The fate of a 320MW solar farm and 780MWh big battery proposed for near Tamworth in New South Wales is in the hands of the state’s Independent Planning Commission, after it attracted more than 100 written submissions objecting to the project.
The Middlebrook Solar Project, while deemed “approvable” by the NSW planning department, was referred to the IPC this week due to the high number of objections – more than double the amount that automatically triggers an assessment by the Commission.
The solar farm and battery, originally developed by Total Eren but last year acquired by TotalEnergies, is proposed for construction 22km south of Tamworth, outside of the state’s New England Renewable Energy Zone (REZ).
The project received a total of 129 unique submissions during the public exhibition of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 120 objected to the solar farm, five supported it and four provided comments. It also received advice from 10 government agencies and Tamworth Regional Council.
In its letter referring the project, the NSW head of energy assessments Iwan Davies, said the department had visited the site, consulted with local residents, council and relevant government agencies, and had found the project “appovable, subject to the recommended conditions of consent.”
But it will now be up to the IPC to make the call, based on the information provided by the department and any new information gathered through its own process, which is open to submissions until September 26.
According to documents published by the NSW planning department, only 5 per cent of submissions gathered during the EIS process were made by residents living locally, or within 5 km of the proposed project.
The vast majority of submissions – 70% – came from people located between 5-100km from the proposed solar farm, while a further 25% came from parties located more than 100km from the project site.
The main issues of concern centre on the project’s location, including the fact that it is outside of the nearest REZ and that it is proposed for agricultural land. Another 36 per cent of objections expressed concerns about project’s impact on their property values and on how benefits would be shared with community.
Visual impact was another key concern, with the effect of “glint and glare” from the solar panels mentioned in 35 per cent of the submissions. Two submissions were concerned about the potential glare and distraction the solar farm might cause for aircraft, as well as “potential electromagnet interference with equipment.”
Another three submissions stated they were concerned that electric and magnetic fields generated from the solar and battery project would impact the health of neighbours.
Just 16 submissions expressed concerns about the project’s impact on flora and fauna, with the cumulative loss of habitat for solar farms and cumulative impact of dust from the project both key issues raised on this subject.
A much larger number of submissions noted the adverse impact the solar farm was having on human mental health and neighbour relationships, with one submission describing it as “pitting neighbour against neighbour and breaking down relationships that were once great.”
Economic concerns were also a theme, with several submissions questioning the financial benefits and bona fides of the project. Specific issues included the limited long-term economic benefit to community; the ability to accommodate and service workers; profits going overseas, and; “governments should be looking out for Aussie battlers instead of foreign investors.”
Several more submissions “questioned the basis for solar energy,” taking issue with the classification of PV as ‘green’ and low emissions, as well as with its intermittency of generation, and arguing renewables will not put downward pressure on electricity prices. Two submissions questioned the justification for renewable energy developments in general.
