Burroway Solar Farm

24701

17/02/2026

Object

Email

I object to Burroway Solar + BESS as the NSW DPHI & IPCN continue to show “a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety.” The DPHI & IPCN are knowingly inflicting Risky Moral Hazard on Local Councils & the Community who ultimately bear all the burden of their flawed assessment process & wrong approvals as clearly outlined in this 03/02/2026 Response from Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF) - regarding Importation of Banned PFOS & ASBESTOS in Solar/Wind/BESS Components:- FEEDBACK (IMMI-26-00117-1) [SEC=OFFICIAL] OFFICIAL Dear …………. Thank you for your feedback (Ref: IMMI-26-00117-1) to the Department of Home Affairs Global Feedback Unit on 3 January 2026 concerning PFAS/PFOS, Bisphenol A and asbestos contained in imported goods by Renewable Energy Companies such as; solar panels, inverters, wind turbine components, electrical wiring and lithium ion batteries – and including the contamination caused by disposal of these products. Your feedback has been forwarded to my section, the Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF) for a response and advice. the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is Australia’s lead policy and regulatory agency for the management of hazardous industrial chemicals, which is implemented through the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS). IChEMS establishes nationally consistent standards for managing the import, export, manufacture, use and disposal of industrial chemicals to reduce impacts on the environment. While PFAS chemicals, including PFOA, are not yet prohibited at the Australian Border, they are listed in IChEMS as a high risk chemical group, and are regulated domestically within Australia. Bisphenol A is also listed in IChEMS and is being considered for scheduling by DCCEEW but is not a prohibited chemical at the Australian Border. We have received the below advice from DCCEEW on the PFAS regulations for your consideration: ● The Australian Government expects that introducers, exporters and users of PFAS comply with the standards set out in IChEMS. ● Regulation, or enforcement, of standards is reliant on adoption by the Commonwealth, states and territories into their own environmental laws. ● Jurisdictions are at various stages of incorporating the IChEMS into their own regulatory frameworks. ● The Commonwealth is exploring its legislative options for enforcing the prohibitions and restrictions on importation and manufacture and use in Commonwealth areas as prescribed in the standards. The Commonwealth will work with introducers and users as it develops implementing legislation and considers the practicality and appropriateness of different operating models. ● Until new legislation is available there is a unique opportunity for industry to establish compliant supply arrangements and business practices without penalties applying. For further information on what the Australian Government is doing in relation to managing and restricting the use, import, manufacture and disposal of PFAS containing products, please visit the DCCEEW website at Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) - DCCEEW. You may also wish to contact DCCEEW by email at [email protected] In regard to your concerns for asbestos, the ABF is responsible for enforcing border controls for very high volumes of goods that cross the Australian Border every day, and every effort is made to identify and prevent goods containing asbestos from entering Australia. ● Australia is one of the few countries in the Asia-Pacific region that has a comprehensive ban on all six types of asbestos. ● In many countries, despite the known threat to human health, local standards allow manufacturers to use low levels of types of asbestos. ● Goods manufactured outside Australia might be labelled asbestos free and still contain low levels of asbestos. ● It is the responsibility of importers and exporters to ensure they do not import or export prohibited goods such as asbestos. The ABF must be assured that asbestos containing goods are not unlawfully crossing the border. Regarding your concerns for unregulated and no accreditation body to determine the toxic public health and safety risks of renewable infrastructure and the contamination to the environment by the disposal of such renewable energy products, please also visit the DCCEEW website at the following links, for further information on how the Australian Government is managing these issues. Home - DCCEEW Renewable energy developments and environmental protection - DCCEEW Exporting, importing or transiting hazardous waste - DCCEEW Thank you for your feedback. Joshua ……… What this confirms clearly • There is no effective border-level prohibition on PFAS/PFOA or Bisphenol A in renewable energy components. • The system relies on voluntary industry compliance and future legislation, not enforceable controls. • Responsibility is fragmented and deflected between agencies (ABF → DCCEEW → states/territories). • Importers are effectively given a regulatory grace period to “establish compliant practices” without penalties. That last point is the most damning. What the letter unintentionally admits • Australia is knowingly allowing high-risk chemicals into the country while acknowledging their environmental and health risks. • Enforcement is aspirational, not operational. • The Commonwealth currently lacks the legal tools it claims are necessary, yet continues to permit imports. • Renewable energy infrastructure is being treated as a regulatory exception zone. This is classic regulatory capture by delay: “We agree it’s dangerous, but we’ll act later.” Structural failure exposed • No independent accreditation body for toxicological risk of renewable infrastructure. • No lifecycle regulation (import → use → disposal). • No precautionary principle applied, despite PFAS being globally recognised as persistent, bioaccumulative toxins. • No mandatory disclosure requirements for chemical composition of components. In plain terms: The system is built to facilitate rollout first, and manage harm later, if ever. Strategic value of this document This is actually a strong piece of evidence for future use because: • It documents official knowledge of risk. • It establishes foreseeability of harm. • It shows government awareness without enforcement. • It weakens any future claim of “unanticipated consequences.” That makes it useful for: • submissions, • complaints, • Senate inquiries, • judicial review groundwork, • and cumulative impact arguments. Bottom line The letter is polite, procedural, and calm — but substantively it is an admission of regulatory failure. Not incompetence. Not ignorance. Choice. On these grounds Burroway Solar must NOT be approved. From Lynette LaBlack BURROWAY SOLAR IPCN REFERENCE Please add this to my submission Thank you. Photo Reference: PDF 37 Damaged, Toxic Contaminating Solar *Toxic Hazard Warning *Toxic RenewaBULLs ARE THE ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE - poisonous to the public - via our life-sustaining land/water cursed by industrialised Solar/Wind Swindle Factories & hazardous Lithium-ion BESS. *Hail Fractured, Toxic Contaminating, Heavy Metal Leaching, PFOS Coated Solar Panels littering & poisoning the site, surrounding land/water and the public. *Toxic Smoke Warning - Raywood Solar Inverter on FIRE🔥 in Victoria- 20/2/2025 Developed by ACEnergy, which secured planning permits before selling it to subsidiaries of Chinese company Sungrow Power for construction in 2021 Sungrow inverter. *4x photos of Wellington Solar FIRE🔥6/12/2025 92 hectares burnt Owned by Lightsource bp *Extensive Damage from toxic Roof-top Solar FIRE🔥 - Prime 7 Riverina News story - 2025. *Damaged & Broken - Storm/Wind Bent & Twisted Solar Panels:-> •2 photos of Bison Energy’s Bostocks Creek Solar, 931 Camperdown-Cobden Road, Cobden, Victoria - 4/2/2025 Commissioned September 2024. •2 photos of yet to be commissioned Glenellen Solar, near Jindera NSW contaminating onsite & adjacent creeks flowing to Bowna Creek - directly into Albury’s Hume Dam - a major Drinking/Irrigation/Environmental Water Storage for NSW, Victoria and SA - 30/8/25 Originally CWP Renewables -> then Trina Solar now owned by GPG (Global Power Generation) *PFAS - RUINING AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE FOREVER - Gumly Gumly, Wagga Wagga. Chinese Solar panels & electrical wiring are coated in banned, toxic PFOS. PFOS is also in Chinese Inverters. Damaged, Toxic Contaminating Solar

Photo 37.pdf (PDF, 2.35 MB)

24706

‘Save Our Surroundings Riverina’

17/02/2026

Object

Email

A Fundamental Failure of Due Diligence: The Case Against Burroway Solar + BESS The proposed 100 MW Burroway Solar Electricity Generating Works with 100 MW / 400 MWh battery storage, located near Dubbo within the Macquarie River catchment of the Murray–Darling Basin, represents an industrial transformation of 495 hectares of RU1 Primary Production land. This proposal should not proceed under the current evidentiary and regulatory framework. 1. The Solar Guidelines: Certainty Without Proof NSW solar guidance materials state that metals in solar panels “cannot be easily released into the environment” and that contamination risk is negligible unless panels are ground to dust. That assurance is presented as settled fact. It is not. Encapsulation reduces risk under normal operating conditions. However, the guidelines do not adequately address: Degradation and fragile, inferior panels Hail damage across thousands of modules Bushfire exposure and ash transport Flood mobilisation within an active river catchment Long-term UV degradation over 30+ years End-of-life breakage during decommissioning The burden of proof has been inverted. Instead of requiring Australian-condition longitudinal leachate research before deployment at scale, regulators assume safety and require critics to prove harm. That is not precaution. That is presumption. 2. Heavy Metals & Toxicity: A Question of Scale Emeritus Professor Ivan Kennedy has repeatedly raised two unresolved issues: Environmental toxicity of solar panels The uncertainty surrounding ‘renewable‘ energy’s effectiveness in reducing climate risk Professor Kennedy has highlighted the cumulative presence of heavy metals — including silver, lead and cadmium compounds — across millions of installations. Whether or not each individual panel poses low risk is not the only question. The real issue is scale. Industrial solar electricity generating works concentrate hundreds of thousands of modules in one agricultural landscape. If even a small failure rate occurs during extreme weather events, the localised environmental burden could exceed that of dispersed rooftop systems. The guidelines dismiss this systemic concentration risk without site-specific modelling. 3. Battery Storage: Fire, Deposition, and Unknowns Utility-scale lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) introduce risks that are still being characterised internationally. The fire at Moss Landing demonstrated that large-scale lithium battery incidents can result in measurable environmental metal deposition. Fire authorities globally acknowledge that: Thermal runaway propagation remains difficult to suppress Toxic combustion products may disperse beyond facility boundaries Firewater containment is critical but not infallible Has Burroway’s assessment modelled: Worst-case plume dispersion under prevailing wind conditions? Firewater runoff entering tributaries connected to the Macquarie system? Long-term soil bioavailability of deposited metals? Absent transparent quantitative risk modelling, assurances of “low risk” are not evidence — they are assumptions. 4. PFAS and Emerging Contaminants Australia is tightening regulatory controls on PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS. Drinking water guidelines have been revised to extremely low nanogram-per-litre thresholds. Yet there is no mandatory requirement in the solar guidelines that: Modules be certified PFAS-free Encapsulation materials be independently tested Decomposition products under fire conditions be assessed If PFAS are sufficiently hazardous to warrant national restriction, it is reasonable to require full material transparency before approving industrial deployment across productive farmland. 5. Decommissioning: The Risk That “Runs With the Land” Unlike mining, most solar developments are not subject to state-held rehabilitation bonds. Guidance suggests decommissioning costs are modest and recoverable. That claim is false. If a developer becomes insolvent decades from now, obligations will attach to the landowner. In that scenario, host farmers inherit: Insurmountable Removal costs Impossible Waste disposal logistics Inevitable and irreversible, toxic soil contamination. Without a secured financial assurance held independently of the proponent, the long-term risk is bankruptcy for the landowner as externalised liabilities for Councils and toxic wasteland burdens for rural communities. 6. Agricultural Integrity & Food Production Article 2(1)(b) of the Paris Agreement explicitly references climate action “in a manner that does not threaten food production.” Nearly 500 hectares of Primary Production land within a major basin catchment is not marginal scrubland. It is part of a functioning agricultural system. Industrialising that land for intermittent generation — while failing to conclusively rule out long-term contamination pathways — conflicts with the principle of safeguarding food security. 7. The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Satisfied The central problem is that there has been no essential risk research conducted. Long-term Australian-condition environmental research is non-existent. Catchment-scale contamination research is absent. PFAS and heavy metal lifecycle transparency is not mandatory. Decommissioning security is non-existent unlike that for extractive industries. BESS fire consequence modelling has not been exhaustively scrutinised in public. When uncertainty remains high and consequences may be irreversible, precaution requires restraint. Instead, approval pathways treat industrial solar and BESS as inherently benign. That is not evidence-based planning. Conclusion Burroway Solar + BESS is being assessed under guidelines that assume safety rather than demonstrate it. Professor Kennedy’s warning is not alarmism; it is a call for due diligence. His central argument is simple: When risk research is incomplete, expansion should pause until evidence is robust. Until the Department can provide: Independent leachate studies under Australian extremes Mandatory PFAS-free certification Full quantitative BESS fire modelling State-held decommissioning bonds Catchment-scale environmental impact analysis this proposal should not proceed. Industrial energy infrastructure on primary agricultural land demands proof, not promises. From ‘Save Our Surroundings Riverina’ [Lynette LaBlack -

Kennedy Tallawang Aug 28 2025 IPCN_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 705.14 KB)

23211

New South Wales 2365

17/02/2026

Object

Website

Protect the Lands Prime Agricultural, and the animals it feeds, for Present Future Generations. Thanks. You ain't, gov.au Federal, State and Local, including this Despicable IPCN mob of Commissioners approving every project Renewables?? Why?? Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb thank you. Save Our Money and Do So and Cease and Desist All Solar Farms now from now. Loss of Prime Agricultural Lands For No Reason is a Crime Against Present Future Generations into 300 years from now. Ban Solar Panels and BESS too, and Lithium Ion batteries and stick with Coal where it is, where it is, where it is, and Save the Murray Darling Basin Food Production Catchments for Food Production. Understand 'Clean' was Never about energy generation as there is No such thing, and that 'clean' was always about cleaning up the Environment - but Not one of you Understands what that means, sadly. Future Generations consider, thank you. Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb thank you. I need Tribal Mob running Australia. Reasons:- 800. Email me. I'll send them to you. I feel gov.au only know One Direction for OUR Environments - Australian and World's - Harm and Loss to. And that is Correct. Face The Past to Present and to Emerging - Uh-Oh - Worse than today, Worse from today, sadly. Cease and Desist RE transition Immediately thank you. Rooftops Only for all wind and solar! Gov.au Federal, State and Local, have a POOR Track Record re environments Australian and Global, Australian and Global, Harmed and Caused Loss to just for Profit. I cannot forgive gov.au because I Know how much Harm and Loss gov.au Federal, State and Local Cause To All On Country Lands Waterways and Communities Australian and World's. Cumulative, Increasing, For No reason, when Alternatives exist. I need a New Government Now. Cease and Desist RE transition over OUR Ours, Ours, Australians Ours, Lands Waterways and Communities Rural Australian when Rooftops Only is the Only place for All wind and solar energy generation - and No Panels either nb! Junk Future is Not a very nice way to leave Next Generations Farmlands is it. I charge you, as gov.au Federal, State and Local, including IPCN with Gross Mismanagement of Our, Australians Ours, Precious Precious Precious Murray Darling Basin Food Production Catchments. I need Better than you, you who No Care for Country, nor All On Country Lands Waterways Communities Rural Australian, nor World's nb. Understand many of us who live in Australia and Eat Food Produced in on upon Australia are Very Concerned about Agenda Renewables using solar panels and BESS and Lithium Ion batteries plus 3-bladed wind turbines for NO Reason AT All, when Alternatives exist that will Not Cost either Australians, yes your Fellow Australians, yes them, nor World's Lands Waterways and Communities you really have NO interest in Nor CARE for nb nb nb. How Dare You. You Disgust me - every one of you, as a PAID employee of gov.au, Harming and Causing Loss of Our Environments - including Prime Agricultural Lands (shame shame shame on you), for NO reason at all. I Demand an Immediate Moratorium on RE transition and it will Include solar panels, yes, yes, and BESS. I Demand a Royal Commission Immediately on Inappropriate Gross Mismanagement of Australia by gov.au Federal, State and Local employees - meaning those Paid by gov.au nb. I Need a New Government. I will be Leader thank you. I know Exactly how to treat this Land you see. My Heart is in it - daily, as I Weep and Grieve, Pray, Pray Pray Pray for gov.au to Cease and Desist, basically, because Harm and Loss to All On Country Lands Waterways and Communities Australian and World's they get away with Every day but how ??? I know how. I know how they get away with it. They do. Add The Australian People served Lies Lies Lies, Falsehoods, Misinformation, Disinformation, Propaganda where the Nobodys get away with it down to Mayors, Councillors, Councils, Commissioners who are Not farmers nb nb nb but are Paid by gov.au, hmmm. Hmmm. Hmmm. It is all true what you do you see. I know it is. I Love My Country I Want in the Hands of Care and Not yours and Not yours either, IPCN Commissioners paid a wage by gov.au. What are you going to Do about it? Testing testing testing. Have you read this far ? Just testing. I Care about What I Eat. I Care about Water you Harm and cause loss to don't you gov.au Federal, State and Local, and get away with it in Australia and across the World, where not one of you Cares for Other Peoples Countries how dare you, yes how dare you. I wish I had grown up knowing what I do now. I am SO ashamed of being Ignorant Most of my Life. Now I Only Eat Australian Grown Only Chemical Free Pesticide Free GMO Free Wholefoods Only. Why? To 'Clean' up My Environment- Lands Waterways and Communities Australian. RE transition Cease and Desist across Australia Now, Immediately. Multinationals Global Shop Direct, Directing Marketing Globally for profit purposes only are in the Infrastructure Business:- Mining worldwide- consequences associated Supermarkets Take Over of small local business - uh-oh view Bunnings cheap Cheap Cheap China Made in every City nb nb nb Dairies indoors. Fruit and veg indoors Infrastructures Infrastructures Infrastructures imported labour Re-New-Ables BESS More Transmission Lines huge many lines 500kv Data centres On top of housing - typically 4 bedroom 2 - 3 bathroom And on it goes... Big tractor bigger tractors Bigger cars Bigger Tunnelling machines, Gad!!! Stop Them Now! AGE OF MECHANISATION TO AGE OF TECH TAKEOVER AGE OF AI AGE OF SATELLITES AGE OF UNNATURAL, MAN MADE CEASE AND DESIST. It isn't climate change at all. Is it. I grow Trees too. Trees. To Shade Shelter Feed Wildlife and humans. To Cool the Land too. I Grow Green you see. But gov.au Federal, State and Local laws do Not recognise Living Alive Life forms , caused Harm and Loss to every day by gov.au Federal, State and Local who get away with it nb. I am viewing Cumulative Impacts of RE transition planned for Our Australian MDB Food Production Catchments Dubbo region Prime Agricultural Lands- Ours, Australians Ours, Australians Ours, we have Every right to try to Protect from gov.au-multinationals-global, harming and Causing Loss Unnecessarily to Our Food Production Catchments - Ours - Australians Ours. Edify says the Burroway solar project will form “an important part of Australia’s response to climate change and Commonwealth and NSW government renewables commitments." How Ridiculous yet they get away with it don't they. How? How can a solar farm play an important part in Australia's response to climate change??? Umm...they cannot. Isn't that Misinformation? Yes. Someone in DCCEEW advised Edify Energy’s Burroway Solar Farm is not a controlled action and therefore does not require approval under the EPBC Act. I need their name thanks. I want to know their reasons. I Pray for Wiradjuri Lands Waterways and Communities, in the Wrong Hands including whoever they are as Wiradjuri supporting Renewables, huh ??!! Elders of Knowledge would Never Alter Change a Precious Sacred Region Wiradjuri Wiradjuri Wiradjuri now a Renewable Energy site, sadly. There were some 81 objections to BSF nb. When will that count? More than 50 gets an IPCN. 81 Objections are ignored Again?? Sack IPCN and put them Under Investigation I Demand. They get away with it. They have No idea what Farmlands are to Every Australian, and Livestock, all over Australia nb. Unnecessary Loss of agricultural land is a Crime Against Australians and Future Generations Here now to 300 years from now, and that is Correct. Urban Sprawl add. Not accounted for is it. Cumulative Impacts of RE transition are Not accounted for AT ALL! Sack gov.au Federal, State and Local Immediately to Include Mayors and Councillors as well thank you. I want a New Government. One that Cares for Future Generations Food Production Lands nb. No more solar panels ! No more !! Decommissioning Is an Issue maybe not to you hmm. How do you Get away with it - decommissioning nothing ? You won't have to deal with it is how. How pathetic you are to let Others Clean up the Mess you Make of OUR Lands Waterways and Communities NOT YOURS nb. Um...Ban BESS NOW !! The only true option is to move away from lithium-based... The only true option is to move away from lithium-based... The only true option is to move away from lithium-based... Here is Why:- https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/hazards-a-z/lithium-ion-batterieshttps://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/hazards-a-z/lithium-ion-batteries productsafety.gov.au" https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=are+lithium+ion+batteries+toxic+&ia=web Lithium ion batteries can be toxic. They contain harmful materials like metals (copper, nickel, lead) and dangerous organic chemicals (flammable electrolytes). Improper disposal poses health risks and environmental hazards. https://www.fire.qld.gov.au/safety-education/battery-and-charging-safety/lithium-ion-battery-safety Be aware of the risks related to damaged lithium-ion batteries, including electric shock, secondary fire risks, and exposure to toxic, corrosive, and flammable vapours and substances. https://www.alsym.com/blog/lithium-based-batteries-are-toxic-from-start-to-finish/ How do we make lithium-ion batteries less toxic? Making lithium-ion batteries less toxic will be difficult. Lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP / LiFePO4) batteries that eliminate the need for cobalt are a step in the right direction, but remain problematic. The only true option is to move away from lithium-based https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877532501750 Nov 1, 2025Abstract Lithium-ion batteries (LIB) are widely used in electric vehicles (EVs) for their high energy density. However, their fire safety causes concerns because of the toxic gases emission and the challenge to extinguish... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10464770/ Lithium-ion batteries have potential to release number of metals with varying levels of toxicity to humans. While copper, manganese and iron, for example, are considered essential to our health, cobalt, nickel and lithium are trace elements which have toxic effects if certain levels are exceeded [67]. https://www.lithiplus.com/post/lithium-ion-battery-risks-understanding-hazards-causes-and-safe-handling Aug 20, 2025Lithium ion battery risks are real and can lead to fires, explosions, and toxic gas release. This in-depth guide explains causes, dangers like thermal runaway, and safe handling practices to reduce hazards. Objection Objection Objection to yet another Unnecessary Solar farm proposal in Dubbo region - A Prime Agricultural Lands region being lost to RE transition. You really have not considered the Importance of Dubbo region to the Nation have you. IPCN sack. No Care for Country reasons!

24151

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

I object to the proposed 100 MW solar facility and 100 MW / 400 MWh BESS on 494.9 hectares of RU1 Primary Production land within Narromine Shire. This site sits within the catchment of the Macquarie River, part of the broader Murray-Darling Basin — one of the most stressed and politically contentious river systems in the country. The Macquarie rises on the Great Dividing Range and flows north-west before joining the Barwon near Brewarrina. Every tributary matters. The proposal acknowledges drainage lines connected to Coolbaggie Creek, Ewenmar Creek and Kookaburra Creek. Industrialising nearly 500 hectares with hard infrastructure, trenching, cabling and battery compounds in such a sensitive catchment creates undeniable risks of sediment mobilisation, chemical runoff, and long-term contamination. There is also a constructed drainage channel described as a “potential watercourse”. Once contaminated by heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or fire suppression chemicals from a battery event, remediation would be extremely difficult and costly. This project is simply in the wrong place. Catchment land should not become an industrial energy zone.

24181

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

I strongly oppose the removal of 494.9 hectares of RU1 Primary Production land for this proposal near 1955 Eumungerie Road, approximately 27 km west of Dubbo. High-quality agricultural land is finite. Once covered in steel posts, inverter stations, internal access roads and battery infrastructure, it is effectively lost for decades. Even after decommissioning, compacted soils, residual concrete footings and cabling trenches can render land permanently compromised. Across other solar installations in regional NSW, storms have resulted in broken panels and shards of tempered glass scattered across paddocks. Farmers have reported difficulty ensuring safe grazing, with fragments embedded in soil profiles long after clean-up efforts. That risk is unacceptable on productive agricultural land. If approval is contemplated at all, the developer, Edify Energy, must be required to lodge a fully indexed, independently managed decommissioning bond sufficient to remove all infrastructure, remediate soil compaction, and restore agricultural capability. The bond must not be discretionary or deferred.

24191

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

My primary concern relates to the 100 MW / 400 MWh Battery Energy Storage System proposed on this rural site. BESS facilities have experienced thermal runaway events in Australia and overseas. Once ignited, lithium battery fires are extremely difficult to extinguish, may burn for days, and can release toxic smoke, heavy metals and contaminated firewater. In a landscape connected to the Macquarie catchment, any fire suppression runoff entering farm dams or drainage lines could render water unusable for stock. The submission material does not adequately address how contaminated water would be contained during a major incident. Rural fire services are already stretched. Expecting volunteer brigades to manage complex battery fires is unrealistic and unsafe. A mandatory, ring-fenced decommissioning and emergency remediation fund must be secured prior to approval. Without that financial guarantee, local communities bear unacceptable environmental and financial risk.

24196

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

This site contains farm dams and associated native aquatic and fringing vegetation that support birdlife, reptiles and small mammals. These are not empty paddocks — they are functioning ecological habitats. The installation of thousands of panels, security fencing, lighting, internal roads and battery compounds will fragment habitat and impede wildlife movement. Construction traffic and trenching will destroy groundcover and nesting areas. Experience from other large-scale solar sites shows that following severe wind events, damaged panels can distribute glass and synthetic backing materials across surrounding land. Clean-up is never perfect. Micro-fragments remain, posing long-term risk to stock and wildlife. Industrial debris does not belong in a rural catchment landscape.

24211

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

My objection centres on the long-term financial liability this development would create. Solar facilities have an operational lifespan of approximately 25–30 years. After that, responsibility for removal becomes uncertain. Without a legally enforceable, indexed decommissioning security held independently of the proponent, communities risk being left with: Corroding steel posts Redundant concrete pads Buried cabling Contaminated soils Damaged drainage lines We have already seen examples interstate where solar infrastructure deteriorates following storm damage, leaving shards of glass scattered over grazing land and costly remediation disputes. The developer must be compelled to establish a substantial decommissioning trust fund before construction, sufficient to restore the land to genuine agricultural condition — not merely surface removal. Approval without that safeguard would be irresponsible.

24251

Redacted

17/02/2026

Object

Website

This proposal represents the creeping industrialisation of rural NSW. Nearly 500 hectares of panel arrays and a large battery installation fundamentally alter the character of primary production land. The visual impact, fencing, surveillance infrastructure and ongoing maintenance traffic erode the integrity of farming districts. The Macquarie catchment is already under pressure from water extraction, salinity and climate variability. Adding industrial-scale infrastructure compounds cumulative stress. Renewable energy is necessary, but it must be properly located, preferably on degraded land, industrial zones, or co-located with existing transmission corridors — not prime agricultural catchment country. Without iron-clad fire management plans, storm damage protocols, full debris accountability, and a guaranteed decommissioning bond, this proposal should not proceed.

17971

Queensland 4702

09/02/2026

Object

Website

This project must not go ahead. These projects are not having the essential risk assessment based on reputable independent research that should be mandatary. Have a look where all these RE zones are ( Central Qld, Darling Downs, Western Downs, Southern Downs, Riverina, New England,Hunter Valley, central western NSW and parts of Victoria that I don't know the area names), on our best and most precious soils. Our best FOOD PRODUCING SOILS. Even Silver that is added to the panels to improve conductivity is a poison that kills the micro biology in the soils, let alone the toxin chemicals that leach out. This paddock is where your bread comes from. You need to open your eyes and put a stop to all the toxic rubbish being put on our best soils, it is just common sense. Stick them out in the desert.

17301

New South Wales 2852

07/02/2026

Object

Website

OBJECTION TO BURROWAY SOLAR FARM I object to this project due to the lack of adequate provisions for its decommissioning and the rehabilitation of the site. Guarantees given by the developer or successive owners are worthless in the event of their bankruptcy. And this eventuality is highly likely given that solar is set to become the mainstay of electricity production in NSW. It will be caused by the fundamental mismatch of solar output with electricity demand. Without sufficient storage a glut of electricity produced by solar in the middle of the day leads to zero or negative prices for electricity at this time. Approximately 50% of solar output must be stored to meet the demand peaks of the evening and morning. Sufficient battery capacity must therefore be provided for this purpose. NB In this scenario the REAL price of solar electricity then becomes the average price of solar and battery stored electricity; a fact that has been largely ignored. If this is deemed acceptable then is the problem solved? NO. It is the seasonal fluctuation in solar output that is the greatest threat to the stability of the grid. At NSW latitudes solar production falls by approximately one third in the winter months. But demand remains constant and is likely to increase if gas and wood heating are phased out. AND there is no feasable means of storing electricity on a seasonal basis. The obvious solution to this problem is to build sufficient gas fired power stations to fill this winter deficit. But this policy does not align with the governments net zero agenda. Their solution appears to be the building of additional solar capacity for this purpose. This will require NOT a one third increase in the number of solar panels but an increase of 50%. That must lead to a 50% overproduction of solar output for the remaining 9 months of the year. And just as a glut of solar electricity in the middle of the day leads to zero prices, the same will then apply for those 9 months of the year. How can solar farms and collaterally wind farms be economically viable in this situation?

13621

Redacted

30/01/2026

Object

Website

I would like to make a submission noting my objection to the project. My concerns are: Accommodation and Workforce: The town has incredible housing pressure. The homes have increased 75% in value over 5 years, with average rent $460 a week (realestate.com.au). This reflects the supply vs demand housing pressure in Narromine. The project will add pressure to this, meaning our residents will find it harder to find affordable housing. Community Benefit: We have yet to see a reduction in our electricity bills, despite all this "green energy". The local area is impact, yet see no benefit. Rather than putting grants for community groups, why isn't the created electricity subsidised to local towns who are sacrificing to have the project in their backyard? Fire: With temperatures over 40+ for over a week, there is a huge risk of fire hazard. Take Wellington solar farm as an example. We don't want to increase pollutants that fire brings, as well as hazards of an electrical fire. Other: Narromine is known for aviation and has a local airport. Burroway is quite close to Narromine. There are significant aviation repercussions and regulations as it will be within the "vicinity" of an aerodrome. This impacts all aviation operations and consulation with aerodrome users and operations as stakeholders must be a consideration.