Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure


Inland Rail - Narromine to Narrabri

Coonamble Shire, Gilgandra Shire, Narrabri Shire, Warrumbungle Shire, Narromine Shire

Current Status: More Information Required

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

This section of the Inland Rail project consists of approximately 300 km of new single track rail line, through private and public property in a “greenfield” environment between Narromine and Narrabri.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (2)

Notice of Exhibition_SSI-9487
Notice of Exhibition_08122020_083530

Early Consultation (1)

Scoping Report

Application (1)

N2N - SSI Addendum Report

SEARs (2)

Superseded SEARs
N2N Amended FINAL Sears

EIS (90)

Executive summary
Table of contents
Abbreviations and definitions
Chapter A1 – Introduction
Chapter A2 – Location and setting
Chapter A3 – Statutory context
Chapter A4 – Consultation
Chapter A5 – Strategic context & need for proposal
Chapter A6 – Alternatives and options
Chapter A7 – Proposal features and operation
Chapter A8 – Construction of the proposal
Chapter A9 – Assessment approach and methodology
Chapter B1 – Biodiversity
Chapter B2 – Water resources
Chapter B3 – Flooding
Chapter B4 – Soils and contamination
Chapter B5 – Water quality
Chapter B6 – Aboriginal heritage
Chapter B7 – Non-Aboriginal heritage
Chapter B8 – Noise and vibration (construction)
Chapter B9 – Noise and vibration (operation)
Chapter B10 – Air quality
Chapter B11 – Traffic and transport
Chapter B12 – Land use and property
Chapter B13 – Visual amenity
Chapter B14 – Socio-economic assessment
Chapter C1 – Assessment of multifunction compounds
Chapter C2 – Assessment of temp workforce accom
Chapter C3 – Assessment of borrow pits
Chapter D1 – Cumulative impacts
Chapter D2 – Waste management
Chapter D3 – Sustainability
Chapter D4 – Climate change
Chapter D5 – Approach to mitigation and management
Chapter D6 – Conclusion and justification
Chapter D7 – References
Part E – Map Book 1
Part E – Map Book 2
Part E – Map Book 3
Part E – Map Book 4
Part E – Map Book 5
Appendix A – SEARs
Appendix B – EIS form and content requirements
Appendix C – Consultation report
Appendix D – Strategic planning review
Appendix E – Environmental risk assessment
Appendix F – Preliminary land requirements
Appendix G – Sustainability in design measures
Appendix H – Climate change additional information
Appendix I – Outline CEMP
Appendix J – Utilities management framework
Appendix K – Borrow pit rehabilitation strategy
Appendix L – Construct noise & vibration framework
Appendix M – Air quality data
Tech Report 1 – Biodiversity 1
Tech Report 1 – Biodiversity 2
Tech Report 1 – Biodiversity 3
Tech Report 2 – Aquatic ecology
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 1
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 2
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 3
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 4
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 5
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 6
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 7
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 8
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 9
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 10
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 11
Tech Report 3 – Flooding and hydrology 12
Tech Report 4 – Groundwater
Tech Report 5 – Surface water quality
Tech Report 6 – Aboriginal cultural heritage
Tech Report 7 – Non-Aboriginal heritage
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 1
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 2
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 3
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 4
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 5
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 6
Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibration - Construction 7
Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibration Operation 1
Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibration Operation 2
Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibration Operation 3
Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibration Operation 4
Tech Report 10 – Traffic and transport
Tech Report 11 – Agriculture and land use
Tech Report 12 – Landscape and visual
Tech Report 13 – Social
Tech Report 14 - Economic

Response to Submissions (4)

Request RTS Letter_30092022_103616
Request RTS_16022021_055354
Response to Submissions Report
N2N PIR Response to Submissions

Agency Advice (12)

Local Land Services response to PIAR ARTC 19Sep22
N2N PIR FCNSW response 27092022
TfNSW - IR N2Na PIR Submission 20220919
N2N_PIR August 2022_BCS comments_biodiversity
Inland Rail - Narromine to Narrabr (SSI-9487) - CL Response
22.09.20 - EPA advice on PIR_Amendment Rpt - SSI 9487
DPE Water Response - Inland Rail - Narromine to Narrabri
DPI Ag N2N Preferred Infrastructure-Amendment Report
DPI Fisheries Narromine-Narrabri PIR Submission
SSI 9487_Inland Rail_Heritage Ccl
Inland Rail - Narromine to Narrabri - SSI-9487 - HNSW ACH
WaterNSW Response N2N Inland Rail Amend Report

Amendments (87)

SEARs Amendment request
N2N PIR letter - Signed 30 April 21
SSI PIR Acceptance Letter 24082022
01 Table of Contents
02 Preferred Infrastructure Amendment Report
03 Updated Map Book Part A
04 Updated Map Book Part B
05 Updated Map Book Part C
06 Updated Map Book Part D
07 Updated Map Book Part E
08 Updated Tech Report 1 Biodiversity Assessment1
09 Updated Tech Report 1 Biodiversity Assessment2
10 Updated Tech Report 1 Biodiversity Assessment3
11 Updated Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibratn Const1
12 Updated Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibratn Const2
13 Updated Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibratn Const3
14 Updated Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibratn Const4
15 Updated Tech Report 8 Noise and Vibratn Const5
16 Updated Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibratn Opertn1
17 Updated Tech Report 9 Noise and Vibratn Opertn2
18 Addendum Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessmt
19 Aboriginal Stakeholder Engagement Framework
20 Addendum Social Assessment Report
21 Social Impact Management Plan
22 Updated Tech Report 3 Hydrology Assessment
23 Appendix A Structures and blockage factors
24 Appendix B Independent peer review
25 Appendix C Modelled catchment peak flows
26 Appendix D1 Existing maximum flood depths
27 Appendix D2 Existing maximum flow velocities(1)
28 Appendix D3 Existing flood durations
29 Appendix D4 Existing maximum hazard
30 Appendix E Geomorphology assessment
31 Appendix F Construction phase - afflux
32 Appendix G1 Operational- afflux
33 Appendix G2 Operational- change in flow velocty
34 Appendix G3 Operational- change in flood duratn
35 Appendix G4 Operational- change in hazard
36 Appendix H Operational flood maps
37 Appendix I1 QDL compliance afflux 20% AEP
38 Appendix I2 QDL compliance afflux 5% AEP
39 Appendix I3 QDL compliance afflux 2% AEP
40 Appendix I4 QDL compliance afflux 1% AEP+blkage
41 Appendix I5 QDL compliance scourerosion 20% AEP
42 Appendix I6 QDL compliance scourerosion 5% AEP
43 Appendix I7 QDL compliance scourerosion 2% AEP
44 Appendix I8 QDL compliance afflux 1% AEP+blkage
45 Appendix I9 QDL compliance hazard 20% AEP
46 Appendix I10 QDL compliance hazard 5% AEP
47 Appendix I11 QDL compliance hazard 2% AEP
48 Appndix I12 QDL compliance hazard 1% AEP+blkage
49 Appendix I13 QDL compliance duration 20% AEP
50 Appendix I14 QDL compliance duration 5% AEP
51 Appendix I15 QDL compliance duration 2% AEP
52 Appndix I16 QDL compliance duratn 1% AEP+blkage
53Appendix J Hydrology+Hydraulic Model Calibration
54AppendixK Track overtopping locations-rare event
55AppendixL Narrabri viaduct–piers and embankments
56 Appendix M Technical note–flood planning level
57 Appendix N Local and region floods at Nbri 1
58 SubAppA Maps Nbri 20%25AEP local &amp
59 SubAppA Maps Nbri 5%25AEP local &amp
60 SubAppA Maps Nbri 2%25AEP local &amp
61 SubAppA Maps Nbri 1%25AEP local &amp
62 SubAppA Maps Nbri 20%25AEP local &amp
63 SubAppA Maps Nbri 5%25AEP local &amp
64 SubAppA Maps Nbri 2%25AEP local &amp
65 SubAppA Maps Nbri 1%25AEP local &amp
66 SubAppA Maps Nbri 20%25AEP local®ion floods10
67 SubAppA Maps Nbri 5%25AEP local®ion floods11
68 SubAppA Maps Nbri 2%25AEP local®ion floods12
69 SubAppA Maps Nbri 1%25AEP local®ion floods13
70 SubAppA Maps Nbri 20%25AEP local®ion floods14
71 SubAppA Maps Nbri 5%25AEP local®ion floods15
72 SubAppA Maps Nbri 2%25AEP local®ion floods16
73 SubAppA Maps Nbri 1%25AEP local®ion floods17
74SubAppB Exceed mapsNbri local &regionflood18
75 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood19
76 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood20
77 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood21
78 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood22
79 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood23
80 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood24
81 SubAppB Exceed maps Nbri local®ion flood25
82 Appendix O Erosion potential+fluvial geomorphl
83 Appendix P TUFLOW Fine Grid Modelling Report
84AppendixQ Alternative flooding assessBohenaCk(1)


Showing 1 - 20 of 176 submissions
Neville Roberts Family Settlement
NARROMINE , New South Wales
My submission relates to the lack of access provided to titles, particularly 57 DP 752581, also affecting 42 and 43 DP752581.

We operate an agricultural operation which will be split in two by the proposed project and feel that the level of access crossing the line is inadequate.
-the title mentioned was purchased 5 years ago, with the adjoining title purchased over 30years ago and if we were to sell separately in the future then this portion would be landlocked.
-50% of our holdings will be located on either side of the railway line, meaning without suitable access our business is unfairly impacted from a logistical point of view in terms of movement of machinery, livestock and grain commodities.
-the impact on the business from a public liability and cost point of view moving stock and machinery via the level crossing at the euromedah fire shed would detrimentally impact us in a way that we consider to be completely unreasonable and unsafe.
-An earlier proposal provided by ARTC allowed for a crossing providing access to the property in question, which in the current proposal has been removed.

We have discussed our concerns with our immediate northern neighbour (1/209376) and he was unaware that the proposed level crossing to our properties had been removed. He too is in a position where the title of this property is effectively landlocked by the project.

We are of the opinion that none of our individual titles should be landlocked by inland rail if the impact of this project is to be minimised as it drastically reduces their saleability.

We have raised this concern with ARTC to encourage them to review their plans so that this issue is rectified. At time of writing no formal response has been received.

Please contact us directly should you require any further information.
Colin Hill
NARRABRI , New South Wales
Dear To Whom It May Concern:
As a proud Australian, I always wanted to own property in Australia and in 2001 I was able to purchase approximately 360 acres outside Narrabri N.S.W on the Coonabarabran Rd.
In 1985, I was given the opportunity to attend University in The United States on a full athletic scholarship. I have spent the last 35 years living in the US with the hopes that one day I can return to Narrabri to build my home on the land I purchased in 2001. Now that I am approaching my retirement, I have discovered that there are plans for a rail system to pass through my property which essentially makes the property useless for my initial reason for purchase. For the last 20 years we have run cattle on the farm and because of its close proximity to Narrabri have enjoyed many family functions on the farm, especially camping.
While I am totally in favor of the advancement of the rural economy and the opportunities this rail system affords the Australian people it does seem unfair that while you will benefit from cutting a path through my property I am left with a place that becomes uninhabitable for the purpose it was acquired for taking into account the Rail traffic and noise that goes with it.
In 2010 I purchased crown land as opposed to leasing it along with many of my neighbors to access my property only to find out that this rail project was already in motion. If this was made known to us, I am sure we would have questioned the decision to purchase.
Concerned Landowner.
Thank you for your time.

Colin J. Hill
Terry Francis
NARRABRI , New South Wales
I am a strong supporter of the Inland Rail project and I am pleased to see that the railway system through NSW is to get a major upgrade. Whilst this once in 100 year work is being carried out why not ensure that all shunting and train adjustment yards are moved well out of town. The NSW railways (ARTC?) has enormous tracts of land along its lines, so not having areas to make these changes is not an excuse. In this day and age it totally unnecessary to have shunting and general train noise happening (day or night) in a NSW regional town. The opportunity now presents itself to change this situation. Please confirm in writing to me that the above changes will be made.
Terry Francis. 12/01/2021.
Bill Foster
NARRABRI , New South Wales
William John Foster
200 The Island Road

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

RE: Narromine to Narrabri Inland Rail Link Application No SSI 9487

I wish to advise that I object to the proposal of the Inland Rail link between Narromine and Narrabri. My property is located on a unique serene piece of real estate, 5 minutes from town and is my main source of income. I’ve spent 25 years planning and developing it now to have it destroyed. I believe Inland Rail hasn’t given enough consideration to local knowledge before selecting this inefficient and disruptive rail route at the Narromine to Narrabri end.
My primary residence is approximately 400m from the alignment and Inland Rail has advised me that the modelling shows I will be eligible for mitigation measures. I believe these measures will not be satisfactory and believe that ARTC Inland Rail should buy my property as the impacts are too severe.

Reasons being:
1. The noise rumbling and vibration will deplete our farm income from farm stay and camping. Campers will choose to stay elsewhere particularly in the winter time as the noise will amplify down the river. It will also destroy our exotic bird breeding enterprise and serenity. I have spent thousands of dollars on infrastructure and breeding lines and believe the impacts from noise and vibrations will severely impact our breeding program.

2. Our view to Mount Kaputar National Park and escarpment will be obscured by a monstrosity. I built the house so it is perfectly positioned to view the Nandewar Ranges and over the years have landscaped to maximise the natural serenity. With current alignment, the visual impact will be severely impacted and Inland Rail has not been able to provide a viable solution.

3. With the Inland Rail alignment in such close proximity to my property, the value has been greatly reduced. When speaking with Inland Rail they advised as I am not directly impacted, I would not receive any compensation however would have the ongoing impacts plus loss of property value. I believe with Inland Rail built and in operation I will never be able to sell my property for what it is worth and see the only solution for the property to be bought now by Inland Rail. Recently I objected to a rate increase by the valuer general. A valuer inspected the farm and proposed rail location and no decision regarding the rate increase has been made after six months. This indicates to me that the property price has been impacted already by the proposed rail corridor.
Wayne Moy
NARRABRI , New South Wales
As an affectted land owner i am concerned about the effect this will have on my farming operation and future development of the farm.Regarding the farm residence i have concerns about the valuation of the farm in the future as well as visual impact.Noise and vibration will also impact this valuation
Taje Fowler
NARROMINE , New South Wales
I submit my objection to this project as a First Nation woman descendant of the Wiradjuri and the Wurundjeri nation with deep ties and obligation to protect our country. I am also a community member of the Narromine CCC of the Inland Rail project.

Consultation & Biodiversity issues
Recent I submitted questions to ARTC as to why they are clearing farmland containing native bushland to establish new quarry pits when many existing quarry businesses are located near-by and many are closer to the project. ARTC’s response to me was to look my own answers up in their EIS document.
I am very unhappy with this response and have found the EIS to be lacking in any explanation. I object to ARTC’s handling of my concerns as to why can’t they answer the questions? ARTC should support legitimate quarry businesses in our community rather than destroying 20 hectares of native bushland and grasslands.
The EIS rehabilitation strategy has no way to restore culturally significant plants such as lilies, orchids, rushes and other herbs in their strategy. These plants have significance for First Nation people and with less than 5% of our country with any bushland left it is not acceptable to destroy more when alternative options are located nearby.
The assessments of all the sites was undertaken during a severe drought and basically describe everything as poor condition. ARTC seem to have little idea what they will be destroying. How much time will be spent surveying for plants before it is excavated and lost? They say seed will be collected, how much time will be allocated to collecting and will all species be collected? Bushland is more than just trees, it is all the plants and animals on country.
This EIS does not have answers for our communities. ARTC does not consult with community it spends all its time and resources promoting the project. This EIS has insufficient detail for the community. ARTC needs to put this detail so the community knows how and why decisions were made and how ARTC are going to repair all the landscapes they will be destroying.
roslyn thorn
NARRABRI , New South Wales
Objection to this project is attached.
Philip Laird
Keiraville , New South Wales
Please see attached, which in the main, are supportive of the project
mark buckley
BARADINE , New South Wales
I recommend the Minister should refuse the project in its current form or that the design of
the project should be changed to address concerns of all affected landowners.
The Minister require the ARTC to undertake more community consultation and detailed
information before approving the Project .
Route selection , Alternative route using more of the existing Coonamble line.
This is an alignment for which ARTC have no community support.
Noeline Lummis
CURBAN , New South Wales
I did support the project as it was first designed, but over the last 10years it has not shown the value for money committed to the project compared to the disruption to the community or the country. I believe it will only benefit very few unless you are in Melbourne, Parkes, Toowoomba or outside Brisbane. the project is missing the opportunity to grow inland Australia.
Name Withheld
NARROMINE , New South Wales
Whilst supportive of the project, we have two areas of concern being:
1. No apparent reference to the stress and mental strain caused to people who live along the route who will have been impacted for over ten years during the planning and construction. They have been subject to uncertainty, minimal consultation about the mental impact and have been unable to sell their properties due to the uncertainty that the project has caused. Some would have sold and retired years ago had it not been for the project but are having to work on well into their 70's as the bulk of their retirement asset is locked up in their properties. Technical Report 13 - Social Assessment does not acknowledge these issues, nor does it identify any mitigation measures.
2. Borrow Pit "C" has been planned without consultation with the owners of the property situated between it and the Rail alignment. The proposed access road identified in the SEARs Amendment Request document has many disadvantages including closeness to the neighbour's house, added traffic on a local road, haulage distance, increased traffic delays. An alternative is proposed in the attachment to this submission.
DPI Agriculture
DUBBO , New South Wales
Good afternoon

Please find a copy of DPI Agriculture's response to this proposal.
Thank you
Mary Kovac
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
See attached letter
DPI Fisheries
Attached is DPI Fisheries Advice regarding this development.
Sydney , New South Wales
Please see attached
Crown Lands
Crown Lands has the following comment:-
Any affected Crown land will require a licence to be in place prior to works commencing, and may possibly require acquisition.
Natural Resources Access Regulator
This is a pre-approval matter that needs to be sent to [email protected] to collate a combined response from both NRAR and DPIE Water.

Kind Regards,

Regional Quarries Australia Pty Ltd
MILTON , Queensland
Please refer to the attached letter
Robert Webb
Narromine , New South Wales
I feel that the Inland Rail team have not acted with integrity regarding the change of alignment in the southern area of Narromine from the west of Narromine to the east of Narromine.
The knowledge of local families (living to the east) of flooding in the area has been largely ignored.
The 1955 flood should be studied in depth before any construction is commenced on the eastern side of town.
North West Local Land Services
CALALA , New South Wales
Please see attachment.


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Coonamble Shire, Gilgandra Shire, Narrabri Shire, Warrumbungle Shire, Narromine Shire

Contact Planner

Mick Fallon