Received an email from local resident activist Mr Fred Newman. I have been copied into a number of emails he has sent to a group of residents in and around the Junction site for a while now. With his permission I reprint it here in full for those of you who may not be on his mailing list. I thought the contents may be of interest.
………………………………………………………………….
Hi all
I am sending you this email as you contacted me around the haulage routes for the Goodwood Junction project.
This is a bit close to Christmas for residents’ issues – however a resident has drawn to my attention that on Friday evening a Fact Sheet was posted in the Goodwood Junction website at http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/RR/rail_revitalisation/goodwood_junction – copy attached.
It is positive that the project team has provided a written statement of the adjustments to the haulage routes almost three weeks after the public meeting – this appears to have been posted on the website without an ‘update email’ to interested residents.
Some observations on the fact sheet.
• The fact sheet is undated
• The amount of spoil has significantly increased from the 23,000 cubic metres identified in the development application to 40,000 cubic metres
• There is separate fact sheet for deliveries to the site (not on web site)
• Removal of material will use the rail corridor – a very positive change – this may reduce the extent of dilapidation reports (i.e. building condition survey) required
• Return trips (with empty trucks) will use local streets – for one way movements – positive change
• Information on peak times and periods – positive change – however not the level of detail Luigi Rossi provided at the public meeting while his PowerPoint presentation is still not on the website
• Vagueness in detail –there are many qualifiers such as main, sporadically, predominantly, when site conditions require, flexibility, depending on traffic conditions, unlikely
• No detail on the type of trucks and trailers to be used
• The fact sheet is a ‘communication tool’ not a technical document
Overall this appears to be a positive response to the residents’ concerns – residents can be pleased that their activism has brought positive changes. Curiously the fact sheet does not acknowledge that these changes have occurred as a result of resident feedback or the public meeting – rather the website refers to “considering impacts on the community”.
There is no reference in the fact sheet to the Traffic, Mobility and Transportation Plan required as a condition 2 (f) of the development approval issued on 27 September 2012. The approval states that this plan “must also outline all haulage routes (including size of vehicles and trip numbers), closures and temporary restrictions (duration and extent)” and many other items – this information “shall be submitted for further assessment and approval by the Minister for Planning.”
Residents may wish to individually seek information from the project team on the status of the Traffic, Mobility and Transportation Planand for a copy of the completed plan when finalised. It would be disappointing if a Freedom of Information request is required to obtain this plan – as is required for the other documents associated with the application. The councillors may have access to this document as the Council is being consulted in its preparation.
Lastly once the plan is approved, it can of course be changed as the project progresses and nothing is ‘written in stone’ with large projects – there will always be adjustments and improvements driven by the project director, the contractors, the Council or the residents.
Here the residents have driven the change – congratulations!
Regards.
Fred Newman.
Comments