Dear EIS Evaluation Committee
While I do not object to the improvement of infrastructure in general, especially if it will allow the grid to be more flexible and viable for alternative energy sources, the increase in height of the power lines in the vicinity of Warkworth Airfield, home to Hunter Valley Gliding club, does concern me greatly and personally.

I am a long-standing member of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA), membership No. M19692, and of the Hunter Valley Gliding Club, Colorei Road, Warkworth, NSW.
Location/Placement
Recently [approx. 5 years ago] we as a club acquiesced to the movement of existing high tension wire pylons closer to our airfield.
From memory the existing lines extend to about 70 metres above the ground.
The new proposal is for those pylons to be increased to 85 metres above the ground.
In my opinion, the increase in height is unjustified.
Cannot the new levels of transmission wires be accommodated at the same or lower levels?
Alternatively, could additional power lines be accommodated at the same height, slightly to the south within the same power line corridor?
Gliding Operations
Gliding operations cannot use power to adjust to new obstacles. Our landing patterns are determined by the conditions of the day and the height at which the glider returns to the field for landing. Gliders generally speaking cannot maneuver to avoid new objects, or ignore the prevailing meteorological conditions.
While no one has yet to hit the existing power lines to the south of our field, the possibility of such a tragedy is real, acknowledged by club members, and planned for with each flight. So far we have successfully planned to accomodate the obstacles.
Raising the existing pylons to 85 metres adds exponentially to the risk involved in any low level approach, circuit and landing.
Generally on planning a landing [in gliding, each landing has to be pre-planned, and cannot be aborted - There is NO "go-around" for un-powered flight] we employ the concept of "angle" meaning we judge the landing based on the performance of the aircraft, the height the landing circuit is "joined"/commenced, wind speed, and the distance from the strip to the aircraft.
If the top of an 85 metre pylon is visible within a glider's landing "angle view" significant additional measures will be required to avoid the obstacle and the safety afforded by a well planned, unobstructed, landing approach will be compromised.
I fly cross-country and after a flight of 3-4 hours I cannot guarantee to EnergyCo or anyone else how high I will be or at what "angle" of approach I will be on when I plan a landing. Gliding is a sport and we are not daredevils, but we do not need additional hurdles that Mother Nature does not throw up to us.
If any fatal accident were to occur, the height of adjacent power lines would certainly be canvassed by a Coroner's investigation.
I think it would be instructive if one of the members of your evaluation committee came out to our club and took a flight with our President, Mr Ben Coleman, to better appreciate the planning, risks and considerations involved when flying in more restricted airspace.
Sincerely,
George S Chapman
GFA No. M19692
Mob 0478 640 408

I object on behalf of downstream water ecosystems. Construction and ongoing works carve into catchment landscapes. Pollution, sediment, chemical leakage from tower foundations, vehicle tracks will all impact creeks and rivers. Also, farmland beneath overhead lines is less usable for shade‐sensitive crops, stock suffers from electromagnetic interference, and insurance risk increases. Fire risk is not theoretical: high‐voltage lines have caused ignitions during storms in many nations. Furthermore, firefighting aircraft are highly constrained by the presence of such lines; aerial suppression may be too dangerous. If deemed vital, where is the requirement that this infrastructure be built underground along waterways or routed away, so that fire suppression and ecosystem protection are not compromised?

object to the HTP because it is predatory: it imposes harm on landholders for questionable public benefit. Farmland is being severed, waterways disrupted, shade and microclimate altered. Overhead 500 kV lines are not just unsightly—they pose health, fire, loss of property value issues. The project will limit aerial firefighting; in emergency conditions, aircraft cannot safely operate near high‐voltage lines. The EIS glosses over this risk. Transmission disasters globally illustrate the catastrophic consequences of lightning or conductor failure igniting fires that escalate rapidly. If the electricity grid is genuinely critical, why are no undergrounding or alternative alignments being seriously costed that avoid waterways and farmland, rather than forcing us into ruin?

I object to this.

Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Submission in response to Hunter Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement
Upon review of the above mentioned EIS prepared by EnergyCo on behalf of the NSW Government. I have found the document is severely lacking detail in regarding the cumulative impacts that the project presents to the local residents who will be negatively impacted by the proposed development through the construction phase and operational phase. The community although being consulted throughout the planning process has had very little influence on conveying their concerns throughout this document and have been consistently overlooked through the planning process. The following impacts of traffic, social/economic and visual need further investigation as there are likely to be serve negative impacts for local community.
Traffic/ Roads Impact
HTP will have a negative impact on the local road network as it will be a traffic generating development. Local roads in their current condition are unsafe, increased traffic including construction and oversized loads during the construction of the project putting road users lives at risk. My main concern is Pokolbin Mountain Road a narrow winding road that links bitumen roads with the Pokolbin State Forest (HTP Central). Suggested mitigation measure would be to undertake road widening, bitumen to minimise dust and erosion potential, increase the number of under road drains to allow water off road network and provide funding to local council to maintain the road once the project reaches operational phase.
Social/Economic Impact
HTP will have a serve negative social/economic impact for my family living at 340 Pokolbin Mountains Road, Pokolbin. The project during the construction phase will dramatically increase construction in the early hours of the morning resulting in sleep interruptions for residents and guests on the property. Upgrades and widening of Pokolbin Mountain Road is likely to cause long delays to commute a recent example of this was battering repairs to the road resulting in wait times greater than 45mins for a journey that normally takes 5mins to complete. My family have a tourism accommodation business on their property where guests pay to stay at peaceful location away from this kind of disruption and will be impacted negatively by the proposed development. Suggested mitigation measures compensation to business owners who will impacted by the development HTP rents the tourist accommodation during the construction as compensation for loss of income.
Visual Impact
Viewpoint reference PR-C19 is incorrectly referenced as 340 Pokolbin Mountain Road, Pokolbin in this report. The correct reference for PR-C19 is 1384 Wollombi Road, Millfield. The development looking from the Eastern Boundary looking West will have a significant visual impact on the sunset vista. HTP will detract from the natural landscape through clearing of transmission line and construction of towers an unnatural/ industrial vista in a scenic rural landscape impacting amenity of area and detracting from future property value. Suggested mitigation is compensation for the projects loss of view. Secondary mitigation on property tree planting to provide a vegetation screen from the proposed development.
There are many more issues with this development that have been raised by the Pokolbin Mountain Road Action group that need further investigation.
I look forward to hearing your response and encourage any questions you may have in relation to my submission.

As a glider pilot and instructor the addition of transmission lines near Warkworth airfield is a significant risk
We train our pilots to manage their energy and the resultant flight path however there are times that downdrafts can cause a glider to return to the field lower than the normal flight path.

Adding high power lines nearby creates significant risks. Mid or low experience pilots may be tempted to overfly the powelines or even underfly. In other environments it would be suitable options to land away from the airfield as a precaution and therefore avoid going close to the power lines.
Warkworth does not offer the usual out landing options due to coal mines, roads and the Forrest. On this basis it is important that power lines be away from the field and ideally near landable areas such as paddocks when they are nearest the runway at Warkworth.
As a former RAAF tactical transport pilot we would fly low level near HV lines and be trained to do this safely. As a glider pilot my options to overfly safely when near the airfield are much reduced.

I object because the HTP’s route crosses multiple sensitive waterways and farmland that are not expendable. The argument that we need a 500 kV ring “for the grid backbone” is unconvincing when existing infrastructure could be repurposed or strengthened. The visual, environmental and agricultural disruption is far too great. Transmission lines at this voltage present severe safety risks: they can spark, arc, breakdown insulation; during storms or bushfires, parts may fail. Aerial suppression is restricted around transmission lines, limiting firefighting. Worldwide, when lines fail, the costs are enormous in human life, property, ecosystem destruction. If this line is critical, why is there no comprehensive cost‐benefit comparison with alternatives (underground, reroute, strengthen existing towers) in terms of safety, environmental, agricultural, fire risk?

Aviation Projects states, “aircraft typically reach an adequate height above the HTP corridor on a takeoff to the east” and provides a table of heights typically reached from the start of the take off roll. This is a disingenuous simplification of the circumstances and ignores the risks to aircraft when a take off or landing is not typical. By that measure it would be acceptable to build a tower block 500 feet tall on the end of the runway at Sydney or Brisbane because aircraft taking off ’typically reach an adequate height” to clear it. Safety measures such as the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Runway Strips and Runway End Safety Areas are not there for when aircraft are operating normally. When an aircraft experiences an atypical take off, it may climb at a lower-than-expected rate and it may not follow the expected (typical) track, not least because the pilot probably has their full attention on trying to keep the aircraft flying. I can speak from experience - please see my video on YouTube describing an engine failure after take off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybe-wlH4Ts

Furthermore, arriving aircraft may also be affected by the pylons and cables. The paper correctly points out that the lowest an aircraft can legally fly is 500 feet above obstacles except when taking off or landing. During poor weather an aircraft may descend lower than typically expected on the approach to maintain visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and to maintain sight of the runway. The HTP corridor is approximately 1 NM from the threshold at which point an aircraft would typically be expected to be passing 350 feet on descent. However, as stated, there may be atypical weather conditions or other reasons for an aircraft to be lower than usual and off the centreline of the approach track. All pilots, especially trainee pilots, may be blown through the desired final approach track during the turn from base leg to final. In Warkworth’s case this would easily place the pilot in proximity to the pylons when the aircraft is flying left hand circuit to runway 28 with a southwesterly wind as the pylons are only about 300m off the centreline.

Aviation Projects states that, "the HTP is not anticipated to adversely impact the Warkworth Aerodrome" but provides no assessment of the risks other than their own, subjective, opinion supported by some quasi-scientific climb out figures for a typical operation. The OLS, even for certified aerodromes is only a starting point for consideration of the risks. I consider that a more formal assessment of the hazards, some of which I have identified here, should be assessed for likelihood and consequence to establish more objectively the tolerability of the risks to aircraft presented by the pylons and cables.

The optimal result would be to change the route of the corridor to move the pylons further away from the aerodrome.

Failing that, if for no other reason than a ‘duty of care', the pylon should be fitted with an obstacle hazard light - it’s not like there is a shortage of electricity! And such a light could be fitted with a sensor so that it is visible during daylight only as aircraft and gliders don’t operate at Warkworth at night. This would also avoid the flashing light annoying any neighbours.

In the interests of full disclosure I believe Aviation Projects ought make an explicit statement about who commissioned and paid for the report so that readers may make their own informed judgement about potential bias.

This is critical infrastructure to support the change to a renewable energy system. We have no choice to make this transition away from coal and gas and this project is a critical part of the long term solution.
Get on and build this project.
The project has clearly been planned to minimise impact on private landowners, and in large part is through existing power station and mine lands to the north and state forest and power station lands to the south. I support the use of public land for this project - there also should be some offset contribution and works done in degraded areas of the parks and forests to partially improve the overall landscape and biodiversity outcome.
There are already significant transmission lines right through the Hunter, Central Coast and into northern Sydney. Obviously nothing comes without impact, but local scale impacts must be balanced against the greater good for the community (stronger new power grid) and the need to mitigate climate change impacts.
Having lived in Northern Sydney, Central Coast and Lake Macquarie for most of my life I have always been aware of transmission lines - just like I am aware of highways, railways, urban development etc. In my local area the landscape is already criss crossed with transmission lines related to the NEM and existing and past coal plants like Eraring, Vales Pt and Lake Munmorah. Whilst not attractive these have always been essential for improving and maintaining our modern lifestyle - this addition is no different. I literally drive past and under existing transmission lines daily and my house has a view of Eraring power station in all its faded glory. You get used to infrastructure and new development - it is the change that is difficult. We can't be that precious when we need this transition to a new energy system to speed up, not be slowed down by small disaffected groups, even those with valid complaints of some impact.
I also note the extensive landscape damage from the existing coal plants, coal mines, conveyor belts, ash dams, oil tanks and all the associated infrastructure. Presumably the government will require these scars on the landscape to be rehabilitated when they are no longer required - the same (or better) standard should be applied to the transmission project. In particular, the coal ash dams are an appalling scar on the landscape as well as a long term safety and health problem. Anyone with google maps can easily see how the provision of the current transmission (and other infrastructure) has not been without impact, however is no different to the scale of this project.
As a volunteer firefighter for over 20 years I am unaware of any bushfire ignition related to HV transmission ever occurring in NSW. I have used fire trails and other access tracks associated with transmission lines frequently. These are a positive benefit in bush fire fighting, as are those associated with pipelines and the road network. There should be a fund established to ensure there is money available and required to be spent every year on maintenance and upgrades where necessary on the access trail network. These should be built to at least RFS standards and signposted accordingly. The entire access network should become part of the Fire Access & Fire Trails Plans as designated fire trails, and the responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the trails should fall to Energyco for the life of the project. As a previous bushland manager this lack of responsibility for trails except when maintenance was being done was a huge problem - if the trails are going to provide access they need to be maintained always.
Claims of preventing access to dams for aerial firefighting are overblown. This can be remedied by building additional dams nearby to the transmission route but still accessible (if necessary) or by providing water sources via tanks where trails access the wider road network.
Change is very difficult for some people - perhaps there should be a fund for purchasing properties where people are so horrified by the change to their local environment that they can be bought out at market value (or at a slight premium). This has been going on for decades for communities affected by coal mine subsidence so is hardly a new idea. Those lands may be on sold later to recover part of project costs, with suitable easements in place for access etc.
I strongly support the project being approved and built with suitable conditions attached and an ongoing fund for land management and fire trail access to be established to manage long term impacts long after the fuss has died down.

Please accept this submission as my formal objection to the Hunter Transmission Project

The transition to renewable energy requires unprecedented development across NSW. The planning and delivery of many generation projects in Renewable Energy Zones and the required interconnecting transmission projects in the grid across NSW are collectively ALL currently required to meet targets and to successfully deliver both the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and to successfully contribute towards delivering the Nations Integrated System Plan as designed by AEMO.

The fact that the entire Scope and Scale of (a) each REZ and (b) for the full NSW REZ and Transmission plan has not been presented to the NSW Public, in my mind, is neither fair or just. Assessing each project individually, is taking advantage of the current dated and flawed NSW planning system and fails to present the transition transparently and with adequate due-diligence and accountability for impacts, particularly cumulative impacts to the State and to the people, lands and water of NSW.

As a resident of rural NSW, I am concerned that the planning process for this type and scale of transition is not protecting NSW Agriculture, rural communities and the future of rural and regional NSW and Australia.

I liken this type of assessment for Australia’s first Renewable Energy Zones and associated transmission infrastructure to building a Nation-first Hospital but presenting only one room or ward at a time for assessment.

Across the vast rural areas of NSW collectively, there is and will be, a mostly unknown permanent change to landscapes and rural community character, a significant interruption to and reduction of farmland and food and fibre production, a permanent change to rural tourism products, the destruction of community cohesion and the introduction of a multitude and magnitude of new electricity generation and associated transmission infrastructure – these are all critical and fundamental reasons that this transition needs to be presented to the people of NSW holistically, not in part and 1 project at a time.

Residents within a REZ have never been presented with what a REZ fully entails. The EPA Act requires public exhibition of certain development proposals, allowing rural communities to provide input on projects that may alter their landscapes or way of life. This ensures community voices are considered in decisions affecting rural areas. Presenting each project within a REZ and projects required for bringing this generation to the grid one by one, pushes on the boundaries of project fragmentation or project splitting, which the EPA Act explicitly tries to prevent. It is the responsibility of the NSW Government to recognise this.

The NSW Government is committed to delivering the NSW Electricity Roadmap and is significantly funding EnergyCO as the Infrastructure planner for each REZ, a REZ cannot deliver what is required by the State without the culmination of generation, storage, firming and transmission projects. Assessing each project one by one is pulling the wool over the eyes of every NSW resident and taking advantage of legislation written before a REZ concept was even thought of.

It appears to me, that the NSW Land and Environment Court has played a critical role in preventing project splitting. Courts have ruled that assessing components of a larger project in isolation may breach the EPA Act’s requirement for comprehensive environmental assessment. Eg. In Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (2019) NSWLEC 55, the court emphasised the need to consider the full scope of a project’s impacts, including related infrastructure.

I firmly object to the approval of this project until such time as the entire NSW REZ rollout, associated/required generation, storage, firming and transmission projects are transparently presented to the public of NSW for their full consideration and participation.