This document, signed on 21 October 2010 by NSW Department of Planning, is available on the net at http://www.hillsm2upgrade.com.au/files/101021_M2%20Upgrade_Conditions%20of%20Approval.pdf.
It talks at length about the project's effect on waterways and wildlife, but makes no mention at all of disruption to the lifestyles of the people who use the Kirkham Road bridge over the M2 between Kirkham Road and Beecroft Road. Obviously if the bridge is completely closed even for a few days that would seriously inconvenience school kids who walk to and from school, and commuters who walk from home to the railway and bus stations in Beecroft.
One would like to think that the lack of information indicates that there is no intent to interrupt access to that road bridge. So why the rumours?
Section 5, "Community Information, Consultation and Involvement", requires the project to establish and maintain a website for provision of electronic information associated with the project. This will include a copy of each current strategy, plan, program or other document required under this approval.
A telephone number is to be provided on which complaints and enquiries about construction and operation activities may be registered, along with a postal address and an email address. These shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the local area prior to the commencement of construction and prior to the commencement of project operations. The details shall also be on the website mentioned in Section 5. So far as I can tell none of this has yet happened, so work cannot yet commence.
Section 5.4, Community Consultation, requires the project to prepare and implement a Community Communication Strategy for the project. The specification for this document is extensive, and so far as this blog can determine no such document has yet been published. So again presumably work cannot yet commence.
Section 6.3 requires a major Project Management Plan for the widening of the Norfolk tunnels. If there was a plan to demolish the Kirkham Road Bridge, which would be even more disruptive than widening the tunnels, then that must surely have been mentioned in great detail in this document. One therefore is forced to assume that no such plan exists.
As soon as any more information is uncovered, this blog will post it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment