Hunter Transmission Project

HTP will obliterate productive farmland, sever waterways, and endanger safety. The EIS claims only 15‑25 properties will be affected, yet damage to soil, water table and downstream impacts affect many more. Overhead 500 kV lines are dangerous fire sources: a snapped insulator or lightning strike can ignite dry fuel. With lines overhead, aerial firefighting becomes risky or impossible under certain safety regulations. Global examples from Australia, California, Greece show that when fires ignite beneath or near powerlines, the result can be uncontrollable. If the government regards this project as essential, why is there no transparent modelling of worst‐case fire scenarios, including aerial suppression failure?

I object on behalf of downstream water ecosystems. Construction and ongoing works carve into catchment landscapes. Pollution, sediment, chemical leakage from tower foundations, vehicle tracks will all impact creeks and rivers. Also, farmland beneath overhead lines is less usable for shade‐sensitive crops, stock suffers from electromagnetic interference, and insurance risk increases. Fire risk is not theoretical: high‐voltage lines have caused ignitions during storms in many nations. Furthermore, firefighting aircraft are highly constrained by the presence of such lines; aerial suppression may be too dangerous. If deemed vital, where is the requirement that this infrastructure be built underground along waterways or routed away, so that fire suppression and ecosystem protection are not compromised?

object to the HTP because it is predatory: it imposes harm on landholders for questionable public benefit. Farmland is being severed, waterways disrupted, shade and microclimate altered. Overhead 500 kV lines are not just unsightly—they pose health, fire, loss of property value issues. The project will limit aerial firefighting; in emergency conditions, aircraft cannot safely operate near high‐voltage lines. The EIS glosses over this risk. Transmission disasters globally illustrate the catastrophic consequences of lightning or conductor failure igniting fires that escalate rapidly. If the electricity grid is genuinely critical, why are no undergrounding or alternative alignments being seriously costed that avoid waterways and farmland, rather than forcing us into ruin?

object to the HTP because it is predatory: it imposes harm on landholders for questionable public benefit. Farmland is being severed, waterways disrupted, shade and microclimate altered. Overhead 500 kV lines are not just unsightly—they pose health, fire, loss of property value issues. The project will limit aerial firefighting; in emergency conditions, aircraft cannot safely operate near high‐voltage lines. The EIS glosses over this risk. Transmission disasters globally illustrate the catastrophic consequences of lightning or conductor failure igniting fires that escalate rapidly. If the electricity grid is genuinely critical, why are no undergrounding or alternative alignments being seriously costed that avoid waterways and farmland, rather than forcing us into ruin?

I strongly object based on biodiversity and habitat fragmentation. The corridor cuts through remnant bushland, fragmenting habitat for endangered and threatened species. Tall transmission infrastructure may create barriers, edge effects, and increased predation and invasion of weeds. Particularly vulnerable are aerial species (raptors, woodland birds) whose flight routes may be severed or made deadly. If proponent documents claim negligible impact, can they provide up‑to‑date species surveys, flight path intersection risk studies, and commitment to removing or rerouting if mortality incidence exceeds threshold?

This plan has NO Accountability, just Greed.
These unelected bodies and their private partners operate with zero oversight, zero transparency, and zero care for the communities they steamroll—pure parasitism.

I object to these unreliable projects and all related infrastructure.

In relation to the significant increase in traffic that will be travelling along Freeman’s Drive and the Cooranbong township, and the reported 300 workers using the local community. I am concerned about a number of issues. 1. The roads are already in less than acceptable condition with potholes and badly repaired potholes that reappear everytime there is rain. This will only get worse with this many vehicles travelling along the same route everyday. There is a section of road on Freeman’s Drive to the north of where the 90 zone begins heading out of Cooranbong where the water pools considerably on both sides of the road and many potholes develop making it very dangerous for traffic when heavy rain occurs as you have to drive in the middle of the road to avoid these hazards. This section of road will become more dangerous with increased traffic and needs to be dealt with. 2. The intersection at Avondale rd is already a major safety hazard with school and Watagan Park traffic. With the increase in traffic for such a long period of time while this project is going this intersection will more so be at risk of serious injury to children crossing or local vehicle occupants without long awaited traffic control. Martinsville rd intersection will also become a hazard if traffic controls not established. 3. Our property and house front onto Freeman’s drive only a short distance from where these workers will be coming and going each day, I am concerned about the significant increase in noise at these times (reported to be around 6-7am and 4-6pm). Having up to 300 utes, trucks etc going by on a bumpy road at these times will potentially be a large disruption to our lives particularly in the morning, not to mention the visual disturbance of that many extra vehicles going by at these times. I would like to request compensation/ mitigation in the form of appropriate hedging to our property boundary running along Freeman’s Drive to help dampen the noise and hide the visual/ privacy impact from this significant increase in traffic at these times, considering the project will be going for at least 2.5 years. Feel free to contact me for further info/ discussion.

Using China’s Slave Labour Supply Chain components for this unnecessary and unethical plan is shamefully unethical and wrong.

Dodgy ENERGY CO’s deeply unethical procurement rooted in exploitative foreign labour, makes every tower a symbol of human misery and corruption.

I object to this.

Put this junk in the backyards of the confused woke city fools who voted for this garbage. NOT rural in communities

All renewable energy infrastructure is absolute destruction on our communities.

Bulldozing breeding grounds for endangered species like Littlejohn's Tree Frog and precious biodiversity for unnecessary CCP controlled infrastructure exposes the grotesque hypocrisy of these "green" carpetbaggers.
It’s eco-vandalism with a sabotaging agenda.

I object to all things pertaining to renewable energy.

I hereby object to this project

This Regulator enabling plan is rotten to the core!
AEMO’s ISP is an intellectually bankrupt swindle —debunked, compromised, and dangerous.
It’s not fit for purpose, and its blind adoption of unreliable renewables is policy malpractice.

I object to this project and all the permanent destruction that comes with it.

This plan is a National Security Nightmare!
By handing critical infrastructure control to foreign-controlled supply chains and collapsing energy independence, this project fulfills China's Energy dream - weakens and sabotages Australia as a vassal state.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) Regarding the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP)

On Behalf of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC)

1. Introduction

The Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC) is the owner and operator of Warkworth Aerodrome, a vital community aviation asset in the Singleton LGA. For decades, we have successfully managed the safety of our gliding operations while being surrounded by major mining developments. This has been achieved through good-faith negotiations and legally binding agreements that have mitigated risks.

We have reviewed the Aviation Impact Assessment (AIA) for the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP). While the AIA concludes there is "no adverse impact," this conclusion is based on a theoretical model of perfect pilot performance. In reality, the HTP introduces a significant and permanent new hazard that will adversely impact the safety, operational flexibility, and long-term viability of our club.

The AIA itself provides the evidence for these impacts. Our aim is not to block this critical infrastructure project, but to ensure that NSW Planning imposes conditions on any approval that mandates EnergyCo to negotiate with us in good faith to develop a Safety Management Plan, just as was required for mining projects like United Wambo Joint Venture. This proven process is essential to protect public safety.

2. The Adverse Impacts the AIA Acknowledges (But Understates)

The AIA confirms several key points that directly impact our club:

· A New, Major Obstacle: The 85m high transmission line will be placed just 1.87 km from our airfield boundary, directly to the east. This is taller than the existing powerlines and directly on the extended centreline of our main runway.
· Infringement of Our Protected Airspace: The project will infringe the unofficial Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) that we have successfully established with neighbouring mines to protect our airspace. This sets a dangerous precedent.
· Impacts on Emergency Training: The AIA admits that the HTP will make areas between the airfield and the transmission line unsuitable for practicing "outlandings" (emergency landings). This is a critical safety skill for our pilots, and losing this training area is a direct adverse impact.
· Complication of Competition Flying: The AIA states that our competition directors will now have to plan tasks around the transmission line, potentially requiring higher finish altitudes. This reduces operational flexibility and adds complexity.

3. The Core Problem: Theory vs. Reality

The AIA's "no adverse impact" finding relies on the assumption that in every situation, a pilot will perform perfectly. However, gliding involves managing risk in dynamic conditions. The greatest danger is during emergencies, such as a tow rope breaking at low altitude, when a pilot has seconds to decide where to land.

The HTP places a lethal obstacle in the primary emergency landing zone for take-offs to the east. While the AIA says a pilot "should" be able to avoid it, the reality is that this dramatically increases the risk and consequences of an error during a high-stress, life-threatening situation. This is an unacceptable burden to place on our volunteer pilots.

4. Our Request for Negotiation and a Binding Safety Management Plan

We are not asking for the project to be stopped. We are asking for the same responsible planning conditions that have previously ensured coexistence between our club and major infrastructure.

We request that the Minister for Planning impose a condition on any approval for the HTP that requires EnergyCo to:

"Negotiate in good faith with the Hunter Valley Gliding Club to finalise and fund a comprehensive Safety Management Plan (SMP) to the satisfaction of both parties, prior to the commencement of construction."

This negotiation should address the following key points:

Point of Negotiation What We Want to Achieve
1. Enhanced Marking & Visibility The AIA recommends marker balls on the wires as a "precaution." We want this made mandatory. Furthermore, we want to discuss the best colour and spacing of these markers for maximum visibility for glider pilots.

2. Funding for Safety Infrastructure
Funding for club safety upgrades, such as improved wind indicators, potential lighting for the markers, or updated mapping systems for our gliders to clearly show the HTP hazard.
3. Updated Procedures & Training Collaboration to formally update our club’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), pilot briefings, and training programs to specifically address the HTP.
4. Ongoing Communication Protocol A formal agreement for notification during construction (e.g., when cranes are used) and for the life of the asset (e.g., if maintenance requires temporary hazards).
5. Long-Term Review A mechanism to review the Safety Management Plan periodically to ensure it remains effective.

5. Conclusion

The Hunter Valley Gliding Club is an important recreational and training facility that has proven it can coexist with major industry through careful planning and negotiation. The current AIA acknowledges the risks the HTP creates but fails to mandate the necessary steps to properly manage them.

A condition for good-faith negotiation is a standard, reasonable, and proven planning tool. It was essential for managing the impacts of mining, and it is even more critical for managing the risk of a 500kV transmission line placed in close proximity to our active runway.

We urge the Department to ensure the safety of our members and the future of our club by making this negotiation a mandatory condition of approval.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Crowhurst
On behalf of the Members of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the Hunter Transmission Project as outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). While I understand the importance of energy infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the project's potential impacts on the environment, local communities, and cultural heritage.
• The proposed transmission corridor traverses ecologically sensitive areas, including native bushland and wildlife habitats. The clearing required for construction and maintenance poses a significant threat to biodiversity, particularly to threatened species. The long-term ecological disruption outweighs the short-term infrastructure benefits.
• The project risks fragmenting rural communities and diminishing property values. Landowners along the proposed route have expressed distress over the lack of meaningful consultation and the potential loss of amenity, privacy, and agricultural viability. The visual and noise impacts of transmission towers are also deeply concerning.
• There is insufficient detail in the EIS regarding the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage. The transmission line may intersect areas of significance to First Nations communities, and I urge EnergyCo to engage in deeper consultation and cultural mapping before proceeding.

I believe the EIS fails to adequately explore alternative routes or underground transmission options that could mitigate environmental and social harm. Greater transparency and genuine community engagement are essential before any approvals are granted.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the Hunter Transmission Project in its current form. I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject the proposal until these concerns are properly addressed.

Sincerely,
Concerned Millfield community member