False claims that there is “no likely impact on agricultural land” are completely unfounded.

Hazardous FIRES, toxic leachate from battery chemicals, and Bis-FASI PFAS contamination are proven risks, not hypothetical concerns.

Commonwealth PFAS BAN began 1st July 2025.
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines has added a BIG NO to Toxic PFAS contaminants - FOREVER CHEMICALS - WHICH ARE IN RECKLESS RUIN-A-BULLS LIKE THIS CHINESE BATTERY.

The developer’s consultants used the NSW Large-Scale Solar Energy Guideline (2022) to justify a reduced (Level 2) soil assessment, despite the eSpade 2020 data showing Class 3 Land and Soil Capability (LSC).
This constitutes a false environmental foundation for the project.

I object to this poisonous JINDERA BESS inevitably contaminating limited, irreplaceable Agricultural Land - essential for HEALTHY FOOD PRODUCTION.

The project is being planned on highly productive farming land - downgraded in assessments to Class 4 to justify the development.

This is deliberate data manipulation that masks the true agricultural value of the site — a betrayal of long-term food security.

This is just another renewable energy project ruining this country
250 MW, 500 mwh Battery storage facility situated on agricultural land which they have actually classified as class 4 which is ridiculous Who does these classifications? What accreditation do they have ,
And the report that it will not have any impact on agricultural land? What about contamination water run-off erosion when they’re actually constructing it
you’ve got waterways running from this location. To various creeks and eventually in
To Lake Hume no one can guarantee that. There’s no contamination in the run-off projects we also ask a question in regards to controlling fires on this site. What happens to all the waste water from a fire incident. Also, does the local Fire Brigade have the Equipment to contain these fires?
I Strongly oppose this project, like many others
Net zero 2050 will not ever be achieved net zero 2050 is destroying
Australia economy, growth and stability , all theses projects owned by off shore companies and no benefit to Australians

Unacceptable to destroy so much native flora, fauna and endangered species. Again the power at any cost to the environment including the increased potential for fire and damage to privately held property adjacent to the corridor.

I was just looking at the report on the BESS battery fire in Geelong Victoria in 2021 and I can't believe that the health department did not do testing on the local community for contamination and exposer to these released chemical, to my knowledge. Opportunity missed. I have to ask my self why??? Covid was in full swing and I find it very interesting that VIC had the most amount of people die during this time. It may have just been a coincident, I don't know. Maybe the health department knew what the results would be???? If the testing on the community was carried out and proved either these BESS were safe or dangerous to the community maybe there may or may not be a case to burden our communities with these portential toxic killers. These are my thoughts.

BESS batteries have a propensity to catch fire and when they do that emit extremely dangerous and toxic chemicals and to fight such fires requires a Hazmat response as breathing equipment must be used. There is a significant human and animal risk of being contaminated.
Additionally, the propensity to catch fire poses a fire risk to adjoining properties.
The proponent needs to do a hazard and risk analysis including fire and life safety systems and share with FRNSW.

Community batteries are an important part of the clean energy transition. A community battery also supports energy independence for communities. I support this project. Thank you.

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to Jindera BESS

The transition to renewable energy requires unprecedented development across NSW. The planning and delivery of many generation projects in Renewable Energy Zones and the required interconnecting transmission projects in the grid across NSW are collectively ALL currently required to meet targets and to successfully deliver both the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and to successfully contribute towards delivering the Nations Integrated System Plan as designed by AEMO.

The fact that the entire Scope and Scale of (a) each REZ and (b) for the full NSW REZ and Transmission plan has not been presented to the NSW Public, in my mind, is neither fair or just. Assessing each project individually, is taking advantage of the current dated and flawed NSW planning system and fails to present the transition transparently and with adequate due-diligence and accountability for impacts, particularly cumulative impacts to the State and to the people, lands and water of NSW.

As a resident of rural NSW, I am concerned that the planning process for this type and scale of transition is not protecting NSW Agriculture, rural communities and the future of rural and regional NSW and Australia.

I liken this type of assessment for Australia’s first Renewable Energy Zones and associated transmission infrastructure to building a Nation-first Hospital but presenting only one room or ward at a time for assessment.

Across the vast rural areas of NSW collectively, there is and will be, a mostly unknown permanent change to landscapes and rural community character, a significant interruption to and reduction of farmland and food and fibre production, a permanent change to rural tourism products, the destruction of community cohesion and the introduction of a multitude and magnitude of new electricity generation and associated transmission infrastructure – these are all critical and fundamental reasons that this transition needs to be presented to the people of NSW holistically, not in part and 1 project at a time.

Residents within a REZ have never been presented with what a REZ fully entails. The EPA Act requires public exhibition of certain development proposals, allowing rural communities to provide input on projects that may alter their landscapes or way of life. This ensures community voices are considered in decisions affecting rural areas. Presenting each project within a REZ and projects required for bringing this generation to the grid one by one, pushes on the boundaries of project fragmentation or project splitting, which the EPA Act explicitly tries to prevent. It is the responsibility of the NSW Government to recognise this.

The NSW Government is committed to delivering the NSW Electricity Roadmap and is significantly funding EnergyCO as the Infrastructure planner for each REZ, a REZ cannot deliver what is required by the State without the culmination of generation, storage, firming and transmission projects. Assessing each project one by one is pulling the wool over the eyes of every NSW resident and taking advantage of legislation written before a REZ concept was even thought of.

It appears to me, that the NSW Land and Environment Court has played a critical role in preventing project splitting. Courts have ruled that assessing components of a larger project in isolation may breach the EPA Act’s requirement for comprehensive environmental assessment. Eg. In Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (2019) NSWLEC 55, the court emphasised the need to consider the full scope of a project’s impacts, including related infrastructure.

I firmly object to the approval of this project until such time as the entire NSW REZ rollout, associated/required generation, storage, firming and transmission projects are transparently presented to the public of NSW for their full consideration and participation.

I object to this project