Hunter Transmission Project

i support the project this will support the hunter valley and the future jobs

Please refer to the attachment.

Submission for the Hunter Transmission Project – SSI-70610456
Please accept this submission regarding the EIS for the Hunter Transmission Project from the Centre for Conservation Science at the University of Newcastle. We have serious concerns about the proposed creation of the transmission line and placement of the Olney State Forest Switching Station due to the significant impact they will have on the Watagans population of endangered Littlejohn’s tree frog. Although we support the transition to renewables, we request that an alternative location be used for the switching station, and that further consideration be given to underground construction options.
We raise two main issues in this submission: 1) Failure of the EIS to adequately assess impacts of the proposal on the endangered Littlejohn’s frog, and 2) The prioritisation to reduce visual impact over threatened species impacts.
These points are addressed in further detail in the attached document.

In the document, we request:
a. An alternative site is used for the proposed Olney State Forest Switching Station
b. There is complete avoidance of all known Littlejohn’s tree frog habitat with a 2km buffer zone (breeding and terrestrial - determined through existing records and further expert elicitation)
c. Any further media or public outreach be transparent about the biodiversity impacts and clearly state that 66 threatened species will be negatively impacted by the southern route, and that offsetting will cost over $400 million.
d. That further consideration be given to underground options, at least in part to circumvent locations where there is the greatest trade-off occurring between public and biodiversity impacts.
e. That further consideration be given to placing the southern extent of the corridor (whether above or below ground), along existing transmission lines.

We conclude by saying: Transitioning to renewables is a crucial action to benefit future generations. But we cannot pay for this transition by robbing future generations of intact, functioning ecosystems and biodiversity (Hayward et al., 2022). Most threatened species persist in their remaining small habitat patches because there is something unique about that patch that supports their survival. And whilst there are a suite of conservation actions that may help a species, almost nothing is as important as protecting that irreplaceable patch.
The green transition needs to be green for all – humans and biodiversity – no compromise. The climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are not separate issues. We are Australia, one of the most economically and naturally rich nations on earth. We can and must do better than this current transmission line plan.

Environmental Impact Statement and Circular Economy direction or lack thereof
Whilst this is a quick review of the 1000+ page document, my submission is around the lack of any supported direction in sustainability and circular economy to utilise this project as being a source of offtake and potential to stimulate the sector.
In over 1000 pages I could not find any mention that the principles and policies that already exist in in other government departments for reduction in landfill, diversion to circular economy or use of circular economy supply chain.
If this was truly an Environmental Impact Statement, then we seem to be missing a basic part of the EIS, in not identifying
1. How many items in the supply chain for the project could support circular economy products?
2. How many tonnes of resources (waste) will come from the construction?
3. In those amounts of resources, show individually the amount in tonnes of each product sector?
4. Where the EIS has identified where this individual amount of resources could be diverted to?
5. If Renewable Diesel/bio diesel would be used in the operations and construction to increase this sector amount, especially when we have our own biodiesel manufacture in the Hunter?
6. How many tonnes of resource reduction we can make by using circular economy products in the design and construction?

One simple example - many regional properties will have fence lines modified. If we were to use recycled plastic fence posts, in lieu of hardwood timber, not only do we use less of this resource (Hardwood), but we also increase the offtake use of fence posts. A property owner, who may have never seen this type of post, now looks on it favourably (no splinters) and sees how they can use in future, hence the project initiates increased offtake just by using a different product.
NSW Government has a mandated policy of landfill tonnage reduction. It is known that 40% of landfill currently comes from construction projects.
I see no area of this EIS that shows how this 40% will not only be measured during the project, but also how this NSW government project will lead the way and show how that 40% can and will be reduced. If we do not do it first, how can we expect contractors to do it themselves. We need to lead the way.
Our EIS 'template' seems to be missing sections across circular economy criteria, emission reductions, sustainable material selection and supply chain input into resource (waste) reduction.
All resources coming from a construction project is still an Enviromental Impact. Just because it is sent to a designated 'landfill' does not make it any better that dumping it on the side of a road or bushland.
The activities of many in the industry, like myself, across resource recovery, waste minimisation, redirection to circular economy appear to be wasted, when a project of this size, is not even making any concentrated effort to reuse resources (waste).
If it is not measured, it is not known.
An item where the word 'landfill' was used in the EIS, that makes a one-line entry, that 'waste to landfill will be minimised, is just tokenism at best, and totally ineffective if there is no way of measurement and accountability.
This goes further to the whole EIS system. As mentioned, it is the EIS template that is defective. Each and every EIS submission, in NSW at least, needs to have at the minimum, the mandated requirement that the resources coming from construction must be calculated as individual amounts and then identified pathways where these resources can be directed. But importantly it must be tracked and audited to make accountability just as import as the measurement.

Just to note - I do not use the word 'waste' when referring to something that we are going to make use of and not discard.
It is all a resources and should be viewed as such, something valuable not to be wasted in landfill!!
Thank you for accepting this submission.

Opposition to Proposed Transmission Line Route through Central and South State Forest Sections
I write to register my strong objection to the proposed transmission line route through State Forests in the Central and South sections of the Hunter Transmission Project.
The Biodiversity Assessment within the EIS makes clear that the project will cause severe, irreversible destruction and long-term impacts to biodiversity values. Most alarmingly:
• The proposed route will directly impact over 70 listed threatened flora and fauna species protected under state and federal legislation.
• It will require the clearing of 365 hectares of endangered and critically endangered ecological communities (EECs/CEECs).
• These ecological communities are already under extreme pressure from fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and land-use change. Further destruction of this scale amounts to an act of ecocide and goes against Australia's signing of international treaties to protect our biodiversity.
What this truly means for the Hunter's natural environment has not been clearly articulated to the community.
This level of habitat loss and fragmentation cannot be offset or mitigated. Once destroyed, these ecological communities and the species that depend upon them cannot be restored within any reasonable timeframe. The “avoid, minimise, offset” hierarchy of environmental management has clearly been disregarded in this proposal.
The loss of 365 hectares of CEECs should ring alarm bells for any government considering approval. Allowing such widespread destruction is entirely inconsistent with:
• The objectives of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW),
• The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,and
• Australia’s international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The Hunter region is a biodiversity hotspot and a refuge for many species already facing extinction pressures. Pushing ahead with this route will not only undermine national and state conservation targets but will set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects in sensitive landscapes.
Alternative transmission line routes that avoid high-value biodiversity areas must be investigated and prioritised. The community expects energy transition projects to be designed responsibly, in a way that accelerates renewable energy while safeguarding our natural heritage—not destroying it.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed transmission line route through the Central and South State Forests and urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this alignment. Alternatives must be sought.

This project imposes significant impacts on the Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC) which have not been adequately described or considered in the application.
HVGC has operated from the Warkworth Airstrip continuously since 1965. It has grown to be one of the NSW's largest gliding clubs and over the years has played a part in training accomplished pilots who have gone on to careers in the RAAF, commercial aviation and even Red Bull Air Racing.
Over the years industry has grown around the airfield and each project has brought its impact on the club and its operations in the form of restrictions on operation in particular, replacing safe landing options with mining operations and associated infrastructure. The cumulative impact form development has seen the range of safe landing options in the case of an emergency or adverse weather.
The Hunter Transmission proposal will cause another significant impact on the safe landing options for gliding operations from Warkworth. The Aviation Impact Assessment fails to consider high risk scenarios which could result in collision with the transmission towers or lines, which if it were to occur would in most cases result in one or more fatalities. In particular the assessment lays out scenarios for complete launch failure at various stages of flight but does not consider more realistic scenarios where reduced power or reduced lift is encountered due to one of many potential causes, resulting in reduced climb rate which could place the glider / tug combination in the immediate vicinity of the transmission lines within 60sec of takeoff. Human factors in this event are likely to delay identification of the developing emergency and response. The pilots will then be faced by the added complication of the transmission lines in close proximity when trying to recover or land locally.
The Hunter Transmission proposal places the onus to change operating procedures and impose operating restrictions on HVGC as a solution to their selection of a low effort transmission route. Their engagement with HVGC has been absent and no effort to mitigate impacts has been sought.
It is my opinion that the Hunter Transmission proposal should be rejected until meaningful engagement with impacted stakeholders has taken place with mutually agreed mitigation measures put in place to allow pre-existing HVGC operations to continue unimpeded.

I wish to strongly oppose the erection of the transmission towers within the flight path of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC) runway. The proposed location presents a serious and unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

HVGC is an active gliding site that also supports multiple Sydney, Hunter Valley & Newcastle flying schools conducting navigation training, precautionary search and landing (PSL) exercises, and forced-landing practice. The airfield is an important training environment where student pilots, often with limited experience, must safely manage aircraft in challenging conditions. The airfield is also used on occasions as a landing base for aviation activities such as helicopter powerline inspection crews.

The erection of towers of this height within the runway flight path directly conflicts with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requirements under Part 139 of the Manual of Standards (MOS) – Aerodromes. Specifically, Part 139 defines Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) that must remain clear of penetrations to ensure safe aircraft operations during take-off, landing, and missed approaches. The proposed 85-metre structures would penetrate these critical protected surfaces, creating a permanent obstacle within the most vulnerable phases of flight. This is most critical when the flight path during takeoff or landing is impacted in an emergency situation whereby the normal flight profile which might be assessed as flying over the proposed towers would in fact be reduced due to an engine failure or other emergency situation. It is these scenarios which MUST be considered when assessing if the towers penetrate flight profiles.

For glider operations, where no go-around is possible, such hazards are particularly dangerous. Likewise, powered aircraft conducting training exercises would face increased risk, especially with inexperienced student pilots at the controls.

Given the conflict with CASA’s OLS standards and the significant safety implications, this project should not be approved in its current form.

To Whom It May Concern,
As a resident of Mount View Road, I formally object to the proposed Hunter Transmission Project (HTP). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) confirms that the project will cause unacceptable impacts that cannot be justified.

KEY OBJECTIONS
1. Environmental destruction
Extensive clearing for towers, substations, and access roads will displace or kill native wildlife, including endangered species.
Habitat fragmentation in the Mount Baker, Cedar Creek, and Corrabare Range areas will irreversibly damage critical biodiversity corridors.
Proposed “offsets” cannot compensate for the permanent ecological losses.
2. Traffic and safety risks
The project anticipates 850–1,000 heavy vehicle movements daily for more than two years.
Wollombi and Mount View Roads are narrow, winding, and lack footpaths—unsuitable for such industrial traffic.
Risks to local children, residents, and visitors are severe; emergency vehicle access would be compromised.
3. Visual, social, and economic impacts
Transmission towers up to 85 metres will dominate the skyline, permanently degrading the rural landscape.
Property values will decline, and the scenic qualities that underpin the Hunter Valley’s tourism economy will be destroyed.
The community’s cultural identity and rural character will be irreversibly diminished.
4. Inadequate route selection
The chosen alignment appears to have been selected for expedience, not suitability.
The Hunter Valley should not be forced to bear disproportionate costs for the benefit of metropolitan consumers.
Viable alternatives, including less damaging routes or undergrounding, must be investigated and prioritised.

REQUESTED OUTCOME
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the Hunter Transmission Project in its current form. I urge decision-makers to:
Reject the proposed route through Mount View and surrounding areas;
Reassess alternatives that minimise community and environmental impacts; and
Provide transparent justification for any decisions made.

CONFIRMATION REQUESTED
I request confirmation that my objection has been formally recorded and considered. A generic acknowledgement of receipt will not be sufficient. I seek specific advice on how these concerns are being addressed.

Sincerely,
Carl Sueli

With a lot of mining land about Why would u have to go through private property at Mt Thorley
To upset & cause so much chaos for these people is unacceptable
Why couldn't they follow railway line?
If its too close to certain businesses in industrial area Why couldn't government help businesses to relocate
Have these options been considered

I am the owner of "Millfield Farm" 1515 Mount Road Millfield. It was the original dairy in the valley, our  farm house was built in the 1920's,  they positioned  it at elevation overlooking pastures and to take in the sweeping views of Pokolbin Mountain Range, Mt Baker and the Corrabare Range. I have attached a photo of the view from my home.


I went to the community session at Cawfordville Hall Millfield  in May 2024 and most recently on the 11th September. 


I have attempted to read and digest some of the 1100 pages EIS and you have given me the minimum 28 days to respond! This is not good enough but what I have gleaned:-


The visual assessment goes into detail of the visual effects on Wollombi Rd and Millfield Rd (spelt  incorrectly on the EIS documents) but scant mention of Mount View Rd Millfield. Mount View Road from the Junction at Wollombi Rd heads north until it reaches Lewis Lane. All the properties have sweeping views to Mt Baker, Pokolbin Mountain Range, the valley floor and Wollombi brook and the Corrabares. I suppose it was called Mount View Rd for that reason. I note there is photomontage of the towers from various positions, but NONE from Mount View Rd......did any body actually drive along Mount View Rd Millfield? If they had they would have seen why people bought rural land all those years ago and built.


If the assessment team had driven up Mount View Rd, they would have also noticed at 1721 Mount View Rd, a housing development called Milfield Rise with 240 blocks for sale....reading through the pages and pages there is no mention of this housing development. The owners of these blocks of land are in for an unpleasant surprise.


On the 11th September at the community meeting I spoke to two of the visual assessment team,

Explained where I lived on Mount View Rd, their comment was "Your not in the 1.6km affected zone" basically I was fobbed off.  I will see the transmission line and that is a significant impact to me


Whilst reading the visual assessment it noted that the town of Millfield landscape sensitivity is low. "LCZ9 is not designated as a location of regional value." WOW tell that to the residents of Millfield, The views the  towns people have of 1 or all three ranges is spectacular! Which makes it a special quiet place to live


Mount View Rd is going to be used as a construction route. This country dirt Rd with all its bends is going to service  heavy vehicles up to 800 per day, damage to the road, increased road safety issues, access chaos, noise and dust, loss of tree canopy and vegetation for widening. Again when I spoke to the traffic engineer at the meeting, the basic answer was it will happen whatever the case. I strongly object to use of this low key road it is just not suitable for this project.


Finally after wading through assessments and reports the most  glaringly obvious outcome will be the damage to the native forest environment.....the report states proudly that's its using mining land, defence land and state forests, minimal private lands and avoids National Parks, the only difference between a national park and a state forest side by side is in the name, they  both have the same flora, fauna and sandstone ridge lines. 


There were three route corridors.....was this southern corridor an honest and accurate selection? Or a rush job? The residents of the beautiful  Millfield Valley have been thrown under the bus.


As the final approval rests with Dept of Planning and the ministers for Planning and Public Spaces and the Australian Minister For The Environment and water I sincerely hope that a thorough assessment of the EIS is done and takes into account our submissions.


Elsbeth Paterson







Sent from my Galaxy

I am a regular user of the airfield at Warkworth NSW where the proposed transmission lines will pass through. In order to keep the airfield safe for glider and GA aircraft, I would like to have NSW Planning consult with both CASA and the Hunter Valley Gliding Club to ensure that safe and unimpeded flying operations can be conducted clear of the proposed transmission lines.

See attached submission

Gliding Australia submits this response to the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP) EIS with a focus on the impact of the proposed development on Warkworth Airfield and the operations of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club (HVGC).
Gliding Australia has concerns with the aviation sections of the EIS. Specifically:
1. Lack of Risk Assessment
2. Lack of Consultation
3. Unfounded mitigations
4. Failure to consider Operational Realities
Please see our full report attached

We are providing the comments as an attached Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Hunter Valley Wine & Tourism Association (HVWTA) represents more than 250 wine, tourism and hospitality businesses across the Hunter Valley. Our mandate is to protect and enhance the visitor economy whilst supporting responsible infrastructure development. The Hunter Valley welcomes more than 1.6 million overnight visitors and contributes over $650m annually to the NSW visitor economy. Our wine, food and event sectors support thousands of jobs and depend on safe, scenic and accessible roads.
We acknowledge the importance of the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP) to the State’s energy transition but value this opportunity to highlight the potential impacts of construction traffic on the visitor experience and the long-term integrity of local roads.
This submission builds on HVWTA’s ongoing engagement with EnergyCo and our original correspondence to EnergyCo of 8 May 2024.
HVWTA acknowledges and supports the priorities, as outlined below, of the Pokolbin Mountains Road (PMR) Group as a key stakeholder group within our community. They have engaged with EnergyCo as group and individuals regarding safety, drainage, road design and social impacts for Pokolbin Mountains Road since April 2024.
• Safety (construction workers, tourists, residents, walkers, trail bikes, mountain bikes, wildlife, domestic animals).
• Drainage (more pipes, drainage pits, lean surface to inside drain, rock hammer surface rocks near drain).
• Widening (pull over spaces, turn around bays).
• Tarred surface (renew existing tar road pre and post construction, subbase update).
• PMR / Watagan Track corner (design, drainage).
• Visibility (line of sight view of road ahead, vegetation management).
• Quality road surface material.
• Signage (keep left, drive to conditions, be aware of stock, walkers, wildlife).
• Social issues (during works, HTP construction, future maintenance, rural road with historic significance, part of the Hunter Valley Vineyards District, visually sensitive, importance of aesthetics)
HVWTA endorses their views in respect of the needs of this community and the specific impacts on Pokolbin Mountains Road.
Key Issues and Recommendations
1. Construction Traffic Volumes and Tourism Impact
The EIS confirms peak daily movements of up to 378 light vehicles and 335 heavy vehicles from the Wollombi Road construction support site, and similar volumes at other sites along the proposed route Wollombi Road → Hayes Rd / Mount View Rd / Mount Baker Rd / Allandale Rd / Wine Country Drive → Broke Road → Pokolbin Mountains & Broken Back Road which passes through the centre of Hunter Valley Wine Country. Peak worker shifts will occur 6–7am and 5–6pm. These movements coincide with visitor economy business opening times and key arrival/departure windows for visitors, creating a direct risk of congestion, delays and negative visitor experiences if not managed appropriately.

HVWTA request a detailed Traffic Management Plan that avoids high-tourism periods (concert weekends, harvest season, long weekends) for oversize/overmass (OSOM) deliveries with clear scheduling commitments and monitoring.
2. Local Road Upgrades and Safety
EnergyCo proposes intersection upgrades and passing bays along Pokolbin Mountains Road, Wollombi Road, McDonalds Road and Hayes Road, and road condition surveys before and after construction. HVWTA strongly supports these measures but seeks formal funding agreements for long-term maintenance to protect the wine tourism network.
HVWTA considers that the increase in vehicle movements, particularly heavy vehicles, on local roads is significant and will adversely impact the condition of the roads, increasing maintenance requirements and shortening the life of road pavements. As such, it is recommended that EnergyCo be required to undertake detailed pavement investigations of local roads that form part of the construction routes to determine if upgrades are required to meet the proposed traffic loadings.
HVWTA also request assurance that the nominated local roads will be maintained by the developer, at EnergyCo’s cost, during the construction phase of the project.

HVWTA recognises the critical role of the Hunter Transmission Project in securing NSW’s renewable energy future. We are willing to work collaboratively with EnergyCo, Cessnock Council and the Pokolbin Mountains Road Group and government agencies to ensure construction proceeds with minimal impact on the Hunter Valley visitor economy.

Please see pdf document below, as Mt View Road Millfield Residents we strongly object to the project.

The aerodrome has had many encroachments by mining and other powerlines over recent years. I have read EIS as Technical Report 16 but still object to the height and location as a glider pilot using Warkworth aerodrome.
The height and proximity of the line are of concern especially in times when unplanned and unpowered landings are required.

Too close to my proposed new home which will be 40m away and worried about cancer fears for voltage lines