HumeLink

I wish to comment on 3 aspects of the EIS:

1. road safety
2. fire safety
3. overall solution design

Road safety
===========

I live at the end of Childowla Rd, 25km from the Hume Hwy. Childowla Rd is the only means of access for me and other residents on Childowla Rd.

If the proposed route is adopted, Childowla Rd will be used to construct towers for at least the 8 km or so of transmission line ENE direction from the point where the line crosses the Murrumbidgee River.

Childowla Rd is misleadingly described in the Transport Study as being sealed and 2 lane.

In fact only the first 10km are sealed, the next 5 or 6km are not, and it is in parts steep, very narrow and windy. There are no lane markings at all on Childowla Rd.

Contrary to the EIS, there will be a material adverse impact on road safety if the expected additional volume of heavy vehicle traffic uses it.

A condition of approval should be that Childowla Rd is first upgraded at Transgrid's expense:

1. Upgrade the 2 single lane bridges
2. Paint lane marking around bends
3. Widen and seal to just past Nanangroe Road (ie the crest where HumeLink will go through)


Fire safety
===========
The Burrinjuck Nature Reserve Fire Management Strategy says wildfires have occurred on average 16 years apart for the last 66 years. The 1951 and 1972 fires came from the west north-west (ie where HumeLink will be).

The 1972 fire was found in court to have been caused by a transmission line.

Fire fighting is impeded by transmission lines: they are an obstacle from the air above the treeline, and nor can crews on the ground fight fire under them (25 metre exclusion zone).

There are already 2 transmission lines under 1km from the proposed route:
(i) 132 kV Wagga 132 to Yass
(ii) 330 kV Lower Tumut to Yass
and somewhat further, the 132 kV Burrinjuck to Yass.

Childowla is critical from a fire point of view, since it is the interface between farmland (ie grass fire) and bush (the Burrinjuck Nature Reserve). The proposed route is exactly where you'd want to stop a grass fire becoming a bushfire, or vice versa.

If HumeLink is to go through Childowla, then for a better bushfire outcome, these lines should be consolidated (that is, dismantle 132 kV Wagga 132 to Yass and 330 kV Lower Tumut to Yass )

In addition to the problems caused by transmission lines, there are several acute problems with bushfires at Childowla.
1. the nearest RFS fire truck and crew is at least 30 mins away (either side of the Murrumbidgee River)
2. the tendency of fire to jump the River: without a bridge in the vicinity, fire crews can't follow.

If HumeLink is to go through this particularly vulnerable area, then to mitigate the increased risk of fire, and additional impediments to fighting it, Transgrid at its expense should build a bridge across the River east of Roches Crossing, bridging Nanangroe Rd on the north and south sides of the River. This would greatly improve access for fire fighting, and give residents an alternative route out, not to mention assist Transgrid in its construction and ongoing maintenance activities. This work would be similar in scope to the recently completed https://www.hilltops.nsw.gov.au/bundarbo-bridge-replacement/ (some 27km downstream).


Solution Design
===============

A much better overall solution would be to avoid Childowla entirely.

From Gundagai, HumeLink should go straight up the Hume (ie in the strip in the middle between the north and southbound lanes) and it should go underground.


Summary
=======

EITHER re-route along the Hume, underground, OR:

1 Perform safety upgrades to Childowla Rd:
1.1 Upgrade the 2 single lane bridges
1.2 Paint lane marking around bends
1.3 Widen and seal to just past Nanangroe Road (ie the crest where HumeLink will go through)

2 Fire safety upgrades:
2.1 consolidate transmission lines (dismantle 132 kV Wagga 132 to Yass and 330 kV Lower Tumut to Yass)
2.2 build a bridge across the Murrumbidgee joining up Nanangroe Rd on the north and south sides of the River

The best outcome for the community, the nation, our future and my family is to put the power lines underground.

The width of the land corridor and the height of the proposed transmission towers will have an adverse effect on the heritage landscape aspects of all areas where towers will be built. These heritage aspects are very important to indigenous people, local residents, tourists and many others. It is not sufficient to say that towers already exist so more will not matter…to not further impact on these heritage landscape aspects the undergrounding of the transmission lines is the sensible option. Undergrounding will be safer, more environmentally friendly and will preserve the scenic qualities of the areas. I am not saying that the project should be abandoned but it should be carried out with the minimal amount of visual and environmental impact.

Please see attached files

As the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) stands, I have several objections. They are:
1. I live on Childowla Road (further along than where the power line will be). This is one of the roads that will be impacted by the work to build the transmissions lines. In the EIS, Childowla Road is described as sealed and two lane. It is true that some of the road is sealed, however the bitumen ends after 10 kms and the rest of the road is unsealed. There is about 5km of gravel road that trucks building the transmission lines will use and this section of the road is narrow, windy and steep in places, with a narrow stone bridge at one point. The sealed portion may be sufficiently wide for two cars to pass, but there is no centre line and to pass a truck requires the vehicles to move to the edge of the road. The unsealed portion of the road is barely wide enough for two cars to pass. Very often when two cars approach each other, one will pull off the edge of the road and stop, allowing the other one to pass. Visibility is poor in some places, so vehicles can approach each other unsighted. The gravel section of the road is prone to damage from heavy vehicles, bad weather and general use. It is my view that the project should not proceed at all until remediation of the road is undertaken in order to decrease the risk of accidents resulting from an increase in all traffic and particularly large and heavy vehicles. Even the sealed road is prone to damage, with wear to the surface and wheel ruts from heavy vehicles showing now, just with existing traffic levels.
2. Damage to Childowla road will impact the ability to get fire trucks to the district in the event of a major fire. Childowla road and Nanangroe Rd which run off it where the power line comes through are both dead ends. There is only one way out, so damage to the road will impact the ability of residents to escape from a fire. The same issue applies to emergency vehicles such as an ambulance.
3. Damage to the road and the danger of large vehicles on the road can be corrected and mitigated against, but the long-term impact on the aesthetics of duplicating a very large power line will never go away. The Childowla region where the power lines go through is a place of great natural beauty. With green hills on either side of the Murrumbidgee River valley, it is a calming and relaxing environment that some people have chosen to live in and others travel to for fishing, kayaking, and camping holidays. The existing power line is a blot on the landscape. To duplicate that ugliness with an additional and even bigger power line is particularly egregious and a great shame. The change does not only affect residents whose property the line goes through - those who live or visit nearby will have their outlook marred, and residents further down the road have to drive through the ugly scene of power lines every time they drive in or out.
4. I am also concerned at the increase in greenhouse gases from the huge volume of concrete and steel that will be used for the pylons, and ultimately the effect on climate change.
5. In all, an underground powerline could have been built with a much smaller impact on the road while the building takes place and there would have been little long-term impact on the beauty of the region. I would support a project to bury the powerline. As it is, I would like the entire concept to be buried and not proceed.

I object to the Humelink project. I am a landholder/farmer in Central West NSW. We have a similar project being proposed in my local area at the moment, the CWO REZ Transmission Project. One of the main problems with these projects is the complete disrespect and disregard being shown to landholders. It seems someone in a metropolitan area examines a map on their desktop and just starts drawing lines, with no consideration to the people who own the land or their livelihood, and then it is thrust upon us with little to no consultation.
Power should be generated where it is needed, negating the need for these massive transmission projects. Why should regional and rural Australia bear the brunt of generating power for metropolitan areas? Everyone should be doing their bit!
Not only are the transmission lines unsightly but they restrict farming practises. There is a lot of machinery not permitted to go under the lines. They will also impede aerial fire fighting; I don't know a pilot who would fly anywhere near structures of that size during a bushfire when vision is limited.
The amount of construction required for transmission lines and solar and wind factories does not seem very "green", and taking valuable farming land out of commission is ridiculous. Australia produces some of the very best food and fibre, and we should be allowed to continue being farmers not power generators or conductors!

The proponent has failed to adequately detail the project and has failed to undertake an impact assessment as it specifically applies to our property (ie tower locations not provided, access details not provided, noise, visual impact etc.) Localised negative impacts throughout the project footprint are largely ignored with recurrent focus on only the suggested benefits of the project. The substantial negative social and economic impact of property devaluation surrounding the project is largely ignored. The rural lifestyle value of land is severely diminished and yet the assessment has failed to acknowledge this, nor provide any detail of proposed measures to mitigate them.

please see attached documents

We hereby submit this response to the HumeLink Environmental Impact Statement report.
We, Michael and Catherine Kelly object to the HumeLink proposal, application number SSI-36656827 on a number of grounds, as follows:
Proximity of transmission lines to residential dwelling/s
The proposed 1.1km of high voltage overhead transmission lines to transverse our property, places the location of the transmission lines less than 500m from our primary residence, and approximately 1.0 - 1.5km from our two other residential dwellings. This unprecedented 500 kV transmission line route is extremely close to our home and as result raises the below concerns.
Lack of detailed visual assessment
A detailed visual assessment was not performed for any of our three residential dwellings (building ID# H20,H23 and H21). When making enquiries with Transgrid as to why visual assessments were not performed, I was advised that only one of our three residential dwellings had a potential for moderate or greater visual impact.
Given that our primary residence is approximately 470m from the easement, we feel this advice is grossly underestimated. Basing their findings on a desktop analysis rather than an actual property visit analysis does not adequately assess our impact. Further, we were also provided with a fact sheet outlining the process and requirements for selecting residences for detailed visual assessment, and I believe our residence should have been selected for assessment.
If you analyse the table in appendix G of the EIS Technical report -visual, you will find that of the 189 properties that were assessed only 22(11%) of these properties had a thorough assessment undertaken with an actual property visit. Of these 189 properties, 71 % contain existing transmission lines already. Our property was not adequately assessed for its visual impact and given there is no existing transmission line and is within 500m from the easement this should have been undertaken. If a detailed assessment were undertaken, we believe it would prove the ruinous impact this project would have on our livelihood.
The viewpoint location map - attachment E clearly shows that a photomontage was created for viewpoint #10 (which is located on our property). This photomontage is not contained in attachment F-viewpoint photomontages. I am not sure why this was omitted from the EIS. I contacted Transgrid about this and their response is in my appendix A. I feel that this omission is either incompetent or ignorant.

Concerns with Technical Report 9 Noise and Vibration
- We believe the technical report 9-Noise and Vibration is also flawed as our primary residence, 470m from transmission lines and two other residential dwellings are not represented in the maps provided. Attachment G.3 -worst case daytime transmission line construction noise map 14 and map 15 have been cropped and do not include our property and its dwellings (building ID H20,H23,H21). This has also occurred in attachment I -worst case night-time operational noise. This omission has resulted in a lack of assessment and information in relation to expected noise levels and we are not willing to accept a proposal that has not been adequately assessed for noise and vibration. I have made enquiries with Transgrid as to why our residential dwellings did not appear on the maps provided and are yet to receive a response.
- Further, had the assessment occurred it would only provide estimated noise and vibration levels, it is our understanding there is no factual noise and vibration level data available that accurately represents the proposal in respect to our property i.e. size of transmission lines and proximity to our residential dwellings.
- Further, based our own assessment of where our residential dwellings should have appeared on maps, we anticipate the worst-case daytime noise (as at attachment G.3) and the worst case night time noise (as at attachment I) levels will not be acceptable.

Concerns with Technical Report 15-EMF
- We do not accept the principle of ‘prudent avoidance’ encouraged by Transgrid in relation to electromagnetic fields and land use. Living 470m from this monstrous transmission line and working underneath this transmission line daily adversely impacts our ability to continue existing farming operations.
- Page 48, 15 EMF states ‘In selecting the corridors, Transgrid has accorded a high importance to separating the alignments from residential dwellings and other occupied premises. Due to their locations being away from urban and semi-urban areas, it is unlikely that there would be any prolonged human exposure to EMF from the transmission lines. Due to the uncertainty as to the existence of adverse health effects, it cannot be said whether the above measures would result in any health benefit, but they are all appropriate and consistent with the principles of prudent avoidance’.
I find these statements false and insulting to myself and fellow affected landholders. These transmission lines are located near people and dwellings, because it is a rural area, and the population is less dense does not mean people are non-existent.
- Page 19, EMF states ‘in the absence of clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults, or of a plausible explanation from experiments on animals or isolated cells, the evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children’. These conclusions from the EIS do not give myself or my family any comfort. If this project were planned for parts of suburban Australia, there would be an absolute uproar. If someone can prove to us that there is similar 5Kva line is currently operating in Australia, and that people are living 500m from it without any disturbance or undue affects I would be amazed.

Technical Report #5- Land Use and Property Impact Assessment concerns
Page 67 of this report states ‘The impact of transmission lines on property value both regionally and nationally remains undetermined and much of the previous research on the impact of high voltage transmission lines on property value relates to residential properties in suburban and urban areas, rather than agricultural land which makes up the vast majority of the properties within the project footprint’. The diminution of land values is unknown and can only be estimated which places the financial future of my family and business operations at huge risk and a risk that we are not willing to accept. The compensation that Transgrid has offered does not even come close to alleviating the financial risks associated with this proposal. Loss of income during construction, ongoing diminution of land value, loss of further building entitlements, uncertainty of health and safety impacts on my family and many more aspects cannot be predicted let alone accurately calculated. Transgrid’s approach to compensation and negotiations is substandard and the use of third-party valuers that do not have the extensive and bespoke knowledge of our property and business operations is inadequate.
Subjectivity of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
We believe the concept of ‘injurious affection’ in section 55(f) of the Act is flawed due to its subjectivity. We have proven this through four separate independent valuations used to assess the compensation amount for our property. The assessed amounts varied immensely with a difference of [redacted] between the lowest and highest valuations.
Further, the William Henry Kater v Electricity Transmission Authority of NSW court case in 1996, demonstrates subjectivity and this case is widely referred to by valuers. The judge in this case disagreed with the valuing parties and their rates of compensation and applied his own rate, which was substantially higher than any “professional” valuations undertaken.
Other project impacts
The adverse effects that this project will have on myself, my family and our farming operations are endless, some of these are listed on the interactive HumeLink map and others have been raised with the numerous Transgrid land officers that have come and gone over the past couple of years. Our major concerns being:
- increased risk of bushfire
- loss of farming productivity
- farming biosecurity risks

These items have all been raised at public inquiries and have been discussed relentlessly over the last few years with no satisfactory level of assurance provided resulting in a continued lack of confidence and unresolved concerns in the project.
In conclusion, we strongly object to the HumeLink proposal as the proximity of transmission lines from our residence will incur adverse visual impacts, noise levels, vibration levels, uncertainty of health-related effects, safety concerns and significant financial effects. It is unethical for hardworking Australian families to bear the burden of all these unnecessary effects. The transmission lines need to be underground or placed in an alternative location that does not impact homes and livelihoods.
Yours sincerely
Catherine and Mick Kelly

Submission by

Dr Joe McGirr MP
Independent Member for Wagga Wagga
64 Baylis Street
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
[email protected]

HumeLink - SSI-36656827

I have been a strong campaigner regarding the HumeLink project for mor than three years. I have sought better community consultation, a better route, better compensation for landowners and communities and above all the undergrounding of the transmission line.

My main concerns with HumeLink include the heightened risk of significant bushfire damage both because overhead powerlines can ignite fires and because they hinder fire-fighting efforts. Other concerns centre on damage to the environment, negative impact on the use of agricultural land, scarring of the landscape, increased mental illness among landowners and the ruin of community environments and tourism to the region.

The HumeLink EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Summary August 2023 mentions the probability of damage to biodiversity with impacts to both threatened and endangered local flora and fauna (p22-23). The natural landscapes and local flora and fauna would be better preserved with underground lines, and there would be less long-term effects on the local environment. Also, there is a possibility of erosion within the area due to land clearing and the unavoidable transportation of weeds and pathogens across agricultural land adding a biosecurity risk to the already affected agricultural land. There is also a risk of contamination of nearby water flows and construction causing changes in flood behaviour which would have a significant impact on those living close the creeks and rivers that could be impacted (p30). While I understand Transgrid will attempt to mitigate these negative impacts to the environment, there is still a risk there will be lasting damage to the environment and there will continue to be negative impacts during the operation of the overground powerlines.

Climate change and exposure to severe weather gives the project a design life of approximately 50 years because of anticipated damage to the transmission lines and materials used such as concrete and steel as stated in the EIS (p33). Due to the increase in severe weather events and climate change, undergrounding would not only safeguard the community’s power supply but could also increase the life of the materials used in the project by reducing their exposure to climate change and severe weather.

Also relevant is the bushfire risk caused by the overhead powerlines, as it is possible, they could be the cause of future bushfires. The Pacific Energy and Gas company in California, USA have made the decision to underground their current overhead transmission lines because they were found to be the cause of over 30 wildfires since 2017, which destroyed over 23000 homes and claimed more than 100 lives.

If the overground powerline project is to go ahead as is, I am seeking assurance that landowners and communities - both those whose land will host the infrastructure and neighbouring properties and communities - will receive adequate compensation for the depreciation of their land value; that the bushfire risks will be mitigated and closely monitored, with a comprehensive annual verification regime to ensure that mitigation is undertaken as required; and that measures are in place to reduce the visual and environmental impacts the overhead powerlines will have on the region and its economy.

Regarding bushfires, these are a major concern for many residents. The EIS (p31) mentions that the highest risk for bushfires during construction is within Category 1 Bushfire Prone Land which includes a major part of my electorate. What mitigation methods would be used during construction to reduce this risk? If the project becomes operational there will still be an elevated risk of bushfire in these areas; how will this be managed and what type of monitoring would be in place to ensure a fast response in case of ignition.

In terms of community impacts, there will be both visual and noise effects that will occur during construction of the project and during the operation of the aboveground powerlines. The EIS (p,28), estimates during certain weather events some receivers could exceed acceptable night-time noise management levels by 10 dBA. How will those living within proximity to these receivers be compensated and what mitigation will there be? The visual impacts of the powerlines will also have a negative effect on local tourism as they will disrupt the region’s scenic landscapes. These negative visual and noise impacts will decrease local land value and may reduce tourism and economic growth; there must be adequate mitigation and compensation to all those affected.

In terms of environmental impacts, undergrounding the lines would reduce these considerably and be the best way by far of preserving the flora and fauna. In the event of overhead transmission, I am seeking assurances on minimising environmental impact, restoration of landscape after destruction and adequate offsets if required.

I am also concerned about the long-term maintenance of the lines and the risk to farmers in terms of biosecurity and erosion. How will Transgrid be kept accountable for the proper maintenance and protection of the farms through whose land these lines are being placed.

The important aspects of this project are that communities have access to reliable power supply even during extreme weather events and that there is minimal environmental damage and impacts to the communities living in the area surrounding the proposed transmission lines. Therefore I oppose the current proposal for the HumeLink project as an overhead powerline. Underground transmission lines will have a much better impact on the environment and community. However, if the current overground project is to go ahead, I am seeking assurances regarding stringent bushfire mitigation strategies and management, as well as mitigation and compensation for the visual and noise impacts caused by the project for landowners and neighbouring properties and communities.


Dr Joe McGirr
Member for Wagga Wagga

We attached our Submission to the Humelink EIS.

Please see attached submission.

I strongly object to the construction of above ground high voltage transmission lines as what is known as the Hume link project by Transgrid and support the placement of this line to be underground due to the below rational.

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF’s)
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are found everywhere there is electricity. Regarding above ground High Voltage Transmission lines, my concerns about them centre on the potential for these transmission lines to expose people living and working in close proximity to these lines to higher than average levels of EMF’s that have the potential to cause long term health effects due to this exposer. Above ground high voltage transmission lines emit higher levels of EMF in their location and when coupled with other high voltage lines in the immediate area, those people living in close proximity and working directly underneath these transmission lines are being exposed to higher and more consistent levels of EMF’s. This on going exposure can lead to long term medical conditions for those people living and working around and underneath these above ground transmission lines.
A Parliamentary report into a high voltage transmission line in Western Sydney in the mid 90’s included a Chapter on Health EMF emissions. Link to this chapter Chapter 2 - Health and EMF – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
An Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development was commissioned by the NSW Government and completed in 1991. The inquiry was conducted by Sir Harry Gibbs with the subsequent report known as the Gibbs Report. In his report Sir Harry Gibbs concluded; It has not been established that electric fields or magnetic fields of power frequency are harmful to human health, but since there is some evidence that they may do harm, a policy of prudent avoidance is recommended.

Prudent avoidance is something that has been adopted by power companies constructing high voltage lines, but what is the definition of “Prudent Avoidance” and how are those people who live and work in close proximity to these high voltage lines expected to undertake prudent avoidance of those areas, it is impossible.

There is some evidence that suggests exposure to EMF emissions may result in an excess risk to humans suffering.
o Childhood Leukemia
o Suicide and Depression
o Neurodegeneration disorders
o Source ICNIRP (emfs.info)

I have not seen any documentation from Transgrid relating to what levels of EMF are being emitted from these above ground high voltage transmission lines and there is also no evidence that ongoing monitoring of EMF levels is being or will be conducted by Transgrid for any of the current high voltage lines in operation or under construction.

While it can be argued here is inconclusive evidence either way as to the harmful effects of EMF emissions from above ground transmission lines on those people who are regularly exposed due to them living and working in close proximity to these lines. The only way to be 100% sure of zero impact is to place these high voltage lines underground. By placing these high voltage lines underground it has the potential to prevent suffering, illness and death to those families exposed to EMF emissions by these high voltage lines.

I run a cross bred lambing enterprise on 550 acres of prime agricultural country adjacent to the Murrumbidgee river at Bookham. This area has been farmed for 200 years and contains a mix of highly productive pastures and magnificent old and ancient natural bush land and native forest, unfortunately the property is already scarred by three existing legacy power lines and easements and now the Humelink proposal will add a further monstrosity up to 80 metres high traversing my lambing paddocks. I am disappointed that serious consideration has not been given to undergrounding this project , a 21st century global best practice process being adopted by many energy companies around the world primarily to mitigate the tragic consequences of major fires. My concerns are many , the visual ambience of the countryside will be permanently destroyed, my working environment will be made more challenging and unproductive and most importantly the management around bush fire fighting and risk prevention will become impossible. Climate change and weather extremes are creating elevated fire events and these are very concerning .Childowla road is a dead end road so in the event of a serious fire there is only one exit way out. Humelink will place a line of 500 kv power lines directly in front of the entry point of Childowla road as it progresses a further 15 kilometres to the end. Along this 15 kilometres are a further 11 properties. In the event of a serious fire coming from the west , which is the usual direction, these power lines will cause all of us to be completely isolated, helpless and unable to rely on major fire fighting assets to come in by land or air making us totally exposed and defenceless. The position of these huge transmission lines is totally unacceptable and a serious danger, and as per Transgrids Easement Memorandum “ the owners of the land must not operate any plant , equipment or machinery having a height above 4.3 metres” . This means in the event of a fire the RFS will not deploy fire fighting assets under or through the power lines thereby cutting us off from any assistance and exposing us to grave consequences. I put on notice Transgrid , the State Government of NSW and the Federal Government of Australia that their decision to proceed with this project in its current form has potential consequences in the event of major fire to cause serious personal harm and land and building damage or destruction and as such I will hold them liable.

I object to the HumeLink project as an above ground transmission line.
Transgrid has no social licence to build HumeLink with overhead transmission lines.
Evidence to the previous NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines was, bar Transgrid's, overwhelmingly in favour of undergrounding transmission lines.
In spite of this evidence, Transgrid completely disregards the possibility of undergrounding transmission lines in the HumeLink EIS.
As a result of the perceived failings of the previous inquiry, the NSW Upper House has voted to form a committee to further investigate the viability of undergrounding transmission lines.
The committee will report on its findings on March 31,2024.
The HumeLink project, as an above ground transmission line, must be paused until the findings of this new inquiry are made public.

I object to the HumeLink proposal on a number of grounds, as follows:

( 1 ) : Residents of RURAL Australia are being expected to shoulder the biggest (NEGATIVE) impacts of the renewables "roll-out" ; as if it wasn't enough having our rural amenity raped by the imposition of wind and solar facilities , the attempted further degradation of our properties /landscape by the installation of OVERHEAD transmission lines and supporting TOWERS , is far too much to expect of us .
Many landowners would be OK with the transmission lines being UNDERgrounded where the impact is lessened , but authorities want them to be OVERhead , simply because this is thought to be cheaper for the consumers of the eventual energy delivered ; if consumers want this "renewable energy" (mostly in suburbia) , then they should be prepared to pay for the increased cost of undergrounding the transmission lines . INDEED , to do otherwise , is BLATANTLY expecting rural residents/landowners to SUBSIDISE ,, I repeat , SUBSIDISE , the cost of the energy so delivered ,, because these rural people would be paying a monumental price for the imposition of these massive structures .

( 2 ) : OVERHEAD transmission lines not only increase the risk of bushfires , but by their very nature , are more susceptable to damage by wild weather , simply because of the enormous distances of exposure they inherently have due to the nature of the decentralised nature of the wind/solar farms .
( 3 ) : I believe that OVERHEAD transmission lines require a bigger "footprint" on the local environment than UNDERground lines .
( 4 ) : The proposed extreme HIGH transmission VOLTAGE of the energy is a big concern , especially exposed overhead .
( 5 ) : Operating / carrying out ANY sort of firefighting proceedures around these overhead transmission lines poses a SIGNIFICANT DANGER to both equipment and PERSONELL .

Attached is my submission that contains photos of the impact on the local environment that will result if this project goes ahead.

Please see objections outlined in the response attached

Submission attached (received via email)

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE
HUMELINK PROJECT – APPLICATION NO SSI-36656827

I/we hereby submit this response to the HumeLink Environmental Impact Statement report.

We object to the HumeLink proposal on a number of grounds,
1.noise
2. Impact on fire safety
3. Visual pollution of areas
4. Can go underground instead of above ground