Photon Energy's Environmental Impact Statement draws criticism from residents

The submissions were received by the Department of Planning and Environment in response to Photon Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed solar farm on Orange Grove Road near Gunnedah. The EIS was on public exhibition in May.

Among those who made a submission is Chris Avard, who lives north of the proposed site and has concerns about its position on a floodplain.

“I think I raised the issues that most people raised concerns about – that is the impact of flooding – they haven’t really been addressed by Photon Energy,” he said. 

“The data used by Photon Energy is out of date and wildly inaccurate, especially for a project this size.

“They’ve used the most malleable data available so their submission would fit an end goal.”

A spokesperson for Photon Energy said the data used in the EIS was drawn from what was available.

“The flood study undertaken in the EIS has been constructed from available data and has been verified by comparing flood levels with historic records and other flood studies, especially river gauge records and the Gunnedah and Carroll Floodplain Management Plan 1999 (updated 2014),” the spokesperson said. 

Photon Energy’s report stated that flows were described as flood hydrographs, which are based on historic data for “the 1984 flood”. The report also said that Photon had “considered community feedback, reviewed the available flood information and undertaken modelling of various solar farm configurations, and proactively sought to minimise potential flood impacts through a process of design review and modification”.

A major point of contention for residents is the impact fencing could have on flood waters, which is affirmed as a potential issue in the report.

“The modelling approach assumes that the feature of the solar farm with the greatest potential to influence flood behaviour is the perimeter security fence,” the report said.

However, the report states that a fence is required to meet “security and public safety constraints”.

“The impact of the fence is associated with its potential to be blocked by debris conveyed in floodwaters, causing it to be relatively impervious and consequently act like a solid barrier and redirect flood flows,” the report stated. 

“The proposal, and more specifically the presence of security fencing, will affect flood levels in the floodplain… The blockages will cause flows to back up on the upstream sides of the fences and to drop on the downstream sides of the fences.

“The fences for the proposed solar farm are expected to change the direction of flow locally, but will not greatly change the magnitude of the velocities over the flood plain.”

A Photon Energy spokesperson said the company is “undertaking further flood modelling and is now looking at other fencing options” and the information will be available through the submission report.

Another key concern of residents is the positioning of the site on farming land.

“Some of this is first class agricultural land – and it’s not portable unlike the availability of sunshine,” Chris Avard said.

“I think the long-term benefits to the community are far better as a farm instead of a solar farm. The country’s too good for that.”

In March, a Photon Energy spokesperson said “agricultural production will continue on the proposed solar farm”. 

“Due to current restrictions on available water (Water Licence allocations), the landowner is only able to effectively crop an estimated 180 hectares of the Subject Land resulting in areas remaining fallow. As such, the use of the land for a solar farm and accompanying grazing activities will provide sustainable socio-economic benefits for the landowner and region associated with this land use,” the report said.

“The solar farm and associated grazing activities would occupy 38 per cent of the subject land with the remaining land (approximately 62 per cent) to continue to be used solely for agricultural cropping purposes.”

An ongoing concern of Graeme and Emma Brown is the impact on the outlook from the new home they are building, which will face onto the proposed site. The couple both made a submission to outline their concerns.

“The EIS states that ‘the overall sensitivity of views from Tudgey Road is considered low’,” Mrs Brown wrote in her submission.

“This statement is grossly untrue as the visual impact from an elevated position is extremely high as it will be visible from every inch of our property. The implementation of vegetation screening will not improve the visual impact especially the effect of the glare and shimmer over a span of 470,000 panels.” 

In March, a spokesperson for Photon Energy said the company was working with residents to minimise visual impact on neighbouring properties.

“The area of PV panels would be a very large visual feature within the surrounding landscape, however, due to the height of the PV panels and the flat terrain there are very few places where an elevated view would be possible, and therefore the change to the landscape character would not be easily perceived when viewing the landscape as a whole,” the report stated.

READ MORE: 

The Browns’ property is labelled as Viewpoint 9 in the EIS, which says it would “benefit from visual screening”.

In their submission, the Browns also said they were concerned that the value of their land could be reduced by its proximity to the farm if it went ahead.

“It has been suggested to us by local real estate agents that this may reduce the value of our land by up to 20 per cent,” Mr Brown wrote in his submission.

“This is of great concern as we have paid a considerable amount of money to acquire such a unique holding and don’t want to wake up and look at a solar farm for the rest of our days on this property.”

In response to this statement, a Photon Energy spokesperson said “there is no evidence that land values near solar farms drop”.

The spokesperson said the Department of Planning and Environment would pass over the public submissions to Photon Energy and Canadian Solar in the coming weeks so they can be reviewed. 

“Based on this, Photon Energy and Canadian Solar will prepare a report taking into account community feedback as well as updated flood modelling,” the spokesperson said.

“Photon Energy would like to thank everyone who prepared their feedback for submission.”

Photon Energy and Canadian Energy entered into a co-development agreement in January for the joint development of five utility-scale solar projects with a total capacity of 1.14 GWp in NSW. This includes the proposed Gunnedah farm.