31 July 2024

Landholders rally to fight off Wallaroo Solar Farm as proposal heads to decision time

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
31
solar farm on landscape

An artist’s impression from 2022 showing the extent of the proposed 100 MW Wallaroo Solar Farm. The array area has been reduced, but the output will be the same. Image: New Energy Development.

Local landholders and residents are mobilising against the proposed solar farm near Wallaroo just across the ACT border ahead of a public meeting next Thursday (18 July).

The NSW Government has been taking more submissions on the state-significant 100 MW proposal on land owned by Canberra’s Notaras family located 3 km south of the rural area of Wallaroo and next to the NSW and ACT border in the Yass Valley.

The development application, which was lodged last year, was referred to the NSW Independent Planning Commission on 28 June to decide on the matter because the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure received at least 50 submissions objecting to the proposal. The Yass Valley Council has also objected.

Submissions opened on 1 July and they close at 5 pm on Thursday, 25 July 2024.

The commission has organised the public meeting in the Murrumbateman Community Hall for Thursday, 18 July, starting at 10 am.

READ ALSO Ginninderry releases block for sale, seeks proposals for community development

The proposal from New Energy Development and Univergy International will involve the installation of 182,000 photovoltaic modules on steel piles and associated infrastructure, including battery storage and a substation connected to nearby transmission lines.

The proponents, who will lease the land, say the $166 million project will feed electricity into the transmission network and be capable of producing enough clean renewable energy to supply about 48,000 homes in NSW and the ACT.

But nearby residents and landholders say it will be an eyesore and impact the rural character of the area and the environment, as well as pose noise, dust and pollution risks.

man with grape vines

Nick O’Leary is worried about the future of his business and the growing tourism sector in the area. Photo: Nick O’Leary Wines.

Neighbouring award-winning Nick O’Leary Wines said in a submission lodged last year that it feared the proposal would threaten the viability and value of its vineyard and new cellar door.

The winemaker has 14 hectares of vines, a 500-tonne winery and a Cellar Door Restaurant, all of which employ more than 30 people.

Mr O’Leary told Region that he supported renewable energy and that the winery itself, as an environmentally friendly operation, had 700 sqm of solar panels on the buildings, but this site was just not appropriate for a project of this size.

He was also concerned about the impact on local tourism, saying that since opening the new cellar door and restaurant 12 months ago, the winery had had more than 20,000 visitors.

“We see it as a destination, not just our winery. There are three other cellar door and restaurant businesses out here, so we’re concerned about what 750 football fields [of solar panels] will look like as you’re coming out on a nice drive to the country to visit wineries,” he said.

Mr O’Leary said he had made a significant investment in the business and was extremely worried about its future if this development was approved.

He said the proposal was inconsistent with NSW’s own planning rules that such a project should not be built within 5 km of a major suburb and town.

“The NSW Government is bullying their way through and the ACT Government has been very quiet. It’s going to affect 10,000 residents.”

He said it would be very sad to see prime agricultural land turned over to a massive industrial solar farm.

Mr O’Leary will join other objectors at the Murrumbateman meeting.

Kane Mangin shared on the WhatsApp group set up to fight the proposal that the only local beneficiary of the project would be the land owner, but the community would be left to deal with the negative impacts of the development, including falling land values and increased risks and hazards to people, flora and fauna.

Mr Mangin, who intends making a submission to the commission, said conditions imposed by DPHI to mitigate risks did not address the fundamental concerns of the objectors.

“The mitigations include paying offset credits for the impact on a significant threatened and endangered species. This is a cop-out and does not address the biodiversity and environmental hazard that this development represents,” Mr Mangin said.

“Additionally, the dust, noise and pollution impact on residents will be significant. All weather comes from the west and no amount of mitigation by the developer will address the discomfort and stress.”

map of proposed development

Nick O’Leary said the proposal was inconsistent with NSW’s own planning rules that such a project should not be built within 5 km of a major suburb and town. Image: NGH.

Mr Mangin said NSW regulations prohibited these developments encroaching on regional centres, but this development is within 800 metres of densely populated suburbs of the ACT, separated only by an invisible border.

ACT resident Adam Bartley also raised this point in his submission made this week, saying the proponents are exploiting a loophole.

“There are many good reasons for this, including the visual impact of reflective panels, localised temperature increases near solar farms, increased dust and noise during construction and bush fire risks posed by the electrical equipment,” he said.

NSW resident and neighbour Rachael McCarroll said the impact on the view would devalue her property.

“It is very disheartening to think that we will be potentially looking at black panels instead of green hills, which was the intention when we purchased the land to build our forever home,” she said.

Yass Valley Council said in its submission made last year that the site is within the nominal 5 km ‘buffer’ area around the ACT/NSW border established by the Yass Valley Settlement Strategy and supported by both the ACT and NSW planners.

This buffer is designed to preserve the rural amenity and landscape values and restrict urban development in these areas.

“A solar farm is more akin to an industrial activity and is inconsistent with protecting the landscape values of the locality and the rural character and amenity as envisaged in the buffer area along the border of Yass Valley and the ACT,” the council said.

It has concerns about the potential contamination of agricultural and residential areas and waterways from the ignition of cadmium storage batteries and panels in the event of a grassfire.

It also says that the proponents have not considered the Parkwood and Ginninderry developments in their visual impact assessment.

READ ALSO The best solar installers in Canberra

The proponents said in their November 2023 response to submissions that a vegetation buffer will screen the project and allow it to blend in with the landscape and minimise glare.

While it will be visible from certain points, they say the solar farm will only have a low visual impact, but this has been further enhanced by changes made to the project in May this year.

Tree plantings will be shifted to fragment the view from the northwest, and the solar array area has been reduced from 179.94 ha to 139.19 ha, although this will not mean a fall in output.

Minor changes to operational PV tracking controls will also help reduce any glare from panels.

The proponents said the project is not in a water-sensitive area or near groundwater, remains consistent with ecologically sustainable development and is in the public interest.

Join the conversation

31
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Garry Johnson8:41 pm 23 Jul 24

This solar farm is not needed. Total waste of money. Andrew Barr has no idea what his spending our money on, and how the energy market works.
The solar market is flooded with residential systems, which can only really be used for internal use with feedin tarifs at 8cents…
Electricity is required during peak periods, thats 7am to 9am and 5pm to 9pm. The sun does not shine at these times.
Peak demand is what its all about not solar !!!!!
I work in the energy market.

I think its simple – climate change cant be proven scientifically, so why should we bother with pointless solar projects that take good farm land out of production.

Its a lose-lose proposition.

And before anyone starts with the snarky and rather low-rent “denier” nonsense, go have a look at the 800,000 years of Vostok Ice Cores data, and learn how CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

Even if what you say about climate change was true (it isnt), solar power and other renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.

So the question is really why would you want to pay more for your electricity by supporting pointless fossil fuel projects?

Repetition of rubbish does not make facts, stevew77.

stevew77’s Vostok claim has already been debunked repeatedly here.

Stevew77 has been asked at least four times the following question, and squibbed it every time:
“State your definition of “scientifically proven” such that it excludes climate change knowledge while retaining all other accepted science.”

I can understand that feeling that others are “smug” or whatever may be a pretty natural psychological defence to being unable to sustain for a moment a belief stevew77 might wish to hold. This remains irrelevant to the lack of knowledge behind that belief.

Clearly. This is why the ACT government pay almost twice what they can sell the power for out of Royalla abd Mugga lane solar farms, and why our power bills are going down.

Oh, wait…..

Oh dear, I seem to have hit a nerve. Never mind.

So the thing about the Vostok Ice Cores is that it demonstrates a cyclical pattern to global temperature, well and truly before humans drove SUVs or built bird shredders.

So some starter references :

Petit et al 1999 Nature 399, 429–436 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/20859
NOAA Antarctic Ice Cores: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true
Fischer et all 1999 https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.283.5408.1712
Monin et all 2001 https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.291.5501.112

Ken M,
Almost like power bills are affected by multiple things…..

And hilariously, then point out that according to you wholesale energy costs have reduced as renewables proliferate. As that’s what the energy “sale price” from those solar farms represents.

Quoting from your first reference, stevew77, noting the qualification in the second sentence:
“Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.”

Do you understand that “cyclical patterns” do not of themselves determine cause and effect to accord with your preferences? What does “unprecedented” mean to you?

Linking directly from your second reference:
“Scientists use paleoclimatology data and information to understand natural climate variability and future climate change.”

Are you arguing that climate scientists are clueless because you know better despite not being sure what science is?

Your third and fourth references timed out for me. The above will do.

Exactly how much land do we need to cover with solar panels to save the planet?

In Australia, about 1200 sq Km to fully decarbonise, including solar, wind and power lines.

That is less than 0.03% of land currently devoted to agriculture here.

Total land impact is higher but the additional land is not alienated from agriculture. Most panels and towers are not built on it. Further, sheep may safely graze under solar panels, and do because the grass grows better where less beaten by the sun.

HTH

I think if you use commercial spacing methods for solar panels, to produce the base load power requirements, it works out to covering most of Victoria is solar panels.

Reference please, stevew77, defining or enumerating each of “commercial spacing methods”, “base load power requirements”, and why you abjure any other renewable power source.

You made the claims so you may as well try.

Capital Retro9:38 pm 23 Jul 24

So, why not allocate 1200 sq Km where no agriculture exists?

We were always going to need solar arrays relatively close to built communities in order to avert a climate crisis. We have known that since about 1990. The trouble is everyone agrees that it has to be done until it is anywhere near them, in which case it is suddenly becomes completely inappropriate. The government has to start winning these battles.

Really? When there’s vacant land nearby, why would anyone think they have any right to control what’s built on it?

Never thought I’d be in agreement with Jack D.

Renewables are great. Having to cope with the visuals of solar farms & wind turbines is a small price to pay for the convenience of electricity.

It’s funny to watch people who whine about developments they don’t like continually, also whine when other people object to things they do like.

If it was a nuclear power plant being built in private land with private money, these same people would be screeching about it endlessly.

“If it was a nuclear power plant being built in private land with private money…”

Well we know that will not happen here, whereas solar, wind, and non-nuclear firming technologies are both feasible and profitable for the private sector. You are in favour of private risk capital over government expenditure, are you not?

Ah, the usual irrelevant drivel has begun. The comment had nothing to do with the financial aspect.

Would you be as supportive of a privately funded and maintained nuclear plant on the same site? It wouldn’t take up 750 football fields worth of land either.

The nuclear power plant would requires huge amounts of guaranteed water supply which doesn’t exist for this site along with other significant technical challenges.

So whilst I wouldn’t care if they proposed another type of power plant on the same site, the technical challenges of doing so make it impossible.

I’m also thinking that the same people whinging about this project would also complain about a nuclear power plant on the site. I don’t think their complaints about the amenity of the area would suddenly disappear if a nuclear plant was proposed.

Who exactly do you think is complaining about other similar projects but supporting this one?

You missed it Ken M. There will be no privately funded and maintained nuclear plant.

I consider real options, not economic fantasies.

Noting also that you consider things such as financial viability, capital allocation, productivity or economics, to be irrelevant drivel.

The Molonglo river is barely a few kilometres from the site. Getting water there is hardly “impossible”. That is however beside the point.

I see people on here whining about all kinds of developments they don’t like. Even developments nowhere near where they live. Residents right next to this monstrosity have an issue with it and should pipe down just because the renewables cult like this one? It’s just hilarious to watch the hypocrisy.

People who will be directly impacted by this development have every right to object to it the same way some sook in Tuggeranong can complain about summernats or the existence of the race course. This one doesn’t even comply with the planning laws to begin with.

Ken,
You’re showing your knowledge of Nuclear power again.
I said “guaranteed” water supply and none of the rivers in this area are remotely reliable enough to provide the volumes and reliability of water supply for a nuclear power plant.

But OK, you think it’s beside the point, so let’s move on.

“I see people on here whining about all kinds of developments they don’t like”

Yes You’re right. But you said these are the same people that are now supportive of this proposal.

Who exactly are you talking about?

You’ve claimed some sort of hypocrisy but just left it a general “I see people here”.

Capital Retro5:10 pm 13 Jul 24

Just be patient, landholders. The next “unprecedented” bushfire will wipe it all out and before then probably a hailstorm.

Johnathan Bundy4:26 pm 13 Jul 24

If they’re not happy with a clean green solar plant being built, maybe they could go settle with a nuclear plant instead!

How they can argue that solar panels are going to cause them noise disturbances is ridiculous. And complaining that the panels would ruin the aesthetics of the area is bonkers as well, it’s just an empty plain! There’s nothing even there.

And complaining that farm land is ‘wasted’ – also nonsense.

What a bunch of NIMBYs

These landholders, NIMBYs, wreckers or whatever you want to call them do not own the views and have no right to interfere in this process. All because they don’t like what it looks like, whingeing that it will impact their views and create dust!

I hope the Notaras’s and the NSW govt throw their significant weight behind this proposal and win!

Then you shouldn’t object to a lithium battery recycling factory in the street you live in, or is that being a NIMBY

Piffling seems the appropriate evaluation of the issues these people complain of. Disproportionate compared to responses to all sorts of other uglification we scarecly notice because we are used to it.

I’ve lived in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, within sight of multiple huge coal power stations. I frequently travelled past their immense, ugly, brown coal open cut mines.

I’d like to tell the NIMBYs complaining about the solar farm to suck it up and pull their weight.

They are welcome to relocate to the Latrobe Valley and experience true ugly power generation.

Bernard Cass2:00 pm 13 Jul 24

Here we go again. While every resident near to a coal burning power station or coal mine put up with pollution, dust, smoke etc etc you sat back and enjoyed the benefits. Now you are being asked to have a solar farm next door to your alcohol production facility you are going to complain that you might be inconvenienced. NIMBYism at its worst.

That is going to be awfully ugly for the neighbouring suburbs which look to be very close according to that map, and will probably be very damaging to property values. Not sure how it is even being considered if the planning rules say a minimum 5km buffer when that suggests maybe a couple of hundred meters from Macgregor, Macnamara and Dunlop. Were the residents there ever even notified?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.