I am concerned about a renewable energy project taking priority of biodiversity. Environmental concerns including endangered vegetation and habitat destruction , threatened species including the swift parrot , regent honey eater, green and golden bell frog, Littlejohns tree frog and landscape and visual impacts.

I object to the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP) on the grounds that this new overhead 500 kV double circuit line is not necessary. Existing transmission corridors already run through the Upper to Lower Hunter; why must a brand‐new 110 km overhead line bisect prime farmland when capacity could be increased on those lines already present? The proposed route is dangerously close to waterways (rivers, creeks, wetlands) which will suffer habitat disruption, erosion, siltation and water pollution. Overhead lines also pose a grave fire hazard: faults, arcing or component failure during extreme heat could spark fires that cannot be suppressed from the air due to danger of flying aircraft into high voltage zones. Global case studies show transmission disasters where wells, livestock, homes and ecosystems were destroyed. If this project proceeds, what guarantee is there that fires will be suppressed when aerial firefighting becomes impossible under or near the lines during severe bushfires, high winds or smoke?

I vigorously oppose the Hunter Transmission Project due to its permanent detrimental impact on strategic agricultural land and farming enterprises.

I object about thr planned path through millfield.
Not only will it destroy its natural beauty, natural animal habitats, but also affect future house sales prices.
There are other more sensible paths away from millfield that can be used.
Stop destroying small towns we want to keep our tree lines, not sights of powerlines

As a landowner in the path of HTP, I strongly oppose the overhead 500 kV line cutting across my farmland. This new corridor threatens waterways—creeks and drainage lines—that are essential for irrigation, stock water and biodiversity. The project claims to “unlock renewables” but that does not justify destroying farmland or water quality when existing lines could be upgraded or underground options considered. Moreover, aerial firefighting efforts will be impeded: high voltage lines force aircraft to stay back, reducing ability to drop retardants or do patrols. Internationally, transmission line failures have started catastrophic bushfires (e.g. in CA, USA). What provisions will compensate for loss of pasture, crop yield, and water contamination if these incidents occur and aerial suppression is prohibited by voltage hazards?

Please see attached submission to the EIS and supporting documents