Bouldercombe locals claims they were beaten down by court costs in BESS battle
The court judgment might say they agreed, but residents claim they were were beaten down by the stress and expense of the justice system.
The court judgment might say they agreed, but residents claim they were were beaten down by the stress and expense of the justice system.
One by one the four Bouldercombe residents spoke to the Planning and Environment Court of their despair and frustration with the legal process that ended with the acceptance of their fate.
“We shouldn’t have to live in fear of what happens when those with the deepest pockets don’t get their way,” is how Bouldercombe property owner Mikaela Humble described the situation they were facing to Judge Nicole Kefford on October 20.
The group were speaking before the court which was about to approve the 500MW Central BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) at Bouldercombe following an appeal by ACEnergy and a negotiated agreement with Rockhampton Regional Council and stakeholders including the handful of residents.
After the decision, Rockhampton Councillor Grant Mathers said it was made with the consent of council because it was satisfied with the conditions negotiated.
“This outcome represents a balanced resolution that takes into account the interests of industry, the community and all relevant stakeholders,” he said.
However, Mrs Humble says the residents had little option but to accept the agreement even though they still bitterly opposed the project going ahead.
Mrs Humble told the judge she “rejected the development” but felt she had no other choice but to agree after a year of stress.
“I’ve felt like my hands are tied and I’m forced to negotiate,” she said.
“I’m out-resourced and pressured into discussions that I don’t agree with. Our options are limited. We either withdraw from the appeal, pay unaffordable costs or agree against our will (to the negotiated changes).
“This development will absolutely without a doubt have ongoing forever negative impacts on families who have to live right next door and the surrounding environment.
“ACEnergy will never be welcome in our community. I wish to say nothing further except that I am dissatisfied with this whole process.”
Judge Kefford recognised it was an “emotionally charged issue” for Mrs Humble, but advised that her statements were in conflict with the negotiated agreement.
She explained in great detail that it was possible for the residents to represent themselves in the Planning and Environment Court with the many resources available to them online.
“This court doesn’t make a determination of success or otherwise based on whether you are legally represented or not. I have to assure you of the ability to be heard,” she said.
She referenced a case she had presided over where three self-represented individuals cross-examined witnesses at trial.
“They had local, factual knowledge that they put to the experts and ultimately, the developer did not succeed, and I’ve
published reasons in respect of that matter,” she said.
“Having said that, there is also other cases where self-represented litigants did not make sufficient effort to properly discharge
their responsibilities in the proceedings and have been the subject of costs orders where they’ve been required to pay several hundred thousands of dollars in costs. Those individuals made no attempt – not only not to engage their own experts but made no attempt to cross-examine witnesses based on their own factual knowledge of things in the locality and things of that nature.”
Bouldercombe resident, Colleen Cooling, Mikaela’s mother, said they had gone to mediation with ACEnergy and were given the indication it was either further mediation or fight the developer in court at their own costs.
“There was no way we could take that risk that we would lose our homes and properties by going down that avenue,” she said.
“So, we went to all the mediation but the whole time was that we don’t agree with it. We don’t agree with their experts.
“We do have local knowledge. It is too close to houses. We all have rainwater tanks. You know, we already have a BESS in our locality that has had a fire.
“As Mikaela says, our hands are tied. We cannot afford to go down and hire or represent ourselves and pay the cost of our own experts to point out some of the inconsistencies.
“We do acknowledge that ACEnergy have made (improvements) changes, but I’m of the opinion that so many changes have been made the whole development should go back to the public so that everyone can see what’s been changed and what’s going to happen.”
After speaking to the four residents, Judge Kefford said she understood that they were “cognisant” that by opposing the development changes or the final judgment it “would mean that there would be responsibilities that you would have to further discharge in the proceedings in terms of preparing for a trial either with or without assistance from experts and lawyers,” she said.
“And that you’re unable to shoulder that burden of the extra responsibilities in terms of the cost and time implications for yourself” and “on that basis, you elect to not oppose final relief”.
“The court is affording you that opportunity, but you’re making an election based on the implications for you personally in terms of the financial and time responsibilities.”
The residents agreed with that summary and so ultimately the decision to approve the amended development application for the Central BESS was made.
Judge Kefford ordered the transcript of the residents’ views be produced and placed on electronic file available, “so that they effectively will indicate the reasons for the amendments to the judgment, in that it’ll record there was discontent from the co-respondents by election, but they’ve elected to not oppose the relief because of the time imposition and the rest of it”.
At her home, Colleen Cooling reflected on the outcome.
“People think I’m very anti-renewables. I’m not. I’m the opposite. I am against them placing them in a place within 700 metres of homes where they are so close to homes and so close to a highway running into a rural village where people drive in and out to work every day,” she said.
If they could have been backed with millions of dollars for expenses, she said they would have continued to fight the project in court on multiple grounds, including land use, noise, appearance and fire risk.
“There’s no way you can tell me 500 white shipping containers sitting on what was what was once a sorghum field is not going to affect the amenity of the area,” she said.
“We love that drive. People from here leave the city and they wind down, driving home and they drive looking at the mountains in the distance as you come into Bouldy.”
Construction of the project is anticipated to commence in mid-2026.
ACEnergy in a statement said that it recognised the community’s views following the approval of the amended development application for the 500MW Central BESS.
“We acknowledge that this project has generated significant community interest and we deeply respect the diverse views that have been shared,” a spokesperson for ACEnergy said.
“This approval comes with strong conditions that reflect community feedback and ensure the highest standards of safety, environmental care, and visual integration.”
The project has received approval of access standards from Australian Energy Market Operator in May 2025 and is currently working with Powerlink to finalise a connection offer.
Meanwhile, the State Government in November approved a Temporary Local Planning Scheme to allow Rockhampton Regional Council to “better manage” the future development of BESS and other renewable projects.
Some of the Central BESS commitments include a dedicated 576,000L firefighting water tank, internal fire breaks, and perimeter fire trails designed for emergency access put in place before operations begin, fire safety plan devised with Queensland Fire Department, painting containers in muted green tones with non-reflective materials to blend in with the natural surroundings, vegetation buffering and site rehabilitation.
