Tallawang Solar Farm

5891

NREN

07/09/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madam, Please accept this late submission regarding my evidence on the day. Regards,

Grant Piper submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 88.2 KB)

5861

Redacted

04/09/2025

Object

Email

Dear Commissioners Please find attached my submission and supporting documents. Thank you for the opportunity to follow up after my presentation to the IPC Hearing on 28 August.

Independent Planning Commission 4SEP2025_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 894.41 KB)

Leaching_via_Weak_Spots_in_Photovoltaic_Modules.pdf (PDF, 1.82 MB)

Stuttgart Reply_to_Sinha_P_Wade_A_Comment_on_Nover_et_al_Lea.pdf (PDF, 181.44 KB)

5841

New South Wales 2844

04/09/2025

Object

Website

I wholeheartedly object to the proposed Tallawang Solar project for the same reasons I have provided for other large scale renewable energy infrastructure projects to the DPHI and IPCn to date - none of which have been adequately acknowledged, addressed or mitigated to date. The "rapid transition to renewable energy" is already causing a myriad of negative impacts to landowners, communities and regions - especially the Central West Orana given its "guinea pig" status. Projects are being approved regardless of the individual and cumulative impacts to local landowners, small businesses, community members and the broader general public. Given Premier Minns has declared that rural and regional NSW paying the price for the energy transition is acceptable, what hope do those of us who object to the environmental devastation, loss of agricultural land and impacts to landowners and community members have to fight any of this? It is essentially a done deal!! Conditions of consent being suggested by the IPCn commissioners being over ruled by DPHI makes a complete mockery of the planning process - what is "independent" about an organisation that has to ask for permission from a government department before making its recommendations? The future of agriculture, and even small rural towns, in the Central West of NSW is looking very grim. We are already seeing workforce issues in the region due to the CWO REZ transmission project - why would any worker not go to a job with a higher wage? How will local businesses attract, let alone retain, workers in the future? What accommodation is available in the small rural towns surrounding the transmission project at present? No vacancy, while fabulous for business owners does not assist the tourism industry in the region? If only the CWO REZ infrastructure planner, EnergyCo, had been warned of such situations for the last four years - maybe mitigation measures could have been considered and put in place to assist the local communities prior to construction beginning (I hope the sarcasm is noted!!). I could have spent hours of my volunteer time combing through the assessment report that DPHI provided to the IPCn commissioners but I know that would be a waste of both my time, and the commissioners. I will just say again that I object to the proposed Tallawang Solar project, and I hope the commissioners see sense and reject the proposal.

5836

New South Wales 2852

03/09/2025

Object

Website

Please read the attached submission

Submission to IPCN re Tallawang SW 250903v3.pdf (PDF, 4.47 MB)

5831

New South Wales 2852

03/09/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached my official written submission. Our farm directly adjoins the proposed Tallawang Solar Farm, making us one of the most directly impacted landholders. This project poses immediate and long-term risks to our livelihood, safety, and retirement plans. For these reasons, we urge the Commission to give our concerns the most serious consideration, as we are the landholders bearing the greatest and most enduring impacts as outlined in our attached letter. Sincerely, Patrick Farrell

IPC Objection Letter_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.61 MB)

5826

03/09/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached my submission to the Gulgong Tallawang Solar Farm Meeting, including an Appendix referenced in the submission.

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

AppendixKennedyetal2025bTallawang.pdf (PDF, 801.17 KB)

5821

New South Wales 2852

02/09/2025

Object

Website

Tallawang Solar Farm Objection Property and Community Background • Our property, located at [REDACTED], has been in our family since 1976, and we have resided here since 1982. The proposed solar farm (32°18′19″E) will be approximately 1.7 km from our home, threatening to replace our current scenic view with industrial infrastructure. Objection to the Solar Farm Proposal • Firm opposition to the development: “I don’t want it!” • The project is expected to significantly worsen the view from my property, impacting our appreciation of the natural landscape. Environmental and Safety Concerns • Potential fire hazard posed by both the battery storage and the solar farm itself for all residents around the solar farm and Gulgong which is only 8km away. As we all know from the Sir Ivan fire which burnt 55,000ha, 35 homes, 6,000 head of livestock, 5,000km of fencing and 131 outbuildings devastating communities and family lively hoods. The winds on that day were so severe, pushing that fire at unbelievable speeds. In similar weather circumstances a fire could reach Gulgong in no time at all. An example of how severe the weather and the fire was during that time, my daughter lives at Aberdeen (between Scone and Muswellbrook) and she had ash from that fire landing in her house yard 152km away. Just take a moment to absorb that fact. • Risks of toxic waste leaching into the soil and river systems over time. Will this be monitored on a regular basis by an independent body? Visual and Resource Concerns • Glare from solar panels, especially when facing west towards homes, is a significant worry for residents. Reflection from panels when facing west directly at my home causing me significant concerns. • Questions remain about where the necessary water for the solar farm will be sourced to accommodate 500 workers plus solar panel cleaning. Will there be a recycling system installed for used water runoff. • There is significant apprehension regarding the potential decrease in property values due to our close proximity to the solar development. • Should the solar farm be approved, it will fundamentally alter the landscape and remove the natural vistas currently enjoyed from my property Implications for Land Use and Agriculture Biosecurity • The MLA now advises that livestock should not graze around solar panels or wind turbines, a position not taken on the assessment form two years ago. This new stance raises concerns about future eligibility for farm accreditation and the sale of livestock. • There is uncertainty about how farmers, who currently allow stock to graze under solar panels and wind turbines, will be able to identify when these installations will become hazardous. • The need for a regular, independent soil testing program to monitor for toxins throughout the life of solar and wind farms is highlighted, with a request that all results be made publicly available. Questions Regarding Decommissioning and Future Land Use At the community meeting on 28th August at Gulgong Memorial Hall, Andrew Douglas of Tallawang Solar Farm stated, “After decommissioning, the land will go back to farming.” However, if grazing is no longer permitted according to MLA guidelines, the suitability of the land for any kind of farming, including cropping, comes into question certainly! Implications Of Road Safety, Noise and Dust • Air Quality: Increased heavy traffic can lead to higher emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which can degrade air quality and pose health risks to local residents. • Noise Pollution: The constant movement of heavy vehicles can generate significant noise, disrupting the peace and quiet of the area and potentially affecting the well-being of residents. • Dust Generation: Heavy traffic on unpaved or poorly maintained roads can create dust clouds, which can settle on nearby properties, vegetation, and water bodies, causing respiratory issues and other health problems. • Road Wear and Tear: The increased load from heavy vehicles can accelerate the deterioration of local roads, leading to more frequent repairs and maintenance, which can further disrupt the community. • Wildlife Disruption: GIS Coordinates: 149.4833, -32.2643 • Observed in 2023 and upload via I Spy Koala • Bio Net Atlas of NSW Wildlife: 25 February 2025 • https://datasets.seed.nsw.gov.au/dataset/nsw-bionet-data-collection-koala sightings. The noise and activity from heavy traffic can disturb all local wildlife, potentially leading to changes in their behavior. Here are some potential road safety concerns related to increased heavy vehicle traffic: • Accident Risk: The presence of more heavy vehicles on the road increases the likelihood of accidents, particularly in areas not designed to handle such traffic. This can be especially dangerous for smaller vehicles. Decommissioning and Disposal • If approved, I have grave concerns that, at the end of life of this project that NO GOVERNMENT RULES/LAWS have been put place for the decommissioning and disposal of the 1,250,000 solar panels leaving me, my family and the residence with the disgusting view and not to mention how the environment will end up with the results of a discarded disgusting degrading toxic mess. Regards Toni Morrison

5816

Save Our Surroundings (SOS)

New South Wales 2852

02/09/2025

Object

Website

Please refer to our submission included in the attachment.

SOS IPCN submission Tallawang Solar and BESS proposal v1.pdf (PDF, 1.1 MB)

5811

New South Wales 2852

02/09/2025

Object

Website

Please refer to the uploaded file.

DA subm to IPCN re Tallawang Solar and BESS proposal 250902.pdf (PDF, 1.95 MB)

5806

New South Wales 2852

30/08/2025

Object

Website

TALLAWANG SOLAR FARM OBJECTION I object to the Tallawang Solar Farm due to concerns about the financial viability of this project (see below). If the developer/owner becomes bankrupt the solar farm is likely to be abandonded. The task of decommissioning and rehabilitating the site then becomes the responsibility of the host landholder, who is unlikely to have the funds for this purpose. The solution to this problem is the creation of a bond system applicable to the owner/developer, specifically for decommissioning and rehabilitation purposes. Until the government implements such a scheme projects like the Tallawang Solar Farm should not be approved. Most people are aware that the output of solar panels, which have a midday peak in electricity production, does not match electricity demand, which has morning and evening peaks. This surplus of electricity at midday creates zero to negative prices for electricity at this time of day. The solution to this problem is to provide enough storage in the form of batteries or pumped hydro to accommodate this midday surplus and transfer it to the demand peaks in the morning and evening. Supply should then match demand. So far so good. But solar output as well as fluctuating during the day, also fluctuates on a seasonal basis. The output of solar in NSW falls by approximately one third during the winter months. And unfortunately while batteries and pumped hydro can alleviate fluctuations during the day there is no feasible means of storing electricity to negate this seasonal fluctuation. One solution is to produce enough electricity from gas fired power stations in winter to alleviate this deficit. But with the current shortage of domestic gas, this is not a particularly low cost option nor particularly "green" in terms of carbon emissions. A second option, which is being implemented in Australia, is to increase the number of solar panels sufficient to eliminate this deficit. This unfortunately will not be just an increase of one third in the number of solar panels, but an increase of 50%; a somewhat ambitious and expensive exercise. With this option what could go wrong? It will also create a 50% overproduction of solar electricity in the spring, summer and autumn months. And just as surplus solar in the middle of the day leads to zero and negative prices, this will lead to zero or negative prices for 9 months of the year. With a grid where solar is the dominant means of electricity production how can solar farms (and collaterally wind farms} survive economically in this environment? The only option is to charge an exorbitant price for electricity in the winter months to remain solvent. But will public outrage then force the government, as is done now, to put a cap on these prices? Enter the Capacity Investment Scheme. Does this scheme subsidise all the electricity that could have been produced in the spring, summer and autumn months? Or will it only subsidise that electricity that is actually utilised by the grid? And who will get priority in supplying that electricity? Will it be the participants in the Capacity Investment Scheme? Will this then constitute a cartel of producers engaging in anticompetitive behaviour and as such be liable for prosecution by the ACCC? Too many questions and not enough answers on whether the Australian electricity grid can operate in a cost effective, functionnal and equitable way. Given that Australian energy consumption only accounts for 1-2% of world carbon emissions would it not be better to take the time to create a system that will actually work rather than demonstrate to the world how and why not to embrace renewable energy.

5801

New South Wales 2381

29/08/2025

Object

Website

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to Tallawang Solar Farm in the CWO REZ. The transition to renewable energy requires unprecedented development across NSW. The planning and delivery of many generation projects in Renewable Energy Zones and the required interconnecting transmission projects in the grid across NSW are collectively ALL currently required to meet targets and to successfully deliver both the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and to successfully contribute towards delivering the Nations Integrated System Plan as designed by AEMO. The fact that the entire Scope and Scale of (a) each REZ and (b) for the full NSW REZ and Transmission plan has not been presented to the NSW Public, in my mind, is neither fair or just. Assessing each project individually, is taking advantage of the current dated and flawed NSW planning system and fails to present the transition transparently and with adequate due-diligence and accountability for impacts, particularly cumulative impacts to the State and to the people, lands and water of NSW. As a resident of rural NSW, I am concerned that the planning process for this type and scale of transition is not protecting NSW Agriculture, rural communities and the future of rural and regional NSW and Australia. I liken this type of assessment for Australia’s first Renewable Energy Zones and associated transmission infrastructure to building a Nation-first Hospital but presenting only one room or ward at a time for assessment. Across the vast rural areas of NSW collectively, there is and will be, a mostly unknown permanent change to landscapes and rural community character, a significant interruption to and reduction of farmland and food and fibre production, a permanent change to rural tourism products, the destruction of community cohesion and the introduction of a multitude and magnitude of new electricity generation and associated transmission infrastructure – these are all critical and fundamental reasons that this transition needs to be presented to the people of NSW holistically, not in part and 1 project at a time. Residents within a REZ have never been presented with what a REZ fully entails. The EPA Act requires public exhibition of certain development proposals, allowing rural communities to provide input on projects that may alter their landscapes or way of life. This ensures community voices are considered in decisions affecting rural areas. Presenting each project within a REZ and projects required for bringing this generation to the grid one by one, pushes on the boundaries of project fragmentation or project splitting, which the EPA Act explicitly tries to prevent. It is the responsibility of the NSW Government to recognise this. The NSW Government is committed to delivering the NSW Electricity Roadmap and is significantly funding EnergyCO as the Infrastructure planner for each REZ, a REZ cannot deliver what is required by the State without the culmination of generation, storage, firming and transmission projects. Assessing each project one by one is pulling the wool over the eyes of every NSW resident and taking advantage of legislation written before a REZ concept was even thought of. It appears to me, that the NSW Land and Environment Court has played a critical role in preventing project splitting. Courts have ruled that assessing components of a larger project in isolation may breach the EPA Act’s requirement for comprehensive environmental assessment. Eg. In Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (2019) NSWLEC 55, the court emphasised the need to consider the full scope of a project’s impacts, including related infrastructure. I firmly object to the approval of this project until such time as the entire NSW REZ rollout, associated/required generation, storage, firming and transmission projects are transparently presented to the public of NSW for their full consideration and participation.

5796

Victoria 3181

28/08/2025

Object

Website

The proposed Tallawang Solar Farm (the Project) may include up to 500 megawatts (MW) of solar electricity generation with a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) of approximately 500 MW / 1,000 megawatt-hours (MWh). It is said to provide benefits of $760 million to the area and cleaner energy within an identified REZ, which are proposed to play a vital role in delivering affordable energy generation to help prepare the State for the expected retirement of thermal power stations over the coming decades. The government has also indicated that the REZs are expected to unlock a significant pipeline of large-scale renewable energy and storage projects, while supporting up to $20.7 billion of investment. The project is fundamentally designed not to provide cheaper electricity and the investment it and others might induce would have negative impacts on the NSW and Australian economies. Even though governments parade the notions that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy they know that this is untrue. That’s why they continue to mandate subsidies for these sources, subsidies that were first portrayed in 2005 as a leg-up for an infant industry that would soon stand on its own two feet. 20 years on there is no sign of this happening – indeed the subsidies to make it happen are presently running at $16 billion a year. The key Commonwealth schemes are the absurdly named Capacity Investment Scheme under which at least $85 billion wind and solar supplies are forward-purchased at prices that are not revealed; and it has the billion dollar a year “Safeguard Mechanism” under which the largest 226 entities are obliged to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, a scheme that is forcing deindustrialisation. All this is predicated on grounds that we must decarbonise to prevent climate change. But it is unclear that any significant climate change is occurring as a result of human induced emissions. The notion that CO2 as a cause of dangerous warming has long been discredited by the world’s most respected scientists and is now becoming the official US government line with the Department of Energy commissioning five extremely well-credentialed people – John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Their report titled, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate, concludes, ‘Extreme convective storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts exhibit considerable natural variability, but long-term increases are not detected.’ But, even if there were a danger of human induced climate change from CO2 emissions, Australia with one per cent of total emissions can do nothing about it. Indeed, now that President Trump has reneged on US measures to conform with the Paris Climate Agreement, the remaining countries like the EU, UK, Canada, Korea ostensibly taking emission reductions seriously, account for less than a quarter of the total and even collectively would have a very modest effect. The notion that 190 countries are signed on to decarbonise is an illusion. And assertions that food production is threatened unless Australia and other countries take economy-crippling measures to abate emissions are fallacious. Far from facing a crisis, world food production increased by 50 per cent over the past 20 years and is set to continue rising. Part of the $16 billion a year costs that I alluded to involves new transmission lines. Because renewables are diffuse and intermittent they require much more transmission. A couple of years ago Australia’s transmission network was valued at about $23 billion. Now we are planning to spend $100 billion for the Brave New World of wind and solar. Moreover, these weather dependent plants are not readily controllable and, unlike hydro, nuclear, gas and coal plants, simply stop when the sun goes in or the wind stops. Their absence of grid inertia brought about blackouts here in South Australia and Broken Hill, and in Spain, Chile and Texas over the last couple of years. Australian Energy Market Operator chief Daniel Westerman recently revealed the number of interventions to stave off blackouts had exploded from six in 2016 to 1800 last year. All these impose costs on users. The project, if it proceeds, would always require a subsidy to provide a return to the investors. It is for a form of electricity that is inherently unreliable and which, because of its subsidy, will force the closure of more reliable energy sources. And far from being cleaner, the project involves toxic chemicals and metals which will eventually need to be cleaned up and it is unclear that a bond will be posted to ensure the project incurs the cost of this The proposal will be deleterious to the Australian economy and should not proceed.

5791

New South Wales 2074

28/08/2025

Object

Website

Submission attached

The Dark Side of Renewable Energy.pdf (PDF, 583.85 KB)

250828 - Tallawang - IPCN Submission.pdf (PDF, 323.5 KB)

5786

New South Wales 2852

27/08/2025

Object

Website

1. Firstly, the scale and icons, used on maps, of this project and others are totally inadequate to the point of being deliberately deceptive. On the location map of the project in the planning portal, the project is an icon, smaller than the town of Gulgong. In reality footprint of the project is larger than the complete built up area of Mudgee. 2. The management of stormwater and waste water, poluted by construction waste and leaching, from this site is totally inadequate. This is bigger than some Sydney suburb extensions, yet the drainage pland would barely handle a factory roof. They reference the Stubbo solar facility, but the efficiency of that site has not even been assessed or proven by long term study in heavy rain events. The hydrology of the land will be distributed during construction, mostly through clearing and compaction, causing more run off during rain events. The hard surfaces created by the solar panels will concentrate the issue, creating faster and increased run off. The volume of water created by 1mm of rain will be more than 5 Olympic size pools. Even if initial run of its absorbed, the hard surfaces will mean that flow will exceed absorption. After 10mm of rain probably all further falls will result in instant run off, not slowed by natural vegetation this will impact surrounding land and create erosion. The big impact will be local creeks and drainage lines not suitable or adapted to the fast moving, high volume water flows. Every rain event will create flash flooding. Once the project is signed off and built, neighbours and properties down stream will have no recourse and nothing will be done to address flooding damage. 3. The issue of public liability of neighbouring farmers have still not been addressed. How can individuals be held liable for hundreds of millions or billion dollar solar electric factories and batteries. Indemnity has to be provided and underwritten by government. 4. All of these projects get presented and approved as stand alone installations and assessed on their own merits and pitched to the community in that light. We all know that it is not just "one little solar facility". It is thousands upon thousands of hectares. Sadly I don't believe that many of the clerical staff involved in the projects can visualise or imagine the footprint of this project alone, let alone the total footprint of the combined projects. Living in a rural landscape one should be able to anticipate tranquillity and relatively undisturbed vistas. This project will ruin the quality of life for anyone within sight. The clerical staff again, live in the city, they expect buildings and disturbance. In the country we do not. Everyone pays a premium for the environment they choose to live in. Beach views, city views or bush views. 5. Enjoyment of amenity, mental health and land value and options to move away. A farm is not a city house, that one can simply sell and move on from, if one does not like the new neighbours. A farm is a home, a way of life, and a place of work, on which countless hours, over many years , of sweat, blood (literally) and tears have been spilt to make it into something worthwhile. Why would anyone pay the same rate per hectare, to live next to a solar facility, compared to any other block of rural land. Values will be driven down substantially due to these factories adjacent or nearby. 6. Fires and resulting toxic smoke. This is not the suburbs, where one can put your kids and documents in the SUV and quickly camp at a safe haven for a night. Again it is a place of business with live stock to be taken care of. Evacuations would be a nightmare in instances of fire, especially at the battery storage. 7. Glint and glare. Developers love to state that solar panels do not create glare. This is a myth. As the panels slant easy in the morning and west in the afternoon, properties along that line of reflection, varying with the seasons, for many kilometres around, will be affected by glare. 8. Impacts on local weather and atmospheric conditions. As projects of this scope and size are relatively new, I do not believe that adequate observation and study data is available to make realistic predictions of the affects it may have on this area. Wind and weather patterns also differ across landscapes, so this will have unique patterns. As no base line is available, even if locals detect changes in future, there will be no proof. Once it is built, the risks of severe impacts on weather patterns cannot be addressed or even assessed. 9. The availability of jobs, during construction, are often touted as a benefit to the community. Experience has shown, that very few locals actually get employed. Many, if not most, of unskilled or semi skilled roles, get filled by 'backpackers' or other foreign visa holders and some labour hire/ contractors from Sydney and elsewhere fill the more skilled roles. The money they spend locally hardly justify the drain on local resources. Ongoing benefit rely on government handouts in the guise of community grants and sponsorship by developers. 10. Noise. Developers abuse the fact and approving authorities overlook the fact, that in the rural environment, ambient noise is much lower than in the city. Also, sound travels a lot further than in built up areas. I can hear the sound of pile or post driving and hydraulic jack hammers or rock breakers from 2 to 5km away depending on temperature or wind speed and direction. What may be 10 db above ambient noise in the city is a lot more noisy out here, which has to be addressed. 11. As rural residents, many folk out here are reliant on solar and battery systems, so know the capabilities and limitations of them. If we had faith in the reliability of what was being built and were not bearing the brunt of the development and making all the sacrifices for city folk who just believe the spin, it may have been more acceptable, but the impacts on our community exceed the ultimate benefits and more and larger facories will follow and ruin the rural landscape and communities. The developers will be long gone and approvals given without any way of keeping the operators of these facilities honest and responsive to dealing with operational impacts on the physical environment and the people that live in it. Locals also do not have the financial resources to fight or compete with the multi billion dollar enterprises. 12. Waste. We do not have waste removal, but until recently could dispose of waste for free, at our local waste facility. Since the other solar facility was constructed, there is an $11 waste levy per solar panel on disposal. The number of panels going into the waste stream, must have prompted this, which is interesting at the least, but in the event of a local wanting to dispose of any panels it has now resulted in a direct cost to us from a problem we have not created. Council would never admit to this, but where else would so many panels suddenly come into the waste stream. 13. The problem is not only lack of meaningful consultation beforehand, but the lack of meaningful consideration of the community, coming out of that, beforehand. This is not a day care centre in a Sydney suburb; this is a 1300 hectare development in the countryside, that will directly impact lives. There may not be 500 complaints from local residents, because we are but a few, but the impacts on lives are just as real. Please consider these factors in placing the necessary restrictions and controls in place to manage these developments in the better interest of the local community.

5496

19/08/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/Madame, Please find attached my submission for the Tallawang Solar Farm. Kind regards, Ian McDonald Walcha Grazier

Ian McDonald IPCN Tallawang Solar Farm Submission SSD-23700028.pdf (PDF, 138.89 KB)

2976

New South Wales

29/07/2025

Object

Email

We are against the Tallawang Solar Panels. The reasons why are our view. And the effect it will have on the sale of our property. Also its going on good grazing land. We will be attending the meeting.

5776

Warrumbungle Shire Council

15/08/2025

Comment

Email

See attached

Warrumbungle Shire Council submission.pdf (PDF, 8.56 MB)

2281

Redacted

26/07/2025

Comment

Website

Given the recent case Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc v MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 163 the IPC should have to consider the impact of emissions generated in the manufacture of solar panels, batteries, etc on the local area. Currently none of the responses to the EIS raise this as an issue.

1951

Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation

Redacted

26/07/2025

Support

Website

Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation as a Traditional Aboriginal Community Representative Group with Apical Pre European Ancestry to the project and surrounding area, we support this Projects approval. Please see attached file for further information.

WVWAC Tallawang Solar Farm IPC Submission redacted.pdf (PDF, 227.17 KB)