HumeLink

See attached letter on behalf of Harissa Pty Ltd.

Director – Energy Assessments,
Development Assessment,
Department of Planning and Environment,
4 Parramatta Square,
12 Darcy Street,
Parramatta NSW 2150


5th October 2023
SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE HUMELINK PROJECT




Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to object to the Environmental Impact Statement for Humelink.

My name is Mandy Smith, and I am a partner in Glenellerslie Herefords, which was founded by Gordon & June Smith in 1948 as part of the Ellerslie Estate War Service Land Settlement scheme.
We are devastatingly impacted by Humelink, and support undergrounding as the solution to our very real concerns.

We very sadly became impacted due to our own community pushing Humelink off themselves and onto us, adding further devastation to an already devastating imposition of what this project brings to us and our community. Since it was announced that the 80 metre towers were not going through Yaven Creek and instead through our farm, near our home, I have been mentally struggling… Depression, Anxiety, Restless, Worry, Insomnia and feeling physically ill. I have felt isolated and withdrawn from our community as a result, after being an active and supportive community member. I was contemplating suicide in June/July last 2022, when my family and Doctor intervened, and ambulance and police were called which was a traumatic time for all of us. I felt that life wasn’t worth living and in the next fire we are doomed.

To see these towers as I sit at my kitchen table will be horrific, a scar that will live with us for the rest of our lives, and those of our children, and grandchildren. Our hopes of the future of our beautiful landscape impacted forever if Humelink goes overhead.

This farm cottage which my husband and I worked hard for and made into a loving home for our 4 children holds so many wonderful memories of bringing up our children. In 2013, we lost our son to a farm accident so this little patch of heaven we call home, more significantly holds precious memories of our son who loved the land and was going to take over from his dad. We are still here showing we love this land, every day in his honour, this place, this legacy is ingrained in our blood.

The thought of Transgrid cutting down more trees and putting more access roads in makes me see red. We should protect the environment and wildlife in regional areas, with some areas only just recovering from the devastating Black Summer Fires. The Wedge Tailed Eagles, Emus and other birds took some time to come back after the fires.

We live just opposite where the Dunn’s Rd Fire started, in close vicinity to ignition point. The fear of living that, surviving that, and the potential of that happening again has played a toll on me to the point that in summer I hardly sleep. Worrying about what will happen with looming fires, and now the last 3 years, how frightened we are to have the added hazard of Humelink.

My husband, an experienced Fire Captain and Tanker Driver for over 50+ years said he’d never want to see a fire like Dunn’s Rd again. My son Blake was part of the crew that saved homes, farm sheds, and whatever else they could during these fires, protecting people and property. My fear of losing another son was unimaginable. I was so pleased to see a very sooty boy at the end of each day and prayed to God for his safe return.

When my husband and son were away fighting the fire, I worked hard to clear away everything around our home and outbuilding so if the fire came calling, I was hoping that the garden hose would keep my son’s fiancé and I safe, but in reality, it wouldn’t. I felt a huge responsibility when someone else’s child is in your care, so I had to send her to a safe house in Wagga. Adding
Humelink overhead to our already High Bushfire prone area, impacts our concerns for our safety, the safety of volunteers, and the safety of our community. We should not increase the risk; we should reduce the risk by undergrounding transmission. Undergrounding Transmission would bring comfort to Mothers awaiting their children and husbands bravely fighting fires for the safety of all, we cannot further risk lives by increasing hazard.

If Humelink is built above ground, then we will demand that TransGrid ‘s maintenance team’s be supplemented with bushfire tankers and fire fighting teams to cover the fires burning within 25 metres of their lines that they say is ok to cover the 275 metres or more that we local RFS people won’t go within 300 + metres of them.

The Humelink Project I feel very strongly for it to go underground. The way of the future for our great nation. Saving our trees and wildlife, protecting people, assets, and community from increasing the devastating effects of bushfires and acknowledging that people in the bush count too!

Yours Sincerely


Amanda Smith
0269464233
0498259545
Member Darlow RFS

Director – Energy Assessments,
Development Assessment,
Department of Planning and Environment,
4 Parramatta Square,
12 Darcy Street,
Parramatta NSW 2150

4th October 2023

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

The following objections are in relation to the content in Humelink Environmental Impact Statement. I object to this project due to the following:
1. Within the NSW State Development Inquiry TransGrid stated on numerous occasions that Undergrounding would be 3-10 times the cost, It is gratifying to read that TransGrid have relinquished the costing of underground from 10 times the cost to 3 times the cost of overhead, however experts in this field have suggested even lower. Please provide us with the 2024 costing on overhead lines, inclusive of the total of compensation payments to be offered so WE can compare. We can guarantee that people will be happy with less financial compensation if Humelink goes underground.
2. I note that Access easements are proposed to gain access to the transmission easement if there is no access from the nearest public road, this appears to be over and above the destruction of the easement itself. For our location you are seemingly gaining access from Yaven Creek Road. Good luck with getting up the hill though. As per an Ecology report we have commissioned ourselves, our impacted area has an elevation between 340-520 metres. Your attempts to gain access will see a huge erosion problem in the making, one that will no doubt cost us in the future.
3. Humelink will travel through an area of our property that we have owned since 1977. I have proof in an aerial photo that this area was sparsely treed pre 1950 or thereabouts. We stopped running sheep to allow that area to regenerate trees to improve the ecology of our farm. We now only use that paddock for 3 – 4 months of the year, putting our pregnant heifers in there so that they get plenty of exercise pre calving. (another transmission line will double their exposure to electromagnetic radiation) We have had Ecology Consulting examine the area, they have prepared a report (easier to follow than your Environmental Impact Statement) noting that ‘it’s crucial to recognise that the study area constitutes part of the unaffected remnants of past bushfires in New South Wales”. Data sourced from the NSW Fire Extent and Severity Mapping indicates the proposed easement area has remained relatively untouched by significant bushfires. This distinctive status highlights the study area’s value as a precious remnant, providing vital habitats for local species.’ I can advise that I have been living in this area since 1952 and the area has not been burnt in that time. Of course, if you were going underground, I would be open to a detour around the hill and follow the open country, which would save our trees and the habitats within. In their words, (Ecology Consulting) have identified the impacted area as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community, commonly known as the Box Gum Woodland, White Box - Yellow Box - Blakeley’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (Commonwealth EPBC Act). This is one of the last unburnt Critically Endangered grassy woodlands in this entire area. One only needs to look at the trees burnt in the extremely hot Dunns Road Fire to see that they have been badly damaged. Humelink will remove more than half of this area. The report is available on request.
4. When one considers that in this steep country you will be constructing a bench/working pad for the cranes, then the above more than half statement is correct.
5. Your objective to build on TransGrid’s non-existent positive reputation and social license could be deemed a miserable failure. You state - Success looks like gaining community & stakeholder acceptance to develop and operate TransGrid’s electricity network: fair reasonable & timely consultation processes (we have witnessed only mistruths, lies & deceit, being told – not listened to or considered, within this Environmental Impact Study we have been presented with new information never before disclosed even when we requested, in particular tower locations, structures and access tracks) : fair robust & transparent route selection (the route has changed multiple times, which suggests that TransGrid have failed and distrust plays a part) : fair & equitable compensation for landowners (Offering less than 10% of the real compensation required is certainly not fair) : provide benefits to regional communities ( completely remove any attraction for tourism & putting lives at risk in the next bushfire event) : delivering a sustainable energy future while communicating how the project contributes to cheaper & more reliable energy ( By refusing to really consider an underground option you intend to remove an exponential amount of trees, vegetation and habitats, spending in excess of 5 billion dollars to connect Snowy 2.0 which as we learn more and more appears to be an unrealistic source of unreliable electricity. It seems as though in a bid to remove coal power, on environmental grounds, you are destroying the environment to do so, yet have not considered alternatives of undergrounding, or even nuclear as a consideration for the future.
6. You state that there would be a low risk of bushfire because of the project during operation. But on days of extreme heat and extreme weather, the risk increases, where is your reference to this? Also, you have not at all discussed any mitigation for fighting fires, and the inability to control fires in and around your infrastructure. If lightning starts a fire anywhere near your transmission line, then it might as well have been started by your line because no one will be able to fight or control YOUR fire. And any fire within its parameters will be undefendable, as safe firefighting operations cannot occur, and will be a risk to life, our lives! During construction there will be many summer days when all construction will have to cease because of the risk of starting a bushfire, especially where Humelink is near the existing 330kv line, because of the risk of arcing. If both lines were underground, there would be no issue.
7. You list species & communities of flora & fauna that will incur Potential or likely significant impact, would it not be prudent to reduce the impact on these species by putting Humelink underground thus reducing the impact by two thirds. Ecology Consulting have stated “The impact zone has been mapped within the Koala Suitable Habitat with a suitability index ranging from .71 to.75 in vegetation zone 1 (Figure 6). This indicates that, although Koala was not observed on the site, there is a likelihood of around 70% of finding habitat that closely resembles areas where koalas have been observed over the past 40 years.”
8. You state that you will do everything required to remove the risk to biodiversity, surface water, soils, ground, waterway crossings, etc, however in many cases anything you do will never repair the damage unleashed by Humelink. When one considers that every tower will require a crane pad, roads in and out, some will require benching, some will require tension towers, and every tree will need to be removed between them. All this will cause erosion no matter how you try to stop it. Consider that if Humelink went underground, then you would require some roads, a digging implement, a cable carrier, a laying implement, and a covering up implement. This will reduce the impact of Humelink significantly, including the much-reduced easement of 15m, comparative to your overhead easement of 70-130m wide as stated in the Environmental Impact Statement. I cannot understand, after considering that every tower will cost more than $1 million to construct, and the time this construction will take, how it can be that overhead is cheaper than underground. As stated before we need to see TransGrid’s costing for overhead.
9. During Construction of towers, our road will be clogged with trucks carrying heavy equipment, cement trucks, steel carrying trucks, crane carrying trucks, vehicles carrying people, and then vehicles carrying wire, followed by more trucks carrying heavy equipment to clean up the mess. An undergrounding option will reduce all this activity by 90% in my estimation. Our roads will be completely trashed so I hope you are including the cost of replacement for every road in NSW that you use. If not, ensure you add that to the overhead cost also. These costs should not fall on Councils.
10. You state that the potential disruption to agricultural enterprises will be limited. I would argue that every landholder impacted will more than likely need to stop using the entire paddock that you are travelling through until work is complete. That work could possibly take a few months at least. That means that there will be no crop from that paddock that year or stock numbers would need to be reduced to avoid eating out the rest of the property, and all the traffic will stop the landowners from carrying out their business in the normal way. I contend that disruption will NOT be limited, but a major hindrance to landholders carrying out their business, using modern technologies, being limited by height of machinery under the lines, so the impact is, not only during construction but for the next 80 years of the overhead infrastructure’s lifetime. An underground option will see so much reduction in disruption to be hardly considered. Once the line is buried the landholder can get back to business.
11. I note on page 14 – 11 in Volume 2
The rest is in the document EIS Submission 2023, thanks

I object to the proposal of building an overhead KV line from the Snowy to Bannaby. For the following reasons the facility should be underground.
The threat of bushfires is real. Once ignited the ability to control and/or contain fire is very restricted. Air and ground fighting would be severely limited. Once the fire takes hold and expands outside the restricted area the defence is basically nil. You only have to review the Victorian fires where they estimated the cost to be in the $billions. The cost of going underground is a lot cheaper. The additional cost should be passed onto the end consumer, over the 20 year period. It would be insignificant compared to the alternative. You can't pass the cost of the bushfire onto anyone, the local councils and the State governments have to wear the cost!
My next concern is the effect on agriculture. The towers will stop production, both crops and livestock. I am sure others, who will be directly affected, will go into more detail. Will they be able to increase prices for the loss of production ? NO! I am sure the end consumer of the power is not willing to pay more for their produce!
There are many other factors including biodiversity , visibility, fauna, heritage buildings and I am sure there will be some indigenous sacred sites somewhere along the proposed line.
I live about 2 kms from the existing line so my concern and objection is on bushfire control and agriculture loss of production.
I have friends directly under the proposed path and support their objections.
I would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss these issues in more detail.
Please go underground.
Regards
John Mendl

For the reasons set out in my attached submission, I vigorously oppose the HumeLink project, specifically at Bannaby.

John Terrence and Patricia June BOURNE
‘Milverton’
241 Coreinbob Siding Road,
LADYSMITH,
NSW.
2652
Email [email protected]
0429991265. 0269221765.





Director – Energy Assessments,
Development Assessment,
Department of Planning and Environment,
4 Parramatta Square,
12 Darcy Street,
Parramatta NSW 2150


Dear Sir/Madam,

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

We hereby submit this response to the HumeLink Environmental Impact Statement report.

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

My wife and I in a previous life in Sydney built a rather landmark home on an over one-acre block of land at Bayview, the property was elevated high above Pittwater and had a very glorious view of Pittwater and beyond to the ocean. We lived there for about 25 years.
About 22 years ago exchanged our Pittwater view for a tree change and purchased our small farming property (140 hectares) at the above address, our home is elevated being built on a hill with commanding views, most views not even interrupted by houses. We purchased this property because of our experience of having commanding views as we had experienced at Bayview, Sydney and we have enhanced the property with considerable improvements in gardens, pastures, fencing, water, laneway and about 20,000 trees, now well established.
My wife and I are extremely conscious of the environment and sustainability. The proposal for overhead transmission lines across the rolling tree, pasture and cropping country would be a terrible blot on the local and wider landscape and environment. We would also be directly affected, having extremely ugly proposed infrastructure in front of our very peaceful and glorious view.

We acknowledge and accept the Department of Planning and Environment’s disclaimer and declaration.
We are not associated with any political donations
Yours sincerely,
John Terrence and Patricia Bourne.
This submission signed by John Terrence Bourne.

We take this opportunity to lodge our submission regarding the impact of the proposed transmission lines on our farming operations at 8100 Tumbarumba Road Book Book.
Our property is situated on the eastern side of the Wagga Wagga - Tumbarumba Road, about eight kilometres from Ladysmith. The proposed transmission lines will cross our property from East to West.
We have been advocating for Transgrid to underground the proposed power lines as my husband Jim flies an aircraft into and out of our property, known as “Tooles Creek”, in the course of our farming operations. If the transmission lines are placed above ground, it will prevent him from continuing to fly his aircraft into and out of the property in a safe manner as the lines will be situated across the flight path on approach and departure from our airstrip. The towering transmission lines will only be 850 metres from the authorised landing area (ALA).
He has been flying an aircraft into and out of the property for the past 16 years and will no longer be able to do that once the lines are built. We have another property approximately 90 kms to the west which we work in conjunction with Tooles Creek.
In the Humelink Aviation Impact Statement EIS Technical Report 14 Project footprint, it was stated that out of the 35 ALAs that the Transmission Lines would cover, only four of them would have a major impact. Unfortunately, it doesn’t state which four are impacted. Jim's assessment is that our airstrip will become unusable for the type of aircraft that he currently owns and operates. Also, the transmission lines would prevent any spraying activities by air as there is already a 330kva line in the same paddocks.
Undergrounding the transmission lines would also allow farming activities to continue as they have in the past. Agricultural machinery would be able to operate in the vicinity without the risk of coming into contact with overhead lines. In addition, as the towers with the transmission line affect the amenity of the landscape, having the lines underground would be much better visually for the landscape.

Please find attached my submission and objections to the TransGrid EIS.

Please find our submission attached.
With thanks,
Douglas & Berlinde Rand
Stoney Ridge, 348 Stewarts Rd, Batlow NSW 2730

I wish to make a submission in response to the Environment Impact Statement Report HumeLink Project opposing the above mentioned project

Planning to put lines above ground is very short sighted. If a major diruption should occur the fallput would be severe. As our climate is changing this becomes more likely. Bushfires and severe weather events are become more frequent. The region in question is subject to both of these events, with increasing frequency forecast.
Placing the powerlines underground would reduce the risk during adverse conditions.
The region has high agriculural significance as well as major native habitat, placing very large towers and power lines above ground will create problems for agriculture and the natural environment, increasing the risk of fires, disruption and enjoyment of the enviroment of magnificent forest and farming land.
Placing power lines underground now will save money and land value and usage into the future. If not done right the first time then in 10yrs they will need to be replaced at greater cost. The cheapest option is not the best. We need to plan for the future ie 20, 50 years future , further if possible not shortterm glory. This should be a plan for generations to come not something that needs to be corrected in 10 years time.
Our agriculural land is being threatened in many ways, climate included. If we are to maintain land for future populations food supplies these lands need to be protected from exploitation and left to be fully usable, without obstructive and intrusive infostructure.
Cutting a massive overland power line across multiple properties and through large areas of forestry and native habitat in a region subject to bush fires in inaccessible terrian is just wrong in so many ways, especially as our climate warms and storms increase.

Please find attached our submission and corresponding documentation in our opposition to Humelink and the proposed Gugaa Substation.

Please see attached files

To whom it may concern,

I am in objection to these power lines as they are directly affecting me as I manage a farm that the power lines will go through. They will not only leave a massive scare on the environment but also cause great upset to how we manage the farm as they are being built.

I am also against the power lines as a waste of money. The only people that will benefit from these are foreign investors as Australians will have to keep paying out to them for power. With all the money being spent on these lines it could be used to purchase solar panels and batteries for every household and they would then produce their own power.

I have also heard that Victoria landowners are receiving twice the amount of compensation as New South Wales. If this is true that is very unfair.

It also seems very unfair that the power lines are providing power only for the cities but the farmers are having to deal with the destruction of their livelihood. Country people are taking a huge blow for the cities. The cities need to be self sufficient and find their own power and consume less.

With the push of climate change and carbon spending issues from the government it is very hypocritical that farmland is being destroyed and thousands if not millions of trees bulldozed to allow this disgusting scar, power lines, to be put through. The land we manage is having a large portion of shelter belts ripped out and a very large tree about 100 – 200 years old potentially being removed. This is destroying the biodiversity of the farm.

There is no evidence that these high power voltage lines have no effects on people, animal and flora health. I have heard of a study of these high voltage lines under the sea for windmills off Australian coast and the effects it has on the growth and reproduction of lobsters. The lobsters are stunted, deformed and not reproducing as well. This is very alarming considering we manage the land to produce a living off growing merino sheep. There should be more studies conducted by non biased people before these lines are put in to determine health issues and any other concerns.

Regards,
Michelle Brown

To whom it may concern,

I am writing a submission in objection to Humelink. I am a landowner directly affected by these monstrous lines and am terribly upset that our people elected government would allow this to go through destroying so much farmland and shelter trees.

Here are my reasons,

-There is a shorter route that can be taken that already exists through National Parks. It is about 40km less. This would cost less and be more efficient as these high voltage power lines have a 20% loss. This would also save farmlands from being ripped through with more power lines.

-The Snowy II generators are only 40% effienct as they are using the power generated to pump the water back up the hill. This is not environmentally friendly and to use solar and wind to do the pumping is crazy as it should be used for households. The hole system is not set up for peak demand.

-The other factor to consider is if there were any natural disaster, vandalism or terrorism both sets of power lines side by side would be taken out leading to severe power outages. Even ships put the two control lines separate, one on either side. Placing them together is poor management for off setting potential future disasters.

-There are no studies on the effect of the electro magnetic field of these high power lines on any animals or plants or humans that we have been provided with by Transgrid. We have no idea if it will affect reproduction or growth of our animals, farmland or what it will do to us working under them.

-These power lines are removing considerable amounts of trees off my land especially a very large old gumtree that can not be compensated with money or a new tree as it will take hundreds of years to grow back. These power lines are not helping the environment but destroying it.

Regards,
Stanley Silverwood

Yass Valley Council submission attached

I object to the project because of lots of issues it will cause. Number one health wise, I have already lost three close family members from the farm with cancer one being young way too young to die.
There is links to these lines and kids cancers.
I have three boys who love helping on the farm.
We crop and the lines will destroy that business because of the arial spraying, and harvesting.
And the visual impact on the beautiful hills.
Also the noise it will be way to close to house for the noise limits than are ment to be.
The trees that will have to be destroyed. And all the animals living in them.
Over seas they are not allowed to sell stock who are grazed under lines hence this rings alarm bells.
Why can we in Australia?
Also very high fire danger and there will be no one who can or will fight under such lines, and the choppers will not be able to access them.
UNDER GROUND would be the best and most efficient way to do this power it won’t have any of these problems.

We strongly object to the project. The impact on regional and rural communities through which the proposed overhead lines will pass is immeasurable. No compensation is accounted for to anyone other than those who the proponent requires an easement from. If no alternative to transmission of remotely located renewables is available, the lines should be put underground. Refer attachment for full submission.

Please find attached our views and comments on the project which we would like addressed please