Kamay Battery Energy Storage System

As a long time resident of Kurnell I totally object to the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System in all forms as the property owned by Ausgrid is to be used as the site for the BESS Plant which is on Captain Cook Drive and close proximity to Ampol and only separated by Captain Cook Drive where another BESS Plant is proposed.
The Ausgrid site is surrounded by protected wetlands which also includes protected birdlife including migratory birds which can be destroyed by contamination from the BESS Plant if there was a fire as these PLANTS DO CATCH FIRE AS WE HAVE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN one being in Queensland at Bouldercombe and these cause pollution with fumes blowing over the adjacent community and runoff from trying to control these fires using normal fire fighting equipment which doesn't work with these types of fire run into the wetlands and drainage systems and contaminate these areas .
If this Plant catches fire as they do Captain Cook Drive will be closed and evacuation of the Kurnell community will be impossible and any family members that are outside of Kurnell at that time will be unable to return to Kurnell because we only have a two lane road which is one way in and one way out which is not practicable to have a road closure I have experienced many of them over the years and causes so much stress to our residents as no emergency vehicles can not reach us when needed.
We have no evacuation plans for Kurnell and no-one thinks we need one but we do need one as residents do need to know what the process is and not someone yelling at us as what to do when needed.
Kurnell Peninsular is Heritage listed as it's the Landing Place for Lieutenant James Cook 29 April 1770 and the Birthplace of Australia and should be respected as an important site in our history and preserved not decimated by Heavy Industries of these BESS Plants which are a danger to all of us including our Wildlife, Flora and Fauna.
The Bayer Inquiry - Lessons for the Future by Paul Adam
School of Botany, University of New South Wales
And should be read by the Planning Department before any decisions are made to approve this application
Kurnell has long been a focus of the Coast and Wetlands Society over the years, the society and it's predecessor (Australian Littoral Society - NSW division) we have areas of natural vegetation of high conservation value and heathlands and along Botany Bay shoreline are mangroves and saltmarsh areas - the largest extent of these communities in the Sydney Region with ( Quibray Bay and Weeney Bay being protected area of significance for the migratory birds that come to breed in both of these areas and the plans for a Bess Plant and in the case of a fire the runoff would be tragic for this area as would kill of the wildlife, birdlife and the trees and contaminate the water which is relied upon by our mangroves to survive and also the birdlife
All of the Kurnell community does not want this BESS PLANT in any shape or form and our voice is not being heard by you or governments and it's about time you listened and not take on yourselves to tell us what we need know and how safe we will be because that's not the truth as you know full well these Plants are not safe and that traditional firefighting equipment does not put out these fires and are left to burn and release toxins into the air contaminating the surrounding community of Kurnell which you say care about which isn't true is it, it all about money to you just have make profits don't you before you care about ruining peoples lives.

I object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

I support renewable energy, but this does not justify placing a 150 MW battery facility so close to homes, sensitive land and Kurnell’s only road access.

The site is unsuitable because residents rely on Captain Cook Drive as the sole road in and out of Kurnell. Any fire, toxic smoke plume, explosion, emergency exclusion zone or incident could affect evacuation and emergency service access. The Department must assess the consequences of a worst-case thermal runaway event, including toxic gases, firefighting water, contaminated runoff, reignition and impacts on homes and roads.

The proposal is also close to Towra Point Nature Reserve and Kamay Botany Bay National Park. These areas are environmentally and culturally significant and must be protected from pollution, smoke, runoff, noise and further industrial pressure.

The assessment must also consider cumulative impacts from existing industry, the desalination plant, heavy vehicle movements, airport activity, proposed residential development and other infrastructure across the peninsula.

There is also insufficient clarity about who will operate the facility, who will be responsible during an emergency, and who will fund decommissioning, waste disposal and remediation.

The project’s network benefits do not outweigh the specific risks imposed on Kurnell residents.

I request that SSD-92494458 be refused unless an independent alternatives assessment proves this is the safest suitable location and all emergency, environmental and community risks are transparently resolved before approval.

I object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System because it would introduce a fire and explosion hazard within approximately 200 metres of large-scale fuel storage.

This is not an isolated industrial site. The battery facility would operate beside an existing fuel terminal containing combustible petroleum products. A battery thermal runaway event can generate intense heat, toxic smoke and flammable gases, with the possibility of fire spreading between battery units. Locating this hazard so close to fuel storage creates a compounded risk that must not be assessed as though each facility operates independently.

The central question is not whether safety systems usually work. It is what could happen if safeguards fail during an equipment fault, maintenance incident, extreme weather event, vehicle impact or emergency. A credible worst-case assessment must examine whether a BESS fire could affect nearby fuel infrastructure, whether radiant heat or burning debris could escalate an incident, and whether emergency crews could safely approach both facilities.

Kurnell residents should not be expected to accept risk stacking on this scale. The consequences of a combined battery and fuel emergency could extend beyond the project boundary through toxic smoke, road closures, contaminated firefighting water and loss of access along Captain Cook Drive.

The application should be refused unless independent quantitative risk modelling demonstrates that the separation from fuel storage is unquestionably adequate and that no credible incident could escalate between the two facilities. Commercial convenience is not a sufficient reason to place two significant hazards so close together.

I formally object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

While energy storage is necessary to support the transition to renewable energy, this does not establish that the proposed site is appropriate for a facility of up to 150 MW and 300 MWh. The application contains significant unresolved uncertainties regarding noise, fire risk, technology selection, surrounding hazardous industry and cumulative impacts.

The final battery manufacturer and specific battery system have not been selected. The Environmental Impact Statement states that these will be determined during detailed design, while the Preliminary Hazard Analysis uses Tesla Megapack 2XL units as a nominated design basis. This means development consent is being sought before the actual equipment, fire behaviour, cooling requirements and acoustic performance are known.

The noise assessment demonstrates that the unmitigated proposal would exceed project-specific noise criteria at most assessed receivers, particularly at night. Compliance relies upon eight-metre-high acoustic walls and restrictions limiting battery fan operation to a 50 per cent duty cycle overnight. Even with these measures, exceedances of up to 2 dB(A) remain predicted at one receiver, and tonal characteristics are predicted at other locations. These results indicate that the development is inherently incompatible with its proximity to residential properties and depends on operational controls that may be difficult to verify and enforce over the project’s life.

The hazard assessment also acknowledges that the project is adjacent to the Ampol Major Hazard Facility, yet states that no further risk assessment is proposed in relation to that facility. This is inadequate. The assessment must consider credible escalation or domino scenarios involving thermal runaway, radiant heat, toxic smoke, projectiles, firefighting operations and nearby fuel-storage infrastructure.

The alternatives assessment does not transparently compare this site with other feasible locations using consistent criteria for residential separation, hazardous-industry interfaces, emergency access, environmental sensitivity and cumulative risk. Assertions that alternative sites would create greater impacts or costs are not a substitute for a documented comparative assessment.

Kurnell already carries substantial industrial, traffic, aircraft and infrastructure impacts. Existing industrial development should not be used to justify concentrating further noise and risk within the same community.

I request that the application be refused. At minimum, no determination should occur until the final technology is identified, revised noise and hazard assessments are completed using the actual equipment, and an independent quantitative risk assessment addresses the interaction with nearby fuel-storage facilities.

I strongly object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at Kurnell.

My daughter and her family purchased their home in Kurnell after the oil refinery had been decommissioned.

Following the refinery closure in 2014, the industrial noise, odours and heavy industrial activity that had historically affected Kurnell significantly reduced. The area became quieter and more attractive as a place to purchase a home and raise a family.

My daughter and her family believed they were buying into a community that was moving away from its heavy industrial past.

Instead, historical industrial zoning and a failure to properly separate industrial and residential land are now allowing a new generation of major industrial development to be proposed close to established homes.

In my view, the Kamay BESS is another example of poor strategic planning for the Kurnell Peninsula.

Residential amenity and noise

One of my greatest concerns is the potential for ongoing mechanical, tonal and low frequency noise from the BESS.

Kurnell has become significantly quieter since the refinery closed. That improved amenity is one of the reasons families such as my daughter’s chose to make Kurnell their home.

Noise should not be considered acceptable simply because modelling predicts compliance with a numerical limit. Residents will experience the actual noise in their homes, gardens and bedrooms, including during quieter night time periods.

Historical industrial zoning should not give developments an automatic right to reintroduce industrial noise into a residential community that has experienced a substantial improvement in amenity over the past decade.

One road in and one road out

Captain Cook Drive is the only road providing vehicle access into and out of Kurnell.

During the time my daughter has lived there, the community has experienced serious access disruption because of car accidents, fires, flooding and a fuel spill.

When Captain Cook Drive is closed there is no alternative road.

As a mother, I find it deeply concerning that further major industrial and energy developments continue to be proposed in an area where residents may be unable to evacuate and emergency services may face difficulties gaining access during an incident.

This existing constraint should be a fundamental consideration in every major development proposed for the peninsula.

How much development can Captain Cook Drive support?

The Kamay BESS cannot be considered in isolation.

The Bidhiinja Beach proposal includes approximately 4,300 new homes and associated commercial, retail, tourism and community uses.

The Breen Resource Recovery Facility continues to place industrial and heavy vehicle demands on the Captain Cook Drive corridor.

Further industrial subdivisions and developments are also being proposed along the peninsula, while another very large BESS is proposed on the former refinery site.

Each proposal may be assessed separately, but residents will experience their combined impact.

Thousands of additional residents, industrial traffic, heavy vehicles, emergency response requirements and major energy infrastructure will all rely substantially on the same road corridor.

At what point does the Government stop assessing individual developments and consider the total capacity of the Kurnell Peninsula?

How many developments can continue to be placed along Captain Cook Drive before its limitations are treated as a serious planning constraint?

Good planning should consider cumulative impacts before development reaches the point where existing infrastructure can no longer safely support it.

No meaningful alternative transport

The situation is even more concerning because Kurnell still does not have a regular ferry service providing a meaningful alternative transport connection.

Despite the construction of the new Kamay wharves, the Government has been unsuccessful in securing an operator for a regular service.

It has also indicated that it is not proposing to subsidise a commuter Opal ferry service.

This is difficult to reconcile with planning proposals that could introduce thousands of additional residents and further industrial activity onto a peninsula already dependent on one road.

If a ferry service is not commercially viable without Government support, then serious consideration should be given to subsidising that service before development intensity is increased further.

Transport infrastructure, emergency access and evacuation capacity should be addressed before major increases in development, not afterwards.

Fire and emergency risk

The proposed BESS is also located close to significant fuel storage infrastructure.

This raises legitimate concerns about thermal runaway, fire, smoke, emergency response and contaminated firewater.

These risks should not be assessed only within the boundaries of the BESS site. The consequences for nearby residents and surrounding infrastructure must also be considered.

The combination of major fuel storage, battery infrastructure and a single road for evacuation creates a level of cumulative risk that deserves a precautionary approach.

Another major BESS nearby

A second, substantially larger BESS is proposed on the former refinery site.

This reinforces the need for cumulative assessment.

Residents should not be required to respond to industrial proposals one at a time while the overall outcome is the gradual reindustrialisation of the peninsula.

The Department should consider the combined effects of existing and proposed development on noise, traffic, emergency access, flooding, residential amenity, environmental values and community wellbeing.

Kurnell is environmentally significant

Kurnell is not simply an industrial precinct.

It is surrounded by national park, coastline, wetlands, mangroves, aquatic reserves and areas of exceptional Aboriginal, environmental and historical significance.

Towra Point is internationally recognised as a Ramsar wetland.

The future of Kurnell should reflect the significance of this environment.

Historical industrial zoning should not mean that industrial development must continue indefinitely, particularly where it conflicts with established residential areas and environmentally sensitive land.

The long term direction for Kurnell should focus on remediation, restoration and environmental protection.

Where is the benefit to the community?

The people of Kurnell are being asked to accept the impacts and risks of this proposal, yet there appears to be little meaningful benefit to the local community.

Residents will carry the consequences of noise, emergency risk, industrialisation and increased pressure on local infrastructure.

Commercial benefit to a project proponent is not the same as community benefit.

For a project of this scale, the burden placed on the host community must be given genuine weight.

The community has clearly expressed its concern

More than 1,600 people have signed a petition opposing the Kamay BESS.

For a small community, this represents significant concern about the direction in which Kurnell is heading.

Community consultation should involve more than allowing residents to make submissions. It should require decision makers to genuinely consider whether the concerns being raised demonstrate that a project is unsuitable for its proposed location.

A broader planning failure

What concerns me most is not one development viewed in isolation, but the overall future being created for Kurnell.

My daughter and her family purchased their home after the refinery closed because the area had become quieter and more pleasant to live in.

They believed Kurnell was moving away from its industrial past.

Today the peninsula is facing a proposed 4,300 home development, expanded resource recovery activities, further industrial subdivisions, the Kamay BESS, another major BESS and continuing fuel storage operations.

All of this is being considered on a peninsula with one road in and one road out and no regular alternative ferry transport service.

These decisions do not demonstrate coordinated strategic planning.

The Government needs to stop asking whether each individual development can technically be approved and start asking a much more important question.

How much development can the Kurnell Peninsula safely and reasonably sustain?

Kurnell has already carried a substantial industrial burden for Sydney.

Historical zoning should not determine its future indefinitely.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System,

Environmental and Cultural Objection to the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System

I strongly object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at Kurnell.

I am the father of an Indigenous child and someone with a deep love of the Australian environment, native plants and wildlife. Kurnell should be protected as Country, not treated as a convenient location for more industry simply because industrial zoning already exists.

This peninsula has enormous Aboriginal, cultural and environmental significance. It should be restored, not further industrialised.

The NSW Government should be using Kurnell to expand greenways, increase native tree canopy, restore wetlands, reconnect habitat and improve water quality.

Instead, we are seeing another industrial proposal.

Towra Point, Quibray Bay and the surrounding wetlands have already suffered from industrial impacts. The 2022 Ampol diesel spill affected waterways, wetlands and mangroves. Dead and damaged mangroves remain a stark reminder that environmental harm can continue long after an incident has occurred.

These wetlands support fish, birds, frogs, reptiles, mangroves, saltmarsh and countless other species. Fish do not recognise property boundaries. Water does not stop at a development site. Damage in one area can affect an entire ecosystem.

I also believe Aboriginal cultural heritage must be understood as more than individual artefacts. Country includes land, water, plants, animals and the relationships between them.

Kurnell’s native plants are also part of Australia’s botanical history. Banks and Solander collected extensively here in 1770, but these plants were already known, used and cared for by Aboriginal people for thousands of years.

There is something deeply wrong about celebrating Kurnell’s cultural and botanical significance while continuing to fragment and industrialise it.

Redundant industrial land should be viewed as an opportunity for restoration, not simply another opportunity for commercial development.

Kurnell has already given enough to industry.

Its dunes have been mined. Its vegetation cleared. Its waterways altered. Its wetlands damaged. Its landscape heavily industrialised.

There should no longer be an argument about what new industrial development belongs here.

The answer is none.

Restore the wetlands. Increase native vegetation. Protect fish and wildlife. Respect Aboriginal culture. Protect Country.

I urge the Department to refuse the Kamay BESS.

Kurnell needs restoration, not more industrialisation.

Protect Kurnell. No BESS in Kurnell.

Re: Formal Objection to the Proposed Ausgrid Kamay Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at 171-189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application for the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System (SSD-92494458). While I understand the broader goals of grid stability, the location within the Kurnell residential and environmental footprint poses severe, disproportionate risks to the local community.

I urge the consent authority to reject this proposal on the following grounds:

Public Safety and Fire Risk: Lithium-ion battery installations are susceptible to thermal runaway, which can trigger intense, difficult-to-extinguish fires and release highly toxic smoke. Placing a large-scale 150 MW facility close to residential homes and existing fuel storage infrastructure poses an unacceptable hazard to public health and safety.

Evacuation and Emergency Constraints: Captain Cook Drive is the sole road in and out of the Kurnell peninsula. In the event of a catastrophic thermal event or toxic gas plume, emergency response access would conflict with community evacuation traffic, severely trapping residents.

Acoustic and Low-Frequency Noise: The proposed eight-metre-high noise walls underscore the severe, continuous mechanical and low-frequency hum generated by the facility's cooling systems and inverters. This constant ambient disruption will significantly degrade the mental health, sleep quality, and lifestyle amenity of nearby residents.

Environmental Degradation of Towra Point Wetlands: The site sits immediately adjacent to internationally protected Ramsar wetlands. Firefighting efforts during a battery fire generate highly toxic, chemical-laden runoff. The environmental impact statement does not guarantee absolute containment of this water, threatening the fragile local ecosystems and waterways.

Cumulative Industrial Burden: Kurnell residents already bear a heavy industrial load from existing utilities, desalination infrastructure, and fuel terminals. Introducing up to 100 industrial battery containers creates an unfair cumulative impact on a landscape that also holds immense Aboriginal and historical heritage.

Conclusion: The Kamay BESS project, in its current form, represents a significant threat to our safety, health, and local ecosystem. Heavy industrial facilities of this magnitude should be restricted to isolated industrial parks away from residential populations and ecological reserves.

I request that my objection be carefully evaluated and that development consent be refused for this location.

Objection to Kamay Battery Energy Storage System - SSD-92494458

I am a Kurnell resident and I object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171-189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

I recognise the important role that battery storage will play in supporting the transition to renewable energy. My objection is not to battery storage as a technology. It is to the suitability of this particular location and the continuing concentration of major industrial infrastructure in a small residential community surrounded by areas of significant environmental value.

Kurnell has carried a substantial industrial burden for generations. Our community has lived alongside the refinery and fuel terminal, desalination infrastructure, major electricity infrastructure, waste and industrial activities, heavy vehicle movements and the environmental legacy of previous industrial uses. The assessment of this proposal should therefore not consider the BESS in isolation. It must consider the **cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed industrial development across Kurnell** and whether there is a point at which further intensification is no longer reasonable for the community.

Fire, emergency response and evacuation

I am particularly concerned about the consequences of a significant battery fire or thermal event.

Kurnell's geography makes emergency planning fundamentally different from many other industrial locations. The community is located on a peninsula with Captain Cook Drive providing the principal road connection in and out. A serious industrial incident requiring evacuation, particularly if accompanied by smoke, road closure, flooding or another emergency, could place residents and emergency services in an extremely difficult position.

The Department should require a credible worst-case emergency scenario assessment, rather than relying simply on the probability of an incident occurring. This should include consideration of evacuation capacity, road closures, firefighting requirements, potentially hazardous smoke or runoff, simultaneous emergencies and the ability of Fire and Rescue NSW and other emergency services to safely manage an incident while maintaining access for residents.

If these risks cannot be demonstrated to be acceptably managed given Kurnell's constrained access, the development should not be approved at this location.

Flooding and environmental risk

The proposed location is also environmentally sensitive and subject to flooding considerations.

I am particularly concerned about impacts on surrounding wetlands, groundwater and habitat, including habitat potentially used by the threatened Giant Dragonfly. The consequences of contaminated firefighting water or other pollutants entering surrounding wetlands and waterways following an incident should be rigorously assessed.

The Department should require the proponent to demonstrate how the facility would perform not simply under normal conditions, but during extreme rainfall and flood events, including events occurring concurrently with a battery or electrical emergency.

Climate resilience over the entire operational life of the facility should also be considered, rather than relying solely on historical weather and flood conditions.

Operational noise and residential amenity

The proposed facility will operate 24 hours a day.

The assessment should consider the actual experience of residents during the quietest overnight periods, including cumulative noise from cooling systems, inverters, transformers and other equipment.

Compliance with a theoretical noise threshold does not necessarily mean there will be no impact on residential amenity. Low-level continuous or tonal industrial noise can be particularly noticeable at night in a relatively quiet residential environment.

I ask that independent noise modelling assess worst-case night-time operating conditions and cumulative noise from other existing and proposed industrial activities in the area. Appropriate enforceable limits and independent ongoing monitoring should be required if the project proceeds.

Cumulative industrialisation of Kurnell

Perhaps my greatest concern is that each new development in Kurnell is assessed largely on its individual impact.

For residents, however, the impacts are cumulative.

Kurnell is both a residential community and an area of extraordinary environmental, cultural and historical significance. It should not become the default location for successive pieces of metropolitan-scale infrastructure simply because industrial development already exists here.

The existence of previous industrial development should not become the justification for further industrial development indefinitely.

The Department should undertake a genuine cumulative assessment of existing operations and all reasonably foreseeable projects in Kurnell, including their combined effects on noise, traffic, emergency risk, biodiversity, flooding, visual amenity and the quality of life of residents.

Community confidence and independent oversight

If the project is approved, I would also be concerned about relying predominantly on operator monitoring and reporting.

Any approval should require transparent and independently verifiable monitoring of noise, environmental performance and safety compliance, with results readily available to the Kurnell community. There should also be clear processes for residents to report concerns and for breaches to be investigated.

Emergency response arrangements should be developed with emergency services and communicated transparently to residents before operations commence.

Conclusion

Kurnell residents understand that Sydney needs infrastructure and that the transition to renewable energy requires energy storage. But supporting that transition should not require one small community to continually absorb a disproportionate share of industrial development and risk.

The question is not simply whether a BESS can technically operate on this site. The question is whether **this is the right location for a major 24-hour battery storage facility when its proximity to homes, constrained road access, flood risk, environmentally sensitive surroundings and cumulative industrial burden are considered together.**

I do not believe the proposal has demonstrated that this is an appropriate location.

I therefore **object to SSD-92494458** and ask the Department not to approve the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System in its proposed location. At a minimum, no determination should be made until the Department is satisfied, through independent evidence, that the cumulative environmental, emergency management, flooding, noise and community impacts can be adequately addressed.

I object strongly to the Kamay Battery storage system!!!!!
1/ safety high risk of fire there are millions of litres petrol stored close by, between the fuel storage / battery storage is Captain Cook drive the only way to get out of Kurnell!
2/ Operational Noise! as Kurnell is a very quiet place in the night, we don't want hamming sounds all night long!
3/Impact of another hazardous facility in Kurnell increases the risk of cumulative major accident
Stop this project!

I most strongly oppose the construction and/or storage of any batteries anywhere on the Kurnell peninsular. The imminent danger/death of all humans,birds, animals,plants living within the Kurnell peninsular is very real and the escape/rescue of the same is non existent. How is it possible that government and council could ever consider putting a massively dangerous and erratic industry in an area where there is no escape, thousands of lives at risk of death, cancer, mental issues, then there is the constant excessive noise. Towra point, Kamay bay national Park, thousands of residents plus tens of thousands more that the council plan to build at boat harbour with only one single lane road in and out will amount to a mass murder of all living things on the Kurnell peninsular. How will government/council rescue anyone or anything from Kurnell when these batteries explode? I am most strongly against any battery/electrical storage within the Kurnell peninsular

I oppose this project. See attachment for details.

Kurnell’s Environment, Neighbours and Community Are Already Under Pressure

Kurnell is not an appropriate location for another major industrial development. The proposed BESS would be surrounded by Towra Point Nature Reserve, a Ramsar-listed Wetland of International Importance, Towra Point and Boat Harbour Aquatic Reserves, local freshwater wetlands and Kamay Botany Bay National Park. These areas protect mangroves, saltmarsh, seagrass, migratory birds, threatened species and other fragile wildlife.

We have already witnessed significant mangrove dieback in Kurnell. This should be a warning that the environment is under pressure, not an invitation to add another large industrial facility.

The impacts would not stop at the site boundary. Nearby residents and community areas could be exposed to construction noise, heavy vehicle movements, dust, operational noise, increased lighting, visual impacts and additional traffic. The community already depends heavily on Captain Cook Drive as the main access route, creating serious concerns about congestion, emergency access and evacuation during a major incident.

A battery fire, toxic smoke event, contaminated firefighting water, flooding, stormwater runoff or groundwater contamination could affect neighbouring properties, public spaces, wetlands and waterways. These risks are particularly concerning given Kurnell’s industrial history and environmental sensitivity.

Kurnell has already carried more than its share of Sydney’s industrial burden. Our environment, residents and community spaces should not be expected to carry further risk for another industrial project.

This is disaster waiting to happen. To have such a massive battery stoarage so close to a residential area absoloutly blows my mind hiw on earth it can even been considered. There are vast wastelands in Australia and yet the poers at be seem to think that kurnell is yet another dumping ground . We have been through the refinery, the desalination plant, the lack of the ferries for the hugely expensive fishing wahrf that was supposed to have a ferry terminal. Then weve had permission granted for a factory right in the middle of a residential street recently.. Then of course its the huge 6000 unit develpoment that is also being proposed atm .. so let me ask you , if those batteries catch fire and explode are you willing to take that risk and basically kill the whole population of kurnell because thats exactly what it will do. Are our lives just meaningless to you in the face of progress .. what do the people of kurnell gain from any of this .. nothing apart from our properties devaluation and the livung dread of something going wrong and complete inhalation of kurnell village. Torally outrageous. I think kurnell has put up with enough.. the road in and out us a huge problem if this goes ahead.
Why does it even have to be anywhere near a residential area, why cant it be located in the middle of nowhere .

As a resident of Kurnell, my primary concern is the fire risk associated with a large-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage system, particularly given its location within an existing fuel terminal.

While I recognise the importance of improving energy reliability and supporting the transition to cleaner energy, I ask that the Department ensure a comprehensive and independent assessment of fire safety before any approval is granted.

Specifically, I request that the assessment address:

* The risk of thermal runaway and battery fires.
* The potential impact of a battery fire on nearby fuel storage infrastructure.
* The cumulative risk of locating a battery energy storage system alongside an existing fuel terminal.
* Emergency response arrangements, including access and evacuation for the Kurnell community, given there is only one main road into and out of the peninsula.
* Air quality impacts on nearby residents should a battery fire occur.

I ask that these issues be independently assessed and that the findings be made publicly available so the community can have confidence that any risks have been appropriately managed.

There is a complete failure to calculate all the embedded energy of this destructive, toxic infrastructure and inability to deal with overwhelming recycling challenges for these hazardous components.

The Kamay Battery plan lacks a clear strategy for recycling or disposing of the massive volume of degraded lithium-ion cells at the end of their useful life.
Nobody wants highly flammable lithium battery recycling dumps - like Wagga Wagga’s diabolical plan for piles of TOXIC LITHIUM BATTERY JUNK dumped in their towns either!!
Without a safe, secure, economical disposal pathway, these materials will all end up in landfill, leaving future generations to deal with hazardous, poisonous, unhealthy waste - completely violating Intergenerational Equity.

The BESS needs to be assessed against future climate conditions, not just historical conditions. More extreme rainfall, heat and weather events could affect infrastructure and emergency response. The Department should require climate-resilience modelling covering the full operational life of the project. This should include extreme heat, flooding, severe storms and loss of access. The applicant should demonstrate that the facility can be safely shut down and managed during extreme conditions. The cost of future climate-related remediation caused by the project should remain with the developer and host, supported by financial security.

I reside in close proximity to the proposed battery energy storage facility and I hold serious concerns regarding the cumulative acoustic impact of this industrial scale project on my residential amenity, health and property value. A facility of this size comprises of cooling units, dozens of inverters and transformers posing a significant risk of sleep disturbances and environmental noise pollution.
Kurnell is a narrow peninsula with Captain Cook Drive as the only road in/out a project of this size creates massive vulnerabilities. The installation will completely alter the quiet coastal pocket of the Sutherland Shire.
Evacuation bottleneck and safety risk
Safety should be absolute priority with risk of fires,toxic gases emergency services could block the only road in/out trapping residents and choke the only transport artery.
Kurnell is the birthplace of the nation and home to Kamay Bay National Park. Kurnell is a significant Heritage and Tourism hub. Introducing a massive industrial soundscape filled with high volume cooling fans and electrical buzzing with permanently damage the tranquil nature of Kurnell and negatively impact wildlife and destroy the cultural value and heritage site.
I strongly object to this industrial project and formally request that Council oppose this development.

There are concerns the need to protect the wider Botany Bay environmental system.
The EPA reports that PFAS investigations are ongoing around Botany Bay and that PFAS has been detected in some fish species, although multiple potential sources make it difficult to attribute individual detections to a single source.
This demonstrates why the surrounding water environment needs to be protected from additional disturbance.
I request that the BESS project establish strong baseline environmental monitoring and ensure that construction and operational runoff cannot add to existing contamination problems.
My concern is preventing another environmental problem from being added to an already complicated area.

I am a resident of Kurnell and object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System on Captain Cook Drive.

Kurnell is already surrounded by major industrial operations, heavy vehicle movements, airport impacts and large infrastructure projects. Residents are continually expected to accept additional development because the peninsula has historically been used for industry. This approach ignores the people who live here and the cumulative effect these projects have on our daily lives.

The proposed battery facility would introduce further industrial equipment, lighting, mechanical noise, maintenance activity and emergency risk close to residential properties. Noise modelling should not be based only on whether the project narrowly meets a numerical limit. It must consider low-frequency and tonal noise, night-time operation, sleep disturbance and the combined impact of existing industrial noise.

I am also concerned that the project is being promoted on the basis of broad energy benefits without clearly demonstrating why this particular location is necessary. Ausgrid should be required to show that safer sites, further from homes and environmentally sensitive areas, have been properly investigated.

Kurnell has only one road in and out. Any project capable of creating an emergency exclusion zone, increased emergency traffic or restrictions on Captain Cook Drive requires a much higher level of scrutiny.

The community should not carry increasing levels of industrial risk while the benefits are distributed across the wider electricity network.

I ask the Department to refuse this proposal and require battery storage infrastructure to be located where it has adequate separation from homes, multiple access routes and fewer cumulative environmental and social impacts.

I live approximately 120 metres from the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System and strongly object to the development because of the direct impact it may have on my home, safety and quality of life.

At this distance, operational noise is a serious concern. Battery facilities require cooling systems, inverters, transformers and other mechanical equipment that may operate continuously, including overnight. Even relatively low levels of humming, tonal or low-frequency noise can be intrusive in a quiet residential environment and may affect sleep, outdoor enjoyment and the ability to comfortably use our homes.

I am also deeply concerned about fire risk. A battery fire may produce intense heat, toxic smoke and gases and can be difficult to extinguish. Living only around 120 metres away means my household could be among the first affected by smoke, emergency warnings, road closures or instructions to remain indoors or evacuate.

The application must clearly explain how nearby residents would be notified, how quickly emergency services could respond, where residents would go during an incident and how toxic smoke would be managed under different wind conditions.

It is unreasonable to place a major battery facility this close to established homes without proving that residents will not be exposed to unacceptable noise or emergency risk.

I ask the Department to refuse the application or require the facility to be relocated to a site with a substantially greater separation from residential properties.