Hunter Transmission Project

This submission relates specifically to ‘Pokolbin Mountains Rd’ and the impact the HTP will have on local residents living along this road.
Attached are 3 documents, 1 containing our initial issues and concerns as submitted in 2024.
The other 2 documents relate to the Environmental Impact Statement, the ‘Technical report 6 Social impact assessment’ and the ‘Technical report 4 Traffic and transport impact assessment’.
The attachments are self-explanatory and highlight the lack of detail in the EIS to address concerns raised regarding safety and the social impact on residents.

I fully support this project

No

I am concerned of the visual impact this project will have for millfield residents.
Additionally, I have immediate family who live on Pokolbin Mountain Rd.
This roadway is gravel and poorly managed. It most places on this track it is one way. There will be significant increase to traffic and accessibility for emergency services will be impacted.
Several of the property owners along Pokolbin Mountain Road are business owners and make profits from using their property. If this is impacted I feel they will be disadvantaged for a long period.
The high traffic for 24-36 months while the project occurs will be a significant disruption to the road surface.
I believe more thought on the route could be done. Consultation with those affected has been a tick box exercise with no active listening in the genuine concerns of those local people.

Submission on the Hunter Transmission Project – Environmental Impact Statement

Brian Burrows
Lot 138 Cedar Creek Road, Pokolbin
16 September 2025

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Via NSW Planning Portal – Hunter Transmission Project

Re: Comments and Submission on the Hunter Transmission Project EIS

Dear Sir/Madam,

We make this submission in relation to the Hunter Transmission Project EIS, which is currently on public exhibition. Our property is Lot 138, Cedar Creek Road, Pokolbin, on Pokolbin Mountain, directly affected by the proposed alignment. While we recognise the importance of energy infrastructure, the EIS fails to adequately address a range of impacts that will significantly and permanently affect our property, cultural values, and quality of life.
In accordance with the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs), we wish to raise the following key concerns.

1. Visual Impacts, Property Devaluation and Compensation
• The EIS does not clearly identify the exact location or number of towers on Pokolbin Mountain. Without this clarity, it is impossible to properly assess the visual impact on Lot 138.
• Our property is valued for its off-grid seclusion, free from visible infrastructure and main roads. Transmission towers will irreparably change this character and reduce property value.
• The Transmission Guideline requires a rigorous assessment of visual amenity. The current EIS does not demonstrate how visual impacts on nearby residences have been avoided or minimised.
We therefore request:
o Clear identification of all proposed tower locations near Lot 138.
o A revised visual impact assessment including photomontages from our property.
o Formal compensation for the permanent devaluation of Lot 138 arising from the project.

2. Traffic, Access, Dust and Air Quality
• Construction traffic on Broken Back Trail will cause significant dust, safety risks, and restricted resident access. The road is already fragile and narrow.
• The EIS does not provide a clear traffic movement plan. Key questions remain unanswered:
o What are the proposed hours of operation for construction traffic?
o Will traffic occur on weekends?
o How will resident access be maintained during roadworks or truck movements?
• Dust and air pollutants from heavy vehicle movements will be substantial. While the EIS acknowledges this, it does not commit to regular on-site monitoring near affected residences such as ours.
We therefore request:
o A Traffic Management Plan that guarantees resident access at all times, including during peak construction.
o Restrictions on construction traffic movements to weekdays only, within standard working hours.
o Continuous dust monitoring near Lot 138, with results made publicly available.

3. Noise and Vibration
• Noise and vibration from both construction and operation will negatively affect residential amenity and local fauna.
• The SEARs require an assessment of biodiversity impacts. Increased vibration and noise will affect native animals in this sensitive habitat.
We request that noise modelling be re-run to include nearest residences and that strict operational noise limits be enforced.

4. Bushfire Risk
• The Pokolbin region is a high bushfire risk area. The introduction of heavy machinery, construction traffic, and vegetation disturbance increases this risk significantly.
• The EIS does not provide sufficient detail on bushfire management.
We request a site-specific Bushfire Risk Management Plan, developed in consultation with residents and the RFS, prior to approval.

5. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Line Voltage
• The EIS provides inadequate information on the electrical characteristics of the proposed transmission lines. We know the land very well as being owners for some years and know the westerly winds is the dominant wind at gusts of over 50km/ph. We are concerned about the winds, impact of EMF and the relative location of our property to the proposed towers.
We request:
o Disclosure of the minimum and maximum voltages to be transmitted across Pokolbin Mountain and Broken Back Mountain Trail.
o Modelling of EMF exposure levels at residential properties, including Lot 138 (as the proposed towers will be within 1km of our property).
o Assessment of EMF impacts on both human health and animals.

The EIS, in its current form, does not adequately address or mitigate the project’s impacts on Lot 138. The project will have significant negative effects on visual amenity, cultural values, access, environmental quality, and property value.
We, therefore:
1. Request that the above issues be addressed in detail, including revisions to the EIS.
2. Request that compensation be provided for the devaluation of Lot 138 arising from the Hunter Transmission Project.
3. We would like to be informed about the project commencement prior to construction dates and regular communication of the project and its timelines.
We thank you for considering this submission and look forward to your detailed response.

Yours sincerely,
Brian Burrows

HTP EIS Submission
We are the proprietors of “Millbrook Estate” a boutique winery / distillery at Hunter Road Millfield. We also have a tourist cottage and our private dwelling on the property with access from Mount View Rd about 1km west of Millfield. We are the first winery / cellar door on the sign posted Mount View tourist route / wine trail.
We are currently on holiday overseas (until end September) and only became aware of the EIS exhibition courtesy of advice from neighbours. We are rather stunned that so little time is available for affected parties to review the EIS. EnergyCo has been working on this scheme for 3 years and told us the proposal would be on display in early 2025. This is dreadfully unfair and it seems obvious they are not really interested in a community response. In fact we hear that they have already started purchasing affected properties, doing road test investigations and have commenced the construction tender process.
In the present circumstances we have no practical opportunity to review the documents (which we understand to be enormous) nor to make any comprehensive feedback. However, we offer the following limited comments that indicate our worry that this project will have a serious impact on our business and also on the quality of our living environment. If the building of the project is like this EIS review stage then we feel like our business will be steamrolled
Being on a low ridge above Wollombi Brook, the property has spectacular sweeping views to the west and right around to the north east, including an outstanding skyline formed by the Mt Baker ridge and the Corrabare and Watagan ranges. The attached photo provides an indication of the landscape view from the cellar door. All indications are that we will see some of the towers and cables and that will be an unwelcome impact on these views which are a key feature of the cellar door experience.
Our business is heavily reliant on car based visitors and small bus groups (less than 10 people). Repeat business and word of mouth referrals from those customers is very important. We understand Wollombi Rd and Mount View Rd will be have a big increase in construction traffic including many heavy vehicles and this will continue for up to three years. The ability to access the property during that time will be essential and with the minimum of disruption or delay. We are very concerned that tour operators will simply seek other winery stops if access becomes a hassle, as they need to work to carefully planned day circuits through the valley.
The condition of Mount View Rd is another aspect that gives us real concern. It currently takes very low traffic numbers (probably less than 100 vehicles a day) as it only serves a quiet rural area and tourists heading over Mount View. The sealed surface is in poor condition and the heavy traffic increase for construction will very quickly cause the road to break up. Unless there is a clear responsibility for EnergyCo to firstly improve and then regularly maintain Mount View Rd we would expect our winery visitation to quickly decrease.
Our customers come to the winery and cottage for an enjoyable experience and we need them to go home with a positive perception – so they will come again and also relay the experience to others. Views of parts of a transmission line on the spectacular ridgelines, disrupted access, construction related traffic noise and a crumbling road are not the ingredients for the success of our business – on the contrary, these issues present a serious risk to our business and livelihood and hence a lot of stress.
There are many wineries in the Hunter Valley, MIllbrook Estate being situated on the edge of the Hunter relies on the beautiful location surrounding our property. All of the visitors comment on this stunning location. Attached is a snapshot that will be very sadly compromised. We are very fearful regarding the disruption to accessing our Winery both short and on completion long term. We believe this will disruption is going to have a huge impact to our financial situation, with currently no suggestion from anyone regarding compensation.
We would like to be assured the above issues can be managed with real commitment by EnergyCo in consultation with Cessnock Council. We also request that any approval by your Department has strict requirements about the responsibilities of the construction company appointed.
Chris & Paula White

I am shocked to see how many trees are being cut for a green project. Only existing transmission line corridors should be used

Please find attached objection.

It is very clear that if the transmission line was moved approx 600m back toward Wollombi where it goes through the millfield/Congewai creek valley next to Gorokan, the impacts would be hugely reduced on both landowners and small businesses who rely on tourist visits and reviews to survive. I had the energyco people come out to my property and state that we and the other small businesses would be strongly impacted by the project going through the millfield valley (called the Congewai Creek valley in your EIS I believe). They stated, in person, they would create montages for us to show us the impacts. They are now saying they refuse to include us because we are outside the 1.65km zone even though they have already confirmed the impacts would be severe and agreed to provide this documentation. They refuse to do any sight visits from an area which has been identified as significant visuals, with small businesses relying on tourist visits and feedback, and instead will only do sight visits from Wollombi Road. We will also be heavily impacted by heavy vehicles and no one will provide information about what this will actually mean so it is hard to provide facts in an objection when they are not being provided.

As part of the review of this important project we would like to highlight the opportunities to both future proof the investment and to mitigate the impact of the project on the environment, local communities and other land users. Details of these opportunities and benefits are included in the attachment.

I am a proud Indigenous woman and our Watagan State Forest means a great deal to me and my connection to country and many in the area including non-indigenous Australians feel the same way.

The land may not seem sacred to large corporations and greed but it is to me and the many locals who visit that forest. You will be culling many rare and endangered flora fauna and many, many hidden species that habitate that land.

I am whole heartedly against the Huntet Transmission for the following;
A bit of the transmission corridor is on private property, but the majority goes through State Forest. Yes, the same State Forest that we all own and enjoy. The beautiful Watagans, Corrabare & Pokolbin State Forests.

EnergyCo have essentially approved themselves to clear a huge corridor through our stunning forests.

Clearing our trees, our native wildlife, and destroying our bushwalks and campgrounds. Who wants to go on a bushwalk along a massive transmission corridor covered in weeds, rubbish and burnt out cars? Or try to enjoy a picnic next to a humming 500kv tower?

Clearing land

This section of the transmission corridor involves clearing 761 hectares (1,880 acres) of native vegetation. It also means creating or upgrading hundreds of roads and tracks to access each of the towers.

Some of this is on private land, but the majority is through State Forests. There is an already cleared corridor a few km to the north, which EnergyCo could have used. Someone just drew a line on a map and decided to put it there. No community input. Roads everywhere and massive cleared corridors means more burnt out cars, crime and idiots.

Massive impact on biodiversity

Direct impact to 38 threatened flora

Direct impact to 28 threatened fauna

Other impacts on 4 threatened birds and 4 threatened mammals

Serious and irreversible impacts to 16 hectares, containing 8 threatened flora and 7 threatened fauna species

In conclusion, I am thoroughly against the clearing of land and the fact that it was made not so simple to submit an objection is tells me a lot. Making an account to object as per my rights, ridiculous.

To Whom it may Concern,

I am deeply disturbed by the proposal for Hunter Transmission project, and saddened by the complete lack of regard for our forrests, our wildlife and our community. This is a huge environmental impact and a loss we can not afford to take. It is our duty and our responsibility to care for and protect our flora and fauna for our future generations.

"Clearing land

This section of the transmission corridor involves clearing 761 hectares (1,880 acres) of native vegetation. It also means creating or upgrading hundreds of roads and tracks to access each of the towers.

Some of this is on private land, but the majority is through State Forests. There is an already cleared corridor a few km to the north, which EnergyCo could have used. Someone just drew a line on a map and decided to put it there. No community input. Roads everywhere and massive cleared corridors means more burnt out cars, crime and idiots.

Massive impact on biodiversity

Direct impact to 38 threatened flora

Direct impact to 28 threatened fauna

Other impacts on 4 threatened birds and 4 threatened mammals

Serious and irreversible impacts to 16 hectares, containing 8 threatened flora and 7 threatened fauna species" Impacted by Hunter Transmission site.

I strongly oppose this proposal and feel it will deeply impact not only our environment but our community in ways we can not afford.

Kindest regards

You are destroying huge amounts of Bushland and trees. You are destroying the habitat of huge amounts of native animals. You are destroying sacred areas of my ancestors. All this you name green energy. I demand you using existing infrastructure and stop destroying our environment.

I have read the recent report from Aviation Projects regarding the impact assessment 16. The quoted information below is incorrect and misleading at best and compromise safety at the Hunter Valley Gliding Site.

(From Aviation Projects Report)
"Competition-type glider flights may descend to an altitude of not below 500 feet AGL at high speed at a designated finish line, generally located approximately 3 kilometres (1.6 nautical miles) from the aerodrome in the direction of the task set for the competition. These gliders would then climb to a circuit altitude of approximately 800 feet above the aerodrome in preparation for landing in a safe and orderly manner to land at 067601-01 – HUNTER TRANSMISSION PROJECT – AVIATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 30 Warkworth Aerodrome. They may also conduct a straight-in approach along the runway centreline if safe to do so"

I regularly compete at state and national level and have done over a period in excess of 30 years.
Competition finishes are a critical phase of a competition flight and require consistent practice for currency and safety prior to being in a competition environment. This training is conducted at Warkworth Airport.

The standard competition finish used in Australia and internationally is for the finish line to be located at 3km from the airfield boundary and minimum height of 300ft above airfield elevation. Straight in approaches are strongly recomended, pull ups and circuts are currently discouraged for safety reasons.
I have attached a copy of the current national rules for your reference.

It is acceptable within the rules to cross this 3km 300ft line at minimum sink speed (55-60Kts). This does not leave any room or energy to pull up or avoid any obstacles.
Finishing slightly below minimum height is not uncommon.
The current proposal significantly compromises the safety of the pilot sufficient to preclude any training or future competitions at this site.
Although the excerpt of the national rules below do not state a height as this can be varied at the competition director's discretion it has for at least the last 20 years in Australia always been 300ft at 3km. Prior to this the accepted finish line was at the runway threshold and was 20ft AGL.
Note 1 from national rules: 31.4 If a minimum finish height is set, pilots finishing below this height will incur a penalty. (2026 National Rules).
Note 2: The 500ft quoted by Aviation Projects was a club class rule from the 1990's and never used at State or National level competitions.

From 2026 National Competition Rules (published at https://leetongliding.com/.)

Australian National Multiclass Gliding Championships 2026 - Leeton Multiclass Nationals 2026
Event Information The 2026 Australian National Multiclass Gliding Championships will be held at Leeton, NSW. This event brings together gliders from across Australia to compete in Standard, 15m/Racing, 18m & Open Classes. Dates: January 6th - 16th, 2026 Practice Days: 6th - 7th January Competition Days: 8th - 16th January Location: Leeton, NSW Classes: Standard, 15m/Racing, 18m & Open
leetongliding.com
31CFinish Procedure
31.1 A glider having entered the finish zone must land without delay in a safe manner. Once on the ground, taxiing must be in the landing direction unless otherwise advised by the Operations Director and/or Safety Officer.
31.2 A glider will be deemed to have finished if it successfully completes the course and enters the finish zone. A glider which lands off the airfield after having entered the finish zone will be scored as a finisher. A finishing pilot cannot elect to declare an out-landing.
31.3 A pilot is permitted one finish per day.
31.4 If a minimum finish height is set, pilots finishing below this height will incur a penalty.
31.5 The Organisers may issue guidelines and recommendations as to the behaviour of pilots within the finish zone, including preferred circuit procedure and landing direction. Pilots will not be penalised for failing to follow these unless their behaviour is unsafe.
31.6 At least one and preferably two Safety Observers will observe gliders finishing. The observer(s) will be the Safety Officer and/or delegate(s).
31.7 The Observer(s) will make a subjective decision as to the question of safety within the finish zone. The Observer(s) may issue a warning or a technical penalty, or may refer more serious matters to the Penalties Committee.

Based on the information on the Aviation Projects report and the information I have provided the proposed lines are creating an additional danger to pilots, reducing safety with a potential for death.

The Aviation Projects report is misleading and based on outdated incorrect information.

I am happy to provide more information and or validation of the information provided.

Regards

Neil Bennett

Submission to be made via NSW Planning Portal.

Comments to make:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact statement (EIS) on the preliminary corridor for the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP).

BirdLife Australia is an independent science-based conservation organisation with a significant, long-term, and ongoing presence in the Hunter Region, including an affiliation with the Hunter Bird Observers Club (HBOC) who have collated comprehensive, long-term datasets on birds in the region, making it one of the best-documented regions in terms of our understanding of birds in Australia. Most notably, the Hunter Region supports one of the most significant populations of woodland birds, owing to its unique biogeography and the fact that large remnants have been retained on the valley floor.

BirdLife has previously engaged with the HTP during the proposed preliminary corridor consultation, where we raised our concerns regarding the intersection of the HTP with an extremely important region for birds; most notably threatened woodland birds. We outlined our concerns especially where the alignment intersected with high-quality habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Critically Endangered Swift Parrot, both identified as Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) species under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

BirdLife welcomes the steps outlined in the EIS to avoid impacts on important habitat for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater, and support efforts to prioritise avoidance of these areas during project planning and implementation.

However, the EIS could be strengthened by removing the strikethrough text in the following statement:

“The locations of threatened ecological communities and habitat for threatened species and SAII entities will be considered and potential impacts avoided or minimised to the greatest extent practicable during finalisation of the detailed design and construction methodology.”

The inclusion of “or minimised to the greatest extent practicable” weakens the commitment to avoidance and introduces ambiguity that may undermine conservation outcomes SAII species.

Furthermore, BirdLife remains concerned about the residual direct and indirect impacts on habitat for several threatened species and the reliance on offsetting these impacts, including:

Regent Honeyeater – 93.77 ha impacted

Gang-gang Cockatoo – 93.23 ha impacted

South-eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo – 69.5 ha impacted

Swift Parrot – 42.76 ha impacted

Biodiversity offsets are rarely appropriate responses to habitat destruction and should only be used as a last resort. Given the scale of impact, particularly to SAII species such as the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot, it is critical that offset proposals are scrutinised rigorously. There are particular areas in the region where offsets could be effective, appropriate and consistent with best practice including:

Provide direct benefit to the affected populations, not just the species.

Involve protection, restoration, and/or management of equivalent habitat.

Be demonstrably likely to achieve ecological equivalence in both type and magnitude of the values lost.

Be subject to empirical assessment and consistent implementation.

BirdLife strongly recommends that any offset strategy meets these criteria and that avoidance remains the primary objective in protecting habitat for SAII species. BirdLife would also welcome the opportunity to provide further review and commentary on the proposed “conservation investment strategy” for the Hunter Region.



The highest priority area for both Regent Honeyeaters and Swift Parrots that should be afforded consideration is the Tomalpin Woodlands, south of Kurri Kurri. BirdLife Australia have been actively monitoring Regent Honeyeaters in these woodlands for several years and (significantly) this has included three successful large-scale releases of zoo-bred birds. The Tomalpin Woodlands are recognised by the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Team as one of the most important breeding sites for the species. These woodlands have hosted the largest breeding events for Regent Honeyeaters in recent times and was the only breeding site in 2018 and 2022. The Tomalpin Woodlands are also a stronghold for Swift Parrot, numerous other threatened flora and fauna, endangered ecological communities, as well as being an area containing unparalleled Eucalypt diversity (including at least two undescribed species).

All of the work that BirdLife have undertaken within the Tomalpin Woodlands has been in partnership with the largest private landholder; Mindaribba Local Aboriginal Land Council. However, the Mindaribba holdings surround large allotments owned privately by a would-be developer of the site. It is these privately-owned lands that BirdLife recommends be the highest priority should offsetting the impacts on Regent Honeyeaters and Swift Parrots under the HTP be necessary.

We need to get our power sorted for the state and the country.

Why does this proposed powerline simply just upgrade on the existing powerlines. Would save clearing of virgin forests, drive property takeovers and would also be more cost effective.

I write this submission to express my thoughts about the project. My thoughts are ensuring to maintain access and safety during construction. I grew up in Pokolbin and have done many trips on Pokolbin Mountains Road. An absolutely stunning part of the world, the peaceful, serene environment, the views. But the road- a road which is only wide enough for one vehicle in many places, a road that has poor drainage, steep on one side and very soft unkept edges, a road that is narrow, dangerous and scary.

As the Pokolbin Mountains Road is the only access point to multiple houses, businesses and the Pokolbin State forest, using this road as access for massive trucks, a huge amount of resources and equipment, will cause stress on the road. It will also cause difficulty and disruption to the local businesses and local residents using the road, as well as tourists. Local residents need to be able to use the road for everyday essentials including to access school, work, groceries and healthcare.

To minimise effect on residents and tourists, I suggest a well organised traffic management plan during construction as there is no alternative access route, working with the local residents will ensure their everyday lives have minimal disruption and transport of resources is efficient. The road will need to be regularly maintained and assessed to ensure safety for all, particularly during wet weather.

As a small town with small roads, the damage to the roads with the increased traffic would be substantial. The increased traffic of trucks would be felt by the local residents greatly due to the quiet nature of the area currently. My 3 children attend the small primary school at Millfield that is on the main road, the increase in traffic of trucks would be dangerous, noisy and make school pick up and drop off more dangerous with the increase of traffic. The roads again are narrow and generally not well maintained in and out of Millfield. The road into Millfield is very narrow, full of potholes and very windy. The increase in trucks would make the road alot more dangerous to travel. The area around Millfield is very bushy and beautiful, knocking down alot of trees to run the powerlines would damage the look and feel of this very pretty area. We regularly drive in the bush and picnic in the areas that will be knocked down. I don't have confidence that the local council will make sure the roads are not damaged and are well cared for if this goes ahead. And I am worried for my children attending the school that will be effected by the large increase of trucks.

The Hunter Joint Organisation provides feedback on the Hunter Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and considerations for the Hunter region in the delivery of this significant project.