State Significant Infrastructure
Coffs Harbour Bypass
Coffs Harbour City
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
An upgrade of approximately 14 kilometres of the Pacific Highway from south of the Englands Road roundabout to the southern end of the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade project. The project would bypass Coffs Harbour.
Consolidated Approval
Modifications
Archive
Early Consultation (1)
Application (1)
EIS (16)
Response to Submissions (4)
Amendments (11)
Determination (3)
Approved Documents
Management Plans and Strategies (76)
Agreements (3)
Reports (48)
Independent Reviews and Audits (2)
Notifications (2)
Other Documents (13)
Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
3/03/2021
9/06/2021
23/03/2022
13/04/2022
11/05/2022
8/06/2022
14/09/2022
12/10/2022
14/12/2022
8/02/2023
14/06/2023
10/08/2023
13/09/2023
27/09/2023
11/10/2023
27/10/2023
22/11/2023
13/12/2023
10/07/2024
13/03/2024
10/04/2024
8/05/2024
12/06/2024
14/08/2024
11/09/2024
12/11/2024
11/12/2024
11/12/2024
12/02/2025
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Message
While I disagree with the proposal to build tunnels and the disadvantages this brings such as increased cost and ongoing maintenance leading to closures every couple of months along with certain vehicles unable to use the bypass, I commend that the RMS has listened to local community concerns who clearly wanted a tunnel although I believe the argument could have been made clearer and stronger as to the disadvantages above which could have allowed alternate proposals for the ridge crossings.
While the EIS notes a median barrier will be provided, the visual video does not in all sections and it is imperative regardless of median width that a barrier is provided to prevent head on crashes which has occurred on other duplicated projects with vehicles crossing the grass median.
Jackson Hurst
Support
Jackson Hurst
Message
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Message
Thankyou for your time.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Message
Bruce Robertson
Comment
Bruce Robertson
Message
This submission is to appeal for an extension of the Korora noise barrier in the vicinity of chainage 21,500.00. In particular, for an extension further south of Ferntree Place of the proposed Korora sound barrier as is shown currently shown in the EIS .
Points made:
1 This is the upper end of "Korora Hill" and the EIS shows no significant improvement of the gradient on this section. Trucks use multiple gear changes ascending or exhaust brakes descending.
2 Average noise measurements would probably not capture the "peaks" of noise from the above actions. (On a clear night they sound like they'e on James Small Drive!)
3 The EIS shows that this section will be further elevated which will only exacerbate the problem.
4 Korora is an expanding suburb and with the ever increasing flow of trucks on the highway, the problem will grow.
Highway noise is an ongoing complaint in Korora and I sincerely hope that this great project will give us the same relief as is to be provided on the southern section of Coffs.
Bruce Robertson
Graham Stubington
Comment
Graham Stubington
Message
1. I note in Chapter 26 that noise remediation for properties impacted by noise during construction and on completion of the bypass will have the necessary noise remediation undertaken on their properties prior to construction. This is an important issue for the community.
2. There is however, what appears to be an anomaly in the Mitigated Noise Contour with low noise pavement and Noise Barriers Map - 03 in that:
a. One property to the west of Shephards Lane furthest away from the bypass is annotated above NCG criteria and yet the properties closer to the bypass are not?
b. Two properties to the East of Shephards Lane at the end of Coriedale Drive, which are closer to the bypass are not notated as above NCG Criteria and yet the adjacent properties further from the bypass and protected by the two closer properties are notated as above NCG Criteria. There is a similar anomaly on the southern side of Coriedale Drive.
3. Chapter 26 highlights that the contractor is responsible for developing all environmental impacts during the detailed design and construction of the bypass. It is important for the integrity of the bypass design that the contractor is contracted to build the bypass to the detailed design approved by the RMS and not contracted to design and build the bypass. It is appropriate for the contractor to develop his plans for mitigating various environmental impacts resulting from the RMS approved plan.
Thank you.
Kind regard
Graham Stubington
Angela Furlan
Comment
Angela Furlan
Message
Georgina Furlan
Comment
Georgina Furlan
Message
Roger Rudland-Wood
Comment
Roger Rudland-Wood
Message
Specially: The Coffs Harbour Bypass.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Thank you for listening to the community and providing tunnels in the Coffs Harbour bypass. I support the location of the highway and the use of tunnels, however, there are two other key areas which have not been adequately addressed in the new design which still require attention.
1- appropriate noise mitigation measures for houses on the western side of the highway do not seem to have been included in the design. Experience from the bypass at Sapphire has shown that elevated residents on the western side of the highway have been significantly impacted as a result of lack of noise mitigation measures and refraction of noise from noise mitigation walls on the eastern side of the highway. Residents on the western side of the highway need to be given the same consideration as those on the east and noise mitigation to reduce impact on these residents is essential.
2- The use of the highway corridor as a koala corridor does not seem to have been incorporated. The bypass will impact on koala and other native species movement, regardless of the tunnels and as such more effort should be made to facilitate koala movement using the bypass corridor. The design should include planting koala food trees along the corridor outside of the fauna fence area. Fauna fences should be located as close as possible to the road to maximise the area available to create fauna corridors.
Please ensure that the two matters above are appropriately addressed.
Kind regards
Paul Murtha
Comment
Paul Murtha
Message
Having no direct access to highway when traveling north seems like an easy fix.
However having to travel north to saphire beach before then returning south along another side road to get to Coffs Harbour is a unacceptable.
It will affect acceptability to the suburb which will affect property prices as entering and exiting will be overly complicated.
I would like a response as to why this suburb has been neglected
Strider Duerinckx
Support
Strider Duerinckx
Message
Peter Ramstadius
Support
Peter Ramstadius
Message
While I was not averse to the proposal that included land bridges and a cutting, the now proposed design with lowered horizontal alignments and incorporating tunnels will provide an even better solution.
The cost seems to have increased by about $620M - seems there has been no real problem with such a large percentage increase in the project cost. Makes you wonder why there is an insistence on Value Management Studies.
The EIS states that a 12m wide median has been abandoned for a 5m one generally except for some specific locations, but sections of the EIS still say 12m. It is also noted as 'variable and about 12m (5m min-20m max)'. How much of the length will be 5m?
The low noise pavement is now proposed everywhere except in the tunnels - why is this so?
The issue of the need to still transport dangerous goods through the CBD seems to have been tucked away in Chapters 26 and 29, and the issue seems to be ignored for now. Does this mean the EIS is anticipating a change in legislation? Is it proposed that a move towards the Natroad-advocated risk-based assessment approach, and the potential trial on removing restrictions of dangerous goods through selected tunnels in Sydney and designating key dangerous goods routes with appropriate access and rest areas, is a possibility?