THE PAPERS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED!!
On Thursday, 28 November, the NSW government handed over papers relating to the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project to the Legislative Chamber. This coincided with the release by the Department of Planning of its recommendation of the project to Brad Hazzard, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The recommendation by the Department was accompanied by reports from independent consultants (read them here). These have highlighted just how flawed this project is, which makes the fact that the Department has recommended the project proceed all the more concerning. Questions have also been raised over political interference that may have influenced the decision of the Director General.
Many of the findings of the independent consultants only serve to confirm the concerns of CAWB and the community. In studying traffic, Cambray Consulting concluded "If the current bridge was to be retained for local traffic, this could offer a good result all-round. The new bridge could take B-doubles and heavy vehicles away from town, allowing a load limit to be imposed on the existing bridge to possibly extend its life, minimise the effects of heavy vehicles on the town, and retain local connectivity......
....We suggest that it may be prudent to ‘step back’ and undertake a broader study to investigate long term solutions, and once a preferred long term solution is identified, consider a staged approach or interim treatments to progressively deliver that long term solution. This would avoid investing substantial funds into a traffic route which will have a limited ‘life’ due to constrained intersection capacity on the roads feeding the bridge."
Heritage consultants Casey & Lowe have also provided a scathing report on the inaccuracies of the heritage assessment. In their recommendation for the existing bridge, they reported "Given that the bridge is considered an item of state significance within the EIS, give further consideration to options for the proposed route that retain the bridge to provide either a primary or secondary use."
Whilst the investigation of the papers is ongoing, an interesting document questioning the legality of the approval has been brought to light. It would seem that the project proceeding would not only open the door to legal challenge, but that there would be far greater negative impacts compared to restoring the existing bridge.
Green's MP David Shoebridge, whose motion resulted in the Call for Papers being granted, has provided a timeline of events on his website. The media was also swift to pick on the story, with the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News and News.com.au all reporting on this troubling project.
Rest assured that CAWB will continue to scrutinise all documents relating to this project, and that our findings will make us even more determined to uncover why the Hawkesbury is being asked to settle for a third rate plan.
For frequent updates, please visit our Facebook page or follow us on Twitter.
On Thursday, 28 November, the NSW government handed over papers relating to the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project to the Legislative Chamber. This coincided with the release by the Department of Planning of its recommendation of the project to Brad Hazzard, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The recommendation by the Department was accompanied by reports from independent consultants (read them here). These have highlighted just how flawed this project is, which makes the fact that the Department has recommended the project proceed all the more concerning. Questions have also been raised over political interference that may have influenced the decision of the Director General.
Many of the findings of the independent consultants only serve to confirm the concerns of CAWB and the community. In studying traffic, Cambray Consulting concluded "If the current bridge was to be retained for local traffic, this could offer a good result all-round. The new bridge could take B-doubles and heavy vehicles away from town, allowing a load limit to be imposed on the existing bridge to possibly extend its life, minimise the effects of heavy vehicles on the town, and retain local connectivity......
....We suggest that it may be prudent to ‘step back’ and undertake a broader study to investigate long term solutions, and once a preferred long term solution is identified, consider a staged approach or interim treatments to progressively deliver that long term solution. This would avoid investing substantial funds into a traffic route which will have a limited ‘life’ due to constrained intersection capacity on the roads feeding the bridge."
Heritage consultants Casey & Lowe have also provided a scathing report on the inaccuracies of the heritage assessment. In their recommendation for the existing bridge, they reported "Given that the bridge is considered an item of state significance within the EIS, give further consideration to options for the proposed route that retain the bridge to provide either a primary or secondary use."
Whilst the investigation of the papers is ongoing, an interesting document questioning the legality of the approval has been brought to light. It would seem that the project proceeding would not only open the door to legal challenge, but that there would be far greater negative impacts compared to restoring the existing bridge.
Green's MP David Shoebridge, whose motion resulted in the Call for Papers being granted, has provided a timeline of events on his website. The media was also swift to pick on the story, with the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News and News.com.au all reporting on this troubling project.
Rest assured that CAWB will continue to scrutinise all documents relating to this project, and that our findings will make us even more determined to uncover why the Hawkesbury is being asked to settle for a third rate plan.
For frequent updates, please visit our Facebook page or follow us on Twitter.