Inland Rail - Narromine to Narrabri

Please refer to the attached submission.

Please find attached pdf files regarding our submission for PR & WG Galley

Council remains supportive of the project

Council remains supportive of the project

Please see attached submission

Please see attached letter and appendices

Please refer to attached letter.

We are objecting to the project in its current form

Please find on attached Word Document

Please refer to the attached submission.

1. I object to the current proposed alignment of the Inland Rail to the east of Narromine in the vicinity of Wallaby Road, Dappo Road and Webbs Siding Road due to the potential of the project to exacerbate flood risk in this area and in Narromine township. I base this on personal experience of disastrous flooding in this location in 1955. Please read the attached detailed submission and view attached photographs 1-5 relating to this aspect of the proposal.
2. I object to the current proposed alignment of the Inland Rail through Pilliga forest because of the forest's significance as the last remaining large example of temperate woodland in NSW and as a refuge area fro a rich diversity of native flora and fauna, communities and ecosystems. It has been identified by the Commonwealth Government as one of only 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots and by Birdlife Australia as a globally significant Bird Area. The important values of the Pilliga Forest will be seriously adversely impacted by construction of the inland rail. Alternatives to this alignment must be found.
3. I find it extraordinary that a rail line constructed for the purpose of freight transfer excludes substantial rural communities from being able to onload or offload agricultural produce.
4. Prioritising coal and gas freight is extremely short sighted in view of the urgent need to transition from fossil fuel energy sources.
5. I note shortcomings of the Inland Rail Project identified in the 2021 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Report which include concerns about the business case, cost, competitiveness, port and intermodal connectivity, stakeholder engagement and connectivity and alignment of the Project.
The Committee's recommendation 'that the Australian and NSW governments establish an independent international flood and hydrologist panel to conduct a review of the flood modelling and design features of the Inland Rail project in NSW' is of specific relevance to my objection number 1, raised above. The committee recommends that 'this panel should consider the findings of pre-existing reviews,including the findings of the WRM Water and Environment Independent Review of the Flood Modelling: Narromine to Narrabri Inland Rail Project'.
It is important that the issues raised by the Committee are addressed before the development proceeds further. It was the committee’s view that 'the substantive increase in the cost of Inland Rail alone warrants a review and update of the 2015 business case' and that the the arbitrary 24 hour restriction on freight transfer time was not in the best interests of rural, regional and urban communities throughout Victoria, NSW and Queensland.
I support the concept of a nationwide uniform gauge railway line linking Australian States, and support the potential to shift the bulk of freight transport via rail rather than road. However, revisions to the route and rigorous conditions to properly address concerns must be put in place if this project is to be approved.

I attach my detailed submission as a stand alone report.
Inland Rail have been ignoring the Narrabri Community since 22nd March 2018 and answering any queries with "The route is set and will not change". It appears that they are now ignoring NSW DPE's request as well.
IR need to assess the Narrabri Alternative Route as it meets all DPE QDL's for flooding, it saves between $200 and $220m in construction over only 40kms of track and removes most of the negative impacts on Narrabri Shire residents.
Thanks,
Jim Purcell

Hi i have attached a file with my submission

I object to the project in its current state. If the answers to community submissions are answered adequately and advice taken on board then it may be feasible to support the Inland Rail project

attaching a File

File is attached

If this project gains approval, we are urging the Planning department to place stringent conditions on ARTC, to protect landholders, the environment and the communities from the negative impacts caused by its construction

I support the overall project however object to the current proposed route nominated by Inland Rail. I appreciate the difficulty in managing both individuals and businesses that may be impacted along the line, however the countryside is big enough to ensure that no single persons home, which particularly in this current market could not be replaced, needs be effected by the route.
Narrabri Inland Rail Concerned Residents Group have been asking IR to assess the Narrabri Alternative Route for the last 40KM of the N2N repeatedly since 22nd March 2018. IR has refused to assess this route. Their answer at every juncture is “The Route is set and will not change.” This is the unvarying result of every community consultation.
I find it disconcerting that in our diplomatic state the needs of big business from a state level of government is so quick to ignore it constituents be it a small or large number negatively impacted by the current proposed route. The residence in this area have worked hard all there lives to gain the quality of home and life that they currently have and have long term plans to remain and retire. The proposed route will negatively affect every resident along boundary Street and further north to the west side residence of Narrabri.
The Narrabri Alternative Route, although slightly longer, is more level (does not go over Knight’s Hill), straighter (6 bends versus 20), and therefore saves time; it is faster.
The Narrabri Alternative Route has shorter bridges and has been costed to save $212.9 million in construction costs.
The Narrabri Alternative Route impacts NO dwellings for any events investigated including a 1 in 200 year flood. Each time IR has been questioned about flood impacts, their response has been longer, higher bridges, embankments, more culverts. The proposed IR route will cost untold money yet it does not meet the DPE’s Quantitative Design Limits for flood afflux.
No would be the time for members of the IR to have a look at the flooding that occurs in the area with major flooding current right now. I hold concerns that an environment assessment that fails to look at flooding risks adequately will have a direct effect on my family home, tipping it from on the flood line to in the flood line and even more devastating effect on my neighbours.
The IR says it will benefit Narrabri. And NSW proposes a Special Activation Precinct for Narrabri. Neither will eventuate unless the route is changed. The proposed route offers no connectivity for Narrabri as it is 9 m above ground level. Any connection would result in more environmental risk (long bridge to get a connecting train to that height) and cost $70 -$100 million. IR will not pay for this (even if they would pay, the proposed rail is ugly, noisy and would devalue our properties). The Narrabri Alternative Route is at ground level and enables full connectivity.
Assessment of the Narrabri Alternative Route has been endorsed and supported by our state member, Roy Butler; Narrabri Shire Council (repeatedly); Narrabri Chamber of Commerce; the Narrabri Branch of the National Party; the Narrabri Inland Rail Concerned Residents Group and MANY MANY effected home owners, like me, in Narrabri. Please make IR listen AND assess the Narrabri Alternative Route.

This is a long term development and should have a positive impact on towns, businesses and residence bringing more labor and people to the town, not turn current residence away leaving them financially at a lose and the town poorer for loosing there valuable contributions to the town.

Numerous reasons for objection.
*Change to the detriment of the landscape.
*Local knowledge has never been taken into account in reguard to the true nature of flood mitigation and the impact on the landscape and farming operations along the selected route when there are better alternatives available.
*Disruption to established wildlife corridors and limited measures to allow for the movemnt of that localised wildlife. this group uses these areas for their existence and movements that have set aside and manged locally.
*Major impact on only known local stand of the threatened Weeping Myall species, with the affected area now doubled from 3 to 6hectares but may be impacted more as unknown area due to lack of detail in the design information that we have. This stand has survived and thrived only due to same family ownership of approx 85years and the management of said area.
*Reference design and flood modelling still lacking detail and so doesn't instill any confidence.
*Revised modelling still does NOT address the local concerns of water flow impacts.
This lack of design detail still causing uncertainy and frustration locally which is another reason for the reluctance to co-operate. There are better more logical alternative , eg revisiting better route selction that would have better environment impact, less impact on geenfield space and better landscape impact.
So must still OBJECT to present route selection, the way that ARTC has mishandled the whole " consultation " process, the lack of design detail , the impression of secrecy the entire plan and only releasing minor details to pacify the locals, the total disreguard of local knowledge .
I thank you for the opportunity and hope you take all submissions on board and hopefully come to same conclusion that there is a better outcome, especially on the route selection as ARTC stand has always been that they had no say in Route Selction , that it was always the Ministers decision.
Further concerns :
*security on property if/when construction happens
*interruption of established wildlife corridors that are locally owned and managed.
*severence of property and access to that area?
* impact on future farming operation eg. erosing due to culver placement and concentration of water major concern, again lack of design detail and modelling does not adequately address locals concerns, especially considering we have had above average rainfall for the last 3 years.
*boundary fencing and future maintanance.
* maintenance of culverts eg. clearing debris buildup .
* future expenses from unforseeable damage to change of landscape and farming operation.
*propsed location of construction compounds along the route, never been discussed, so no consultation on where, how big or why. eg. located in middle where better placement would be either end to reduce impact on farming operation if it required at all.
3.2.1.1 Updated Biodiversity Development Assessment Reoprt does not fully grasp the impact on this local only known stand of weeping myalls, the fact that it has changed from 3hectares being removed to now the removal of 6 hectare, but may be more should be of public concern.
*the present propsed route selection should be of concern as it will change the flooding regime by affecting surface water flows and their severity which will cause localised erosion and damage.
* Concern should be continuous increasing of budget costings, where we are hearing cost now at 25Billion and climbing, the return the Australian public taxpayers is dwindling. Bang for buck less that first mentioned.
* and lastly time constrain argument for the 24hour window is a fallacy when taking coal trains using line grain proposed when connected at later date, staffing issue same as rest of the world, breakdown these will all have bearing on logistics and adherence to the " 24 hour timeframe "

I object to the Narromine to Narrabri section of the inland rail. It will seriously impact farmers and drastically effect the Pilliga forest. The Pilliga forest is the largest intact inland forest left in NSW and is a precious resource. There are alternative routes along existing rail and infrastructure corridors which be much less destructive to farmers and the forest.

The cultural significance of the forest to the local Gomeroi people has also not been adequately addressed. Individual significant sites have been mentioned but this piecemeal approach does not take into account that the whole area and its thriving ecological systems are vitally important to the Gomeroi. The value of the forest lies to a great part in its integrity and needs to be viewed holistically.

Australia has one of the worst records globally for preserving species diversity. The Pilliga is home to many endangered and threatened species including Black striped wallaby, Rufous bettong, koala, spotted tail quoll and endemic Pilliga mouse. Also the critically endangered Regent honeyeater and Swift parrot. Wildlife will be impacted by clearing of habitat, light, noise, vehicle collisions, feral invasion, habitat fragmentation and changes to the hydrology caused by a raised line. The significant loss of hollow bearing trees will increase stress on many species.

I want to make special mention of the Pilliga Outwash Ephemeral Wetlands in the Brigalow belt South bioregion. The rail line will significantly alter the surface hydrology in the forest which will endanger this community which has a very restricted distribution. As far as I can see the impacts on this community have not been addressed in the EIS.

There are not sufficient “offsets” of similar quality and extent to mitigate these disastrous effects.

If this rail line goes ahead please reroute this section to minimise the destruction of Gomeroi cultural lands, precious and rare ecological communities and valuable farm land. There are alternative routes.