Coffs Harbour Bypass

My concerns are that the noise abatement strategies be upgraded to built up earthworks, the contract be construct only rather than design and construct, safety design should be the same as the St Helena tunnel design for the proposed tunnels in the present design. Detailed design be available for public comment prior to construction. Low noise pavement be included as it’s so close to residential areas.

see attached submission

James Woodlock
15 Safrano Place
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450

24th October 2019
Director – Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass (SSI_7666)

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 all dangerous goods vehicles (unless they are making a delivery into Coffs Harbour) to use the bypass.

The design of the Coramba Road interchange needs to be re-assessed. A less intrusive design such as one donut over the bypass would have a smaller footprint and have less of an impact on the nearby residential areas of West Coffs Harbour.

I am concerned about the noise part of the EIS and the future impacts of noise upon me and my family and I want to see an independent audit to be undertaken.

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.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely

Jim Woodlock

Declaration: I have made no (or insert which applies) political donations in the past two years.

I object to the project if my home is going to rattle and shake due to the new road...the current highway already causes this and we can not sleep with our windows open...I want you to put a sound proof wall right along where my home is and I also want you to sound proof my home...I also am concerned about the fact that due to this road my home will be damaged by construction of the road...and also the fact my home will be unsellable due to a road being even closer causing it to rattle and shake.and crack, get damaged by movement of the land ...I am upset and want to live in a peaceful home that's quiet, this is why I built this house in this area...my home will be unsellable after your work...I want to be compensated significantly if you can not provide security of my home and my investment

The Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Land Council support the project on the basis that our concerns be addressed, and recommendations be included (and conditions applied )as part of the construction to ensure the protection of Aboriginal Culture and Heritage. See attachments for details.

see attached letter

my letter of objection is attached

Firstly, I would like to say that the consultation process is flawed in so far that as a resident that is directly affected by the proposed Coffs Harbour Bypass Project we have had no direct contact from the department in over 2 years. We have taken the opportunities to view the initial proposed bypass and have recently been to the office in Park avenue to view the interactive EIS at our instigation. This proved to be most informative and the staff member there was extremely helpful but very guarded in the discussions we had. I think there is a need for the Department to actively engage with the residents in the close proximity on a regular basis to ensure we are fully informed and consulted going forward.
Secondly, the data that was provided at the Park avenue office was very informative and appeared to be quite detailed for my consumption, but after using the headphone simulation for the noise impact both before and after completion I am very concerned that the modelling that has been undertaken is very generic and in my opinion does not provide a true understanding of the noise today and certainly from my experience of being near freeways is no where near the real noise factors of a busy highway that will have traffic on it 24 x 7 and given the road will have an uphill gradient north bound the truck engine noise will be exacerbated by their need to accelerate up hill and as such the noise will in my opinion be higher than that modelled.
Thirdly, when seeing the data presented in Chapter 9 Volume 4B which showed the impacts to our property I am very sceptical that it is remotely accurate. The data suggests that the current noise level at our property today is between 30 -35 Decibels which according to the information provided by the department is below that of a "normal conversation" level, which I do not agree with. I believe that our current ambient noise level is closer to 20dB's or less. But the suggested noise level after completion suggests that the noise level will be between 50 - 56 decibels, again according to the information provided by the department equates to a "moderate rainfall to a conversation". This in my opinion and experience of being near freeways is well under stated in the modelling and as such the noise impact will be far greater than that suggested in the EIS documents.
Fourthly, the EIS also suggests that there will be a need to rectify/modify/mitigate/compensate our existing home to negate the increased noise, again the impact of which in my opinion is understated.
Therefore, we require details immediately as to what measures the department is considering to adequately protect us from this increase in noise from what is the ambient levels today. That said we expect any measures will also cover the outside of our home as we do not live exclusively inside our home and as such our current lifestyle will be impacted when we are outside enjoying our current views and property.
We also require that an immediate acoustic study be undertaken at our residence given the EIS states that "where existing traffic noise is less than 30dB, background will be assumed to be 30dB, where as I have previously stated it is much lower and given the modelled increase suggests between 50 and 56 dB's in the future this will mean and increase of well over 100% noise impact to us.

In closing we expect to receive a written response to our submission within 60 days, so that we can undertake a course of action should the department be unable to satisfy our questions/ concerns.

Thank you

Graham Macumber
0433097006
300 Shepherds lane
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
PO Box 281
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450

Thank you for giving people the opportunity to comment on the Coffs Harbour By-Pass proposal.
Whilst I reluctantly accept the proposal as it stands it is a poor substitute for a bypass set further inland.
However it is most important that the best outcome for Coffs Harbour residents is realised, this means that the minimum requirement is for Tunnels, not cuttings.
Tunnels will partially mitigate the noise of heavy trucks which, however, will still impact on residents as the hills around Coffs form an amphitheatre. Therefore sound barriers will be required.
The issue of trucks carrying dangerous goods having to divert through Coffs Harbour is a red-herring. These trucks all come through the centre of town now and will be able to continue to do so. (i.e. No Cuttings). If there is a safety issue why hasn't it been addressed?
Finally the tunnel proposal addresses some of the concerns of the Aboriginal Community and avoids major destruction of flora and fauna.
Building a bypass with TUNNELS IS THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION.

see attachments

Please see attached document.

refer letter attached

Refer to our attachmnet

I am the owner of 263A and 263E Shephards Lane Coffs Harbour/Karangi. I have owned these properties since 1989 and 1991 respectively.


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 have visited your display office in Coffs Harbour several times, and with your large touch screen television I have identified my properties. However, for each property it shows a new plantation of trees which hides the visual effect of the proposed bypass and my existing view which goes approximately 40kms out to sea. Is that plantation of trees an upgrade RMS is proposing for my property? With the loss of this land, will there be compensation? And have the anticipated noise levels taken into account this proposed plantation of trees?


However, if those plantations are not a part of your plan will there be prevision from RMS to provide native seedlings for planting by landowners in suitable locations to help with noise and visual reduction.


I therefore request a sound study on my properties both before and after construction and finalisation of the bypass.


Yours faithfully,


Peter Wood

I have a concern about the proposed Korora Interchange and it's access for cyclists to transit the Interchange.
Whilst cyclists are mentioned and some detail provided about cycle access along the Motorway there is minimal information about cyclist provisions to transit the interchange.
As this Interchange cuts across on of the main recreational cycling routes- namely Bruxner Park Rd- it needs separated and simple pathways to get through in ALL directions. The more complex the design and the number of places requiring riders to stop and check for vehicles before crossing will dramatically reduce the potential for cyclists to use this interchange.
Some discussion with RMS staff indicated they are considering marked(traffic separated) cycleways through the interchange and I would encourage that as many more cyclists would use it if it was implemented.
The "old highway" that is to become the service road from Sapphire into Coffs Harbour must also have upgraded cyclist access in both directions to allow for recreational cyclists and also encouraging more people to cycle to and from work.

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 attachment

Please see attached

MARINA ROCKETT – SUBMISSION: 25th October 2019
My first comment is that this "bypass" is not a true bypass of Coffs Harbour but a ring road or CBD deviation which will now affect thousands of the Coffs Harbour community who currently enjoy a tranquil lifestyle, and turn it into a noise and pollution nightmare. I have heard the comment “It (the bypass) should have gone further west” over and over again during the past 12 months when talking to people from all walks of life, both in my personal sphere and as a member of the Coffs Bypass Action Group Steering Committee.
The community and Council fought long and hard when the original route was adopted by the then RTA but were ignored. This section of the highway was always going to be the most expensive due to the terrain and unfortunately the $$$'s were more important than the Coffs communities well being. We are now making the best of the bad option.
TRANSPARENCY AND CONSULTATION
During the past 12 months since I have been involved personally and as a member of the Steering Committee of the Coffs Bypass Action Group, it has become apparent that RMS had a policy of not cooperating with the community concerns by making it difficult to access reports and information (on noise in particular) and it took extensive research to find any information about the project. This includes the missing 3D tiles which showed the cuttings at the 1st community viewing in September 2018 which disappeared from the 2nd viewing. Despite repeated requests from myself to RMS staff (and including then Director John Alexander)to see the tiles “no one knows where they are” was the answer. I had been told $120,000 had been spent on making the tiles, so what did happen to them? This was after the community was expecting tunnels and the September 2018 Concept design viewings were the first we had heard we were getting cuttings. Tunnels were not reconsidered until January 2019 prior to the State election.
6 weeks (with school holidays in the middle) is barely enough time to review a 4000 plus page EIS.
TUNNELS:
I welcome the reinstatement of the 3 tunnels as cuttings would have been a disaster from the noise and visual impacts as well as the environmental effects. Coffs Harbour is the only place on the eastern seaboard where the Great Dividing Range meets the sea and as such, deserves the best we can get. The promise of low grade asphalt is also non negotiable and is very welcome. A lesson learnt from other areas where its use would have helped with ongoing noise issues.
NOISE AND VIBRATION:
Topography: I do not believe the topography of West Coffs has been taken into consideration enough. West Coffs is not a nice flat area. There are many high ridges which, though 1 to 2 klm from the route, overlook where the new motorway will be. These very high properties (including mine where I can see glimpse of the ocean from the front and the hills from the rear) will feel the amplified effects of noise in particular, going round in a huge semi circle as vehicles travel around the basin constrained by the mountains from Roberts Hill to at least past the Shephard's Lane tunnel. The RMS noise modelling does not take these properties into consideration at all. More noise modelling needs to be done in these areas prior to construction.
Also, the noise demonstration model at the RMS office in Park Ave is not a true indication of noise levels as the main noise I heard was birds tweeting constantly!
I believe vibration during construction will also have a big detrimental effect on these high properties and fear subsidence in many places.
As there are still many areas where the highway has been completed from Valla to Woolgoolga where the residents are still complaining about the new highway noise years after completion, it is obvious the methods RMS has used previously are ineffective and need reassessing. I would like an independent noise assessment be done by DPE prior to any construction commencing, to verify that measurements taken by RMS pre construction are accurate. The findings of any independent assessment should be a condition of approval that RMS (Transport Department) has to comply with.
The assessment should be broadened further than 600m due to the West Coffs topography.
The findings from any independent reports apart from RMS should be made available to the Coffs community as soon as the results are known. This would give some measure of confidence in what to expect regarding noise issues.
The Road Noise Policy 2011 should be upgraded to reflect the RMS Noise Mitigation Guideline 2015 Section 3 - Policy principles 5. Incidental benefits from the noise mitigation designed for qualifying receivers should be recognised at all receivers within a community where noise levels exceed WHO guidelines. Note: WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) for outdoor areas and the WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009) threshold levels are façade noise levels of 50dBA day and 45 dBA at night. Why write a later guideline when it is not enforceable?
SPEED LIMIT:
As the new route is very close to many residential communities, if the speed limit was lowered from 110 to 80 or 90klph, that would make a huge difference in noise levels. There are plenty of precedence where lower limits apply on motorways in residential areas and the difference in time savings would barely be 1 to 2 minutes. Much better than going through 12 sets of traffic lights.
CORAMBA INTERCHANGE:
This interchange needs to be redesigned to lower its footprint and give noise relief to close by residents. A donut design would provide a better alternative for the residents close by.
I have been informed that there could be up to 600 extra vehicles per day using the interchange and a great percentage of these would be accessing the CBD or Park Beach Plaza. If going to the CBD, the current road into West High Street is already congested at peak times and completely unsuitable in its current high low section for extra vehicles. If going to the Plaza, extra traffic on Shephards/Don Patterson/McKays and Bray Street would also cause problems with Schools, Hospital and the already impossible intersection at the corner of Bray Street and the Pacific Highway.
It is imperative that the road from the Coramba Interchange to the Shephards Lane roundabout be upgraded to handle extra traffic, and the Shephards Lane roundabout also redesigned as it is already confusing to negiotate.
ROSELANDS ESTATE:
This estate is where the local community is most concerned as regards noise. Roselands Estate is not mentioned in the EIS although it would have to be the closest to both the Coramba Interchange and the bypass route. Consideration MUST be given to this community for pre and post construction noise remediation treatment.
The Roselands Estate community has a letter from RMS in Coffs from early July stating that they would look to arrange a meeting with residents when the EIS is released but to date nothing has been heard from RMS.
ALL residences that have increased noise levels of 12db or should be eligible for noise remediation post construction regardless of how far from the route.
KORARA INTERCHANGE:
The Korora Interchange also needs redesigning as the Action Group has been contacted by a member who speaks for 40 residents who has had no response to issues from the RMS to date.
I have heard it described as the “spaghetti” interchange.
DANGEROUS GOODS:
If dangerous goods are considered to be a reason why tunnels cannot be built, it should follow that all tunnel construction be stopped all over New South Wales.
The Coffs Harbour Bypass tunnels should be classed as the St Helena tunnel (which is the approx length of the longest of the Coffs tunnels) which allow all other dangerous goods except Class 1 and 2.1 to use the tunnels. The expected less than 20 of the prohibited dangerous goods vehicles which will continue to use the current route – which they have been doing since the current highway commenced – is miniscule compared to the 12,000 approx vehicles which will divert to the highway. Trials allowing all vehicles to use tunnels are currently being trialled in Sydney and as this rule is a regulation not legislation, the ruling may be overturned in the near future anyway.
I understand that the operating control methods for the St Helena tunnel would be able to be used for the Coffs tunnels and would not need to be duplicated therefore saving money.
CONSTRUCT ONLY CONTRACT:
As we have fought so long for the tunnels to be reinstated, we do not want there to be any chance of any modifications to crucial elements. A Detailed Design and a Construct only Contract is requested so we can have confidence in the final product. The community also requests the opportunity to view the detailed design before it is accepted by Planning and the contract goes to tender.
Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

MARINA ROCKETT

Director – Transport Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir or Madam,

Submission Coffs Harbour Bypass (SSI_7666)

We have major concerns with the proposed local road and tunnel under the Pacific Highway feeding onto Coachmans Close Korora for the following reasons:

1. We believe the noise monitoring validation 10 located at 1 Coachmans Close Sapphire Beach NSW 2450 has been picked to give the highest possible reading. You could not have picked a better spot to obtain exaggerated readings to mitigate RMS responsibility to local residents. We believe the readings would be lower if taken in a more suitable location representing the true picture of the residential subdivision. We believe the current sound testing has been deliberately misrepresented.
2. We believe there needs to be a sound proof wall erected to protect residents not just from the increased noise level this new local road will produce but also to alleviate noise and increased traffic levels from future development of the West Korora Basin which is a prime development site for future residential subdivisions. The residents from this area will all be funnelled onto our local road to travel.
3. Friend of ours live in Crystal Drive Sapphire Beach and back onto the local road, they are not able to sit outside or have their windows open due to the increased traffic noise they have from the local road and no sound barrier protection. We have been there on numerous occasions and have had to come inside from the patio due to the traffic noise.
4. The current sound proof wall will only help to amplify the noise of the “local road’ and ricochet it back towards the residential homes, adding further impact on the quality of our lives. We currently live with the constant hum of traffic regularly broken by the screaming of truck hydraulic braking or their air horns in the early hours of the morning none of which is conducive to a sound night’s sleep. The noise during the week is so loud our children have left our home to stay at friends during their exam period to ensure they get a good night’s sleep.
5. We have major concerns as to the “local road” categorisation, this will not be a local road but a major thoroughfare. With traffic levels only going to increase as subdivisions occur and force more cars onto the “local roads’ to avoid using the Pacific Highway. Our homes, our largest investments will be worthless and unsaleable. Real estate agents have advised that the proposed road and noise will make it a challenge to sell, even for a much reduced price.
6. We have visited your RMS information office in Park Avenue when it first opened and was told we would be getting a sound wall and not to worry. Now a neighbour has contacted us and informed us this is not the truth and we are not getting a sound wall at all. When the previous road upgrade was being discussed the RMS told us the sound wall was going to be installed and major gardens would be planted to beautify the area across the road. At no time did RMS staff mention any possibility of a new road being built in the future. Recently, other neighbours have also been told we would be getting a local road sound proof wall when they visited the Park Avenue information office just after it opened. It would appear most residents have been told incorrect information and have been completely unaware the impact this this have on their lives and property prices.
7. The thought of further vibration taking place during the construction of the “local road” actually terrifies us. Our home is our major asset and suffered damage during the last construction phase. This phase will be much closer and on the same level as our home. The RMS declined any responsibility for the cracking and other damage incurred last time to a number of homes on Coachmans Close and Fernliegh Avenue. We and our fellow neighbours want this repaired and an indemnity against any further damage occurring to our homes. We have spoken to a Solicitor and a group class action will be undertaken against the RMS. An RMS engineer has told one of our neighbours whose home suffered major structural damage from the vibrations that everyone on Coachmans close has received compensation for the damages incurred.

We have lived at the above address since 13th February 2002, moving from the Hawkesbury in North West Sydney to Coffs Harbour with two small children we were very conscious of traffic. We carefully watched and listened to the traffic flows prior to purchasing our home. We had no idea the Chinderah tunnels opening in August 2002 would impact our lives so dramatically.

Since the tunnels opened the noise from the B double trucks that have flocked to the new route rocked our house and made the front bedrooms unliveable. We had no choice but to put up with it, some nights our children have slept on the lounge downstairs.

The upgrade of the highway and the installation of the sound barrier has given us some reprieve from the constant hum of traffic and the squealing of large trucks. Some nights the window have to be closed with the constant trucks and their braking penetrating even the thick concrete sound proof wall.

During construction of the road and the wall we would come home and find things fallen off the wall or shelves and broken. Our daughter’s stereo system fell off and was smashed, our home developed a huge crack in the front garage wall only to be told the RMS was not responsible. Your decision to install this local road will impact on many families in this small residential area. Not only our day to day lives will be impacted but the value of our major asset OUR HOME will be de valued to the point we will not be able to afford to move.