Muswellbrook objected to the transmission line’s Hebden Road worker camp. The approval requires it decommissioned

The Hunter Transmission Project, the 500 kV line from Bayswater to Olney, was approved on 27 July 2026, according to the NSW Major Projects register. Part of its construction workforce will sleep in a camp at the Hebden Road construction support site, which EnergyCo’s exhibition fact sheet places at Muswellbrook, up to 300 workers. The council’s 17 April 2026 letter to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure says it has resolved to OBJECT to the camp, because it will provide poor living arrangements for workers and minimal positive legacy for Muswellbrook Shire (p. 1).

The approval kept the camp. Read against the council’s letter, its conditions give the council some of what it asked for, and not the legacy its policy puts first: accommodation that stays and becomes housing or visitor accommodation. EnergyCo’s answer, as the council’s letter reproduces it, is that the site is leased from AGL, so there would not be an opportunity to repurpose the site once construction is complete (p. 5).

What the council asked for, and what the approval says

Muswellbrook adopted a Temporary Workforce Accommodation Policy on 23 September 2025, the day before the project’s exhibition closed. It says the council prefers TWA to be within or near existing urban areas and villages, gives preference to proposals with a pathway for permanent conversion, supports dry mess facilities to improve safety and encourage use of local hospitality venues and wants food, laundry and labour bought locally (sections 4.1 and 4.3). The April letter applies that policy to the Hebden Road camp, item by item. The Instrument of Approval answers in conditions B66 to B73.

Six things Muswellbrook asked for, against the approved conditions

Council requests from its 17 April 2026 letter; conditions from the Instrument of Approval, 27 July 2026. The tags are our reading.

• Where it goes
  Not changed Council askedNo out-of-town camps, its position since May 2024; it sent EnergyCo a site suitability assessment of alternatives (pp. 1 to 2, 4). Approval saysCamps described in the EIS and in Appendix 1 of this approval; the EIS camps include Hebden Road (B66, B67).
• What it leaves
  Different Council askedIf it stays at Hebden Road, water and wastewater built to permanent standards for a legacy use (comment 4, p. 5). Approval saysAll camps decommissioned and rehabilitated within 12 months of commencing operations, infrastructure removed to 500 mm, unless the Planning Secretary agrees otherwise (B73, Table 1).
• Who sleeps there
  As asked Council askedProject construction workers only: Any proposal to accommodate workers from other projects should be prohibited (comment 6, p. 6). Approval saysCamps must only be used to accommodate workers associated with construction or road upgrades for the development (B67).
• Local spending
  Partly Council askedLocal procurement targets and a plan showing how they will be met (comment 7, p. 6). Approval saysMeasures to support local suppliers in servicing the camp where possible; no targets (B68(g)).
• Design
  Later Council askedAn indicative design before approval (comment 8, p. 6). Approval saysA management plan with site layout, capacity and staging, prepared before construction in consultation with relevant Council/s (B68).
• Housing pressure
  Partly Council askedA Workforce Accommodation Strategy, with six-month notice of demand and triggers (comment 11, pp. 7 to 8). Approval saysA social impact management plan covering housing availability and affordability, with quarterly public monitoring reports (B71).

The Department’s assessment report summarises Muswellbrook’s position (Table 6, p. 27) as having Requested clarification on the proposed TWA including its location, scale, and potential impacts on tourism and local services. We found no reference in the report to the objection in the council’s April letter. The preceding page (p. 26) says the Department met Singleton and Cessnock councils during the assessment.

Why the camp stays where it is

The council’s letter quotes EnergyCo’s reply of 24 March 2026 (p. 4). EnergyCo did a desktop analysis of the 14 sites the council identified; two, both council-owned, rated medium suitability. Moving the camp, it said, would mean A modification to planning consent (at a minimum a 4-month delay to the project), Additional cost of approximately $5 million and Potential social licence issues with additional community consultation required. The council disagreed that a modification would be needed: it says a camp approved through the state’s construction workers accommodation pathway can serve several projects, and it is not clear why use of an alternative site would require a modification to the HTP planning consent.

On legacy, EnergyCo told the council it is exploring alternative opportunities to deliver legacy outcomes, which may include supporting enabling infrastructure (e.g. roads, electricity, water and sewer) at a Council-identified site, and that it is committed to working with Council (pp. 4 to 5). The council’s reply: it is yet to see these opportunities clearly defined or progressed. Nothing in the approved conditions refers to such an arrangement.

Hebden Road is one of three camps. The figures have moved since exhibition, and EnergyCo’s project page, as at 7 October 2026, still gives the exhibited version: three sites, space for around 780 workers.

Camp beds for the Hunter Transmission Project, as exhibited and as assessed

Bars to scale; the full width is 900 beds.

Exhibited, September 2025780

Hebden Rd 300 Gouldsville 180 Cooranbong 300

Left to right: Hebden Road, Gouldsville Road, Cooranbong

Assessed for approval, July 2026up to 900

Hebden Rd 300 Freemans Dr 300 Wollombi Rd 300

Left to right: Hebden Road, Freemans Drive, Wollombi Road (new)

EnergyCo also told the council the camp’s capacity will be further refined by the appointed construction contractors and will be bound by the lease agreement between AGL and EnergyCo (p. 5), and that its design will be subject to the preference of the design and construct contractor(s) yet to be appointed (p. 6).

How it got here, and what lands at the same time

The council says it raised the location early and was not heard. EnergyCo’s responses in the same letter describe meetings and ongoing discussions. The dates, as the documents give them:

The Hebden Road camp, from the council’s first objection to construction

1. May 2024Council’s submission on the project’s assessment requirements says it does not support out-of-town camps.
2. 27 Aug to 24 Sep 2025Environmental impact statement on exhibition, with the Hebden Road camp for up to 300.
3. 23 Sep 2025Council adopts its Temporary Workforce Accommodation Policy.
4. 28 Jan 2026Council sends EnergyCo an issues tracker and a site suitability assessment.
5. 24 Mar 2026EnergyCo replies: 14 sites assessed, two medium; moving would cost about $5 million and at least four months.
6. 17 Apr 2026Council resolves to object to the camp.
7. 27 Jul 2026Project approved, camp included, conditions B66 to B73.
8. 3 to 18 Sep 2026Council’s own expression of interest for worker accommodation.
9. Dec 2026 to Jun 2027Peak construction workforce for the Muswellbrook Solar Farm, per the council’s letter.
10. Feb 2027Muswellbrook BESS looking to commence construction and the Muswellbrook Bypass planned to commence construction, per the council’s letter.
11. 2027, peak 2028Transmission line construction, about 2.5 years; camps built before major works.

The other projects at the bottom of that list are what the letter keeps returning to. It says that multiple projects (mining, infrastructure and renewable energy based) are proposing arrangements that place pressure on both short- and long-term accommodation within the Muswellbrook Shire, and that without a coordinated approach unacceptable pressure on local rental vacancy rates and affordability may arise (pp. 7 to 8).

The council’s own move

Just over five weeks after the approval, on 3 September, the council invited expressions of interest from developers, investors and operators in providing worker accommodation in the shire. The EOI document says the council has identified several strategically located properties and describes three models: a tourist park taking up to 50 beds, worker camps of 150 to 300-plus beds on a build, own, operate, deconstruct model, and 51 to 150 beds of longer-term accommodation for essential workers with Long-term legacy accommodation outcomes. It is a non-binding market sounding exercise and not a procurement, tender or request for proposal. It closed on 18 September.

Muswellbrook Shire Council supports TWA that leaves the Shire better off, not accommodation that isolates workers on the edge of town and packs up without a trace

As at 7 October 2026, the council’s worker accommodation news tag listed only the 3 September release, with no published outcome of the expression of interest.

Our read

This section is opinion, based on the facts and documents above.

The approval treats the camp as construction equipment, and the council wants it treated as housing. Both are reasonable. A state approval for one line has to make that line clean up after itself, and EnergyCo does not own the land. But the cost of the gap falls on Muswellbrook, which on the council’s own list has a solar farm, a battery and a highway bypass starting or peaking in the same months. This approval asks the project’s social impact plan to consider cumulative impacts with other State significant projects (B71); it does not, and one project’s approval is a poor tool to, set up a shared accommodation plan for all of them.

The useful next step is a written one. EnergyCo has said it will work with the council on legacy outcomes at a council site. The council says it has not seen them defined. The camp’s management plan is due before construction and has to be prepared with the council; that is the natural place to put whatever is agreed on paper, where the shire can read it.

What to watch next

The accommodation camp management plan and the social impact management plan must be prepared before construction starts (B68, B71). B71 requires quarterly monitoring reports to be publicly available on the project website, which will be the first public measure of the project’s effect on housing. The other is whatever the council does with the responses to its expression of interest.