Walla Walla Solar Farm

I object for the following main reasons:
1. They do not belong on good producing land, land that has been able to produce in one of the worst droughts in history, more arable land would be better suited for the projects
2. Public Liability Insurance risk to local neighbours in the event of a fire starting on their property and the inability to cover a project size of that value
3. The damage this project has already caused on relationships and the division it has placed on the community, some will never heal
4. Removal of so much vegetation on the site and 52 paddock trees that will take years to replace and the effect this will have on the local wildlife and potential flooding and run off for neighbours.
5. Validating information that this is compatible to the rural land and surrounds, clarification on the heat island effect as information provided from meeting to meeting has varied. Data to better reflect the actual size and location of the proposed site
6. Loss of employment and impact on local established function and accommodation business
7. Visual impact to surrounding properties and potential value of their land

I am writing to object to the proposed Walla Walla Solar Farm Development. I have grown up in this community and until now have never seen anything so divisive. This has fractured our community and has ruined friendships and relationships that have spanned decades.
I don’t believe that this will be a benefit to the town or community. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these companies have construction crews that they take site to site and only employ minimal local labour to appear as though they have hired locally. We don’t have many vacancies locally for housing and very few furnished housing options would be available within the whole Greater Hume Shire. I think this will lead to any contractors/labourers they bring in being housed out of our shire meaning the towns that will benefit from this will be Albury or Wagga. Walla and the surrounding communities will be impacted by large numbers of heavy vehicles, increased pollution (from dust and vehicle fumes), our roads which are already in disrepair will crumble. The volume of trees to be removed is not accurately represented and I don’t believe that the number of seed stock trees they are suggesting they will plant will be enough to reverse the damage that removing the large centuries old trees will cause. The value of the land and houses around this site will decrease (I don’t know anyone who wants to live next to a solar farm, but I know plenty who don’t). The impact to Orange Grove Gardens will be immediate and irreparable. The pathetic tree lines being offered to neighbours will take decades to achieve any kind of height for blocking views. When the landholder says he should be allowed to do anything on his land because its his land I would normally agree however if what you are planning to do will have a negative financial impact on an existing neighbouring business if you cannot negate the risk through proactive measures you should not be approved to proceed. I worry that if a fire takes hold within this site that you would not be able to evacuate a wedding/event from Orange Grove Gardens in enough time to ensure the guests were safe. With only one way in and out of the function facility if the wind was heading in the right direction many people would be trapped. Also, why should our local RFS Volunteers risk their lives trying to fight a fire within this type of facility. No one knows the actual risks involved and it would not be hard to become trapped in thick smoke with the maze of panels and high security fencing. With long term studies not available on the impacts of large scale solar I don’t understand how they can be approved near productive farms and in areas where they are so close to families. If this project is to go ahead the landholders who are receiving the substantial payments to sell out their neighbours should be the ones burdened with the Substation and Operations and Management buildings and access points located beside them.
This type of development should be restricted to locations that are less productive and not as close to homes, businesses and communities.
I again object to this development.

I am against the solar farm being built on valuable farming land and the impact it will have on the ongoing value of neighboring properties.
The impact on local business's and the flow on affect to the shop owners supplying produce to them.
The environmental affect through erosion, flooding and fire danger.

Walla Walla solar farm can be a very positive step in advancment & technology for our community

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed Walla Walla Solar Farm.
I object to the valuable productive farmland being used for energy production (when the same energy could be produced off unused roof tops).
I object to such a large amount of productive farmland being lock up under solar panels for the next 30-60 years (when technology is changing at such a rapid rate that the same amount of energy could be generated from 1/3 of the land within the next 10 years).
I object to the claims that Australia must close our coal fired energy plants and meet reduction targets to save the planet (yet Australia is continuing to mine coal and sell it to many countries including many with much higher Carbon Footprints than ours).
I object to the removal of more than 52 paddock trees many of which are older than the local Walla Walla Community and a significant number of uncounted unreported trees contained within the identified “woodland areas” to be removed (when the offered trade off is tube stock and shrubbery which is a mere blip when compared to the biodiversity value of the trees being removed).
I object to claims that this will not devalue neighbouring farms and businesses (when I know I would not purchase a property or rent a property that looked upon or was adjacent to a large-scale solar plant or electricity substation).
I object to the claims that this will be a financial benefit to the local community (when much of the promised benefit is a short-term impact with no long-term sustainability).
I object to the claims this will be good for the future of the community (when the community has been torn apart by this and many of the local businesses are reliant on agriculture (not energy production).
I object to the claim they will create 16 permanent full time local jobs (when they are only supplying 11 local car spaces and many other solar farms operate with considerably less staff) (many of these plants are reportedly operating via online monitoring and automatic fault detection with offsite contractors being flown in to deal with issues as they arise).
I object to claims that this will not have an effect on Orange Grove Gardens (wedding venue and Eco Cottages) (because I know I would not book my daughter’s wedding there if the back drop was a solar farm and I would not stay in the "rural/farm" accommodation with a large scale construction site within earshot)
As someone who grew up in this area and has many fond memories and enjoys visiting a couple of times a year I believe that this will dramatically alter the community, the feel of the area and the rural aspect that I and many others crave when we move away.

I think this is a disgraceful proposal and believe that it should be further out west within less populated areas away from families and highly productive farmland. I worry that there has been no research conducted once these facilities have been constructed. There should be research checking for post installation environmental impacts covering temperature, rainfall, winds, land/soil contamination, radiation, flooding and flora and fauna impacts. Without this ongoing monitoring and research these farms should be kept well away from communities and food production zones.

I object to this submission. I do not believe the benefits of the program outweigh the implication for nearby residents or the broader community. I do not believe the economic benefits of the project outweigh the economic benefits that would arise from ongoing usage for this farming land in its current state. I do not believe the community benefits of this project outweigh the damage to local community engagement and devided opinion that will continue to impact significantly on this small rural community. I do not feel local businesses or farming families could have predicted this project be proposed in the area surrounding these local farm and function businesses. I do not believe these residents should bear the impact of this oversized project on the aesthetics of their land and the impact it has had on a community relationship level. This project has grossly neglected to take this into consideration. Further, factors regarding the environmental and health impact yet to be known and should there be an impact it will be extremely difficult to reverse should the project go ahead.

My objection is attached

As a current and long term employee of Orange Grove Gardens, any impact on the viability of this business is going to have a direct impact on me personally. I have been a part of Orange Grove Gardens as a function centre from the very beginnings. I have know Adrian and Trish for over 10 years and in time have watched, and had a small hand in helping, this business grow from nothing. The cabins were a natural progression, to take in the beauty which the farm has in its beautiful vistas, and offer a chance for others to enjoy what their farm has to offer. The position of these cabins and the placement of the function centre are crucial to the lay of the land. The cabins overlook the old orchard, with enough rise to see the productive land beyond. I can state for a fact, there are picture perfect mornings that you can wake up to that would bring a smile to anyone looking for the farm experience.
The position of the solar farm is nothing but a curse for Orange Grove Gardens and any future that requires a beautiful country outlook. The artificial intrusion onto such a beautiful space, is I suppose, a product of our expansion as a population. The need for energy is never ending, the cries to be more environmentally friendly with our power needs have become louder. Unfortunately, the loudest voice isn't always the wisest.
Solar, on paper seems like manna from heaven, free energy. Unfortunately, nothing is ever free. For me personally, I see the volume of waste created by redundant solar as a future environmental disaster. It's on nearly every house roof and it has a limited life span. I think the on costs of dealing with this waste have never been factored into the true cost of solar. If there is no significant recyclable future for this solar farm, than it will be a case of RIP. Rust In Place. With no economic incentive to clean it up, it will never happen.
To see such a great local business be taken out by the pure positioning a solar farm is mind blowing. This isn't a case of NIMBY, you only have to stand on higher ground on the farm to places that it could be without effecting the business. If the need to have this solar farm right in that exact spot is non negotiable, then they should be fully compensated for their loss. Their business is based on their ability to provide a beautiful country vista, not showing people how our pre-occupation with being environmentally friendly can visually pollute.
For me personally, to loose my farm work would be a great loss. I take pride in my work, and to have a job so close to home is rare. To see what was building into a great business to come to stop is a shame. Their investment over the years into the local economy would be incalculable, through support of local businesses and the employment of young local kids is important, as it gives them the skills to move on in the work place. I have been fortunate enough to watch several of these young ones come through and who have built on the Orange Grove experience and forged careers in hospitality.
These businesses are rare gems in the country and with such a vast country with wide open spaces, maybe in this case, you could move it just a little further the right.
Thanks
Nev

impact on native animal's located in the proposed area. removal of trees will impact soil structure,therefore salinity becomes a concern
decreases land value of neighboring land holders
impact on local business's and the flow on affect to jobs in the local area

Me and my brothers will be the 4th generation of farmers on the family farm, we have been working on this farm for as long as I remember, we help Dad with sheep work, cropping, hay making, fencing and anything else we can for dad and pop.
We have helped mum and watch mum start her business, we take the guests around on farm tours, set up for functions and help when she needs us.
We work hard but we like what we do and where we live
We are worried this solar farm will ruin this for us and shut down what mum has worked hard for
It has been horrible to hear how upset everyone is about this and we aren't allowed to talk about it at school
this was suppose to be our future

Productive farming land should not be used for large scale solar farms. Having attended many functions at Orange Grove gardens, the backdrop is absolutely stunning with amazing views. It would be appalling to see these views spoiled by solar panels.

Please refer to attached PDF

The project is based around flawed and incorrect base data. The most important of these flaws is that the land on which the proposed project is slated for, was catergorised as “unimportant agricultural land” which came from a 1980’s DPI cropping soil salinity study which identified areas subject to varying levels of salinity. This study was only undertaken in relation to cropping enterprises. These salinity issues were fixed 20 years ago with Lime, Gypsum and minimal til cultivation, as they were in many parts of Australia. These areas are renowned mixed farming areas, with livestock, cropping & fodder production. This was completely ignored by the solar proponents in their submission. The DPI maps on which the proponents based much of their background facts were taken down from the DPI website after a meeting at Brocklesby which was attended by a representative of the DPI and local members of the NSW Farmers Association. (I also attended) So their basic premise around the land being deemed “unimportant agricultural land” based on flawed background information should mean that the application should be rejected. This land is worth up to $4000 an acre on current values. The value of this land makes a mockery of their claim as well.
There is also the matter of been able to transfer the power generated into the grid. A representative of Transgrid at a meeting in Culcairn (which I attended) admitted that there was very limited excess capacity available in the transmission lines to take any of the additional power generated. The planning around delivering the power into the grid has not been done properly; and this is highlighted by the fact that the proponents have admitted the site selection was more about minimising transmission loss, using the High Voltage Power lines and a substation which happen to be close by, enabling easier access to population centres and a market. But, the basic underlying infrastructure capacity isn’t there to support their project.
There is also considerable opposition from neighbours, other local farmers (of which I am one) and the local communities of Walla Walla & Culcairn. They are worried about Astestics, they are worried about the potential fire Issues around the site and the potential issues that neighbours face as a consequence. They are worried about Bio Security matters (weeds, feral animals (rabbits etc) which have not in the minds of objectors been adequately addressed.
Objectors like myself have no objection to Solar Projects! However, they should never be placed where they are on Important Agricultural Land, allowed to be proposed based around flawed data or situated near communities or neighbours that feel issues such as Bio Security, Fire Hazards and the impact on the landscape have not been adequately addressed.
Gerard O’Brien

As a local to the area I object to the Walla Walla Solar farm. It is the wrong location and not a location identified as a renewable energy zone.
This is highly productive land producing food and fodder on natural rain fall, undulating land that offers beautiful views and showcases the rural agriculture success and resilience of the area. The Solar farm is proposed in a lower lying property, a local function and accommodation business is elevated over the southeast end of the plant. They will wear the brunt of the west, north westerly winds and dust created with the removal of the proposed woodlands and established paddock trees. I don't believe the business would survive and any tree lines would take years to establish, which may all be a little to late for the established business.
The degradation of the proposed land and that of adjacent land is of great concern as current reports do indicate a rise in temperature on a 1MW system. Given the size of this project and the proposed location, it would have been presumed that testing results on larger scale Solar farms would be available prior to a decision being made on the removal of productive land from the food bowl. Especially as the proposed land is producing in a time of one of the worst droughts recorded
We all agree on a need to move to cleaner energy but it should not come at the loss of productive agricultural land when their is arid land only a couple of hours west of here that can not produce in times of drought and is not producing food and fodder for the population on Natural rain fall.
It is a concern of the long term financial effect on the community, loss of current jobs and the suppliers, contractors and workers that rely on the agricultural and hospitality business that will be effected. After construction the circulation of money within the community will dwindle and this is when the real effects will be visible.
Visual impact will also be felt by those that live along the Yambla Ranges and the property "Mountain View" that will have the view of a massive substation. It feels like no serious consideration has been taken into neighbouring properties and the effect this will have on their lively hood, those that rely on them and also the stress and mental strain placed on them throughout this process.
There are better locations for projects like this that will not have such detrimental effects to those surrounding it . One of the Key fundamental criteria's is the compatibility of the project to the current rural environment and I don't believe that this has been demonstrated or proven to be the case with this proposal

I object to this project for the following reasons:
Good farming land will be taken up for this project that is still profitable when NSW is in drought. I live in the area and it is good farming land that can produce good crops livestock to help feed the population. With the drought areas like this in NSW are few and far between.
This project will greatly impact the Orange Grove Wedding reception venue and could destroy the business.
I am worried it will make a micro climate effect and make it hotter, which could greatly impact surrounding farms ability to viably produce.
The increased water shed of the panels and baron ground could promote flash flooding in the area.
I really do not think the roads in the area are not up to scratch with all the traffic this project will bring.
This will cause a drop in the land value of neighbouring properties and land like this would normally be sought after. This will mean beautiful farming land will be turned into an industrial zone that will not be as pleasing to the eye. This is not what our area is about.
To run a good farm you need to put money into lots of local services, stock agents, agronomists, farm machinery and vehicle servicing etc these will lose out. The money from these projects will go back overseas, and not back into our local community.
The installation has the potential to be a bush fire risk with weeds such as hairy panic being able to thrive in such conditions that the installation will provide.
These developments are able to remove well established paddock trees that could be hundreds of years old, removing such trees will help increase salinity and it is just plain wrong they can be removed for the sake of installing a few panels.
The Greater Hume Shire is not the place for large scale solar with its profitable agriculture sector, these installations need to go where they a need e.g where the drought has a hold and could put some need money back into drought affected towns, also if they were to in larger broad acre areas the would mostly go unnoticed and would not visually disturb the surrounding landscape as they would here.
The proposition of these installations has divided the community and caused much angst.
I am not against renewable energy like solar and wind, but I just believe this is not the place for it.

I am writing to object to the proposed Walla Walla Solar Farm

Our farm is located on Benambra Rd and sits directly between the proposed sites of both the Walla Walla Solar Farm and Culcairn Solar Farm. As neighbours adjacent to both proposals we have spent much of the past 11 months listening, questioning, and researching large scale solar. In relation to this proposal we have consulted with both Bison Energy and FRV. We have listed our concerns everything from: Impacts to The Local Environment, Inaccurate Land Classification, Agricultural Impacts, Removal of Trees, Health Risks, Local Economic Impacts, Land use, Flooding, Fire Control, Weed Control, Traffic Management, Dust and of course Visual Impacts just to name a few.

Unfortunately, I feel that not only has FRV and its predecessor not listened, but significantly they have not actually provided solutions to mitigate many of our concerns, and those of our neighbours including the expected impacts to jobs and the future viability of Orange Grove Gardens.

I object to the removal/destruction of large trees and woodland areas. Although the total number of trees to be removed has not been clearly identified they have indicated that they are proposing the removal of 52 paddock trees. They have also identified that of the trees to be removed 58 of them are hollow bearing trees. I understand that in order to replace the biodiversity value of these trees within this environment it will take decades. The removal of these trees will require displacement of any squirrel gliders, birds or other wildlife that currently nest in them. It will also likely negatively impact wildlife corridors. It is disgraceful to think that they are “offsetting” the destruction of this habitat and trees and many of which are in excess of 100 years old with tube stock.

I am concerned that over the years the soil around the panels and roadways may become compacted and contaminated, which could result in faster runoff, increased dust and or more frequent flood events on our land as we are the lowest point in this section of the landscape. I am concerned about erosion impacts in back creek and at the Benambra Rd crossing. I am also concerned that rubbish and debris from broken panels, packaging etc… will be washed onto our land and may pose a risk to our livestock.

I strongly object to the location of the TransGrid Sub-station. This will be what we see every day from our kitchen, bedrooms and our upstairs living areas. We have proposed an alternative site on the same parcel of land that would move it from our foreground to our background however this has been rejected. This substation will have full security fencing, night lighting, intermittent traffic at all hours depending on TransGrid callouts and schedules, noise pollution and based on the actual substations we have seen at various solar farms it will not simply blend into the local landscape. This development application process also does not include any requirements/restrictions or provisions relating to installation and or operation of the TransGrid substation facility which will be a permanent structure.

FRV have identified that to reduce road movements they may look at off-site parking and using buses to bring staff to site. Yet their current traffic impact assessment does not identify a location or route for this. In order to use sealed roads this parking facility would not likely be located in Walla which would limit the implied financial benefits to the community. If it is in Walla this will have significant impacts on the unsealed roads that lead to the proposed site, not to mention significant increases to local traffic and vehicle movements through 2 school zones. As this is not in their plan who would be financially responsible for the upkeep of these roads. Anyone who drives along Benambra Road on a regular basis can tell you that the road cannot handle more traffic and in fact struggles to handle existing traffic (especially during winter).

Given the constantly changing permanent staff numbers indicated by Bison and FRV I also have concerns that what is promised will quickly dwindle within a couple of years. Initial marketing material promised 2-3 permanent staff. Then 7 staff, and the final marketing material promises 21 permanent staff. Given that the solar farm did not multiply in size its hard to understand how a company such as FRV who have according to their team “been in this business and leading the way” for so long, would so severely underestimate its business needs and it’s staffing requirements. Or is it simply a case that they have propped their numbers to match the number of job losses they will be causing if Orange Grove Gardens is put out of business?

With a lack of available housing and rental vacancies in Walla it is also unlikely that there would be benefits associated with housing and rental accommodation. A transient or temporary workforce would likely be housed in Albury/Wagga where more significant furnished housing is available. Again, not contributing to the local community or economy.

The impacts of this will be felt for years to come. When you continue to take land out of agricultural production through urban encroachment and industrialisation you not only increase pressure on the food, fibre and fodder industries but you create a negative financial impact on towns like Walla where the core purpose of the majority of its businesses is to supply and or support farming practices.

In response to our questions they keep telling us that none of these things are of concern and I suppose we are just expected to believe them. Unfortunately, I would prefer hard facts and actual evidence that these things will not have a negative impact on our family, our farm and our profitability as well as our neighbours and local community. These farms have been moving closer and closer to productive and populated areas. There should be ample evidence, by now! But despite several promises that the research has been done and the evidence will be provided it has not been forthcoming. Which leads me to wonder has anyone taken responsibility for due diligence when it comes to solar farms?


At a time where much of the state has failed to produce anything due to the ongoing drought, that land within the Greater Hume Shire has successfully produced, food, fibre and fodder this year despite our lack of rainfall. We believe that this land is valuable, viable and should be protected.

Thank you for your time.

As a neighbor, farmer and contractor I object to the development of any Solar Farm within the Greater Hume Shire. I also object to any more solar farms going onto productive farmland within our country.
This area as many will tell you is a patch of paradise and as far as agricultural land goes it is without question highly productive and sort after. This area has during drought supported and sustained grain, food, fibre and fodder production which is something many areas have not. In relation to grain production many are reporting crops that have yielded 40%-60% of the average with well below average rainfall.
The crops that have failed have largely been ensiled and or baled and have been stored or sold. The sales of hay and silage from this area will see many through the coming months/year. The capacity of local farmers to retain and increase stock numbers during this drought will see them recover quicker than most areas once the rains fall again.
I have spent much of the past 20 years working alongside many families in this area and I can see what these proposals have done to the local communities, families and businesses. I think not enough emphasis has been placed on the impact this has had. People are being treated with utter disrespect. These companies are flashing cash around the local communities in order to win over locals but are doing nothing to remedy neighbouring landholders’ concerns. I believe that most of the positive financial benefits they are promising to the local community will not come to fruition. There will be no increased housing demand, workers who are bused to site will not duck into town to buy lunch etc... A few local businesses will pick up a small amount of short-term work, probably resulting in many locals no longer wishing to use their services as a result of the local fall out associated with anything and or anyone linked to large scale solar.
To suggest that this will not impact the value or resale value of a home, farm or business is total BS. I am yet to see a real estate advertisement that states "with a magnificent view of a Solar Farm" or "a sensational view of the local Electrical Sub Station". I cannot find a rental property claiming, "within easy walking distance of the local solar farm" or a wedding venue offering "the ambiance of a solar farm construction crew, abundant dust and the chiming of vehicle reverse beepers as you walk down the aisle". This will absolutely devalue every home, business and farm within line of sight and the "generous" tree lines being offered are just ridiculous. It will take well over 15 years for them to block any of this industrial eyesore.
I am appalled that anyone thinks that it’s OK to in the name of "saving the planet" pull out/cut down hectares of woodland, and 60+ trees. Many of which are well over 100 years old and many are hollow bearing trees. The fauna that will be displaced will be isolated, disrupted and will likely never fully recover and possibly die out. What will the flow on effect be to the local environment and ecology on these farms and the neighbouring farms? The flora and fauna surveys were also very short and, in my opinion, would not give a true reflection of the plant and animal life in this area due to the drought conditions.
According to many experts including Sustainable Farms "Not only do scattered paddock trees allow many species to persist in agricultural landscapes, they also influence biodiversity across the wider landscape. Scattered paddock trees are typically the oldest living features in the landscape, and provide essential and often critical wildlife resources, that are preferred by many species, including threatened species such as the Superb Parrot and Squirrel Glider." and "Tree hollows and large canopies. These resources/features are critical for the persistence of some wildlife and are difficult to replace as they can take many centuries to develop." Simply removing trees of this nature and replacing them with tube stock and claiming it will be OK in the long run is a disgrace!
I believe that weed management will be a much larger challenge than is being anticipated, I don’t believe that large capacity sheep grazing will eventuate and if it does it will be short lived. I think the company makes many claims that in the end they know they won’t be held accountable for and they will be able to explain away why things didn’t go as promised. ie: we changed our operating structure; our leasing partner had a different management plan etc… and the local community will be left with all the burdens and none of the promised benefits.
Finally, I would ask why the NSW and the Australian Government is allowing a Saudi Owned business (or any foreign owned business) like FRV (or Neoen) to take such a large stake in our country’s future electricity security. Leasing farmlands is “not quite” foreign ownership but in the end, I think we will discover that we have been owned!

I have previously made an objection for the Jindera Solar Farm and I believe that these reasons still stand as per below for the Walla Walla Solar Farm, but this time it is on my front door or about 800m from my front door and we are elevated over it.
The EIS states that we as the residence 5a have no visual impact because of the tree coverage around the homestead, they forgot to mention that when FRV where here in winter they stood on our verandah and we could see across to the far northwest corner because from April to September all our trees loose their leaves, so the main homestead is protected for 6 months but 6 months will have full view of the whole project. 5a also is the address of my wife's function and Eco tourism business that does not have tree coverage blocking the view and this will be detrimental to the survival of her business. She has built this up over the past 10 years and outlaid substantial funds on infrastructure and development to build it to what the business is today, employing Fulltime/partime, casual staff and increasing the workforce and available hours on offer as the business has developed, she uses local suppliers and contractors supporting the local community
I am a 3rd generation farmer that has spent my whole life working on the farm and like my grandfather, father and myself we have all worked hard for the land we are blessed with today. In one of the worst droughts on record we are still producing food and fodder for the population. Like my father we do this to pass onto our own children and with 3 boys this is their potential future.
We have listened, researched and engaged with both Bison and FRV and neither company have given us any comfort in the ability to reassure us and prove to us that a project of this size would not have adverse effects on our property, we are a mixed farming enterprise of beef cattle, fine wool and cropping bordering the south and eastern boundary of the project. The current reports available on 1MW systems highlight an increase of temperature, the recommended mitigation has not been offered, we even argued over a supposed tree line that already exists on our property, we even offered to drive them down to the boundary to show them there was no tree line. We advised on the west north westerly winds the dust and heat that would be directly effect our land and property and where advised they would have to ask experts on this. We live here day in day out, I am sure we know which way the wind blows. The lack of knowledge of the area, weed issues and how to deal with them, Hairy Panic which builds up and has to be hand removed.
Why should we need to look at infrastructure such as water because of the strain this could place on our animals, tree lines and the inundation of dust. We where even advised that a university would do studies, we did not ask for this, it is our home our lively hood and our children's future why should we be their guinea pigs. This only demonstrates they don't know the effects and it is not a risk we should be willing to accept. There is more suitable locations without effects to neighbours, degradation of farm land, an established business and the local community.
Removal of Trees and vegetation and the effect this will have on run off, flooding and possible salinity. It is our land on the boundry that is at highest risk, we have been told of internal research and data as FRV have been doing this for some years, yet this has not been provided. We looked at options and where told that it would not be considered because it is a "commercial decision" and they would take their chances with the department of planning. They never had an intention to work with neighbours or the community as they could not even list our main concerns when they talked about our consultation, nor the conversation about my wife's business trading periods that where provided at least 3 times throughout these meetings.
This project has already come at a high cost socially in the fracturing of the community, sleepless nights and worry about our future, all of this has sat on the shoulders of the neighbours and concerned locals not those that have signed or that of the foreign company making a "commercial decision".
Please find a better location and protect the producing farm land that we have left in NSW


I object to the project for a number of reasons as listed below.
1. This solar project has a large number of affected neighbours, mostly families that have invested large sums of money to have their own piece of paradise, only to now be faced with living beside an industrial zone and being subjected to undesirable side affects such as heat island effect, glare and noise and air pollution, particularly during construction periods. I'm sure that those that pay multimillion amounts to have Sydney Harbour views would be just as upset if an industrial site was set up in their line of sight. Our country side is our Sydney Harbour, we work hard and pay good money to live with our vista.
2. The proposed site will take a large amount of highly productive land out of production, at least reducing its capacity by 80%. I have been part of the Burrumbuttock Hay Runners, delivering hay to communities in desperate need of fodder to survive. In the 5 years or so I have been involved a massive amount of fodder has come out of the Greater Hume Shire, an area recently recorded as continually producing the highest quality fodder on the east coast of Australia, this is a result of our productive dryland (non irrigated) country, highlighted this year as the entire state battles crippling drought, we were still able to be productive, again producing fodder for the rest of the state to survive.
3. As a member of the close knit communities commonly found in the small country towns, I have already noticed a fracture of friendships in these communities, number one issue, solar developments. One time friends now on opposite sides of the solar debate, local community groups suffering in numbers because "I'm not playing in the same team as Mr X" or "I'm not buying from that business because Mr X works there". Its not too late to stop our communities collapsing completely and there is still a chance to mend the fractured relationships by stopping the solar development.
In conclusion I believe these developments are better suited in areas that a 2000 acre development can be hidden, 5 to 10 kms from the nearest affected resident, such as the Hay plains. The government should have the foresight to force these foreign companies to develop our country by building high voltage transmission lines to these areas rather than rape and pillage our productive land, communities and lifestyle just because the aging infrastructure is available for them to make a massive amount of money for the least amount of outlay.