GOULBURN Murray Water (GMW) has objected to the 330MW Meadow Creek Solar Farm on the basis that applicants have not addressed concerns around surface water and groundwater quality, use and disposal.
The objection will give some hope to the hundreds of people against the renewable energy project, however, it's believed that extra conditions could be imposed by the Department of Transport and Planning to make proponents comply to planning guidelines.
Wangaratta Chronicle has sighted a letter from GMW to the department, detailing the reasons supporting their view.
GMW’s concerns include: “The proposal is not in accordance with the guidance of the EPA Guidelines for Onsite Wastewater Management”.
“The proposal poses a high risk of offsite impacts, and poses a high risk to the water quality of Ovens Rivers Special Water Supply Catchment,” the submission read.
Latest Stories
“Insufficient information has been provided to undertake a full assessment.”
David Minifie, a member of Meadow Creek Agricultural Community Action Group, said it is encouraging that GMW is standing up to the proponents and persisting.
“They’ve put in two letters requesting information, one after the original application and the second after the proponents responded with a minimalist response that wasn’t satisfactory,” Mr Minifie said.
“The objection and notation of the high risk to offsite impacts to the water quality of the Ovens River was encouraging as this is a fairly blanket response.”
GMW requested further information on how the proponents would manage the removal of wastewater from amenities during the construction and operational phases of development.
The positioning of temporary toilets was also a concern despite proponents indicating they would be located 100 metres away from any waterways.
GMW reported that no information was provided in relation to the number of toilets for the anticipated 350 workers at the peak of construction.
“The required setback of 100m for the proposed composting toilets to the waterways has not been indicated,” the letter read.
During the operational phase of the development proponents indicated that no permanent toilets would remain onsite post-construction.
However, GMW rebutted this assumption as maintenance workers would be onsite for a certain number of days/weeks each year to undertake work.
GMW also had an issue with the plan not clearly showing a 30m waterway setback from all waterways.
But while GMW was unable to make an assessment on the information provided at this stage, it’s believed that a permit could be granted with conditions attached that must meet the requirements of authorities.
“We have heard that under this system that if proponents continue to attempt to satisfy the requirements of GMW can withdrawal their objection at a later stage if they’re satisfied,” Mr Minifie said.
He said the North East Catchment Management Authority had earlier requested more information they were advised that no correspondence had been received addressing their requests.
“This included an updated hydrology flood risk assessment which is Australian rainfall runoff modelling which was updated in August 2024,” he said.
“Importantly, what’s going to happen in the event of a flood, fire or other emergency when access is required but the site is inaccessible in the event of flooding?
“Major flooding has historically occurred across all the roads and we get stuck in here for a day or two.”
Mr Minifie said attendees at the last week’s forum raised this concern with proponents but they flatly refused that this was the case despite lived experience of the floods.
In a statement to the Wangaratta Chronicle on Tuesday, GMW general manager strategy and services planning, Steven Abbott, said GMW reviews applications from councils, responsible authorities, consultants and landowners in relation to land use and development proposals.
“GMW requires that development proposals do not impact detrimentally on GMW’s infrastructure and the flow and quality of surface water and groundwater,” he said.
Ovens Valley MP Tim McCurdy said it is pleasing to see the concerns of the community being acknowledged and confirmed by such an important body.
"The proponents have continually made a mockery of the planning process and transparency, and I believe these are clear grounds to refuse this bad application," Mr McCurdy said.
"My concerns are that the Victorian government will still try to manipulate the GMW findings to ensure that the Meadow Creek proposal gets the tick of approval.
"The community only had until 10 June to have their submissions in.
"The Victorian government surely cannot be afforded extra time to 'tidy up' any reports submitted to them.
"A closing date should mean closing for all."
Submissions to the MCSF application closed on Tuesday, 10 June, and then it will head to the Victorian Minister for Planning for a decision.
A formal decision on the application could take three to six months, according to Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner (AEIC) Tony Maher.
The proponents were contacted for comment, but they did not respond in time for publication.
