Inland Rail - Narrabri to North Star Phase 2

I received information about the proposed project a week before the submissions were to close. My property (3 OAK STREET, MOREE NSW 2400) is to be severely impacted by not only the ongoing operational noise due to increased rail traffic mere meters from the property, but for 18-24 months of construction impacts. While I believe the project has great merit, I am deeply concerned about the noise impacts both forecasted (which in my lived opinion sides with caution) and the projected impacts.

The noise from the reduced rail traffic currently using the existing infrastructure is near unbearable to experience, as the sound and the vibrations feel as though the actual earth beneath the property is shaking. Take this and increase the frequency and longevity and you have an untenable situation.

The possible treatment options (being a noise wall, facade treatments or other noise mitigation measures) cannot address the issue. The rail corridor impacts are felt (figuratively and literally) from the moment the carriages begin passing through the level crossing to the south, until minutes after the last carriage has crossed the bride. No amount of treatments could mitigate these impacts. Even a 3m high noise wall would do little to mitigate the impacts of the increased noise.

Furthermore, the ongoing and relentless impacts that would be caused by the construction of the new bridge, for 18-24 months, would be near impossible to mitigate. The quality of life, the lost sleep and daily struggles are something that need to be considered.

The proximity of the works and the rail corridor to the property need to be assessed realistically (not on paper). Do this, and you will find that your predictions pale in comparison to lived experiences.

I have lived through many construction projects, and road upgrades so I understand that as with any infrastructure project there are impacts, but those listed in your reports, those that it has yet to cover and the lived experiences says that these works and this project will make living in this property untenable.

Further, the development of this infrastructure and the surrounding landscape will severely alter the affects of flooding on the property. I understand you have a Hydrologist who has assessed the property, however the increasing number of Major flooding events in this area over the past decade makes me seriously question how this work is going to adversely affect the property.

It is my recommendation that the property be considered for acquisition. I understand that this is not the preference, however your own report (be it mild in nature) indicates that the property is going to experience a colossal increase in noise and vibration impacts that will negatively impact the quality of life experienced in the home.

We are responsible for the property, "Listowel" Moree, and the farm's associated pumps and irrigation channels.

The location of the existing river pump site for the property is within the new rail corridor.

Details of the proposed new location for our pump site is still unclear.

Should our pumpsite need to be moved, a new pumpsite location will need to be sourced at ARTC's costs, and all associated works and costs will also need to be paid for by ARTC.

The property is operated as an irrigated farm, and 24/7 access to the existing pumpsite is essential for all operations.

The existing pumpsite cannot be decommissioned until ARTC's alternative new pumpsite is agreed upon, built, and fully operational; where the property and associated entities experience no operational downtime, or time without access to a fully operational river pumpsite, at any stage.



We are further concerned about the effect the new rail corridor may have on the flow of water in future flood events.

The buildings and infrastructure at "Listowel" are surrounded by a levy bank.

Since construction, this levy bank has prevented water from entering the inside of the levy bank in all floods.

The impact that the new rail corridor might have on flood waters on our property is unclear

Should the property's levy bank not be high enough to prevent water in future flooding events, because of the new rail corridor, ARTC will need to assess what alterations are required to the levy bank and carry out all-associated works with necessary permits and permissions.

We are happy enough to support the rail to continue through the maintrack where it resides now as long as there is enough culverts and waterways in the line to stop any flooding and the further back up of flood water in the gwydirfield area. At the moment as you are aware the water does not flow through enough and continually causes extensive damage to the track and surrounding area in a flood event. I have attached a drone video of the railin last flood on the gwydirfield crossover.
we definatly DO NOT support any of the by-pass options propossed as it totally defeats the purpose of having the rail run through town

Comments and concerns see attached file.

GM & LM MORRIS
INLAND RAIL – NARRABRI TO NORTH STAR - PHASE 2
Submission (SUB-50372225)

We are against the upgrade to the Railway Line directly behind our house (approximately 100m away) because it will impact our quality of life immensely. We bought “Longlands” with a vision to provide a safe and peaceful lifestyle for our growing family and which would enable us enough land to enjoy our horses, sheep and cattle.

We have already experienced one disruption to our paradise when our house and some of our land was acquisitioned by the Government to build the current Bypass in 2006. We were forced to rebuild down the back of our block to get away from the noise of the highway and on the highest part of our land (to avoid flood water coming in to our new home), which is down near the railway line. For the past 16 years we have enjoyed a peaceful existence with no trainline noise whatsoever! Now we are being told that between 10-12 trains will use the rail line per day over the first few years of operation, increasing to about 20 trains per day over the first 20 years and they will be operating 24 hours a day.

Our main concerns are:

NOISE
As mentioned above we have a very peaceful lifestyle. In summer we spend the majority of our time outside in the garden, in the pool or on our deck which faces the railway line. We are very social people and have visitors constantly and entertain on our deck during the day and late in to the night. The same goes for winter, we have a beautiful Fire Pit next to our Pool Shed which is where we do our winter entertaining and that area is even closer to the railway line! We are being led to believe that we will not be impacted by the noise and that we are not entitled to any compensation or anything to help minimise the noise we will have to endure and that will alter our lifestyle beyond belief!
What we want:
1. The noise to be measured before any work starts on railway line and then after, when the trains are in full swing – this will prove our argument and help us with any future problems and compensation.
2. Double glazed windows, mainly for winter sleeping and watching television, this will not really help us in summer as we have evaporative air conditioning and the windows need to be open to allow the air conditioning to work.
3. A line of large trees or high growing bushes in front of the railway line facing our property. We have been told that trees and bushes will not help the noise, however my belief is “out of sight out of mind”. If we cannot see the trains it will subconsciously help us to deal with the noise.
4. Ideally, we would like noise wall (that we cannot see) behind the wall of trees to lower the noise even more!
5. Monetary compensation if the above will not be done on our behalf so we can organise our own.
VALUATION
1. We require a valuation done on our property before the commencement of work on the railway line.
2. We require a valuation done on our property after the trains are operational and about 10 years after that! If the value of our property has gone down or not risen as expected in line with other properties of its size and stature, we want to be compensated accordingly.
FLOODING
1. Currently and in the past, flood waters have not entered our house or sheds, the water goes to the bottom of our grass near the house.
2. We want compensation for any loss incurred if the flood waters increase significantly after the upgrade of the railway line and impact on our property in ways it has not done in the past ie;
a. Flood water impacts the footings or structure of our sheds and their contents and cars
b. Flood water impacts the footings of our house or enters the house or pool
c. Animals drown due to no access to higher ground
d. Damage to fences

Supporting documentation attached.

Thank you
Regards
Leah and Garry Morris

The project is vital to inland Australia. When completed should assist in making our roads safer by moving more goods off the highways.
I have issues with the effect the project will have on my home, my health and my partners health.
We have a home at 290 Morton Street Moree. It will be significantly impacted by noise- at present we get about Four trains per year and only in the wheat season. We hardly ever have train noise during the night. The project will affect the quality of our sleep- additional noise leads to broken sleep which impacts on your health.
The installation of the new bridge over the Mehi River will also be a noise impact on our lives. The ramming of the pylons will create more vibrations that will make our house noiser and potentially create additional cracks.
We are concerned with the significantly increased particulate loading from both the Diesel engine and the brake dust. My partner is asthmatic and this will not be of benefit to him.
The emissions will also coat our house in diesel particulates that will need to be cleaned off at more regular intervals and will stain the paint work.
We are concerned with the effect of constant vibrations on the structure of the house. We expect it will lead to cracking of the plaster and the louvres will be another noise level problem.
The value of my home will more than likely decrease as it won’t be seen as desirable. It will be more difficult to sell to potential buyers. My end of Morton Street is very quiet. I have elderly neighbours and it is a dead end street. The changes that the increase in rail traffic will create means I will lose that lifestyle.
I have been consulting with members of Inland Rail for two years now. The unknown is extremely stressful and have lead me to purchase another home. I could not continue with that level of stress and as I’m not getting any younger. It has been a very expensive decision.
A business plan has been drawn up for the voluntary acquisition my home but has had no traction.

I am lodging this submission after instructions to do so by Martin Singleton, Rob Lesley and Haidar Etemadi from the hydrology department for Inland Rail. I have been a member of the Moree Floodplain committee for the past 5 years. The area of concern is the area's east of the railway line. I have been advised that the hydrology study was based off the study provided by council from 2017. This study has a major flaw in it as it doesn't capture the unmetered water that comes from White Swamp. As shown in past floods and the most recent flood, there is high volumes of water that comes thru that area. As this isn't allowed for it creates the real possibility of water building up behind the rail line and making the heights and damage far worse then what has ever been experienced in these areas. This includes the areas of Gwydirfield and South East Moree. Currently we have a safety net in the fact that the water flows over the line and blows out the rail before such heights can be achieved. There is no way to work out the true amount of water that can come thru White Swamp as once it reachs the Mehi it is below the Chinook gauge and above the Mehi Moree gauge and breaks across and joins the Gwydir below the Yarraman gauge. The 2022 flood has shown the impact the rail can have it is not correct. Even though for most areas the flood was just below the 2012 flood, but out at the Gwydirfield area it was significantly lower because the rail line blew out early unlike 2012 where it held water back until the peak and reached 30-40cm higher. Because this is always going to be a real possibility I believe the project needs to improve the situation of the properties that are at risk in the affected areas.

My comments below relate to property ID: 4347931
- I request information on the exact location of new culverts boarding my property as I need ascertain any possible adverse effect on my hay shed pad and irrigation infrastructure
- I understand there will be trees removed from my property along the corridor, when it comes to the time of removal, I request consultation before removal
* The trees and vegetation help to counter soil erosion during a flood. Removal of this vegetation will increase soil erosion.
- Regarding the negotiations relating to the property access road, I request the following:
*Prior to any agreement or access, full and frank consultation at the earliest opportunity to clarify position, width, height, and maintenance of access road
*Access and timing of access by contractors
*Dust control measures
*Contractual terms (i.e. lengths of access) and financial reimbursement

Dear Sir,
due to the recent floods i would like to emphasise the importance of proving a large number of culverts to allow the water the travel north and west of the new bend structure to be erected north of the Gwydir River. To the force the water through my property would cause untold damage, it is far better to allow the water to travel along its natural course. During a flood event the highway is closed at various points so there is no impediment to traffic by water going over the highway,
Attached are four photographs from the April 2021 flodd showing damage to the railway line and the height at the Back Pally Road adjacent to The Gun Club. I imagine it would be far cheaper to install adequate culverts than repair the rail lines after each flood event
Hugh Livingston

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the owner of The Moree Hotel on the Corner of Alice St and Morton St in Moree.

We purchased the hotel with the vision of restoring the property to an accommodation business. The Hotel has existing accommodation rooms that are directly opposite from the proposed Rail development along Morton Street, and there is a significant amount of ground floor area that also can be converted in to accommodation. We have completed concept plans that provided a minimum of 24 accommodation rooms for the property.

However, once we became aware of the likely impacts of the Inland Rail, we have tried to ‘fire sale’ the property, without success.

I am extremely concerned with the expected noise and vibration that will occur during construction and upon completion when there will be up to 20 trains per day travelling on the line at a length of 1.8kms. As this location will be an acceleration and deceleration point for the trains, I would expect that there will be a significant amount of ‘shunting’. The Inland Rail development will all but make my property worthless and will create a significant impediment to being able to complete our property renovation and reap the benefits of trading this business.

As anyone who regularly visits Moree can confirm that there is a significant undersupply of short term accommodation. As we are experienced operators in the accommodation sector, we have no doubt that the business model that we developed would be a success at this location.

We are now in a position where we have uncertainty as to what the future holds and we are suffering holding costs on this project, until we can ascertain the viability of our development based on the impacts of inland rail.

Whilst I am supportive of the overall project and can see the significant benefits for the Moree community as well as regional Australia, I should not be left in a position of suffering economic loss because of the loss of amenity to my property.

The fairest way forward should be for Inland Rail to purchase the property at market rates and I think that this pathway would be the most financially efficient outcome for both parties.

A purchase of the property would

• alleviate any further losses for me as the owner of the property
• provide Inland Rail with certainty on the matter
• eliminate the cost of relocating the onsite caretaker for the duration of the project
• eliminate the cost of replacing the caretaker with cameras, alarms and site patrols
• remove any additional building costs by way of noise and vibration mitigation to the property
• remove the need for sound barriers/walls to be installed
• potentially provide the contractors at Inland Rail a secure base to store machinery
• utilise the building as an amenities block.

I would be grateful if you could please discuss this further with your Senior Project Manager – Mr Adam Barber, and make an assessment of our request.

Kind regards

Jim Knox

Dear sir/madam,

I own both 292 and 292A Morton St, Moree. Both houses are on one single title and they are typically tenanted. Whilst I support the overall value of the project I have short term and long term concerns over the viability of renting out or selling both houses during the construction and operational phases of the project. The houses lie in or close to the predicted highest noise areas during the construction phase and the area of high ongoing noise levels once the project becomes operational.

The houses are currently undergoing renovation due to flood and malicious damage. Once the renovations are complete I plan to then find tenants and place the property on the market for sale. My concerns centre around the question of who will want rent or buy a property with such high noise levels? I understand both houses may be eligible for noise controlling updates however this doesn't provide any reassurance for occupants who are coming and going to the property or simply spending time in the garden. I understand a wall may be constructed to reduce noise impact but then this greatly reduces the visual aesthetics for any potential tenant or buyer.

In summary, I believe both the high noise levels and visual disturbance will have major negative impacts on the viability of renting or selling my property. I would like to know what steps the project will take to address these concerns, for both myself and other renters/owners in the same situation.

Kind regards.

Dear Sir,
I have serious concerns regarding the impact of the new railway line adjacent to the hairpin bend at Camurra on my property Boolooroo. The flood waters naturally flow in a north westerly direction, across the Newell Highway towards the Marshall Ponds Creek. The propose works are forcing the water through the central section of my property causing more flooding than usual and thus having a significant financial impact on my business through the loss of crops. I note below you are aware of this issue from your Environmental Impact Study.
Paragraph 12.5.4.4
“The proposal is not considered to have adverse impacts on agricultural properties and infrastructure, with the exception of the agricultural property to the north of the Camurra hairpin that receives floodwaters diverted from the south. This property has an afflux impact in all events, which could affect the productivity of the cropping land on the property. Further assessment of this impact will be undertaken at the detailed design stage to attempt to reduce the afflux impacts and achieve a better balance of afflux impact across the property and adjacent land.”

A low level bridge or large culvert structure under both the railway and highway would allow water to travel freely in its natural direction and prevent much damage to property and the highway. This would lessen impacts on property and transport links. During times of flood the Newell Highway is normally closed at various locations north of Moree it should also be noted.
Hugh Livingston

Re: Objection to Inland Rail Project –Narromine to Narrabri – through Pilliga State Conservation Area and associated Pilliga bushland (forests, woodland and shrublands). Cultural Heritage impacts including but not limited to Gwydir and Mehi Rivers





I strongly object to the proposed Inland Rail Route. I am concerned about any native vegetation area impacted including but not limited to the Pilliga State Conservation Area and associated bushland areas.

I object to the proposed removal of at least 1800 hectares – which is an area equivalent to 3 x 6 km of intact bushland.

The proposal is out of line with the Objectives of the Australia’s Commonwealth Commitment to Biodiversity Protection

Recently, the Federal Commonwealth has committed to increase the proportion of our nation managed for biodiversity protection to no less than 30% of all land and seas by 2030 . This project undermines this goal.


The proposal also fails to meet the objectives ofAustralia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/213717/Background-Documents- Commonwealth-Biodiversity-Conservation-Strategy-2010.pdf


One of the overriding principles of the Strategy (page 18) states:
Knowing that our knowledge is limited, we should apply the precautionary principle while employing adaptive management approaches using new science and practical experience. The precautionary principle is that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.


This must apply to the impacts and potential threats the project will cause, such as habitat loss, vegetation clearing, soil degradation and adding to the impacts of climate change by removing vegetation.

Biodiversity Offsets have failed. They are simply a way for developers to circumnavigate around regulations

It is unacceptable to offset areas of vegetation that already have a conservation designation and conservation land-use (or informal-conservation tenure and land-use).

In other words, double dipping - land that would have been conserved and allowed to regenerate, under current legislation constraints and in conjunction with typical land use circumstances.

Biodiversity offsets will not negate the impacts of loss of flora and fauna and, resulting bushland fragmentation and habitat loss, caused by this project

The project will also impact on the cultural heritage by impacting landscape of rivers such as Gwndir and Mehi. There are few untouched landscapes and the rail impacts are irreversible

This project should be rejected

Dear Michael
I understand I am able to put in late submission to SSI10054
I am writing to comment on the proposal and note it’s impacts on my property which is on Gwydirfield Road and backs onto the railway.
I have been zoned for a rural residential sub-division and am concerned that the railway development will negatively impact my future subdivision plans.
I have spent a lot of time and money on getting my subdivision up to this point. The noise and hydrology impacts concern me greatly. Most particularly I would like my potential blocks (14 blocks) to be considered as rural residential as opposed to just rural. I would like the future needs of these potential residences to be taken into account in terms of noise and hydrology.

Also I want to ensure that a fence sufficient for cattle is put in place between the rail and my property.
If you require the subdivision plans or additional information please feel free to contact me.

Submission to Inland Rail Moree to Camurra

Sir/Madam,

In regard to the Inland Rail Section from Moree to Camurra I would like to ask, if the old railway bridge over the Gwydir can be left there for the foreseeable future, as Santos is planning a gas pipeline through our farm, which we don’t want. Our farm is downstream from Camurra on the northern side of the Gwydir.

The pipeline comes along the railway line from Ashley on the stock route. I was tricked 15 years ago by 2 employees of Hunter Gas Pipeline, which has now been taken over by Santos, to let them on our farm to investigate a possible route for the pipeline, as I didn’t want to be obstructive. A few days later I found out, the State Government didn’t let them use the stock route, so we sent them two letters, we didn’t want it on our land either. We got no answer.

About a couple years ago, they sent us a letter, saying they had government approval since 2009, to build the pipeline within 200m of what the 2 employees marked down.

We wont let them damage some of the best alluvial soil the world needs for food, to increase human induced climate change, while there is a stock route right along our fence. There must be a better solution.

Also the latest flood got to about 5cm from running into our basement, which would have filled it 1.5m deep with water.

Therefor I would like to ask you not to increase the volume size of any existing culvert for 2km from the Gwydir bridge towards Moree, as it won’t improve drainage of the floodplain.

Kind regards,

Henry Schneebeli
“Santis”
Moree NSW 2400