Powering Sydney's Future

I provide the attachment - my submission. I have removed my personal details as I do not want them made public. I trust you have them as I have had to create this profile.

Application Number: SSI 8583
Note: I wish to keep my personal details private. I do not give permission for my personal details to be made publicly available.
Detailed reasons for not supporting the project:
Reasons for project
A main reason given for the project is to provide for affordable electricity. Since privatisation our electricity prices have increased – how are we to believe this is actually the case for this project? Will they in-fact increase again?
A further reason given for the project is to provide for growth. If the government had the initiative to develop regional areas and provide them with better infrastructure and opportunities, perhaps major projects such as these may not be needed in already highly developed areas. NSW is a large landmass; seems short-sighted to expect everyone to live so densely, in such a small area.
Whilst I understand the need for electricity, I do not agree with the community carrying the burden of poor-planning, lazy solutions and cost-savings that are passed to share-holders and not consumers.
Route
The Western Sydney cable went along parkland – why does this cable not do the same? The Cooks River is surrounded by parkland and would be a similar pathway to the Western Sydney cable. I wonder if this is an issue of ‘’privatisation’’- where now money-saving overrides what is actually best for the community?
The route traverses mostly residential areas and laydown areas are public spaces (for two year or more duration – projects rarely run to schedule). This is unacceptable. The Inner-West is already heaving under dense development and public space is therefore becoming more critical for well-being. To occupy such quantities of these spaces for such a time, is not acceptable. Perhaps Sydney Ports could offer some space, or Rail? Why is the burden always to the community? I also note the cumulative impacts of West Connex and their long-term occupation of our public spaces.
The report states that Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) has a link to childhood leukemia. If ‘prudent avoidance’ was being employed for the project, the route would not be along residential areas (and 3m away from baby’s and children’s bedrooms). The route would be along the Cooks River (like Western Sydney) or in park-lands as per the myriad of other 330kV towers in NSW.
The possible route along our street (near Croydon Avenue) would obstruct highly utilized sporting fields (including parking in Croydon Avenue). Further, this area has recently had a considerable amount of public money spent on it for the purpose of improved traffic management (including for emergency vehicles and Council access to the park). The funding of that much awaited infrastructure would be wasted (I have yet to see any development in our area reinstate public roads or footpaths to their original condition - let alone better condition). Many houses in our street have small children (including babies), night works would be highly disruptive to our families. Most of the homes are built in the old style, with all bedrooms at the front of the house, thereby taking full-impact of noise. I note that babies and small children also sleep during the day and day-time works would also impact on these families adversely.
The route ‘options’ presented also cause unease about what is actually to occur and where. It is also not clear in the document who will be deciding on the ultimate route. This provides unacceptable uncertainty – particularly with regards to who will make the final decision and what their ultimate motivation will be i.e. communities ‘best-interest’ or time and cost savings?? The assessment does not provide for adequate checks and balances for integrity of process.
EMF
This is my primary concern regarding this project. I would like to see an explanation in the environmental assessment about why this 330kV infrastructure has traditionally not been near residential homes, but now it is??? I note the environmental assessment downplays this issue. I further note TransGrid community information material virtually disregards the issue entirely. I refer to my comment above regarding childhood leukemia and ‘prudent avoidance’.
The assessment also neglects to discuss how EMF will affect residents when a second cable is placed. Whilst it is not the scope of this assessment, as a landholder (with small children), I am concerned about future, planned-for EMF exposure that I am not being given figures regarding.
The Mitigation Measures to manage EMF are woeful. All of them state they will be employed ‘where practical’. At whose discression?? This is not discussed. As the reader I can only assume they will not be employed when budgets and timeframes make it too difficult……I am left with the impression that EMF is being completely dismissed in this assessment. Further, Mitigation Measures to take measurements of EMF are outlined for the cable post-installation, however there is no discussion regarding what will happen if the levels are above acceptable limits?? Will the cable be removed? Or will the requirement to measure, record and file the result be enough and the residents forced to live not knowing the impacts to their family’s health?? Will the results be communicated to residents? Where is this undertaking? These mitigation measures need to outline solid commitments, not the wishy-washy commitments provided in the assessment.
Also, the assessment talks about 40 years of research. I note this is not a long-time. Nor could it be considered a life-time. Hence, with regards to high voltage electricity, I do not believe this is a reliable enough yard-stick to assure residents we are safe.
Poor public consultation effort
Our community did not receive any consultation regarding route. The letter-box drop was mistaken as junk mail by many. A number of residents state they did not receive anything in the post. Something this serious should be addressed to the landowner. This was not done.
Lack of submissions do not mean support – residents are laypeople and are busy.
As a final note, the environmental assessment is large, complex and not particularly easy to read. The stakeholders to this project are mostly residents – busy, family people who likely do not have an in-depth understanding of planning issues and infrastructure. Many may also be elderly, disabled or have other issues. I note that a lack of submissions may not indicate support, but a lack of time, understanding or another obstacle.
I myself would like to have more time to peruse the assessment and write a complex submission. I only have time to skim this assessment and hence, my submission is mostly ‘in-principal’. I would ask that the Department of Planning considers whether this project really does serve the community in the format it is presented? (I am particularly concerned with the treatment of EMF). Or if this project is a band-aid to cover poor planning and the community will bear this burden? Perhaps there are a myriad of other options (such as along the Cooks River in parkland) that would be of greater long-term benefit to the community?
…….end.

IWEG is making a submission on the areas in which we conduct Bushcare, where our members live and the surrounds only and have no knowledge or comments on other areas. This is the area from Old Canterbury Rd to New Canterbury rd, Dulwich Hill.
IWEG is, in principle, supportive of the project on the proviso that no trees are removed or damaged nor any damage to the GreenWay occur nor any works occur that might later interfere with the construction or expansion of the GreenWay at a later stage. That the works be carried out in the roadway other than when crossing the Light Rail tracks, that no damage be done to the Brush Boxes in Johnson Park. That contractors be fully briefed, be held accountable and be monitored during their work in the park.
IWEG supports the Constitution Rd route option. The Windsor Rd, Terry St option will cause greater disruption and damage to the GreenWay, Also, this area is prone to flooding which enters the "Hopper Building". I am concerned that any works in the area might cause problems to or reduce drainage works planned for the GreenWay at Terry and Hill Sts.

Refer attached response letter.

Please find attached the comments from Inner West Council.

The Department of Primary Industries has reviewed the proposal and has a strong preference for the underboring method when crossing the Cooks River at Croydon Park/Campsie to minimise impacts to key fish habitat. For more information please contact Sarah Conacher at [email protected]

Please see attached EPA comments.

Attention: Director Energy Assessments At: www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/9956

Re: Project Powering Sydney’s Future

Application Number: SSI 8583

Note: I wish to keep my personal details private. I do not give permission for my personal details to be made publicly available.

Name: Name Withheld

Address: Withheld – Croydon Park.

Statement: I do not support the project. This is due to its location (route) and also the reasons given for its need.

Detailed reasons for not supporting the project:

Reasons for project

A main reason given for the project is to provide for affordable electricity. Since privitisation our electricity prices have increased – how are we to believe this is actually the case for this project? Will they in-fact increase again?

A further reason given for the project is to provide for growth. If the government had the initiative to develop regional areas and provide them with better infrastructure and opportunities, perhaps major projects such as these may not be needed in already highly developed areas. NSW is a large landmass; seems short-sighted to expect everyone to live so densely, in such a small area.

Whilst I understand the need for electricity, I do not agree with the community carrying the burden of poor-planning, lazy solutions and cost-savings that are passed to share-holders and not consumers.

Route

The Western Sydney cable went along parkland – why does this cable not do the same? The Cooks River is surrounded by parkland and would be a similar pathway to the Western Sydney cable. I wonder if this is an issue of ‘’privitisation’’- where now money-saving overrides what is actually best for the community?

The route traverses mostly residential areas and laydown areas are public spaces (for two year or more duration – projects rarely run to schedule). This is unacceptable. The Inner-West is already heaving under dense development and public space is therefore becoming more critical for well-being. To occupy such quantities of these spaces for such a time, is not acceptable. Perhaps Sydney Ports could offer some space, or Rail? Why is the burden always to the community? I also note the cumulative impacts of West Connex and their long-term occupation of our public spaces.

The report states that Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) has a link to childhood leukemia. If ‘prudent avoidance’ was being employed for the project, the route would not be along residential areas (and 3m away from baby’s and children’s bedrooms). The route would be along the Cooks River (like Western Sydney) or in park-lands as per the myriad of other 330kV towers in NSW.

The possible route along our street (near Croydon Avenue) would obstruct highly utilized sporting fields (including parking in Croydon Avenue). Further, this area has recently had a considerable

amount of public money spent on it for the purpose of improved traffic management (including for emergency vehicles and Council access to the park). The funding of that much awaited infrastructure would be wasted (I have yet to see any development in our area reinstate public roads or footpaths to their original condition - let alone better condition). Many houses in our street have small children (including babies), night works would be highly disruptive to our families. Most of the homes are built in the old style, with all bedrooms at the front of the house, thereby taking full-impact of noise. I note that babies and small children also sleep during the day and day-time works would also impact on these families adversely.

The route ‘options’ presented also cause unease about what is actually to occur and where. It is also not clear in the document who will be deciding on the ultimate route. This provides unacceptable uncertainty – particularly with regards to who will make the final decision and what their ultimate motivation will be i.e. communities ‘best-interest’ or time and cost savings?? The assessment does not provide for adequate checks and balances for integrity of process.

EMF

This is my primary concern regarding this project. I would like to see an explanation in the environmental assessment about why this 330kV infrastructure has traditionally not been near residential homes, but now it is??? I note the environmental assessment downplays this issue. I further note TransGrid community information material virtually disregards the issue entirely. I refer to my comment above regarding childhood leukemia and ‘prudent avoidance’.

The assessment also neglects to discuss how EMF will affect residents when a second cable is placed. Whilst it is not the scope of this assessment, as a landholder (with small children), I am concerned about future, planned-for EMF exposure that I am not being given figures regarding.

The Mitigation Measures to manage EMF are woeful. All of them state they will be employed ‘where practical’. At whose discression?? This is not discussed. As the reader I can only assume they will not be employed when budgets and timeframes make it too difficult……I am left with the impression that EMF is being completely dismissed in this assessment. Further, Mitigation Measures to take measurements of EMF are outlined for the cable post-installation, however there is no discussion regarding what will happen if the levels are above acceptable limits?? Will the cable be removed? Or will the requirement to measure, record and file the result be enough and the residents forced to live not knowing the impacts to their family’s health?? Will the results be communicated to residents? Where is this undertaking? These mitigation measures need to outline solid commitments, not the wishy-washy commitments provided in the assessment.

Also, the assessment talks about 40 years of research. I note this is not a long-time. Nor could it be considered a life-time. Hence, with regards to high voltage electricity, I do not believe this is a reliable enough yard-stick to assure residents we are safe.

Poor public consultation effort

Our community did not receive any consultation regarding route. The letter-box drop was mistaken as junk mail by many. A number of residents state they did not receive anything in the post. Something this serious should be addressed to the landowner. This was not done.

Lack of submissions do not mean support – residents are laypeople and are busy.

As a final note, the environmental assessment is large, complex and not particularly easy to read. The stakeholders to this project are mostly residents – busy, family people who likely do not have an in-depth understanding of planning issues and infrastructure. Many may also be elderly, disabled or have other issues. I note that a lack of submissions may not indicate support, but a lack of time, understanding or another obstacle.

I myself would like to have more time to peruse the assessment and write a complex submission. I only have time to skim this assessment and hence, my submission is mostly ‘in-principal’. I would ask that the Department of Planning considers whether this project really does serve the community in the format it is presented? (I am particularly concerned with the treatment of EMF). Or if this project is a band-aid to cover poor planning and the community will bear this burden? Perhaps there are a myriad of other options (such as along the Cooks River in parkland) that would be of greater long-term benefit to the community?

A copy of the TfNSW response is attached.

Objection - see attached

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE OUR PERSONAL INFORMATION PUBLIC

Attention: Director - Energy Assessments
Department of Industry and Environment
RE: Powering Sydney’s Future Project Application Number - SSI 8583

To whom it may concern,

We STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal for the following reasons:

• Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) exposure uncertainty: The research in the report has not categorically stated the effect of exposure of ELF magnetic fields is safe. We are located in a small residential street and are very concerned about the actual exposures we will experience, and their long term effect on our family’s health. Although the report is lengthy, there are many factors that can impact the level of our exposure and yet these won’t be determined until a later date. For example, the report makes mention that we will be better off with a trefoil arrangement of cables, and yet we have no idea if we will have that rather than a flat one in front of our property.

• Important data is missing from the report: No exposure data is provided for running the second cables in the future. EIS main report chapter 10 provides exposure predictions for a single cable circuit. No data is provided for the cumulative impact of the future second 330kv transmission cable circuit. By building both sets of cables, the project is inherently geared toward increased capacity in the future, and yet no data is provided where both cable circuits would run. The report states that the infrastructure for the second cables will be built but the community is not being provided with the exposure data related to these. Given the large capital outlay, and the fact that alternative options are unlikely to be considered for additional electrical supply once this outlay has been made, the report is not being transparent about what these levels will be in the event the capacity doubled. It needs to be disclosed – it will be too late once the cables are laid – so why aren’t we being told the full story? Such a large, onerous document has been produced and yet key information such as this has been left out.

• Positioning of the cable circuit is crucial but unknown – there is potentially a significant difference in exposure for us whether the cables are laid in the centre of the road or closer to our footpath. We have not been provided with information in this regard – another unknown factor.

• Monitoring of EMF during and after construction: Transgrid have advised us by email that the ‘monitoring of EMF at residential properties will be determined on a case by case basis in consultation with potentially affected residents and stakeholders during the detailed design phase of the project’. If the project were to go ahead, we want monitoring to be undertaken at our property to see how actual levels of exposure stack up to predictions. We also want to know that if resulting levels are too high, what will be done about it? What level will be acceptable? Won’t it all be too little too late? The report is silent on these questions.

• Significant energy transmission for a small residential street: A small suburban street is an inappropriate location to lay these cables. We are a family with young children and are concerned about the EMF exposures and the potential impact on our health and wellbeing. We have a family member with a hearing aid and as parents we have concerns regarding the nature of the exposure and its effect on them. Such an unusual and significant transmission cable is a deviation from the current structure where power is transmitted across a number of separate cables between nodes. Why should our small street cop the brunt of the energy transmission flowing through? As an indication of our small street size, our street has a 3 tonne limit on trucks, so how can such major works be undertaken on such a small street?

• Short-term reasons for ‘refined’ route: Many of the reasons the route was changed from the initial plan were due to short-term issues, such as night time construction and the impact on major roads. We feel that our long-term personal and environmental situation will be disadvantaged significantly to overcome short term issues. We would prefer additional traffic at night due to detours from major roads than to have the cables on our street.

• Impact on property values: Limited information has been provided on the impact on property prices resulting from this. Given the scale of the work and redirection of infrastructure and resulting exposures, we have significant concerns about this. This is compounded by the fact that we are in a heritage conservation area.

Given the length of the report, which makes it terribly difficult for the ordinary person to read, the omissions cited above does lead us to reasonably believe that the report has been padded out as a deliberate tactic to obfuscate to limit objections.

For the above reasons we STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal.

I object to the proposed current route. Please see my comments in the attached document.

Please find attached EES advice - apologies for the delay.