Coffs Harbour Bypass

Re Coachmans Close Korora Noise Mitigation.
The plan does not indicate the type of barrier proposed between Coachmans Close and the extension of Split Solitary Island Way running south.
Ongoing residential subdivisions on the east and western sides of the completed sections of Split Solitary Island Way from Woolgoolga to Sapphire are indicative of the future continuing residential development flagged for Korora Basin to Sapphire and west to Central Bucca on completion of the Korora Hill interchange.
The tenfold increase in residential vehicles will increase the capacity of Split Solitary Way to numbers & noise equating with a local highway. not a residential road.
The existing noise barrier from the North Sapphire roundabout to the Northern end of Coachman's works admirably and I propose the same installation be installed on the eastern side between Split Solitary Island Way and Coachman's Close to Opal Boulevarde.
The existing Noise Barrier above Coachman' Close does help disperse sound but with the addition of 4 motorway lanes, two Split Solitary Way lanes and the underpass traffic accelerating on turning the noise levels will be increased dramatically. Noise will also impact on future tourism for the Sapphire and Korora resorts.
Kind Regards,
Lesley Davison

23rd October, 2019.

Attention: Director – Transport Assessments
Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam
REF:- SUBMISSION FOR COFFS HARBOUR BYPASS – SSI _7666
I am writing a submission, in response to the current EIS Concept Plan SS1_7666 presented September, 2019.
I moved to Coffs Harbour 4 years ago. The area in which I live is 98% of the time, very peaceful and quiet. The exception are the trains that travel through the hills between Roberts Hill and Gateleys Road. This area is a huge amphitheatre, thru which noise is greatly amplified, especially at night. Particular emphasis on noise and pollution mitigation will need to be made a priority. The trains are intermittent, unlike traffic, which will be constant, along the proposed ring road. One cannot seriously call this a bypass. I dread the noise and vibrations that we are going to endure 24 hours of the day. I don’t know which is scarier, the fact that the ‘powers that be’ call this a bypass, or the lack of insight and intelligence that they feel they can fool the community into thinking that this is a bypass and a great deal!!!!!
If one looks at the bypass at Port Macquarie and the St Helena Tunnel, this proposed ring road is definitely not a bypass. At the moment, the heavy trucks go along the Pacific Highway at the east end of Bray Street. This ring road proposal has the heavy trucks and constant traffic no more than a kilometre from the west end of Bray Street. Hardly a bypass!!!! Especially as the population is growing steadily in and around Coffs Harbour.
The original plan of the far Western Coastal Bypass, which was considered in 2000-2004, and is what the community thought they were getting, needs to be put back on the table. This would benefit West Coffs plus Korora, Sapphire and other residents effected by this unwanted ring road. It would also be of great benefit to the natural environment for the flora and fauna, and to the general community of Coffs Harbour. It would also be more respectful of our local Aboriginal heritage. The CRW proposal would also cause minimal property remediation and environmental impacts on the entire community.
The Coastal Ridge Way proposal re: (2004 Connell Wagner) proposed the Bypass from the southern end of England’s Road, through Ulidarra National Park and Bucca Valley to existing Halfway Creek Upgrade. Tunnels were also proposed in this concept design. I have noted that the Government and RMS have decided this is too expensive! They prefer the cheap ring road. My concern is that this ring road is a very short-term concept. Within 2 to 5 years, both the ring road and Pacific Highway will be unsuitable for the volume of traffic. This is due to the ongoing growth of the population, with regional centres expanding due to the high cost of living in the main eastern city centres. The Coastal Ridge Way concept is a longer-term design as there is space on either side of the highway to widen roads necessary in the future, without remediation of numerous properties.
In addition to the potential benefit of the CRW proposal and the tunnels, it is expected that the longer-term detailed planning of the by CRW bypass proposal would see community demands for an environmentally sensitive and less intrusive highway alignment, especially given the highly urbanised settings within Coffs Harbour.
The placement of the ring road, which has been incorrectly called a bypass, will impact significantly on this beautiful City.
I attended the RMS Office to look at the layout of the Concept Design at the Park Avenue Office. I was given ear phones to get an idea of the noise that would affect my local area. 40 decibels was the ‘projected’ noise volume. Well, myself, my neighbours and many more properties along the amphitheatre from Roberts Hill to Gateleys Road would dispute this. The ring road is going to run parallel to the train line. I would suggest the RMS is not being transparent at all.
The ring road is going to run parallel to the train line. The noise is far from the projected 40 decibels, of which I was advised when I visited the Park Avenue Project Display.
The health effects of noise and pollution are well documented in science. I am unsure if the owners of the properties, which the RMS have deemed applicable for noise reduction strategies, are aware that they will no longer be able to open their windows and doors to get fresh air. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact on health the noise and pollution is going to be. Not just for the people and properties in the areas, but for the flora and fauna.
The Coramba Road Interchange planned is disastrous on so many levels. Multiple properties will be affected, not to mention the significant environmental impacts. This is a huge mistake in the planning of the project. ‘Unfathomable’ is another way of expressing this plan.
Despite strong community and council support for a Western Bypass (CRW), the RMS and government have continued to pursue the Inner Coastal Route (effectively a high-speed ring road) running through the west of Coffs Harbour. For example, numerous demonstrations, submissions, survey results, etc. have occurred and been largely ignored.

The RMS and Government have dismissed the major socio-economic impacts to Coffs Harbour and its residents that will have far reaching implications from a development and growth standpoint. This is despite the recognised and increasingly important role of Coffs Harbour as a fast-growing regional hub and highly desirable location for ‘sea changers’, retirees and families as a lifestyle choice.

The RMS and Government have continued to misrepresent the proposed Inner Coastal Route as a Coffs Harbour bypass when in fact it traverses the west of Coffs Harbour and does not support the premise of a bypass misleading many in the community.

The RMS and Government has continuously presented information on the route in a sanitised and skewed manner effectively obfuscating representations of how the Inner Coastal Route will impact Coffs Harbour from a visual and environmental standpoint.

Insofar as the ‘Concept Design’ label is concerned, this offers no sense of certainty as to what will be delivered.

Alternative options for a highway upgrade location were dismissed with minimal information provided to the community apart from in some cases costings which did not map to any detail.

Interchanges are not workable given tight turning circles and insufficient information as to how they will integrate into existing roads (particularly Coramba Road), bike routes, etc.

Staging methods and route have not been provided including machinery access and transportation of equipment, personnel and construction supplies.

Mitigations to address environmental destruction and disturbance are not provided and those that are will not be reasonably effective.

Mitigations to address socio-economic impacts including noise, pollution and visual disturbances are not clearly outlined nor are they complete.

Progress of the project does not follow a logical methodology. For example, land is being acquired despite incomplete resolution of the proposed route, impacts and mitigations. The immediate community is in a state of limbo and anxiety and is being held to ransom by the RMS through confidentiality agreements and secretive heavy-handed negotiations leading to deep divisions, hostility and contention in the community.

Also, in reference to requisition of land, the RMS has acquired land, which is currently used for farming, at the junction of Vera Drive, and Mackays Road, on the opposite side of the train line. An RMS Depot is planned to be built there. The depot is likely to be used as a construction and storage depot. This basically means that Mackays Road, Vera Drive, Don Patterson Drive and Bray Street, amongst other streets in this area, will become throughways for trucks, utes, and construction machinery. I would also query whether this area is going to be used as an area for stockpile. (please see Coffs Coast Advocate Wed Oct 23rd 2019, to see the results on homes from the vibration of machinery etc). Absolutely devastating for homes in the area, and as shown by people effected by the Pacific Hwy-Urunga Bypass, the RMS and Government are not going to take responsibility for compensation required to rectify the damage to properties. The impact of this on the local community, regarding noise, pollution, vibrations of traffic and machinery, and the impact of local traffic will be catastrophic. Once again, I am flabbergasted at the lack of insight the RMS and Government has for this entire project.

The close proximity to residential areas requires clearly outlined mitigations to minimise disruption to road access including public transport and bicycle paths enabling residents to move around with safety and reasonable convenience, particularly given the multi-year works anticipated. This information has not been provisioned.
In further reference to noise and vibration, the close proximity to residential areas and steep hill gradients poses a significant risk of landslides and damage to hundreds and possibly thousands of properties with associated safety issues. Noise and vibration are issues both during highway construction and when operational. However, the RMS has indicated that minimal mitigating controls will be implemented during the highway construction period. The valley location of the Inner Coastal Route will act as an amphitheatre and the RMS has acknowledged that there is no mitigation solution for adequately controlling traffic and construction noise apart from remediation of individual properties. The RMS has drastically minimised the number of houses effected. Roselands Estate not even rating a mention, and the ring road goes very close to all of the houses in and around this estate.

Remedia

I am providing this submission on behalf of myself and my elderly parents Palmere and Ronald Benjamin. My parents own a property at Mackays Road Coffs Harbour. I live with my parents at this address. My parents are in their 90s and currently hold valid drivers licences. The access to their property during construction and afterwards will be severely compromised. They make daily trips into the commercial precincts as well as regular trips to doctors and other appointments. We are greatly concerned that this bypass and it’s construction will severely impact the health and well being of my parents and have a detrimental effect on their home due to noise, vibrations, dust and pollution.

I support the project in principle and am adding comments.

I am really concerned about the noise level passed by the EIS and the future noise on my self and my family, and only the concept design and not what we may end up with. I want to see a Detailed Design and Construct Only Contrast, so I have some confidence in whats constructed.

The Coffs Harbour residents deserve a bypass that will work for the majority of our community. We have waited far too long for this project, lets build it right the first time. Please read my submission attached.

Please find attached a submission on behalf of the President of the Coffs Harbour Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc who is submitting comment in relation to the Coffs Harbour Highway Bypass Environmental Impact Statement September 2019.

Cino Mattekkatt
6 Jock Ave
North Boambee Valley
NSW
date:26/10/2019
Director – Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39 Sydney 2001
SUBMISSION COFFS HARBOUR HIGHWAY BYPASS (SS1_7666)
Noise, traffic and the Highlands Estate Residential Subdivision:
I live in Highlands Estate, we built in 2015 and we will be severely impacted by the Bypass, increased traffic as a result of the Coffs Harbour Bypass and excessive noise and dust during construction stage.
In July 2004 representatives of Council, DIPNR (now DPI&E) and RTA (now RMS) met to discuss Councils and RTA's objectives in regards Coffs Harbour Highway Planning Strategy, to develop an agreed position paper including that for residential development.The West Coffs DCP had been 4 years in the making, when that meeting took place
Post meeting, the RTA prepared a map and provided it to CHCC. The map identified a 400 metre corridor which was used by CHCC to identify any DA that needed to be referred to the RTA for comment and concurrence. The 149 Title Certificate for these properties would be burdened by a statement requiring them to install at-property noise mitigation as aDA Condition of Approval.
The RMS noe saying Highlands Estate have adequate at-property treatment according to the DA Consent Conditions.
Consequently, property within those subdivisions have been excluded from the number of at-property treatments resulting from the Coffs Bypass project.
Where-as the other 3 subdivisions, The Lakes Estate, Sunset Ridge Estate and Korora Residential Subdivisions have been considered for at- property treatment, on the proviso they have been built to a stage that allows the installation of at-property treatment before project completion.
Why? We know the DA Conditions of Approval are different, but the question is how were home owners and developers to know with any certainty other than then working to the advice of both RMS and Council RMS (as per the 2004 agreement): also the speed, the type of pavement, the traffic were only known with any certainty when the EIS was released. We’re still waiting for final designs for the interchanges which will also affect what some people are required to do.
Does that mean RMS got 50% of their recommendations to Council for the Conditions of Approval wrong?
Roselands Estate will be severely impacted by the Bypass, increased traffic on Coramba Road and the Coramba Road Interchange.But Roselands Estate doesn’t even get a mention in the EIS? and when asked the RM Swrote: “Roselands Estate wasn’t mentioned in section 9.2.4 of the noise report as it was an already completed subdivision. Therefore, for the purposes of the noise report, it was treated as any other established area in Coffs Harbour”.What does that mean? Why are they, why are we being treated differently than the other residential subdivisions that adjoin the Bypass?
There are 7 (not 6) Subdivisions that will be severely impacted by the Bypasses, increased traffic and noise, they all should have pre-construction noise assessments done and if post-construction noise exceeds agreed levels then they surely have a right to at-property treatments.
Finally, Construction Noise levels are very high, and that noise may go on for years. Thisappears grossly unfair because at no time homeowners and developers were warned about or required to treat their houses for excessive Construction Noise as part of the DA Conditions of Approval.
There is provision for at-property treatment for Construction Noise, those identified for such should be prioritized and work commenced as a matter of urgency, to afford them some relief when Construction finally does get underway.
There are so many questions regarding noise CBAG feels there needs to be an independent audit made of assessments made that assumes some subdivisions will have adequate at property treatment and some don’t, why Roselands Estate seems left out of the equation altogether and ensures that at-property treatment should get underway ASAP after prioritizing those effected by Construction Noise.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
Yours sincerely
Cino Mattekkatt
I do not make political donations

as attachment

Alpheus Williams
51 Schafer Street
Red Rock, NSW, 2456
27 October 2019
Director—Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney, 2001

Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass


Biodiversity:

At a time when wildlife habit is decreasing at an alarming rate it is essential that all measures be taken to limit the impacts of construction and completion of project on our native flora and fauna. I don’t believe there have been any provisions to monitor present and future impacts on our biodiversity or any strategy considered to counter act those impacts in the EIS.

Dangerous Goods:

I cannot understand how any work can be commenced until the issue of Dangerous Goods have been thoroughly addressed. Is there a risk assessment and is it available to the public? What provisions have been made to limit or prohibit dangerous goods passing through the city of Coffs Harbour and nearby villages?

Air pollution and Carbon Emissions:

This is ongoing problem no one in Government or in the Public Service appear to be embracing in a serious or constructive manner. I find it ironic that when the planet is going belly up from coal and petroleum emission we are increasing access and promoting more traffic.

Conclusion:

To be honest I don’t have a lot of faith Environmental Impact Statements. Past experience has pretty much tainted my attitude into believing they are written and done to serve the wishes and intent of the developers. I don’t understand why I should state that I haven’t made any political contributions in the past two years. I haven’t, but if I had its none of your business and from what I’ve seen of both State and Federal Government the whole thing is enormously hypocritical when it’s obvious that legislation is often governed by private interests and campaign donations.


Alpheus Williams

The consultation and feedback with the people of Coffs Harbour has been poor.
The project should be tunnels and the road grade should be at a minimum so as to reduce road noise.
The tunnels should be designed such that dangerous goods can be transported through them.
The project should have its design is fixed such that tunnels can not be removed form the scope of works.

I recognise that this project is of significant benefit to the national, state, and local community and acknowledge the huge improvement of what is now being presented compared to the ‘cuttings’ concept design that was presented in September, 2018.
I have concerns about the accuracy of the noise projections made, particularly in relation to the calculation of the baseline measurements for all residences within 600 metres of the proposed corridor. If these figures are inaccurate then many of the projections and recommendations based on those figures are called into question.
I have submitted my proposal in 5 documents.
The first, in pdf format, is my main submission.
The next 4, labelled as attachments, are a series of 4 appendices, referred to in my main submission.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Polack

Trevor Harragon
9 Betel Palm Close
Boambee East
NSW 2452

27 October, 2019

Director – Transport Assessments
Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass EIS (SSI_7666)

The Coffs Harbour Bypass Project is entering a critical phase where crucial decisions will be made that dictate the final outcome for the people of the Coffs Harbour region. Once the final decisions are made the people of the region will have to live with the result for generations to come, so you can understand that we, the people of the region, wish to be sure that the optimum result is achieved to best serve the region in the future.

One concern is that after 30 plus years of discussion there is still only another concept design. There needs to be a Detailed Final Design for critical and community review before any tenders are called for the construction phase of the project. The history of cuttings versus tunnels is of concern and people of the region are still wary that the final design could revert back to cuttings. This will not be an acceptable option for the community. The decision to build cuttings at the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, reportedly because no tenderers offered tunnels, was extraordinary. It is not up to the tenderer to dictate the content of the tender. I request that to ensure tunnels are tendered and built that the tender documents be worded to explicitly specify tunnels as a requirement for tender acceptance and that tenders offering cuttings will be excluded from consideration. Any attempt to revert back to cuttings will be, as I mentioned above, unacceptable to the people of the Coffs Harbour region

There is further concern that again after all this time and effort the serious issue of Dangerous Goods travelling through the area has not been finalised. Just north of Coffs Harbour there is a tunnel, near Ewingsdale (St Helena) at Byron Bay, with signage indicating that only Dangerous Goods Class 1 and Class 2.1 are not permitted through the tunnel, surely if this is a standard set for highways then the same should apply for tunnels on the Coffs Harbour Bypass. In addition, it does not appear to make sense to divert dangerous goods traffic from the bypass, where they would travel through three short tunnels with minuscule risk, compared to having the dangerous goods travel through a populated, business district. Surely a basic risk assessment would show that the effects of any incident with dangerous goods in the tunnels would result in less damage to life and property than if a similar incident occurred in the central business district of Coffs Harbour city.

The results of the noise assessments that have been carried out also appear to have anomalies as anecdotal data from residents suggests that the actual noise levels, especially at night, do not correspond to the actual noise levels they are hearing. In addition, if, as I have heard, some of the noise results have been averaged across a 24 hour period then that in itself would introduce anomalies into the results with factors such as morning and evening travel periods for residents and totally different vehicle movements during daylight and night time periods.

The Coffs Harbour Bypass route is unique along the eastern seaboard because this is where the Great Dividing Range meets the coast resulting in Coffs Harbour being a biodiversity hotspot where native flora and fauna abound. Please ensure that when the bypass is being built that only local native species is used during revegetation activities to ensure the least possible disturbance to our flora and fauna.

There are still many issues unresolved in relation to the Coffs Harbour Bypass and due to the fact that the project when completed will affect the region for generations into the future I request that every effort is made to ensure the best possible outcome is achieved for the Coffs Harbour region and more broadly NSW. Building the optimum bypass may well be seen as a more expensive option in the short term, however, the resultant benefits to the people of the local community, the travelling public and the natural environment of the area will more than repay the initial outlay over the life of the completed infrastructure.

Regards,

Trevor Harragon

• I am concerned about only having another Concept Design and request a Detailed Design and a Construct Only Contract so I can have some confidence in the final product.

• I am concerned about dangerous goods vehicles still driving through Coffs Harbour and I want most dangerous goods vehicles (unless they are making a delivery into Coffs Harbour) to use the bypass. I offer the St Helena Tunnel and its requirements as a comparator.

• I am disappointed the design for the Coramba Road Interchange wasn’t done. I want to see a donut design instead.

• I am concerned about the noise part of the EIS and the future impacts of noise upon the community and I want to see an independent audit to be undertaken. I am also concerned about construction vibration causing structural damage to properties.

• I am disappointed that the Roselands Estate does not rate a mention in the EIS and I want the Estate to be given proper consideration for both pre and post construction noise remediation treatment.

• I am concerned about having another concept design to consider when so more needs to be finalised. I want to see a 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.

• 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 to make Coffs Harbour a biodiversity hotspot. I’m pleased that we now have tunnels, a lower gradeline and quiet open cut asphalt. Please make sure while the Bypass is being built that only carefully-selected local native species are used during revegetation activities to ensure the least disturbance to our flora and fauna. Please remember the recent deaths of hundreds of grey-headed flying-foxes (Threatened Species) killed by traffic along the Pacific Highway verges north of Coffs Harbour during the recent drought-driven food shortages due to ill-considered planting of flowering callistemon. More sympathetic planting of native but non-food species along highway verges must be planned.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely
Jenny Beatson


Declaration: I have made no political donations in the past two years.

The Coastal Inner Route is not an acceptable and I propose that the RMS terminate plans for the Inner Coastal Route and recommence a project based on the preferred Western Bypass route. Please find attached my submission.

My property on 13A Ferntree Pl, Korora is exposed to significant highway noise and pollution at present. According to the EIS RMS is proposing a 5 -metre barrier from the Northern End of James Small Drive but NOT between the Southern End and the Northern End of James Small Drive, where my property is located. The currently existing partially 3 metre solid and soil sound barriers don't work. I cannot sleep with open windows and often have to resort to ear plugs due to the extreme truck noise during the night nor do I have much enjoyment of my outdoor area during weekdays. The noise modelling RMS has conducted does not take the amplified break noise or accelerating noise into consideration, which is the main noise factor, since the highway is on an uphill/downhill grade in this section. For this reason I object to the project in the current design unless a 5 metre solid sound barrier is built on the section between the Northern End and Southern End of James Small Drive, Korora or all my windows get replaced with double glazing.

The latest amended proposal for the Korora Interchange still fails to address concerns of our business in the Korora Basin.
Viewing the proposed closure of the Old Coast Road entry from the Pacific Highway has significant disadvantages to businesses and residents of the Korora Basin valley.
The current amended map- the Fire Tender Road is to be upgraded in length as a service road for one farm, and drop off point for school students with an expanded parking area. The road could be extended past the farm to join the proposed interchange at Korora Hill Interchange. This would allow access to the valley which is vital for the increasing population, businesses, delivery services and school students who will use the Fire Tender Building location for drop off/pick-up.
If this was provided as an entry point to the valley it may overcome the distance and visual requirments and address safety concerns from vehicles on the service road entering the proposed highway.
Clear access to business is vital to remain viable.
There is no indication of how residents in the upper valley will evacuate or be assisted in the case of emergencies. i.e. flre - accidents.
Bus transport to the sporting facility will be longer from the city resulting in less time for school sporting activities.
Access from the north of Coffs Harbour is improved but the issue of access from Coffs Harbour to the south, remains unsatisfactory.

I am a resident of 263A Shephards Lane Coffs Harbour/Karangi.

I support the project, subject to the addition of noise walls on the west side of the bypass from the Southern entrance of the Shephards Lane tunnel to the South Eastern boundary of 263E Shephards Lane (adjacent to the Red Hill Flora and Fauna Reserve) to protect the western residents from noise and visual pollution. You have proposed noise walls on the East side which, without a corresponding wall on the West side, will deflect the noise over to the West side and actually increase the noise of the road substantially. Also, because most properties and residencies are higher on the West side of the proposed bypass the noise will be expected to be greater. Hence, the necessity for a noise mitigation wall on the West side.

I note that there is a precedent for the Land and Environment Court ordering the removal of a one sided noise wall because it increased noise on the other side. There are also protections in law to prevent redirection of water and other pollution to neighbours land. I am not proposing the removal but rather the addition of another wall on the west side to contain the noise and visual pollution.

You have identified a potential ancillary site (2C) near Shephards Lane.I seek your assurance that you will not lower the height of that hill as it protects the West side from noise and other pollutants.I also seek your assurance that remediation of that property will be carried out by the planting of native vegetation.

I request a sound study on 263A and 263E Shephards Lane both before and after construction and finalisation of the bypass.

Please see attached

I believe that the bypass is long overdue, and should take into account the significant increase in traffic and population over recent years, a decade at least.
Planners should therefore be taking a very long term view as populations both within the greater Coffs area, as well as along the coast increases, and this, combined with greater numbers of travelers, will only exacerbate the current congestion. Congestion will still increase, but removing as many vehicles as possible from the city should be a prime objective.
To help achieve this, the option to build cuttings is the most effective solution for the bypass, in order to remove ALL transit trucks from the city.
If tunnels are built, thereby excluding trucks with restricted or hazardous loads, their contribution to traffic congestion will still be significant, as well as continuing to be a hazard to shops, businesses, pedestrians and car travelers in the event of a serious incident.
At least on a highway, any such incident should have less immediate impact on property and people.
For these two main reasons alone, congestion and hazards, the cutting option should be the only one considered.