Submission on the Hunter Transmission Project EIS (SSI-70610456)

Submitter: Marlien Brandjes (Owner Glamping Estate)
Location: 427 Pokolbin Mountains Rd, Pokolbin
Interest: Local resident and business operator (glamping accommodation provider) directly reliant on Pokolbin Mountains Road for guest, resident, and service access.

1. Primary Concern: Reliable Access via Pokolbin Mountains Road
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies Pokolbin Mountains Road as a key construction access route. As a resident and business owner whose property depends exclusively on this road for all guest, resident, and supplier access, I am concerned about the potential impacts of construction traffic, temporary closures, and road upgrades on safe and reliable travel.

Request:
That Pokolbin Mountains Road remain accessible at set times each day to allow residents, visitors, tourism operators, and service providers to travel reliably. These “open windows” should be aligned with peak travel periods (e.g. 7–9am, 12–2pm, 4–6pm) when guests typically check in or out, and when school, work, and supplier trips occur. Any full closures should be programmed outside these windows.

2. Advance Notice & Communication
Construction works and road closures will create uncertainty for residents and guests. The success of local tourism and the safety of local residents depends on predictable travel times.

Request:
• That the proponent provide a minimum of 14 days’ notice of any planned closures or detours.
• That real-time updates be provided through NSW Live Traffic and via a direct notification system (SMS/email) for local residents and businesses who register.
• That a 24/7 contact number be established for access issues and emergencies.

3. Alternative Access via Watagan Track
Currently, Pokolbin Mountains Road is the sole access to properties and tourism businesses at the top of the ridge. Any closure leaves residents and guests isolated. The botton part of Watagan Track, which connects to the lower valley, is an existing but degraded route that could serve as a safe alternative if upgraded, even if this would be one way only.

Request:
That the proponent fund or co-fund the upgrade of the lower section of Watagan Track (including grading, drainage, and sealing critical sections). This would:
• Provide a reliable secondary access or exit route for residents, guests, and emergency services.
• Reduce pressure on Pokolbin Mountains Road during construction.
• Deliver long-term community benefit beyond the construction period, improving resilience of access for the local area.

4. Ongoing Coordination & Liaison
Given the number of residents, tourism operators, and visitors who rely on Pokolbin Mountains Road, ongoing communication is essential.

Request:
That a Local Access & Tourism Liaison Group be established, including residents, Cessnock Council, and local businesses, to review traffic management plans, monitor impacts, and ensure access arrangements are upheld.

Conclusion
The Hunter Transmission Project will have significant construction traffic impacts on Pokolbin Mountains Road. Without mitigation, these impacts pose risks to resident access, guest safety, tourism viability, and emergency response. The requests above are reasonable, practical, and community-focused solutions that balance project needs with local access and safety.
I respectfully ask that these measures be adopted as Conditions of Approval.

Signed:
Marlien Brandjes
24 September 2025

Introduction:
The Hunter Transmission Project was introduced to the local community in November 2023.Pokolbin Mountains Road (PMR) and Brokenback Road were identified as an essential access to part of HTP Central. This road is located wholly within the World renown and Nationally recognized Hunter Valley Vineyards District.
Pokolbin Mountains Road is regularly used by tourists, residents, walkers, trail bikes, 4X4 vehicles, sightseers, service vehicles and mountain bikers. A number of local families and current residents have historical connections dating back to its planning and construction in 1910. (refer ATTACHMENT C).
Despite ongoing engagement and consultation with EnergyCo over the past 21 months leading up to public exhibition of the EIS, there appears to be little, if any, evidence of input or acknowledgement of the points presented by the PMR Group or any other individuals impacted by the HTP Central Access. (ATTACHMENT B)
The expectation of the community was that the EIS would at least identify the requirements to bring PMR up to, and maintained at, a satisfactorily engineered and safe standard for the expected increased traffic flows.
The EIS makes very general non-specific reference to access roads/tracks. The lack of acknowledgement indicates a failure on the part of EnergyCo to acknowledge and pass on community consultation on this highly significant project and indicates a neglect of individuals and community most impacted by the installation of the essential Renewable Infrastructure.
It is believed that this may be a common theme felt for impacted individuals and communities.
Comments on Pokolbin Mountains Road (Access to HTP Central)
Refer to ATTAHCMENT B.
Pokolbin Mountains Road (PMR) is gravel access road to the construction sites for 13 towers (towers 60-72) as indicated in the EIS. Priority must be given to condition of, and necessary improvements to, PMR including:
• Carriageway width
• Drainage
• line of sight vision
• additional pipe drains
• traffic planning
• repairs to existing pavement
• Safety of multiple users
• Additional HTP traffic
There appears to no details for PMR in the prepared EIS, except for being identified as an access track.
The SIA does acknowledge the negative impacts on residents, community and businesses on PMR. This acknowledgment is both physical and emotional impacts. This is a positive and appreciated by those the SIA assessor engaged with. Other impact statements make no mention of any details for PMR. It is encouraging to note general statements on access roads/tracks are made on pg. 5 of the Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment.
Access Through MYRTLEDALE BEEF CATTLE Property.
Introduction: I own property known as "Myrtledale" which provides access to HTP via 3 kilometres of forestry road known as Brokenback Road. I have provided constant feedback and consultation with EnergyCo. It is very disappointing that the details of engagement have not appeared in the EIS. The SIA identifies the impact this project on individuals such as myself, my family, my farm operation and management and my tourist accommodation units.
Refer to ATTACHMENT A – For full context and photos.
Comments:
The EIS fails to address issues relates to noise, dust, vibration, disruption from traffic. Traffic is estimated in the EIS as substantial. Despite this, there is little comment on how this substantial impact will be mitigated. Suggestions for tar sealing a section of road, sound and vibration barrier, road and farm safety signage and speed limitations have not been addressed.
Issues related to maintaining the historic family-owned farm way of life are deeply entrenched in the local residents and family. These issues include:
• Management of stock during traffic movements for construction of infrastructure
• Biosecurity as a result of traffic tracking between sites and areas
• The disruption to the accommodated guests, livestock and family members.
• Loss of property value and ecological value
• Impact of traffic on biodiversity of flora, fauna and agricultural crops
The opportunity and offer for biodiversity offset strategies has not been followed up by EnergyCo, despite the impact on biodiversity of the HTP being well recognized in the community.
Communication and security have been flagged in engagement with EnergyCo with needs for better mobile reception, security surveillance cameras and secure gates to side tracks from the access roads.
Current HTP EIS information does not adequately address the serious safety concerns raised.
The included attachments form an important part of this submission as they outline previous communication and engagement with EnergyCo, which has not been addressed sufficiently. Refer to ATTACHMENT D.
Specific Comments Related to the EIS.
• Landscape Character and Visual Assessment
Assessment points on Wollombi Road, Millfield avoid the open landscape west of Millfield and south of Congewai Creek. Assessment points give a poor indication as they are located south of Wollombi Road.
• Traffic and Transport Impact
No specific details on access tracks, such as Pokolbin Mountain Road and Brokenback Road, in terms of improvements to current passageway condition prior, during and after HTP implementation.
• Agriculture Impact
Refer to pg.58 “During construction there would be no direct or indirect impacts to agriculture land use and production”. As a directly affected landholder, this would not be factual.
• Social Impact Assessment
Identifies impacts raised by individuals and makes it clear impacts occur outside the corridor.
• Noise and vibration
Construction traffic on Brokenback Road through Myrtledale to access towers 60-72 does not been addressed and mitigated to consider the items related to our family property.
Traffic movements indicate the following:
 7am – 10pm Light Vehicles 164, Heavy Vehicles 188.
 10pm – 7am Light Vehicles 30, Heavy vehicles 20.

These vehicle movements will increase noise, dust, vibrations and air quality concerns. There is serious concern for resident and tourist safety including pedestrian traffic of these public and private access roads. Tourist accommodation on Myrtledale will be subject to injurious affectation leading to loss of income and long-term impacts to tenancy rates.
(SEE ATTACHED FULL DETAIL WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATION AND SUBMISSION JUSTISITICATION).

Please see attached

A project for the future of our community. Yes it might cause some disruption but it is important for the growth of our nation.

Submission on the Hunter Transmission Project EIS
Opposition to Proposed Transmission Line Route through Central and South State Forest Sections

I write to register my strong objection to the proposed transmission line route through State Forests in the Central and South sections of the Hunter Transmission Project.

The Biodiversity Assessment within the EIS makes clear that the project will cause severe, irreversible destruction and long-term impacts to biodiversity values. Most alarmingly:

The proposed route will directly impact over 60 listed threatened flora and fauna species protected under state and federal legislation.

It will require the clearing of 365 hectares of endangered and critically endangered ecological communities (EECs/CEECs).

These ecological communities are already under extreme pressure from fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and land-use change. Further destruction of this scale amounts to an act of ecocide.

This level of habitat loss and fragmentation cannot be offset or mitigated. Once destroyed, these ecological communities and the species that depend upon them cannot be restored within any reasonable timeframe. I question the efficacy of “avoid, minimise, offset” hierarchy of environmental management considerations in this proposal.

The loss of 365 hectares of EECs inc CEECs should ring alarm bells for any government considering approval. Allowing such widespread destruction is entirely inconsistent with:

The objectives of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW),
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and
Australia’s international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Hunter region is a biodiversity hotspot and a refuge for many species already facing extinction pressures. Pushing ahead with this route will not only undermine national and state conservation targets but will set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects in sensitive landscapes.

Alternative transmission line routes that avoid high-value biodiversity areas must be investigated and prioritised. The community expects energy transition projects to be designed responsibly, in a way that accelerates renewable energy while safeguarding our natural heritage—not destroying it.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed transmission line route through the Central and South State Forests and urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this alignment.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle Lloyd-Prichard
24/09/2025

See attachment