Page 4063 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Other impacts need to be monitored, according to the environmental impact statement - for example, the Belconnen landfill site, Parkwood Eggs, the flora and fauna communities identified in the EIS as being at risk from the development and the introduction of domestic pets, dust and noise pollution from the actual construction phase, and increased sediments and nutrients in the water system.
These costs do not include the cost of actual mitigating actions taken to prevent undesirable effects from the development. Table 7.1 sets out some of these and includes the aforementioned sewage treatment works remedial work. Areas identified as being waterlogged are to be left out of the development or, alternatively, remedial engineering works will be needed. The table shows that badly waterlogged areas are to be excluded from the development, which may or may not leave some people with waterlogging problems in areas adjacent to their new homes.
Stormwater systems need engineering works to ensure an acceptable velocity through the system, although I concede that those types of costs are inherent with removal of stormwater. No mention has been made in the environmental impact statement of possible other methods of reducing stormwater run-off, such as swale construction or other methods of return for its use in landscaping. I have already mentioned that the watercourses of the area are to be monitored, but there is also the issue of the possible pollution of the Murrumbidgee to consider.
I recognise the evaluation report's correction of the data used in the final environmental impact statement. However, there is no room to ignore the data presented in the EIS, as Australia and particularly inland areas are subject to periodic drought, and we should not set out protection levels at minimums which assume reasonable rainfall levels. So, the recommended gross pollution traps and ponds must be aimed at preventing pollution of the river at all times. What is the cost of these works? Is this figure included in the presumed $4m to $6m infrastructure works?
Another major concern, both from a financial point of view and for future residents, is the potential fire hazard. The final environmental impact statement makes much of this problem, citing the removal of the rural land between the ACT and New South Wales as having mitigated the severity of grassfires in the past. The strategy outlined in the final environmental impact statement will need vigilance and money to implement it in an appropriate fashion. The point is that the hazard is expected to increase after the development of West Belconnen and, although the development period is over five years, mitigation works must necessarily be part of the development. We cannot wait until people have bought their houses to address the issues raised.
In addition to the proposals contained in the environmental impact statement, the evaluation report contains some additional requirements for mitigation works, most of which are in the form of additional design considerations; but some requirements, such as the safety of horse riders during construction, have financial implications for the projected development. Again I ask: What is the real cost of developing West Belconnen?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .