Government swamped by 120 objections to the Uriarra solar farm

Ms Brodtmann’s intervention will put pressure on the government, as will the weight of opposition from residents of Uriarra Village across the road from the planned solar farm. More than 80 are among about 122 people to submit submissions.

Just six submissions are in favour, and only one of them if from a resident. John White wrote briefly in support. “Quite frankly, as the village is advertised as being a sustainable eco village, I do not understand the other resident views for not supporting such a wonderful opportunity the village could have gained by this solar farm."

Other supportive submissions were made by the Australian Solar Council, Master Builders Association of the ACT, and the Energy Change Institute at the Australian National University, whose Igor Skryabin said the village could hardly be called a pristine environment, as it was.

He accused residents of a “not in my backyard” attitude, saying they wanted “all the benefits of modern living supported by practically unlimited access to electricity”, which most likely came from a coal-fired power station.

The bulk of submissions want the government not to approve the site. Ms Brodtmann said the block is 392 hectares, so there was space to push back the solar farm by 500 metres.

"It should have been obvious to any developer that a development of this scale, at such close proximity to a rural village, would be contentious," she said, adding that developer Elementus Energy's failure to submit a full visual impact study had been a gross failure.

Uriarra resident and tradesman Stephen Smith said the location was “absurd”.

“How can it be possible that I was sold a rural block and now there could be an industrial eyesore at the front door?” he wrote, concerned that it would be “lit up like a jail” at night and an industrial eyesore from the verandah during the day. “This is deeply depressing and I can’t explain how embarrassed I am that there is a possibility this thing could be approved” after having bought his home, he said.

Others pointed to the stringent rules covering their homes, which had to be north-facing, include bushfire measures, and use materials, plot ratios and colours in keeping with the rural area.

“My family and I were drawn to this hype, to the extent we built an eco-friendly straw-bale house, with solar panels and heating, designed to take full advantage of the north sun and associated view,” Michael Cocks wrote. “The same government, having mandated that we build in this manner, now proposes to build a solar farm on the north of the village.”

Residents referred to the solar farm as an “industrial power plant”, and raised concerns about the security fencing, as well as the light.

“All we will see with this development is metal, plastic, cages, fences, cables and more industrial equipment. Also having security lights shining into my home at all hours of the night is cruel and adding insult to injury,” Bryan Harrison wrote. “This would affect me in a very personal and profound way. To cover up this magnificent spot of paradise with anything would be a disgrace and place a scar on the regional beauty."

Ian and Grace Lowe warned compensation claims could follow. When they bought their house in May 2013, the solar auction was well under way, but there was no mention of it in property checks.

Lance Ollerenshaw said the house was their biggest financial struggle. "I do not have enough working years left to make up the difference between the financial loss we will suffer and the money we will need to retire,” he said. He had bought at the end of 2009, not knowing Elementus had already taken out its lease.

He pointed to two sales of “identical properties” in Jim Bradley Crescent, one of which sold for $450,000 before the solar announcement; the second for $440,000 after. Another home listed for sale had dropped its price by $45,000.

One resident's submission is simply an aerial view of the plan, showing how close the farm is to the village, and how large it is, taking up what looks to be a similar area to the village itself. An eight-year-old wrote about being worried about the cows that now graze in the paddock, and the risk of fire – a concern of many residents, given the only way out of the village is the road that borders the site, where a bank of trees will be planted as screening.

ACT director of the Planning Institute Hamish Sinclair said rural land must have a commercial purpose. “Rural land is productive and noisy and smelly, though urban residents mistake it for a landscape for their benefit to picnic on, trek and cycle over and hunt on, often without consent to enter the land,” he wrote.

The height of the solar panels was well short of the shearing sheds and other rural buildings. “What cannot be mitigated, however, is the unreasonable demands of the adjacent community interests that perpetuate the view that privately owned rural productive land should be theirs to control,” he said.