Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Coffs Harbour Bypass

Coffs Harbour City

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

An upgrade of approximately 14 kilometres of the Pacific Highway from south of the Englands Road roundabout to the southern end of the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade project. The project would bypass Coffs Harbour.

Attachments & Resources

Early Consultation (1)

Application (1)

EIS (16)

Response to Submissions (4)

Amendments (11)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (41)

Reports (39)

Independent Reviews and Audits (1)

Notifications (1)

Other Documents (11)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 41 - 60 of 186 submissions
Name Withheld
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
In regards to the Coffs Harbour Bypass (ring road) firstly I would like to state that the proposed route is very much outdated and will effect thousands of residents. Simply moving the problem i.e. existing highway to another problem area - band aid solution, However now trying to make the best of a bad situation.

My concerns are as follows: Noise that will impact many residents, the backdrop of the Great Dividing Range is a beautiful natural amphitheatre that will throw the noise straight back at the residents, and while I understand noise walls/mounds, low pavement material will be in use, unfortunately this will not be very effective in the natural landscape of Coffs Harbour. Due to the beauty of the area soon to be destroyed I am hoping as many natural earth mound walls will be used where possible over the ugly concrete walls. I am also extremely concerned at the disruption to wildlife as this route will go directly through a major Koala Habitat. I understand great care is taken however many animals are wounded or killed in the process of building a highway. The Coramba Road Interchange, is this really necessary, It is very rare for a bypass to have an interchange in the middle. The design that is currently in the preferred option is very large and will impact greatly on the residents, these people directly impacted by the interchange will have a double hit, not only is it sitting in their back yard there will be noise from the bypass as well as the interchange. While it is not your concern but more of a concern for our local council, the road that the interchange will be built on is a very substandard road and there is very little if any room for improvement. This road (West High Street) will in my opinion from the interchange see a large increase in traffic, it can every only be a single lane road (no room to widen houses on both sides), has several roundabouts and crossings, and will cause a bottle neck into the CBD. I am also concerned that there are traffic lights to enter on and off at Korora and Englands Road and feel there are improvements to be made. Whilst I appreciate you are now building the bypass (ring road) with tunnels which is 100% better then cuttings, due to the route of the bypass I am seriously worried about the impact on our health and quality of life due to noise as well as the impact on property prices. I truly believe the existing route is merely a band aid solution and Coffs Harbour will by crying out for a real bypass in the not too distant future.
geoffrey maunder
Comment
KORORA , New South Wales
Message
Noise factors from vehicles particularly B Double trucks travelling at speed has not been addressed. See attached submission for details
Attachments
Peter Renshaw
Comment
NAMBUCCA HEADS , New South Wales
Message
I am making comments as a mid north coast resident who uses the existing Pacific Highway both for travel locally to Coffs Harbour and regularly to and from Brisbane.
Traffic volumes: In the fifteen plus years I have lived here I have noticed the increase in volumes particularly local traffic around Coffs Harbour and the ever increasing housing visible from the existing highway in the area. I also note the now regular "Live Traffic" holiday traffic delay warnings for the recently upgraded Pacific highway, notably for events in the Byron area and for the last school holiday Tugun Tunnels. Like other users of the highway between Sydney and Brisbane I have observed the obviously expensive, disruptive and delaying works as the existing two lane highway is upgraded from two to three or more lanes.
I see nothing in the documentation for this project to suggest the proposal will support traffic volumes in 5 years time,especially peak times.

I believe the Coffs Harbour By Pass should be built with three lanes in each direction from Lyons Rd to the northern end of the project to provide a buffer for underestimation of traffic volumes and offer the following points in its support:

There is no viable rail option to take commuter traffic off the highway, unlike the NSW central Coast, Hunter and Gold Coast Corridors - the North Coast rail line would require a major upgrade to track and stations including new stations In addition new rolling stock and servicing facilities would be needed; all at significant cost. Local bus services would also need an expensive upgrade to attract local trips from private cars.
It is clear the proposed By- Pass runs through difficult country and the proposed design does not appear to leave the space for three lanes. It also looks as though a widening project would be expensive and time consuming should traffic levels be underestimated.

THE TUNNELS
The Tunnels pose a particular problem with a high risk of traffic disruption and delay if built to two rather than three lane standard. Breakdown or traffic incident involving
heavy vehicles in a tunnel may well close both traffic lanes if not initially but certainly during recovery. The Traffic management plan involves two way working in the other bore,delaying everyone.
IN SUMMARY I believe this project is needed but it should be built in a manner resilient to underestimates of traffic volumes and in particular the major expense and disruption if the tunnels are found to need widening. A Cost benefit analysis of the extra cost of 3 lanes now as against widening in 5, 10 or 20 years including traffic delay costs during widening would be useful. In particular the cost of reestablishing a tunnel boring project rather than boring three lanes each way in the initial project should be an important factor in decision making

There is no indication that the tunnels will initially be bored for three lanes. I submit this would be prudent as adding an extra lane later would be an expensive, disruptive to traffic and lengthy process.


Lengthy Construction time for the project.

I suggest this is a Project where 24 hour working on a 7 basis could be used for specific tasks on its Critical Path, particularly if weather delays are encountered. This could involve moving some residents into temporary accommodation for short periods while the task is completed but may be cost effective.


This is an important project for NSW and the Mid North Coast in particular. Lets do it once and do it properly.
Wayne Evans
Object
Sandy Beach , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project in its current form as it fails Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Principles
under the N.S.W. E.P. & A. Act,1979 relating to climate change, and is therefore not in the public interest.
Refer attached submission.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
My main concern is obviously the noise impact the Coffs Bypass will have on our home life. The new design shows the new Highway to be very close to our street. And although the new design has included a “Shephard Lane” tunnel, it is actually several kilometres from Shephards Lane and won’t help in reducing noise to the hundreds of homes in west Coffs. The destruction of the landscape and the constant traffic noise and vibration will be devastating. It will also dramatically affect future house prices in Coffs Harbour with West Coffs becoming an undesirable location to purchase a property.
My second concern is the Coramba Road interchange. This is the main road we use to travel into Coffs Harbour and traffic flow through this section of Coffs is congested during peak times and will only get worse if used as an interchange to the new highway.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
ryan woodlock
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
I am concerned about only having a concept design and what construction we may end up with .I would like to see a" detailed design and construct only" contract issued.
I am disappointed about the design of the Coramba Road intechange and I want to see a donut design instead which will impact much less on the residents in the adjacent Roselands Estate.
I am concerned about the noise and environmental impacts upon my family home from increased traffic during and after construction and would like to see an independent audit undertaken.
Carol Betland
Support
KORORA , New South Wales
Message
See attached letter
Attachments
Mike & Gay Colreavy
Comment
SAPPHIRE BEACH , New South Wales
Message
Submission - Coffs Harbour Bypass EIS - SSI 7666

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Coffs Harbour Bypass EIS. Generally we are pleased common sense has prevailed and we make the following comments on the EIS and the process ahead:

Overall
1. Coffs Harbour City’s geographical setting occurs uniquely at a point where the Great Dividing Range meets the sea. The surrounding environment includes iconic vistas and places of important cultural and environmental heritage. The proposed bypass route traverses directly through this environment so the design ought to preserve it intact to the greatest extent possible. Visitors are drawn to Coffs Harbour by its unique setting. Tourism and visitation are a critical component of the Coffs Coast economy. They are heavily dependent on the attractiveness of Coffs Harbour’s unique setting. Earlier bypass designs produced by the RMS would have seriously harmed this setting, its iconic beauty and cultural significance. We did not support these, so it is a relief to read that, at last, the updated design includes three tunnels, a lower gradeline, and a quiet asphalt surface.

Noise and Traffic
2. Affected residents’ concerns that many of the noise measurements in the RMS study seem very different from their actual noise experience should be evaluated. This affects how RMS determined what houses should, or should not, be treated. The basis and outcomes for these should be reviewed.

3. Some traffic counts appear misleading. Night-time readings for houses away from the existing Pacific Highway appear overstated giving the appearance of a lot of night-time noise on local roads. Elevated noise readings can exclude some of these houses from noise treatment. These should be reviewed.

4. RMS seems to be treating some estates and not others for noise relying on historical DA conditions for individual estates that could not have been cognisant of potential major interchanges being constructed in the vicinity. House designs to block out road noise near a local arterial road with relatively lower traffic speeds and night traffic volumes would be vastly different to those designed for highway noise at 110kph and significant heavy truck volumes at night. This should be reviewed.

5. Construction noise levels seem very high without proposed treatment of houses for that noise which may go on for years. This should be reviewed and appropriate treatment be provided for.

6. The Roselands Estate seems to be ignored. It will be one of the most affected housing estates along the bypass route. It should be a condition of consent that Roselands Estate properties receive similar post construction noise treatments.

Dangerous Goods
7. The EIS statement that a dangerous goods risk assessment has been done contradicts the RMS information update accompanying the EIS stating that the issue of dangerous goods had not yet been resolved. The bypass is supposed to remove all heavy vehicles from the existing Pacific Highway at Coffs Harbour which will then become a local road. How could the EIS not deal fully with dangerous goods, particularly in such a dense city location? A dangerous goods risk assessment must have been completed for RMS to make any sort of decision about this and it should have been published with the EIS documents. The same arrangements applying to the Ewingsdale tunnel should be applied to the Coffs Harbour bypass tunnels.

Consultation
8. This is a vast project that will take years to complete. At times it has been characterised by inadequate consultation. For years RMS asked us what the community wanted. Tunnels were eventually agreed. Then, without any further consultation, RMS published a completely different design with no tunnels - an approach that was resoundingly rejected by the community. The public exhibition of such a voluminous EIS with only six weeks to comment, two of which were school holidays, requires public consideration to be unduly rushed, calling the exhibition process itself into question. The display booths RMS set up are remote from where the directly affected residents reside. Considering the scale of the potential impacts, RMS should also have met with and explained how these are to be treated to locals in the affected estates.

This is yet another ‘concept’ design. Given the tendency for important past design changes to be at odds with community opinion, there should be opportunity for more consultation when the final detailed design is complete to ensure any subsequent modifications to it still reflect community expectations. Also, the community should be given assurance that any eventual design and construct contract for the project will align with the design arrangements on which this EIS is based.

Biodiversity
9. The Coffs Harbour Bypass route is unique along the eastern seaboard because this is where the Great Dividing Range meets the Coast. This is why flora and fauna abound and make Coffs Harbour a biodiversity hotspot. Consent conditions should ensure that when the bypass is being constructed only local native species are planted during revegetation activities to ensure the least disturbance to our flora and fauna.

We declare that we have not and do not make political donations.
Attachments
Victoria Pulman
Object
NORTH BOAMBEE VA , New South Wales
Message
Please find my submission in the below attachments
Attachments
Ronald Woodhill
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
I am sure I speak for Coffs Harbour residents in saying how happy I am that the RMS 2019 Refined Concept Design includes proper tunnels. My wife and I sent many submissions on the subject in 2018 and received no answers: Merely a receipt of our submissions.
I write also to state our concerns about the current concept. As stated in our earlier submissions, we are residents of the Roselands Estate. We are astonished that there is no mention of the Roselands Estate as being severely affected by noise during construction and as a continuing situation.
This estate and its inhabitants are in extreme proximity to both the bypass and the Coramba Interchange - particularly the Interchange.
The lack of concern by design engineers of this project, in this regard for the residents is so unprofessional that the competence and ethics of the design engineers must be called into question.
The increased noise from the bypass and the interchange is an alarming prospect for our future and comfort and pleasure for all residents in living in our homes and surroundings and for our entire way of life in this quiet and homely area with its walks and mountain views and room for children to play. Old people, children, families, all of us will have our lives damaged. WHO studies show that serious health conditions will arise from the effects of excess noise and air pollution. We are also concerned about sleep disturbance.
Whatever is the point of removing a major traffic problem and placing it somewhere else? Is it perhaps that people are to busy these days to think of the consequences of their actions?
This has been a badly managed project from the time the western route was abandoned; Please do not make it any worse.
Of great concern too, is the lack of information as to what remediation for our homes both during the years of construction and permanently.
The greatly increased traffic coming from the Coramba interchange to the city proper will travel either along Coramba Road or along Bray Street.
Coramba Road is narrow, badly designed and encompassing an amazing and dangerous round about at Shephard's Lane. It continues to a dilapidated, outdated and unbelievable two level narrow divided road as it approaches and enters the CBD.
If the traffic takes the other option, it will travel down Shephard's Lane and Don Patterson Rd which is a narrow suburban street, passing a retirement complex, until it reaches a dangerous intersection at McKays Road.
This intersection turning left is in extreme proximity to a hospital, an aged care retirement complex with a nursing home on one side of the road and specialist doctors rooms on the other.
Veering into Bray Street the road passes a small shopping complex with a difficult entry and exit, a large basketball sporting complex, a police boys club, a large high school, and a very busy cinema complex, fast food outlet and tavern. The one set of lights at the end of Bray Street (which is very close to the cinema entry) takes the traffic onto the existing highway at a very busy merging point. There is already much confusion at this intersection and increased traffic will make it worse.
I hope you will read my submission thoughtfully and understand that it is written to make this project liveable for the residents of West Coffs Harbour; and it is written too, to suggest there is a case for the busiest of us to sometimes pause in our work and be certain that we have understood as best we can the consequences of our actions.

Respectfully
Ronald Woodhill
Name Withheld
Object
MOONEE BEACH , New South Wales
Message
I am concerned about a number of things in relation to the proposed bypass of Coffs Harbour.
1. Basically I am opposed to this bypass as it provides a very poor solution to the future traffic flow around Coffs Harbour. Within a very short while this proposal will be outdated by the increases in traffic flow between Sydney and Brisbane. I want to see a decent bypass that goes west of the Coffs Harbour basin and provides the through traffic, including heavy vehicles, a safer, quicker and more efficient way of getting to their destination.

2. After many years of to-ing and fro-ing we still only have a DRAFT plan of a very poor solution to bypassing Coffs. I believe that we should be well past this stage by now. It is apparent what the residents of Coffs want a decent bypass that has the least impact on us. We are the last major city between Sydney and Brisbane to receive a bypass and now we face many more years of congestion and disruption while the rest of the Pacific Highway is completed leaving us to battle these terrible conditions. I love what the expressway has done for travel times but hate that we have been left till last and will, for political expediency, probably end up with an inferior solution.

3. If we are indeed left with this proposal then I am relieved to see that the Draft Plan recommends tunnels which will lower the road surface and reduce the noise impact but have absolutely no confidence that that is what we will get in the final wash-up. I want to see this stipulated in the contract so that the eventual tenderer is legally obliged to build the tunnels.

4. I am also concerned at the complexity of the Korora interchange and am relieved to see that there is mention of re-working this interchange. We should be mindful that there is a school involved with this area.

5. I am flabbergasted that vehicles carrying dangerous goods cannot pass through a tunnel. This is an extremely ridiculous situation where the law would rather see them travel through high density cities endangering many more lives. This law needs to be repealed so that it can’t be used as an excuse for providing us with an inferior solution.

Your sincerely.
Lorraine Penn
Comment
BOAMBEE EAST , New South Wales
Message
Director, Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
G P O Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission: Coffs Harbour Bypass EIS (SSI_7666)

As a local concerned community member who has resided in Coffs Harbour for the past eleven years, I was appalled when they were planning to build a highway that would have destroyed the beautiful green backdrop, which sets Coffs Harbour apart from the rest of the country because of the Great Dividing Range that touches the coast.

The green backdrop Mother Nature provides for Coffs Harbour attributed to my decision to relocate from Sydney to Coffs Harbour.

With the recent release of the EIS it is pleasing to see that there are three (3) tunnels instead of 2018 mention of cuttings, which would have destroyed Coffs beautiful location. Tunnels are certainly the preferred option for the Coffs Harbour Bypass.

It is disappointing that there is only another concept design and that when the final detailed design is finally complete that there may not be an opportunity to comment on the final design. With this in mind it is imperative that there is a ‘construct only contract’ issued based on the availability of a Detailed Design.

The Coffs Harbour Bypass route is unique along the Easter Seaboard because this is where the Great Dividing Range meets the coast. This is why our flora and fauna abounds to make Coffs Harbour a biodiversity hotspot. I am pleased common sense has prevailed and that we now have three tunnels and a lower grade line and quiet open cut asphalt.

To aid biodiversity please ensure the bypass is being build that only local native species is used during regeneration activities to ensure the least disturbance to our flora and fauna is achieved.

Another area of concern in the EIS is the serious issue of dangerous goods particularly in such a dense location as the existing highway through our town. The tunnel in Ewingsdale at the Byron Bay turn off; the signs mentions that only 1 and 2:1 class of dangerous goods cannot go through.

A dangerous goods risk assessment must have been completed for RMS to make any type of decision in Coffs Harbour. Why has this important information been omitted from everyone in Coffs Harbour, including Coffs Council?

As a concerned resident of Coffs Harbour I want the same rules as that applied to the Eqingsdale tunnel, applied to our tunnels and that all dangerous goods except Class 1 and Class 2.1 can use the Coffs Harbour Bypass.

Yours sincerely



Lorraine Penn
I do not make political donations
Attachments
Jan McDonald
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
I am pleased with the concept design and that the Tunnels have been reinstated, however I have the following concerns.
I am concerned about having only a concept design and what construction we may end up with e.g there could be significant changes such as removal of the Tunnels.
I want to see the Detailed Design before the Bypass goes to tender. A construct only contract so I can have confidence in what will be constructed.
I am disappointed that there has been no change to the Coramba Rd Interchange. I would like to see a Donut design with a smaller footprint.
I am concerned about the noise part of the EIS and the future impact of noise on me and my family and would like to see an independent audit taken.

Kind regards,
Jan McDonald
Alan Millward
Support
KORORA , New South Wales
Message
As a long term resident of the Coffs Harbour area I have followed the Highway Upgrades in surrounding areas and the Coffs Harbour Bypass. I have watched the Concept Design Plan evolve over the years patiently waiting for the Bypass to be built. While I would have liked a Bypass that was able to take all vehicles I appreciate tunnels will restrict Dangerous Goods vehicles. In general I no issue with the current Concept Design and look forward to the updated interchange designs as I would like to see the removal of the additional traffic lights at the northern and southern interchange. I know the Korora Hill Interchange is a very complex and confusing looking interchange but given the necessities of the interchange it is a complex interchange.

As I live in the Korora Basin (west of the Highway) the Interchange is important to me and my family. The Interchange includes the access point for Korora residents to access new local road and from there to safely be able to access the new Highway, while still allowing residents direct access into Coffs Harbour without having to access the Highway. The Interchange is further compounded by the intersection of Bruxner Park Road. These interchanges are on top of the main Northern Interchange of the Bypass Highway and Coffs Harbour. All these roads and connections make the Interchange very complex and demanding. For this reason I am eager to see the next design of the Interchange. Saying that, apart from the traffic lights (which I do see the need of due to the high traffic flow) I do not object to the Northern or Korora Hill Interchange.

In supporting the current Concept Design I would also like to thank the Team involved in the process, attempting to deal with people, groups and organisations that continually appear to be against the Bypass. This has resulted in the Coffs Harbour Bypass being stalled over the years. Not just as a 'local' of Coffs Harbour but as a regular commuter of the Pacific Highway between Newcastle and Brisbane I am very keen to see the best outcome for locals and road users, which the current Concept Plan appears to do. Thank you.
Name Withheld
Object
BOAMBEE EAST , New South Wales
Message
Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass EIS (SSI_7666)

I am pleased to see that the concept design includes three tunnels and an asphalt surface.

I am concerned about having another concept design to consider when much more needs to be finalised to reach the detailed design phase and it appears that the community will not get to provide any feedback on that final design. I want to see a final Detailed Design before the bypass goes to tender, and a Construct Only Contract so I can have confidence in what’s going to be constructed.

I am concerned about the noise part of the EIS and the future impacts of noise upon me and my family and I want to see an independent audit to be undertaken. The noise reverberating day and night off the natural amphitheater formed by the beautiful backdrop of the Great Dividing Range, will change the lives of those living here in a negative way, and destroy the visitor experience for tourists forever.

Construction noise levels seem to be very high and there is no proposed treatment of all affected houses for that noise, which may go on for years. This appears grossly unfair and at no time were any home owners or developers told to include requirements in their DA conditions for construction noise as a result of the highway bypass.

There are so many questions/inconsistencies regarding noise I feel an independent review or audit is in order.

I also don't understand how it is possible to put out an EIS and not deal with the serious issue of dangerous goods, particularly in such a dense location as the existing highway through our town. At the tunnel in Ewingsdale at the Byron Bay turn off, the signs say that only 1 and 2:1 class of dangerous goods cannot go through however for some reason the tunnels in Coffs Harbour are being treated differently - why? Coffs Harbour residents want the same rules as applies to the St Helena tunnel, i.e. that all dangerous goods except Class 1 and Class 2.1 can use the Coffs Harbour Bypass.

A dangerous goods risk assessment must have been completed for RMS to make any sort of decision in Coffs Harbour. Why has this important information been kept from everyone in Coffs Harbour (including Council)?

I don’t see a Submissions Report which is disappointing because I made a submission to the RMS 2018 Preferred Concept Design and I can only assume that it wasn’t ever considered.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I look forward to receiving further updates on the project and the opportunity to comment further on a detailed design.

Kind Regards,

Jan Rooney
Korora School Road Strata
Comment
KORORA , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam
Please note: I wish for the DPIE to delete my personal information before publication.
I am lodging this submission on behalf of the six owners of Strata units 1 to 6 on Korora School Road.
These are our serious concerns:
Noise
We have great concerns regarding the increased noise levels when the Coffs Harbour Bypass is implemented. This is the single biggest environmental issue arising from this build and considerable data is provided in the EIS that seeks to address this. The capacity to create endless tables of data from noise modelling for every façade and every floor of every residence along a 600 m corridor that is the proposed bypass has elements of a “snow job”. One needs to be mindful of the fact that most of this data is based on modelling and very few “validation points” where current sound has actually been measured.
Based on valid independent sound measures at residences along the corridor we am deeply concerned that:
· No consideration is given to residences beyond 600 m from the roadway corridor but many more will clearly be affected. It is already very noisy, especially at night when trucks mostly use the highway.
· Some of the EIS data is difficult to apply to the interior of specified properties (where residents will be affected by the noise) because of lack of details in the identification of the property and its specific architecture.
· Some of the modelled data in the EIS is not consistent with our independent measures. Specifically, we believe that there is systematic over estimation of current noise in some currently quiet areas that would impact on our eligibility for onsite mitigation post build and despite at source mitigation from noise pollution
· Average noise through a period of time is not a good measure of the potential for a noise source to affect health and quality of life. Specifically, constant noise with crescendo and decrescendo as typically made by trucks at speed on a road is worse than constant low noise, noise of natural origins (birds, ocean etc.) and even louder noises in short but predictable bursts (trains).

Exit from our driveway:
We currently have one narrow driveway which accesses all six units. There is no turning circle at the end of the driveway so residents have no option but to reverse out onto the proposed service road when exiting the driveway.
We are deeply concerned that reversing on a service road is extremely unsafe, even if a 60 km or 80 km zone on this road is implemented. From observation on the Sapphire service road we can say with great certainty that drivers to not adhere to this speed limit and it puts us in great danger when exiting our property.
In addition, this is in a school zone where drop off points for young children is anticipated but as we understand the school has already raised this volatile issue with your organisation.
We sincerely hope that you address these issues.
Yours sincerely
Els Daglinckx
On behalf of units 1 to 6 Korora School Strata.
Name Withheld
Object
SANDY BEACH , New South Wales
Message
I support the project for a bypass of Coffs Harbour, but I object to the fact that there are still so many unanswered questions about the final outcomes of the project.
Noise:
The RMS's information about noise levels in the EIS is impossible for anyone other than an expert to decipher. We need to see independent and simpler information about the current noise levels so that the right noise mitigation levels are implemented. The very poor approach that the RMS carried out with regard to noise on the highway upgrade in the north of the Coffs Harbour LGA has left homes right next door to the highway with no mitigation, while an unoccupied electrical substation on the other side of a secondary road has a full noise wall, fully reveals that the RMS has no interest in fair treatment.

Construct Only Contract:
This is vital. Today some contracts are tendered using a 'design and construct' approach that allows the builder to make changes to the design often just based on reducing costs. This concerns us greatly as the Toowoomba Bypass was created using a Design & Construct contract and residents ended up with a very different bypass to that put forward with the EIS and there is an even more recent example in Sydney. This kind of contract also allows the RMS to stand back and say 'nothing to do with us' which is simply arrogant and cynical. Considering how things have progressed this far it’s imperative that a design is fully detailed by RMS, put out for community consultation and then constructed exactly as it says on the plan. Otherwise how much confidence can we possibly have in what is truly planned?

Dangerous Goods:
The Pacific Highway upgrade for Coffs Harbour is supposed to remove all heavy vehicles off the existing Pacific Highway (which will then become a local road). The RMS information update (September 2019) that accompanied the EIS, states that the issue of Dangerous Goods has not yet been resolved, but the EIS states that a risk assessment has been done. Which is it? How is it possible to release an EIS and not deal with the serious issue of dangerous goods particularly when they’re travelling through a major Regional City?

A dangerous goods risk assessment must have been completed for the RMS to make any sort of decision for Coffs Harbour. Why has this important information been kept from everyone in Coffs Harbour (including Council)?

At the tunnel in Ewingsdale near Byron Bay traffic signs say that only Class 1 and Class 2:1 class of dangerous goods must not access the tunnel. Coffs Harbour residents only want the same rules to apply here as those at Byron Bay at the Ewingsdale tunnel, i.e. that all dangerous goods except Class 1 and Class 2.1 (which are mostly delivering to Coffs Harbour anyway) can use the Coffs Harbour Bypass.

Community Consultation:
Consultation with the community has been abysmal. If it wasn't for the Council's Build the Best Bypass campaign and the work of the local Bypass Campaign Group the RMS - with the urging and connivance of its polical masters - would probably have begun work on its secret cuttings plan by now. You have a lot of ground to make up, but putting a 3,000-page document on exhibition with no attempt to help people understand its main points - and areas of concern such as noise that residents have already identified as issues - with such a short turnaround is not the way to go.
You may think that living in Coffs Harbour and having National Party MPs somehow means we don't count, but we deserve the same respect and consideration as anyone else living close to the Pacific Highway.
I hope you give this submission - and the many hundreds more you have/will receive - careful consideration.
Thank you.
helen maclean
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached document
Attachments
Janet McDonald
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
I am pleased with the concept design and that the tunnels have been reinstated, though I have the following concerns.
I am concerned that this is still a concept design and that there could be significant changes such as the removal of the tunnels, therefore would like to see the Detailed Design before the Bypass goes to tender. A construct only contract so I can have confidence in what will be constructed.
As I have a house on the Roselands Estate, I am very disappointed with the Coramba interchange, surely there could be a better design with a smaller footprint, such as a donut design.
I am also concerned the the Roselands estate did not get a mention in the EIS and very concerned about the impact of the noise, and therefore would like to see an independent audit taken on the noise impact.

Kind regards
Janet McDonald
Cheryl Cooper
Comment
COFFS HARBOUR , New South Wales
Message
Firstly, thank you for the opportunity and yet I approach it with some scepticism as I can find no record of the hundreds of submissions, (let alone my own), that were sent through to you following on the 2018 Concept Design release. I find that very disturbing and the communication with the RMS throughout the past twelve months has been nothing short of dreadful. The EIS is a huge document and yet we have been given only 6 weeks (2 of which were school holidays), to try to make some sense of it all.
I have lived in Coffs Harbour on and off since 1971. It was my childhood home and I left it for some time to study and work, returning full time in 2000. It is a unique place to live and our green amphitheatre is to be preserved at all cost. Thank you for reinstating the tunnels, which are critical to this project, and I understand via the Community Consultative Committee that they will not be removed again.
Given this is not a detailed design I would request that we all be given a further comment period once the final, detailed design is completed. This would seem only fair as we have been given something that appears very similar to the 2018 design, with no interchange variances, despite many submissions calling for changes for very legitimate reasons. Surely a single donut design would be much better for the Coramba Interchange and I understand there are truck turning issues with the Englands Road design and traffic lights on the busy Korora interchange also seem a poor design. This is 2019 and we seem to be far behind in design options for what it probably the most expensive piece of infrastructure being built outside of metropolitan Sydney.
I would further ask that a “Construct only” contract be used. There are far too many cases where a “Design and construct” contract has been used and where the result is quite different from that outlined in the EIS. The people of Coffs Harbour need to have their trust restored and a “construct only” contract, together with a detailed design is the only way this is going to happen.
I live in West Coffs, not far from Coramba Road and I am very concerned about the noise modelling that has been used. Our nights are totally silent. Traffic on Coramba road is pretty much over by 10pm and does not restart until 6am the next morning. All we hear between is the occasional train and bird noises. We know this is going to change but it seems to me that it is being ignored. I would join in the call for an independent noise audit to be conducted.
Though I do not live in Roselands Estate I do live close by and am appalled that they do not seem to even rate a mention in the EIS. How can this be when many submissions made post 2018 were on this very subject and from residents of this area? They will be highly affected by both construction and post highway traffic noise and I would ask they be part of the remediation work that should take place pre construction.
I would also like to ask that the Coramba road, particularly that section from Shepards Lane to the Coramba interchange be upgraded prior to the bypass opening. We hear there may be some 600 more traffic movements on this road and it seems many will be people from West Coffs accessing the Coramba interchange. The round about on the corner of Sharpards Lane and Coramba Road is already dangerous and will become more so with this increased traffic and the section of road between that roundabout and the new interchange is not in a good state of repair, has been subject to flooding and includes a dangerous corner. Surely the roundabout and road will need significant upgrade for this bypass not to contribute to further traffic accidents?
My final, and major concern lies with dangerous goods. Why is Coffs Harbour being treated differently to St Helena? The St Helena system allows all dangerous goods except types 1 and 2.1 to use the tunnels. Why would it be different here? The EIS seems to suggest that no dangerous goods at all can use the tunnels. Frankly I believe the tunnels are the safest place for ALL dangerous goods. The tunnels have drenching systems that can put out fires in seconds, as opposed to what would happen to a dangerous goods vehicle going through Coffs Harbour. ALL dangerous goods, (other than those supplying Coffs), should surely be using the bypass. I do not understand how this decision was made as we have seen no risk assessment on it, but to me it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Coffs Harbour residents want, and deserve, the best possible bypass in what is a difficult location. This will affect our town and our lives for many decades to come. Please listen to those who will be most affected and do not make your decisions based on purse strings alone.
Many thanks for listening.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-7666
EPBC ID Number
2017/8005
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Road transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Coffs Harbour City
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Daniel Gorgioski