History of Hacketts Gully and Western Power

<< Article Index

This history has been prepared by the Stop the Eastern Terminal Substation Action Group (SETS Group), from documents obtained from Kalamunda Shire, Doug Blandford (Environmental Consultant) and the Environmental Defenders Office.

1990

In September 1990 (almost 18 years ago) the former State Energy Commission (SECWA) proposed that the Eastern Transmission Substation and transmission lines be established in the Kalamunda region. SECWA decided to refer the project to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for environmental assessment; the EPA recommended a formal level of environmental impact assessment (called a Public Environmental Review).

1992

On 13 July 1992, two years later, SECWA advised the EPA by letter that the project had been deferred and withdrew their request for environmental assessment.  SECWA also confirmed that they had completed a site selection study and intended to acquire a site in Hackett’s Gully upon which to base a future substation.  This suggests (a) that not only had Western Power completed site selection studies, (one of those reports being the ESD 53/92 July 1992 “Eastern Terminal Substation – Site Selection Report” by Bowman Bishaw Gorham), (b) SECWA were aware that the EPA required a full environmental assessment that would take a number of years to complete, including scrutiny by the various government agencies, conservation groups, local authorities and the public.

On 24 July 1992, SECWA wrote to Kalamunda Shire informing them of the proposal to build Eastern Terminal in the preferred location of Hackett’s Gully, outlined the various roles the substation would fulfil, and attached the detailed Site Selection Report.  The Council invited SECWA to their Planning and Building Services Committee on 10 August 1992.  The Council expressed concerns over the non-availability of information referred to in the report, how many transmission lines ultimately would emanate from the terminal, and what would be the degree and nature of the potential visual impact.  Council also expressed concerns over the eventual size and scope of Eastern Terminal, and the visual impact it would have on Kalamunda, in the following words:

  • “Transmission lines  The Report does not readily identify the amount of forest clearing required for new and/or upgraded transmission lines, and this aspect needs to be addressed properly, in respect of all options.”
  • "Whilst SECWA states that the site selection now would not pre-empt or prejudice an EPA assessment in the future, such contention is difficult to comprehend.  None of the sites are in private ownership (all in State Forest), and consequently all options could be earmarked until EPA involvement is required.  . . . . Alternatively the EPA assessment could take place now, and a decision be made accordingly (ie. with EPA overseeing the selection; not simply SECWA making the decision).”
  • “. . . .  A copy of correspondence from EPA to SECWA has now been received (dated 17.8.92).  EPA questions the extent to which SECWA acquisition of a substation site would influence options for future transmission alignments.  EPA requests SECWA to refer to it a copy of the Report.  Consequently it would be appropriate for Council to strongly support EPA assessment of (a) the substation site options, and (b) transmission line routes in and out.”

On 22 September 1992, Kalamunda Shire wrote to SECWA advising of the resolution from the meeting on 10 August.  The Shire’s letter stated:

  •  Council recognises that such a proposed new terminal substation has great significance for the State and the Perth Metropolitan Region.  As a result, any likely detrimental impact on the Shire of Kalamunda is of concern to Council;
  • Council is concerned that SECWA’s preferred option (Hackett Gully south) will have considerable visual impact on the localities of Kalamunda and Walliston, and as also referred to in the Report will have some detrimental impact on the recreational/tourism use of the area;
  • lack of diagrammatic representation of the visual impacts of all sites makes it difficult to assess the degree of impact of each site;
  • Council disagrees that selection and acquisition of a site now would not pre-empt an EPA decision in the future.  Bearing in mind that all of the four sites are in State Forest, and the facility will not be needed for 10-15 years, it is questionable as to the need for a decision to be made prior to full EPA study of all available options;”

 The minutes of the Shire meeting on 2 November 1992, documents this  quote from tabled correspondence from SECWA (dated 19/10/92):

  •  “Our preferred site in Hackett’s Gully is seen at present to be the best option in terms of the environmental, social, engineering and economic considerations.  The major determining factor has been the perceived impact of interconnecting transmission lines on the environment.  We strongly believe that the Hackett’s Gully site is superior to the other sites in this respect.”

 A tabled letter from the EPA to SECWA (dated 19/10/92) stated:

  • “….SECWA should be prepared to accept some level of risk in the early acquisition of a substation site.”
  • “Any future proposal is likely to be subject to full environmental assessment including full and proper evaluation of alternative sites.”
  • “The degree of impact depends in part on the physical and cultural environment in which the substation and associated transmission lines are located.  As you are aware, when areas of particular scenic value are involved in the siting of such facilities, considerable controversy can arise.  SECWA should be aware that the acquisition of a sub station site well in advance of intended development of that site may not lead to a public acceptance of the site or necessarily to a reduced level of public interest when potential development of the site is proposed.”

The Council resolved to support the statements of the EPA and wrote accordingly to SECWA.

It is important to note that Council tried to get SECWA to look for other sites with potentially less visual impact, but were informed in several letters from SECWA that the Hackett’s Gully site was superior to other sites within the Kalamunda region.  For details, please see Western Power Preferred Eastern Terminal Site.

It is also important to note that SECWA’s letter of 10 October 1992 states:

  • “Any future proposal will be subject to full environmental assessment including full and proper consultation with the general public and the local community.  SECWA, however, has accepted the SIU’s [authors note: Social Impact Unit] request that as soon as it acquires the substation site it will:
  • formally advise all the landowners whose properties are in the immediate vicinity of the site about the proposal,
  • erect signs at appropriate locations on the site boundaries to publicise the site requirements, and
  • release a brief press statement describing the site requirements and SECWA’s intentions.”

1995

SECWA became established as Western Power Corporation (WPC) through the Electricity Corporation Act 1994.

1996

Despite the EPA advice and the concerns of the Council, Western Power commenced the process of acquiring the Hackett’s Gully “State Forest” site and was registered as owning the land on 30 January 1996.  In 2008, Western Power still owns the site.

1998

Despite SECWA’s undertaking in their 10 October 1992 letter, the Hackett’s Gully residents only became aware of the Eastern Terminal proposal in early 1998, when the new UBD Street Directory showed a new 22.4684 hectare parcel of land adjacent to their homes.  Through enquires to the Department of Land Administration, they discovered that the land was owned by Western Power.  The residents made contact with Mr Rudy Teh of Western Power, Kalamunda Shire, (Councillor Elizabeth Taylor), Mr Derrick Tomlinson MLC and Mr John Day MLA, and subsequently an on-site meeting was held on 22 May 1998.

At the meeting, Mr Teh supplied a brochure on the proposed Eastern Terminal to the residents, Council representative and Government representatives.  The brochure stated:

  • “The site will be developed into a major Western Power terminal substation called Eastern Terminal and will consist of a 330kV and a 132 kV switchyard.”
  • “Based on present transmission system planning and load growth projections, it is NOT expected that the site will be developed within the next 10 years” [Author’s note: Does this mean that Western Power would need to accelerate the development of Eastern Terminal beyond a stage 1 switchyard into a full terminal substation (stage 2), considering we are now 10 years into the future?]
  • “The overall development will essentially incorporate 2 component substations, namely a 330kV substation (area required = approximately 230m by 260m) and a 132kV substation (area required = approximately 100m by 150m).
  • “The site will be developed into a major Western Power terminal substation called Eastern Terminal and will consist of a 330kV and a 132 kV switchyard.”
  • “Based on present transmission system planning and load growth projections, it is NOT expected that the site will be developed within the next 10 years” [Author’s note: We need to question whether this means that Western Power would need to accelerate the development of Eastern Terminal beyond a stage 1 switchyard into a full terminal substation (stage 2), considering we are now 10 years into the future.]
  • “The overall development will essentially incorporate 2 component substations, namely a 330kV substation (area required = approximately 230m by 260m) and a 132kV substation (area required = approximately 100m by 150m).

A diagram attached to this document showed a proposed “new” 330 kV transmission line to Merredin adjacent to the current 66 kV Cannington to Mundaring transmission line.  The diagram showed that the existing 66 kV line would also be upgraded to a 132kV transmission line.  Also on the diagram was a proposed “new” 330kV transmission line to Collie, following the existing 132kV transmission line route to Boddington.

Despite Western Power’s claim in this document that information signs had been erected on the site boundaries as soon as the acquisition of the site was finalised, the residents recalled never seeing any such sign.

Hon Derrick Tomlinson’s notes of the meeting included:

  •  “Forward planning requires five years’ notice of intention to proceed.  At that stage, normal planning processes are followed.  This will involve environmental assessment and planning approval by State and Local Government authorities.”
  • “. . . . advised that the Water and Rivers Commission had already made an assessment that the clearing and development of the substation site would be detrimental to Water Catchment.  This site is in a Water Catchment area and under normal circumstances, Water and Rivers Commission would not allow development.
  • “In answer to questions about finding a new site, Rudi undertook to have the position reviewed and to report back to residents in three months time.”

Following the meeting, on 29 May 1998, Hon John Day MLA, wrote to Hon Colin Barnett MLA, about his constituents’ concerns over the impact of the proposed terminal substation in their locality.

On 31 May 1998, the residents of Hacketts Gully formed the Hackett’s Gully Residents Action Group (HGRAG) and held their first official meeting.

A further meeting was held on 13 July 98, involving Hon Derrick Tomlinson MLC; Cr Elizabeth Taylor and the residents, to review the actions that had occurred since the previous meeting. Hon Derrick Tomlinson’s meeting notes included:

  • “Advised meeting that Western Power had referred proposal to Water and Rivers Commission. . . . .requested the Commission’s comment and guidance on the type of studies and monitoring programs that should be carried out to assess residents’ concerns.”
  • “Water and Rivers Commission responded that it would be difficult to comment on the impacts that the proposed development might have on the catchment.  They did however comment on Surface Water Hydrology “it is assumed that a requirement for this proposal would be to construct diversion bunds around the site.  These diversion bunds would divert runoff around the site and also contain any spills within the site.  This would result in a reduction of flow into Hackett’s Gully, however, given that the area of the proposed development is small compared to the total catchment area, this reduction of flow would be minor.”  In relation to Water Quality “the development may have possible impacts upon water quality, which would be dependent upon the management practices used.  Western Power should address issues regarding storage of chemicals, fuels, stormwater management and drainage and effluent disposal.  It would also be important to assess what impacts clearing the native vegetation would have on turbidity.”
  • “As a result of what. . . . raised at the meeting on May 22, 1998 Rudy Teh approached Senior Management of Western Power suggesting another site be looked for.  Senior Management said “no at this stage, we want a thorough hydrology study and when the results of that are available, a decision will be made on the Hacketts Gully site”.  The terms of reference for this study are being finalised and will be conducted by the Water and Rivers Commission and Water Authority on behalf of Western Power, on the basis that the results of the study will determine whether or not they abandon the site completely.”
  • “Meeting was advised that a thorough environmental assessment would only happen if it was decided to proceed with the Hacketts Gully site.  Residents would receive five years notice of intention to proceed with development.”
Over the course of 1998, the Hacketts Gully residents, Hon Derrick Tomlinson (MLC) and the Kalamunda Shire had extensive correspondence, negotiations and meetings with Western Power.  The residents also hired the services of an environmental scientist, Mr Doug Blandford, to help them with their cause.

A letter from Hon Colin Barnett (MLA), Minister for Energy dated 2 September 1998 revealed:

  • “. . . . Western Power accepts that there is some element of risk that the site may not be approved for such a development by the relevant decision-making Authorities.”
  • “Western Power has informed me that based on its current planning forecast, it has no requirement to develop the Hacketts Gully site for at least another 10 years.  The site was selected primarily for its strategic location and its ability to achieve the maximum degree of interconnection with the existing transmission lines in the area.  To this end it would be Western Power’s preference to develop its new terminal substation on this site.”
  • “Western Power has informed me that it has recently engaged consultants to investigate the following issues:
  • The potential microclimatic changes to the immediate surrounding areas such as the wind tunnelling effect as a result of the clearing of vegetation on the site;
  • The possible increase in the surface water run-offs and the turbidity levels in the water supplies in the surrounding area as a result of the clearing of vegetation on the site;
  • The impact on the ground water flow direction and ground water salinity as a result of the development on the site.  This includes monitoring the baseline water table levels and salinity;
  • The alterations to drainage patterns and run-offs as a result of the earthworks on the site;
  • The vulnerability of the surface and ground water to possible contamination by the chemicals and fuels used on the site and from the disposal of septic effluent on the site.”
  •  “Western Power has confirmed that it would be prepared to relocate and swap its present site with CALM for a more suitable one in the general area if the above investigations reveal that the present site is unsuitable and the costs to mitigate the impacts are too high and impractical in financial, social and environmental terms.”

Studies of wind effects, water effects and dieback led to the conclusion by Western Power that their original site in Hacketts Gully was not suitable.  To that end, Western Power wrote to the Hon Derrick Tomlinson and the Shire of Kalamunda on 29 September 1998, stating:

  • “Enclosed please find a copy of the investigation report prepared by Emeritus Professor Desmond O’Connor on the wind effects and another from the hydrogeological consultant, Rockwater Pty Ltd on the hydrological effects associated with the site development.”
  • “As you can see, the overall conclusion based on the best information available at this time is that the site is not exactly ideal for the development of a terminal substation.  To this end Western Power is now prepared to look for an alternative site in the area to replace the present one.”
  • "It is therefore, our intention to commence negotiations with CALM soon for an alternative site in the area, based on a cost-neutral land swap.”

On 5 October 1998 Kalamunda Shire Council wrote to Western Power’s Mr Rudy Teh acknowledging Western Power’s letter of 29 September 1998 advising that they no longer intend developing a terminal site in this location (610 Munda

1999

On 28 February 1999, the residents again wrote to the Hon Derrick Tomlinson informing him of a conversation with an officer at the CALM offices in Mundaring.  The officer was under the impression that Western Power was considering either site Option 1 or site Option B as shown in the Minutes of Planning & Building Services Committee Meeting 2/11/92.  They requested him to investigate whether Western Power was now indeed considering these options.

Inquires by Hon Derrick Tomlinson resulted in a letter (dated 15 March 1999) from Western Power stating:

  • “….we intend to commence negotiations with CALM for an alternative site based on a cost-neutral land swap with our present site as soon as we complete our selection of viable sites in the State forest area for CALM to consider.  Based on our current program we plan to meet with CALM sometime towards the end of March 1999 to review and determine the optimum alternative site.”
  • “It is true that one of the sites under consideration is immediately to the north of the site described as Option 1……this is only one of the sites being considered for negotiation with CALM as part of the cost-neutral land exchange proposal.”
  • “Western Power has no firm plans to upgrade the Cannington – Mundaring 66kV transmission line to operate at 132kV in the foreseeable future.  It is worth noting however, that this transmission line is already designed and constructed to operate at 132kV in its present configuration.  We therefore, do not have to re-build or do anything else physically to the transmission line if and when it is upgraded to operate at 132kV.  To this end we do not expect the upgrading of the operation of the transmission line to have any impact upon the value of the affected properties or the livelihood of the landowners.

This last statement was in direct contradiction to the plans previously supplied to the residents, in which it was stated that the 66 kV line referred to in Western Power’s letter is marked as “132 kV line to Mundaring (66 kV at present)”. 

On 17 May 1999, the Minutes of the Kalamunda Shire Planning Services Committee recorded:
  • “Western Power has requested Council’s comment by the 29 May 99 on two proposed sites being considered for the Western Power Eastern Terminal site.”
  • “The substation sites are 650m by 300m and will require the clearing of approximately 20 ha of land plus substantial clearing along transmission line corridors that are 120 metre wide and run for several kilometres.”
  • “The first site is located in very close proximity to a very popular recreation Bush walking area walk, the “Little Oven Circuit”.  The proposed site is basically located in the area between Gungin Road, Mundaring Weir Road, Lockwood Road and the powerline.  This site also requires clearing a 120 metre wide corridor that is almost 4 kilometres long.  This will result in 48 hectares of natural vegetation being cleared.  In addition, it is proposed to clear a 16 metre wide corridor that runs along the frontage of Mundaring Weir Road and passes “The Dell” a popular picnic spot, that also has walk trails.”
  • “The second site is located in a relatively flat area, that is 100 metres at its closest point to Mundaring Weir Road.  This site also requires the provision of a 120 metre wide corridor, of approximately 2 kilometres long resulting in the clearing of 24 ha of natural vegetation.  This will result in a significant amount of the site being visible from Mundaring Weir Road.  This site is within 500 metres of the site previously considered by Council and determined to be unacceptable.”
  • “It is envisaged that the development of the terminal site on either site would have a significant impact on the visual landscape which is regional parkland and natural bush and forest area.  The full impact is however difficult to determine as no environmental assessment has been undertaken, and no visual drawings of the infrastructure/treatments to the corridor has been provided.”

 On 24 May 1999, the full Council voted against Western Power’s newly issued plans.   On 3 June 1999 Council wrote to Western Power, advising:

  •  “(a) Council is vehemently opposed to both sites as they will have considerable visual impact on the landscape and also will have detrimental impact on the recreational/tourism use of the area.
  • "(b)  Council disagrees with site selection and acquisition prior to proposal being formally assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority.
  • Furthermore I request a meeting with representatives of Western Power to outline Council’s objections to the Western Power Eastern Terminal Site and advise that Council does not support the terminal being located within the area.”

On 6 Jun 1999, Hacketts Gully residents met with Western Power representative Mr John Morrell and Professor O’Connor (wind specialist) to discuss the two new site options.  It was recommended that a joint meeting be held with all stakeholders at which a briefing paper setting out residents’ concerns would be presented.

On 30 August 1999, the joint stakeholders’ meeting was held at the CALM office in Mundaring.  Notes prepared by the Hackett’s Gully residents stated:

  • “(a) The major concerns put forward by the HGRAG will reduce or where possible eliminate the effects of wind and surface and ground water flow patterns/volumes that have already caused economic hardship within the Gully following on from previous power line developments.
  • "(b)  Hacketts Gully residents, with the exception of three households, are totally dependent on runoff water for home and property use.  The region is also part of the catchment area that supplies water to the Mundaring Weir through Pipe Head Dam.  The quality of this water is, therefore, of significant importance, the choice of any site would need to take this into account to minimise impact not only on Gully water supply but on the needs of the larger community.
  • Five properties at the northern end of the Gully are enclosed in a high voltage triangle of power lines.  The proposals put forward by Western Power include increasing the power supply significantly throughout this triangle.  Taking into account the very close proximity of the houses on these properties to the power lines – in one case less than 5 metres from the centre line of the power line cable – any voltage upgrades would be entirely inappropriate or at best controversial.
  • The HGRAG opposition will be supported by financial claims associated with the following:
  • "(a)  Residents suffering serious economic damage remaining at their properties but with significant redevelopment costs being needed:Total of the 13 properties and 16 home sites……$10,630,000.00
  • "(b)  Residents suffering major economic damage and being forced out of their properties/production: Total of the 13 properties and 16 home sites……$23,297,500.00

Mr Teh of Western Power provided a copy of a brochure that was almost identical to the original brochure dated 23 May 1998, except that:

  • there was no mention of displaying information signs on the site boundaries as soon as the site acquisition process was finalised, or how the general public or local residents would be informed;
  • the site development timeline was changed from 10 years to “within the next 10-15 years.”; and
  • in addition to the previous decision-making authorities mentioned (ie. EPA, Kalamunda Shire, CALM), the Water Corporation, Water and Rivers Commission and affected communities were included as stakeholders to be informed and consulted.

Mr Teh also provided a discussion paper entitled: Western Power Requirements for an Eastern Terminal Substation.  This paper stated:

  • “The reasons for selecting the study area were:
  • The need to avoid impacts on urban areas and to avoid the conflicts likely to arise from urban encroachment;
  • Proximity to existing 66 kV, 132 kV and 330 kV transmission lines; and
  • Proximity to load centre.
  • The study area was defined in an Eastern Terminal site selection report prepared in 1992 for the then SECWA by environmental consultants Bowman Bishaw Gorham as “an area east of the Darling Scarp, between Helena Valley and Gosnells.”  The northern boundary was defined as the Helena River, the southern boundary was 3km south of the Victoria Reservoir, the eastern boundary was arbitrari8ly defined by a line running south from Mundaring Weir, and the Darling Scarp forms the western boundary.
  • The above site assessment was mainly a desktop study with some fieldwork.  Several options were identified based on a primary screening to exclude urban areas, National Parks, System 6 Recommendations and Disease Risk Areas (Dieback) and a secondary screening to identify gently sloping areas considered most suitable for constructing a terminal station.  A number of environmental and social issues were also considered as constraints to the terminal station site.  These were: visual intrusion, timber and water production, conservation and environmental protection and other factors including forest protection, horticulture and electric and magnetic fields and public health.
  • Eleven potential sites were selected and compared using the above issues and economic and technical factors such as costs of interconnections to existing transmission liens, earth works and road access.  The Hacketts Gully Area was the favoured choice from the study because the existing line corridors in the area meant that a site could be developed with less clearing than other potential sites.  Also the economic cost of developing the site would be considerably less than other options.
  • The need for a major electrical terminal substation still exists and the reasons for selecting the study are in 1992 are still valid.  However the timing for development of the new Eastern Terminal site has slipped and is at least 10 to 20 years from the present.  The slippage is due to changes in long term plans produced by the System Planning Section of Western Power, including the development of other substation sites at Hazelmere and Wattle Grove within a 5 year time frame from the present.
  • As a result of the need for a terminal station Western Power does not have the option of relinquishing Canning Location 3897 and not replacing it with another site.  Western Power intends to find an alternative site and eventually (in at least 10 to 20 years time) develop that site to ensure that the security and quality of the power supply to the eastern regional areas of Perth is maintained.  The viable alternative site location would need to be reasonably close to the existing transmission lines in the area and less than 10km from Canning Location 3897.  More distant sites would require an unacceptable level of clearing for new transmission line corridors.  Western Power is prepared to manoeuvre within these general parameters to find a site location that minimises environmental impact and community concerns.”

CALM’s record of the meeting stated their position:

  • “For all proposed activities on CALM estate, CALM would place stringent guidelines on the proponent before the prescribed activity was to go ahead.
  • If the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environmental Protection and the Minister for the Environment agreed that the Terminal Sub Station met their environmental standards and was to go ahead, CALM would add their guidelines as to the construction and locality of the sub station.
  • Placement of the structure will require CALM approval.  The guidelines that CALM would place on Western Power are:
  • Adequate survey to determine if rare flora or fauna exist at the proposed site.
  • Limit the loss of forest values.  CALM would prefer that the structure be sited away from high value forest.
  • Limit the amount of clearing required to build the structure and for the lines to and from.
  • Strict Dieback hygiene guidelines are to be adhered to prevent the introduction and spread of the disease.  Earthworks to be conducted in dry soil conditions, with clean machinery.
  • Run off and erosion is minimised.
  • Aesthetic values and recreational objectives are to be considered.
  • The structure must not interfere with CALM’s operations such as prescribed burning.
  • As well as the above guidelines the applicable approval processes would need to be followed.”

After the meeting, it was agreed that a consultant would be hired to conduct a visual assessment study on the proposed new site options under consideration by Western Power.  Western Power hired Mr John Cleary of John Cleary Planning to conduct the study.  Mr Cleary met with the residents of Hacketts Gully and their environmental consultant, Mr Doug Blandford, on 14 December 1999 to discuss residents’ concerns about the options proposed by Western Power.

On 24 May 2000 Western Power wrote to the residents to advise of the remaining steps to be undertaken to conclude the negotiations and land transfer of the present Terminal Substation site to the proposed alternative site:

  • “Survey of the location of the proposed Terminal Substation Site and transmission line entries to the site (completed 23 May 2000)
  • Completion of the Visual Impact Assessment of the site and line entries (by 9 June 2000);
  • Agreement of the proposed option by HGRAG, Council and CALM (by 30 June 2000);
  • Negotiation of land transfer by WPC with CALM (by Dec 2000).

Maps of the proposed site and transmission line corridors were attached for residents’ comments, so these could be taken into account in the final arrangement of the site and line entries to the site.

In June 2000, Mr John Cleary completed his report (Western Power Proposed Eastern Terminal: Visual Assessment – Draft Report 2000).  The report shows that all sites would intrude considerably on the landscape.

2000-2002

Correspondence or other evidence relating the 2000 - 2002 period has not yet been discovered.  We can only speculate, but assume there would have been substantial opposition from the Shire to the new sites.  There may well have been further opposition from CALM because of the considerable amount of clearing of high quality forest required for the substation site.

On 9 May 2002, Western Power wrote to the residents stating:

  • “…we wish to advise that a terminal station is no longer required at Location 3897 Mundaring Weir Road, Hacketts Gully.  We also have no intention to acquire an alternative site in areas close to Hacketts Gully as previously advised.
2007

After a further five years, despite their 2002 advice to residents, Western Power approached the Hacketts Gully community in May 2007 and verbally informed them that the Eastern Terminal was going ahead, and that it would be located in Hacketts Gully.  Western Power provided a map showing the preferred location.

Strangely, at site selection workshops held in September 2007, Western Power informed the broader community that the Corporation had not chosen a preferred site.  To this day Western Power still claim that they have not yet selected a site.  Please read our  Western Powers Preferred Eastern Terminal Site.

<< Article Index