brighton transport hub development application report v5
TRANSCRIPT
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources
BRIGHTON TRANSPORT HUB
Development Application
January 2009
CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 WHAT IS A HUB .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 2 1.4 THE PROPOSAL .................................................................................................... 2 1.5 LINKS WITH OTHER PROJECTS ................................................................................. 5 1.6 STATUTORY APPROVALS ........................................................................................ 6 1.7 THE APPLICANT .................................................................................................... 8 1.8 TITLE INFORMATION AND LAND OWNERS .................................................................. 9 1.9 CONSULTATION .................................................................................................... 9 2 ENVIRONMENTAL & HERITAGE VALUES - IMPACTS & MITIGATION ................. 11 2.1 FLORA .............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 FAUNA ............................................................................................................. 14 2.3 WATER COURSES ................................................................................................ 15 2.4 EUROPEAN HERITAGE.......................................................................................... 16 2.5 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ......................................................................... 18 2.6 NOISE .............................................................................................................. 21 2.7 VISUAL AMENITY ................................................................................................ 24 2.8 AGRICULTURAL LAND CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 27 2.9 DUST ............................................................................................................... 28 3 PLANNING SCHEME ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 30 3.1 STATUTORY REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 30 3.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................. 33 3.3 SUBDIVISION ..................................................................................................... 33 3.4 BRIGHTON PLANNING SCHEME 2000 OBJECTIVES .................................................... 34
3.4.1 Scheme Objectives - Industry .................................................................... 34 3.4.2 Scheme Objectives - Rural ......................................................................... 36 3.4.3 Scheme Objectives - Infrastructure ........................................................... 38
3.5 ZONE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 39 3.5.1 Industry zone ............................................................................................. 39 3.5.2 Rural zone ................................................................................................. 43 3.5.3 Infrastructure zone .................................................................................... 45
3.6 SCHEME OVERLAYS ............................................................................................. 46 3.6.1 Environmental Buffer Overlay ................................................................... 46 3.6.2 Bridgewater Quarry Overlay ..................................................................... 50
3.7 SCHEME SCHEDULES ........................................................................................... 51 3.7.1 Schedule 1 – Off-street Parking – Car parking, access and loading.......... 51 3.7.2 Schedule 4 – Environmental Management Standards .............................. 52
4 PRINCIPLES AND SCHEME STANDARDS .......................................................... 52 4.1.1 Schedule 8 – Road Assets .......................................................................... 64 4.1.2 Schedule 9 – Heritage Schedule ................................................................ 68 4.1.3 Schedule 10 – Attenuation Distances ........................................................ 70
5 STATE PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ................................................. 71 5.1 STATE POLICIES .................................................................................................. 71
5.1.1 State Coastal Policy 1996 .......................................................................... 71 5.1.2 State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 ......................... 72 5.1.3 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 ................................... 72
5.1.4 NEPM’s ...................................................................................................... 73 5.1.5 Gas safety .................................................................................................. 73
6 CONLCUSION ................................................................................................. 74 7 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 75 Report Prepared by: Selena Dixon Luke Newman Pitt & Sherry
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) is making an application to develop the infrastructure elements of a $79 million transport hub in the Brighton Municipality. The hub will function as the major southern intermodal logistics centre providing modern facilities for a range of transport operators. The proposed site for the hub is located west of and adjacent to, the existing Brighton Industrial Estate.
Brighton has been identified as an appropriate location for the hub due to its close proximity to road and rail infrastructure. The location boasts a well established but fast developing industrial estate with effective environmental buffering that provides long term protection from residential encroachment. This is a critical advantage for industry in that it provides long-term security for companies who make large investments in industrial infrastructure.
National demand forecasting anticipates a doubling of growth in freight movements over the next 20 years. The proposed transport hub has been designed to accommodate this growth with capacity to expand to meet longer term growth projections.
Early design development has generated optimism within the community and an expectation that economic and social benefits will accrue to the Municipality and region more broadly. Furthermore, approval of the transport hub development application will create new opportunities for associated industrial development to establish on surrounding industrial land in coming years.
Early site assessment resulted in the identification of a range of important botanical Aboriginal and European heritage values. Historically, these values have been lost across the industrial estate as incremental development occurred. However, the selection of this site for the transport hub has not only resulted in the identification of a range of heritage and botanical values, but approval of this development application will result in the protection and management of the majority of these values for future generations.
1.2 What is a hub A Transport Hub is an area of land primarily used for the transfer of goods and materials between inter-regional road and rail freight transport and local/regional transport systems. Transport hubs generally incorporate rail lines and an area of hardstand that is used for loading and unloading of trains and trucks. They also have areas of land and buildings for storing goods and materials during the process of transportation and distribution.
The Brighton Transport Hub Project provides a rare opportunity to develop a fit for purpose transport hub that will serve Tasmanians for generations. The current transport facility at Macquarie Point has long been recognised as outmoded and inefficient. The layout of the existing hub creates a bottleneck to productivity
2
improvements and the location of residential uses adjacent to the site threatens its medium term operating capacity.
The rail line between the Bridgewater Bridge and Macquarie Point is the slowest and most costly section of rail infrastructure and impacts negatively on many hundreds of adjacent urban residences. The location is not suited to the overall distribution tasks as it focuses heavy vehicle movements on the most congested section of the Brooker Highway.
The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources has considered alternatives to Macquarie Point over recent years. In November 2006, the issue was elevated when the Treasurer requested preliminary planning to assess the implications of relocating the facilities from Macquarie Point to the Brighton area.
The development of a modern road-rail transport facility and freight distribution hub on a greenfield site at Brighton will significantly improve the efficiency of transport of goods into and out of southern Tasmania. It will provide economic and environmental benefits through ease of transfer between road and rail, and as a consequence encourage increased rail freight transport with a lowering of carbon emissions.
1.3 Project objectives The primary objectives for the project are:
• To develop contemporary ‘fit-for-purpose’ intermodal facilities in a new location that will underpin sustained productivity improvements in transport and encourage growth in rail and transport share; and
• To develop an effective long term transport hub for Southern Tasmania’s road/rail and rail/road interregional freight.
1.4 The Proposal The Brighton Transport Hub proposal comprises a number of physical infrastructure elements that will facilitate a range of core intermodal activities. The total investment required to complete the proposed works is estimated to be $79 million. In the future, this infrastructure will be complimented by a range of value adding activities that will support the viability of the hub into the future.
The Brighton transport hub development application comprises the following physical infrastructure elements described in the table overleaf. Each of the elements is identified on the map on page 4 (see also accompanying design drawings).
3
Element Description (all elements identified on map overleaf). Dwg No. HB08001-
Bulk earth works -
Hub platform
A level site of approximately 1200m long and 250m wide platform will be created by lowering the ground level at the south of the site by approximately 7m and filling the northern end of the site with up to 8m of fill.
P79_A P80_A P81_A P82_A P83_A
Northern rail access
750m rail extending from 180m east of the existing Midland Highway to the point at which the rail branches out to form the hub rail configuration.
P79_A
Hub rail 2 x 1.3 – 1.6km turnout lengths of rail extend from branch out point south along the eastern and western side of the hardstand. The turnouts are located either side of the hardstand for the purpose of loading and unloading.
An additional run-around line is located directly adjacent to the eastern turnout line to facilitate wagon and locomotive movements.
P79_A
Hardstand 50m x 800m heavy duty sealed pavement hardstand constructed between turnout lines to accommodate 100 tonne axel loads.
Hardstand will be sufficient width to enable special purpose equipment such as top lift fork trucks or reach stackers to load and unload freight and transfer it to storage areas.
P83_A
Car parking A large sealed area will be provided for vehicle parking at the southern end of the site adjacent to the western turnout line.
P79_A
Hub connector road
The Hub connector road comprises 2 x 3.5m running lanes with 2m sealed shoulders on either side. Auxiliary turning lanes at major access points will also be provided.
The Hub connector road extends from the proposed northern roundabout on the existing Midland Highway to the existing Glenstone Road connection to the south.
P79_A
P83_A
Water Sensitive Urban Design
Stormwater detention basins
2 x retention basins – 1 x 6ML and 1 x 12ML (inc DN600 Detention outflow pipes as per drawings).
1 x bypass channel located along the existing Crooked Billet Creek alignment located northeast of the hardstand.
2m vegetated swales to extend along the eastern and western sides of the levelled site include a drain at the western extent of the site.
P94
P95
Services Sewer – 225 UPVC to extend across the platform to agreed pump station location.
Stormwater – DN750 & DN1200 pipe & as per design drawings.
P88 P89
P90
Access Road Access road off hub connector at south to provide access to adjacent properties and to facilitate future industrial development.
P79_A
4
Map showing key infrastructure elements of Proposed Transport Hub.
5
Future Development
Additional facilities that will be required to establish a fully operational transport hub will be proposed as separate development applications during 2009 - 2012. It is expected that these facilities will include a cold store, offices, warehousing, weighbridges, an engine and rolling stock maintenance facility and associated minor works including fencing, lighting poles and signage.
Land adjacent to the hub will be available for value adding activities in the medium to long term. Such activities might include:
• Additional warehousing and storage facilities;
• Container storage areas;
• Container wash, repair and preparation facilities;
• Additional truck parking and maintenance facilities; and
• Industry park.
The take up of these or other activities in the future will be a decision for the hub manager based on commercial considerations.
1.5 Links with Other Projects The southern region and in particular the Brighton Municipality, will be the beneficiary of a significant transport investment program over coming years.
“The State Government has developed a comprehensive transport investment program for Southern Tasmania. The investment program covers a 10 year period and represents one of the biggest single improvements to land transport ever undertaken in Tasmania”.
The Transport Investment Program document which lists planned infrastructure investments is included as Appendix 1.
An important part of the Southern Transport Investment Program is the $164 million Brighton Bypass, which involves upgrading the Midland Highway by constructing 9.5km dual carriage and associated structures from the East Derwent Highway to Pontville. This project comprises six development applications (DAs), five of which are currently before the Brighton Council. The final section of the bypass will be submitted to The Southern Midlands Council in early 2009. The following two DAs are directly linked to the Transport Hub proposal:
• East Derwent Highway to Brighton Industrial Estate (Brighton 1). This proposal will facilitate improved access into the industrial estate and will connect to Glenstone Road which links directly through to the southern end of the transport hub; and
• Brighton Industrial Estate to north of “The Lodge” (Brighton 2). This proposal will create an interchange that will allow traffic to exit the Midland Highway and proceed west via a new roundabout to the northern end of the transport hub.
6
This proposal also includes a rail deviation that will improve the rail alignment east of the existing Midland Highway.
1.6 Statutory Approvals The proposal constitutes a Level 1 activity under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). As a Level 1 Activity, the proposal does not require assessment under EMPCA but requires assessment pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approval Acts 1993 (LUPAA).
The project is located within three zones of the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000, they are (refer to map on page 32, Section3.1):
• Industry zone;
• Rural zone; and
• Infrastructure zone
The proposed works are classified under two use and development categories; ‘Transport depot and distribution’ and ‘Utilities’. The status of the above uses is considered in detail in Section 3. Suffice to say that there are a number of discretions which means the application must be considered pursuant to Section 57 of LUPAA.
Additionally, the proposed works are also located either wholly or partly within the following two overlays:
• the Environmental Buffer Overlay; and
• the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay.
The proposal must also meet the requirements of a number of scheme schedules. These matters are considered throughout the report.
Other permits required
The proposal will also require permits under:
• The Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; and
• The Aboriginal Relics Act 1975;
This legislation is not directly relevant to this planning assessment. However, application for associated permits will be made early in 2009 in anticipation of commencement of works in April. It is understood that there may be other specific legislative requirements necessary prior to the proposal proceeding.
7
Referrals required.
A number of Referrals are also required under various acts and Scheme provisions. The following table details these requirements:
Referrals required
The road and rail access into the hub hardstand are located within the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay, which triggers the following provision.
B & G Resources
(Boral Quarry)
Brighton Planning Scheme 2000
7.9.2 Applications for use or development within the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay shall be referred by Council to the quarry operator for advice concerning the potential for conflict between the proposed use or development and the quarry operations or associated activities.
7.9.3 Council must not determine an application for use or development within the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay until after the quarry operator has supplied its advice, or until fourteen (14) days from the date of referral, whichever occurs first.
The proposal involves the construction of the diversion of Crooked Billet Creek via a swale drain around the Transport Hub site, one 6 Megalitre wetland dam and one 12 Megalitre stormwater detention pond will be located along the Crooked Billet Creek drainage path which triggers the following provision. The Dam Assessment Report is included as Appendix 2.
Assessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC)
Water Management Act 1999
Under The Water Management Act 1999 where a dam is not less than one Megalitre and/or is in a watercourse it must be assessed in accordance with this Act.
Section 165F of the Water Management Act 1999 provides for assessment of dams where the dam works form part of an application under the Land Use Planning Approvals Act 1993.
Under section 165F the Council must refer the application to the ACDC. The ACDC may require the imposition on any Council approval or permit any terms or conditions it considers necessary or desirable to ensure the safety of the dam works. Council is required to include the ACDC terms and conditions on the approval or permit.
Where a referral to the ACDC has been made under this section and the referral would result in Council not being able to meet any statutory restrictions as to time on the period within which the Council must consider the application, those restrictions are suspended until such time as the ACDC makes a final decision on the referral.
The proposal to construct road and rail infrastructure and to undertake earthworks to create a large platform will involve traversing the gas pipeline and encroaching across gas pipeline easements. Discussions are continuing with PowerCo in relation to managing the construction and operational impacts.
8
PowerCo Gas Act 2000
Under Section 79G of the gas Act 2000 if an application is made for a permit for a discretionary development wholly or partly within a pipeline planning corridor Council must refer the application to the pipeline licensee. Council must refer the application when notice of the application is issued under section 57 of LUPAA.
The pipeline licensee has 14 days or further representation period allowed under section 57(5) of LUPAA, to give the planning authority such advice on the application as it thinks fit and in so doing may recommend that, if granted, the permit should be made subject to safety conditions specified in the advice.
If the pipeline licensee fails to give any such advice, Council may determine the application without further reference to the pipeline licensee.
If the pipeline licensee gives advice:
(a) Council is to have regard to the advice in determining the application; and
(b) the advice is taken to be a representation made under section 57(5) of LUPAA in relation to the application; and
(c) Council may, without limiting its discretion in the event it approves the application but subject to point (d) below, grant the permit subject to any safety condition recommended by the pipeline licensee (with or without modification); and
(d) Council must not grant the permit subject to a condition that conflicts with any condition contained in the safety and operating plan applying to the affected pipeline.
1.7 The Applicant The applicant is the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Project Director, David Spence.
The key contacts for enquiries relating to the project are as follows:
Name Position Contact Phone number
David Spence Project Director 6233 2089
David Conley Project Manager 6233 8870
Selena Dixon Senior Project Officer (Planning) 6233 3704 (contact person for further information)
9
1.8 Title Information and Land owners The relevant title information is contained in Appendix 3. The Crown, pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1993, is acquiring the land required for the project.
The Title References are: CT Volume 24898 / Folio 2
Owner: Katrina Drake-Mundy; John Peter Mundy; Rex John Mundy Address: GPO Box 718, Hobart TAS 7001 Situation: Cobbs Hill Road, Bridgewater TAS 7030 CT Volume 130200 / Folio 5
Owner: Katrina Drake-Mundy; John Peter Mundy; Rex John Mundy Address: GPO Box 718, Hobart TAS 7001 Situation: 20 Glenstone Road, Bridgewater TAS 7030
CT Volume 130201 / Folio 1
Owner: Jinju Liao Address: C/- Mr Ben Swain, Murdoch Clarke, Barristers and Solicitors,
10 Victoria Street, Hobart TAS 7000 Situation: 155 Cobbs Hill Road, Bridgewater TAS 7030 CT Volume 117688 / Folio 1
Owner: Toll Properties Pty Ltd Address: Level 8, 380 St Kilda Road, Melbourne VIC 3000 Situation: Midland Highway, Bridgewater TAS 7030
All affected land owners have been notified of the development application pursuant to section 52 (1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. A copy of the letter is contained in Appendix 4.
1.9 Consultation A rigorous stakeholder engagement and consultation process has been adopted as part of the Brighton Transport Hub Project. It has become apparent that this development has attracted a broad level of support throughout the community.
Stakeholder engagement has been managed closely during the life of the Project, commencing with initial, personally addressed information about the project from the Project Director, plus regular face-to-face and telephone contact with key stakeholders, namely potential Hub users, affected landowners, adjacent residents and businesses within the Brighton Industrial Estate. Wherever possible, face-to-face or telephone contact has been used.
A Stakeholder Management Plan has been developed and is regularly reviewed and updated to ensure all current issues are captured and managed. A joint
10
Stakeholder Consultation Strategy across the Brighton Transport Projects has also been developed and aims to provide a holistic, co-ordinated approach to consultation planning and communication. This approach will assist in managing emerging issues, keeping stakeholders informed, maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders and achieving positive, proactive communication across both the Hub and Brighton Bypass projects.
Information morning teas have been held at the Industrial Estate and joint public displays have been held with the Bypass project at the Brighton Civic Centre. These two forums have been valuable in providing face-to-face engagement and consultation in particular with affected landowners and businesses.
Regular face-to-face consultation and communication has taken place with the following key stakeholders:
• Affected landowners • Adjacent property owners • Tenants of the Industrial Estate • Local businesses • Brighton Council through the General Manager and Mayor • Brighton Council staff regarding Development Application requirements • Consultants and sub-consultants to the project • Aboriginal Community • Transport Industry representatives • Jemena, PowerCo, Aurora and Transend Networks Pty Ltd • Relevant State Government Agencies, including the Aboriginal Heritage
Office of the Department of the Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts • The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts.
11
2 ENVIRONMENTAL & HERITAGE VALUES - IMPACTS & MITIGATION
2.1 Flora A series of three vegetation surveys undertaken in June, July and September 2008 identified the vegetation characteristics of the development site and adjoining area.
Most of the site is characterised by paddocks of predominantly introduced pasture species. A section of Bursaria spinosa (prickly box) low shrubland occupies the northeastern corner of the proposed development area. The paddock in the eastern extent has a cover of native grassland communities (including Lowland Themada grassland on the Basalt knoll and Lowland grassland complex surrounding the knoll) while the south eastern extent is mostly made up of rail yards and is largely dominated by exotic species (North Barker 2008).
Four declared weeds under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were recorded within the development site, specifically:
• Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus);
• African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum);
• Wild Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare); and
• Gorse (Ulex europaeus).
Gorse and Blackberry are listed as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) under the National Weed Strategy.
The Brighton Municipality has all four of these weed species under zone B of Statutory Management Plans where the principle management objective is containment rather than eradication.
Threatened Flora and Fauna
The vegetation and fauna habitat assessment (North Barker 2008) identified that the majority of the site is made up of exotic pastures with sections of highly modified remnant and degraded native grasslands.
The section of least degraded native grassland on the basalt knoll contains a number of threatened grass species and other vascular species including the greenhood orchid (Pterostylis ziegeleri) and grassland flaxlily (Dianella amoena). Other threatened species occurrences are primarily scattered and isolated.
The site offers some habitat opportunities for the following native fauna species:
• The eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) at the bushland pasture interface;
• The swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) in the eighteen surrounding Eucalyptus ovata trees;
• Casual/transient foraging habitat for a variety of species including wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi), white-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae), masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops) and other transient bird species; and
12
• There is potential habitat on the basalt knoll and adjacent to the knoll near Crooked Billet Creek for the tussock skink (Pseudemoia pagenstecheri).
Seven threatened vascular plant species were recorded during these surveys. Three of these species are listed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) and six are listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA).
EPBCA listed species
One species listed only under the EPBC Act was recorded:
• Carex tasmanica - Curly Sedge. Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBCA. Two species are listed at both the State (TSPA) and national (EPBCA):
• Dianella amoena – Grassland Flaxlily. Listed as Endangered under the EPBCA and Rare under the TSPA; and
• Pterostylis ziegeleri – Greenhood Orchid. Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBCA and Vulnerable under the TSPA (status changed from Endangered in late 2008).
TSPA listed Species
Four species are listed only under the Tasmanian TSPA:
• Austrostipa nodosa – Knotty Spear Grass. Listed as Rare under the TSPA.
• Austrostipa scabra – Rough Spear Grass. Listed as Rare under the TSPA.
• Isoetopsis graminifolia – Grass Cushions. Listed as Endangered under the TSPA.
• Vittadinia muelleri – Narrow leaf New Holland Daisy. Listed as Rare under the TSPA.
One threatened nonvascular plant species, the lichen Xanthoparmelia vicatierlla listed as rare under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, was recorded during site surveys (Kantvillas, 2008). The vegetation map on page 14 indicates the extent and location of vegetation across the site.
Status of flora and fauna permits
A referral for impacts on nationally listed threatened species was made to the Australian Government (Commonwealth) in September. A determination stating that the proposal is ‘Not a Controlled Action’ was made in December. A copy of this determination is included as Appendix 5. No further assessment by the Commonwealth is required.
A submission for the taking of State listed threatened species will not proceed until after the summer survey.
13
Management (impact mitigation)
The mitigation measures are as follows:
1) Unaffected populations will be fenced prior to the commencement of construction activities to prevent any impact. The fencing is partly in place and will be completed prior to construction. It is expected that the fencing will remain in place as required by a future management plan.
2) In order to minimise long-term indirect impacts on Pterostylis ziegeleri the road and rail line will be constructed with adjacent storm water management drains, orientated and designed with release points that will drain concentrated storm-water collected from hard road and rail surfaces around the basalt knoll.
In addition there is a natural drainage line around the basalt knoll that prevents overland flow from impacting on this orchid species.
As this species prefers well-drained sites, this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts on the species from significant increases in soil water conditions.
This measure is permanent and will be put in place during construction.
3) During construction a range of measures will be put in place to mitigate against direct and indirect impacts, specifically:
a) The Tender Specifications for construction of the site will deal with the appropriate control measures for the treatment of weeds. The Tender Specification will require a construction hygiene program to be developed and implemented throughout the site. This program will ensure that all machinery moving between any weed infestation areas and the remainder of the site will be washed down at specific locations to ensure that no weeds or propagules are transported throughout the site. Wash down sites will be designed to filter and collect plant material and soil for disposal off site in an approved landfill.
The four declared weeds will be managed in accordance with their Statutory Weed Management Plans under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999. In accordance with the Zone B listing of these species the weeds over the larger site will be managed for containment and control rather than eradication. However, weeds within the Bulk Goods and Container Intermodal Development Areas will be eradicated as hard surfaces are constructed. The weed management will be included as a component of the Environmental Management Element of the Contract Management Plan. . Please see attached map ‘EPBC Referral Fencing and Weeds’.
Spraying if determined as a necessary component of weed management within the Contract Management Plan will be undertaken in accordance with code of practice for ground spraying and the code of practise for spraying in public places (see attached codes).
b) The development works will be undertaken in accordance with a soil and water management plan to be prepared in accordance with the Soil and
14
Water Management Code of Practice for the Hobart Regional Councils. The plan will prevent adverse impacts caused by increased water flows and sediment transportation.
2.2 Fauna There is some potential habitat for Tussock skinks at the north of the site, with shelter provided in the form of surface rocks and tussock grasses along Crooked Billet Creek. Although this creek extends across the proposed hub footprint, the potential habitat has been identified in land that has been identified for stormwater detention works. A detailed survey to establish whether this species is present is currently underway. If skinks are located in proposed impact zones, a strategy will be developed to manage this species in conjunction with the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW).
The area north of the existing industrial precinct appears to be suitable for the Eastern barred bandicoot, however it is relatively common in Tasmania, and consequently is unlisted on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Act 1995 despite national listing of Vulnerable for Tasmania – it is classified as endangered for mainland Australia (A North 2008). The more likely habitat for the bandicoot is located east of the land that is the subject of the amendment.
The Vegetation Survey and Fauna Habitat Assessment report is attached as Appendix 6.
Map below indicates the extent and location of vegetation across the site.
15
2.3 Water courses The footprint of the transport road, rail and hardstand infrastructure is within the Crooked Billet Creek catchment, which is part of the greater Bridgewater catchment and the wider Derwent Estuary catchment. This catchment has been largely modified since European settlement through the activities of agricultural, industrial and urban development.
The water quality of Crooked Billet Creek is a function of its physical setting, as well as historic and ongoing input of pollutants. These inputs can be broadly classified as point sources and diffuse sources. Both diffuse and point source pollution can be managed to protect the environmental values by development and implementation of best practice environmental management, compliance with approved codes of practice, the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 (particularly the Environmental Management Schedule) and emission limits set by the regulatory authority (Brighton Council). These issues have been addressed in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.
Management
A detailed management approach to land disturbance in the Crooked Billet Creek catchment is included as part of the Schedule 4 response in Section 3 p 54.
16
2.4 European Heritage Historic Heritage Overview
Austral Archaeology PTY LTD undertook a detailed Historic Heritage assessment across the preferred site in July 2008.
Whilst there were no places within or adjoining the study area included in National, State or local Heritage lists or registers, the site was recognised as having a number of sites worthy of further investigation. Relevant recording and documentation of these sites will occur prior to construction.
The sites of interest are listed in the table below. The majority of recorded sites that are not included in the table such as various stone mounds and boundary fences are associated with transformation of the pre-European landscape into an agrarian landscape marked by land clearance and enclosure. A map showing each of these features is included overleaf and a description of all features is contained in the full report included as Appendix 7.
Table: Historic Heritage sites requiring further investigation
Site Ref
Feature Description Further works required
22a Recently identified probable early settlers hut and associated dump.
Potentially, a very rare ‘Contact site’.
Material founds in close proximity suggest mid 1800s occupation.
Earlier occupation probable.
Potentially a procurement site for Aboriginal glass artefacts.
Detailed survey and excavation. Heritage Tasmania has approved a Method Statement which describes the proposed investigation of the site. Archaeological works will commence in January 2009.
11 Land grant boundary Original grant boundary between land grants of Reynolds and Cox remains discernable in the landscape, albeit by a modern post and wire fence.
Record and minimise impact if possible.
13 1810s - 1830s road Linear feature visible as a raised formation with depressions either side. Alignment is approx 4.5m wide and is discernable for approx 500m.
Will be partly impacted
Archaeological investigation of a cross section proposed.
54 Early-mid 19thCentury hut remains
Linear stone formation and stone mound suggests remains of hut. Dimensions approx 7.5m x 3.6m. Indication of co-existence of Aboriginal and European cultural values.
Archaeological site investigations.
Site has been surveyed and will be protected/fenced prior to investigation and site works.
55 Unidentified stone arrangement
Small 1m x 500mm oval shaped ring of cobble-like fieldstones located close to a fence line at the southern extent of the site.
Will be investigated to determine purpose of stone arrangement.
17
Map of area with Heritage Features identified.
Management
Although there are no heritage listed places on the proposed transport hub site, a number of archaeological investigations and recordings will be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction. Each of the above features will be impacted to some degree by the proposed development, so it is important to gain a thorough understanding of the sites and their context within the broader landscape.
The probable early settlers hut (Site 22a noted in the above table) is potentially a very important site that was recently identified by archaeologists. More detailed investigation of this site will be undertaken to determine the occupation history and to enhance the interpretation of Aboriginal activity across the site. Heritage Tasmania has approved a Method Statement and archaeological investigations will commence in January.
It is expected that all of the sites noted above will have undergone appropriate investigation and recording prior to construction.
18
2.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Prior to European settlement, the Brighton area was occupied by the Moomairremener Band of the Oyster Bay Tribe. Numerous Aboriginal sites occur near the study area, particularly in the Jordan River valley which is well known for its very rich Aboriginal heritage.
No registered sites existed across the site prior to the site selection process for the transport hub, however cultural heritage assessments conducted by registered heritage consultancy Steve Stanton Pty Ltd between June and July 2008, identified three artefact scatters. These sites were subsequently registered with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT). The Brighton Transport Hub project team engaged regularly with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (TALSC) and AHT during this time to ensure that appropriate processes were followed and the best possible outcome for the Aboriginal community could be achieved.
Two of the registered sites were within the boundary of the proposed development and required further investigation. A permit to interfere with the sites was issued by Minister O’Byrne in September 2008 to determine the extent of the sites and to enable a more thorough interpretation of the Aboriginal values across the proposed hub footprint.
A methodology to proceed with an archaeological investigation was then developed by consultant archaeologists and AHT. Stage 1 commenced at the end of October 2008 and was completed in mid November 2008 and Stage 2 is currently underway. A brief summary of Stage 1 findings is listed below:
AREA A – southern extent of the hub site (see Map overleaf)
• Based on present information available, the site is likely to be assessed as being of low to medium significance.
• Characterised by low density artefact scatter with little or no subsurface artefact deposits, except western portion of site where localised deposits of moderate density of artefacts identified.
• No major archaeological impediments to the proposed development of the hub site in this area providing mitigation measures undertaken.
AREA B – northern extent of the hub site
• Likely to be assessed as being of high local and possibly regional significance.
• Comprises range of cultural features including moderate to high densities of surface and sub-surface artefacts including shaped glass artefacts, stone procurement sites and potential early European occupation site.
• Probable hut site and adjacent dump possibly the source of glass used for artefact manufacture.
19
• This means that this site is potentially a rare ‘contact site’, of which there are only two other known and recorded in Tasmania.
AREA C – area between north and south site
Based on present information available, site likely to be assessed as being of low to low medium significance.
Moderate to high densities of artefacts identified on terraces either side of Crooked Billet Creek with higher densities along western margins of hill south of Crooked Billet Creek. This appears to be the main route taken by Aborigines moving through the area.
Remainder of Area C appears to be characterised by low to very low densities.
Management
In order to enable a thorough interpretation of the site and to answer a number of important research questions, a second stage of archaeological investigations is underway. These investigations will occur across the areas that have been identified as higher sensitivity areas and will be completed by March 2009.
The results of this work will inform a voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan which will identify the areas that will be protected and strategies to enable the conservation of these areas into the future. The plan will also stipulate mitigation measures for the areas that will be impacted by development.
It is expected that areas identified for future conservation will be fenced to avoid impacts during construction. Engagement with the AHT and where possible, the Aboriginal community will continue over the coming months so that a sound long term management strategy is achieved for all interest groups.
It has become clear that the preferred site for the transport hub has pockets of very significant Aboriginal values. The assessment process for the proposed development has involved extensive site surveys and archaeological investigations. Historically, smaller incremental development lacking similar methodical pre-development site analysis has occurred across the Brighton area, resulting in lack of identification and subsequent loss of these values. This project has facilitated discovery of, and a level of interpretation of local Aboriginal activity that is unknown in Tasmania today.
Knowledge gained from this process will contribute to a greater knowledge of Tasmanian Aboriginal history associated with this region. Approval of the Brighton Transport hub proposal will result in the loss of a portion of these values. However, many of the more significant values will be retained and protected and an historical story will emerge, while at the same time allowing a strategically important development to proceed.
It is also important to recognise that these values extend well beyond the proposed hub site, so alternative locations for the hub would impose similar challenges to those faced on this site.
20
Map showing key Aboriginal heritage areas and sensitivity zones
AREA B AREA C
AREA A
21
2.6 Noise An environmental noise assessment was undertaken for the proposed Brighton Transport Hub in order to determine whether the expected noise generated from the proposed development will meet:
(a) the “acceptable solution” noise limits established in the Brighton Planning Scheme (2000); or
(b) “performance criteria” noise limits provided for by the Brighton Planning Scheme (2000) should the acceptable solution not be achievable - appropriate performance targets are the noise levels described in Schedule 1 of the draft Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Noise).
The investigation involved:
Measurement and analysis of background noise around the proposed transport hub;
Modelling of future noise for the situation upon opening (42,000 TEU1
Modelling future noise from the proposed access road that will service the transport hub; and
) and the anticipated noise levels with freight volumes at 100,000 TEU, which is the mid-level growth possible future activity volume;
Modelling noise from the proposed rail line that will service the transport hub.
The Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 sets an “acceptable solution” for developments to be the background noise level plus 5 dB(A) at the property boundary.
The acceptable solution is a stringent requirement that is often unachievable for developments such as freight depots, which can have significant and varying noise emissions from traffic and freight movements. Where the acceptable solution cannot be achieved, the planning scheme provides for a “performance criteria” solution under which a development can demonstrate that its noise impact will not unreasonably interfere with a person’s enjoyment of the environment.
The assessment of noise against the performance criteria considers the future noise relative to the ambient noise (ambient noise being the general noise from all noise sources including traffic).
Background noise and ambient noise are different, and should not be confused. Measured daytime background noise in the project area varies between 30 dB(A) and 61 dB(A) whilst the ambient noise levels are 20 to 30 dB(A) above this.
The performance criteria assessment can also be informed by specific noise guidelines. The applicable guidelines are the acoustic environment guideline levels in Schedule 1 of Tasmania’s Draft Noise Environmental Protection Policy (2006),
1 “Twenty foot equivalent unit”, a standard transport container
22
which are the noise levels that provide appropriate community amenity during various periods: daytime, evening and night time.
The land surrounding the proposed development is subject to noise from the existing industrial estate and the Midland Highway to the east. The land to the north and west is currently zoned Rural and Industry respectively. The land directly to the south is zoned Industry, followed by Rural Residential. Currently background noise levels range from less than 30 db(A) to 61 dB(A). Current ambient noise ranges from 37 to 71 dB(A).
Future noise emissions from the hub were modelled for a number of receptor sites in the area surrounding the hub site. Modelling predictions were made for the daytime, evening and night time periods.
For both the 42,000 and 100,000 TEU situations the noise levels from the proposed transport hub considered on its own are lower than the current ambient noise levels in all periods at all sites apart from three exceptions.
These sites BG7, BG18 and BG19 can be seen on the map overleaf. BG7 is a reservoir and is located approximately 900m to the south west of the hub. At this site the current ambient noise levels would be exceeded in the 100,000 TEU situation during the day by 3 dB(A) and at night by 2 dB(A).
BG18 is located approximately 500 m to north and BG 19 is located approximately 800m southwest of the hub site. At these sites, the current ambient levels would be exceeded in the 100,000 TEU situation at night by approximately 6 dB(A).
When the cumulative noise from the proposed transport hub is considered together with the existing ambient noise the resultant ambient noise levels will increase by more than 1 dB(A) at sites BG7, BG17, BG18, BG19 and BG20. The increase at these sites is predicted to be up to 3 dB(A) for the 42,000 TEU situation and up to 6 dB(A) for the 100,000 TEU situation. To most people, noise increases of less than 1 dB(A) are unlikely to be perceptible. A 2 dB(A) increase may be just perceptible to some people, while a 5 dB(A) increase would be perceptible but unlikely to be annoying.
The modelling therefore predicts that the increase in ambient noise due to the proposed transport hub will not result in ambient noise increases that are considered to be annoying to the community. The performance criteria provisions of the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 are therefore considered to be satisfied.
It is expected that the risk of significant noise impacts on the surrounding community would be further mitigated by the application of good environmental practice, which would minimise noise emissions to the extent practicable through appropriate onsite noise management measures.
Clause 11-2(A) of the draft Environmental Protection Policy (noise) states that new transport infrastructure should be developed with a major criterion of minimising the number of people exposed to noise levels that would prejudice environmental values. With the transport hub at the existing railyards in Hobart approximately 4700 residential properties are located within 500m of the railyards site and 21 level crossings between Macquarie Point and the proposed facility at Brighton. By removing the rail freight from Macquarie Point railyards there is a very significant
23
net reduction in people affected by rail noise along the existing rail line through the suburbs of Hobart.
The full report is included as Appendix 8.
Map showing locations of noise monitoring locations
24
2.7 Visual Amenity The subject site is adjacent to the existing Brighton Industrial estate, which is located centrally within the Brighton Municipality about 27kms north of Hobart. The Midland Highway, a Category I road, dissects the Brighton Industrial estate.
The visibility of the proposed transport hub development will limited due to the elevated topography surrounding the majority of the site (see image on page 37). Industrial estate tenants will experience the greatest change in visual amenity however it would be expected that the presence of a transport hub in the proposed location would meet expectations of occupants of the industrial estate; especially given the existing Industry zoning.
A very small number of residents travelling along the western extent of Cobbs Hill Road will experience a change from a largely rural landscape to the north to a more industrial landscape. Given the existing and as yet undeveloped industry zoning that makes up a large part of this landscape, future and incremental industrial development would have occurred across this area over coming years resulting in a reduction in rural amenity. Development of the proposed transport hub will mean that a small number of Cobbs Hill Road residents will experience more rapid landscape change than might otherwise occur.
Additionally, the proposed transport hub will be partially visible from a small number of rural properties to the north. However, it is expected that much of the activity on the hub site will be screened from these properties by existing vegetation. Therefore the impact on visual amenity is not considered to be significant.
The primary viewshed of the transport hub site for the majority of the community is from the Midland Highway, therefore analysis was undertaken along this route to quantify the impact on visual amenity. Three points along the section of the highway that provided the maximum visual exposure to the hub site were selected for viewshed analysis. It is important to note that this analysis was undertaken from points on the New Brighton Bypass alignment rather than the existing alignment in order to reflect the expected infrastructure layout at the time of commencement of hub operations.
The viewshed analysis supports the proposition that the proposed hub site is well screened from the Highway by the topography and existing industrial development. Each of the viewshed images indicates that the hub platform will not be visible from any of the three points on the Bypass alignment. Further, the road and rail access that extends from the existing Midland Highway into the northern end of the hub is largely out of view of vehicles moving along the new bypass route.
Importantly, development does not extend above the 70m contour line and therefore surrounding hills will remain undeveloped and the existing visual amenity will be maintained.
It is expected that future industrial development proposed for the site would generally be in keeping with the evolving character of the area. Development of
25
the proposed hub site will form the outer limit to the north, northeast and northwest of the long term footprint of the industrial precinct.
Images below show viewshed from three points on the New Midland Highway alignment
26
Management
Where visual impacts do result from establishing the hub development in this location it is expected that landscaping will minimise these effects. The land north and northeast of the hub platform area has also been identified as having significant vegetation and heritage values, so strategies to minimise the disturbance of this area during construction will be utilised.
The indicative master plan below indicates the expected future footprint of development and those areas that will remain vegetated for the long term. Stormwater retention basins will be landscaped with local species determined by a botanical consultant. Importantly, this land will remain undeveloped and vegetated which will provide a natural buffer between
Disturbance areas across the site that are not the subject of further development will be revegetated with indigenous plantings consistent with species listed in the review of flora.
Indicative Brighton Transport Hub Master Plan
27
2.8 Agricultural Land Capability A Land Capability and Agricultural Assessment has been undertaken across the site and the land has been identified as a combination of class 4, 5s1 and 6s. There is no class 1, 2 or 3 or prime agricultural land across the site. The class 4 land is located on land that is currently undeveloped but zoned for industrial development.
The land that will accommodate the northern section of the hub has recently been rezoned from Rural to Industry, which implies that there was little strategic merit in maintaining the Rural zoning for rural uses. The land will provide far greater benefits to the community as an extension of the existing industrial area.
The full report considered the merit of developing this land is contained in Appendix 9. In summary the report found that:
• There was no prime agricultural land present in the study area;
• The Objectives and Principles of the PAL Policy can be adequately addressed by the proposal, particularly with regard to the non-fettering of surrounding agricultural land use;
• There should be minimal impact on surrounding agricultural activity resulting from the proposal; and
• There is adequate separation, or means of control to protect adjacent land use from fettering by the proposal.
Land capability plan
28
2.9 Dust A number of sources of dust will arise during construction of the Transport Hub and associated infrastructure. Control measures will be implemented at the design and construction phases of the project and there will be an ongoing dust management regime for exposed sections of the site when it is operational.
Dust Management measures will be implemented to ensure:
• Dust emissions from the site are minimised;
• Dust emissions are at or below appropriate criteria and do not cause environmental problems; and
• There are no adverse impacts on adjoining properties, flora and vegetation communities and waterways.
Dust management measures during design
Project design will provide for the revegetation of all exposed cut and fill batters to the extent that the soil type supports vegetation. This will minimise dust emissions and reduce potential for erosion due to rainfall. As a minimum, exposed batters will be topsoiled and grassed with suitable species. Where required batter faces will be conditioned as appropriate to improve vegetation uptake.
Management
Procedures and monitoring
The Contractor will prepare dust monitoring and control procedures as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan that will:
• Identify likely causes of dust;
• Identify prevailing weather and wind conditions;
• Monitor dust generating activities and ensure that any dust that is generated is contained within the site and is not creating adverse impacts within the site;
• Suppress dust to ensure that it does not create a nuisance or hazard to adjoining properties, members of the public, site workers or site safety;
• Ensure that all site personnel understand the requirements for dust control and minimisation through training, induction, monitoring and review; and
• Any complaints received will be registered and will trigger a review of the dust management procedures.
Dust Generating Activities
The following activities are likely to generate dust during construction:
• Stripping of topsoil from the site prior to carrying out bulk earthworks;
• Bulk earthworks operations including excavation, hauling material in dump trucks or scrapers, and compaction of material;
• Topsoil and earth stockpiles; and
• Placement of topsoil on finished embankment slopes.
29
Topsoil stripping
The material is predominantly heavy black dolerite derived clay. The nature of this material implies that it is less likely to generate dust than lighter more friable soils. Nevertheless, the following dust control measures will be necessary during this activity:
• Water trucks will be used on a needs basis to spray water on operational surfaces and excavation sites to suppress dust;
• A minimum clearing policy will also be adopted to ensure that vegetation is only cleared when and where necessary;
• Where practicable topsoil will be directly transferred to exposed surfaces that are to be revegetated; and
• Where direct transfer of topsoil is not possible it will be stockpiled and stabilised.
Bulk Earthworks
Dust may be generated during the excavation operation by trucks hauling (both from the material on the truck and the truck traversing haul roads). Dust control measures will include:
• Watering of the excavated face as necessary;
• Watering of material once loaded into trucks; and
• Water trucks spraying haul roads.
Topsoil and earth stockpiles
• Stockpiles will be watered as necessary to suppress dust; and
• If necessary will be sprayed with suppressant such as hydromulch/sterile rye corn if they are to be unused for a long period and dust is an ongoing problem.
Placement of Topsoil on Finished Embankment Slopes
Where practicable this work will be done progressively as embankments are completed. Subject to suitable seasonal conditions revegetation will also be carried out progressively.
When seasonal conditions are not suitable for revegetation, water spraying will be used to suppress dust and environmentally benign dust suppressant products may be considered.
Auditing and review
Dust management procedures and outcomes will be subject to regular audit and review to ensure that procedures are being followed and that they are effective.
Dust management during operation
A large amount of site activity will be carried out on sealed pavements. This is particularly so for container loading and unloading operations. The intention is to construct the working platform for the ultimate development in the first stage works. This will result in an area of land of approximately 25Ha that may have a
30
formed earth surface. A further area of land may be excavated and formed to facilitate the provision of services and future subdivision. These areas of land may have natural gravel or rocky surfaces and may not of themselves generate much dust. They may be occasionally used for container or vehicle storage.
Such areas will be assessed when they have been formed to determine their potential to generate dust. They will also be regularly monitored to ensure that they do not generate excessive dust.
Mitigation measures that will be considered to minimise dust include:
• Watering by fixed or movable sprayers;
• Environmentally benign dust suppressant products;
• Revegetation;
• Bituminuous seal; and
• Cover with a gravel layer that does not generate dust eg single size blue metal.
3 PLANNING SCHEME ASSESSMENT
3.1 Statutory References The project is located within three zones of the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000, they are:
• Industry zone;
• Rural zone; and
• Infrastructure zone
The proposed works are classified under two use and development categories. The following table describes each of the uses and the requirements under each of the relevant zones (a description of infrastructure elements is included in Section 1).
The following assessment is based on a recent determination by the RPDC to rezone part of the land from Rural to Industry zone.
31
Transport depot and distribution
Means use of land for distributing goods or passengers, or facilities to park and service vehicles. Examples are airport, bus terminal, heliport, mail centre, railway station, road or rail freight terminal, taxi depot and a wharf.
Works include
• The hub platform, which consists of hardstand and associated rail infrastructure.
Industry zone
Permitted
Utilities
Means use of land for:
a) telecommunications; or
b) transmitting gas, oil, or power; or
c) transport networks; or
d) collecting, treating, transmitting, storing or distributing water; or
e) collecting, treating or disposing of storm of floodwater, sewage, or sullage.
Examples are a gas, water or sewerage main; electrical substation; power line; pumping station; retarding basin; road; railway line; sewage treatment plant; water storage dam; storm or flood water drain and weir.
Works include
• The Hub connector road extending from the proposed northern roundabout on the existing Midland Highway to the existing Glenstone Road connection to the south. Railway line accessing the hub; and
• A 750m rail line extending from 180m east of the existing Midland Highway to the point at which the rail branches out to form the hub rail configuration.
Industry zone Rural zone Infrastructure zone
Discretionary
The works are proposed wholly or partly within the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay
Discretionary Permitted
The proposed works are contained within the Environmental Buffer Overlay and partly within the Bridgewater Quarry Overlay and must also meet the requirements of a number of scheme schedules. The above matters are considered throughout the report.
32
Map showing proposed transport hub layout over zoning
Industry zone
Rural zone
Infrastructure zone
33
3.2 General considerations In addition to the matters outlined above, Clause 3.3 of the Scheme specifies criteria that must be taken into consideration prior to the determination of an application. The following matters relevant to this application are listed in the table below.
Criteria that must be taken into account (relevant to this application) Report Section
State Policies Section 4
Planning Scheme Objectives Section 3
Purpose of the Zone and all other provisions of the Scheme for the development and use
Section 3
The character of the locality, the existing and future amenities of the neighbourhood and the effect of the development on the amenity of the area
Section 2 & 3
The availability of existing public utility services Section 1
The provision of access, loading, parking and manoeuvring of vehicles Section 3
The existing character of the site and the buildings and vegetation thereon Section 2
The need to impose limits as to length of establishment of operation and the periods within which the activities may only be carried out
Section 3
The environmental effect of the development on any nearby land Section 2 & 3
The accessibility of the site, its relationship to major roads, the capacity of existing streets and roads in the locality and the effect of the development on such capacity
Section 3
Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or regenerated through the proposed use or development
Section 2
Effects of the proposal on natural habitats, wetlands, waterways or cultural heritage values
Section 2 & 3
Protection of landscape and visual aesthetics Section 2
Comments of any other Department or Authority (all referrals required) Section 1
Any representation received in relation to an application for which Section 57 of the Act applies
3.3 Subdivision The subdivision requirements of the scheme are not applicable to the proposed transport hub, infrastructure and associated land acquisitions. The road works will require acquisition of land and title boundary adjustments under the Land Acquisition Act 1993. Subdivision is not part of this application; sections of land are being acquired, not subdivided.
34
There is no requirement for Local Government approval for the acquiring of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1993. The Recorder of Titles approves any new titles created without requiring Local Government approval.
Division 4 – Sealed plans of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 is not applicable. Clause 102 of that Act states:
102. Non-application of provisions to certain sales
The provisions of this Division do not apply to a subdivision of land only by sale and conveyance, transfer or release to the Crown, the Commonwealth or a statutory authority if acquisition by compulsory process is an alternative means of obtaining the land sold
Therefore, where an acquiring authority is purchasing land (as detailed above) it is not subdivision as per the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1993 for the purposes of the planning scheme. This is the standard process for the development of infrastructure applied by the DIER across the State.
3.4 Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 Objectives The proposal is to seek approval for a transport hub, associated hardstand, rail and road infrastructure adjacent to the existing Bridgewater Industrial Estate. The proposed site for the hub extends through three zones; the Industry, Rural and Infrastructure zones. Therefore, it will be necessary to address the objectives of each of these zones.
A proposal to rezone a 32 hectare parcel of Rural land to Industry was recently approved by the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). The hub platform is located wholly within the revised Industry zone. Associated road and rail infrastructure is located in Rural, Industry and Infrastructure zones and is assessed accordingly.
3.4.1 Scheme Objectives - Industry The main hub platform which will accommodate future industrial development and a large section of the hub connector road are located within the Industry zone.
2.6 Scheme Objectives - Industry
The industrial objective of the Planning Scheme is:-
(a) To promote Brighton as an important regional industrial location.
(b) To provide a range of industrial lots and configurations to meet expected demand.
(c) To encourage the development of new and expanded industries on existing zoned industrial land.
(d) To encourage new industrial development to take locational advantage of the transport and distribution opportunities provided by the existing road and rail networks.
35
(e) To promote high quality development and environmental control.
(f) To protect industrial zoned land from being developed by inappropriate activities.
(g) The strategic approach to industrial development within the Municipality is to encourage growth within the established industrial estate at Bridgewater given its economic and transport advantages to the metropolitan area. This location is able to accommodate a range of industrial uses including those of Level 2 activity in a manner that is environmentally sound and utilises available infrastructure effectively.
(h) To ensure that industrial uses are protected by suitable buffers from incompatible uses
The announcement of the preferred location of the transport hub adjacent to the existing industrial estate has generated significant interest from transport related industries. It would be expected that this interest will translate into a strong desire to locate close to the new hub so that complimentary firms can capitalise on the synergies provided by such a facility.
The transport hub is one of a number of major transport infrastructure projects that are currently proposed for the northern approaches to Hobart. The Brighton Transport Hub and bypass projects will result in improved efficiency for land transport across the State. The establishment of a transport hub at Brighton will also open up opportunities for associated industries to locate in close proximity to the road and rail intermodal. This will result in a renewed focus on Brighton as the Southern Tasmanian intermodal logistics centre. Furthermore, the expansion and consolidation of industrial activity in this vicinity will further reinforce the regional importance of the industrial precinct in the Brighton Municipality.
The procurement of land for the transport hub creates additional capacity for associated value adding activities. This development is expected to be attained in the medium to long term. Of course this will be dependent on demand for such land. However, the land has the potential to provide a wide range of lot sizes that will accommodate a wide range of possible uses. Development of this land will be the subject of future development proposals and is not included as part of this proposal.
The development of the hub will result in an increase in industrial land available for development in the short to medium term. This will result in increased capacity to generate further economic benefits for the Municipality and region.
The completed development will provide a fit for purpose transport intermodal that is sited well within the Environmental Buffer Overlay, the purpose of which is to:
“identify areas where the use and development of land may be affected by environmental constraints and to ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values”.
The buffer provides long term protection of industrial land uses from encroachment of inappropriate and sensitive activities therefore avoiding potential for subsequent land use conflicts. Residences to the north are located more than 500m from the northern end of the development footprint of the hub. Environmental impacts that will result from construction and operation are dealt with in more detail throughout the report.
36
It is clear that the establishment of the proposed transport hub is consistent with the strategic approach to encourage growth within the Industrial estate and will further reinforce the stated economic and transport advantages of the Brighton area. The strategic transport advantages provided by direct access to a Category I road and rail infrastructure provide a comparative advantage to firms in the Bridgewater Industrial precinct. The proposal is therefore consistent with the objectives of the Industry zone.
3.4.2 Scheme Objectives - Rural A portion of the northern section of the Hub connector road and rail access to the hub, extend through the Rural zone.
2.4 Scheme Objectives - Rural
The rural objectives of the Planning Scheme are:-
(a) To promote rural pursuits as an integral part of the Municipality’s economic and employment base.
(b) To ensure the higher quality agricultural land remains for agricultural production
(c) To promote agricultural activities that are compatible with the conservation of soil, water and vegetation resources.
(d) To encourage protection of marginal agricultural land with landscape value from undue development pressure.
(e) Recognition of land with higher productivity values interrelated to the recycling of effluent as an initiative by council allows for more intensive forms of crop production to be achieved. These areas have been identified as such and will continue to be reserved and protected from encroachment of non-agricultural uses.
The northern section of the hub connector road and the rail access into the site are located on land that is currently zoned Rural. This infrastructure will form a corridor through land that will remain as Rural zoned land. This parcel of rural land will otherwise remain undeveloped. Importantly, the majority of the existing rural values will be retained as a result of the implementation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and a Vegetation Management Plan. Moreover, it would be expected that a grazing regime will continue which will further reinforce the rural objectives.
A Land Capability and Agricultural Assessment that was undertaken across the site and the subject land has been identified as a combination of class 5s1 and 6s. This is consistent with the proposed use of intermittent grazing. The full agricultural report is contained in Appendix 9.
Landscape values
The proposed transport infrastructure development does not extend into the surrounding foothills. This will result in the retention of much of the rural landscape values above the road and rail infrastructure (see image below). As previously mentioned, approximately 14Ha of land at the northeast of the site and below the
37
proposed road and rail corridor will remain undeveloped therefore retaining rural landscape values.
At the completion of construction of the hub, substantial landscaping of indigenous vegetation species across disturbed areas will ensure that the transition from industrial activity to rural surrounds is as seamless as possible.
The image below indicates how high the development sits at the base of surrounding hills.
38
3.4.3 Scheme Objectives - Infrastructure
2.9 Scheme Objectives - Infrastructure
The infrastructure objectives of the Planning Scheme are:-
(a) To provide and maintain physical infrastructure in an operationally sound condition and in accordance with all relevant environmental standards and codes.
(b) To provide services and infrastructure in the most cost effective manner in line with the principles of sustainable practice.
A very short length of the rail line traverses the Infrastructure zone and a small portion of the Hub connector road adjacent to the existing Midland Highway is located in the Infrastructure zone as shown in the image below.
Road and rail are permitted in the Infrastructure zone. The location of these elements of the transport hub development within the Infrastructure zone is consistent with the scheme objectives.
39
3.5 Zone Requirements 3.5.1 Industry zone
Purpose
6.4.1 The purpose of the Industry Zone is:-
a) To allow for the development of industrial uses that could have major impact on other land use activities and the local environment.
b) To provide long term security for the continuation of these industrial operations, with protection of the Industrial Buffer Area.
c) To ensure appropriate and adequate treatment of all trade waste and emissions.
d) To allow for a range of smaller scale industrial uses which incorporate commercial functions and seek to be located near major commercial centres.
e) To encourage the orderly and efficient take-up of industrial land.
‘Transport depot and distribution’ is permitted in the Industry zone and ‘Utilities’ (transport networks) is discretionary due to location within the Bridgwater Quarry Overlay.
The proposed transport hub and the future development of the surrounding land will significantly expand the availability of development ready land for industrial uses that may have major land use and environmental impacts. Focusing development at this site, which is located centrally within the Environmental Buffer Overlay (EBO), reduces the risk of industrial activities locating to inappropriate and unprotected areas elsewhere.
The Industrial buffer area (EBO) provides long term security for the proposed transport hub to expand transport activity sufficiently to meet the future Tasmanian freight task. No other industrial area in the south provides this level of certainty in such a strategic location.
The transport hub proposal has been designed to minimise the transfer of emissions from the site. This issue has been addressed in Schedule 4 later in the report. Future development within the hub footprint will be required to demonstrate capacity to meet trade waste and emissions guidelines through future development applications.
Approval of the transport hub development will provide increased opportunities for the establishment of a range of commercial activities, in particular, transport and storage activities. Business locating in close proximity to the hub will benefit from the subsequent economies of scale and flow-on effects that result from consolidation and growth of commercial activities.
The development of the transport hub will be undertaken over a number of years which will result in an orderly take up of industrial land.
40
Decision Guidelines:
6.4.2 In addition to matters listed in clause 3.3, Council must consider the following matters:
(a) ability to comply with any recommended attenuation distances;
The proposed Brighton Transport Hub is not a sensitive use, nor is it a listed use in Table s10.2 or S10.3 so this schedule does not apply to the development.
(b) ability to utilise existing infrastructure for waste emissions;
A 225 UPVC sewer pipe (see drawings P88 and P89) is proposed to skirt the proposed hub platform and connect into a new sewer pump, the location of which is yet to be determined by Council.
Existing sewer infrastructure will then be utilised to reach the appropriate treatment facility. There is existing capacity within this infrastructure to accommodate future hub development and associated needs.
(c) the interface with adjoining areas, especially the relationship with residential areas;
The proposed transport hub is sited approximately 575 metres from the Environmental Buffer Overlay at the nearest point. However, two sensitive uses are located inside of the buffer which means the closest residence is 525 meters to the north of the proposed hub site.
The proposed hub site is not adjacent to any residential or rural residential zoned areas (see map on page 32). The site abuts several rural land parcels to the west and north and a large parcel of industrial land to the south. It would be expected that this privately owned industrial land will be developed in future years with a range of industrial uses which will negate any emissions generated by an operational hub.
A rural residential area is located directly adjacent to this land but is over 500m from the southern extent of the hub. The noise discussion in Section 2 and Appendix 8 address the affects of noise on adjoining sensitive land uses and establishes that properties are not affected to the point where their enjoyment of the environment is impacted.
(d) any natural and cultural values on or near the land;
The natural and cultural values are the subject of separate discussion in this report. Suffice to say that there are considerable botanical values to the north east of the hub site that will be protected from future development. While there are no registered Historic Heritage sites across the hub footprint there is significant evidence of early European settlement and associated agricultural activity across the site. In early 2009 archaeological investigations will establish the values associated with 2 sites where hut remains are present. Once these sites have been recorded, the sites will be lost as development proceeds. Importantly, the value in these sites is not in the few remaining stone mounds that currently exist, but the contribution their
41
occupation history can make to a broader understanding of the historical landscape and its inhabitants.
There are also significant Aboriginal heritage values across the site. These values are also the subject of current detailed archaeological investigation (see Section 2). The transport hub layout has been designed to minimise impact on these values as far as practicable. Importantly, much of the high sensitivity areas will be protected and managed under a voluntary cultural heritage management plan, which will be the first of its kind in Tasmania.
(e) suitable landscape treatment for all site boundaries;
The development will not extend to the northern, western and eastern boundaries; therefore there will be adequate space for appropriate landscape treatments. A 30m easement is located between the eastern boundary of the hub platform and the existing industrial estate, which will provide some opportunities for landscaping. The north and eastern boundaries will remain in Rural zoning and will be allowed to naturally regenerate with local vegetation species. It is expected that the western boundary will transition to the rural landscape with smaller commercial development in the longer term.
The southern boundary abuts industrial zoned land which will be developed for such purposes in the future. Even though there will be a continuation of industrial development to the south in the longer term, where opportunities exist for landscaping, appropriate plantings and siting of structures will occur.
Importantly, it is apparent from the viewshed analysis from the Midland Highway, that substantial elements of the rural landscape north of the transport hub will be retained (see images on pages 25, 26 & 37).
(f) adequate screening of outdoor storage from public places;
This proposal is for the hub connector road, rail and hardstand infrastructure. Storage facilities will be located on site to accommodate much of the hub activity in the future. These structures will be the subject of future development applications at which time issues such as screening may be considered.
(g) the use of lighting
Lighting design has been based on the levels and parameters set out by Australian Standard AS/NZS 1158.3.1 2005 Lighting for roads and public spaces. Although the standard is not specifically designed for this process, the interaction between pedestrian and vehicles would still apply. The primary objective of this standard is to provide a safe environment for combined pedestrian and vehicles reduce the crime and enhance the prestige of the area.
The lighting design has incorporated floodlights that reduce light spill to surrounding areas. The report has demonstrated that there will be no impact on surrounding residential areas. See Appendix 10 for lighting Design Report.
42
(h) stormwater discharge; and
The design drawings indicate the proposed method of dealing with stormwater discharge and runoff from surrounding hills. The design incorporates water sensitive urban design elements such as large swale drains and 2 detention basins that will ensure that water leaving the site is not contaminated (refer to Schedule 4 discussion on page 55)
(i) the environmental standards set down in Schedule 10.
The proposed Brighton Transport Hub is not a sensitive use, nor is it a listed use in Table s10.2 or S10.3 so this schedule does not apply to the development.
All environmental standards have been addressed in the response to Schedule 4 provisions.
43
3.5.2 Rural zone
Purpose
6.4.1 The purpose of the Rural Zone is:-
a) To encourage an integrated approach to land management.
(b) To encourage development of new sustainable rural enterprises through value adding to products at source.
(c) To encourage promotion of economic development compatible with rural activities and land capability.
(d) To encourage improvement of existing agricultural techniques.
(e) To encourage protection and enhancement of the bio-diversity of the area.
(f) To ensure that subdivision promotes effective land management practices and infrastructure provision.
The road and rail infrastructure that will provide access to the main hub area from the north is located in a 30Ha parcel of Rural zoned land west of the Midland Highway (see map below).
A previous discussion in relation the Rural zone objectives has addressed many of the issues relevant to the zone Purpose statements. However, the following comments are applicable to this section.
The Rural zoned land does not represent a land holding of sufficient size to accommodate an economically viable rural enterprise, so it is futile to pursue a discussion in relation to new rural enterprises. Suffice to say that the value in the land is associated with the botanical values across a large part of the site rather than agricultural values. These values have
been considered in some detail in Section 2 - Flora.
Importantly, as a result of the transport hub development these values will be protected from future development that might otherwise been lost as a result of approval of incremental development. Although a transport corridor is proposed to extend through this parcel of land, the alignment has been designed to skirt around the significant botanical values.
Protection and enhancement of biodiversity values will occur through a formal mechanism such as a management plan. An appropriate approach for future management will be determined in conjunction with State Authorities over coming months. Further, the land that DIER will be acquiring on this rural parcel will not be subdivided for future development.
44
Relevant Decision Guidelines:
6.6.2 In addition to matters listed in clause 3.3, Council must consider the following matters:
(a) general issues relating to any catchment strategy, the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 and land capability.
The protection of Agricultural land Policy has been considered in Sections 2 and 4 of this report. Appendix 9 contains the associated report.
(b) rural issues relating to the impact on the rural economy, the capacity of the land to sustain a rural enterprise and the potential impact of future uses on surrounding rural uses
Comment has been made previously in relation to the above, however the following summary points are relevant:
• The amount of land proposed to be impacted is a narrow corridor through a 30Ha parcel of Rural zoned land which will not adversely affect the rural economy;
• the Rural zoned land does not have the capacity under current conditions to sustain a viable rural enterprise; and
• surrounding land is largely zoned Industry. Additional industrial uses will not fetter what remains of rural activities such as light grazing.
(c) Environmental issues relating impacts on flora, character and heritage of surrounding areas
Comments addressing environmental issues are included in Section 2 under specific headings.
(d) Design and siting issues relating to design of proposed roads and their impact on the landscape and traffic management.
Impacts relating to the siting of the Hub connector road have been discussed in Section 2 & 3 under Visual Impact and Scheme Objectives respectfully. The location of a transport corridor in the Rural zone has also been addressed in the Rural zone objectives discussion.
Traffic management has been addressed as part Appendix 11 Traffic Impact Assessment
Use and development standards
There are no structures proposed as part of this development application, therefore setback and height provisions are not applicable.
45
3.5.3 Infrastructure zone
Purpose
6.4.1 The purpose of the Infrastructure Zone is:-
To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for specific purposes related to activities undertaken for infrastructure services
‘Utilities’ (transport networks) is permitted.
A short section of the hub connector road is located in the Infrastructure zone (approximately 150m from commencement). In addition, a short section of rail traverses this zone in order to access the hub site(see image on page 38).
The purpose of the Infrastructure zone is specifically for the development of road and rail infrastructure such as is proposed.
46
3.6 Scheme Overlays 3.6.1 Environmental Buffer Overlay The purpose of the Environmental Buffer Overlay (EBO) is:
To identify areas where the use and development of land may be affected by environmental constraints. To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.
The environmental buffer was established some decades ago to achieve two key outcomes. Firstly, the buffer would guarantee that a substantial distance would be maintained between industrial development and sensitive uses, and secondly, the EBO would provide industries locating inside the buffer with confidence to invest and operate without fear of unreasonable complaints from encroaching sensitive uses.
The integrity of this buffer has been largely maintained, however it is clear that a number of residences have established since the 1990s. Meeting the desired environmental values for these residences and establishing appropriate industrial development in the industrial estate is challenging and will be increasingly so as the estate expands.
Relevant Decision Guidelines:
7.6.2 In addition to matters listed in clause 3.3, Council must consider the following matters:
(a) the nature of the environmental source for which an established Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) has been provided.
(b) the distance of the application to the environmental source and the relationship to the SRAD
Decision guidelines (a) and (b) refer to Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) outlined in Schedule 10 in the Scheme. The proposed transport hub is not a sensitive use , nor is it listed in Table S10.2 or S10.3 for the scheme, so these guidelines do not apply when assessing the development application.
(c) any relevant considerations under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA 1994);
As the transport hub is not a level 2 activity under schedule 2 of EMPCA 1994 it is not necessary to notify the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA). However, if DEPHA considers that an activity requires assessment by the Board of Environmental Protection Authority, then the Director can require that the planning authority refer the application to them.
(d) the potential environmental nuisances that may be a source of conflict if the application were to be approved; and
47
Noise has the potential to be an environmental nuisance therefore it has been considered in some detail in Appendix 8. A summary of potential impacts is included in Section 2.
The noise modelling for the proposed transport hub predicts that the increase in ambient noise will not result in ambient noise increases that would be considered to be annoying to the community. The performance criteria of Schedule 4 of the Brighton Planning Scheme are therefore satisfied.
(e) all industrial uses with the Industrial buffer must satisfy Australian Standard AS1055 (Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise for noise and air emissions at the boundary buffer
AS1055 also provides estimated average background levels for different areas containing residences in Australia.
For areas with medium density transportation or some commerce or industry (R3) these background noise levels are:
• Day – 50 dB(A);
• Evening – 45 dB(A); and
• Night – 40 dB(A).
Seven of the assessment sites are located within the overlay: BG6 and BG18 in the north; BG5 to the west; BG4, BG14 and BG15 to the east; and BG20 to the south.
The 50 dB(A), 45 dB(A) and 40 dB(A) noise contours (for day, evening and night periods respectively) were exported from SoundPLAN for comparison with the boundary of the EBO.
The noise contours for the 42,000 TEU freight task normal case scenario with a slight breeze are depicted in Figure 3.6.1 - a below.
The noise contours for the 100,000 TEU freight task normal case scenarios with a slight breeze are depicted in Figure 3.6.1 - b below.
For the 42,000 TEU freight task the 50 dB(A), 45 dB(A) and 40 dB(A) noise contours lie well within the overlay, as such condition of Provision 7.6.1 of the planning scheme is for day, evening and night time noise levels is satisfied.
For the 100,000 TEU freight task the 50 dB(A) and 45 dB(A) contours lie well within the Overlay. The 40 dB(A) contour extends slightly beyond the boundary of the overlay to the north. The condition for the day and evening noise levels is satisfied. The night time level is satisfied for all locations with the exception of the small area to the north. In contrast to the 42,000 TEU situation, significant night time activity has been assumed. The modelled night time noise levels may be in excess of the actual noise levels that will be experienced.
The closest measurement location to this point is BG17. The current average noise levels are already in excess of 40 dB(A) at this location.
It is clear that the proposal to construct the transport hub within the EBO is appropriate.
48
This map depicts predicted noise levels (42,000 TEU – existing) and Environmental Buffer Overlay
49
This map depicts predicted noise levels (100,000 TEU – future) and Environmental Buffer Overlay
50
3.6.2 Bridgewater Quarry Overlay The purpose of this overlay is:
(a) To protect the operations of the Bridgewater Quarry from incompatible or conflicting use or development; and
(b) To ensure that new use or development in the vicinity of the quarry is aware of the operations and potential impacts.
The northern and southern sections of the hub connector road and the northern rail access which are classified as ‘Utilities’ are located inside the Bridgewater Quarry overlay. Decision guidelines are addressed below:
Reference to the necessity for referral is addressed in Section 1.
Relevant Decision Guidelines:
7.6.2 In addition to matters listed in clause 3.3, Council must consider the following matters:
(a) the compatibility of the proposed use and development with the operation of the Bridgewater Quarry
Given the sections of hub related infrastructure that are located within the overlay are a very small, their construction and operation would be inconsequential in relation to the operation of the Quarry.
(b) the distance of the proposal to the maximum permitted extent of quarry operations
All hub operations apart from access and egress of vehicles to and from the hub site will occur outside of the overlay. The road and rail sections referred to above are more than 1.5km from the Quarry site.
(c) any relevant attenuation distance in Schedule 10; and
The afore mentioned road and rail infrastructure leading to the hub platform is not a sensitive use, nor is it listed in Table S10.2 or S10.3 for the scheme, so these guidelines do not apply when assessing the development application.
(d) the application of Australian Standard 1055 for noise and air emissions at the buffer, or such standards and performance criteria as may be imposed through statute or State Policy
N/A
51
3.7 Scheme Schedules 3.7.1 Schedule 1 – Off-street Parking – Car parking, access and
loading Provision for adequate and safely sited car and truck parking will be an important part of a fully operational transport hub.
Parking requirements for ‘transport depot and distribution’ are to be determined by Council. Given this proposal is for road, rail and hardstand infrastructure only, and not buildings that will accommodate employees or attract custom, it would be expected that there will be no requirements for a specific number of parking spaces at this stage of the development.
However, parking proposals will form part of subsequent development applications for warehouses, offices and transport related activities. It would be expected that parking requirements will be specified for each development at this stage.
The map below indicates the 0.7Ha area that will be set aside for car and truck parking in the initial stage of operation. The layout is indicative only and will be modified as industry input is considered and new buildings are proposed.
Image showing area allocated for vehicle parking in the initial stages of operation
52
3.7.2 Schedule 4 – Environmental Management Standards
4 Principles and Scheme Standards
Issue 1 – Environmental Impact
Objective:
To Protect the Environmental and Visual qualities of land units through ensuring that buildings, structures and other works are located, constructed and subsequently managed/maintained so as to minimise impact.
A1
Acceptable solution
Building and access roads are on sites with slopes of less than 1 in 5 (20% grade).
There are no buildings included in this proposal and the hub connector road is located on land that is less than 20% grade. Therefore the development meets the acceptable solution.
Issue 2 – Visual amenity
Objective:
To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the visual amenity and landscape qualities of the Municipality.
A2
Acceptable solution
Use or development within the Landscape and Skyline Conservation Zone cannot be viewed from a public place.
The proposed transport hub and associated infrastructure is not located in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation Zone, therefore this Issue is not applicable.
Issue 3 – Natural hazards
Objective:
Areas Subject to hazard will be managed to minimise the need for remedial or engineering works to protect property or human life.
A3
Acceptable solution
Use and development must:-
(a) not have a floor area less than 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level; [Amend. RZ 03/04B effective 6/12/04]
(b) be located further than 30m measured horizontally from the furthest land-bound extent of the wetland to minimise the risk of disturbance and shoreline recession; and
53
(c) be located further than 10m from the outer limit of a waterway to avoid erosion.
This development proposal does not include the construction of any buildings; consequently (a) is not applicable.
In addition, the development site is above the 50 metre contour and outside of the 1 in 100 year flood level some 30 metres above the expected flood level anticipated at the intersection of Crooked Billet Creek and the Jordan River.
The development is located well outside the waterway overlay. Therefore the development meets all the acceptable solutions.
Issue 4 - Utilities
Objective:
To ensure that all appropriate utilities shall be provided for proposed use or development.
A4
Acceptable solution
Effluent from any use or development is connected to the Council’s reticulated sewer, or where a reticulated system is not available, an on-site waste disposal system conforming to the Tasmanian Plumbing Code 1994.
This stage of the development does not require effluent connections. However, the development includes the provision of an access point to the reticulated sewer system (shown on Plan HB08001-P88 and HB08001-P89).
There are two sewerage catchments, however this proposal is contained to the area that is nominally 30Ha and is referred to as the main catchment. There is a potential future development area to the south of approximately 12Ha.
A 225 UPVC sewer main is proposed for the main catchment and will be installed across the site to a low point on the eastern corner of the site. This sewer main is sized to allow for future development. A new sewerage pump station will be constructed on Council owned land adjacent to Crooked Billet Creek (refer to dwg HB08001-P88 for location plan). The pump station will then pump via a rising main into Council’s existing gravity system in Crooked Billet Drive.
The pump station shall be constructed in accordance with the Tasmanian Sewerage Pumping Station Environmental Guidelines 1999 and the WSA Sewerage Pumping Code of Australia.
Maximum Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) from the development are expected to be in the order of 5L/s for the initial stages of development with an increase to 30L/s possible for the ultimate development including an allowance for some small wet industry. Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWF) start at 0.8L/s for the initial development up to 5L/s for the full development. There is an allowance for one small wet industry in this calculation.
The southern catchment would drain by gravity into Council’s system at Glenstone Road. ADWF from this catchment could be in the order of 2L/s, with a PWWF of 12L/s.
Therefore the development meets the applicable acceptable solution.
54
A5
Acceptable solution
Use or development is connected to the Council’s reticulated water supply, or where no reticulated supply is available, to a potable water supply conforming to the Tasmanian Plumbing Code 1994. [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
This stage of the development does not require a water supply connection. However, this proposal includes the provision of an access point to the reticulated water system (shown on Plan HB08001-P88).
Water for potable supply and fire fighting purposes will be taken from the Council main that currently runs through the site (refer to dwg HB08001-P88 for location plan). Water shall then be reticulated through the site to serve future development and fire fighting requirements. A network of fire hydrants shall be constructed in accordance with TFS guidelines.
There is sufficient head of water available at the site as the works are below the reservoir level on the adjacent hills.
It is understood that Council’s infrastructure has a maximum capacity of around 40L/s. This is more than adequate for the first stages of development. The fire fighting requirement for future development will be largely dependant on the type of materials stored on site. It is proposed that future development shall have to be managed to limit the fire fighting demand to 40L/s. If this is not sufficient for a particular proposed development, then the proponent shall have to provide additional storage for fire fighting purposes.
The peak hourly demand from the ultimate development of 42Ha is estimated at 20L/s. This assumes no heavy water use as part of wet processing of goods.
Therefore the development meets the applicable acceptable solution.
Acceptable solution
A6 Electrical and telecommunication reticulation associated with subdivision within the Residential Zone is installed underground. [Amend. RZ 03/04B effective 6/12/04
Not applicable.
Issue 5 - Avoiding discharge
Objective:
To maintain the physical and chemical quality of the Municipal’s waterways and wetlands at level that will not affect their role as aquatic habitats, recreational assets, or sources of supply for domestic, industrial or agricultural uses.
A7
Acceptable solution
Use or development does not include a point source discharge.
The development has a point source for stormwater discharge and therefore does not meet the acceptable solution A7 and will be considered under the performance criteria P7. Maps HB08001-P94 and P95 depict the stormwater detention/retention basins and stormwater outlet point.
55
P7
Performance Criteria
Development must demonstrate that appropriate methods of treatment or management shall be implemented to ensure that new point sources of discharge:-
a) do not prejudice the achievement of water quality objectives;
The development meets all performance criteria.
The main objective of the policy is to maintain or enhance water quality.
The Jordan River between Pontville and Bridgewater has been subject to Major streamside and in stream modification and is considered in poor condition (DPIWE 2003).
Water quality released from the site will be of a chemical standard acceptable for drinking water. The water quality will also be below the trigger value for the protection of 95% of species for freshwater environments.
Management of stormwater quality will be undertaken in accordance with current best practice standards to control flow and to reduce turbidity and nutrients loads.
Water of this quality will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of water quality in the Jordan catchment.
The release of uncontaminated stormwater may additionally enhance overall water quality in the down stream section of the river by providing an increase in overall volume and regularisation of water flow into the lower Jordan catchment.
Discussion of Water Quality Data:
Limited data exists and few studies have been undertaken to accurately model and quantify stormwater runoff from transport related activities. However, American Transport Department studies have noted that the magnitude of constituents associated with highway runoff is related to traffic volume U.S (cited in Sansalone et al 2005).
Kayhanian et al (2003) in a study of runoff from United States Highways found that highways with vehicle movements of less than 30,000 vehicle movements per day had significantly less concentrations of pollution in stormwater than those with high vehicle movements.
The current Macquarie Point rail yards site has less than 30,000 vehicle movements per day with identified movements being in the range of 400-500 per day. This means that the potential stormwater pollutant discharges can be considered in the context of Kayhanian’s study of highways less than 30,000 vehicle movements per day.
Kayhanian’s study examined a range of metals, nutrients and other parameters. Metals sampled include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc and nutrients include ammonia, nitrate and nitrite. Other parameters studied included oxygen demand, pH, suspended solids, and turbidity.
Constituent (1) Recorded average
Drinking water guidelines
ANZECC protection of 95% species trigger
Trigger value correction for water hardness
pH 7 6.5-8.5 6.5-7.5*
Dissolved solids 297.2 80-500 (good) No data
Suspended solids 168 No data Use turbidity as indicator
56
Turbidity (NTU) 567.2 5 2-25*(upland rivers)*
Dissolved metals
No
spec
ific
limits
are
diff
eren
tiate
d be
twee
n di
ssol
ved
met
al a
nd to
tal
met
als
No
spec
ific
limits
are
diff
eren
tiate
d be
twee
n di
ssol
ved
met
al a
nd to
tal
met
als
Arsenic 0.0006
Cadmium No data
Chromium 0.0017
Copper 0.0065
Lead 0.0012
Nickel 0.0036
Zinc 0.0353
Total Metals
Arsenic 0.0006 0.007 0.0013 No correction
Cadmium 0.0002 0.002 0.0002 0.0014
Chromium 0.0055 0.05 0.001 0.0049
Copper 0.0094 1-2 0.0014 0.0073
Lead 0.0082 0.01 0.0034 0.040
Nickel 0.0086 0.2 0.011 0.057
Zinc 0.0634 3 0.008 0.041
Nutrients
Ammonium 2.3 0.5 0.9
Nitrate 0.6 50 No data
Nitrite No data 3 0.7
Total Phosphorus 0.2 No data 0.005
Fecal coliforms
MPN/100mL
3800 Not detectable
Oil and Grease 2.5 No reliable trigger values.
(1) all constituents are reported in mg/L unless otherwise specified.
*Value form South East Australia upland slightly disturbed river category.
Water Quality for Human Consumption:
The average total concentrations of metals and nutrients (with the exception of Ammonium and fecal coliforms) from a highway of less than 30,000 vehicle movements a day has lower concentrations than the acceptable values for both health and taste in the Tasmanian Drinking Water Guidelines.
Within the nitrogen cycle (disregarding artificial process input), ammonium is sources from animal secretion and organic decomposition. Fecal coliforms in stormwater are also usually associated with the breakdown of animal secretions and plant material.
In the Kayhanian study the average ammonium levels exceeded the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines by 1.7mg/L. The high level in the report reflects the characteristics of the transport uses and surrounding environment of the study and in this case does not accurately reflect likely stormwater emissions.
The data from the Kayhanian study is from rural highways. Within the study urban highways with greater than 30,000 vehicle movements per day had a lower Ammonia content at 1.0 mg/L. Considering that highways with vehicle movements in excess of 30,000 can have up to
57
four times higher mean concentrations of lesser traffic volumes (Wong et al 2000) it appears likely that either surrounding land use or livestock transportation are the ammonium and fecal coliform source.
Consequently, as the predominant use will be containerised material and does not include provisions for livestock transportation it is likely that the actual values for these two constituents will be significantly less.
The average turbidity reported in the study is also significantly higher than the accepted drinking water standards. Turbidity and management to reduce turbidity is discussed in the following section on best practice guidelines.
ANZECC Guidelines for the Protection of 95% of Species.
The trigger values for the protection of 95% of species is most commonly applied to slightly or moderately disturbed and is designed to minimise the risk of causing additional impact on aquatic species (beyond what is already occurring in the aquatic system). For ecosystems that are highly disturbed it can be more appropriate to apply less stringent trigger values (ANZECC 2000).
While the 3003 DPIWE State of the River Report for the Jordan River Catchment found that the water quality in the Jordan river was significantly degraded, the protection of 95% of species trigger value is being used as a precaution against further degradation.
The Jordan River has extremely hard water, which decreases the toxicity of metals (DPIWE 2003:49). The DPIWE State of the Rivers Report for the Jordan Catchment recorded water hardness (CaCO3 mg/L) at a median of 290 mg/L throughout the catchment. At the nearest site upstream and downstream of Crooked Billet Creek The median hardness was in the range of high 300s and low 400s mg/L.
Taking a precautionary approach the ANZECC correction for water hardness has been applied using the very hard classification of 180-240 mg/L.
With this correction applied the likely total metal concentrations in stormwater falls below the trigger value for the protection of 95% of species with the exception to total chromium, copper and zinc.
The values of total metals represent a combination of both dissolved metals and metals attached to particulates in the stormwater. The values of dissolved metals in all cases fall below the trigger value for the protection of 95% of species.
Attaining the protection of 95% of species is consequently dependent upon the control of the total suspended solids that carry the component of available contaminates above the 95% trigger value.
Management of turbidity in accordance with best practice design will reduce the available metal concentrations to below the protection of 95% of species trigger value.
Suspended solids are solid particles that are picked up and travel with water flow. The suspended solids content of stormwater runoff is highest at the start of rainfall events and declines exponentially with time over rain fall events (Sansalone et al 2005). This phenomenon in rainfall runoff is termed the first flush. Control of suspended solids consequently focuses on managing particulates carried within flow of the first flush event.
Turbidity is used within the ANZECC guidelines as an indicator of total suspended solids. The values reported in the Kayhanian study are disproportionately high when considered against high Urban traffic volumes that have an average turbidity of less than 4 times the rural road values. This means that the likely source of turbidity is from surrounding land use influences or rural road specific uses and that the reported turbidity values are not reliable.
58
In the absence of reliable data, the management of turbidity and nutrients (see discussions above) has been designed in accordance with the current best practice standards.
Current Best Practice Guidelines.
The current best practice guidelines are the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Engineering Procedures: Stormwater for Southern Tasmania 2006 produced by the Derwent Estuary Program (2006).
These guidelines recommend pollutant reductions of 45% for Nitrogen and Phosphorus and an 80% reduction of Total Suspended Solids for the protection of receiving waters.
Site specific modelling for the reduction of suspended solids, total nitrogen and total phosphorus using the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) was used to appropriately size the design of the stormwater treatment train.
Petroleum type products sourced from transport vehicles is the most likely pollutant type to enter the stormwater system. The ANCECC guidelines note that as hydrocarbons are not homogenous substances it is difficult to derive guidelines. Consequently, no current standard for release of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons with relevant trigger values only being determined for the more volatile hydrocarbon constituents and soluble fractions.
The closest relevant guideline is the Tasmanian emission limits for Total Hydrocarbons from sewerage treatment plants into the Freshwater environment. This standard is set at 2-10mg/L.
It is anticipated that the likely total hydrocarbon runoff will be significantly less that the 2.5 mg/L found in Kayhanian’s study in line with the lower traffic volumes. This expectation is based on the strong linear correlation that the study found between vehicle movements per day and total hydrocarbons.
The export of hydrocarbons to stormwater is incidental to the vehicle use and in accordance with the recommendations of Wong et al the combination of natural vegetation filtering from the grass swales and wetland system proposed is more appropriate for the management of the diffuse hydrocarbon source.
This treatment by capture and biological breakdown of hydrocarbons will further reduce the level of hydrocarbons entering the waterway so that there is minimal risk of an environmental nuisance or harm occurring.
b) do not give rise to pollution within the terms of the Groundwater Act 1985, beyond the boundary of any attenuation zone set in accordance with Clause 25 of the Policy; [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
The Groundwater Act 1985 was repealed with the enactment of the Water Management Act 1999. The Water Management Act 1999 contains no definition of pollution in regard to either surface or groundwater. The most relevant applicable definition of pollution is the definition contained within the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA).
Under EMPCA a pollutant is a substance that causes environmental harm. Material environmental harm (the least serious category) occurs where:
(i) it consists of an environmental nuisance of a high impact or on a wide scale; or
(ii) it involves an actual adverse effect on the health or safety of human beings that is not negligible; or
(iii) it involves an actual adverse effect on the environment that is not negligible; or
59
(iv) it results in actual loss or property damage of an amount, or amounts in aggregate, exceeding the threshold amount.
The intent of performance criteria 7 (b) is to prevent pollution to groundwater and subsequent environmental harm.
The stormwater from the site will be treated in accordance with current best practice standards. The retention basins have been designed in accordance with the relevant standards to minimise flow of water through the basins walls and foundation.
Potential discharge of stormwater to groundwater exists after the stormwater has been discharged to the creek and its subsequent flow into the Jordan River.
While there is a potential for the stormwater to enter the groundwater system, the likely dissolved constituent concentrations are lower than the acceptable limits and trigger values for the protection of human health and aquatic species. Please refer to performance criteria 7 (a) for a discussion on likely constituent concentrations.
No groundwater attenuation zones have been set in accordance with clause 25 of the Policy for this development or type of development.
c) are reduced to the maximum extent that is reasonable and practical having regard to best practice environmental management using accepted modern technologies;
The treatment train for stormwater has been developed in accordance with the Derwent Estuary Programs environmental best practice guidelines for water sensitive urban design.
The treatment train has been designed to achieve the following targets:
• Manage water flow through Crooked Billet Creek in a 1 in 100 year rainfall event that does not exceed the capacity of the existing Crooked Billet Creek Rail and Midland Highway culverts;
• Reduce the total suspended solids, total nitrogen and total phosphorus components of stormwater by 80%, 45% and 45% percent respectively;
• Meet site constraints aimed at minimising impacts on Aboriginal heritage values, threatened flora and fauna values, the existing gas pipeline corridor and gas infrastructure and existing Council services; and
• Comply with Water Management (Safety of Dams) Regulations 2003.
Pipe/Swale Design
All Stormwater pipes and swales have a minimum slope of 1 in 200 or 0.5% to ensure cleaning of sediments in the pipe can occur.
The local pipes that drain the hardstand area are sized for the 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) rainfall event. The drainage of the hardstand area for more severe rainfall events will be achieved with over land flow into the swales.
All pipes collecting hardstand areas shall be required to have oil and grease separators.
The swales are sized to ensure they have sufficient capacity to account for the 1in100 year rainfall event. The swale has been broken into 3 sections to minimise its depth while maintaining minimum grade. The low points in the swales are drained through pits and pipes sized for the 10 year ARI rainfall event allowing for the swale to act as part of the detention system for the 1in100 year event. To ensure the swale does not overflow a weir/pit arrangement will be required that will drain to additional downstream detention
60
basins.
Detention Pond Design
The detention ponds are required to detain the rest of the 100 year ARI peak rainfall event and delay the peak flows such that the capacity of the existing pipes in Crooked Billet Creek is not exceeded.
The detention ponds are to be located downstream of the wetland structure and within the boundary of the Crooked Billet Creek water course.
Wetland Design
The pipes that drain the swale for the 10 year ARI storm event will flow into the wetland so that base flows and the “first flush” is treated.
The wetland size is to sufficient to ensure that WSUD treatment targets are achieved.
Future Development
There is an area to the west of the Hub site that has been earmarked for future development by DIER and stormwater pipes need to be installed under the Hub platform so that this area can drain to Crooked Billet Creek. The area of the future development is 25ha. It is assumed that should this area be developed further that it will require its own detention and treatment facility.
d) meet emission limit guidelines:-
(i) published by the Board in accordance with Clause 18 of the policy, or
(ii) where emission limit guidelines have not been published, as set by the Board in accordance with Clause 19 Policy; and [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
No emission limit guidelines have been produced in accordance with Clause 18 of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1999 for Transport Depots.
Clause 19 of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1999 States provides for the Board of the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission limits where the release of a pollutant may cause an environmental nuisance, material environmental harm or serious environmental harm.
Under EMPCA the least serious of these considerations is an environmental nuisance. EMPCA defines and environmental nuisance as:
(a) the emission of a pollutant that unreasonably interferes with, or is likely to unreasonably interfere with, a person's enjoyment of the environment; and
(b) any emission specified in an environmental protection policy to be an environmental nuisance.
No Tasmanian environmental protection policy exists in reference to water quality.
As discussed in Performance Criteria 7 (a) the discharge water quality does not constitute an environmental nuisance, material environmental harm or serious environmental harm.
e) minimise the total number of discharge points and where practical and appropriate direct wastes to existing wastewater treatment systems with existing treatment capacity.
There is no current stormwater treatment system in the vicinity. The current stormwater
61
discharge for the surrounding industrial estate is directly into Crooked Billet Creek and utilises natural filtration.
The proposal provides one discharge point for stormwater that has the capacity to manage stormwater volumes from both the Transport Hub site and also future development of industrial zoned land within the Transport Hubs larger footprint area.
This stage of the development is not proposing activities that will produce wastes appropriate to be directed to the reticulated sewer system.
A8
Acceptable solution
Use or development does not include emissions from diffuse sources such as stormwater or urban runoff into a waterway or the coastal zone of a quality likely to be defined as a pollutant.
Potential diffuse sources of stormwater runoff are limited to access roads and rail into the Transport Hub. These access routes are typically over 100 metres away from the nearest waterway. Between the rail and road accesses and any watercourse either swale drains or existing pasture vegetation will act to filter particulates and minimise sediment transportation.
The natural filtration of particulates means that the likely emissions will achieve a water quality that will not cause any detrimental human or environmental effects and consequently is very unlikely to be defined as a pollutant. The likely constituents form the road and rail runoff is described fully in performance criteria 7 (a).
Therefore the development meets the acceptable solution.
Issue 6 – Potential nuisance generators
Objective:
To ensure that environmental nuisance is carefully managed.
A9
Acceptable Solution
Noise levels from activities or equipment related to the proposed use or development must not, at any time, exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundary with another property.
The predicted noise levels from the proposed transport hub exceed the A9 requirement of 5dB(A) in a small number of locations, therefore the proposal will be considered under the performance criteria.
P9
Performance Criteria
Development must demonstrate that noise levels from activities or equipment related to the proposed use or development will not cause an environmental nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
Noise levels generated by the transport hub operations have been considered in detail in the Brighton Transport Hub noise assessment report in Appendix 8. A report summary is also included in Section 2, page 21 of this report.
62
The report has demonstrated that the operation of the transport hub will not cause an environmental nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Therefore the proposal meets the Performance Criteria.
A10
Acceptable solution
No emissions from activities or equipment related to the proposed use or development, including odours and vibration, can be detected by a person at the boundary with another property.
Localised emissions related to transport hub operations are not expected to extend beyond the boundaries of adjacent properties. Therefore the development meets the acceptable solution.
A11
Acceptable Solution
The hours of operations where delivery of goods or use of machinery is proposed shall be:
Monday – Friday 7AM to 6PM
Saturday 8AM to 6PM
Sunday and gazetted public holidays 10AM to 6PM
Construction - All construction activities will occur during the hours specified within the hours stipulated in A11. Therefore the proposal to construct the hub meets the acceptable solution.
Operation of the transport hub will be required to operate outside of the hours proposed in A11. It will therefore be considered under this performance Criteria.
P11
Performance Criteria
Development must demonstrate that the hours available for loading/unloading of goods or operation of machinery must not result in an environmental nuisance.
Operation - The proposed transport hub will operate 24 hours per day with the bulk of the activity occurring between 6:00am and 10:00pm.
Under the current freight task, train activity is restricted between approximately 6:00am and 8:00pm however this level of activity is expected to increase as the freight task grows. Trucks will be accessing the site 24 hours a day.
The noise assessment has demonstrated that activity on the hub site during the above hours of operation will not result in environmental nuisance. Therefore it is proposed that the development meets the performance criteria.
63
Issue 7 – Soil and water management
Objective:
To ensure that effective soil and water management is addressed prior to site disturbance occurring.
A12
Acceptable solution
Site disturbance does not exceed 250m2 or where site disturbance will exceed 250m2, a development application is submitted with an accompanying Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) complying with HMCA requirements. [Amend. RZ 03/04B effective 6/12/04
The development does not meet the acceptable solution as the area of disturbance is over 250m2 and a SWMP is provided with the Development Application. Therefore the proposal will be assessed under the performance criteria.
P12
Performance criteria
Development shall not result in the transport of pollutants off-site which have the potential to cause environmental nuisance or material or serious environmental harm. [Amend. RZ 03/04B effective 6/12/04
A Soil and Water Management Plan complying with the requirements of the HMCA will be developed by the Construction contractor and approved by Brighton Council prior to the commencement of works.
All water runoff during construction shall be trapped and diverted to a sedimentation basin for removal of gross pollutants and suspended solids prior to release to Crooked Billet Creek. A catch drain will be constructed around the top side of the hub site and piped through the hub site back to Crooked Billet Creek to divert the natural flow of the creek around the site. The site will be re-vegetated following construction.
The application of mitigation strategies within the plan will not result in the transport of pollutants that have the potential to cause environmental harm or nuisance off site as they have been developed in accordance with the HMCA.
Therefore the development meets the performance criteria.
References
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) & Agricultural and resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality Volume 2 Aquatic Ecosystems – Rationale and Background Information.
Derwent Estuary Program (2006) Water sensitive urban design : engineering procedures for stormwater management in southern Tasmania. Sate of Tasmania, Hobart.
DPIWE (2003) State of the River Report for the Jordan River Catchment. Water Assessment and Planning Branch, Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, Hobart. Technical Report No. WAP 03/10
Kayhanian K., Sing A., Suverkropp C., Borroum S. (2003) “Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations’ Journal of Environmental engineering 129 (9) 957-990.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) & Natural resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) (2004) National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6. Australian Government.
Sansalone J. J., Hird J. P., Cartledge F. K., and Tittlebaum M. E. (2005) ‘Event-Based Stormwater Quality and Quantity Loading form Elevated Urban Infrastructure Affected by Transportation’ Water Environmental Research: Jul/Aug 77(4):348-365.
Wong. T., Breen. P., & Lloyd. S. (2000) Water Sensitive Road Design – Design Options For Improving Stormwater Quality Of Road Runoff. Technical report, Report 00/1 August. Melbourne. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology.
64
4.1.1 Schedule 8 – Road Assets
Issue 1 – Access sight distances
Objective:
To ensure that adequate sight distance is provided in relation to the speed of through traffic.
A1
Acceptable solution
Access to, or new junction with, Category I-VI roads and State roads must meet the standards set out in Figure S8.1.
The Brighton Transport Hub proposes one new road connection and one new junction.
The hub connector road at the north of the site will connect 70m south of the proposed roundabout on the existing Midland Highway. This roundabout is part of the Brighton 2 Development Application currently being considered by Council. Issues relating to the changes in traffic movements along the Midland Highway are further considered in the Traffic Impact Assessment included as Appendix 11. The Midland Highway will not be a Category 1 road when the new interchange is functional.
The one junction is proposed on the local road network at the intersection of Glenstone Road and Strong Street and a private access. The Transport Hub road will replace the private access at this junction.
The road design complies with all appropriate Australian Standards, AustRoads Guidelines and DIER General and Standard Specifications.
Please refer to the Traffic Impact Assessment accompanying this application for further information.
The development meets the acceptable solution.
Issue 2 – Number of Access and Junctions on Category I-IV Roads
Objective:
To ensure that the performance and safety of roads is not reduced by the number of vehicle entry points.
A1
Acceptable Solution
There is to be no access onto, or junction with, a Category I, II or III road outside an area subject to a general Urban Speed Limit.
Because the hub connector road at the north of the site will connect 70m south of the proposed roundabout on the existing Category 1 Midland Highway, and that the Highway will remain as a Category 1 road until approximately 2012, this Objective will be considered under the Performance Criteria.
65
P1
Performance Criteria
The applicant demonstrates that:
(iii) access onto an alternative road is impracticable; and
(iv) there is a compelling need for the use or development to be located on the site for environmental, economic, social, transport or other reason; and
(v) the use or development meets the relevant standards of this schedule; and
(vi) a TIA demonstrates that the measures to be undertaken will maintain the safety and efficiency of the road.
(iii) There is no practical alternative access on to a category IV-VI road for northern access to the Transport Hub site.
(iv) The purpose of the project is to develop a new road and rail transport hub that will provide major benefits to the State through improved freight productivity, rail efficiency and reduced travel times to northern ports.
The location of the transport hub with a direct access onto the Midland Highway Category I road (short term) and access to the new bypass (in the long term) is an integral component of achieving improved transport productivities and efficiencies.
(v) The design of the road and junctions accords with all appropriate Australian standards, AustRoads Guidelines and DIER General and Standard Specifications.
(vi) The Traffic Impact Assessment identifies that the Brighton Bypass will reduce congestion and improve safety conditions and issues while allowing for the increase in traffic movements generated by the transport Hub.
Please refer to the attached Traffic Impact Assessment included as Appendix 11 for further information. The Traffic Impact Assessment identifies that the Brighton Bypass will reduce congestion and improve safety conditions and issues while allowing for the increase in traffic movements generated by the transport Hub.
Please refer to the attached Traffic Impact Assessment accompanying this application for further information.
A2
Acceptable Solution
For Category I, II and III Roads within an area subject to a General Urban Speed Limit there is to be a maximum of one direct access per property, providing both entry and exit, or two direct accesses providing separate entry and exit.
Not applicable.
A3
Acceptable Solution
Outside an area subject to a General Urban Speed Limit, and where access is onto, or the junction is with, a Category IV-VI Road a maximum of one direct access (or junction) per property, providing both entry and exit, or two direct accesses providing separate entry and exit, will be permitted providing that any access (junction) will be located etc;
Not applicable
66
A4
Acceptable Solution
A4(a) For Category IV, V and VI Roads within an area subject to a General Urban Speed Limit there is to be a maximum of one direct access per property, providing both entry and exit, or two direct accesses providing separate entry and exit.
A4(b) Accesses will be located not less than 9m from the junction with a Category I – III Road.
The existing property access from Glenstone Drive to CT 130201/1 and 24898/2 will be relocated to the western extent of the Hub Connector road. The current access to the gas off-take and regulation station at CT137124/5 will remain unchanged. No further property accesses are proposed as part of this application.
The development meets the acceptable solution.
Issue 3 – Deficient Junctions
Objective:
To ensure that there is no further decline in the safety of a deficient road junction.
A1
Acceptable solution
Where a TIA demonstrates that a use or development serviced by a side road from a deficient junction will not create a material change in the Annual Average Daily traffic (AADT) on the side road at the deficient junction. [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
The Crooked Billet Drive/Midland Highway junction will have increased Annual Average Daily Traffic as a result of the Transport Hub development. Therefore the development does not meet A1 and must be considered under the performance criteria.
P1
Performance criteria
The TIA demonstrates that the above Objective will be achieved, provided that where it is required that any roadworks be undertaken by, or at the cost of, the applicant, these roadworks will be completed prior to any other part of the permit becoming effective.
The deficient Crooked Billet Drive/Midland Highway junction will be upgraded as part of the Brighton Bypass development. This upgrade will result in the improvement of safety at this junction.
Please refer to the attached Traffic Impact Assessment included as Appendix 11 which will demonstrate capacity to meet the performance criteria.
Issue 4 – Future Road
Objective:
To ensure that use or development on or near land designated for a Future Road will not unduly impede the development or use of that road.
67
A1
Acceptable solution
No use or development is to occur on, or within 50m of the boundary, of land designated in the Planning Scheme area as a Future Road. [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
No use or development occurs within 50m of the future road area except for road connection and rail realignment that is required by the proposed Brighton Bypass development therefore the proposal meets the acceptable solution.
Issue 5 – Setbacks and building structures
No buildings or structures are proposed as a component of this development application.
Issue 6 – Use or development on roads that is nor primarily related to their use or development as roads.
No use or development is proposed on a road that is not primarily related to use or development as a road.
Issue 7 – Design Matters
Objective – That all necessary roadworks are undertaken to standards required by the Road Authority.
A1
Acceptable solution
Any access and any new junction complies with the Austroads Standards (excepting those relating to sight distances) with respect to accesses and junctions. [Amend. RZ 03/04A effective 6/12/04]
The proposed access to existing roads complies with all relevant AustRoad guidelines and DIER general and standard specifications.
A2
Acceptable solution
Where compliance with any Standard requires any roadworks on a Category I, II or III Road those roadworks will be completed prior to any other part of the permit becoming effective.
Improvements to the deficient Crooked Billet Drive junction and traffic management measures in accordance with the appropriate standards at this junction will be undertaken prior to the commencement of other works.
A3
Acceptable solution
Compliance with any roadworks required by the Road Authority as a result of its consideration of a TIA if the use or development:
(i) requires or includes a new access onto or a new junction with, Category I, II or III road; or
68
(ii) a TIA shows that it is likely to cause a material change on the road to which the access connects.
The applicant is the Road Authority for category I, II and III roads and all roadworks comply with DIER general and standard specifications.
4.1.2 Schedule 9 – Heritage Schedule Introduction
Consistent with the known and rich heritage of the Brighton area and Jordan River catchment, site assessments have revealed additional heritage features. Newly identified sites will require the implementation of a range of management and mitigation strategies prior to construction and operation of the transport hub facility. Details relating to all values have been described and management strategies proposed in Section 2 of this document.
Purpose
S9.1 The purpose of the Heritage schedule is:-
(a) To conserve and enhance places of cultural significance.
(b) To conserve and enhance those values that contributes to the cultural significance of a place, including natural, indigenous and cultural values.
(c) To ensure that development does not adversely affect the cultural significance of a place.
(d) To conserve places of cultural significance by allowing a use or development that would otherwise be prohibited, where it is demonstrated that the use or development will assist with the conservation of the cultural significance of the place.
Site assessments that were undertaken across the proposed transport hub site have resulted in the identification of previously unknown heritage values.
Development of the proposed hub will impact on a portion of these values; however a voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan will be developed and implemented to conserve the areas of highest significance. The development of a management plan to protect and manage Aboriginal heritage values is pioneering a new approach to heritage management that will become more commonplace when the new legislation is enacted.
The value of the newly identified and probable hut site referred to in Section 2 is in the knowledge it can provide through excavation rather than its preservation. It is anticipated that detailed investigation of this
69
site will provide a broader context and understanding of the interactions between early settlers and the Aboriginal community in the early 1800s.
It is important to note that the cultural significance of the Jordan River Valley has been enhanced as a result of the extensive assessments and archaeology that has been undertaken across this site. Over many years many smaller, incremental developments have occurred over a very large area with no additions to the cultural heritage knowledge. The proposal to site the Brighton Transport Hub at this location achieves a number of positive outcomes, but two clear heritage outcomes; enhanced knowledge of the Aboriginal and European past and importantly, a new approach to conserving and managing important heritage into the future.
Places of cultural significance
S9.2 The requirements of the schedule apply to a place of cultural significance including places shown on the Register of Places of Cultural Significance specified in Table 9.1 of this Schedule, and other place that are, or likely to be, of cultural significance of the place.
There are no places included on the Register of Places of Cultural Significance however, as a result of afore mentioned site assessments and archaeological investigations, a range of very significant values have been identified across the site.
Historic Heritage values are recorded in some detail in the accompanying report included as Appendix 7. Additionally, an overview of the recently identified hut site is contained in Appendix 12. Aboriginal heritage values have been described in Section 2 of this report in as much detail as is appropriate at this stage of the investigations. The proposed Cultural Heritage Management Plan, which will be completed in early 2009 will describe the values in more detail and how they will be conserved for future generations.
Importantly, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) and Heritage Tasmania have been very supportive and have had substantial input into the approach to heritage investigations across the site and future management strategies.
Application requirements
S9.3 Where Council is of the opinion that a place is of cultural significance or is likely to be of cultural significance, it may require the applicant to submit a report prepared by person approved by Council that identifies:
70
(a) Any cultural significance of that place;
(b) The likely impacts of the proposal upon that cultural significance; and
(c) Recommendations to mitigate adverse impacts upon cultural significance.
An Historic Cultural Heritage Assessment report and associated updates is included as Appendix 7. Cultural significance, likely impacts and approaches to mitigation are considered as part of this report.
A Method Statement to investigate the recently indentified hut site was recently approved by Heritage Tasmania and an email in support has been included as Appendix 12.
An overview of the Aboriginal Heritage Values is included in Section 2. A letter of support from the Manager, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania endorsing the approach to investigation and management of Aboriginal values across the site is also included in Appendix 12.
Decision Guidelines
S9.5 In addition to those matters listed in Clause 3.3, Council must consider the following relevant matters before deciding on an application:-
(a) the cultural significance of the place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the cultural significance;
(b) any applicable heritage study and any applicable policy;
(f) whether the proposed works will adversely affect the cultural significance of a place;
(k) any advice sought and/or received from the Tasmanian Heritage Council or the Aboriginal Heritage Office: and
The statements included in Section 2 of this report and the Historic Heritage Assessment included as Appendix 7 provide a thorough overview of the cultural heritage values across the site and the effects the proposed development will have on the cultural significance of the area. Suffice to say that
In addition to the information contained in this report, studies have been undertaken as part of the Brighton bypass developments. These reports describe and provide broader context to related sites that exist outside of the proposed transport hub site.
Letters of endorsement from Heritage Tasmania and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania have been included overleaf.
4.1.3 Schedule 10 – Attenuation Distances The proposed Brighton Transport Hub is not a sensitive use, nor is it listed in Table S10.2 or S10.3 so this schedule does not apply.
71
5 STATE PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
5.1 State Policies 5.1.1 State Coastal Policy 1996 The Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996 is applicable to all land within a distance of one kilometre from the high-water mark. The proposed transport hub is within 1 km of the coast and, accordingly, the State Coastal Policy applies to this project.
There are three main principles guiding the policy:
Natural and cultural values of the coast shall be protected.
The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner.
Integrated management and protection of the coastal zone is a shared responsibility.
This proposal involves locating a transport hub directly adjacent to the existing Brighton Industrial estate. This development will not have an impact on the sensitive aspects of the coastal zone. The proposal is located within a well established industrial area and for this reason cannot be considered ribbon development.
The proposal will involve the construction of a large area of hardstand, which will generate significant stormwater runoff during high rainfall events. The design involves a comprehensive stormwater management system encompassing a series of retention basins that will ensure that the water leaving the site will not adversely impact surrounding waterways, the coastal zone or any sensitive flora and fauna species. The establishment of the transport hub in this location will not promote new coastal hugging infrastructure.
The implementation of the Environmental Management Standards (Schedule 4) contained within the Brighton Planning Scheme, and required for any subsequent development applications, will ensure future development of the site will satisfy the requirements of the State Coastal Policy, in particular:
Point and diffuse source pollution control measures will be established;
The proposal will have no impact on the coastline;
The site footprint involves no environmentally sensitive areas;
Future construction management and mitigation measures will ensure that any potential short-term impacts on the environment will be minimised; and
Future design management and mitigation measures will minimise the long term potential for impact on the coastal zone.
Significant planning has been undertaken in the establishment of the Brighton Industrial Precinct to ensure sustainable development of the infrastructure. The proposed footprint of the hub has been determined in response to natural and cultural values within the locality.
72
5.1.2 State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 The Draft State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2007 provides for sustainable agriculture on the State’s prime agricultural land. It goes further to protect prime agricultural land (defined as Class 1, 2 or 3 land) from conversion to non-agricultural use and development.
A Land Capability and Agricultural Assessment has been undertaken for the proposed site of the Brighton transport hub. This report has determined the land impacted by the hub footprint is a combination of class 4, 5s1 and 6s. The full report is included as Appendix 9. In summary the report found that:
There was no prime agricultural land present in the study area;
The Objectives and Principles of the PAL Policy can be addressed for the area proposed to be rezoned; and
There is unlikely to be any fettering of surrounding agricultural activity as a result of the industrial rezoning.
There is adequate separation, or means of control to protect adjacent land use from fettering by the proposal.
The area proposed for the transport hub has limited agricultural potential and is well located with regards to services, transport infrastructure, environmental features, workforce and existing industrial land.
Further consideration of the agricultural values of the site and the impacts of the proposal is included in Section 2 on page 27.
5.1.3 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 This Policy applies to all surface waters, including coastal waters, and ground waters, other than:
privately owned waters that are not accessible to the public and are not connected to, or flow directly into, waters that are accessible to the public; or
waters in any tank, pipe or cistern.
The relevant section of the State Policy on Water Quality Management is shown below:
30. Emissions from diffuse sources of pollution should be reduced and managed through the development and implementation of best practice environmental management, and so as not to prejudice the achievement of water quality objectives.
31.1 Planning schemes should require that development proposals with the potential to give rise to off-site polluted stormwater runoff which could cause environmental nuisance or material or serious environmental harm should include, or be required to develop as a
73
condition of approval, stormwater management strategies including appropriate safeguards to reduce the transport of pollutants off-site.
31.5 Planning schemes must require that land use and development is consistent with the physical capability of the land so that the potential for erosion and subsequent water quality degradation is minimised.
The footprint of the transport road, rail and hardstand infrastructure is within the Crooked Billet Creek catchment, which is part of the greater Bridgewater catchment and the wider Derwent Estuary catchment. This catchment has been largely modified since European settlement through the activities of agricultural, industrial and urban development.
The water quality of Crooked Billet Creek is a function of its physical setting, as well as historic and ongoing input of pollutants. These inputs can be broadly classified as point sources and diffuse sources. Both diffuse and point source pollution can be managed to protect the environmental values by development and implementation of best practice environmental management, compliance with approved codes of practice, the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 (particularly the Environmental Management Schedule) and emission limits set by the regulatory authority (Brighton Council).
These issues have been addressed in detail in Section 3 page 57 of this report.
5.1.4 NEPM’s There is no implication upon the requirements of the eight National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM’s) in consideration of the approval of the Brighton transport hub.
5.1.5 Gas safety A major gas main extends across the northern extend of the proposed hub footprint. In addition, the eastern side of the hub platform extends adjacent to the gas main as shown in design drawings.
DIER has been communicating with PowerCo and Jemena since the preferred site was selected and is in the process of negotiating an agreement in relation to the appropriate range of mitigation measures and future management of the gas infrastructure. A number of measures are proposed including excavating and exposing the pipeline for inspection and placing a concrete protection layer over the pipeline prior to back filling.
74
6 CONLCUSION
This report has demonstrated that the proposal to establish and operate a transport hub in the Brighton Municipality has considerable merit. The Resource Planning and Development Commission have recently approved an expansion of the Industry zone which means that the hub can be developed to its fullest potential over coming years. Approval to rezone part of the site from Rural to Industry zone acknowledges the strategic importance of the existing industrial area.
The existing Industry zone is strategically located in terms of proximity to major road and rail infrastructure, protection from sensitive uses via the environmental buffer overlay and proximity to a number of settlements that can provide a ready labour force.
Currently, there is rapid uptake and development of Industrial land and this proposal will provide additional opportunities for the establishment of transport related industries in the future. During the course of planning for construction of the transport hub it has become apparent that there is considerable support from industry and the community more broadly. Regular meetings with a range of groups and stakeholders have enabled interested parties to provide input into the development of the transport hub layout. The result will be a ‘fit for purpose’ facility that meets the needs of road and rail related industries as far as practicable.
The Southern Tasmania, National Transport Investment Program will deliver major road upgrades, rail improvements and a transport hub in the near future. These projects will further reinforce the comparative advantages enjoyed by the Brighton industrial precinct. The economic and social benefits that will accrue to Brighton communities and the region more broadly as a result of this investment, will be an important factor in the future growth of Brighton as a viable and important regional centre.
75
7 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Southern Transport Investment Program
Appendix 2 – Dam Assessment Report
Appendix 3 – Property Title Information
Appendix 4 – Letter to Affected Landowners
Appendix 5 – Australian Government – Decision on referral
Appendix 6 - Vegetation Survey and Fauna Habitat Assessment
Appendix 7 – Historic Heritage Assessment
Appendix 8 - Noise Assessment
Appendix 9 – Land Capability and Agricultural Assessment
Appendix 10 – Lighting Design
Appendix 11 – Traffic Impact Assessment
Appendix 12 - Heritage Communications