I strongly object to this project.
This area is in a rugged, heavily timbered area which is frequently subject to lightning strikes. The bushfire risk of this area is extreme. Our family are volunteer fire fighters and we will not be attending a fire where there are turbines and BESS structures. This area has to be protected by aerial bombing and the pilots have agreed that it is too dangerous to fly amongst the turbines even when they are stationary. So a summer storm will start a fire and it will quickly get out of control and threaten neighbours, villages and even Yass, Murrumbateman and Canberra.

This area is heavily timbered with old growth native trees. These trees provide habitat for many animals, birds in particular require hollow limbs for nests. This project will require wholesale clearing of old growth native trees and subsequent lose of habitat. Promises of planting new trees will not be a solution as the trees take decades if not centuries to provide the correct conditions for the birds.
This is an agricultural area. We are already saturated with wind turbines. I strongly oppose the further industrialization of agricultural land.

The modification to the Goldwind Coppabella wind farm is unacceptable. The proposed BESS batteries under each turbine will create an unacceptable fire risk on the steepest hills in the area, which are not accessible by on ground fire crews. Additionally, fires from wind farms cannot be fought by aerial firefighters (please see attached expert and peer reviewed Fire Risk Report). This is a fire prone area and this added risk places communities in danger of wild fires, potentially reaching the township of Yass NSW and the city of Canberra. The landscape of these hills make the addition of BESS under each turbine implausible, these hills are prone to erosion and the works required will increase the probability of severe erosion. The project is located on slopes steeper than 20° (≈36% grade), in a soil landscape the proponent’s own documents describe as having 30–50% slope and a high erosion hazard.” This modification cannot be allowed approval.

I object to SSD-6698-MOD-2 on the grounds that the proposal introduces increased bushfire risk into an already high-risk rural landscape and does not demonstrate that these risks can be practically managed by local emergency services.
The project is located in a bushfire-prone area where terrain and limited accessibility already create elevated fire risk. The proposal to install up to 318 lithium-based battery containers across 53 ridgeline turbine sites would further increase both the likelihood and consequences of fire, as well as the risk to emergency service personnel expected to respond in this environment. There is a real likelihood that fire services would be forced into a defensive firefighting strategy, leaving the surrounding landscape and nearby properties at an unacceptable level of risk. This risk extends beyond property, it is risk to people and livestock's lives, noting that this is a predominantly agricultural setting.
Introducing hundreds of high-energy battery systems into a fire-prone landscape materially changes the risk profile of the project. Even where infrastructure is located within existing disturbance envelopes, the nature and scale of the fire hazard are fundamentally different from those considered under the original approval.
This modification therefore does not satisfy the requirement under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that a modification be “substantially the same development”.
On fire-safety grounds alone, SSD-6698-MOD-2 should not be approved. The risk to life, property, livestock, and the broader landscape is significant and has not been robustly assessed, modelled, or mitigated.

As a very near Neighbour who will see turbines from my home. By 100% of object to the project for many reasons cited by neighbours. I particularly object to the inclusion of BESS batteries with every turbine. They are enormous fire hazards in a very high danger fire zone. This is prime farmland. There are enough renewable energy in this area and ready. This is not a governance sanctioned renewable area. Object to saying about my window. I have not been consulted in anyway or contacted or recompensed.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed modification to incorporate decentralised Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) at the Coppabella Wind Farm location.

Our property is an active agricultural holding producing food for human consumption and livestock markets. The introduction of multiple industrial-scale BESS units (the size of shipping containers) in close proximity presents unacceptable and unquantified risks to agricultural production, community safety, and environmental health.

Bushfire & Emergency Response Risk
Lithium battery fires are resistant to conventional suppression and burn at extreme temperatures, producing toxic byproducts requiring large-scale exclusion zones. Local RFS brigades are primarily volunteer-based and not equipped for industrial lithium fire response on elevated terrain.

Contamination Risk to Food Production
A failure event may release heavy metals, fluorinated gases, and contaminated firewater runoff that could enter pasture, dams, soil and subsequently the human food chain. No evidence has been provided of independent agricultural impact modelling.

Land-Use Conflict
The introduction of industrial infrastructure into a rural food-producing landscape is inconsistent with the character and zoning of the region. The ongoing agricultural viability of surrounding land has not been assessed.

Decommissioning, Failure and Liability
There is insufficient detail on end-of-life disposal, remediation, and who bears liability should the operating entity become insolvent.

For these reasons, I request that the modification proposal be rejected until independent agricultural, fire safety, environmental and emergency-management studies are undertaken and publicly released.

Please see attached letter of objection to the proposed Modification.

This submission has been removed from publication due to inappropriate or potentially defamatory content. However the Department, in assessing and making any recommendations in relation to this application will take into consideration such of the submission’s content that is relevant. The submission will also still be counted for the purpose of identifying who can determine the application.

This BESS plan demonstrates reckless disregard for safety.
Proceeding despite known hazards as the DPHI and IPCN are irresponsibly doing - constitutes reckless disregard for human life, bordering on a conscious violation of safety rights.

Even Fire authorities acknowledge BESS standards and codes lag deployment, turning communities into unwilling test subjects for life threatening, dangerous experiments they don’t know how to handle.