MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

This will ruin the birthplace of our nation and the Kurnell community.

My family and I, wife and daughter, come to Kurnell nearly every weekend, and have lived there for a few years previously. We are considering moving back to the area.

Mod 7 completely removes the chance that we'll move back, and would reduce the likelyhood that we'd visit.

We usually spend time at the beach, and Mod 7 could contaminate the waters. From studies we've seen this poses long term risks for our daughter.

From our perspective, no positives of this outweigh our child's health, and would greatly impact the areas desirability .

Feel free to reach out, Jack Emery, Kareela 2232, NSW

I strongly oppose the approval of Modification 7 at Kurnell. My family has lived in Kurnell for over 20 years, and we’ve grown up in the Sutherland Shire. We care deeply about our community and the environment, and this proposal is deeply concerning.

Allowing contaminated soil to remain on-site poses an unacceptable risk to both residents and the environment. It is ethically wrong and dangerous. The land must be properly cleaned—not left to leach toxins into the surrounding area. Heavy rainfall and flooding could easily cause pollutants to run off into our beloved bay, affecting swimmers, marine life, and those who enjoy the water. We’ve already seen the damage that stormwater pollution can cause—let’s not make it worse.

Ampol must be held accountable. They should not be allowed to walk away from their mess. Their original agreement was to regenerate the land into public parkland or recreational space—a commitment the community has waited a long time to see honoured. Changing that plan now to suit corporate convenience is unacceptable.

This is about more than just soil. It’s about trust, responsibility, and the long-term health of our environment. We must not allow short-term profit to outweigh long-term community wellbeing.

We must think of future generations. This land should not become an industrial dumping ground passed between businesses. It should be restored to a safe, clean state—a place our children and grandchildren can enjoy without fear of contamination.

Please do not approve Modification 7. Make Ampol fulfil their original promise. Restore the land to how it was before they destroyed it—and give our community the safe, healthy future we deserve

By way of introduction I have been a Kurnell resident for the last fifteen years. Currently seventy two years or age, retired with significant health issues. Enjoy my many children and grand kids some of which reside in Kurnell.
I have multiple objections to this proposal and one objection relating to this and various other large projects proposed for the Kurnell Peninsular.
Firstly this proposal in only a cost saving exercise for Ampol, there legal and ethical responsibility is is to remove all asbestos / toxins from the sight. Keeping and capping asbestos / toxins on site causes an ongoing environmental risk and potential health hazard. Refer (Mod7 report (sec4 page 60) and fig 5-7 page 111).

Secondly should these changes be approved there is no external audit or monitoring requirements to ensure ongoing maintenance is timely and appropriate . This also blocks any future ability to rezone any part of the site. Refer (App G page 8, section 3 page 53, Fig B-2 page 240).
Community losses cleanup rights,an ongoing concern total removal puts an end to the problem, instead of a cheap band aid approach. Refer (PPTX: sec 3 page 53 no end)

As a Kurnell resident I believe that consideration not of the Peninsulars existing infrastructure but ongoing requirements should be taken into account, given the number of significant changes in the pipeline, Mod 7, Bess, industrial hub, four thousand new dwellings and upgrades to the nation park creating addition tourist movement. All these changes should necessitate a pre requisits that the one road into and out of the area be upgraded to two lanes in and out . Funding by the major players in these developments.

My name is Stephen Lansley

In my opinion Ampol’s MOD 7 proposal places profit before the health, safety and well-being of the Kurnell community, visitors and environment.
Ampol state in their SS5544 Mod 7 Report document the following: “Ampol is focused on having a positive impact on the communities and economies in which they operate….Ampol will continue to consider the local community needs, as well as the unique environmental and cultural significance of Kurnell”
In my opinion Ampol lacks both transparency and honesty when communicating with the local community and has continued to pollute our environment.
I have lived in Kurnell and raised my family here for over 50 years, and have been involved in community meetings and participated in projects that object to companies that pollute and damage our historic and environmentally sensitive environment on many previous occasions.
Kurnell has both historical and cultural significance as the first landfall made by Captain Cook in Australia and the
first recorded history between the British and Indigenous Australians in Eastern Australia.
Kurnell is a popular tourist destination for people within Australia and from overseas and is well visited during school holiday and festive periods. Tourists are attracted to activities such as: whale watching, fishing, walking the tracks in our National Park, water sports, picnicking and swimming and photography.
Recent construction of a wharf and jetty with ferry access ( to be established) to La Perouse. The
current rebuilding of the Kurnell Museum with information and artefacts of indigenous culture and history. Upgrades to the walkways in the National Park and along the waterfront; all designed to make Kurnell attractive to Tourists and Residents .
Kurnell has one access road into and out of the village. We have experienced major flooding in some areas and a tornado (2015) . During the tornado people were evacuated from their homes, children were stranded in local Shire Schools, homes were destroyed and people were traumatised . The S.E.S., police and ambulance were active in their efforts to keep people safe. We had no road access until power poles were repaired, debris removed and our only access road opened to locals.
In 2022 Kurnell experienced major flooding. Ampol could not contain spillage from their waste tanks. Major petroleum chemicals toxic to humans and the environment were dumped on our roads, in our waterways and mangrove areas. Some residents had property damage and experienced health issues due to the toxic fumes. Dead wildlife covered in petroleum products were found in creeks and waterways.
In my opinion Ampol tried to minimise the impact of this disaster and its effect on our community. I attended resident meetings with Ampol representatives who I found to be less than honest or transparent in their communication with residents. I have not experienced any further communication from Ampol that leads me
change my opinion.
If Ampol’s Mod 7 is approved they will no longer be required to do full cleanup if another major spill or accident occurs. Ampol will contain all toxic waste on site remaining in our environment for generations to come. The potential for leakage into our environment and waterways and Ampol’s self monitoring processes put our local community at risk now and in the future.
Further proposed development on land owned by HOLT comprising hotels, housing, shopping centres ( approx. 4,000 dwellings, a proposed Bess project opposite the Ampol site in Captain Cook Drive and a proposed wharehose development on the waterfront will increase traffic on our limited access road , create more noise, pollution and tge potential for further accidents. We have no safe evacuation plan for the residents of Kurnell!
Therefore, I strongly oppose this Ampol’s MOD7 .
Thank you for your attention to my Submission.
Christine LANSLEY.

Kurnell is a peaceful community and should be exempt from further industry

I am in strong opposition to Ampol once again avoiding its responsibility towards a proper and appropriate solution to clean up the land they have over time saturated with pollution. The Bandaid solution proposed is insufficient for the damage this billion dollar company has caused on the environment both globally and more locally in this community. Ampol should put environment and this community over its profit margins for a change and finally do the right thing for this area.
The fact is the grounds weren't polluted before Ampol arrived so it stands to reason they should be made to conduct through and correct actions for removing the contaminants that they have leaked into this area before and future sale or use.
A major concern is the possible if not probable contamination into the beautiful Botany Bay if Ampol is not made to do it's due diligence and leave the land in the same condition it was before they occupied it. I hate to think what damage they have caused on the soil and sea in this area already. Previous soil checks in Cook street had troubling results.
This should be a huge concern not only for the Kurnell community but for the NSW government in general. The area is as posted "The birthplace of modern Australia" so every effort should be exhausted to protect this area and part of Australia's history from possible future contaminates. The Bay teams with fish and other wildlife, the new wharf has families from all over Sydney coming each weekend to fish and enjoy the national park areas. Ampol need to be held accountable and remove contaminates now and in the future from ever reaching into the waterways. I cant imagine a future where people would want to go swimming, fishing or bush walking in an area choked by the weight of contamination.
The land Ampol has visually and physically disturbed needs to be completely cleaned to its previous condition and restored to parkland, bushland or even suitable enough for future housing. The housing crisis in this country is something most people dwell on and though this patch of land in the grand scheme of things isn't huge it would go towards helping the crisis.
I hope the NSW government can do the fair and just thing by its people and stand up to these environmental thugs.
We all tell our kids to clean up after themselves, the bigger you are the more mess you make but the resolve is still the same CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELVE! Ampol NEEDS to clean the devastating mess its made.

Hi, I’m writing today to strongly disagree to this proposal. Kurnell village is already inundated with industrial areas and miss use of roads for parking and industrial waste and miss use.
The community that live out here have seen the industrial abuse of the famous area and don’t want it destroyed anymore than it has been already.
The infrastructure is not in place to withstand this proposal and it will cause huge safety concerns with traffic in and out of Cronulla to Kurnell.
The environment is going to be the biggest impact as we have seen over even recent years that the soil contaminates of the area are high in toxic materials and this affects peoples health living in the area and working in the area.
Please stop this movement from going ahead and protect our Kurnell community

This proposal is a catastrophic disaster in the making. It’s a danger to our community, our children, the environment and our health l. It must not go through

Dear NSW Department of Planning and Environment,

I am writing as a concerned mother of school-aged children who regularly swim and play in the waters and beaches around Kurnell, NSW, to object to Modification 7 (MOD 7) to State Significant Development SSD-5544. This proposal, lodged by Ampol (formerly Caltex), seeks to consolidate infrastructure and undertake remediation at the former Kurnell Refinery site, now a fuel terminal. As a parent, I am deeply worried about the ongoing environmental and health risks this poses to my children, who love spending time in Botany Bay. I believe this land, originally leased for oil refining, should be fully restored and returned to our community as public green space to make up for decades of damage, not repurposed for more industrial use.

My children swim near Silver Beach and explore the Kurnell Peninsula’s shores almost every week. These areas are close to the terminal, and I’m terrified about what pollutants might still be in the water and soil from the refinery’s 60 years of operation. Reports, including Ampol’s own environmental reviews, confirm contamination from hydrocarbons and PFAS chemicals in the soil, groundwater, and Botany Bay. MOD 7’s plan for “remediation and grading” sounds promising, but it’s only a partial fix to keep the site running as a fuel terminal with tanks and pipelines. This doesn’t address my fears about long-term exposure for my kids, who could be swimming in waters affected by legacy toxins or future spills. The peninsula has already lost over half its natural land to industry, damaging ecosystems and increasing risks like erosion that make our beaches less safe. Instead of more industrial activity, this land should be fully cleaned up and turned into a safe, natural space—like an extension of Botany Bay National Park—where my children can swim and play without me worrying about their health.

The original purpose of this land’s lease, set out in the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954, was for oil refining only. It included Crown land with strict rules, like protecting Botany Bay from pollution and removing structures when refining stopped. Refining ended in 2014, so Ampol should be required to fully clear the site and return it to the community, not repurpose it for fuel storage. My kids deserve access to this land as a place to connect with nature, not as a restricted industrial zone. The proposal ignores the community’s right to reclaim this space, as groups like the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre have urged, for public use like parks or trails. Keeping it industrial feels like a betrayal of the promises made when the land was leased, and it denies my children a chance to enjoy a healthier, greener Kurnell.

Kurnell is also special because of its cultural history—it’s where Captain Cook landed in 1770 and holds deep meaning for the Dharawal people with sacred sites and middens. My children learn about this at school, and we visit Kamay Botany Bay National Park to understand its importance. But the refinery’s presence has blocked off parts of this heritage, and MOD 7 would keep it that way by maintaining industrial infrastructure. I want my kids to grow up exploring a restored peninsula, with safe access to cultural sites and native bushland, not dodging fences and pipes. Turning the land into community space would let them learn about and respect this history while enjoying the outdoors, supporting their well-being and education.

As a mum, I also think about the broader impact on our community. My children have grown up with the noise and restricted access caused by the refinery, and I had hoped its closure would mean more open spaces for them to enjoy. MOD 7, however, keeps the industrial footprint, with risks like truck traffic and potential leaks that could affect air and water quality. Studies show green spaces improve kids’ mental health and development, and a restored Kurnell site could offer safe places for my children to play, ride bikes, or join community activities. Ampol’s community fund is a small gesture, but it doesn’t compare to giving us back this land for parks or recreation, which could even create local jobs in restoration that benefit families like ours.

This proposal also clashes with NSW policies, like the State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989, which calls for full decontamination and rehabilitation. Keeping fuel infrastructure contradicts goals to protect biodiversity and move away from fossil fuels, especially in a sensitive coastal area where my kids swim. I worry about climate change impacts, like rising sea levels, making industrial sites riskier. The land should be rezoned for environmental use, creating a safe, sustainable space for my children’s generation.

I urge the Department to reject MOD 7 and require Ampol to fully remediate and return the site to the community. My children deserve to swim in clean waters, play in safe spaces, and grow up connected to Kurnell’s natural and cultural heritage. Please prioritize their health and future by restoring this land as public green space, not a fuel terminal. Thank you for considering my objection.

Sincerely,
Leah Hill

To whoever’s making the decision on Modification 7—I really hope you listen.

I’ve lived in Kurnell for 18 years, and this place is a huge part of who I am. I’ve grown up surrounded by the ocean, the national park, and a tight-knit community that actually cares about what happens here. That’s why this proposal is so upsetting.

Leaving toxic soil sitting in the ground like it’s no big deal? That’s not safe. It’s not right. If it rains hard—and we all know how crazy the weather’s been—those chemicals can easily wash into the bay. People swim there. Kids play there. We fish there. Animals live there. Polluting the area more than it already has been is just asking for disaster.

What makes it worse is knowing that Ampol promised to fix this. They said they’d turn the site into something better—a green space, a park, something the public could actually use. But now they’re trying to back out and leave the mess behind? That’s not how trust works. You don’t just break a promise when it gets inconvenient.

We’re being asked to accept long-term damage for someone else’s short-term gain. And that’s not fair—not to us, and definitely not to future generations who’ll have to live with the consequences.

I want to be proud of where I live. I want to feel safe walking near that land, swimming in the water, and knowing my community stood up for what was right. This is a chance to fix what was broken—not sweep it under the rug.

Please reject Modification 7. Make sure Ampol takes responsibility and finishes what they started. Kurnell deserves better than this.

I adamantly object to the proposed submission from Ampol’s Kurnell Shift. The proposal as stated “permanent” removes any future potential for clean up, park lands, or community developments that we as residents would benefit from.

Additionally the proposal as an “energy hub” lacks ethical considerations to home owners, our children and the communities health/wellbeing.

I object to this project.

I strongly object to the proposed project, which will have a lasting and detrimental impact on the Kurnell community. Rather than delivering benefits, this development threatens to erase critical aspects of the area’s identity, history, and amenity.

The proposal to demolish heritage-listed or legacy buildings is especially disappointing. These buildings are more than just structures—they are physical reminders of Kurnell’s rich industrial and social history. To claim they no longer have “practical value” is to fundamentally misunderstand the value of heritage. They deserve to stand, as a mark of respect to the people who lived, worked, and contributed to Kurnell’s development. Preserving them is about community pride and historical continuity.

We urge the planning authority to seriously consider the alternative options outlined in the modification report. In particular, the base case, or ‘do nothing’ approach, is the preferred option for many local residents. It would preserve the character of Kurnell while allowing time for genuine community consultation and more sustainable, community-sensitive solutions to emerge.

This project, as currently proposed, prioritises industrial expansion at the cost of environmental, cultural, and community values. It risks turning Kurnell into a throughway for industry rather than a place for people. We ask that decision-makers genuinely listen to the voices of the Kurnell community before proceeding.

Increased, traffic, noise, pollution and safety concerns for the Kurnell community

I strongly oppose the approval of Modification 7 at Kurnell. My family has lived in Kurnell for over 20 years, and we’ve grown up in the Sutherland Shire. We care deeply about our community and the environment, and this proposal is deeply concerning.

Allowing contaminated soil to remain on-site poses an unacceptable risk to both residents and the environment. It is ethically wrong and dangerous. The land must be properly cleaned—not left to leach toxins into the surrounding area. Heavy rainfall and flooding could easily cause pollutants to run off into our beloved bay, affecting swimmers, marine life, and those who enjoy the water. We’ve already seen the damage that stormwater pollution can cause—let’s not make it worse.

Ampol must be held accountable. They should not be allowed to walk away from their mess. Their original agreement was to regenerate the land into public parkland or recreational space—a commitment the community has waited a long time to see honoured. Changing that plan now to suit corporate convenience is unacceptable.

This is about more than just soil. It’s about trust, responsibility, and the long-term health of our environment. We must not allow short-term profit to outweigh long-term community wellbeing.

We must think of future generations. This land should not become an industrial dumping ground passed between businesses. It should be restored to a safe, clean state—a place our children and grandchildren can enjoy without fear of contamination.

Please do not approve Modification 7. Make Ampol fulfil their original promise. Restore the land to how it was before they destroyed it—and give our community the safe, healthy future we deserve.

**Submission from Kevin Hill, 71-year-old grandfather and Kurnell resident**

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I’m Kevin Hill, a 71-year-old grandfather who’s called Kurnell home for nearly 50 years. I’m writing to object to Modification 7 (MOD 7) to State Significant Development SSD-5544, which would allow Ampol to contain the toxic. As a grandfather, I think about the world my grandkids will inherit, and I believe this land—sacred to the Dharawal people and iconic as Captain James Cook’s 1770 landing site—holds a future far greater than industrial tanks. Kurnell could be a beacon of cultural pride, environmental healing, and sustainable progress for generations to come. Approving MOD 7 would dim that vision, chaining this historic place to a fading fossil fuel era.

Kurnell’s story stretches back thousands of years, from the Dharawal’s ancient middens to Captain Cook’s landing, a moment that shaped modern Australia. This peninsula isn’t just land; it’s a living chapter of our shared heritage. I imagine my grandkids, decades from now, walking trails lined with native trees, learning about the Dharawal’s connection to Country and the history of European arrival. But for over 60 years, the refinery—built under the 1954 Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act—has scarred this place, polluting Botany Bay, eroding dunes, and blocking public access. That Act tied the land to oil refining, with clear rules: when refining ended, Ampol was to clean up and return the land to the Crown. Refining stopped in 2014, yet MOD 7 seeks to extend industrial use, ignoring the promise of restoration. This isn’t just a technical tweak—it’s a betrayal of Kurnell’s future potential.

Picture Kurnell in 2050 or 2100. Instead of a fuel terminal, this land could be a vibrant public space, blending history, culture, and nature. Community groups like the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre envision a restored peninsula—decontaminated, reforested, and linked to Kamay Botany Bay National Park. My grandkids could explore interpretive centers celebrating Indigenous heritage, stroll paths through regenerated dunes, or join school trips to learn about reconciliation and sustainability. This vision aligns with NSW’s push for net-zero and coastal protection, turning Kurnell into a model of how we heal industrial scars. MOD 7, with its focus on keeping tanks and pipelines, stifles this future, prioritizing Ampol’s profits over a legacy of cultural and environmental renewal.

The historical significance of Kurnell demands we think long-term. The 1954 Act protected areas like Captain Cook’s Landing Place Reserve, yet the refinery’s footprint has long overshadowed them. Recent upgrades to Kamay show what’s possible—public access, eco-tourism, and spaces for reflection including the new wharf and whale monument. Restoring the terminal site to original condition could extend this, creating a corridor of native vegetation that honors the Dharawal and invites visitors worldwide. Imagine the economic boost: jobs in restoration, tourism, and education, all sustainable, unlike the declining fossil fuel industry. MOD 7’s partial “remediation” keeps the land locked in the past, with ongoing pollution risks—hydrocarbons and PFAS in the soil, as Ampol’s own reports admit. We need full restoration to secure a healthy, thriving Kurnell for future generations.

My grandkids deserve a Kurnell that’s a point of pride, not a reminder of industrial harm. For decades, we’ve endured noise, restricted access, and health risks from leaks and spills. The peninsula has lost 55% of its natural land to industry, with endangered species in Towra Point suffering. MOD 7’s scaled-back cleanup won’t fix this—it’s a bandage, not a cure. A truly restored Kurnell could improve water quality, boost biodiversity, and offer recreational spaces that lift our community’s spirit and property values. It could be a place where my great-grandkids learn about climate resilience and cultural respect, not just read about it in books.

NSW’s planning policies, like the 1989 Kurnell Peninsula plan, call for real rehabilitation, not industrial extensions. Approving MOD 7 would clash with these goals and set a precedent for other legacy sites to dodge restoration. I urge you to reject this proposal and launch an independent review with Sutherland Shire Council and Indigenous stakeholders to rezone the land for public use. Let’s create a Kurnell that, in 50 years, stands as a testament to what we can achieve when we prioritize history, community, and the planet over short-term gain.

Please, reject MOD 7. Give Kurnell a future where my grandkids, and theirs, can walk a restored peninsula, proud of its past and hopeful for what’s ahead. This land’s history deserves to inspire, not burden, the generations to come.

Regards,
Kevin Hill - Kurnell resident

I am concerned about the health to myself and my family if this goes ahead.
I am also concerned about the safety this will impose.
I am concerned this will also de value the cost of our house and land that we have worked so hard to achieve.

Objection Submission – Ampol Mod 7 Proposal

I am a local business owner of Kurnell and a Sutherland Shire resident and a strong advocate for responsible environmental management and public health. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my concerns regarding Ampol’s proposed Modification 7 (Mod 7) to the Kurnell Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation project. I am deeply concerned that Mod 7 prioritises cost savings over community safety, environmental protection, and future land use flexibility.

Mod 7 shifts Ampol’s obligations from full remediation to permanent containment, leaving our community with a toxic legacy. It sacrifices safety and accountability in favour of corporate cost-cutting.


Key Concerns & Evidence
1. Permanent Containment of Contaminated Waste
• Mod 7 enables hydrocarbons, PFAS, and asbestos to be capped on-site indefinitely (Mod 7 Report, Sec 4, Pg 60).
• This contrasts sharply with the original requirement to excavate and remove all contaminated materials off-site.

2. Increased Environmental and Flood Risk
• Flood modelling (Fig 7-5, Pg 111) shows that capped waste areas are at risk of inundation, raising the likelihood of bay contamination during storms or extreme weather events.
• The proximity to sensitive ecosystems like Botany Bay and wetlands makes this an unacceptable risk.

3. Loss of Independent Oversight
• Mod 7 removes independent environmental audits, leaving monitoring in the hands of Ampol (Appendix G, Pg 8).
• Community trust is undermined when the polluter is allowed to self-assess ongoing risks.

4. Land Use Permanently Locked into Heavy Industry
• By capping waste in place, the site is permanently zoned as E5 Heavy Industrial (Scoping Report Pg 215, Fig B-2 Pg 240), eliminating future opportunities for parks, recreation, or community-oriented uses.

5. No End Date for Works – Endless Uncertainty
• The proposal introduces indefinite timelines with no clear remediation endpoint (Mod 7 Report Sec 3 Pg 53), prolonging anxiety for local residents and businesses.

6. Subdivision Enables Further Industrialisation Without Clarity
• The proposed subdivision facilitates expansion into battery storage (BESS) and SAF blending without clear oversight or environmental guarantees, raising concerns of piecemeal industrial creep.


Positive Aspects (If Any)

While I support the goal of long-term site management and energy transition, this cannot come at the expense of safety, transparency, and environmental protection. The harms far outweigh any perceived benefits.


Recommendations

Mod 7 should be rejected in full.
Instead, I strongly recommend:
• Upholding the original requirement for full off-site removal of all contaminated soil and waste
• Mandatory, independent environmental audits for capped areas
• Defined timelines for remediation and community review
• Zoning flexibility to allow future parklands or public use once remediated
• Consultation with First Nations, environmental scientists, and local families in future site planning


Mod 7 is a shortcut that benefits shareholders at the cost of our community’s health, safety, and future land use. As a resident who cares deeply about Kurnell, I urge the Department of Planning to uphold the community’s right to a clean, safe, and usable environment. Please keep me informed of next steps and consider this submission as part of the public record.

Please see my attached letter. which states my objection of Ampol's request to skip their responsibility for Full remediation of contaminated lands.

Introduction:
I'm a Kurnell parent with three young children aged 2, 4, and 5, who attend the local pre-school right next to the Ampol site. We've lived here for 8 years, drawn by the coastal community, but now feel outraged and betrayed by Ampol's cost-cutting shift. Thanks for this submission opportunity; I've followed the site's environmental reports and joined local discussions on pollution impacts.
Opening Statement
- Mod 7 is an outrageous betrayal, abandoning mandatory commitments for full cleanup to cut costs and boost revenue for shareholders, ignoring health/safety/environment.
- It locks in toxins via capping, risking leaks/floods/disasters that endanger our kids at pre-school and reverse $60m government investments in Kurnell's economy.
- Subdivision multiplies stakeholders, diluting accountability and perpetuating pollution (air/water/odor/noise/waste), harming biodiversity, tourism, businesses, and our family's future.
Recommendations
- Reject Mod 7 outright—it's a profit-driven reversal of commitments that endangers lives; enforce original off-site removal to honor mandates and protect community.
- Mandate independent audits/public reporting with strict penalties for non-compliance, ending self-monitoring loopholes.
- Set enforceable timelines for complete remediation, blocking indefinite delays and enabling rezoning to parks/non-industrial uses over perpetual heavy industry.
- Prohibit subdivision to ensure single accountability, preventing finger-pointing in disasters/floods.
- Require environmental offsets/mitigation for all pollution types and biodiversity, reversing economic damage from undermining $80m+ government investments in tourism/businesses.
Evidence/Arguments
- With kids at pre-school next door, we're terrified of toxins leaching into play areas; local knowledge shows past refinery odors affecting schools, and PFAS studies link exposure to child health issues like immune disorders.
- I have also taken walks around the village recently. The Martin Park wetlands, backyards of bordering neighbours, the mangroves next to AusGrid are all polluted and destroyed. The sentiment towards Ampol is at a all time low. The community is not happy and negative momentum is building towards Ampol. Trying to hide different the overall Ampol strategy buried with multiple significant planning proposals has lost the communities trust and has resulted in angry, anxious and upset members - (Mod 7 for containment and infrastructure tweaks, a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) up to 1,000 MWh, and subdivision into energy/industry precincts (Scoping Report, Page 215))
- Keeps PFAS/hydrocarbons/asbestos on-site permanently, a bandaid saving Ampol costs but risking leaks/floods into bay/wetlands (Mod7 Report Sec 4 Pg 60; Fig 7-5 Pg 111).
- As a local, I've seen flooding events worsen pollution—Mod 7's levees are insufficient, allowing indefinite risks without real deadlines (Mod7 Report Sec 3 Pg 53). https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/News/Media-Releases/2023/EPAMedia230920-Ampol-to-pay-over-%24700000-after-oily-water-spill-in-Kurnell
- Locks E5 Heavy Industrial zoning forever, preventing parks/community spaces and entrenching pollution (air emissions, water runoff, odors from waste, noise from operations, waste mismanagement) that harms biodiversity/threatened species (Scoping Report Pg 27 & 51; Mod7 Report Fig 4-3 Pg 58).
- Indefinite monitoring without independent audits means endless uncertainty/ongoing disasters, betraying community—lack of audits risks undetected issues, worsening flooding/accountability voids (Mod7 Report App G Pg 8; Sec 3 Pg 53).
- Safety compromised by increased transport/roads usage from industrial activities, endangering pre-school commutes; tourism/businesses suffer as bay contamination deters visitors, like past spills hurting local economy and reversing $80m+ government investments (Mod7 Report Sec 8.1 Pg 215).
- Subdivision into Energy/Industry Precincts chases revenue, creates multiple stakeholders, reducing accountability in disasters like floods—who's responsible when fingers point? (Scoping Report Pg 27; Mod7 Report Fig B-2 Pg 240).
Positive Aspects
Ampol's strategy cuts costs/uplifts revenue for shareholders via subdivision, but these "positives" are illusions—none outweigh the betrayal, health threats to our kids, environmental damage, biodiversity loss, pollution across types, safety risks, and economic hits to tourism/businesses from locked zoning/subdivision chaos.
Closing
As a deeply concerned parent, please provide a detailed reply and arrange a meeting to discuss these serious family and community concerns—we're angry and demand action. July 17, 2025.