THE RIVERMOUTH ACTION GROUP INC.
(BAG Inc, BUG, CAMRA (Qld) Inc, HAG, LCAG, MAP, MPA Inc, PAG,
PCAG, SEAG, WAG)
P.O. Box 268 MORNINGSIDE 4170
. _______________________________________________________________________________________
25 December, 1994
The Study Manager
Proposed Port Road
Environmental Impact Assessment
Maunsell Pty Ltd
P.O. Box 236
TOOWONG QLD 4066
Dear Sir
RE:- SUBMISSION ON THE PORT ROAD
& THE UNREALISTIC CONSULTATION WHICH TOOK PLACE
No Community Consultation was undertaken until the decision was made about the
alignment for the Port Road. This is against all principles set out by the Government
Community Consultation Policy which states that, "Community Consultation starts EARLY in
the process".
We will start this submission with our objection to the fact that the 'COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION PERIOD' (IF IT CAN BE CALLED THAT) was timed from and limited to,
mid November to 31 December 1994. Refer to newspaper notice in 'Wynnum Herald' & 'South-East Advertiser'. The contract for consultants was approved on 16 September 1994, yet the
public consultation period was not announced or started until 16 November. Then it was only to
last until December 31.
The consultants were the same company who undertook the first stage of the study more that two
years earlier. They knew that the residents had never been consulted and made note in their
earlier report about the Public Consultation beginning soon. They knew how important
consultation was on this project yet, when given the project to consult, the most important part
of the process was left until last and released no information into the community about the Port
Road except an A4-sized map which did little to explain to the community the FULL AND
FUTURE IMPACT of such a project, e.g. Crossriver road/rail link and associated traffic.
This is the time of the year when most families throughout Australia are preparing for the
'Christmas/Holiday Season', that is: religious services, preparing nativity scenes at local
churches, school holidays, going away for holidays, visiting friends and family, shopping for
presents, window-shopping, cooking, days out with the family now that school has finished, trips
to the beach, generally relaxing after a hard year, relieving stress, etc.
This year, 1994, the residents of Hemmant were told that the Government has decided to build a
large industrial road though their 'VILLAGE' suburb and they only have the following six weeks
to advise paid consultants of what they feel the effects would be and prepare written submissions
without any resources such as primary data, funds, engineering information, photocopying
facilities, expenses for public meetings arrangements, etc. being made available in their
suburb or any adjoining suburb. THIS IS AGAINST PUBLISHED GOVERNMENT
POLICY.
To further rub the residents of Hemmant noses' into the mud, the Study Manager, Mr Stuart
Rothwell, employed by Maunsell Pty Ltd started two months leave, starting late November.
For several years, the resident of Hemmant have heard rumours about a road through their
suburb, but the local politicians have always denied that they knew anything about it. When the
existence of a Port Road was admitted, there was promises that full, extensive community
consultation would be undertaken.
The Government has commissioned many studies on the proposal, some more than two and
a half years ago, at which time the Queensland Transport made a decision NOT to consult
with any residents who may be affected.
Reference to "Lytton Road East Development Study, Report from the Social Planner,
Robyn Wilson, May 1992."
Page 1 of the Executive Summary
"1. BACKGROUND
.... A programme for community feedback was developed but was not implemented because
an embargo on direct contact with the community imposed by the Queensland Department
of Transport who perceived difficulties between the consultation necessitating by their port rail
and road proposal and the Lytton Road East Development Study. This embargo hampered the
development of a community profile, because important information about a community can
only be gained person-to-person.
This report reaffirms the Councils's original intentions to consult the
community during the course of study, and recommends that when the Lytton Road
East Development proceeds further, consultation should occur at the earliest
possible opportunity. Though it would be preferable from the viewpoint of a
Social Planner, it is unlikely that the Council will backtrack now that LREDS
has developed detailed options.
Page 3 of the Report from a Social Planner
PART 1 BACKGROUND
'1.2.0 The Moratorium on Consultation'.
From week two of joining the Study it became clear that the community consultation
was in doubt. The Queensland Department of Transport (QDOT) had plans
to consult the same communities in the near future about their road and rail
corridor studies. QDOT considered it inadvisable for our study to involve
consultation and our reference committee was concerned about going public knowing
that other major changes were on the drawing board. After weeks of delay it
was decided that the task of the Social Planner was to proceed without contact
with the local communities. The embargo on direct community contact meant
that this report is far from complete and fails to:
- Provide many insights into the qualitative aspects of community life in the Study area;
- reveal many quantitative trends since the last census; and
- locate new sources of information identified by the community.
Most importantly, the community has been totally excluded from the early planning process,
and this is likely to have significant implications for future consultations relating to this
study."
This report, "Lytton Road East Development Study" was commissioned well before May 1992.
The present CONSULTATION is not following the Queensland
Transport's own policy or guidelines. (version revision date 15
June 1993 appears below).
"PRINCIPLES
"POLICY
1. A commitment to community consultation is included in the Queensland Transport
Corporate Plan. The Queensland Department of Transport is committed to the provisions of a
forum for communities to provide input into the decision making process which affect them.
This policy is binding on the Queensland Department of Transport and is recommended to
all statutory Authorities within the Transport portfolio. It covers the procedure to be
adopted in consulting with the community in relation to any policy or project.
2. It is government policy to engage in consultation with the community. The Queensland
Transport Community Consultation Policy (QTCCP) is in accord with the Community
Consultation Resource Document for Participants, prepared by the Office of Cabinet Social
Policy Unit. It accepts the essential prerequisites of early, designed, honest, adequately
resourced (as defined by the Board of Management from time-to-time), accessible and open
communication with the community which is to be treated with dignity and respect.
3. The Department is to operate in a manner which develops co-operative relations with the
community and assists communities to become informed about issues. Community views are
part of the input at all stages of decision making by the Department and its officers, from
planning to program delivery.
4. Community consultation is considered by the Department to be an integral component of
program delivery and client service and consultation will be undertaken where, when and as
appropriate given that the community consultation will be integrated into the planning process in
such a manner that it becomes part of program delivery.
5. In planning a project, community consultation must:
a) be part of the Department's initial (concept) processes, and
b) be proactive at all stages of program development;
c) ensure a balanced community view is obtained.
6. Community consultation processes undertaken by the Department
will be managed within an approved project management plan which includes:
.. objectives for the project
.. recommended processes
.. guidelines for involvement
.. clear timeframe and budget
.. roles of involved parties
7. For local projects, the responsibility for community consultation rests with the District
Manager. When a corporate project is required, the accountability for community consultation
rests with the relevant Directors. Accountability must be clearly assigned to a position at an
appropriate level according to the scope of the consultation task.
8. For each issue or project, careful selection must be made of the appropriate level of
consultation necessary. A range of processes including media campaigns, public meetings and
reference groups may be selected according to the circumstances.
9. Consultation shall include liaison with other State and Commonwealth Government
departments and with local authorities. The lead agency status of the Department of Housing,
Local Government and Planning in regional planning shall be observed.
10. Where appropriate, the Department may engage a consultant or specialist facilitator to
manage the consultation process.
11. Wherever possible, consultation should include
feedback on the effectiveness of the process."
BLOODY POOR EFFORT, AND INEFFECTIVE CONSULTATION.
OUR COMMENT, JUST FOR THE RECORD
"12. Appropriate training, as defined in the consultation project plan by the Department, will be
provided for community consultation processes undertaken by the Queensland Department of
Transport.
13. Community consultation policy and activities within the Queensland Department of
Transport will be supported by the Corporate Communication Branch. This branch will:
.. refine policy
.. develop guidelines and processes
.. provide initial advice and arrange for specialist assistance in the conduct of community consultation processes.
.. organise training in consultation processes and skills."
A request was made for Mark Morrow (QDOT Traffic Engineer) to attend our
consultation meeting. This request was refused! So much for assistance in assisting the
community to know exactly what they were or are being consulted about!!!
Page 1 "1. BACKGROUND
1.1. The general context
1.1.3 The Queensland Department of Transport Community Consultation Policy is consistent
with the Protocol (1992) prepared by the Office of Cabinet reflecting the government's view on
open government."
(This page has a notation along the bottom, "Revision date for this page 15 June 1993". We
will refer to this previous 1992 document later)
Page 11 "6. PREPARING FOR CONSULTATION PROCESS
6.1 Essential prerequisites
6.1.1 The resource document prepared by the Office of Cabinet lists a number of essential
prerequisites:
"- Effective consultation occur EARLY in the decision-making process.
- Each consultation needs to be DESIGNED to meet the unique demands of the situation.
- Effective consultation requires HONESTY about why people are being consulted and how
much influence they will have over decisions made.
- For meaningful participation, those consulted need to be adequately RESOURCED and
comprehensive, balanced and accurate information provided.
- All interested parties should have ACCESS to consultation process.
- All participants should be treated with DIGNITY AND RESPECT."
Page 12 "6.3 Adequate resourcing
6.3.1 In all cases where consultation processes are to be initiated, it is essential that the
Department allocates sufficient staff, time, materials and financial resources to support it. This
should include, where appropriate, the provision of adequate resources to consultative groups.
The Cabinet Office resource document also defines as a prerequisite "those consulted need to be
adequately resourced"."
The 'consultation' is in direct contradiction to the 'OFFICE OF CABINET' document,
"CONSULTATION: A RESOURCE DOCUMENT FOR THE QUEENSLAND PUBIC SECTOR
1993."
Page 1 "Definition as defined of the word 'CONSULTATION .... An open and accountable
process whereby individuals and groups have a formal opportunity to influence the
outcomes of a policy or decision making process'."
Page 2 "Effective consultation requires openness from the beginning of the process about why
people are being consulted, how they will be consulted and how much influence they can
realistically hope to have over decisions made."
Page 2 "To be effective, consultation must start
early in the decision making process."
Page 3 "All participants should be treated with dignity and respect."
Where is the respect of the Government, or the
consultants, when they invade the homes of residents during the most religious
Christian period of the year?
Page 3 "Each participant needs to understand why and how they will be consulted and how
much influence they can realistically expect to have over the decision being made."
Page 4 "Those consulted need to be adequately resourced both through access to
comprehensive, balanced and accurate information and through practical support."
Page 6 "1.1 Information Exchange
Governments and communities need to be fully informed in order to analyse problems
which require resolution...."
Page 10 "2.2 The objectives of consultation.
......
informing the community as early as possible of the possible impacts on them of government
policy initiatives and promoting community initiatives and community ownership of problems;
and...."
Page 22 "5.6 Resourcing Community Consultation
Many departments and community groups are not currently committed to, or equipped for, on-going consultation. Effective consultation costs time and money and therefore requires
sufficient resources for all participants.
Frequently, those being consulted have less access to resources (information, time, personnel
and funding) than those initiating the consultation and so the group being consulted may require
practical assistance to enable them to participate. Exactly what is required will depend on the
nature of the topic, the duration of the consultation, the geographic location and any other need
which those being consulted may raise.
Community organisations will also need sufficient resources to canvas members' opinions and
attitudes. These resources are not always monetary, but can include time, skills, knowledge
and energy. The canvassing of members' opinions and attitudes may be time-consuming
depending upon meeting times, newsletters and other forms of organisational communications.
Resourcing is a major stumbling block to effective community consultation. Other examples of
resource needs are equipment, stationary and expenses such as travel and accommodation.
Participation in consultation can be difficult for community groups because many of these
group's representatives fill this roll on an unpaid, own-time basis. They experience difficulties
in attending meetings during business hours for example, and are under-resourced in access to
equipment such as photocopiers and word processors.
Resources required by government agencies and the community may take many forms. The
most common needs are:
Frequently, the most important resource needed by participants is time
to communicate with their members and seek opinions and directions.
Planning for consultation needs to include sufficient time for participants
to undertake this process.
Page 30 7. CONCLUSION - CONSULTATION PRINCIPALS
The consultation document QDOT mentions as 1992 'Office of Cabinet' on consultation.
page 4 under item 5 the following reads;
...... Those consulted need to be adequately resourced both through access to
comprehensive, balanced and accurate information and through practical support. .....
page 15
"5.4 Starting the consultation
The following issues should be addressed by all participants as soon as consultation starts:
. Access to information and resources
Frequently participants in consultation have less access to resources and influence over
decision-making than do the officials who are consulting them. This can give unequal
power to the officials at the expense of community members who are therefore not able to
participate as equal partners. They need to be informed and resourced to ensure that true
participation is achieved. ...."
page 16
"5.5 Making the process work
Many departments and community groups are not currently committed to, or equipped for, on-going consultation. Effective communication cost time and money and therefore requires
sufficient resources for all participants.
Resources require by government agencies and the community may take many forms. The most
common resource needs are:
. relevant, accessible and timely information in the form of statistics, reports, decisions and
constant feedback - attention should be paid to the form, content and timing of this information;
. Practical assistance to attend organised consultation events; convenient locations, transport costs, child care, and refreshments;
......."
page 17
"5.6 Allocating sufficient time for effective communication
Time is an important resource for community consultation. Trust between those consulting and
those being consulted does not develop overnight. .... Limiting the consultation can cut this
important process short and raise unnecessary frustration and tensions in the community."
page 21 7 CONCLUSION
Consultation is an essential component of the policy making process.
checklist for effective consultation
At the very least, the following are required for effective consultation:
. Effective consultation must occur early in the decision-making process.
. Each consultation needs to be designed to meet the unique demands of the situation and to
identify and define clearly the issues considered.
. Effective consultation requires openness about why people are being consulted, how they
will be consulted, and how much influence they will have over decision made.
. Those consulted need to be provided with comprehensive,
balanced and accurate information.
. All interested parties should have access to the consultation process.
. All participants should be treated with dignity and respect."
The next set of remarks and quotes are from or about the "QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORT, PORT ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY, FINAL REPORT, MARCH 1992,
prepared by Maunsell Proprietary Limited.
"INTRODUCTION
On 27 August, 1991 Maunsell Pty Ltd (MPL) were invited by Queensland Department of
Transport to submit a proposal for a study to investigate a road corridor from the Gateway
Arterial to the Port of Brisbane at Fisherman Island."
This final report was completed March, 1992. No public
consultation took place at this time.
And no consultation has taken place since until a notice
was placed in local newspapers on the 16 November, 1994. So much for early consultation!!!
Page 8 2.1 ".... It is expected that up to 70% of freight in and out of the area will be carried by
road."
Page 25 3.3.4 ".... The forecast of Port traffic generated (31,300 vpd) is based on the
investigation carried out for the Port of Brisbane Master Planning Study (Refer Appendix C)
Put into round figures, that is 31,300 vpd each way. Therefore the road
needs to be built to carry 62,600 vpd. Therefore a six lane road is required
as shown on the chart on page 32 of the report.
Why are the public being asked to discuss a four lane road when the facts in the above report
necessitates a six land road for the section of road called Port Drive at least.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT HAS FOLLOWED
THEIR OWN POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION WITH
REGARD TO THE PORT ROAD. WE THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE
CONSULTATION BE RESTARTED IN 1995, BE FULLY RESOURCED WITH ALL
AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND COMMUNITIES BE FULLY INFORMED ABOUT
ALL PLANNED AND ALL PROPOSED FUTURE ROAD AND RAIL CORRIDORS IN
THE PORT AREA.
Now to other matters not involved with consultation:
With reference to 'GATEWAY PORT PROJECT, CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING
AND TRANSPORT REPORT', Department of Premier, Economic & Trade Development
March 1993 by Sinclair Knight.
Page 4 "o New Cross-River Connection:
Potential new cross-river connections have been identified for:
- transport services (rail and road)
- power
- sewerage.
Other services may also benefit from new or additional cross-river connections within the Port
Area, if the facilities were available.
Provision of a common service tunnel and/or service and transport tunnel, at a location
somewhere between Gibson Island and the Ampol Refinery across to Pinkenba should be
included in the medium to long term planning of the area. In this regard, the second transport
crossing is more likely to be a tunnel construction, with combined road and rail facilities."
The proposed cost is $150,000,000 for the road-rail cross river tunnel.
This information was never made available during the consultation period for the Proposed
Port Road, nor during the Dual Gauge Railline to the Port study period.
No mention was made of the project to spend $30-40,000,000 on an upgrade of the Gateway
Arterial Road south of the bridge, nor was mentioned made of the proposed $70,000,000 gas
turbine generator plant at Doboy, nor the New Southern Arterial Road Lytton - South, nor the
Rail Freight Link southern corridor Lytton costed at $30,000,000 AND OTHERS.
Rail sidings were not mentioned in the industrial estates which will generate noise from the
'points' as each line crosses the adjoining line.
GATEWAY PORTS, ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, CHENOWETH & ASSOCIATES Pty
Ltd for the Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development September 1992.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
".... However there is concern about the capacity of the natural and social environment to
handle further industrial development and associated discharges, emissions and NOISE.
...."
Page 2 "2.0 APPROACH
2.1 Objectives
.... Local community groups have not been consulted ....
Page 24 7.2 AIR QUALITY
.... The suitability of the Gateway Port area for industry with high atmospheric emissions is
uncertain. Plumes from the area could possibly move towards the Central Business District
with sea breezes in the afternoon and early evening. ....
Page 27 7.5 Hazards
.... On-site risks from storage and handling, and hazards associated with the transport of
dangerous material, remain. ....
Page 34 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
.... However there is concern about the capacity of the environment to handle further
industrial development and associated discharges, emissions and noise."
LYTTON ROAD EAST DEVELOPMENT STUDY, FINAL REPORT
Industrial Planning Unit Department of Development and Planning July
1992 Brisbane City Council.
Page ii "SOCIAL ISSUES
A major shortcoming of the Study was that no programme of community consultation was
undertaken because of the nature and confidential status of possible alignment for a Port
Road Corridor. This restricted both the development of an accurate social profile and, more
seriously, forced the Study Team to develop a plan without any community input. ...."
Filling is taking place throughout the Lytton Road East development area. The amount of fill
placed in what was a flood plain is incredible, some even without Brisbane City Council
approval. Many of the companies have undertaken drainage works within their properties but
they abut other properties or roads where no further work has been carried out. Examples of this
exist in Hemmant, such as Gosport Street neat the Queeensport Hotel and west of the Lytton
Road and Lindum Road intersection.
The dual gauge rail line to the Port placed more fill within the flood plain, yet no work was
undertaken to increase the drainage to the Brisbane River or Bulimba Creek.
The Proposed Port Road will require a massive amount of fill to keep the road above the 100
year flood, and it intended to be built to 100 km/hr specifications, four lanes width. Invariably,
inadequate drainage outlets will be provided beneath this road. Even if large open sections are
left beneath the Port Road, the Brisbane City Council has then to dig drainage channels to the
riverfront, or creek edge. This is not happening at present.
page 3-25 "Table 3.10 Estimate Culvert Costs (LYTTON ROAD EAST DEVELOP STUDY
1992)
Almost $½ million dollars was required in July 1992
page 97 "The total traffic flow on Lytton Road at the Gateway Bridge has been estimated by
combining all the above components. The forecast flows are 42,000 vehicles per day in 2005
and 64,200 vehicles per day long term. QDOT and BCC need to take account of this increase in
their planning. This section between the Gateway Arterial and Doboy Bridge is approaching
capacity under present conditions and there has been 12 serious accidents along this section
since 1986.
LYTTON ROAD EAST STUDY REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, 4 JUNE, 1992
page 15 2.2.3.2 KEY ISSUES
The key concerns for air quality in the Brisbane area in the future are those of:
. critical and rising levels for particulates;
. rising levels of oxides of nitrogen and carbon dioxide; and
. greater potential for ozone formation as secondary pollution in the region.
The climatic potential for air pollution in Brisbane is worse than for other Australian cities
(Simpson and Auliciems, 1989, page 61). Therefore, the siting of an industrial area is
important to the entire air shed. A model of the Brisbane air shed (Sunshine Coast in the north,
Gatton/Esk in the west and South Albert/Beaudesert in the south) indicates that the Brisbane
Valley centred on Ipswich and including Esk/Beaudesert would be the worst location for
industry (Simpson and Auliciems, 1989, Page 68).
The suitability of Lytton is uncertain. One scenario is the possibility of westerly movements of
plumes from Lytton towards the central Business District in the afternoon and early evenings due
to sea breezes (R. Simpson, per. comm., 1992). The effect would be a deterioration of peak hour
air quality in the city centre. Without a comprehensive understanding of the effects of the
coastal boundary layer, inversions and synoptic flow dynamics, the impact of air pollution from
Lytton on the airshed region is unknown.
Assessing local effects of region activities, and regional effects of local activities is essential in
any analysis of air pollution potential. High quality modelling of existing and potential industry
emissions along with existing and potential motor vehicle emissions for the area would provide a
basis for decision about which and how many industries can be located at Lytton.
Pollution emissions from industry cannot be viewed in isolation. Motor vehicle usage is
projected to increase substantially over the next 20 years, causing increasing emissions of
particulates, NOx and ozone (Simpson and Auliciems, 1989, page 41). As a consequence,
ambient levels will rise, threatening health and welfare.
The larger proportion of traffic traversing the Lytton project area may be expected to be
comprised of articulated trucks. These generate 40% of Brisbane's particulate pollution
(Simpson, 1992). As their engines are diesel, lead is not a problem and they emit lower
carbon monoxide levels than petrol-driven trucks. However, oxides od nitrogen increase
fourfold for diesel engines as opposed to petrol-driven engines.
Odours from oil refineries and meat works in the lytton area give the perception of elevated
pollution levels (Nimmo, 1992). Community acceptance of industry may be adversely affective
by such perceptions, as illustrated in the case of the ICI Chlorine Plant."
GATEWAY STRATEGIC PLAN MAY 1993
DRAFT COPY
"2.0 VISION STATEMENT
.... A second Brisbane River road rail link by 2010; ...."
page 19 "DIAGRAM 6: TRANSPORT STRATEGY
LEGEND
1 NEW PORT ROAD
2 LYTTON ROAD IMPROVEMENT
3 SCHNEIDER ROAD UPGRADE
4 GATEWAY ARTERIAL UPGRADE FROM GATEWAY BRIDGE TO AIRPORT DRIVE
5 EAST-WEST ARTERIAL UPGRADE AND EXTENSION FROM BOWEN HILLS TO TOOMBUL
6 GATEWAY ARTERIAL UPGRADE AT MURARRIE
7 KINGSFORD SMITH DRIVE UPGRADE FROM BREAKFAST CREEK TO GATEWAY ARTERIAL
8 GATEWAY ARTERIAL ROAD REALIGNMENT
9 TOOMBUL ROAD TO AIRPORT DRIVE
10 SECOND RIVER CROSSING OPTIONS
PROPOSED RAIL IMPROVEMENTS
1 AIRPORT/CBD/GOLD COAST PASSENGER RAIL OPTIONS
2 NORTHERN STANDARD/NARROW GAUGE FREIGHT RAIL LINK.
Page 21 ".... Based upon estimated demand, the Gateway Arterial Bridge will reach capacity
within ten years. The options for a second road crossing of the Brisbane River, comprising
either a bridge or preferably a tunnel should be investigated now in order to preserve corridors.
...."
page 23 Rail
".... An important external issue which will impact upon the development of the Gateway Area is
the congestion caused by the movement of freight rail through the Brisbane CBD. Options for
an alternate northern rail link must be defined and corridors preserved. Extension of the
standard gauge rail link north of the Brisbane River should be considered at this time."
page 27 SEWERAGE
".... The Gibson Island Treatment Works is currently running at capacity and is incapable of
handling additional waste generated by further development. ...."
MARKETING OVERVIEW LYTTON INDUSTRIAL LAND JUNE 1992 THE OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF BRISBANE Appendix E
Page 37 "Container Industry
Container parks have been established throughout Brisbane, some on rail lines. Given that in
1990/91, 82% of containers through the Port of Brisbane were railed out, it would be logical that
new container parks located along this rail linked port area transport corridor."
PORT ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY,
QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, FINAL REPORT, MARCH 1992, BY
MAUNSELL PTY LTD
Page 2 "STEERING COMMITTEE
.... Following distribution of this report, a Community Consultation process will be instigated.
It is requested that no enquires be directed to any Steering Committee member or Maunsell Pty
Ltd until the Public consultation phase commences.
page 25 Total forecast ultimate trip generation is:
Internal Precinct Land Uses ("River South") 44,700
Port Activities 31,300
Riverbank Recreation 400
___________
76,000 vpd
page 41 .... Heavy vehicle usage of 15% and signposted at 80 km/hr are also assumed."
Which government is going to build a road to 100 km/hr specifications and
then allow traffic at 80 km/hr? Furthermore, why is 85% of the expected traffic
travelling along this road thought to be light traffic? We are told that this
road is being built to allow traffic a quick, uninterrupted journey to the PORT.
How could 85% of the traffic not be heavy traffic?
Reference: Page 8 2.1 ".... It is expected that up to 70% of freight in and out of the area will be
carried by road."
Just a small amount of common sense, 'Who in their right mind would take
their light vehicle onto an [express way to the port], to be intimidated by
large heavily-laden semi-trailers and B-doubles wanting to push your vehicle
along at 20 to 30 km/hr over the limit as is presently happening along Lytton
Road?'
Why would industry use such a high amount of light vehicles to move goods? Even after the
employees use private transport to travel to work, they could not be expected to account for such
a large percentage of the trips.
Therefore, the noise forecasts must be revised and steps taken so that in the future the road
surface cannot be altered from the type designated on which noise forecasts are based.
page 42 "3.7.5 conclusions
.... suitable noise attenuation measures would be necessary in those areas in accordance with the
Queensland Department of Transport Policy current at the time of any road construction
commencing. ...."
Noise barriers to the highest Australian Standards or above these should be installed during
construction and definitely BEFORE any use is made of this proposed road.
page 76 "4.6.4
Amenity Effects
(a) General
.... Air quality is outside the scope of this report and
has not been considered.
page 77 c) The noise effects of Option B will require careful consideration as several residential
zones fall within the nominated separation distances. These are principally around Geranium
and Marigold Streets (Hemmant), Sandy Camp Road (Lindum) and Meilandt Street (Wynnum).
Forty to fifty houses (ie, 120 to 150 people) are situated in these areas. ....
A detailed noise investigation would be necessary during any detailed design for the route and
noise mitigation measures would be undertaken.
page 78 Noise attenuation measures would be easier to implement and more effective for this
option. ....
(e) Summary
.... Problems of noise and visual impact are associated with Option B at several isolated
locations. However, it is considered that these can be overcome by careful attention to proper
investigation and detailed design. ....
Noise problems would be easier to solve along a new corridor than one which follows the
existing alignment.
page 85 5.0 PLANNING LAYOUT
5.1 PREAMBLE
As a result of this investigation the preferred alignment for a corridor to provide for major traffic
movements between the Gateway Arterial and Port Drive is Option B. This Option will enable
provision of a true limited access road free from the competing function of providing access to
adjacent industrial developments. By making the road link to the Port as attractive as possible,
functionally, Option B will be more likely to discourage the leakage of heavy vehicles to
alternative routes through residential areas.
However, this is not a firm recommendation. Several issues require wider public review via a
Community Consultation process before final decisions can be made. ....
page 90 STAGED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.... Obviously, stages 1 and 2 are the most significant as they represent the provision of a long
term corridor and a single, limited access carriageway between the Gateway Arterial and Port
Drive.
The carriageway duplication required in Stages 3 and 4 may then proceed as demand dictates.
It is not anticipated that the duplication of the Port Drive will be required within the period to
year 2006.
Page 91 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
6.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
The social climate assessment undertaken in section 3.8 has identified characteristics of the
community in the study area relevant to a community consultation strategy. These
characteristics have formed basis for this section of the report. Discussions with public groups
and agency interests has not been comprehensively undertaken. This is consistent with the
requirement of the brief that the study be carried out in two stages.
6.3 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY GROUPS
The following interested parties have been identified. Not all have been contacted at this stage
of the study in order that the confidentiality of the report be maintained as far as possible. These
groups would be seen as a minimum number likely to be involved in a future community
consultation program. ....
page 94 .... Consultation is also vital to keep the public well informed about the process, the
options, potential effects and other significant issues that arise. ....
page 97 CONCLUSIONS
.... A firm recommendation is not made at this stage
as a Community Consultation phase will soon be embarked upon."
Date of final report March 1992!!!!!!!!
KEY PORT BRISBANE STRATEGIC
PLAN PORT OF BRISBANE AUTHORITY OCTOBER 1992
page 38 "Road Links in the Fishermans Island and Lytton Port Area
The current traffic volume along Lytton Road at Lytton totals 5,800 per day, and 19,400 vehicles
per day adjacent to the Gateway Arterial. A significant proportion of the cars is worker
commuter traffic and proceeds into residential areas of Wynnum and Manly. Almost the entire
volume of trucks travel the entire route between the Port and the Gateway Arterial.
Lytton Road is not heavily congested at the present time with exceptions of the section between
the Gateway Arterial and Doboy Bridge.
page 83 4.5 RAIL FACILITIES AT FISHERMAN ISLANDS
4.5.1 .... Rail traffic to Fisherman Island is expected to grow from the current peak number of
21 trains per day to a peak of up to 29 trains per day in 2005.
page 88 .... Given the large number of export containers moved by rail (82% of the 36,500 railed
containers through Fisherman Islands in 1990/91), it is appropriate that container parks. ....
Page 96 ROAD TRAFFIC
Fisherman Islands
. Containers. Road transport is currently handling approximately 77% of container movements to
and from the port. This proportion will decrease by 2005 with the increasing numbers
transported by rail, especially with the standard gauge rail link in place. It is estimated however
that 254,000 TEUs will be transported to or from the port by road in 2005.
. General Cargo Road transport will continue to be used for the bulk of the general cargo
transport task. The general cargo tonnage forecast for 2005 is 1,242,000 t.
. Bulk Cargo. Road transport is used exclusively for the transport of woodchips to, and cement
from, the Fisherman Islands area. It is the dominant mode of transport of petroleum products
from Ampol's Lytton refinery.
....
The traffic volume on Port Drive at its intersection with Prichard Street is forecast to be 6,800
vehicles per day each way in 2005 and 17,850 vehicles per day each way each day in the long
term. (i.e. corresponding to the long term Port Master Plan).
PAGE 119 5.11.2. Ultimate Expansion at Fishermans Island
Layout
A Long Term Port Master Plan for Fisherman Islands which limits the development to the area
discussed in Section 4.1.2 is presented in Figure 5.5 Features of this plan additional to those
shown in the 2005 Port Master Plan include: ....
Traffic flow will further increase on Port Drive to 17,850 vehicles per day each way, with the
majority of this traffic (12,000 vehicles per day each way) travelling to or from the industrial
area on the eastern side of the railway line.
page 128 7.7.1 ROAD LINKS
Several respondents requested further details on possible alternate route options to the Port in
lieu of Lytton Road. An alternate route was raised as a possibility in Section 4.10 of the report.
Opinion of respondents was divided as to which would be the best alternative - new corridor or
upgrading of the existing Lytton Road - with some considering an alternate alignment would
separate Port traffic from local traffic, thereby leading to less interference and safer conditions.
Others were concerned that the new alignment would not only involve resumptions of residential
properties but also unduly affect the amenity of adjacent communities.
Whilst further investigation of this problem is required, it is not within the scope of the present
study. Indeed, the issue is under study at the moment by QDOT. This agency has confirmed
that further planning will involve a community consultation phase which will ensure community
input is provided to such matters as route selection and possible amelioration measures such as
noise and visual barriers.
THE BRISBANE PLAN,
A CITY STRATEGY, ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, Background
discussion paper, 28 August 1990.
page 68 "8.2.5 Environmental Health - Noise Pollution
There are various effects of noise on people and these include: annoyance, behavioural changes,
stress effects, hearing damage, physiological effects; and these are often interrelated.
Noise disrupts activities, disturbs sleep and hinder people carrying out their work or relaxing. It
impedes the learning process (particularly in schools), psychological development, social
activity and verbal communication and impairs job performance and safety in the work place.
Noise also impedes the restorative process of sleep or even prevents sleep.
In order to ensure a basic minimum standard for well-being indoors, the
outdoor level should not exceed 65 dB(A) Leq. However, levels in the range
55-65 dB(A) may entail some discomfort. In the case of new residential
areas, the outdoor level should not exceed 55 dB(A) Leq. Ideally background
noise should be kept to a reasonable level and the intrusion of other sounds
prevented.
Noise can have a permanent effect on hearing and leads to excessive fatigue. This in time may
be the cause of accidents in the workplace or on the road because of hearing impairment or loss
of attention.
The lifestyle of those exposed to noise, whether it be from the air-conditioner next door or an
unattended dog a block away, can be severely impaired. Human relationship can also be
strained as a result of noise, and if the nuisance continues, may result in legal action being
sought.
The Queensland Police Statistics Division was contacted for statistics on the number of
complaints received by them concerning loud and excessive noise. The database kept by the
Queensland Police is unable to retrieve this information.
The Queensland State Government Department of Environment and Conservation received 2074
complaints for the year 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1990. Of these complaints thirty-two were noise
related."
BRISBANE 2011 THE LIVABLE
CITY FOR THE FUTURE DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION OCTOBER 1994
Page 53 7.3.2 AIR POLLUTION
The city's topographic and climatic features are such that the Brisbane airshed has the potential
to become the most polluted in Australia. Motor vehicles emissions contribute 80 per cent of
the precursor gases of photo-chemical pollution as well as an estimated 42 per cent of the
greenhouse gas emission.
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN PLANNING INSTITUTE INC.
REVISED CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
....
"2. RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC
Members have a primary responsibility to pursue the public interest, in matters relating to town
and regional planning. In particular, this shall include:
(a) provision of full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and
members of the public;" ....
CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA INC.
....
"2. The member shall at all times place the integrity of the natural environment
and the health, safety and welfare of the human community above any commitment
to sectional or private interest." ....
QUEENSLAND LEADING STATE, STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY, A
STATEMENT BY THE PREMIER THE HONOURABLE WAYNE GOSS M.L.A. APRIL
1992.
page 53 INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL SYSTEM (IDAS)
".... This reform will eliminate unnecessary and ineffective regulation and provide an efficient,
open and accountable decision-making process. ...."
page 57 "Integrated Environmental Management
.... The Government is fully committed to a comprehensive consultation process
...."
".... The Government expects all Departments to be sensitive to the environment implication of
proposed developments, and expects the Department of Environment and Heritage to provide
high quality advice on potential environmental impact. Moreover, the process of environmental
impact assessment will be an open one, with ample opportunity for the public to provide input at
all relevant stages of the process. In these ways, the objectives of the EPA can be achieved just
as readily without the need to create a new statutory authority. ...."
The following are notes taken from the Department of Transport file on the Port Road under a
"Freedom of Information Request" by our group.
Question without notice to David Hamill from Tom Burns FAXED TO MARK MORROW
14/11/1994 at QDOT Re: PORT ROAD.
ANSWER:
".... and would involve intensive community consultation throughout the entire process ....
future traffic projection to the Port and the surrounding Port led industries for the years 2001 to
2011 approximately 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day will travel to and from the Port with more
than 25% of this traffic being commercial .... "
Letter from, Robert Carter, General Manager, Brisbane City Council, dated 10 October 1994, to
District Manager, Metropolitan South District Office, Spring Hill.
Item 4 "There are well established interest groups in the local area, 'The Terms of Reference'
must include:
(a) Substantial allowance of time for consultation with affective parties. ...."
Letter from Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islanders Affairs dated 5 Oct
1994. To QDOT.
This letter is critical about the process which the QDOT was about to undertake. Many issues
were raised about the concern of the writer that issues were not being addressed. Adequate time,
participant funding and information for the community was not being addressed were but a few
of them.
Conclusion of our Group
We as a group are not 'ANTI DEVELOPMENT' nor 'ANTI PROGRESS'. We ask and demand
that when the community is to be consulted that this be carried out, starting early, in a
professional, truthful and honest manner and follow the 'The Office of Cabinet' resource
document. That the Department proposing Community Consultation be honest about the full
impact, of the short and long term effects of the proposal for which consultation. Even if this
means revealing distant future proposals. We have many instances of the present Government
claiming to be a, "Open and accountable" Government.
We don't ask, but DEMAND this PORT ROAD consultation be carried out as per
the 'Office of Cabinet', Queensland Transport and the Department of Family Services,
and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs standards. The present 'consultation of
the community' be totally disregarded and new
consultants employed to carry out the process by "THE BOOK".
The amount of hours of research taken to produce this submission has also taken several hours
of my Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. I also would like to be able to have a few days break
over the New Year period,which should not have to be consume by a writing submission on how
we are being not served by the Department of Transport and their highly paid Consultants.
I only hope that after this submission has been made public, the fact that our Group intends to do
that is ever necessary to force the necessary changes so we will no longer need to submit such a
long submission to prove that an "Open and Accountable Government" does not exist in
Queensland along with a previous Premier's "Vision of Excellence" being just as farcical.
We are considering submissions to the 'Institute of Engineers Aust (Qld) Division, The
Environment Institute of Australia Inc., and the Royal Australian Planning Institute Inc., about
what has occurred in this particular case. We would not name any persons but ask that each
organisation carry out an investigation into this "CONSULTATION" and see if any of their
members may have violated their groups 'Ethical and Professional Code of Conduct'.
We wonder, at times, if 'Professional Ethics' are not sometimes set aside
to satisfy the Government's 'railroading of community consultation process'
and the greed of the almighty dollar.
In conclusion, if points were awarded for consultation from one to ten, then minus 10 would be
most appropriate in this case.
Yours sincerely
signed
Barry Wilson
(Secretary)
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.