Attached is a submission regarding the HTP

The Hunter Joint Organisation provides feedback on the Hunter Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and considerations for the Hunter region in the delivery of this significant project.

As a small town with small roads, the damage to the roads with the increased traffic would be substantial. The increased traffic of trucks would be felt by the local residents greatly due to the quiet nature of the area currently. My 3 children attend the small primary school at Millfield that is on the main road, the increase in traffic of trucks would be dangerous, noisy and make school pick up and drop off more dangerous with the increase of traffic. The roads again are narrow and generally not well maintained in and out of Millfield. The road into Millfield is very narrow, full of potholes and very windy. The increase in trucks would make the road alot more dangerous to travel. The area around Millfield is very bushy and beautiful, knocking down alot of trees to run the powerlines would damage the look and feel of this very pretty area. We regularly drive in the bush and picnic in the areas that will be knocked down. I don't have confidence that the local council will make sure the roads are not damaged and are well cared for if this goes ahead. And I am worried for my children attending the school that will be effected by the large increase of trucks.

I write this submission to express my thoughts about the project. My thoughts are ensuring to maintain access and safety during construction. I grew up in Pokolbin and have done many trips on Pokolbin Mountains Road. An absolutely stunning part of the world, the peaceful, serene environment, the views. But the road- a road which is only wide enough for one vehicle in many places, a road that has poor drainage, steep on one side and very soft unkept edges, a road that is narrow, dangerous and scary.

As the Pokolbin Mountains Road is the only access point to multiple houses, businesses and the Pokolbin State forest, using this road as access for massive trucks, a huge amount of resources and equipment, will cause stress on the road. It will also cause difficulty and disruption to the local businesses and local residents using the road, as well as tourists. Local residents need to be able to use the road for everyday essentials including to access school, work, groceries and healthcare.

To minimise effect on residents and tourists, I suggest a well organised traffic management plan during construction as there is no alternative access route, working with the local residents will ensure their everyday lives have minimal disruption and transport of resources is efficient. The road will need to be regularly maintained and assessed to ensure safety for all, particularly during wet weather.

Why does this proposed powerline simply just upgrade on the existing powerlines. Would save clearing of virgin forests, drive property takeovers and would also be more cost effective.

We need to get our power sorted for the state and the country.

Submission to be made via NSW Planning Portal.

Comments to make:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact statement (EIS) on the preliminary corridor for the Hunter Transmission Project (HTP).

BirdLife Australia is an independent science-based conservation organisation with a significant, long-term, and ongoing presence in the Hunter Region, including an affiliation with the Hunter Bird Observers Club (HBOC) who have collated comprehensive, long-term datasets on birds in the region, making it one of the best-documented regions in terms of our understanding of birds in Australia. Most notably, the Hunter Region supports one of the most significant populations of woodland birds, owing to its unique biogeography and the fact that large remnants have been retained on the valley floor.

BirdLife has previously engaged with the HTP during the proposed preliminary corridor consultation, where we raised our concerns regarding the intersection of the HTP with an extremely important region for birds; most notably threatened woodland birds. We outlined our concerns especially where the alignment intersected with high-quality habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Critically Endangered Swift Parrot, both identified as Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) species under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

BirdLife welcomes the steps outlined in the EIS to avoid impacts on important habitat for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater, and support efforts to prioritise avoidance of these areas during project planning and implementation.

However, the EIS could be strengthened by removing the strikethrough text in the following statement:

“The locations of threatened ecological communities and habitat for threatened species and SAII entities will be considered and potential impacts avoided or minimised to the greatest extent practicable during finalisation of the detailed design and construction methodology.”

The inclusion of “or minimised to the greatest extent practicable” weakens the commitment to avoidance and introduces ambiguity that may undermine conservation outcomes SAII species.

Furthermore, BirdLife remains concerned about the residual direct and indirect impacts on habitat for several threatened species and the reliance on offsetting these impacts, including:

Regent Honeyeater – 93.77 ha impacted

Gang-gang Cockatoo – 93.23 ha impacted

South-eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo – 69.5 ha impacted

Swift Parrot – 42.76 ha impacted

Biodiversity offsets are rarely appropriate responses to habitat destruction and should only be used as a last resort. Given the scale of impact, particularly to SAII species such as the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot, it is critical that offset proposals are scrutinised rigorously. There are particular areas in the region where offsets could be effective, appropriate and consistent with best practice including:

Provide direct benefit to the affected populations, not just the species.

Involve protection, restoration, and/or management of equivalent habitat.

Be demonstrably likely to achieve ecological equivalence in both type and magnitude of the values lost.

Be subject to empirical assessment and consistent implementation.

BirdLife strongly recommends that any offset strategy meets these criteria and that avoidance remains the primary objective in protecting habitat for SAII species. BirdLife would also welcome the opportunity to provide further review and commentary on the proposed “conservation investment strategy” for the Hunter Region.



The highest priority area for both Regent Honeyeaters and Swift Parrots that should be afforded consideration is the Tomalpin Woodlands, south of Kurri Kurri. BirdLife Australia have been actively monitoring Regent Honeyeaters in these woodlands for several years and (significantly) this has included three successful large-scale releases of zoo-bred birds. The Tomalpin Woodlands are recognised by the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Team as one of the most important breeding sites for the species. These woodlands have hosted the largest breeding events for Regent Honeyeaters in recent times and was the only breeding site in 2018 and 2022. The Tomalpin Woodlands are also a stronghold for Swift Parrot, numerous other threatened flora and fauna, endangered ecological communities, as well as being an area containing unparalleled Eucalypt diversity (including at least two undescribed species).

All of the work that BirdLife have undertaken within the Tomalpin Woodlands has been in partnership with the largest private landholder; Mindaribba Local Aboriginal Land Council. However, the Mindaribba holdings surround large allotments owned privately by a would-be developer of the site. It is these privately-owned lands that BirdLife recommends be the highest priority should offsetting the impacts on Regent Honeyeaters and Swift Parrots under the HTP be necessary.

I have read the recent report from Aviation Projects regarding the impact assessment 16. The quoted information below is incorrect and misleading at best and compromise safety at the Hunter Valley Gliding Site.

(From Aviation Projects Report)
"Competition-type glider flights may descend to an altitude of not below 500 feet AGL at high speed at a designated finish line, generally located approximately 3 kilometres (1.6 nautical miles) from the aerodrome in the direction of the task set for the competition. These gliders would then climb to a circuit altitude of approximately 800 feet above the aerodrome in preparation for landing in a safe and orderly manner to land at 067601-01 – HUNTER TRANSMISSION PROJECT – AVIATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 30 Warkworth Aerodrome. They may also conduct a straight-in approach along the runway centreline if safe to do so"

I regularly compete at state and national level and have done over a period in excess of 30 years.
Competition finishes are a critical phase of a competition flight and require consistent practice for currency and safety prior to being in a competition environment. This training is conducted at Warkworth Airport.

The standard competition finish used in Australia and internationally is for the finish line to be located at 3km from the airfield boundary and minimum height of 300ft above airfield elevation. Straight in approaches are strongly recomended, pull ups and circuts are currently discouraged for safety reasons.
I have attached a copy of the current national rules for your reference.

It is acceptable within the rules to cross this 3km 300ft line at minimum sink speed (55-60Kts). This does not leave any room or energy to pull up or avoid any obstacles.
Finishing slightly below minimum height is not uncommon.
The current proposal significantly compromises the safety of the pilot sufficient to preclude any training or future competitions at this site.
Although the excerpt of the national rules below do not state a height as this can be varied at the competition director's discretion it has for at least the last 20 years in Australia always been 300ft at 3km. Prior to this the accepted finish line was at the runway threshold and was 20ft AGL.
Note 1 from national rules: 31.4 If a minimum finish height is set, pilots finishing below this height will incur a penalty. (2026 National Rules).
Note 2: The 500ft quoted by Aviation Projects was a club class rule from the 1990's and never used at State or National level competitions.

From 2026 National Competition Rules (published at https://leetongliding.com/.)

Australian National Multiclass Gliding Championships 2026 - Leeton Multiclass Nationals 2026
Event Information The 2026 Australian National Multiclass Gliding Championships will be held at Leeton, NSW. This event brings together gliders from across Australia to compete in Standard, 15m/Racing, 18m & Open Classes. Dates: January 6th - 16th, 2026 Practice Days: 6th - 7th January Competition Days: 8th - 16th January Location: Leeton, NSW Classes: Standard, 15m/Racing, 18m & Open
leetongliding.com
31CFinish Procedure
31.1 A glider having entered the finish zone must land without delay in a safe manner. Once on the ground, taxiing must be in the landing direction unless otherwise advised by the Operations Director and/or Safety Officer.
31.2 A glider will be deemed to have finished if it successfully completes the course and enters the finish zone. A glider which lands off the airfield after having entered the finish zone will be scored as a finisher. A finishing pilot cannot elect to declare an out-landing.
31.3 A pilot is permitted one finish per day.
31.4 If a minimum finish height is set, pilots finishing below this height will incur a penalty.
31.5 The Organisers may issue guidelines and recommendations as to the behaviour of pilots within the finish zone, including preferred circuit procedure and landing direction. Pilots will not be penalised for failing to follow these unless their behaviour is unsafe.
31.6 At least one and preferably two Safety Observers will observe gliders finishing. The observer(s) will be the Safety Officer and/or delegate(s).
31.7 The Observer(s) will make a subjective decision as to the question of safety within the finish zone. The Observer(s) may issue a warning or a technical penalty, or may refer more serious matters to the Penalties Committee.

Based on the information on the Aviation Projects report and the information I have provided the proposed lines are creating an additional danger to pilots, reducing safety with a potential for death.

The Aviation Projects report is misleading and based on outdated incorrect information.

I am happy to provide more information and or validation of the information provided.

Regards

Neil Bennett