Hunter Transmission Project

We object to the project in its current form as the proposed alignment through the Singleton Military Area (Figure 3.9, Western option) is the one that impacts the community the most as evident in Table 3.10 of the EIS Main Text (Page 96). It is clear that the Eastern option shown in Figure 3.9 has acceptable impacts on the community with substantially less visual, noise, Built heritage and traffic impacts. It is only the Department of Defence’s unsubstantiated view that has led to the selection of the Western option.
See attached document.

The Warkworth airfield is owned and operated by Hunter Valley Gliding club and has NOT been included in the EIS - Aviation impact.
The Airfield WILL be significantly impacted by the HTP and it has been used by the Hunter Valley gliding club continuously for over 60 years. As i regularly fly gliders from Warkworth airfield the HTP WILL potentially impact my safety and ability to operate out of the airfield due to its close proximity.
There is similar aviation activity as occurs in Cessnock, Maitland which HAVE been included in assessment.
The assessment NEEDS to include impact on Warkworth airfield as an important and active aviation airfield within 30NM of transmission lines. The airfield is already adversely impacted by the surrounding mining activity so HTP needs to consult with Hunter Valley Gliding Club to ensure the same consideration is given it as that of Maitland and Cessnock airport to allow continued, safe operations.

This project enables at least 1000 jobs for people in the Hunter region. The impact would be negative on the Hunter region if this did not continue to go ahead.

I am concerned that the project does not take into account the impact on the endangered Littlejohn's Tree Frog
There appear to be construction that will destroy breeding areas of the frog.

I didnt know what this is until 2 seconds ago when got asked to sign something else the basketball arena one but this sounds more important cant cap yk.

As a glider pilot and a power pilot with a glider towing endorsement I object to the location of the 500kV Hunter Transmission Line being 1 nautical mile east of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club runway on operational safety grounds. The Technical Report 16 "Aviation Impact Assessment" portrays a view of technical compliance to regulatory requirements however does not address very real reduction in safety to both glider operations and tow plane operations by the reduction of safety margins which are already limited in both the landing and take-off profiles particularly during emergency scenarios or times of high workloads.

The Mulgoa Valley Landcare group objects to the impacts of this project on the Littlejohns Tree Frog. It is unacceptable that public infrastructure be approved that will impact the future of an endangered species. Billions of dollars are invested in public infrastructure while biodiversity impact avoidance and mitigation is proportionately ignored. This situation has also occurred in the
SnowyHydro 2.0 and the Western Sydney Airport projects - both of these current projects annihilating critically endangered species or ecological communities while the investment mitigation has been underwhelming. if we are to approve such large scale infrastructure, we must also invest sufficiently in biodiversity such that we do not cause further impacts to already threatened species.
Sincerely
Lisa Harrold
President
Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group inc

Please see attached document.

I represent landholders, residents and users of Pokolbin Mountains Road as co-ordinator of the PMR group. Many issues have been raised by the group during engagement and consultation with EnergyCo.
The EIS makes no specific mentions of issued raised. The PMR group encourages and supports individuals making submissions in response to the EIS.

I write to provide feedback on the Hunter Transmission Project, with specific reference to the impacts on local roads within the Cessnock Local Government Area.
This submission reflects not only my own concerns but also the views raised through consultation with many ratepayers, residents and businesses within the LGA that I represent. The consistent message from the community is that the project must not shift the costs or long-term impacts of its infrastructure onto local councils or ratepayers.

One of the key concerns is the increased wear and tear on nominated local roads as a result of heavy vehicle movements during the construction phase. These roads are not designed to accommodate the anticipated construction traffic, and there is a high risk of significant deterioration if measures are not put in place.

I seek assurance that:
Road Maintenance – All nominated local roads used on the project route within our LGA will be adequately maintained throughout the construction period at the proponents cost. I recommend that a detailed pavement investigations of these roads be undertaken prior to construction to determine what upgrades are required, and that such upgrades are completed before the project begins. These investigations and recommendations must be independently audited and verified to ensure transparency and accuracy, with Council provided full access to the findings.
Responsibility – Any road damage directly resulting from construction traffic will be repaired by the developer, ensuring no financial or resource burden is placed on Council or local ratepayers.
Monitoring and Reporting – A transparent process is implemented to assess road condition before, during, and after construction to ensure accountability and timely remediation. This must include regular public reporting of road condition assessments and maintenance actions so that both Council and the community can be confident that commitments are being upheld.
Upgrades and Infrastructure Impacts – At the cost of the developer, any required upgrades to local roads, bridges, grids at intersections, or other related infrastructure affected by the project will be funded and delivered by the proponent.
Reclassification of Access Roads – Any new or upgraded access roads constructed to directly service the transmission line must be reclassified as regional or state roads. This will ensure that the long-term maintenance responsibility lies with the NSW Government rather than local councils and ratepayers, who should not be burdened with the ongoing costs of infrastructure developed solely to service this project.
Traffic Management and Community Safety – A comprehensive traffic management plan must be implemented to minimise the impact of construction vehicles on the community. This should address peak-hour traffic, school bus routes, pedestrian safety, dust and noise control, and the management of heavy vehicle movements near residential areas and sensitive locations. Council and the community should be consulted on the plan and kept informed of any changes during the construction phase.

Ensuring these safeguards are in place will not only protect Council assets but also provide confidence to the community that local infrastructure and community safety will not be adversely impacted by the project.

My support for the Hunter Transmission Project is contingent upon these conditions being met in full. Without clear commitments to these safeguards, I cannot support the project proceeding in its current form.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I trust these concerns will be addressed as part of the project’s planning and implementation.


Sincerely,

Tracey Harrington

Cessnock City Councillor Ward A

Ph 0408679927

Dear Sir
Please read below the attached doc/objection to the HTP project
Regards

Judy Tynan

I am interested in how the culture and heritage on the impacted area will be maintained. My specific points of interest are;
1. How does energy co plan to ensure contractors carry out the work in teh manner that is intended in line with the EI statement. How do we as Aboriginal people get assurance that our cultural significant places, artifacts or sites will not be destroyed.
2. What strategies have been or will be put in place to mitigate this risk? (of contractors not doing what they say they will or caring about what is important to us)
3. Arre there going to be Aboriginal people present throughout or periodically throughout the construction for oversight?
4. How will the land be cleared for the corridor? there are much better options then bulldozing that can maintain the natural landscape and reduce the possibility of erosion or land degradation.
5. what is happening to the material that is being cleared. I understand that Forestry has requested the timber resource be captured from the clearing process, will this happen?
6.What consideration has been given in regards to the workers accommodation? Will this be dismantled at the end of construction or could it be constructed in a more permanent manner so that it may be used after construction as permanent housing considering the current housing crisis. or could the housing be gifted to a local Aboriginal not for profit to run community programs etc.
7. How will Aboriginal people be employed and trained through this project?

Refer attached submission

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed Hunter Transmission Project, specifically the route that would cut through Pokolbin State Forest. This project poses significant threats to the environment, local communities, and the many people who value and explore this unique natural area.

Environmental Impacts:
• Destruction of native habitats: Pokolbin State Forest is home to a diverse range of flora and fauna, including several threatened species. Clearing for transmission lines would irreversibly damage ecosystems and fragment habitats, placing additional stress on vulnerable wildlife.
• Loss of biodiversity: Removal of native vegetation and old-growth trees would reduce biodiversity, disrupt ecological balance, and threaten endangered species that rely on this forest.
• Soil and water impacts: Large-scale clearing and construction can lead to soil erosion, compaction, and potential contamination of nearby waterways, affecting both the forest and surrounding farmland.
• Long-term ecological degradation: The installation of transmission infrastructure can introduce weeds, increase fire risk, and permanently alter the forest landscape.

Impacts on Local Communities and Recreation:
• Loss of public amenity: Pokolbin State Forest is a cherished recreational space for walking, cycling, and nature-based tourism. Construction and ongoing infrastructure would reduce access, degrade the natural experience, and diminish the forest’s appeal.
• Noise, visual, and aesthetic impacts: Transmission towers and powerlines are visually intrusive, disrupting the peaceful and scenic environment that locals and visitors enjoy.
• Tourism and local economy: The Hunter Valley relies on eco-tourism and outdoor recreation. Degradation of the forest could negatively impact local businesses, wineries, and tourism operators who rely on the forest as a drawcard.

Cultural and Community Value:
• Pokolbin State Forest holds significant social and cultural value for local communities, families, and individuals who regularly explore and connect with nature there. The proposed project would undermine this connection, replacing natural landscapes with industrial infrastructure.

In summary, the Hunter Transmission Project through Pokolbin State Forest would cause irreparable harm to the environment, disrupt the lives of local residents, and degrade a valued public space. I urge the NSW Government to reconsider the proposed route and explore alternative alignments that avoid sensitive environmental and community areas.

Thank you for considering this submission

Regards,

Anna-Rose Klaus

Submission to NSW Planning Portal – Hunter Transmission Project
Application Number: SSI-70610456
Applicant: Stuart & Robin Brigden
Address: 67 Bellamy Street, Millfield 2325
Date: 23rd September 2025
To Whom if May Concern,
Submission Title: Objection to the Hunter Transmission Project – Mount View Road, Millfield Owners.

We are writing to provide feedback to the proposed HTP Corridor.
Whilst the submission does not allow us to tick both the boxes *I’m providing comments and * I object to the project… the option chosen of *I’m providing comments should not be taken as our approval of the project.
Rather than question the feasibility of the entire project, our focus here is to reflect on the specific topic of Energy Co’s decision to use Mount View Road and Mt Baker Road through the construction phase.
Millfield has a small population of less than 1500 and is a small rural community. Mount View Road is used by around 50 local residences, but the proposed traffic flow will be immensely disruptive, both from a visual and noise perspective. The road is mainly a narrow, winding dirt road and as such is completely unsuitable to support the type and volume of the traffic proposed. Other access routes have to be considered, even creating a new road that will have less impact and will be much more direct.
Mount View Road runs on the edge of a ‘bowl’ where any noise levels are accentuated. Having hundreds of construction vehicles driving along every day will have a huge adverse impact not only on the residents of Mount View, but the Millfield community as a whole. Just look at what is happening along Wollombi Road in Cessnock. Please listen to the voices in the community.
Mental Health is a key factor for why people live in the country, therefore what measures have you directly considered in your decision making process as to the stress that will be endured by the community through this whole construction process and the resulting damage to our environment and vistas.
Surely access can be made within the actual corridor?
There has also been proposed worker accommodation and construction sites on Wollombi Road and Mount View Road with operations running seven days a week for 2 ½ years or more which poses a real issue with threats to local amenity, safety and the quiet rural community which we have all moved to this area for.

We therefore request that the NSW Planning Authority reconsider approving the use of Mount View Road and Mount Baker Road by Energy Co for the construction of the HTP in order to protect the interests of local residents and environment and to explore less intrusive alternatives.
Regards
Stuart and Robin Brigden

I would like to express my deep disappointment in the handling of the HTP project, which stands as a stark example of the NSW and Federal Governments’ failure to uphold fair and equitable communication with the Australian public.

The planning process has been marred by an alarming lack of transparency, drawn out over an extended period with minimal public engagement. When the opportunity to respond finally arrived, it was rushed and inadequate, leaving little room for meaningful public input.

Throughout this process, interactions with the HTP team have been consistently negative. Their conduct has been dismissive, arrogant, and entirely disconnected from the genuine concerns of affected communities. It is clear that the consultation process was nothing more than a procedural formality—a box-ticking exercise designed to meet minimum requirements, rather than a sincere effort to listen and respond to public feedback.

Given the designation of the HTP as a critical infrastructure project, it appears the team operated under the assumption that community voices would carry no weight in shaping the outcome. This approach undermines public trust and sets a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure planning.

I am more than willing to discuss these concerns further with anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding the depth of the issues at hand.

My submission objects to the Hunter Transmission Project EIS. While the project is important for NSW’s energy transition, the EIS lacks sufficient rigour, transparency, and detail, particularly regarding impacts on Commonwealth land, threatened species, cultural heritage, and sensitive landscapes.
Key concerns include:
• Inadequate quantification of biodiversity impacts
• Vague mitigation for threatened flora and fauna
• Limited erosion risk analysis for the Singleton Military Area
• Deferral of critical management plans (e.g., ACHMP) to post-approval
• Insufficient assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts
• Weak stakeholder engagement beyond the exhibition period

I have been flying at the Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC) for over 30 years and fly gliders, the glider tug and light sport aircraft. I have seen many changes in the environment that effect the operation of the HVGC and usually there are substantial risk assessments to identify and mitigate risk. I do not see any such suitable assessment for this project which raises grave concerns for the future safety of operations at Warkworth airfield.

An assessment should include but not be limited to:
1. Normal operations of gliders and powered aircraft including launch, circuit and landings.
2. Abnormal operation of gliders and powered aircraft including power/engine failure, low approaches due to abnormal conditions such as cable breaks or sinking air on a long final approach.
3. Operations in all wind conditions and directions with respect to items 1 and 2.
I am concerned that only minimal attention has been paid to the effect on the Hunter Valley Gliding Club operations in terms of safety.

The risk assessments need to involve the airfield operators and other professional organisations such as CASA and the GFA.

There are numerous CASA documents that define limits to glide approaches to an airfield but there also specific and unusual considerations required for a gliding operation where sometime low performance aircraft require limits over and above those prescribed by CASA documents.

Apart from the HVGC there are a number of other operations based around Warkworth airfield such as light aircraft training operations who use it for emergency landing training, emergency bush fire fighters and other personnel are flown in and out of Warkworth to name but two.

Thus far it appears that the safety and the inclusion of the HVGC in the project considerations have been at best glossed over and I would request that Energy Co be asked to seriously address the concerns of the current airfield users.

The transmission lines that are proposed have a negative effect on the airstrip owned by Hunter Valley Gliding Club. These lines will restrict flying and reduce safety for all those using the airstrip.

This reduction in safety and flying will force members to move to other areas to fly, which will be a loss to the Hunter Valley. There are members that travel over four or more hours to fly gliders at Warkworth Airstrip.

Should pilots be required to fly in low due to many reasons these powerlines will be a hazard with the potential of crashes with injuries and deaths.

I would recommend there be more discussions with the Hunter Valley Gliding Club to review the options for reducing the effect of these powerlines. It is important that this new infrastructure does not reduce safety or flying operations to this important Gliding club.

I object to the Hunter Transmission Project - the endangered Littlejohn’s tree frog lives in the area where works and clearing are planned, and only has a small and inbred population. A new solution should be found that avoids the frogs' habitat, especially avoiding the proposed switching station that is planned to be built on top of key breeding ponds.

We need to value our endangered wildlife more and take them into consideration when planning projects such as this transmission line. While the project will assist with renewable energy, it should be designed to avoid further endangering the Littlejohn’s tree frog - surely both can be achieved. Without biodiversity, our planet is at risk.