1. Introduction and Grounds for Objection

We formally lodge our objection to the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project. While we acknowledge the project is deemed Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI), the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) technical assessments confirm that our property will be subject to moderate or high visual and noise impacts during both the construction and operational phases. We believe these impacts are excessive and will fundamentally degrade the use and value of our property.

2. Significant Impact on Residential and Commercial Amenity

The project defines "Amenity" as the qualities and characteristics that contribute to a property’s use, enjoyment, and value. Our objection is based on the following specific disruptions:

Acoustic Impacts: The EIS identifies our location as a site for high noise impact. This disrupts the "tranquillity, privacy, and residential enjoyment" guaranteed under standard landholder expectations.

Visual Disruption: The transition from a natural landscape to an industrial energy site with reservoirs, pipelines, and transmission lines constitutes a "high visual impact" that cannot be adequately mitigated by simple landscaping.

Business Viability: As new property owners, we bought this place relying on the property’s "commercial utility" and "operational viability". The noise and visual degradation directly threaten "business operations, booking schedules, and customer experience" for any current or future short-term rental or commercial use of the site. This is of critical importance as the property was used successfully for these purposes before we purchased it.

3. Historical Use and Economic Loss

Prior to our acquisition, our property was an established short-term rental property. This demonstrated historical use proves the property’s commercial value within the nature-based tourism market. The "moderate to high" impacts predicted by the EIS—specifically noise and visual industrialization—render this established business model unviable. Guests seeking a rural experience will not pay for an experience dominated by construction noise and industrial infrastructure.

4. Requested ActionThe predicted impacts on our community are not "managed" but merely shifted to the residents. We hence would like to object to this and hope our community will be protected by the Department. We request that the Department:

Mandate Stricter Controls: Require the implementation of physical, on-site noise barriers and significant vegetation screening at the Developer’s expense.

Evaluate Economic Loss: Conduct a more rigorous assessment of the impact on the local property market and the viability of nature-based tourism and rentals in the area.

Ensure Environmental Accountability: Ensure that the Project Approval does not permit the Developer to use administrative mechanisms to bypass standard environmental compliance and mitigation obligations.

First and foremost, I am against this project and the destruction to the environment it will cause. I grew up in Lithgow and currently reside in Dunedoo, but to this day still use the Lake Lyell facilities from time to time camping with friends and remembering the good times. As mentioned, I grew up around this lake, with my family and family friends attending on weekends to go waterskiing, camping and having bbqs etc. Quite alot of my childhood memories are around Lake Lyell.

Further to this fact, my mum and step father own a property on the corner of Sir Thomas Mitchell Dr and Magpie Hollow Rd right where the trucks will be coming past at all stages of the day. This in turn with the fact my sister visits regularly and has an autistic son who likes to wander would definitely be a dangerous mix if he was to run off to look at the trucks. I have seen the damage these ridiculous projects cause as I currently work for a store that supplies a solar project on Merotherie Road, north of Mudgee. The dust from constant vehicles. the destruction of habitat and the landscape alone, as well as the amount of vehicles coming and going day in and day out is one of the many reasons why I appose this project and believe there are far better options than choosing a quaint little town like Lithgow where Lake Lyell remains a solid tourist destination, especially in summer. The destruction this project would cause identical environmental damage as other solar projects, and although this is a hydro project, I can guarentee it will be damaging to the area.

It makes me really sick watching the government just destroying Country NSW for something so expensive and ridiculous which leaves us not really benefiting from any of this as the majority of the electricity generated goes to Sydney. Further to this fact, with the housing issues current, it wil cause massive shortages in Lithgow and surrounds, and although there will be temporary housing built, most workers prefer their own place. I know this from what has happened to Dubbo, Wellington and locally around Dunedoo. Housing is very scarce and invading Lithgow like this when the roads are not up to scratch either makes me scratch my head at the choices these ridiculous governments are making.

Between personal issues with the whole idea of solar, and hydro etc, which is already proven to be worse for the environment, and we will definitely see this in coming years. This project will be no different. The proposed Lake Lyell Hydro will destroy the fishing, the tourism, and more than likely make the facilities and lake virtually unusable for future generations. I have been against it from day 1 and will be doing everything I can to make sure this project never happens. Further to this, I will be totally disgusted in the goverment for continuing to destroy the landscape when people can't even cut a tree down without it being an offence.

To finalise, this project would not benefit Lithgow whatsoever, would overrun it with more people than it can handle, it would destroy Lake Lyell, the fish populations as well as the platypus, and other species, like bird species where more trees would be knocked down to make way for another waste of money project, it would scar the landscape and create an unbelievable amount of traffic on Sir Thomas Mitchell Drive, devaluing properties, and seems this project has little lifespan let alone the usage of it, I am confused why the government is spending such a ridiclous amount of money on it for such little return, and as already mentioned, it would overrun the town making renting worse for local residents, the roads are already under immense strain from the Mt Vic closure and this would only add to the pressure of the town and it's poor neglected roads by adding more traffic than they can handle already.

Submission – Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project
1. Personal and Community Outlook
We have been visitors to Lithgow and surrounds for many years having family live in the region. Our visits are across all seasons. Summer capturing Christmas, Autum and Winter to indulge in the landscape, history of the region exploring the Blue mountains and many a BBQ on the banks of Lake Lyell. Our Family over the years have grown up in the region and many family activities have occurred on the banks of Lake Lyell. Lithgow has clearly undergone significant transformations, notable on our return to the city annually. Tourism is clearly the backbone for the community and the growth of associated attractions to visitors always include Lake Lyall. The history of WWW 2 and the contribution from the emissions facility a standout attraction. The history of the coal miners, evidenced by the remaining miners' cottages. As a child born in Orange, Lithgow was always a stop for a cuppa on our way to Sydney.
2. Project Overview and Energy Impact
Energy Australia presents pumped hydro as essential infrastructure for future energy reliability. When considered against alternatives, this claim is difficult to reconcile  The proposed project delivers approximately 385 MW over 8 hours (~3,080 MWh)
Battery storage alternatives can deliver equivalent or greater output at significantly lower cost
Two battery systems could match or exceed the project’s energy capacity
Battery systems can be located on existing industrial land (e.g., Mt Piper)
Further :  Pumped hydro systems consume more energy than they produce (approx. 20% losses)
 Capital costs (~$4 billion+) are highly uncertain and prone to overruns
 Battery systems (~$1 billion) offer a lower-cost, modular, scalable solution
Why pursue high-impact solution when lower-impact, lower-cost alternatives already exist?
3. Environmental and Physical Outcomes
The impacts of this proposal to the environment and surrounds is irreversible, and pose catastrophic outcomes which include  Clearing of approximately 167 hectares of native bushland on Mt Walker, thus displacing the natural, fauna and flora in particular regional habitat, geological time period, which generally focuses on native vegetation. It encompasses, trees, mosses, and lichens, often contrasted with animal life.
Daily extraction of approximately 17% of Lake Lyell’s water volume.
Major tunnelling and landscape destruction.
This manipulation of the Landscape and surrounding life dependant on its ecological infrastructure will be gone forever.
The destruction to areas of Indigenous cultural significance will be irreplaceable.
The alteration of lake Lyell's ecology and water quality will impact on the long-term degradation of the landscape's integrity.
4. Recreation, Tourism, and Economic Impacts.
Lake Lyell is recognised as a destination for Lithgow in the annual tourism calendar. It not only provides various tourism focused activities it is well recognised for servicing the full calendar year encompassing all four seasons. The proposed optional model fundamentally changes its function.
Impacts include:
Disruption to fishing, boating, skiing, and water-based recreation.
Reduced amenities due to constant water level fluctuations.
Loss of visual appeal and environmental quality.
There is already clear evidence of economic harm / ruin.
A major wedding venue continues to decline from ~70 weddings per year to just 4 forward bookings
representing millions of dollars lost to not only tourism but to the local traders who rely on the services they provide to the Venue.
5. Economic Considerations and Value
The economic case for the project is weak when considered holistically.
Pumped Hydro:
 Very high capital cost (~$4B+)
 Long construction timeline
 Significant environmental and social costs
 Operational inefficiencies
Battery Alternative:
 Lower capital cost (~$1B)
 Faster deployment
 Minimal environmental impact
 Use of existing industrial infrastructure
The proposal appears to prioritise engineering complexity over economic and environmental efficiency. Impacts to accommodation, hospitality, and local services are already being felt across the community.
6. Viable Alternative – Battery Storage
A clear and practical alternative exists:
Renewable generation + battery storage
This approach:
Stores excess energy directly
Releases energy during peak demand
Eliminates the need for water cycling and reservoir construction
It avoids:
Destruction of Mt Walker
Disruption to Lake Lyell
Large-scale tunnelling and landscape modification
This solution delivers equivalent energy outcomes with significantly lower risk and impact.
7. Community Consultation and Process Concerns
Concerns regarding the integrity of the consultation process have arisen.
Engagement lacks a genuine concern for the impact this project will have on the local and regional communities. Key community concerns remain unresolved or unaddressed, and information provided is often deferred.
Consultation has resulted in community division and fatigue.
Survey methodology is also questionable:
Surveys conducted in areas 10-18 km away from Lake Lyell are clearly dismissive of the immediate impact on these who rely on Lake Lyell for their livelihood and the disruption to the tourism.
Directly affected communities were not adequately surveyed!
8. Localised Impacts and Equity Concerns
Residents in close proximity, particularly along Sir Thomas Mitchell Drive, will experience:
 Heavy construction traffic (6am–10pm daily)
 Noise, dust, and vibration impacts
 Visual degradation of landscape road surface, due to heavy vehicle impact.
Despite this, many have been classified as experiencing “nil or minor impact”, excluding them from compensation frameworks.
This is inconsistent with lived reality and raises serious concerns regarding:
Impact assessment methodology
Fairness of compensation eligibility
Interpretation of “temporary” environmental impacts
For example:
 Clearing of up to 150 hectares of forest is described as “temporary”
 Ecological recovery timelines are decades, not months
Lack of transparency
Inconsistent or incomplete responses
A perception that outcomes are predetermined
This raises a fundamental issue:
Was consultation undertaken to inform the project—or to justify it?
9. Strategic Justification and Timing
The project is justified on the basis of future energy reliability gaps from 2030 onwards.
However:
The speedy roll out of a variety of options including technological will supersede any projected current outcomes in 2030.
Battery technology is rapidly advancing.
Storage duration and efficiencies are improving continuously
Deployment timelines are significantly shorter
There is a legitimate concern that:
The urgency of this project is driven not by necessity, but by timing—seeking approval before superior alternatives become dominant.
10. Conclusion
This proposal represents:
A high-cost, high-impact solution, located in a sensitive and valuable environmental community setting, despite the existence of lower-cost, lower-impact alternatives.
Key conclusions:
 Environmental damage is significant and irreversible.
 Economic justification is weak when alternatives are considered.
 Tourism and community impacts are already evident.
 Consultation processes are deeply flawed.
Most importantly:
No compelling justification to fundamentally alter Lake Lyell or destroy Mt Walker.
Destroying a functioning environment and community asset in order to support “sustainable energy” outcomes is contradictory and steeped in denial as to the impact on the community it poses to protect.
Viable alternatives exist and are being ignored. Irreversible decisions at this stage are being made in haste. The impact on the environment will not recover for generations to come.
Yours sincerely,
Sharon Medlow Smith
0411 760 236 - Sharon @cocolaaur.com.au

Submission Opposing the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project
I write to formally object to the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project on environmental, social, economic, and planning grounds. While the transition to renewable energy and storage is essential, this particular project raises significant concerns that outweigh its claimed benefits.

1. Environmental Impacts

The project risks substantial and irreversible damage to the Lake Lyell ecosystem and surrounding landscapes. Construction and operation involves large-scale land clearing, excavation, and alteration of natural water flows. These activities threaten native flora and fauna, including species that are already vulnerable due to climate pressures. The introduction of major infrastructure into a relatively undisturbed area could fragment habitats, reduce biodiversity, and degrade water quality through sedimentation and pollution.

Additionally, the cyclical pumping and release of water will disrupt aquatic ecosystems by altering temperature, oxygen levels, and natural flow regimes. These changes can have cascading impacts on platypus, fish, amphibians, and other aquatic life.

2. Cultural and Community Concerns

Lake Lyell and its surrounds are valued by local communities for recreation, tourism, and their scenic character. The industrialisation of this landscape risks undermining these values. Noise, visual intrusion, and increased traffic during both construction and operation would significantly affect local amenity.

There may also be cultural heritage considerations, including potential impacts on sites of significance to Aboriginal communities. These must be thoroughly assessed, and where uncertainty exists, the precautionary principle should apply.

3. Economic Viability and Opportunity Cost

Pumped hydro is often presented as a long-term storage solution, but projects of this scale are capital-intensive and prone to cost overruns. It is not clear that the Lake Lyell proposal represents the most efficient or cost-effective option available. Alternatives such as distributed battery storage, demand management, and upgrades to existing infrastructure may deliver similar or better outcomes with lower environmental and social costs.

Public and private investment should be directed toward solutions that maximise benefit while minimising harm. Committing significant resources to a project with unresolved risks may limit the ability to pursue more sustainable and flexible energy strategies.

4. Climate Justification vs. Local Impact

While renewable energy storage is critical for decarbonisation, not all projects are justified simply because they support climate goals. It is essential to balance global benefits with local consequences. Projects that cause substantial environmental degradation or community disruption risk undermining public support for the broader energy transition.

A more strategic, transparent assessment of alternatives—considering cumulative impacts across regions—is needed to ensure that developments align with both climate objectives and environmental stewardship.

5. Planning and Assessment Concerns

There is a need for rigorous, transparent, and independent environmental assessment. Key issues that require further scrutiny include:

Full lifecycle environmental impacts
Water sourcing and long-term hydrological effects
Biodiversity offsets and their adequacy
Community consultation processes and consent
Risk of project expansion beyond initial scope
The evidence provided in the environmental report proves that approval should not be given to the project.

Conclusion

In its current form, the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project presents unacceptable risks to the environment, local communities, and responsible planning outcomes. I urge decision-makers to reject the proposal, prioritising alternatives that deliver energy reliability without compromising ecological integrity or community wellbeing. The environmental report on the project should be rejected based on the 'Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), under this Act it is illegal to go ahead with the Pumped Hydro.

Thank you for considering this submission.

This project represents a great travesty of injustice, poor judgement and a failure to recognise basic principles of commonsense reality. It cannot be allowed to proceed.
My objection is based on the following broad considerations:
1. Economic grounds - the level of investment for such a small project is astronomic and cannot be justified for any perceived long term benefit. Even after the project is built, it costs money (energy) to pump the water up the hill to then let it run down to generate electrivity. At every stage of this process there are energy losses which equates to a net loss in the project economics. The project essentially uses electricity to make electricity and uses a price differential for power to jusify the economics. This is a PONZI scheme dressed up as electicity generation.

2. Alternate project type - the same benefit in power storage (from renewable generation, which we have an excess of on sunny days) can be achieved with other technologies, eg batteries with none of the environmental compromises. This project fails to recognise proper cost:benefit analysis and environmenal impact assessment.

3. Environmental values - the environmental degradation is enormous and all for such a very small project in terms of electicity generation. There is a cumulative environmental impact when taking into account all phases of the project - construction infrastructure, access roads, forest clearing, significant earthworks for dam & access, earthwors for dam constuction, transmission infrastructure, impact on signifiicant aquatic species, eg platypus, impact on other native flora & fauna, clearing of forests, and hydrology and visual degradation.

Landscape value - Mt Walker forms a dominant and commanding backdrop to the town of Lithgow. This project seeks to create a enormous scar on the forested upper slopes of Mt Walker. This is a major issue. This factor alone should be sufficient grounds to reject this proposal based on a signifcant impact on the evironment. What other project would be permitted to do proceed with such devastating environmental impact? None.

Tourism - This project will transform a tranquill, visually appealing site to one nominated by man made developments and a reduced 'natural environment'. This would not appeal to may, and so the tourism value of the lake and therefore, the general locality would be diminished. This would represent an economic downturn for the Lithgow economy.

Flawed electicity generation model - the whole push to transition our electicity grid from coal/gas generation to one dominated by wind/solar is, by any measure flawed. This transformation has been going on for a couple of decades now and the lived evidence is in. We now have a grid which is less reliable, more unstable, very expensive and creating more environmental degradation. The result has been a continual & unrelenting rise in the cost of all products, which is at the heart of our cost of living crisis and uncompetitveness in manufacturing. We know full well that any cuts in emissions that Australia makes will not, and cannot change the global climate. This is a fact and cannot be disputed. So, why are we shooting ourselves in the foot by pursuing this renewable obsession. This is pure foolhardiness.

Under any truly independent and professional environmental impact assessment this project would be rejected on the basis of significant environmental impact. This is in addition to the farcical econimc model on which it is based.

Attention Jess Watson:
To: NSW State Planning


Re: Lake Lyell Hydro Project – Application Number SSI-77018220. CSSI


Thank for the opportunity to make a submission for the above project. I am a local resident and aware of the historic and current impacts with coal fired power generation and coal mining and I have supportive comments, opposing and suggestions for this project.


Whilst I agree in principle supporting Lake Lyell Hydro Project and thank the staff from Energy Australia’s extraordinary level of work with community consultation prior as during the EIS period. However, to consider supporting this project as long as the following recommendations are implemented throughout the entirety of operations. Whilst acknowledging there will be a reduction of coal to support this project the existing level of emissions, contamination and pollution will continue to the local environment, equally oppose other forms of generation i.e gas, energy from waste and Nuclear until this project is 100% generated from solar, wind and Battery Energy Support Systems. Otherwise, I oppose.


State and federal legislation for indigenous and European heritage, social and environmental impacts still fail across Lithgow’s LGA, failing to ensure sustainability for people and the land. Stronger legislation and regulation that strengthen not weaken has to apply to this project for continuity for survival.
Stronger legislation and regulation in particular reporting requirements by proponents to achieve viable economic sustainable projects.


My words are not hearsay I have participated for over 18 years when both power stations in Lithgow previously owned by the NSW government and continued still today from Delta Electricity community group for Mt Piper & Wallerawang Power Station and currently with EnergyAustralia CCC Mt Piper Community Consultative Committee meeting notes . Equally over decades continuously observed and continue to see harm to this day with the current energy production with Mt Piper Power Station and Centennial coal mine heavy metals and high salinity discharge water. Observation walking this area the harm and significant loss to our waterways, Threatened Ecological Communities’, our native flora and fauna and landscapes. Decades of observation still prevails at an unsatisfactory level to protect and preserve our area into the future; Ref1; Ref2; Ref3; Ref4; Ref5


Given this current proposal will not produce 100% renewable as it will include other forms of energy that will continue toxic emissions, contaminate land, water, groundwater and waterways those being Mt. Piper PS coal fired emissions, Mt Piper Ash Repository which is currently being capped will not remove the ongoing leaching since 2017 into the groundwater, into Wangcol Creek that flows into the Coxs River until 2039 (provided by EnergyAustralia consultants EMM). The current coal providers for coal- Centennial coal/Springvale and Clarence Collieries and Castlereagh Coal which both those providers continued impacts with loss of surface water, drawn down of aquifers, loss of Threatened Ecological Communities, clearing of natural forests.


Recent consultation with the proponent EnergyAustralia Lake Lyell Hydro advised whilst every possible precaution to protect the platypus, there is no guarantee that harm/death will prevail. This would also include fish, rakali, skinks other fresh water dependent flora and flora water species
Recomendations:


Legislation and Regulations offsets:
I do not accept this project current proposal and not alone who many align with the current legislation and regulations for the environment and community is failing to achieve a sustainable economic future. For example, allowing offsets that fail to protect with evidence that prevails across our communities and the only reasons this is allowed is a fast-track system to approve a project;




Let’s learn with what we know now from the historic and current impacts in our area with previous and current coal fired power generation, underground coal mining and open cut in native vegetation forest/s. This project must achieve, less emissions, excess heavy metals and higher salinity pollution in our waterways, contamination of the land, loss of surface water, loss or harm to Threatened Ecological Communities, listed native flora and fauna. Climate change is impacting our communities already to achieve potable water and environmental flows to viable sustainable economic projects for our communities and the environment; Ref6 Ref7


State and federal legislation for indigenous and European heritage, social and environmental impacts will still prevail across Lithgow LGA, failing to ensure sustainability for people and the land. Stronger legislation and regulation that strengthen not weaken has to apply to this project for continuity for survival.
Stronger legislation and regulation in particular reporting requirements by proponents to achieve viable economic sustainable projects;
Lead by example with maintaining the sites integrity offsets generating only from PV, rooftop solar/home batteries and wind renewable energy, revegetation with native seed collection, seedlings planted on the disturbed areas including road side vegetation to sites.
Guarantee management plans for water, native flora and fauna, noise, dust, vibration, pathogens with 24/7monitoring programs through construction and operational. If any breaches of harm to land (habitats) air or water to cease operations until harm has been eliminated;
Guarantee waterways quality Coxs River 350msc ( NoeBe)to maintain sustainable water quality for aquatic life and to support communities that rely on our river systems;
Mandatory - EDF and EnergyAustralia data reporting monitoring, easy accessed live online24/7 to public with any breaches to be available to the public;
Mandatory energy produced must be a renewable energy source for 24/7 generation. This does not include nuclear, coal, gas, energy from waste;
Guarantee collection of seeds from vegetation removed and top soil from construction areas. Seed source to our local native community nursery to produce stock to be replaced on site throughout the life of the project. Top soils from various ecological communities separate to be stock piled and replaced in disturb areas;
Mandatory - maintain healthy populations of platypus. It is currently listed as “Near Threatened” under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) Red List but not currently listed under the Australian legislation EPBC Act whilst it is protected but not listed as a threatened species a requirement to record any loss or harm of platypus. Proponent to establish a public availability monitoring protection program with funding to continue with UNSW current programRef8 throughout the construction and operation for the life of the project- community benefit fund;
Mandatory: Prepared prior to determining: A Biodiversity Management Plan, to include sub plans for all listed Flora and Fauna species, aquatic life, riparian, pathogens and weeds. It is paramount to have those plans in place if this project will be determined not after as impacts will impact long before plans are prepared. Loss of listed species, pathogens and weeds will be distributed with construction.
Community Benefit Fund – yearly substantial donation to the Lithgow Public Hospital.
Yours Truly
Julie Favell
Lithgow.
Ref1 Centennial_Coal_Report_FINAL.pdf ; Ref2 Wild west: Mines operating under their own rules - 4nature Ref3 Environmental regulator urged to investigate spike in coal pollution in Sydney’s drinking water catchment - Nature Conservation Council of NSW ; Ref4 Centennial Coal mine expansion threatens endangered sites hit by Black Summer mega blaze - ABC News ; Ref5 Member Group Spotlight: Lithgow Environment Group - Nature Conservation Council of NSW ; Ref6 Clarence coal mine ordered to pay $815,000 following Wollangambe River Pollution | EPA; Ref7 ViewPOEONotice.aspx Ref8 https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/platypus-conservation-initative

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed pumped hydro project in our region. This development represents a significant and forward-thinking investment in renewable energy, regional employment, and long-term economic resilience.

Pumped hydro is a proven and reliable form of renewable energy storage that will play a critical role in supporting Australia’s transition to a cleaner energy future. By enabling excess renewable energy to be stored and dispatched when needed, this project strengthens grid stability and reduces reliance on fossil fuels. It is exactly the kind of infrastructure required to future proof our energy system while responding to growing demand.

Beyond the environmental benefits, the economic impact for our town and surrounding communities will be substantial. The construction and operation of the project will generate a wide range of jobs, from trades and labour roles through to administration, logistics, and professional services. This will provide meaningful employment opportunities for local residents and create flow-on benefits for small businesses, contractors, and service providers.

Importantly, I strongly advocate for the worker accommodation camp to be located within the town itself (Pottery Estate), rather than at the lake. Hosting approximately 500 workers within the town would deliver a significant and immediate economic boost. Local cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, fuel stations, and retail businesses would all benefit from increased patronage. This type of consistent demand can help sustain and grow businesses, encouraging further investment in the area.

There are also important social and wellbeing considerations. Locating workers within the town provides them with access to essential services, recreational facilities, and community spaces. This proximity to shops, sporting facilities, medical services, and social environments supports better physical and mental health outcomes compared to isolated camp arrangements. Workers who feel connected to a community are more likely to maintain a healthier lifestyle, which in turn can contribute to improved productivity and overall project success.

Additionally, integrating workers into the town helps foster positive relationships between the workforce and the local community. It creates opportunities for social interaction, community engagement, and a shared sense of contribution to a major national project.

This project has the potential to leave a lasting legacy for the region, not only through its contribution to renewable energy but also through economic growth, job creation, and community development. Ensuring that the workforce is based within the town is a practical and impactful way to maximise these benefits.

For these reasons, I strongly support the proposed pumped hydro development and encourage decision-makers to prioritise the in-town accommodation option for the workforce.

1. Impact on Landscape and Visual Amenity
The proposed upper reservoir on Mt Walker represents the permanent destruction of a significant regional landmark. As the region’s highest and most prominent peak, its pristine natural beauty is of high aesthetic and ecological value. The scale of the proposed reservoir wall, which exceeds the height of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, is an inappropriate visual intrusion that will fundamentally alter the character of the landscape.

2. Unacceptable Proximity to Residential Populations
This project cannot be classified as "remote." Its proximity to major population centers, located within 2 km of residential land and 6 km of the Lithgow Shopping Plaza, poses a direct and significant impact on the amenity of local residents. The development fails to provide an adequate buffer between high-impact industrial infrastructure and established community living zones.

3. Inappropriate Worker Accommodation and Community Disruption
The proposed worker camp options prioritize developer convenience over the social and economic health of the local community. The influx of a temporary workforce in this manner threatens to undermine local tourism, strain existing infrastructure, and disrupt the social fabric of the Lithgow region.

4. Hydrological and Ecological Unsuitability of Lake Lyell
Lake Lyell lacks the necessary volume and scale to sustainably support a pumped hydro project of this magnitude. Drawing approximately 15% of the lake’s water to fill the reservoir presents a high risk of ecological collapse. Furthermore, the proposal fails to adequately address water security and operational viability during periods of prolonged drought.

5. Irreversible Destruction of Indigenous Cultural Heritage
The proposal threatens the irreversible loss of sites with immense Indigenous cultural significance. Both the upper and lower project areas are tied to sacred Aboriginal traditions. Proceeding with construction would constitute a failure to protect irreplaceable heritage and demonstrates a lack of respect for the cultural landscape.

6. Failure to Demonstrate Site Suitability
As noted by leading experts, such as Professor Andrew Blakers (ANU), there are thousands of technically viable pumped hydro sites across Australia. The selection of Lake Lyell, a site with high social and environmental costs, is unnecessary. The proponent has failed to demonstrate why this site should be prioritized over more socially and environmentally acceptable alternatives.

7. Availability of Superior Technological Alternatives
The project is rendered redundant by emerging large-scale battery storage, such as the Great Western Battery (3500 MWh), which already exceeds the capacity of this proposal (3080 MWh). Battery technology provides the same grid services with a significantly smaller environmental and social footprint. This suggests the Lake Lyell project risks becoming an obsolete "stranded asset" before completion.

8. Severe Ecological Impact and Habitat Loss
The project necessitates the clearing of 100 hectares of pristine bushland and the destruction of 10 hectares of critical aquatic habitat. This poses a direct threat to protected species, including the platypus, koala, and powerful owl. Such extensive biodiversity loss for a high-risk project is environmentally irresponsible and contrary to conservation principles.

9. Loss of Vital Recreational and Tourism Infrastructure
Lake Lyell is a premier recreational asset for the Central Tablelands, attracting up to 2,000 visitors daily during peak periods. The conversion of this space into a restricted industrial zone will result in a significant loss of tourism revenue and deprive the community of a key site for boating, fishing, and camping, thereby damaging regional economic resilience.

10. Negative Economic Impact and Job Displacement
The economic benefits of this project have been overstated. With fewer than 20 long-term operational jobs promised, the project provides negligible employment compared to the existing local businesses it threatens to displace. The long-term net economic impact is likely negative when accounting for the loss of established tourism and recreation-based industries.

11. Intergenerational Inequity and Site Decommissioning
The project leaves an "unwanted legacy" for future generations. Upon decommissioning, the reservoirs will remain as non-functional, artificial scars on the landscape that cannot be restored to their natural state. This represents a failure of intergenerational equity, leaving the community to manage a stranded industrial site in perpetuity.

12. Degradation of a Premier Fishing Destination
The extreme water fluctuations inherent in pumped hydro operations are fundamentally incompatible with Lake Lyell’s status as a premium fishing destination. The scale of the disturbance will likely lead to a collapse of the local aquatic ecosystem, destroying an accessible and highly valued community resource.

To Whom It May Concern
My name is Pam Dick, and I have lived in the Lithgow Region my entire life.
My husband and I purchased our land over 20 years ago and built our home at
10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Drive South Bowenfels.
We chose this location for its beautiful views of the valley, mountains, and Mt Walker,
as well as the peace and serenity it provides.Our family and friends who visit often comment
On how fortunate we are to live in such a quiet and scenic environment.
Lake Lyell has always been an important part of our lives.We have spent many years enjoying
the lake with our children, grandchildren, and friends through activities such as camping, fishing,
boating, and skiing.We have also observed natural changes in the lake during periods of drought.
For these reasons, I have significant concerns about the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project.

My concerns include:
Noise and dust impacts :
Blasting and construction would generate noise and dust which would be carried directly over our property by the prevailing north westerly winds.
Increased traffic and safety risks :
The expected increase in heavy vehicle and truck movements on our currently quiet road presents
Safety risks for myself, my family, and visitors entering and exiting our driveway.
Environmental impacts :
There would likely be negative effects on local wildlife, including platypus pollinations, as well as the broader ecosystem.
Reduced water levels :
Frequent drops in water levels (up to approximately 3 meters) would create mud flats, reduce the usability
Of the lake, and pose safety hazards.These impacts would be even more severe during future drought periods.
Impact on recreation and tourism :
Changes to the lake would affect boating, fishing, camping, and recreational activities, likely reducing
Visitor numbers and impacting the local community.
Aboriginal cultural heritage :
The project is located in an area of significant Aboriginal culture heritage. I acknowledge that a respected
Traditional Owner and Wiradjuri Elder, Aunty Sharon Riley, has been involved in discussions, contributing
Important information knowledge regarding cultural heritage values and the local platypus (biladurang)
population.These perspectives highlight the deeper cultural and environmental significance of this area and should be carefully considered.

Given these concerns, I strongly oppose the construction of the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project.

Thank you for considering my submission
Yours sincerely
Pam Dick

I am the owner of a property located in close proximity to Lake Lyell, which is also operated as a short-term accommodation business (Airbnb).

I am not opposed to the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro project in principle and recognise the importance of energy infrastructure. However, I have significant concerns regarding the direct and long-term impacts this development will have on my property, its value, and its income-generating capacity.

Amenity and Environmental Impacts

The project is expected to introduce substantial changes to what is currently a quiet, natural environment. In particular, I am concerned about:

* Increased noise levels during both construction and operation
* Light spill and night-time visual impacts
* Increased traffic, including heavy vehicles
* The overall industrialisation of a previously peaceful setting

These changes will materially reduce the amenity of the area, which is a key reason guests choose to stay at my property.

Impact on Short-Term Accommodation Income

My property operates as a premium short-term rental, and its appeal is heavily dependent on its peaceful, natural surroundings. The impacts outlined above are likely to:

* Reduce booking demand
* Lower achievable nightly rates
* Negatively affect guest experience and reviews

This represents a direct financial impact and loss of income as a result of the project.

Workers Accommodation Camp – Long-Term Risk

I have serious concerns regarding the proposed workers accommodation camp and the potential for it to be retained or repurposed after the construction phase.

There is community discussion indicating that this facility may be considered for ongoing uses such as affordable or social housing. Any such outcome would represent a permanent and significant change to the character of the area and would likely have a negative impact on surrounding property values and amenity.

It is critical that:

* The use of the workers camp is strictly limited to the construction period, and
* Clear, enforceable conditions are imposed requiring its removal or tightly controlled future use

Without this certainty, the project presents an unacceptable long-term risk.

Property Value and Compensation

The impacts described above are likely to result in a reduction in property value and ongoing financial loss. This is a form of injurious affection, where landowners are adversely affected by nearby infrastructure.

I request that:

* A clear and fair compensation framework is established for affected landowners
* Compensation considers both loss of property value and loss of income
* Engagement with impacted property owners occurs early and transparently

Conclusion

While I acknowledge the broader benefits of the project, it is essential that the impacts on nearby landowners are properly recognised and addressed.

I respectfully request that the concerns outlined above are taken into account, and that appropriate conditions and compensation measures are put in place to ensure affected property owners are treated fairly.