for semi rural blocks.

1.2 Development Overview
Will fire management infrastructure be built at the site?
How will water be sourced for construction?
What is meant by the term “either recommission or decommission” the site.
2.1.2.1 Design Principles
The EIS indicates that the “final layout of all infrastructure within the development footprint will be determined by the engineering contractor at details design stage”. How can the noise assessment that has been conducted in the EIS be a true representation of the as built construction and operational phase? Will noise and visual impacts be reassessed if there is a change to the design proposed in the EIS?
Figure 4 – provide an explanation of how the assessment has defined “buffer of development site boundary”.
Figure 5 – this figure doesn’t clearly demonstrate the “development site boundary”.
2.1.2.5 Grid Connection
During the “detailed design” is it likely that additional infrastructure will be required to facilitate the preferred connection?
2.1.3.2 Site Preparation
Where will the “construction laydown areas” be located.
How will tracks be created to “create a durable, dust minimising surface”.
2.1.3.7 Site Restoration
Who will the authority that will deem that construction infrastructure disturbance areas are “made good through ripping and establishing a groundcover”.
2.1.3.8 Materials and Resources
Where will labour be sourced and accommodated? Will this conflict with other developments e.g. Northparkes Mines?
Define where a “legal supply source” of water will be sourced (particularly in persistent drought conditions).
Is there a documented agreement with PSC regarding the supply of water? Does this conflict with the requirements of town users water in drought conditions?.
2.1.3.9 Hours of Work
Who will be the approving authority for outside hours work?
2.1.4.2 Maintenance Activities
Are maintenance activities being conducted at night time (when there is no energy being generated) to avoid safety risks? If so was this type of work included in visual and noise assessments?
4.2.2 Discussion and Meetings
Define “interested landowners”.
Why are not all the issues raised by “interested landowners” addressed. The only two items mentioned in this section relates to screen planting and traffic.
Resource Loss and Fragmentation
Provide evidence of how this project will not impact on future or neighbouring properties sub dividing for rural acerage living.
10.6.1 Neighbours
Have future subdivisions been assessed in the visual impact?
10.3 Noise
Was there any background noise monitoring conducted to verify the existing noise environment? If it wasn’t conducted provide a justification for this.
Thank you
Kerry Yelland
M - 0429 927 237

• In the attached email dated 5/12/19 we requested an extension to the DA exhibition. We did not receive the letter advising of the project and found out the DA was on exhibition late in the process. I cannot understand why our letter was send to PO Box 123 Parkes when we have received correspondence to our correct address from Renewable Energy Developments (RED) and NSW Planning in the past.
• The solar farm will be on prime agricultural land as stated in para 8.4.3. RED have chosen this land for ease of construction as detailed in EIS para 21.3, ease of construction is because its prime ag land with good soil in the bottom of a valley.
• Alternative Sites have not been considered. RED have chosen this site for ease of construction and have not considered other locations. They want to tap into the 132KV lines that supplies power to Northparkes Mines (NPM), this is detailed in the attached email and the DA. There are plenty of other viable options for the solar farm along the 132KV line to NPM that are not in a valley, on prime ag land and will have less impact on the communities rural views. Building the solar farm closer to NPM will see less power lost in the transmission, making the solar farm more efficient.
• Impact to surrounding residence and land holders. In its proposed location the solar farm will detract from the rural landscape views for many in the community, create glare and undermine the property values looking over 250 000 panels. As detailed in our submission we have land that will look directly over the proposed solar farm and land that is directly adjacent the solar farm. Concerns were raised in written communication to RED directors Colin and David Liebmann. See attached email dated 29 Oct 18. Andrew Brownlow from Premise the author of the EIS was also contacted (2 Dec 18) about the concerns. For the EIS (para 4.2.1) to say there was no written communication in response to the communications is not correct.
• If there was no impact to surrounding land holders why did the Springdale solar farm project start a ‘Shared Revenue Scheme’. Neighbours shared in the revenue from the project, there was an allocation of solar panels for each neighbour which guaranteed an income stream over the life of the project. The developers of the Quorn Park Solar farm and the author of the EIS have not been up front about the impact to the surrounding landholders and a large portion of the Parkes community. All you have to do is drive down Back Trundle Road towards Parkes and on Nanardine Lane and No Mistake Lane to know what impact this will have on rural views and the community. A lot of people will be looking at an industrial solar farm where their views cannot be screened or at a 2.4m high security fence. The photos used in the EIS are very biased towards the development. It is obvious they are working together to try and get the project over the line. The panels will reflect 2% of the light, the supporting structures and infrastructure will reflect more.
• Public liability insurance. I refer to the ‘The Land’ paper dated 18 Apr 2019 and 25 Apr 19. A proposed solar farm near Wellington detailed in its EIS under ‘Fire Risks’ that lightning strikes and header fires from neighbours are the major fire risks. An insurance company told the neighbouring farmer who had 20 million public liability insurance he would not be able to insurer above 50 million. The value of this solar farm is substantially more than 50 million. . At the insurance cost you could not justify farming, one would have to cease activities common to farming.
• The use of water from the site. All our water comes from Quorn Park run off, the dams on Quorn Park need to fill before we get any catchment in our dams. Water taken for commercial reasons will affect our water availability.
• The use of batteries is a hazardous and offensive development IAW Environment Planning Policy no 33.
• Parkes markets itself as being in the heart of the wheat belt where food security is important in the middle of a drought. Alternative sites need to be considered including the tailings dams at NPM.
• Council have been misled by RED in thinking there has been community consultation and the project is supported by surrounding landholders. There has been no community meetings or newsletters. We received letters early in the process, we advised of our concerns and there has been no response.

We are no against solar power it just the proposed location, the attached petition has signatures from surrounding land holders, people who live on lifestyle blocks on the western side of town that will look over this solar farm, livestock agents, farm supply businesses, ag contractors, farmers, people who rely on agriculture.

Can you please come to site to better understand our concerns, this development severely impacts our property and farming operation. There are sites along the 132KV line that will have less impact to the community.

I know you would be busy most likely involved with multiple projects. I hope you have enough time to read over the attached emails to understand our concerns.

Attached is a petition with 62 signatures objecting to the Quorn Park Solar Farm.

The proposed Quorn Park Solar Farm is in the wrong location; in the bottom of the valley and on prime agricultural land. The petition has signatures from surrounding land holders, people who live on lifestyle blocks on the western side of town that will look over this solar farm, livestock agents, farm supply businesses, ag contractors, farmers, people who rely on agriculture.

Have viable alternatives been considered? Renewable Energy Developments want to tap into the 132KV lines that supply power to Northparkes Mines (NPM). This is detailed in the attached email and the DA. There are plenty of other viable options for the solar farm along the 132KV line to NPM that are not in a valley, on prime ag land and will have less impact on the community. One of these options which should be considered is the tailings dams at NPM, an added benefit would be dust mitigation from the tailings dams.

The developers of the solar farm and the author of the EIS have not been up front about the impact to the surrounding landholders and a large portion of the Parkes community. All you have to do is drive down Back Trundle Road towards Parkes and on Nanardine Lane and No Mistake Lane to know what impact this will have on rural views and the community. A lot of people will be looking at an industrial solar farm where their views cannot be screened or at a 2.4m high security fence.

Parkes markets itself as being in the heart of the wheat belt where food security is important in the middle of a drought.

The attached letter was provided to the Renewable Energy Developments MD. Provided here for your information

Forwarded for your consideration

Regards
Darren & Lisa Fisher
Ponderosa
822 Henry Parkes Way
Parkes NSW