Wednesday, 3 January 2001
Port of Brisbane Fisherman Islands Expansion
Projects and Infrastructure Division
Dept. of State Development
Dear Sir or Madam
Please find attached our preliminary response
to the Impact Assessment Study (IAS) Supplementary Report for the proposed Port
of Brisbane extension.
The issue of Traffic is still inappropriately
addressed; A per Queensland Transport (Attachment 1, 9th Oct), Dept.
Main Roads (17th Oct), Brisbane City Council (Traffic, 9th
Oct) and our submission, a number of traffic issues raised have not been addressed.
- The Environmental Management Plan is NOT of an acceptable standard
and has NOT addressed the issues raised by the above stakeholders, and quite
clearly effective, appropriate and realistic monitoring, performance criteria
and corrective actions donít exist under the EMP for the following issues.
- Impacts on local road infrastructure.
- Impacts on local communities.
- Identifications of measures to manage, mitigate and compensate
- Maximum loads, curfews, on-site and on board weighing.
- Issues of dry and wet weather conditions upon haulage schedules.
- Issues of dealing with, monitoring and addressing fugitive
dust generation in transport.
- The Supplementary report has quite clearly shown community
consultation has been ineffective and non-existent with regard to the issue
of vehicle movements along local roads. The IAS has failed to advise the public
about the possible impacts of the Port Extension upon their communities, as
a result of vehicles transporting bund wall material along local roads.
- The IAS and Supplementary Report, whilst able to produce statistics
for Lytton Road and the Gateway Motorway, has failed to produce any such figures
relating to local roads except unsubstantiated comments, made by alleged quarry
- The IAS appears to show the Redland Shire Council and Brisbane
City Council have not been consulted about the impacts on local road infrastructure
due to transport of Bund Wall material.
- The issues of compensation for traffic damage to local roads
has NOT been addressed. It is inappropriate and inequitable to expect ratepayers
to bare the burden of local road repairs. Traffic damage costs should be the
prime responsibility of the POB as a result of their project activities.
- Lack of conclusive scientific evidence or other proof that
transport of bund material will have a minimal impact on local communities.
The matter of traffic is a major issue for
the community. Currently the Port of Brisbane would be unable to produce a defensible
case to show they have adequately addressed the Terms of Reference and principles
of ESD, when the issue of Transport is examined closely. Undesirable, but likely,
is the community will seek a remedy in the political and legal arena to redress