Infrastructure Planning in Queensland, Australia: Risk Appraisal of High Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines by Property Developers and Homeowners

ABSTRACT

Installation of essential infrastructure can challenge not only its specialized supply professionals but also property developers and homeowners. This article investigates these stakeholders’ appraisal of high voltage overhead transmission lines (HVOTLs) in Queensland, Australia. It first assesses risk surrounding developers’ operations and then relays the chief perceptual models applying to the public at large. Investigated next are the two subject groups’ outlook on HVOTLs, their orientation to several categories of infrastructure, and developers’ tolerances when prospecting for sites near electricity facilities. Planning pointers permeate the analysis and discussion of results, leading to the summary and conclusions to the paper.

KEYWORDS:

• Property development
• city planning
• infrastructure
• high voltage overhead transmission lines
• risk models
• stigma

Disclosure Statement

Preparation of this article has been financially and organisationally supported by a major Australian electricity supplier, which wishes to remain anonymous. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. According to Queensland electricity sources, high-voltage lines strung between towers are designed to allow 18 metres of mid-span horizontal swing in windy conditions. A safety margin is added to the 18 × 2 = 36 metres involved, creating a normal easement width of up to 60 metres.

2. Telephone numbers were taken from three stratified sets of postcodes from a computerised White Pages (residential directory for Queensland) to ensure that sufficient numbers in the urban, peri-urban and rural sub-samples were obtained for purposes of comparison. Systematic random sampling was used, in that every nth telephone number was dialled, on a rotational basis, until the quota was achieved. The nth number was determined by dividing the telephone numbers available by the required quota. A demographically representative cross-section of the population normally falls into place by employing this method of telephone contact.

3. As to respondent competence vis-à-vis the two project questionnaires, suffice it to say that all participation was self-determined and voluntary. Regarding potential bias, the two sample sizes were admittedly different. However, the two-sample t-test is valid for these sample sizes, since the two samples are independent and drawn from normal distributions with the same variance (house price estimation). Guidance is available at https://ncss-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/themes/ncss/pdf/Procedures/PASS/Two-Sample_T-Tests_using_Effect_Size.pdf The 600 homeowners might be assumed better informed about residential values than the population at large and, due to their age and other variables, perhaps more risk averse.

4. According to the aforementioned Queensland electricity sources, easements in Queensland are registered on private land titles and will normally allow a landowner joint access with an electricity transmission authority to the corridor area. No subdivision is involved and fencing is uncommon except when safety considerations dictate. These easements are different from the more formal concept of wayleaves found in the United States, the United Kingdom, Zambia and elsewhere (cf, Sims & Dent, 2013; Jain et al., 2019).

5. A (very) few homeowners assessed the value of the dwelling at or above par ($500,000). To explain a couple of examples, a nearby cell phone tower could improve reception in a rural area, whereas a railway (station) could offer access in an urban setting.

6. Note the relatively small (dollar) standard deviations posted by the developer group.