Newcastle Logistics Precinct - Intertrade Project

I object to SSI-82049456 because I do not support using public money and strategically important industrial land to facilitate the expansion of renewable-energy projects. The proposed precinct is intended to store and transport renewable-energy components, including BESS equipment. I believe the Government should first demonstrate why this expenditure is necessary and why investment in reliable dispatchable electricity generation, including existing and new coal-fired generation where appropriate, would not provide a more dependable outcome for NSW.
What evidence demonstrates that this project is a better use of public money than investing the same funds in reliable electricity generation?

Please see attached submission

Please refer to the attachment

See attached submission

Please refer to attached letter.

Attn: Michael Young

Newcastle Logistics Precinct - Intertrade Project

I am objecting and making comment on behalf of Newcastle Stolthaven and our site located at Lot 2, Steelworks Road
Mayfield, 2304

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed plans for the Intertrade Project in the Newcastle Logistics Precinct. Stolthaven appreciates being consulted at this preliminary stage and wishes to raise the following matters for consideration:-

• Access and impacts on Steel Works Road
Stolthaven is concerned about the potential impacts of moving large equipment, in and out of this area as it could result in significant disruptions and or even temporary shutdown of traffic movements along Steel Works Rd.
Clear traffic management measures will need to be developed and implemented in consultation with existing users to ensure continuity of current access arrangements and amenity for existing operators.

• Additional access point along the northern boundary of the Intertrade site
Clarification and consultation is requested on the exact location and use of the proposed new road access.

• Traffic movement numbers under Mayfield Concept Plan (MCP) approval limitations
Stolthaven seeks assurance that its traffic movement allocations under the MCP approval will be protected.
This applies to both current and future business operations.
While the proposal notes only an “Minor Increase” in truck movements, it is important that any changes do not compromise Stolthaven’s approved traffic movement numbers or operational flexibility.

We respectfully request that these concerns be noted, addressed and responded to in the assessment of the modification and that Stolthaven be kept informed of any further developments.

Kind regards

Ben

I am concerned that this project forms part of a wider replacement of traditional electricity generation without sufficient consideration of reliability. Wind and solar output depends on weather conditions, while electricity demand continues regardless of those conditions. Before approving infrastructure designed to support additional renewable generation, the Department should demonstrate how NSW will maintain electricity supply during prolonged periods of low wind and solar generation.
How will the electricity system maintain reliable supply when renewable generation is producing very little for an extended period?

I object because the Government has not adequately demonstrated that road transport is the only or best method for moving these components. Given the size and weight of some equipment, a genuine assessment of road, rail and combined transport options is warranted. Why has the proponent selected road transport rather than maximising rail for components that can reasonably be moved by rail?

Newcastle Logistics Precinct - Intertrade Project is not an environmental initiative; it is a highly dangerous commercial mechanism designed to facilitate an unviable, deeply unstable, and deeply compromised regional energy market.

By acting as a central clearinghouse for massive Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), this precinct exposes the Hunter region, the wider state and Australia to catastrophic industrial, economic, and geopolitical risks.

We condemn this project based on the critical systemic failures outlined.

KEY GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL:->

1: National Security Vulnerability & Foreign Super-Grid Integration Target for Systemic Sabotage:
Consolidating the physical supply chain and storage of NSW’s CCP reliant, unregulated, unclean, unreliable, unsafe, uneconomical, unethical and insecure RenewaBULL JUNK into a single coastal footprint creates an acute, high-risk vulnerability.

The Interconnector Threat:
This hub acts as the physical linchpin for a vast, uncontrollable network of interconnectors.
Rather than securing local energy, it transitions sovereign power infrastructure into a mechanism tailored for globalist networks, directly aligning with the anti-Australian ASEAN Power Grid framework. This erodes domestic oversight and exposes the Australian population to external geopolitical coercion.

2: The BESS Danger Profile - Industrial Bomb & Contamination Threat
Concentrated Industrial Risk:
The storage of large-scale BESS units on open hardstands transforms this precinct into an extremely volatile and toxic, high-risk chemical storage site directly adjacent to vital waterways and urban centres.

Thermal Runaway Realities:
Lithium-ion and associated commercial battery technologies present uncontrollable thermal runaway risks.
A major fire event at this port location would release massive volumes of lethal, toxic gases, overwhelming local emergency services and poisoning regional air and water sheds.

3: Complete Absence of Import Oversight (reference: Australian Border Force Admission)
Unregulated Supply Chain Contamination: The proponent cannot guarantee the structural or chemical safety of imported materials moving through this precinct.

Official Regulatory Failure:
Official Australian Border Force documentation (Feedback Reference: IMMI-26-00117-1, dated 03/02/2026) confirms a profound regulatory vacuum regarding incoming ‘renewable’ hardware. Without rigorous, mandatory verification protocols, this facility is actively positioned to handle, store, and distribute unethically sourced equipment containing highly toxic, banned substances—specifically PFOS, PFAS, and hazardous asbestos compounds.

4: Sovereign Economic Harm & Taxpayer Exploitation
Financing a Manufactured Market:
This taxpayer funded logistics hub is planned to solely prop up heavily subsidised, unstable, incapable, insecure, filthy, intermittent and bankruptingly costly solar/wind/battery hazards that are THE ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE!
It prioritises the financial gain of vested global corporate entities over the health and welfare of the Australian public who are being deliberately ripped off at extortionate expense and deprived of our own reliable, affordable base-load coal and nuclear power that we deserve to use and benefit from.

Artificial Pricing & Instability:
Forcing this infrastructure onto the NSW public drives up structural energy costs while actively undermining grid resilience, creating a permanent threat of blackouts and systemic economic insecurity.

CONCLUSION
The Department must reject this catastrophic plan that diabolically defies Australian sovereignty, every aspect of the National Electricity Law Objective and all principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development - in order to protect the economic, environmental, national security and physical safety of the state.

Reference:-> (continued)

I object because the project should be considered together with other developments in the Newcastle port and industrial area. Existing port operations already generate heavy vehicles, noise, lighting and industrial activity. Adding another major logistics operation could increase cumulative impacts. What will the combined traffic, noise, lighting and emergency-service burden be when this project is added to existing and approved port operations?

I am concerned about the former BHP Steelworks history of the site. Construction involving excavation, drainage and hardstand works could disturb legacy contamination. The assessment should identify remaining contamination risks and establish strict controls for excavation, soil handling, dust and contaminated material. What guarantee can the proponent provide that previously unidentified contamination will not be disturbed and spread through construction dust, soil movement or stormwater?

I object because the site forms part of Newcastle’s important industrial heritage. The Roll Shop and other elements of the former steelworks environment have historical significance, and intensive logistics operations could alter the heritage setting.
How will the proponent preserve the industrial character and heritage context of the site while operating a large modern logistics facility?

The proposed use of the Roll Shop for smaller components, dangerous goods, heritage items and maintenance equipment concerns me because these activities have different safety and conservation requirements. Dangerous goods require appropriate separation, containment and fire protection, while heritage materials require protection from damage. How can the proponent demonstrate that dangerous goods, maintenance activities and heritage materials can safely coexist within the same building?

I object because the large hardstand areas proposed for the precinct could increase stormwater runoff and the potential for pollutants to enter the drainage system. Vehicles, machinery, stored equipment, spills and industrial activity can introduce contaminants. What is the maximum volume of contaminated stormwater or emergency runoff that the site can contain before any discharge to the surrounding environment could occur?

I am concerned about the possibility of a major fire or hazardous-material incident occurring during extreme weather or flooding conditions. Emergency access, drainage and containment arrangements must remain effective when severe weather affects the site.
Can the proponent demonstrate that emergency vehicles will still have unrestricted access and that hazardous materials will remain secure during the worst credible flood and weather conditions?

I object because a 24-hour logistics facility could create significant lighting impacts in addition to noise and traffic. Cranes, storage areas, security lighting and night-time truck movements may produce glare and light spill beyond the site.
What enforceable limits will prevent unnecessary industrial lighting from affecting surrounding areas throughout the night?

I am concerned that the project may contribute to increasing dependence on intermittent electricity generation while reliable generation is being reduced. The Government should disclose what dispatchable or firming capacity will be available when renewable generation is low.
How many megawatts of dependable generation will actually be available when the renewable projects supported by this precinct are producing little or no electricity?

The planned positioning of unstable lithium-based infrastructure introduces an extremely volatile, severe industrial threat to the local area and a national security disaster for Australia.

This volatile setup full of unethical, incapable Chinese batteries are inherently susceptible to catastrophic sabotage and thermal runaway events that are life-threatening and cannot be controlled or contained.

I object because I believe NSW should retain a diversified electricity-generation system that includes reliable dispatchable generation. I do not support the assumption that coal-fired generation should simply be replaced as quickly as possible.
Why has continued coal-fired generation or modernisation of existing coal infrastructure not been treated as a serious alternative when assessing the need for this project?