Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System

18846

Tamworth Regional Council

09/02/2026

Comment

Email

Thank you for the opportunity for Council to provide extra commentary to The Commission. Please find Councils submission attached. Kind Regards,

IPC Submission - Tamworth Regional Council Kingswood BESS_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 313.45 KB)

18906

‘Save Our Surroundings Riverina’

10/02/2026

Object

Email

IPCN Submission Objection to KINGSWOOD BESS - SSD-63207219 1. Systemic Risk, Irreversibility, and Public Safety Failure This proposal represents a systemic failure of risk assessment rather than a routine planning matter. The Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) introduces an industrial hazard class that has never previously existed at this scale in this rural setting, yet it is being assessed through planning frameworks designed for conventional, low-risk development. Lithium-ion BESS facilities are not passive infrastructure. They are chemically active, failure-prone systems capable of entering uncontrolled thermal runaway, generating extreme heat, toxic aerosols, corrosive gases, and persistent environmental contaminants. Once initiated, these processes cannot be neutralised, contained, or reliably extinguished using current emergency response capabilities. This is not a hypothetical risk. It is an established failure mode repeatedly documented in large-scale BESS incidents internationally. 2. Cumulative Industrialisation and Concentrated Hazard The Kingswood BESS cannot be assessed in isolation. The proposal sits within an emerging cluster of high-risk energy infrastructure, including: Tamworth BESS Calala BESS Multiple large-scale solar generation facilities Additionally: Lambrook Solar – ~8 km Middlebrook Solar – ~17 km Middlebrook (Nottingham Park) Solar – ~23 km Kootingal Solar – ~13 km The cumulative effect is the large-scale, irreversible toxic contamination and industrialisation of a rural and residential landscape, unjustly and irresponsibly concentrating life-threatening hazards while fragmenting responsibility across separate approvals. This flawed approach systematically understates risk and defeats the purpose of precautionary planning. 3. Absence of a Mandatory Decommissioning and Contamination Bond The application fails to include an essential decommissioning, remediation, and contamination bond that reflects the true risk profile of Lithium-ion BESS failure. Evidence from major battery fires demonstrates that contamination: Is not confined to the site boundary Includes toxic metals and persistent chemicals Disperses into air, soils, waterways, and sediments Enters food chains Can remain undetected for years Once released, there is no practical remediation pathway capable of restoring the environment to baseline conditions. This renders the risk irreversible, transferring long-term liability to landholders, residents, and the local Council. Approving the project without independent, reputable risk research and a fully costed, independently assessed financial bond constitutes an unacceptable exposure of the public to life-threatening risks and uninsurable loss. 4. Emergency Response Assumptions Are Not Credible The emergency response framework underpinning this proposal is fundamentally unrealistic. Fire authorities have repeatedly acknowledged that: Lithium-ion battery fires cannot be reliably extinguished Firefighters are often forced to withdraw entirely due to lethal atmospheric conditions Thermal runaway can reignite days or weeks later Toxic smoke plumes are unpredictable and uncontrollable Planning assumptions regarding evacuation, shelter-in-place, or suppression are therefore theoretical rather than operational. Approval of this facility would amount to institutional acceptance of a disaster scenario for which no effective response exists. 5. Environmental Persistence and “Forever Chemicals” Peer-reviewed research and post-incident environmental testing following major BESS fires (including Moss Landing) demonstrates widespread deposition of: Heavy metals Cathode materials Persistent chemicals, including PFAS These substances: Are biologically persistent Accumulate in ecosystems Pose long-term risks to human and environmental health Unlike conventional industrial contamination, many of these pollutants are difficult to locate, track, or remediate, compounding long-term uncertainty and harm. The Commonwealth’s move to ban key PFAS compounds from July 2025 underscores the seriousness of this risk profile and highlights the NSW Government’s regulatory lag in addressing lithium-ion battery hazards. 6. Lack of Proportional Public Benefit Critically, the risks imposed by this facility are not offset by commensurate public benefit. The Kingswood BESS: Does not provide firm or dispatchable generation Does not guarantee grid resilience during prolonged adverse weather Does not materially reduce exposure to energy supply disruption Does not deliver direct, enduring benefit to the host community Instead, it concentrates hazard, externalises risk, and socialises long-term consequences while privatising returns. This is not precautionary planning. It is the normalisation of unmanageable risk in a community that has neither consented to nor benefits from its imposition. 7. Conclusion The Kingswood Battery Energy and Storage System represents a qualitative shift in risk, not a marginal or manageable impact. Given: The irreversible nature of potential contamination The lack of effective emergency response capability The absence of a meaningful decommissioning and remediation bond The cumulative industrialisation of the region The lack of proportional public benefit This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection of public safety, environmental integrity, and rural community wellbeing. For these reasons, the application should be absolutely rejected. From: ‘Save Our Surroundings Riverina’

18911

10/02/2026

Object

Email

IPCN Kingswood Battery Energy and Storage System , SSD-63207219, Objection Submission The following response - received 03/02/2026 - from the Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF)- regarding the importation of certain types of Banned PFAS - including PFOS & ASBESTOS in so called ‘Renewable’ Components is very revealing as to the total lack of essential Regulation & Legislation for the UNClean, Toxic Contaminating Solar/Wind Industry - despite the long known ASBESTOS BAN & Commonwealth PFAS BAN - including PFOS - since 1st July 2025 -> **COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025. (21 Feb 2024) Our Assessment of the Border Force reply is as follows: What it confirms clearly • There is no effective border-level prohibition on PFAS/PFOA or Bisphenol A in renewable energy components. • The system relies on voluntary industry compliance and future legislation, not enforceable controls. • Responsibility is fragmented and deflected between agencies (ABF → DCCEEW → states/territories). • Importers are effectively given a regulatory grace period to “establish compliant practices” without penalties. That last point is the most damning. What the letter unintentionally admits • Australia is knowingly allowing high-risk chemicals into the country while acknowledging their environmental and health risks. • Enforcement is aspirational, not operational. • The Commonwealth currently lacks the legal tools it claims are necessary, yet continues to permit imports. • Renewable energy infrastructure is being treated as a regulatory exception zone. This is classic regulatory capture by delay: “We agree it’s dangerous, but we’ll act later.” Structural failure exposed • No independent accreditation body for toxicological risk of renewable infrastructure. • No lifecycle regulation (import → use → disposal). • No precautionary principle applied, despite PFAS being globally recognised as persistent, bioaccumulative toxins. • No mandatory disclosure requirements for chemical composition of components. In plain terms: The system is built to facilitate rollout first, and manage harm later, if ever. Strategic value of this document This is actually a strong piece of evidence for future use because: • It documents official knowledge of risk. • It establishes foreseeability of harm. • It shows government awareness without enforcement. • It weakens any future claim of “unanticipated consequences.” That makes it useful for: • submissions, • complaints, • Senate inquiries, • judicial review groundwork, • and cumulative impact arguments. Bottom line The letter is polite, procedural, and calm — but substantively it is an admission of regulatory failure. Not incompetence. Not ignorance. Choice. According to the most credible, independent Expert Witnesses, none of the industrialised Solar/Wind/BESS infrastructure would ever have been approved if they had done an ESSENTIAL RISK ASSESSMENT based on REPUTABLE, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH - due to the TOXIC CONTAMINATION impacts for AGRICULTURE. For this evidence based reason, Kingswood BESS must be rejected. Yours Sincerely, Lynette LaBlack Response from Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF)- Importation of Banned PFOS & ASBESTOS in Solar/Wind/BESS Components IPCN Kingswood Battery Energy and Storage System , SSD-63207219, Objection Submission The following response - received 03/02/2026 - from the Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF)- regarding the importation of certain types of Banned PFAS - including PFOS & ASBESTOS in so called ‘Renewable’ Components is very revealing as to the total lack of essential Regulation & Legislation for the UNClean, Toxic Contaminating Solar/Wind Industry - despite the long known ASBESTOS BAN & Commonwealth PFAS BAN - including PFOS - since 1st July 2025 -> **COMMONWEALTH PFAS BAN Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. In its most definitive regulatory action taken to date, the Commonwealth has effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025. (21 Feb 2024) Our Assessment of the Border Force reply is as follows: What it confirms clearly • There is no effective border-level prohibition on PFAS/PFOA or Bisphenol A in renewable energy components. • The system relies on voluntary industry compliance and future legislation, not enforceable controls. • Responsibility is fragmented and deflected between agencies (ABF → DCCEEW → states/territories). • Importers are effectively given a regulatory grace period to “establish compliant practices” without penalties. That last point is the most damning. What the letter unintentionally admits • Australia is knowingly allowing high-risk chemicals into the country while acknowledging their environmental and health risks. • Enforcement is aspirational, not operational. • The Commonwealth currently lacks the legal tools it claims are necessary, yet continues to permit imports. • Renewable energy infrastructure is being treated as a regulatory exception zone. This is classic regulatory capture by delay: “We agree it’s dangerous, but we’ll act later.” Structural failure exposed • No independent accreditation body for toxicological risk of renewable infrastructure. • No lifecycle regulation (import → use → disposal). • No precautionary principle applied, despite PFAS being globally recognised as persistent, bioaccumulative toxins. • No mandatory disclosure requirements for chemical composition of components. In plain terms: The system is built to facilitate rollout first, and manage harm later, if ever. Strategic value of this document This is actually a strong piece of evidence for future use because: • It documents official knowledge of risk. • It establishes foreseeability of harm. • It shows government awareness without enforcement. • It weakens any future claim of “unanticipated consequences.” That makes it useful for: • submissions, • complaints, • Senate inquiries, • judicial review groundwork, • and cumulative impact arguments. Bottom line The letter is polite, procedural, and calm — but substantively it is an admission of regulatory failure. Not incompetence. Not ignorance. Choice. According to the most credible, independent Expert Witnesses, none of the industrialised Solar/Wind/BESS infrastructure would ever have been approved if they had done an ESSENTIAL RISK ASSESSMENT based on REPUTABLE, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH - due to the TOXIC CONTAMINATION impacts for AGRICULTURE. For these evidence based reasons, Kingswood BESS must be rejected. Yours Sincerely, Lynette LaBlack References: **’Forever chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment **Coastal Wetland Deposition of Cathode Metals from the World’s Largest Lithium-ion Battery Fire" (Moss Landing BESS FIRE) According to independent Experts this is actually worse than a radioactivity spill. A lot of this very toxic stuff is not easily located. Whereas, with radioactivity, one needs just a hand-held Geiger counter to locate the pollutant. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25972-8#Tab1 **Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems “The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services. BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems **Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf **Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E **https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/ **https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/ **https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals-around-20163514.php **https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough-lithium-battery-facility-fire/ **Battery recycling plant explodes - twice. (What it means for you.) | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nzOJ01Fkc **Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks & Extinguisher Limitations 1.CSIRO ActivFire® Advisory Note AN 004 CSIRO explicitly states it "has not and will not certify … that any fire extinguisher can effectively extinguish a Li Ion battery fire." Verification Services **”There is a general lack of guidance and provisions in building codes, standards, and legislation in relation to safety to address the potential risks from these emerging technologies. Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.” https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9402 **Response from Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF)- Importation of Banned PFOS & ASBESTOS in Solar/Wind/BESS Components Sent from my iPhone

FEEDBACK (IMMI-26-00117-1) [SEC=OFFICIAL].pdf (PDF, 39.45 KB)

18581

New South Wales 2700

10/02/2026

Object

Website

I do not support the battery installation on any country let alone in a productive rural area. The potential for contamination is totally unexceptionable. Look at the large scale contamination in an around the defence basis around Australia. PFAS Agricultural land has been contaminated with toxic forever chemicals, for ever contaminated. Batteries contain such toxic chemicals as lead silver and PFAS. Do not build toxic dangerous explosive batteries.

18751

Redacted

10/02/2026

Object

Website

I object because BESS projects are too damaging to the communities, landscapes, environment and animals. What happens when they catch fire? How will the noise from BESS impact livestock and native wildlife? Not only are they dangerous, they are an absolute eye-sore. Let’s put these closer to the cities so all the NIMBYs can marvel at what their vote has given them.

18851

Redacted

09/02/2026

Object

Email

I have attached the objection in PDF format with the Names redacted. I would prefer to have the names removed as we have had other residents intimidated by the proprietor for speaking out against the development unfortunately.

BESS Objection to Health and Amenity.pdf (PDF, 134.79 KB)

17721

Redacted

09/02/2026

Object

Postal

See attached

Kingswood Redacted.pdf (PDF, 7.58 MB)

14341

30/01/2026

Object

Email

Attention: Geoff Kwok (Redacted), I am unable to attend this local meeting I still would like to put forward my objection to the Kingwood BESS The following points of concern to us, being a close neighbour ( we live at (Redacted) ) 1) Devaluation of our property, we have lived here for 21 years, and at no stage was this type of industry would be any where near our property, Estimated devaluation stands at around $500,000 based on three real estates in Tamworth 2) Traffic, already we have been informed that the Calala BESS will be adding around 160 extra vehicle movements ( once the Bridge is open, which should be soon ) 3) Noise, already the upgrade of Transgrid ( which happened about two years ago ) has the noise increased. We were told the noise would be around the noise of a refrigerator ( This is not true ) 4) The outlook from our property will be ugly, white storage systems, lined up in a row is going to look awful, already the look of the Calala BESS is proving this to be correct . 5) Who looks after this project once completed ? We were told no one is actually onsite. Sorry I am unable to attend . Looking forward to hearing the outcome of this meeting Regards Cathi Maher

10176

New South Wales 2340

13/01/2026

Object

Website

I would like to register my objection to the above proposed developments/projects. • Such developments are not in keeping with our rural area and will be of no benefit to our region. • I believe the technology is flawed and in the event of a fire the batteries will be unable to be extinguished and will emit toxic gases and leak toxic chemicals. • The area is frequently cut off by flood waters. • If there were to be a fire and the area was affected by a flood where would the local residents be evacuated to? Also, fire fighting support be unable to reach the area to prevent the spread of any fire. • Burgmanns Lane is part of the proposed Tamworth bypass, this would pose a greater risk of accidents around the site. • The local residents rely of bore water. This is at risk of contamination. • The Goonoo Goonoo Creek is at risk of contamination and therefore the Peel River is also at risk of contamination. . This development with have a direct negative impact on property values in the area.

10056

New South Wales 2340

12/01/2026

Object

Website

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development of a battery energy storage system on Burgmans Lane, Tamworth. While I am a staunch supporter of sustainable energy solutions, this project is not appropriately cited, given its proximity to residential areas and the negative impacts it will have on the local community. The placement of such an industrial facility in a rural-residential zoned area is inappropriate and ill-conceived, considering the detrimental effects on neighbouring properties, residents, and the environment. Impact on Property Values and Lack of Compensation The proposed battery plant poses a significant threat to the value of properties in the vicinity. I know several homeowners on Burgmans Lane who have been informed that their property values could decrease by over $500,000 if this project goes ahead. This potential devaluation is not just a number, but a substantial financial burden on these residents who have invested their life savings into their homes. Despite this, there appears to be no provision for financial compensation from the government or industry for those most vulnerable and affected by this development. It is only fair that property evaluations be conducted before and after the installation of the plant, with homeowners compensated for any shortfall. The lack of care and compensation for those impacted highlights a grave oversight in the planning of this project. Environmental and Visual Pollution The proposed development will dramatically alter the environmental landscape of the area. The mass installation of industrial plants in what is currently a rural residential area will create an eyesore, detracting from the natural beauty that residents and visitors value. The visual pollution caused by the battery storage system, with its stark industrial appearance, is incompatible with the existing aesthetic of the area. This change will not only affect the residents' quality of life but also potentially diminish the area's attractiveness for future buyers, further exacerbating the issue of property devaluation. Increased Traffic and Road Damage The construction and operation of the battery storage system will inevitably lead to increased traffic on Burgmans Lane and surrounding dirt roads. These roads are already in poor condition, and the additional burden of heavy vehicles will exacerbate their deterioration, leading to more potholes and road damage. This poses a significant safety risk to all road users, including local residents, school buses, and emergency services. The current infrastructure is not equipped to handle the increased traffic, and the subsequent road maintenance costs will likely fall on the local government and taxpayers. Dust, Noise, and Visual Pollution The proposed development will generate significant dust, noise, and visual pollution during the construction, delivery, and implementation phases. This will disrupt the peaceful, rural environment that residents currently enjoy. The noise from construction activities and ongoing operations, including the hum of transformers and cooling systems, will disturb the area's tranquillity. While soundproofed windows may be suggested as a mitigation measure, they are insufficient for a community that values fresh country air and the ability to enjoy outdoor spaces without constant noise. Insufficient Mitigation Measures The proposed mitigation measures, such as soundproofed windows, do not adequately address the concerns of the affected residents. Country living is synonymous with open windows and fresh air, not being confined indoors to escape noise pollution. A more effective solution would include the construction of noise walls around the entire site, with massive trees planted in front to blend the facility into the natural landscape it will otherwise mar. However, even this measure does not fully mitigate the impacts on the community. The best solution would be to relocate the plant to a less intrusive location, further away from residential areas, where it would not affect neighbours within at least a one-kilometre radius. Negative Impact on Agricultural Land The development will also ruin valuable agricultural farming land. This area is not just a residential zone but also a hub for agricultural activities. The construction of the battery plant will take away land that could otherwise be used for farming, impacting local food production and the livelihoods of those who depend on agriculture. The rural residential zoning of the area is intended to support both residential and agricultural uses, and the introduction of an industrial facility contradicts this purpose. Risk of Fires One of the most critical concerns associated with the proposed battery storage farm is the risk of fires. Battery energy storage systems, particularly those using lithium-ion technology, are known to have a risk of thermal runaway, which can lead to fires that are extremely difficult to control. Such fires can burn intensely, release toxic fumes, and potentially result in explosions. Given the rural nature of the area and the potential delay in emergency response times, a fire at this facility could have catastrophic consequences. Local firefighting resources may not be adequately equipped to handle such incidents, further exacerbating the risk to residents and the environment. The difficulty in managing these types of fires cannot be overstated and adds a significant hazard to the proposed development. Lack of Consideration for Community Welfare One of the most pressing unanswered questions is what steps are being taken to support those most affected by the development. The community deserves a detailed plan outlining how the negative impacts will be mitigated and how residents will be compensated for their losses. This includes not only financial compensation but also practical measures to ensure their quality of life is not unduly compromised. In conclusion, while the development of a battery energy storage system is a step towards sustainable energy, the chosen location on Burgmans Lane, Tamworth, is highly inappropriate. The negative impacts on property values, the environmental landscape, road conditions, noise levels, and agricultural land far outweigh any potential benefits. I urge the planning committee to reconsider the placement of this project and to explore alternative locations that would not impose such significant burdens on the local community. Relocating the plant to a more suitable site, further away from residential areas, would demonstrate a commitment to both sustainable energy and the community's well-being. Thank you for considering my objection.

Kingswood bess.pdf (PDF, 57.87 KB)

10076

New South Wales 2340

12/01/2026

Object

Website

Please find two attachments for submission and Mitigation from Ibredrola

IPC_Objection_Kingswood_BESS_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 12.64 KB)

18731

New South Wales 2340

10/02/2026

Support

Website

I support the Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System and live within 2km of this project. I note in the Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System State Significant Development Assessment Report ( SSD 63207219) December 2025 that "The Department consulted with Council and relevant government agencies on key issues, inspected the site and visited nearby sensitive receivers. None of the agencies , Council, or utility providers objected to the project " and further that "In response to agency and Council advice"...amendments have been made and now "The project amendments would lead to better outcomes and addresses key concerns raised by the Department, Council and agencies." It is satisfying that Tamworth Regional Council has no objections to the project and that the Department approves the project . It is pleasing to see that there are no issues with noise, traffic and transport, land use compatibility, hazards and visual amenity. The project is ideally located on cleared rural land used for existing electrical infrastructure and cattle grazing. It will have no significant effect on the agricultural impact of the area as it only impacts 0.0005% of the local agricultural area(Department Report). The project is situated 800metres from the Tamworth Substation and is closely located to proposed surrounding solar farms. The Project is located 8km from the proposed Lambrook Solar Farm, 13km from the proposed Kootingal Solar Farm, 17km from the proposed Middlebrook Solar and 23km from the proposed Nottingham Solar Farm. It is 6km from Tamworth. Australia and the rest of the World are in an energy transition from dangerous Green House Gas producing fossil fuel energy to renewable energy. Renewable Energy sources are intermittent and require energy storing systems such as batteries.This project will be an essential component in NSW's Climate Change Policy Framework to obtain Net Zero by 2050 and to meet The Paris Agreement of maintaining Global Warming to 1.5 degreeC ..Australia's temperature is already 1.5 degreeC above the temp recorded in 1910 when temperatures were first recorded. More renewable energy sources and storage systems such as this Battery Storage System are vital . Decentralised renewable energy production and energy storage systems are essential in a just and equitable transition from fossil fuel energy production because it will lead to opportunities for innovation in industry, agriculture, health, jobs, sport and recreational activities in rural and remote area. Rural people often complain about being left out of opportunities available to city folk The Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System by being part of a decentralised energy system will assist in equality of opportunity for rural residents. Residents in this area, north-western NSW , have suffered from the adverse impacts of Climate Change which is caused by Green House gases produced by fossil fuels. We have more hotter days in summer , bushfies of greater intensity than before and floods. All of these have adverse effects on health, education, earning capacity and wellbeing. Future generations area will benefit from a transition to renewable energy and storage. This transition must happen now. The project which will have a capacity of up to 270Megawatts and provide up to 1,080 Megawatt-hours of battery storage, will be able to increase grid stability and energy security by dispatching energy to the grid during peak demand periods. The project will play an essential role in NSW's transition to a renewable energy future. The Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System is compatible with the Commonwealth's Renewable Energy Target and NSW'S Climate Change Policy Framework and Net Zero Plan Stage 1 2020-2030 and with local government, Tamworth Regional Council. The NSW Government has confirmed that a contract was awarded to the Kingswood Battery Energy System on 9.02. 2025 . ( New England Times 10.02.2025) The Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System will play an important role in ensuring a safe equitable energy transition . Please approve this project.

17651

New South Wales 2340

09/02/2026

Support

Website

This development proposal has the opportunity to contribute to improved welfare and energy security for all residents of Kingswood, my community of Tamworth and greater NSW. It will contribute to reduction in fossil fuel consumption and hence contribute to actions addressing causes of climate change. The net benefits to the Kingswood, my community of Tamworth and Greater NSW community far out weigh any short term impacts such as traffic and noise. As for the suggestions of flooding and fire risk these issues are delt with by the normal regulatory channels. This project offers opportunity for Tamworth be part of the future energy hub for NSW. It is not an opportunity to squander. Reading a number of the objection submission I am disappointing to read so much disinformation being submitted. It reflects the "influencers" influence where facts are not important. Some of these false facts also raising undue concern for community members. It would be beneficial I think for the IPC to publish comment where appropriate, flagging submission that have unverified or factually incorrect content. I encourage the IPC to approve this project, and allow for the fast tracking of construction. This needs to happen now.

16491

New South Wales 2340

05/02/2026

Support

Website

I strongly support the development of renewable energy projects and related infrastructure. This can only have positive impacts for a community such as Tamworth, with regard to income, land values, climate effects and future socio-economic prospects. Please persist despite the nay-sayers and protect the future prospects of this town and community through a clean energy transition.

11401

Redacted

24/01/2026

Support

Website

I am the owner of the property proposed for the Iberdrola Kingswood Battery Energy Storage System project and wish to make an anonymous submission in support of the proposal. Iberdrola has been excellent to work with throughout the consultation and assessment process. Their team has shown genuine understanding and empathy, particularly in recognising the responsibilities and concerns that come with hosting a project of this nature. Communication has been clear, timely, and transparent at all stages. The project team has been approachable and readily available, including making the effort to meet in person during site visits when in the area. This level of engagement has been greatly appreciated and reflects a strong commitment to working collaboratively and respectfully with landowners and the local community. Based on my experience as the landowner, Iberdrola has conducted themselves professionally and in good faith, and I have confidence in both the project and the way it has been managed to date. Thank you for considering this submission.