Upper House Inquiry Submission Information
Submission due 28th January 2018
Below is some information to help you write a submission for the Upper House Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project.
We will also be holding a submission writing workshop with details to be announced shortly.
YOU CAN DO THIS! For those of you who have not written a submission before it can seem overwhelming, but trust us, it's easy. It is also critical for you to take a stand. The Inquiry wants to hear from as many people as possible, including you!
If you would like any further help please ask. We are here to help, and more importantly, we WANT to help. Please email us at [email protected] with any queries you have.
COMMUNITY ACTION FOR WINDSOR BRIDGE
SUBMISSION WRITING GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
Submission writing is increasingly part of life in NSW.
It’s not too difficult and it’s an important part of current political processes. Basically your submission either says you support something, or oppose it, why, and how you think it might be fixed.
There is no right or wrong way to make a submission but it is a good idea to give some information to explain your position.
So, let’s get started…
When writing a submission, no matter what format you use, we suggest you follow three simple rules:
1. Be concise
2. Be accurate
3. Be relevant
Concise
Your submission may be one of hundreds, even thousands. You want the person reading it to get your message. You want your points to have punch...so don’t pad them unnecessarily.
Accurate
You want your submission to be taken seriously. Avoid saying something “is” unless you can tell your reader where your fact came from.
e.g. “Up to three thousand trucks cross Windsor Bridge every day” (CAWB 2017 traffic survey).
You can express your opinions, ideas and beliefs about things.
e.g. “In my opinion the removal of so many large trees will discourage tourists from visiting Thompson Square.”
“I think the current plan will be bad for local businesses...”
Relevant
In the case of the Upper House Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project, your first step is to read the Terms of Reference (see below, we’ve underlined the keywords).
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO.5 – INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT
Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project
1. That Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Industry and Transport inquire into and report on the expenditure, performance and effectiveness of the Roads & Maritime Services’ Windsor Bridge replacement project, and in particular:
a). the current Windsor Bridge, including its maintenance regime, renovation methods and justification for
demolition,
b). the replacement bridge project, including:
i. options presented to the community
ii. post construction strategic outcomes, including traffic benefits, transport and network service capacity
iii. economic, social and heritage impacts
iv. flood immunity benefits
v. project assessment process
vi. planning and procurement strategies and associated project costs
vii. cost benefit analysis process, and
c). any other related matters.
2. That the committee report by 29 June 2018.
Once you’ve read the terms of reference, have a think about which things you would like to comment on. You can write about one topic, a few topics or all topics - it is entirely up to you.
So... you’ve chosen your topics...it’s time to put pen to paper...or fingers to the keyboard!
SUBMISSION FORMAT
We are going to show you two of the ways you can use to make a submission:
1. Write a Letter
Your submission can simply be a letter to the Committee. Your letter should talk about topics in the Terms of Reference. We have included a sample letter, but please, don’t send the sample letter. It is much more powerful if you send a letter written by you.
Sample Letter
The Director,
Portfolio Committee No. 5,
Parliament House,
Macquarie Street,
Sydney NSW 2000.
Dear Director,
Re: Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project
Please accept this correspondence as a submission to the Windsor Bridge Inquiry. In making this submission I wish to register my opposition and objections to the Government’s proposal to build a bridge 35 m downstream of the existing, historic Windsor Bridge.
In particular I object to this project because it represents poor value for money, in that it does little or nothing, (as confirmed in the Project EIS), to mitigate flood impacts and will have no more than a marginal impact on existing, chaotic traffic conditions.
Furthermore, as acknowledged by Government experts, the project will have catastrophic and irreversible impacts on the Heritage significance, tourism potential and public amenity of the oldest Town Square in Australia.It is disappointing to note that, despite tens of thousands signatures testifying to both expert and community opposition to this project, the New South Wales Government has continued with a plan which will permanently force industrial vehicles through residential, recreational and retail urban space.
As a resident of the Hawkesbury who has attended RMS information sessions, read project documents and provided feedback regarding the project I have been frustrated and angered by the refusal to respond in any meaningful way to the numerous and easily identifiable problems with the proposed Windsor Bridge replacement project.
In conclusion, this is a project that fails to deliver a quality outcome; whether assessed in terms of project expenditure, the performance of the RMS, or the effectiveness of the department’s strategic planning. Given the project’s obvious shortcomings, I would like to see the project stopped, the historic Windsor Bridge renovated and a new bridge constructed on a Windsor bypass.
Yours sincerely,
[Insert Name,
Address,
Contact details and
Date]
2. Write a Briefing
You may wish to provide your information to the Committee in a more formal document. The following briefing format is one way of doing that. Once again, it is important to consider the advice in the Introduction regarding writing a submission.
A sample briefing is included; but as previously advised, please don’t just send this document. It is much more powerful if you send a briefing written by you.
Sample briefing below.
Blank template on following page.
Sample Submission
SUBMISSION
To:
Portfolio Committee No.5 – Industry And Transport
Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project
Submitted by: [insert your name, address, contact details and date]
BACKGROUND (optional)
You can use this section to explain in one or two sentences why you are writing, or to put forward any other background information to help your reader understand your concerns.
e.g. As a local resident I am concerned...
Driving through Thompson Square daily I am aware...
As someone whose family has lived here for generations…
ISSUE/S
Identify, in bullet points, your concerns. At this stage these are just headlines, whether one, or many, they give your reader an overview of your submission. You can choose the headings as they are written in the Terms of Reference.
e.g.
- Traffic benefits
- Heritage impacts
- Flood immunity benefits
or you may want to talk about one aspect of the heading.
e.g.
- Traffic Benefits - the Bypass Issue
- Heritage Impacts – Archaeology
- Flood Immunity Benefits - What Benefits?
The three topics here are examples. There is a list of other issues at the end of this template. This list is not exhaustive; you may have additional concerns.
COMMENT ON ISSUES
Next, use each bullet point as a heading and underneath briefly tell the Inquiry Committee why they are important. The text provided here is only a sample. You might say something quite different on each subject. It is important to write in your own words.Traffic Benefits - the Bypass Issue Throughout New South Wales, with good reason, governments invest in bypasses (RMS and Treasury documents); getting heavy vehicles out of towns improves everyone’s safety, it improves the overall amenity of the place, improves air quality, noise levels and it is safer and more efficient for truck drivers (CAWB EIS Submission). It is just good planning. What is being done at Windsor is the exact opposite; it sets a new low in strategic traffic and transport planning.
Heritage Impacts – ArchaeologyThe RMS is currently destroying the archaeology of the third oldest settlement in Australia. This destruction is being justified by describing it as “salvage”. Salvage requires the removal of the archaeology. Once removed it can never be replaced. It has been destroyed. Describing destructive salvage as mitigating the destruction of heritage (Mitigation = lessen something) is completely inaccurate. This “mitigation” is not lessening the damage to rare and valuable archaeology; it is destroying the archaeology and this process will ultimately destroy the Heritage significance of the oldest Town Square in Australia (Independent Heritage Report, Mary Casey).
Flood Immunity “Benefits” - What Benefits?The current Windsor Bridge goes under in a 1:2 flood. The proposed bridge height is less than a 1:3 flood (EIS documents). There have been no changes to the height of surrounding roads, which go under during floods. This project is therefore not delivering and acceptable level of flood mitigation.
CONCLUSION
[This is where you get a chance to comment on the issues you have raised about the Windsor Bridge replacement project and explain the ‘big picture’, particularly in relation to the expenditure, performance and effectiveness of the RMS. One or two paragraphs would be fine, maximum four of five.]
e.g.
Windsor Bridge replacement project is a poorly conceived and executed plan. No effort has been made to genuinely explain why such a destructive plan is better than building a town bypass – which is standard practice in similar locations across the rest of the New South Wales.
The suggestion the project is justified because it will improve flood immunity is disproved by the RMS’s own documentation. Experience indicates the bridge itself is not cause of the traffic problems, but rather the intersections at either end are.
To date, Treasury documents indicate expenditure of around $30 million, prior to a construction contract being let, and there is no indication the RMS has a final cost estimate for the project.
The Windsor bridge project is a poor reflection on a department driving the largest infrastructure program in the nation. The skills knowledge and expertise being demonstrated in relation to this infrastructure project fail to meet the most basic expectations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This is your opportunity to make suggestions to the committee on ways to correct the problems or issues.
e.g.
It is recommended the following actions occur immediately:
- The Windsor Bridge replacement project be stopped,
- Archaeological “salvage” cease,
- The RMS begins planning for a Windsor bypass.
Name and date
Below is a blank template for you to copy and use.
SUBMISSION
To:
Portfolio Committee No.5 – Industry And Transport
Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project
Submitted by: [insert your name, address, contact details and date]
BACKGROUND [optional]
ISSUE/S
COMMENT ON ISSUES
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Name and date
To:
Portfolio Committee No.5 – Industry And Transport
Inquiry into the Windsor Bridge replacement project
Submitted by: [insert your name, address, contact details and date]
BACKGROUND [optional]
ISSUE/S
- X
- X
- X
COMMENT ON ISSUES
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Name and date
EXPANDED ISSUES LIST
- Lack of maintenance of the current Windsor Bridge, (see information in CAWB’s EIS submission)
- Proposed renovation methods for the existing bridge, (see information in RMS Response to Submissions)
- Justification for demolition of a heritage asset (see Independent Heritage Report, Mary Casey, EIS project documents)
- Options presented to the community for the proposed replacement bridge (see information in CAWB’s EIS submission)
- Quality
- Purpose
- Scope
- Justification (see information in CAWB’s response to the proposed landscape plans and to the proposed SCMP)
- Strategic traffic outcomes, once the bridge is built, (RMS Project Documents)
- Transport and network service capacity, post construction of the proposed project, (RMS Project Documents) (see also the results of traffic studies commissioned by CAWB)
- The economic impacts of the proposed project,
- During Construction
- Post-construction
- The social impacts of the proposed project,
- Community use of the Square
- The heritage impacts of the proposed project,
- Archaeology
- Impacts on heritage building fabric
- Flood immunity benefits of proposed bridge
- Existing immunity vs. proposed immunity
- Heights of surrounding roads
- The project assessment process
- Options considered
- Community consultation
- Budget considerations
- Documents
- Project planning and procurement strategies
- Project approval
- First construction contract
- The Tibby Cotter Bridge
- Associated project costs
- Contract variations
- Cost benefit analysis process, and
- Any other related matters.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The Inquiry website says:
“Submissions are confidential until the committee decides to publish them. Once published, submissions are usually placed on the committee's website. Please note that personal contact details will be removed. If you would like to request that all or some of your submission be kept confidential, including your identity, you need to state so clearly in your submission. The committee will consider your request.
Further information about participating in an Upper House inquiry can be found at www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/pages/about-committees-lc.aspx
If you would like any further information about the inquiry or making a submission, please do not hesitate to contact Stephanie Galbraith, Principal Council Officer, on (02) 9230 3324 or Emma Rogerson, Senior Council Officer, on (02) 9230 2898.”
Once completed, your submission can be sent to:-
· the committee’s website at www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/windsorbridge
· email to [email protected]
· send a letter to
The Director,
Portfolio Committee No. 5,
Parliament House,
Macquarie Street,
Sydney NSW 2000.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Helpful Links and Documents
CAWB Submission to the EIS
| cawb_eis_submission_v2_pdf_copy.pdf |
Environmental Impact Statement for the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project
| wb_eis_volume_1_single_file.pdf |
Independent Reports into traffic, heritage and structural engineering
|
|
| ||||||
Submission Template as a PDF
| submission_template_pdf.pdf |
Useful Quotes
Traffic
"RMS does state however that ‘an alternative route around Windsor may be considered in the future depending on growth in traffic numbers and local congestion.’ In our opinion, such a route should be considered as part of this project." Cambray Consulting, Windsor Bridge Replacement Project, Traffic Review of Information Provided by the Applicant (Roads and Maritime Services), Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 15 August 2013 - pg.24
"Rather than constructing a three-lane (ultimate) bridge which has more traffic capacity than the roads and intersections feeding it, we would suggest considering alternative bridge crossing locations which may provide adequate traffic capacity for a longer period of time (e.g. a bypass option)." Cambray Consulting pg. 24
"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." Cambray Consulting pg. 67
"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. " Cambray Consulting pg. 70
"Over the 2012-2017 five year period, while light vehicle movements on Windsor Bridge only increased by 7%, total heavy vehicle movements increased by 48%. Rigid trucks had a 45% increase, while articulated trucks had a 59% increase." CAWB Traffic Count 2017
Heritage
"The RTA has formed the opinion that the impact of the project on non-Aborigìnal heritage would be signifìcant." Windsor Bridge Replacement Application Letter, RMS, 4 October 2011
"This is going to be bad for heritage, no doubt about it... " Kirk, Barrister for the Government, Day 2 Court Transcript, pg. 53
"...the most appropriate treatment of Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge is to avoid any further negative impact and to take the opportunity identified by the Heritage Council to remove through traffic." Windsor Bridge, EIS, Historic Heritage Working Paper Part 1, pg. v.
"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." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.38
"If the WBRP were to be approved DP&I would approve the excavation of a potential archaeological site of State significance and possibly of National heritage significance. This would be against the advice of the NSW Heritage Council and their specialists and the consultants who wrote Working Paper 1." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.38
"Working Paper 1 says impacts are so major WBRP should not go ahead. RMS’s heritage consultants in Working Paper 1 state the proposed impacts on Thompson Square Conservation Area are so major the WBRP should not go ahead. But RMS has chosen not to accept this advice because they had already chosen to explore only Option 1 in this EIS." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.8
"This proposed design is not based on a full understanding of the significance of the heritage values of the place, nor on any heritage design principles or conservation policies, on which to base a future design. Therefore it is not mitigating impacts on heritage but an additional impact." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.8
"It is unequivocally opposed to the project for the 'irrevocable damage' it will do to Windsor and Thompson Square. The Heritage Council of NSW reinforced its preference for a bypass option. It argues the project should be refused on heritage grounds." Heritage Council of NSW
"There has been inadequate recognition that the State Heritage Register listing for the Square includes the open space and all of the buildings which surround it. Thus the relationship not only within the open space, but between the buildings and the Square, or the entire setting of the Square is of importance. The placement of a new major road along the side of Thompson Square will sever the relationship between the buildings along Old Bridge Street to the Square, and also with the buildings on the opposite side of the Square.
"Thompson Square thus comprises a series of interrelated components – the setting, historic plantings, monuments, fencing, roadways, surrounding buildings and connections to the River. Such squares are rare in NSW and in Australia." Heritage Council of NSW Submission for the WBRP.
"This is going to be bad for heritage, no doubt about it... " Kirk, Barrister for the Government, Day 2 Court Transcript, pg. 53
"...the most appropriate treatment of Thompson Square and Windsor Bridge is to avoid any further negative impact and to take the opportunity identified by the Heritage Council to remove through traffic." Windsor Bridge, EIS, Historic Heritage Working Paper Part 1, pg. v.
"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." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.38
"If the WBRP were to be approved DP&I would approve the excavation of a potential archaeological site of State significance and possibly of National heritage significance. This would be against the advice of the NSW Heritage Council and their specialists and the consultants who wrote Working Paper 1." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.38
"Working Paper 1 says impacts are so major WBRP should not go ahead. RMS’s heritage consultants in Working Paper 1 state the proposed impacts on Thompson Square Conservation Area are so major the WBRP should not go ahead. But RMS has chosen not to accept this advice because they had already chosen to explore only Option 1 in this EIS." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.8
"This proposed design is not based on a full understanding of the significance of the heritage values of the place, nor on any heritage design principles or conservation policies, on which to base a future design. Therefore it is not mitigating impacts on heritage but an additional impact." Windsor Bridge Replacement Project Independent Heritage Review August 2013, pg.8
"It is unequivocally opposed to the project for the 'irrevocable damage' it will do to Windsor and Thompson Square. The Heritage Council of NSW reinforced its preference for a bypass option. It argues the project should be refused on heritage grounds." Heritage Council of NSW
"There has been inadequate recognition that the State Heritage Register listing for the Square includes the open space and all of the buildings which surround it. Thus the relationship not only within the open space, but between the buildings and the Square, or the entire setting of the Square is of importance. The placement of a new major road along the side of Thompson Square will sever the relationship between the buildings along Old Bridge Street to the Square, and also with the buildings on the opposite side of the Square.
"Thompson Square thus comprises a series of interrelated components – the setting, historic plantings, monuments, fencing, roadways, surrounding buildings and connections to the River. Such squares are rare in NSW and in Australia." Heritage Council of NSW Submission for the WBRP.
Structural Engineering
"...the bridge is safe for current use." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.11
"The bridge has not exhibited any signs that it is about to fail." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.16
"The bridge can be refurbished at a cost such that it can function for the next 50 years with little ongoing maintenance." ($12.5 million for a load limited bridge (16 tonne)). Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.4
"The condition of the existing bridge is such that it is not in a dire condition and could relatively economically be refurbished and strengthened." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.31
"It appears the optimum option is some combination between the RMS and the Pearson Wedgewood options which will be able to provide a viable option (3 above) for the next 25 to 50 years and hence not build a new bridge at this stage. Then at some time in the future a bypass can be built which avoids all the damage to property, heritage values etc. So with a relatively modest expenditure the bridge can be serviceable for the next 50 years within which time an alternative route will have been identified and agreed." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.31
"The bridge has not exhibited any signs that it is about to fail." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.16
"The bridge can be refurbished at a cost such that it can function for the next 50 years with little ongoing maintenance." ($12.5 million for a load limited bridge (16 tonne)). Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.4
"The condition of the existing bridge is such that it is not in a dire condition and could relatively economically be refurbished and strengthened." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.31
"It appears the optimum option is some combination between the RMS and the Pearson Wedgewood options which will be able to provide a viable option (3 above) for the next 25 to 50 years and hence not build a new bridge at this stage. Then at some time in the future a bypass can be built which avoids all the damage to property, heritage values etc. So with a relatively modest expenditure the bridge can be serviceable for the next 50 years within which time an alternative route will have been identified and agreed." Report on Structural Condition of the existing Windsor Bridge, pg.31
