Lakes Estate - Modification 5 to retain overhead 66kva powerlines

The proposed change to the existing DA approval provides no benefit to the current or future residents. A large part of the visual amenity to the current Lakes Estate is the buried power lines and having this continue through the new development would be a considerable change to the landscape.
The proposed change is also purely an economical decision for the developer who commenced initial stages of the development with the condition that these HV lines are to be buried in the future. There is absolutely no value for current or future residents in what the developer is proposing and is just another cost saving measure.
For this submission to provide value, then it should be offset with additional public amenities of similar cost such as parks or footpaths.

I wish to make the following submission regarding the proposed relocation of 66KV Power Lines Lakes Estate North Boambee Valley

Inadequate advertising
An advertisement appeared on page 31 of the local paper where many people wouldn't see it. The advertisement failed to provide a plan of the proposal and many residents wouldn't recognise that it related to their neighbourhood.

It is misleading for the advertisement to suggest that the retention of the overhead line is a requirement of Essential Energy. This is simply incorrect.

There is no invitation to make a submission and no mention is made of the timeframe for comment. Many people would assume it is a foregone conclusion and wouldn't reply.

The summary description on the Depts website suggests the power lines are to be moved to the proposed road reserve which is correct but fails to mention the original approval is to be modified to allow overhead lines.


Comments on Essential Energy's letter on the issues of underground power. (signed by Troy Dent and provided as supporting information in the DA modification application)
The letter signed by an Essential Energy Design Engineer suggesting that underground power will 'possibly lead to extended outages' is completely unsubstantiated and of dubious credibility. As a Civil Engineer I can't see why it would take longer to repair or replace an underground cable in a conduit compared to the time taken to establish cranes with traffic control and have personnel working at heights with all the necessary safety provisions and compliance requirements in place.

Furthermore, it is stated that most faults / problems occur at the transition between underground and overhead lines. Surely this is a design issue which could be overcome by appropriate robust connections which would be paid for by the developer. Transitioning from underground to overhead power is a common and well established design practice that occurs in a multitude of locations throughout the States Power Network. It is not a reason to change the approval to use overhead lines throughout.

The letter fails to mention the increased risk of overhead power due to the following: fire risk, bird strikes, vehicular impact, exposure to weather(wind, lightning etc), access, adverse visual impact and maintenance issues.


The essence of the letter just doesn't make sense and only suggests a possibility of extended outages - not a likelihood. I suspect it hasn't been endorsed by senior management in Essential Energy.

Surely, if these are such important issues to Essential Energy, there would be a published explanation and policy justifying the use of overhead power in residential subdivisions.

The above are important issues, critical to consideration of the approval and should be questioned. At the very least a detailed explanation with statistical facts should be provided addressing the points I have raised in this submission.

The letter also makes mention of the fact that overhead lines were approved along Lakes Dr previously. I fail to see why that is relevant to the argument for or against overhead lines and doesn't present a balanced perspective. That approval was more than 20 years ago and in my opinion doesn't meet modern day community expectations with regard to both visual issues and any perceived health concerns(whether justified or not). Also, the line is only along a short section of the northern end of Lakes Dr where the housing is separated by a watercourse from the power lines which is not the case for many of the lots in this proposal.

Comments on the report by Keiley Hunter Town Planning

The report relies heavily on the letter from Essential Energy which I believe is fundamentally flawed for the reasons outlined above.

The report fails to address the fact that the original DA required power to be underground. The broad Community had an expectation that would be the case. It was expected the power lines would be underground along with other services providing a modern well designed, landscaped subdivision with vistas free from unnecessary imposing, overhead visual impairments.

Many people in the Community are still concerned about safety issues associated with the proximity to high voltage overhead power and this perception creates anxiety and stress and can lead to mental health issues. Residents had the expectation the power lines would be relocated underground in accordance with the original DA approval and there is no good reason why it should be changed (to overhead) other than a realignment (underground) along proposed roads.

Given that the original subdivision approval was for underground power, what has changed to warrant this modification? Presumably, the original DA was approved following extensive consultation with relevant Government Authorities, Service Providers, Council and the Community. Surely there needs to be a compelling reason advanced to warrant a modification. In my opinion there is none and the proposal for overhead power should not be approved.

Civil Engineer (Retired)