Land use, dwellings and infrastructure

From YCAT: East West Link Comprehensive Impact Statement Submission
Jump to: navigation, search

2. Land use, dwellings and infrastructure - Department of Planning and Community Development The Minister for Planning has issued Terms of Reference, under which the Assessment Committee will assess the CIS and submissions in response.

Extract: (7) Terms of Reference: Conduct a Public Hearing, in accordance with Division 2 of Part 8 of the Act, to hear properly made submissions confined to the following matters.

(7) (b) Whether the impacts of the project onland use and infrastructure in its immediate environs, including on housing,recreation and community facilities, have been appropriately addressed.


[edit] EWL CIS documents for reference

All CIS documents

[edit] Land use, dwellings and infrastructure notes

Notes for Submissions on Land use, dwellings and infrastructure You can Edit this page to add points or comments.

This is where you can set out your concerns about the effect of the EWL on sporting and recreation grounds and facilities, community facilities, and whether or not there are appropriate measures in place to ensure that your lifestyle and that of others is not negatively impacted. Let them know how your life and that of others will be negatively impacted if you lose access to parks or sporting grounds or sporting/community clubs. This is also where you might want to say something about whether the impact on housing – for example homes that will be compulsorily acquired – or those who will not but who will have road or tunnel structures close by – affects or concerns you, and why you are unhappy with the measures the CIS has outlined to deal with this. The CIS talks a fair bit about ‘urban renewal’ in some areas – how do you feel about places that you care about being ‘renewed’? What role would you expect to have in that? Will the neighbourhood character change? Does the CIS address any of this?

"An international urban consensus now regards massive road building as massive folly: not on moral grounds, but because it simply doesn’t work. And the east-west link scorns the urgent need to decarbonise our cities in the face of a species emergency, global warming. Other cities and nations will judge us severely for building this smog factory in a time of planetary crisis." - Brendan Gleeson, professor of urban policy studies and director of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at Melbourne University. The east-west smog factory should never be built

East-west link prompts fears for primary school by Henrietta Cook July 17, 2013. Parents and teachers fear Clifton Hill Primary School could be forced to relocate during construction of the east-west link road tunnel due to noise, ground vibrations and pollution. They have also raised concerns about the tunnel's ventilation station, which could be located a block away from the historic school. Principal Geoffrey Warren said he was worried the school would have to move during the project's construction. "It would have a significant impact. What we don't know is if that means forever or a temporary removal."

[edit] Social Cost of Dwellings Lost

The terms of reference make it difficult to examine the social impacts of dislocation, following demolition of a neighbourhood.

"Some residents of this area remember the esxtreme ordeal and heartbreak people had to endure during the late 60's and early 70's when the Country Roads Board (CRB) unleashed their merciless chaos on innocent families in the district." Keith Fitzgerald, 6 Bendigo Street, June 30, 2008.

[edit] Loss of park land

Project impact documents show in addition to the 105 homes and 34 commercial properties acquired for the project there will also be the temporary loss of 30 hectares of open space, with two hectares to be lost permanently.

Royal Park will lose 1.36 hectares to the new six-lane freeway and sections of Debneys Park, Ormond Park, Holbrook Reserve and Moonee Ponds Creek Linear Reserve, will also be lost.

Read more:

[edit] Loss of potential stadium land at old Gasworks site

East-west link claims Fitzroy North stadium land (20/11/2013) A would-be indoor sports stadium has fallen victim to the east-west link, with the land it was to be built on instead to be used for the contentious project. Yarra City Council, along with residents and sporting clubs, had been campaigning for the sports centre to be built at the former Fitzroy North gasometer site on Alexandra Parade. It had been labelled a capital works priority but the project’s impact statement identifies the site for a construction depot.

[edit] Manningham Reserve/Ross Straw Field

  • The park is home to two baseball fields, a soccer field, and two cricket pitches.

“Parks and gardens consistently rated as number one in the aspects of Melbourne that people value most in surveys we conducted as part of developing Plan Melbourne.” Minister Guy, Tuesday 19 November 2013.

The City Desk: Manningham Reserve/Ross Straw Field 5 November 2013

[edit] Loss of sports fields and club rooms

The sports fields in west and east Royal Park plus Princes Park which serve thousands of people - school children as well as adults — from across Melbourne will be requisitioned for construction for the tollway and probably never restored. This is at a time the population is growing rapidly and sports facilities are already in short supply. This will have a negative impact on people's health. Will areas of parkland used for passive recreation be converted now for sports fields?

[edit] Loss of the State Netball and Hockey Centre plus Urban Camp for Children

The 4 lane EW Link will come within metres of the SNHC and will wipe out the Urban Camp. Two giant vent stacks will we positioned on the escarpment over the railway line not far from the SNHC. Brens Drive will be closed off during construction which will take 4 to 5 years. It is doubtful if the SNHC can survive despite assurances from Linking Melbourne Authority that access won't be blocked. (Will another road be built through parkland?)

Reference: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) Submission to City of Melbourne at the East West Link Public Meeting on Tuesday 8 October 2013

[edit] Ormond Park

East-west link: Parkland loss a huge impact By Melissa Cunningham. 04/11/2013 Sections of Debneys Park, Ormond Park, Holbrook Reserve and Moonee Ponds Creek Linear Reserve will be forever lost, documents outlining east-west link impacts reveal. The link project impact statement, released last week by the state government, reveals that in addition to the 105 homes and 34 commercial properties seized to make way for the project, there will also be the temporary loss of 30 hectares of open space, with two hectares lost permanently. Royal Park will loose 1.36 hectares, with the remaining parcels of land being across Moonee Valley.

[edit] Holbrook Reserve

The East West Link threatens to wipe out a Brunswick sports and recreation reserve 12 August 2013 Linking Melbourne Authority plans, seen by Leader, depict a northbound two-lane flyover that exits the proposed tunnel and connects with CityLink near the Moonee Valley racecourse. The flyover dissects Holbrook Reserve and the properties of residents in Pattison St, Moonee Ponds, who have been informed their homes may be compulsorily acquired.

Brunswick Zebras Football Club's women's and girls teams use Holbrook Reserve in winter and Brunswick Cricket Club in summer. The reserve is also a Moreland Council off-leash dog park. Brunswick Zebras club secretary Clare Corbet said compulsory acquisition of the reserve would impact on her club and others.

Ms Corbet said the club often used the reserve as a training ground during the week so it could keep its home ground in perfect condition for games. Losing the ground might mean the club would have to reduce its teams, she said.

"The overall impact is reducing open space for active recreation in Moreland," Ms Corbet said. Authority spokeswoman Gemma Boucher said it would contact councils and meet with them soon to discuss any areas likely to be required for construction of the East West Link.

"There have been no land acquisition letters for homes in Brunswick West," Ms Boucher said. Moreland chief executive Peter Brown said the council was still determining the impact on the municipality. "We are liaising with state authorities, neighbouring councils and once impacts are known council will form its view and will be in a position to comment further," Mr Brown said.

[edit] Debneys Park

Children's park to car park Three years ago, an asphalt wasteland in Flemington was transformed into an adventure playground with a flying fox and ropes course. If the East West Link is built, the playground will go and may be replaced with a car park. Tony lives a kilometre away in Ascot Vale and brings his two children to Debney’s Park because it is “arguably the best playground in Moonee Valley”. “This only opened three years ago. [Losing] it seems to be a terrible waste,” he said. His son attends the Ascot Vale Special School and is brought on school excursions to the adventure playground – a safe and creative zone where children with special needs can gain confidence.

[edit] Melbourne Zoo

Threat to the Melbourne Zoo and the Royal Children's Hospital: These institutions are threatened not only during 4 to 5 years of construction with vibration and noise but from long term pollution from vent stacks and obtrusive lighting. . It is not known whether the EW Link will be open "cut-and-cover" through Royal Park. The Elliott Avenue on/off ramps for the roads to/from Flemington Road are near the Zoo wall and is expected to harm the captive animals. The EW Link will be only a short distance - some 300 metres away - from the Royal Children's Hospital. In their wisdom City of Melbourne staff members have extended the children's discovery playground into the, grass lands area of Royal Park. It will therefore will be extremely close to the E W Link as well as next to the helipad.

Reference: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) Submission to City of Melbourne at the East West Link Public Meeting on Tuesday 8 October 2013

Risk to animals makes tunneling near zoo illogical, say East-West opponents 6 October 2013

Melbourne Zoo seeks assurances about East West Link construction Posted Fri 4 Oct 2013, 12:35pm The zoo is concerned about the impact of vibrations and loud noises on the animals. (ABC News: Ben Knight) Melbourne Zoo is seeking assurances that the East West Link tunnel construction will not have an impact on the animals. The western entrance of the tunnel will be a few hundred metres from the zoo. Melbourne Zoo director Kevin Tanner says he wrote to the Linking Melbourne Authority (LMA) to highlight the potential issues. "We initially started to look at what impacts may affect us and they're things like ground vibrations or sudden noise, vehicle emissions or the continuity of our business," he said. "We would like to be assured that the vibrations or sudden noise that impacts on our animals is taken into consideration." Mr Tanner says the Oregon Zoo went through a similar project when a subway was built under the zoo. "They found there was no affect whatsoever upon the animals either before, during or after the construction of their tunnel," he said.

[edit] Gasometer North Fitzroy - merge with (5) above?

North Fitzroy Gasworks Urban Design Framework

The former Gasworks (1864 or earlier) is a huge 4.3-hectare island site bounded by Alexandra Parade, Queens Parade, Smith St and George St. Identified Strategic Redevelopment site in the City of Yarra. It is more than twice the size of the St Kilda Triangle, and large enough to fit Victoria Market.

Historic buildings in south west corner of site (Cnr Alexandra Pde and George St) threatened by EWL construction site.

The site is owned by the Victorian Government. It is too polluted to develop. Remediation was estimated at $20M in 2008. Plans for a stadium have stalled.

An island site can provide services that could not be considered elsewhere – such as a market, or a live music or performing arts venue.

No plan for this site.

[edit] Residents Against the Tunnel - Land use and community facilities

Here are some suggestions for the sort of things you might like to include about Land use, dwellings and infrastructure in your submissions to the CIS Assessment Panel due 12 December 2013: Land Use and community facilities (CIS Chapter 8 & Technical Appendix F)

Whether the impacts of the project on land use and infrastructure in its immediate environs, including on housing, recreation and community facilities, have been appropriately addressed.

[edit] Inadequate Recognition of Impact from Unprecedented Project

This is an unprecedented project of long duration in a highly urbanised inner city area. Special consideration and provision needs to be established in recognition of its ongoing impact on adjacent remaining communities. The CIS does not address these impacts adequately.

[edit] Collateral Damage

The CIS indicates that the impacts of the project will be bad for anyone who has to live nearby but for “the road user it will be a heightened driving experience”. This sums up the whole project in that the only people being looked after are the “drivers” (most single occupancy vehicles) and that the residents, businesses and communities that suffer in the process are just collateral damage.

[edit] Long Duration Construction

The Project construction duration of 5 years is described by the Government and LMA as being “Temporary”. This and post project urban renewal will have an unprecedented major impact on property values, ability to sell at will and community amenity on the adjacent properties. The whole character of the neighbourhoods in Precinct 1, 3 and 5 will be permanently changed. The community cohesiveness that currently exists in Precinct 1 and 3 will be destroyed by this project both during and after construction. This is unacceptable and this impact is not addressed adequately in the CIS beyond saying that it is up to the contractor to minimise the impacts by adhering to the performance Requirements and the Urban Design Framework.

[edit] Inequitable Compensation Criteria

The LMA and Government have used minor technicalities to compulsorily acquire and compensate some property owners, whereas other similarly impacted, non acquired, properties remain uncompensated.

[edit] Need for Special Compensation Provisions

Due to the unprecedented impact and duration of the project, special provision should be enacted by the Government to guarantee, indexed, pre project value and ability to sell, significantly impacted non acquired properties, at any time for the duration of the project and the subsequent urban renewal process. And increased insurance premiums?

  • Non Specific Identification of Impacted Properties – lack of specific recognition of the direct impact on acquired and non acquired properties in Wellington Street, Noone Street, Gold Street, Alexandra Parade, Alexandra Parade East, Rutland Street and Hilton Street Clifton Hill. These properties are only identified as being in an ill defined “Alexandra Parade North”. This leads to a perception of the project only having a minor impact on the surrounding community. All other acquired properties in Precinct 1 are specifically identified street by street.

[edit] Understated Project Impact

The CIS often states that for the scale of the project the overall impact on the built environment is relatively minimal, as the majority of the project is carried in a tunnel well below the surface. However for those residents and businesses which are not being compulsorily acquired and are in close proximity to the construction and the project in its final form, the impact is going to be huge.

[edit] Impact on Project Economics

If as is stated in the CIS, the impacted communities and properties are relatively small in comparison with the size, cost and benefits of the project, then the provision of monetary compensation and a guarantee for the ability to sell a property at will, for those people severely impacted, will not materially affect the project’s economics but will do a lot for the affected parties.

[edit] Ongoing Impacts Post Construction

Lack of recognition of the ongoing impacts on community amenity, property value and ability to sell, major noise increase, air quality and visual impacts and environmental impacts on properties in close proximity to the Eastern End, Precinct 1 and Western End, Precinct 3 of the Tunnel from flyovers, inlet and outlet ramps and the ventilation stacks once the project is in operation. In fact the GHD report in appendix 2 does identify the major impacts for many years (both during and after construction) on the properties adjacent to the cut and cover tunnels and ramp structures at the Eastern and Western Ends of the Project, however these concerns did not translate into the body of the CIS. These impacts are glossed over and are lost in the “soft impact descriptions”. Proper weighting of these impacts should be identified in the body of the CIS and alert the authorities of the need for compensation and the treatment of respect and compassion for those who, without control, are sacrificing a lot for the greater good of many.

[edit] Rental Versus Owner Occupied Properties

The CIS states the impact on residents in the Eastern End, Precinct 1, is diminished due to the number of rental properties and the transient population. This does a major disservice to the equal number of remaining permanent owner occupiers and the impact the project will have on their life savings, compromised in reduced property values, the ability to sell at will and community amenity.

[edit] Playing Down of Impacts

The CIS continually uses soft words, such as “may have a significant impact” on remaining adjacent, non acquired properties, where the statement should be stating that “there will be a definite major impact.” The CIS continually down plays the huge impact that it will have on the adjacent communities in Precincts 1 and 3.

[edit] Non Comprehensive Impact Statement

The CIS is based on a conceptual design which allows the selected contractor to make changes in detail design. How can this be a Comprehensive Impact Statement for the adjacent communities when the final design is not known and when the CIS has already been so soft in its description of the impacts? The CIS seeks to cover this by saying that the contractor will have to meet the requirements of the Impact Statement, however due to the low weighting put on the impacts to adjacent communities, those who are severely impacted can have no confidence that the contractor will implement measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level.

[edit] Heritage Overlay

The CIS down plays the impact that the project will have on the current heritage overlay, by saying that the impacted area is relatively small compared with the total area covered by the overlay. However the impact is huge on those areas adjacent to the project and which will lose the character and value provided by the overlay.

[edit] Royal Park Impact

The CIS is at pains to say that the final, permanent, impact of the project on Royal Park in Precinct 3 is the removal of only 1.36 hectares. However there will be a major impact on the Park for the duration of the project, 5 years +, with the occupation of 23 hectares. The impact of this on the community and adjacent residents is played down by the use of the soft words, such as, “temporary” which is intended to give the impression of transitory. The CIS is disrespectful and condescending towards the community and residents through the down playing of the impacts on amenity, environment and the loss of value and ability to sell at will and amenity for those near by remaining properties in Manningham and adjacent Streets. The CIS states that the long term amenity of the Manningham and Oak Street residents will be significantly reduced because the road would change from a ‘parkland drive’ character to a road with overhead freeway and bridge structures. Mitigation of these impacts are not discussed – probably because no amount of mitigation is possible. Access to Royal Park by the community will be massively affected during construction and post construction.

[edit] Noise

The CIS says that it will ameliorate the impacts of noise on the remaining, non acquired, properties in Clifton Hill which are in close proximity to the cut and cover tunnel construction and the relocated east bound Alexandra Parade, through the provision of noise barriers. At present these properties only experience a noise intensity of 50 decibels due to the insulation of other building structures and distance. The CIS states that the noise barrier only has to meet a minimum noise level of 63 decibels (4 times current noise intensity) but LMA’s consultants admit that due to the need to keep the North South Streets such as Hilton, Wellington and Gold open, that in fact these non acquired properties will be subjected to noise level of 70+ decibels for 5 + years. This will be intolerable. Again the Government and LMA dismiss this as being only a temporary inconvenience.

[edit] Construction Impacts

The CIS does recognise that there will be major impacts on remaining residents in close proximity to the project from road disruptions, pedestrian and bicycle access, parking restrictions, property access, vibration, ongoing construction traffic and the ability to control widespread soil moisture retention. Some of these impacts will be for the duration whilst road closures may be for a period 3 months. However these impacts are not treated with sufficient weight and are invariably thrown back to the contractor to manage and consult with the impacted parties.

[edit] Community Access

The CIS states that pedestrian and cycle crossings will be affected by the project in Precinct 1, namely the Gold Street pedestrian crossing which will be closed. This will affect the access to Gold Street Primary for those students who live south of Alexandra Parade. The safety of children having to cross Alexandra Parade at Wellington Street is not addressed especially when & if Wellington Street is closed during construction. Also not addressed, is the safety of pedestrians and the high number of cyclists that use Wellington Street, having to cross over a major construction site while the cut for the tunnel entrance is being done. The Groom Street pedestrian/cycle bridge over the Eastern Freeway will be closed – the solution from the CIS is for the 300 to 400 cyclists to use Trenerry Crescent or Hoddle Street – hardly a satisfactory or safe solution. These are important means for local access to community facilities & services in this area. Again the contractor via the performance requirements would be required to maintain connectivity & minimise traffic disruption during construction. These impacts are not adequately addressed by the CIS.

[edit] Business Impacts

CIS states that 18 commercial properties will be acquired in the Alexandra Parade north corridor from Smith Street to Gold Street. The impacts are considerable due to loss of employment, having to relocate or close. To find a site with the same attributes and advantages offered by Alexandra Parade may prove difficult. The CIS should really should state that it will be impossible, so as to give proper weight to this impact on the businesses being acquired.

  • Also, business premises are often leased so landowners will be compensated. How will business owners be compensated? Will employees have right to compensation as they lose their jobs through no fault of their own

[edit] Businesses Not Acquired

Again the CIS assesses the impacts as could be disrupted – it should be read as definitely disrupted. Impacts are listed as potential – again this should be read as definite. CIS states that the impacts would be minimised through the adoption of traffic management measures by the contractor. This is not good enough as how can it be a Comprehensive Impact Statement when conditions could change in the final design by the appointed contractor.

[edit] Overall Conclusion

The information in the CIS fails to properly address the full impact of the project on land use, dwellings and infrastructure for both residents and businesses within the project boundary and even more so in the immediate environs of the project.

The impacts are to be mitigated by the Urban Design Framework and performance requirements that the contractor has to meet within this framework. The detailed design for this project will be done after the Community Consultation is over and as a result the community will have very little say in what eventually happens, as the final design could be quite different to what is presently proposed in the Design Reference Documents. The CIS states that it is up to the Contractor to determine the best approach to meeting the performance requirements but they are not tight enough and will be very easy to water down .Throughout the document the impacts are all classified as “potential” when in reality the impacts are very real and not at all, only potential – the impacts are definite and will occur. The CIS does not adequately or appropriately address these in any meaningful way.