Hunter Transmission Project

I fly gliders from David Parker Airfield, Warkworth, and the proposed transmission line passes close to the end of the runway. This is a major hazard. Gliders have struck transmission lines in NSW before and death is a likely outcome from such an event.

Please see attached submission.

My submission is a comment on the Hunter Transmission Project Application number SSI-70610456 relating particularly to the Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment.
I live on Watagan Road in Martinsville. This is a very narrow winding road. Significant roadworks are proposed to allow for very large trucks to access the Hunter Transmission Project during construction. These roadworks are proposed for a particularly narrow and winding section between Martinsville Road and my property and a number of other properties that are on Watagan road towards the Watagan National Park.

I am concerned about the impact of the roadworks on:
a) my ability to get to work and leave my property and return in a timely way
b) timely access for ambulances and other emergency services.

Ambulances and emergency services need to access Watagan road especially with incidents related to residents and the recreational use of the Watagan National Park.
I have required an ambulance for medical emergencies several times in recent years.
There was a major bushfire that affected my property and a number of other properties when a strong wind blew a power pole down in 2019.
There do not appear to be any viable detours suitable for two wheel drive vehicles that can be set up between Watagan Road Martinsville and Cooranbong for residents who live on Watagan Road above the proposed roadworks.
When there are to be access issues I require prior communication and advance notice to allow for planning.

As a glider pilot and instructor the addition of transmission lines near Warkworth airfield is a significant risk
We train our pilots to manage their energy and the resultant flight path however there are times that downdrafts can cause a glider to return to the field lower than the normal flight path.

Adding high power lines nearby creates significant risks. Mid or low experience pilots may be tempted to overfly the powelines or even underfly. In other environments it would be suitable options to land away from the airfield as a precaution and therefore avoid going close to the power lines.
Warkworth does not offer the usual out landing options due to coal mines, roads and the Forrest. On this basis it is important that power lines be away from the field and ideally near landable areas such as paddocks when they are nearest the runway at Warkworth.
As a former RAAF tactical transport pilot we would fly low level near HV lines and be trained to do this safely. As a glider pilot my options to overfly safely when near the airfield are much reduced.

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

Judy Tynan

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 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.

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, Bradley J Traynor, would like to address my concerns over the proposal for transmission line and placement of the Olney switching station due to the unacceptable damage they will have on the Watagan’s population of endangered Littlejohn’s tree frog. While I fully support a transition to renewable energy sources, I would like to see the selection of a more suitable alternative location for the switching station and believe that further consideration should be given to options including underground construction.
For the past eight years the University of Newcastle’s (UoN) Centre for Conservation Science has studied Littlejohn’s tree frog (Litoria littlejohni). This species is already at high risk of extinction (Endangered on the IUCN Red List, Commonwealth EPBC Act, and the NSW BC Act). The University has implemented captive breeding, genetic rescue, and habitat creation in the hopes of saving this rare species, but it is only through continued diligence and action that it has any chance.
Amphibian fungal disease and low effective population sizes (18 to 181 breeding individuals across a few isolated populations) have seen declines in the populations. Fragmentation of populations has brought about reduction in available genetic diversity and sees inbreeding at high rates. These threats alone are likely to reduce the fitness of the populations, without further disruption to their habitat.
The findings of the research carried out by the UoN Centre for Conservation Science indicate that Littlejohn’s tree frogs are known from only three regions: the Woronora Plateau, the Blue Mountains, and the Watagans. Despite the presence of fairly robust forest in the Watagans, the species is restricted to a narrow 5 km (approx.) range which unfortunately lies in the middle of the planned switching station and transmission line location. Genetic studies on the supposed metapopulation in the Watagans have demonstrated very little interaction between populations in the disparate pond clusters, and the threat of complete isolation from one another will further reduce genetic diversity. I believe that the University, along with NPWS and NSW Forestry Commission, have installed (built) numerous additional ponds in the hope of connecting the populations further and to increase viable breeding grounds.
This vulnerable Watagans population is at risk from the Hunter REZ Transmission Project. The positioning of the Olney switching station immediately over the southern end of the population, cuts through habitat at the northern end, and suggests placing transmission towers next to both the natural population and the recently constructed ponds. The entire population would be greatly impacted by these activities, which would destroy important breeding habitats. The Giant Burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus), Southern Stuttering frogs (Mixophyes australis), and Red-crowned Toadlets (Pseudophryne australis) are among the other endangered frog species in the region. These species, especially the Giant Burrowing frog, which has a broad terrestrial range, will probably be impacted as well because they share comparable habitat. If the proposed construction increases stream sedimentation, stream frogs in the vicinity could also be at risk.
Although a variety of conservation measures can benefit a species, there is nothing more crucial than preserving the unique habitat of a given species. This is due to the fact that within a species’ habitat there are intrinsic aspects of that habitat that maintains the species’ health and breeding potential.
I strongly urge that the location of the Olney switching station be altered and that the southern portion of this proposed route stay clear of habitat for threatened species. At present, the proposal would see the loss of around one-third of the species' known sites, which would greatly raise their risk of extinction, especially given its poor capacity for dispersal and the hazards (mine, fire, inbreeding, isolation, and illness) facing populations further south.
It seems, from the EIS that the fear of affecting visual amenity ranks higher than threats to biodiversity. I think that in the current enlightened environmental society that biodiversity would rank higher in the minds of most people. I would hope that any future public education or media coverage be open and honest about the effects on the biodiversity in the region, explicitly stating that the southern route will have a detrimental effect on 66 vulnerable species. This fact seems to be non-existent in the current information available to the public forum.
In conclusion, I would again state that I am all for the move toward a greener future in the production of power, but that the transition to renewables should carefully balance impacts upon both human and the natural environment and its biodiversity. I feel that the current proposal seems more focussed on image than ecology, and the projected loss of habitat and biodiversity should be a greater priority. The costs involved in the underground power lines require further investigation to fully assess the viability of this option. I would suggest that underground cables, at least in some parts of the route, would be less impacted by fire, flood, tree-fall, and weather, thus requiring less maintenance, which may offset any costs incurred in construction. This option would remove or reduce the threats to the health of the local environment and its inhabitants.
My real question remains, what is the cost to our country if any of our endemic species are threatened or lost through our actions?
Bradley J Traynor (BAppSc, Grad Dip Ed, MSc [pending])

I object to this project and the processes to which it has been undertaken. There is a distinct lack of community consultation AND sorely lacking consultation with impacted land-holders.
I object to the proposed widening of roads and land-clearing, i object to not re-using or re-purposing existing access roads, and I wholeheartedly object to the impact on our environment, the local flora and fauna.

To Whom It May Concern,

Re: Formal Objection to EnergyCo Transmission Project

I write to object to EnergyCo’s proposed transmission project. The impacts on our community, environment, and safety are severe, unnecessary, and inconsistent with NSW planning and environmental obligations.

Existing Infrastructure Ignored

EnergyCo has refused to consider upgrading the existing northern transmission corridor, despite this being a feasible alternative that would significantly reduce environmental and social impacts. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act, s.5.5), proponents must demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been considered. EnergyCo has failed to do so.

Human Impact and Community Disruption

Residents — including elderly and vulnerable landholders — have been subjected to intimidation, trespass, and unfair compensation offers. This disregards the principles of fair treatment under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).

Traffic impacts have been grossly underestimated. Nearly 1,000 heavy vehicle trips per day through towns such as Millfield for over a year would breach acceptable thresholds under local traffic and noise provisions, undermining community safety and residents’ right to quiet enjoyment of their properties.

Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts

The proposal will clear extensive areas of native bushland that provide habitat for threatened flora and fauna species, including those listed under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999.

Species of concern in this region include, but are not limited to:

Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis)

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)

Various threatened orchid species and native understory flora


EnergyCo’s reliance on biodiversity offsets is inadequate and inconsistent with the “like-for-like” offset rules under Part 6 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW). Numerous studies — including findings cited by the NSW Audit Office — show that offsets often fail to achieve genuine ecological outcomes. The only effective way to protect these threatened species and their habitats is to avoid clearing bushland altogether.

Fire Risks Ignored

EnergyCo has failed to properly assess the project’s impact on bushfire resilience. High-voltage lines will obstruct dams used by firefighting helicopters, restrict ground crew access, and pose ignition risks in high-wind events. Under the Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW, s.63), developers must not increase fire danger to communities. This project, as designed, will do exactly that. No mitigation or funding has been committed to strengthen firefighting capacity.

Conclusion

This project breaches NSW obligations for biodiversity conservation, fair acquisition, and fire safety. It ignores feasible alternatives, threatens legally protected flora and fauna, and imposes unacceptable burdens on rural communities.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the project in its current form and urge decision-makers to reject it. EnergyCo should be required to utilise the existing northern corridor, consistent with the principles of least environmental harm, biodiversity protection, and community safety.

Referring to the current AIA the basic risk assessment for flying operations at the airfield post the installation or the transmission lines is inadequate and poses an unacceptable risk to pilots operating out of the HVGC site.
The risk assessment should be reviewed and mitigation strategies implemented to manage the hazard.
This has NOT been done.

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.

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

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.

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.

Biodiversity
This impact on biodiversity on a region already under pressure is unacceptable:
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

Missing data
This Impact Statement is based on survey data. But some of the private properties EnergyCo haven’t even visited yet. I know this because of my own property, which is proposed to host about 6km of roads and corridor, as well as blank sections in the EIS survey maps. However EnergyCo is treating these blank sections as containing no ecological value. As an example of this, my own property (1205/DP1033443) contains rich fauna (koalas, gliders, etc) and flora (pokolbin ironbark, several species of Persoonia including Persoonia pauciflora which is critically endangered). Yet this property appears on the survey as containing no flora or fauna (see survey map p339 EIS)

Taking over public land
I object to EnergyCo taking over public state forests and parks such as Watagans, Corrabare and Pokolbin State Forest. This is a shared asset that we can all enjoy, which will now have massive cleared sections. We all own and enjoy this asset, but EnergyCo has now taken this over to build roads and clear forest. It's our land, and they've given themselves permission to do this.

Clearing land with no justification
This project will impact over 761 hectares of native vegetation. This is not acceptable, especially when there is already an existing, cleared corridor a few kilometres to the north (through Neath). There has been no community input in selecting this path, or justification. Since the budget for this project is unknown, it can't be to save money.
The result of clearing this land will be increased crime, rubbish and burnt out cars.

Road widening
In the EIS analysis, the impact of clearing and road widening is not addressed. There are hundreds of planned road works and track upgrades planned, which have an ecological and community impact. These have not been addressed.

Long term analysis missing
There is no analysis of the long term impact of clearing these corridors and additional roads. There is increased fire risk, crime and ecological problems that need to be dealt with long term, but EnergyCo will no longer be responsible for these

Ignoring social and community impacts
Several of the impacted properties have been set up as wildlife care sanctuaries. Our communities have invested funds and time in building these up. They are critical for injured animals and supporting an ecosystem already under pressure. EnergyCo has ignored people like Peter & Kathy Morris and this report ignores the impact of destroying these important assets - they don’t even get a mention.

Ignoring the human impact
Our elderly and vulnerable should be treated with respect and care. EnergyCo have treated this as an opportunity to bully, threaten and swindle. I know this from my own experience. Making ridiculous low offers, trespassing and treating them with aggressive disdain. Cases such as my neighbours Ian & Vicky Barry don’t even get a mention, yet EnergyCo have had the time to use their stories as part of their recruiting process

Meaningless Offsets
To address all this destruction, EnergyCo plan to buy 234,753 offset credits. Essentially they are paying someone else (with our money) so they can destroy our pristine bushland. Study after study have illustrated how these credits can be dodgy and don’t offset anything. Surely the sensible approach is don’t destroy our native bushland in the first place - use the existing corridor to the north.

Traffic impact
There will be daily traffic movement of almost 1000 heavy vehicles through small towns like Millfield. 7 days a week. For at least 2 years, and probably more. This is not something we should have to accept - especially when there is an existing corridor already available.

Workers Villages & Compounds
The creation of these worker villages and compounds will increase traffic and load on community and council resources. This is not acceptable that the developer imposes this on our community and gets this “for free”

No analysis of Fire resilience
There is no analysis of the impact of this project on our fire resilience. On my own property, we have a significant dam (200ML) which is used by helicopters to collect water for firefighting, which will now be blocked by high voltage transmission lines. The presence of high voltage lines also restricts movement of some firefighting equipment. High winds may result in towers or lines down, which at 500kv may start more fires. EnergyCo isn’t funding any additional fire fighting capacity - it’s up to our communities to support this. This is not acceptable.

Improved vehicle access to bushland means more traffic, and unfortunately more arson during high risk times. Any easement or track access that EnergyCo demands (either on private land or state forest) means they essentially own it freehold (their easement terms are "full and fair"). This means a landholder can no longer erect gates or restrict access to prevent firebugs getting through. None of this issue is analysed or the impact evaluated.

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

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.

No