High voltage powerlines along waterway parkland: reasons and options for putting them underground
01st March 2026
By Peter Mollison
Preamble
I first lived in Brunswick, near Merri Creek, in 1987. At that time, the corridor was very degraded and seemed to be treated more like a forgotten drain. There were lots of factories and rubbish tips, not much vegetation and the parklands were poorly developed. The high-voltage powerlines were a prominent feature. The powerlines insulted my sense of an attractive parkland space then, and they still do. They make me angry, particularly after the large indigenous trees along the easement margins have been attacked by contractors, yet again. They do not fit with my vision of a tranquil place, where I can look for birds and find refuge from inner urban bustle. They are industrial scale infrastructure which should not be in parkland, or waterway habitat.
In the late 1980s, a major new section of high voltage powerline was put underground after a strong political campaign from communities along the Yarra River and Merri Creek against the impacts on those waterways.
This also included a by-election in the State electorate of Kew on 19 March 1988.1. The by-election result helped persuade the State Government to review an above-ground proposal and change it to an underground link.
After the by-election, a Powerline Review Panel was appointed to consider options and alternatives to the above-ground proposals. What then followed was an innovative and community-oriented process to assess options. That process involved many individuals and groups fighting to protect the waterways. This was an important precedent for action along the Merri Creek and Edgars Creek.
The Merri Creek and associated waterways have been transformed since the powerlines were built. It is now (mostly) well vegetated parkland and an attractive landscape for people and wildlife. The industrial infrastructure of high voltage powerlines is even less appropriate now than it was thirty or forty years ago. We need to investigate the opportunities to put them underground and be prepared when change is proposed. The transition to renewable energy is likely to present both challenges and opportunities.
Introduction
The Merri Creek parklands and other metropolitan waterways are adversely affected by high voltage and other powerlines, established as part of the network many decades ago. High voltage powerlines are the biggest visible built structures in the parklands.
220kV powerlines Brunswick East – looking north from near the Brunswick Velodrome
This article argues that, as we make the transition from carbon-intensive power production to renewable energy, local, state and federal governments need to consider the environmental impacts of above-ground powerlines and explore the options for underground parkland powerlines to significantly improve local and regional landscapes. This is particularly true for sensitive waterway landscapes and habitat in inner urban locations.
The network and ownership
The Victorian electricity network had its origins in the State Electricity Commission (SEC). This State-owned system built and managed the power distribution network, power production and retailing. It was broken up and privatised between 1990 and 1999.
The State Government agency, Energy Victoria, explains:
Once electricity is generated at a power station, it is transported to load centres in metropolitan and regional areas by a network of high voltage transmission lines. Low voltage distribution networks transport it from the transmission lines to customers.
Victoria’s 6,600 kilometre high-voltage electricity transmission system is owned and maintained by AusNet Services. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the national market and system operator, is responsible for planning and operating Victoria's electricity transmission network to ensure it meets future energy needs reliably and efficiently. It manages transmission upgrades, renewable energy connections, and real-time network operations.
The Victorian Government is working with AEMO to transfer transmission system planning responsibilities over to VicGrid to support building an improved transmission system to support the transition to renewable energy. This is expected to take effect from mid-2025.
I am not sure what the last paragraph about VicGrid means, or what it might imply. Among other things, MCMC and Friends of Merri Creek need to investigate this and other potential changes and opportunities.
AEMO - High Voltage powerline network
Aemo map: Electricity network, Transmission infrastructure.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC BY-SA 2.0).
This extract of a map from AEMO shows the high voltage transmission system from Prahran and Burwood, north to Somerton and South Morang. It shows 220 kV transmission lines along Gardiners Creek, the lower Yarra River through Burnley, to a major terminal station in Richmond. From Richmond to Brunswick East, a 220 kV transmission cable goes underground along the alignment of Hoddle Street to the Merri Creek in Clifton Hill, and then upstream to the Brunswick East terminal station. A section of the same 220 kV system is underground in part of the Merri Creek corridor. From Brunswick East to Coburg, this transmission line follows Merri Creek above ground. It then follows Edgars Creek to Edwardes Lake, then leaves the waterway system to reach another terminal station at Thomastown.
Other above-ground 220 kV transmission lines impact parts of the Maribyrnong River and the Yarra River in the port of Melbourne and at a crossing in Lower Plenty.
Recent history – the Richmond to Kew high voltage link
In the mid-1980s, the SEC proposed a new 220 kV link between Richmond and Brunswick East. Initial route proposals and easement acquisitions were for a route or routes through suburban Richmond/Burnley then through Yarra Bend parklands and the Merri Creek. An active political campaign by activists and groups along the Merri Creek and the Yarra River against this proposal, and an adverse result at the Kew by-election in March 1988, led the State Government to change policy from supporting the SEC proposals, to appointing an independent panel to review the proposal. The panel recommended the new link be put underground. This happened in 1988-89. So there is a strong local precedent for putting high-voltage powerlines underground.
The Powerline Review Panel published Information, Options and Outlooks – A Consultation Resource in1989. This discussed options and presented information to assist in consultation. This included a map of the transmission system and a schematic map of the SECV powerline route options, prior to the review.
Scott, D., & Victoria. Powerline Review Panel. (1988).
Information, options and outlooks : a consultation resource, Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel.
The transmission system is similar today, with the addition of the Richmond to Brunswick underground link. The map below shows the range of options considered by the SECV in the lead up to the panel assessment.
Scott, D., & Victoria. Powerline Review Panel. (1988).
Information, options and outlooks : a consultation resource, Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel.
The Powerline Review Panel recommended a final route for the new 220 kV link and that it should be underground. The report considered wide-ranging public input, economic and environmental assessments, route options and a number of cost issues. Significantly the report discussed the importance of landscape and environmental sensitivity along waterways. The new link also allowed the removal of an existing 66 kV link along the Yarra River and Merri Creek.2.
Route of recommended option,
Final report to the Victorian Government, Powerline Review Panel (1989). Melbourne: The Panel., p.5
The recommended route shown above had, according to the Panel, the benefit of being relatively direct, reducing costs and avoiding the Yarra River corridor and the lower Merri Creek. A significant part of the route followed Hoddle Street. This route and underground solution also minimised possible health concerns from electromagnetic radiation.
Managing the impacts on waterway parkland
Limitations on planting within the powerline easement
AusNet manages the 220 kV and other high voltage powerlines. They have published guidelines for the easements along the powerline alignment. These restrict activities.
A key restriction is that mature vegetation must not exceed 3 metres within the 40m wide easement for a 220 kV line. This means a 40m wide corridor of very limited planting and vegetation. Merri Creek Management Committee has worked with the powerline agencies and their contractors to alleviate some of the impacts, but there are severe impacts on taller trees which infringe the 40m easement.
The Merri Creek and environs strategy recognises the impact of powerlines, including high voltage powerlines, on the visual character of the Creek. The relevant extract is included at the end of this article. This also discusses work done by the Merri Creek Management Committee, coordinating with the powerline managers to reduce impacts.
The high voltage powerlines follow the most efficient route for a long link. This means it crosses the waterway many times. The 220 kV line crosses Northcote Golf Course, the creek, CERES and Joe’s Market Garden among other places. It is, unfortunately, the most prominent feature in the parklands landscape.
This section of the Merri Creek parklands was recently ‘pruned’.
View from near Blyth Street south towards Victoria Street, Brunswick East.
Pruning crew on the path.
Additional facilities on powerline towers
Mobile phone companies have recently added facilities to 220kV powerline towers. Recent works (2024) at the tower near Victoria Street, Brunswick East closed the shared path and saw extensive work to add ground-based infrastructure, cables and antennae at the top of the tower. This image shows work in progress with cables up the inner frame of the tower and workers at the top between the antennas. A ground facility is located near the end of Victoria Street and is connected to the cables up the tower.
Works in progress – path closed.
View from near Blyth Street to the tower near Victoria Street, Brunswick East.
Works to mobile phone facilities; Details of works to mobile phone facilities — tower near Victoria Street drain.
The issues arising from additional tower facilities include disruption during work or maintenance to the adjoining parkland, loss of land to associated infrastructure and, most importantly, consolidation of the need to retain the towers: yet another reason to keep the above-ground powerline. The network owners / managers presumably obtain income from these facilities. The parkland is being privatised by stealth.
Cost of undergrounding high voltage powerlines
- Direct cost comparison
Estimates suggest undergrounding costs 4 to 10 times more than above-ground powerlines. Costs and complexity would increase for longer distance powerlines. For an inner urban location, over a relatively short distance (Brunswick to Thomastown), the cost is probably closer to the 4 times cost estimate. In a nationwide network, this link is a relatively small component. An expert assessment is required to determine a reasonable estimate of the cost to underground.
- Cost / benefit assessment: a broader economic – environmental and social view
A cost and benefit assessment should consider the significant benefits of improving the landscape of the Merri Creek parklands, allowing additional vegetation, and the general public benefit of using and appreciating the public space. The cost of a potential underground project should be offset against the very significant public investment in creating and maintaining the parkland.
- Impacts of undergrounding
The cost and disruption of undergrounding should be considered. The route of any underground option should be adjusted to minimise the disruption, or damage, caused by undergrounding. I have not assessed the latest techniques, or technologies, for undergrounding. This might include tunnelling, which would reduce impacts.
Route options
A new and potentially higher capacity link could go underground along a more direct route from Brunswick East to Thomastown. As shown by the Powerline Review Panel 1989, this route could follow a major road such as St Georges Road and reduce the length of the link and completely remove it from the waterway corridors.
Clearly, some bird species find benefits from high voltage powerlines.
Conclusion
Local, state and federal governments have responsibilities for the transition from carbon-based to renewable energy. This will involve big investments in the powerline network. Part of the planning for that network should include undergrounding sensitive sections of the network. Waterway corridors, like the Merri and Edgars Creeks, have been transformed by the efforts of local and state governments and local communities. This should be recognised in network planning and investment.
An assessment and strategic options should be prepared, so we are ready if and when significant changes are made to the metropolitan high voltage network. This has been done before, when the Richmond to Brunswick link was put underground in the late 1980s.
MCMC and associated local governments and State Government agencies should advocate for, or commission, an independent assessment of options to underground the 220 kV transmission lines and other significant local powerlines in the Merri Creek and Edgars Creek parklands. This assessment should include the wider costs and benefits of the options, in particular the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of the options. It should also consider a more direct route away from the waterways, with benefits of reduced length, cost and disruption to significant landscapes.
There should be a moratorium on additional infrastructure, such as mobile phone facilities to the towers, or other high-voltage powerlines.
Acknowledgements
I appreciate the kind assistance and information provided by Mary Crooks, who also loaned her copies of:
- Scott, D., & Victoria. Powerline Review Panel. (1988). Information, options and outlooks : a consultation resource, Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel.
- Final report to the Victorian Government / Powerline Review Panel (1989). Melbourne: The Panel.
- Wallace, P., & State Electricity Commission of Victoria. Environment effects statement : proposals relating to the Brunswick to Richmond powerline, May 1989, Melbourne: SEC.
Mary Crooks was a member of the Review Panel, who, from her advice to me and the content of these documents, played an important role in the recommendations and outcomes, in particular an innovative approach to public engagement to resolve a contentious issue.
Photographs by Peter Mollison.
Merri Creek and environs strategy 2009-2014, Merri Creek Management Committee. (2009). Brunswick East, Vic: Merri Creek Management Committee.
Chapter 1.3 Visual Character, p.46
ii) Powerlines
In the past, waterway corridors were selected as appropriate locations for the installation of electricity infrastructure. There are many powerlines in the Merri Creek valley, the most prominent being the high voltage transmission line between Thomastown and the Brunswick Terminal Station. This line is a major visual intrusion to the waterway environment.
There are also a number of lower voltage lines crossing open space areas in the lower catchment. Assistance for their relocation, or undergrounding, can be sought from the Department of Infrastructures Powerline Relocation Scheme.
To provide for maintenance and public safety, powerline operators are required to maintain the easement associated with their lines. The methods used can have considerable impacts on the visual character of the Merri Creek and its open space. In the past, there has been criticism of the extent of vegetation pruning undertaken to achieve these ends. Better coordination of powerline managers' needs with those of the community has been achieved recently and is important for effective development of compatible vegetation along the stream.
Notes
1. Bourke, Valerie, Saving the river parklands, Newsletter, Kew Historical Society, No. 117, December 2016, p. 5-8
2. Final report to the Victorian Government / Powerline Review Panel (1989). Melbourne: The Panel, p. 2