|
|
            
| An EIS Community Liaison Group has been established by Thiess in relation to proposed works on the Government's former Union Carbide site and the strip of dioxin contaminated sediments in Homebush Bay. This process has limitation s as it is primarily concerned with a scope of works established without community consultation and does not deal with the contamination on the Peninsula and in the Bay on a holistic basis. The comments below relate to the need for and promises of a broad "Homberg" Style Group concerned with the whole SREP 29 area, the impacts from the sites within that area on surrounding areas and the whole of Homebush Bay. The process followed has had serious defects, only some of which have been addressed by the formation of the site specific EIS CLG referred to above: Bias in supporting reports |No EIS |No real consultation | Changes after Exhibition of Draft REP | Virtually no Remediation consultation No broad Oversight Group with Community representation.7 Feb 2001. Waterways / DPWS have now agreed to formation of a committee with broad community representation. The proposed membership and the proposed terms of reference will be added when the file is received. While it took too long, this is a big step forward towards a more transparent process. See their suggested Terms for the Community Reference Group.Waterways / DUAP / DPWS have failed to respond to the call at a public meeting and by the City of Canada Bay Council for the formation of a HOMBERG style oversight group with community representation. HOMBERG was the oversight group for the Olympics remediation. The Rhodes remediation is expected to cost about 70% of the total cost of the Olympic remediation. The principles of the National Advisory Body on Scheduled Waste and of the National Environment Protection Council's Guideline on Community Consultation and Risk Communication are not being followed as they were by OCA. Neither DUAP nor the EPA have any local community representation about remediation. Failure to include community Representatives on DCP Steering Committee1 March 2001. DUAP now have Paul Hanly paulhanly@hotmail.com on the steering committee. The steering committee sees such a summary position that it does not have a full understanding of the weaknesess of the draft Transport Management Plan and the draft Community Development Plan.DUAP did not appoint any community representatives to the Development Control Plan Steering Committee. DUAP say they approached Concord Council who declined to appoint anyone. DUAP did not advise the RPG that it was seeking community representation, nor did it appoint the previous nominees of Concord Council. Following a call by the City of Canada Bay Paul Hanly has been appointed with his first meeting after the close of the exhibition. No information on practical implementation of proposed remediation process7 March 2001. While the details of the proposed processes are not yet certain, partly because of the purchase by Meriton of the former Allied Feeds Site, EPA and DPWS / Waterways and Health have given a more meaningful overview of the regulation of the remediation, community consultation / oversight and some answers to questions.A presentation by Dept Public Works & Services gave a background on why remediation was necessary, but in spite of a list of questions being lodged nearly 2 weeks in advance, there were virtually no answers to the resident's questions. Timing of exhibition of draft Transport and development Control Plans9 February 2001. The exhibition period was extended by only a further week to assist the Council of the City of Canada Bay, even though they asked for a month. It appears that all those who wanted to make submissions at least got their issues on the table.The draft Transport Management PLan is dated September 2000. At a meeting in John Brogden's office DUAP declined to provide a copy. The draft was held back until early Decmber coinciding with the complete change in the local council and the absences over Christmas of residents, council employees, and public servants. The 8 week exhibition period ends as School returns. Failure to respond to correspondence.1 March 2001. DUAP has promised at a DCP steering committee meeting to provide detailed responses to the submissions by the Rhodes peninsula Group on the draft Transport Management and Community Development PlansDUAP regularly fails to respond to correspondence addressed to its advertised project email address and to letters requesting specific information, or takes so long that the time for use of the information has effectively passed. Bias in Supporting ReportsThe Hassell Report of March 1998 shows a clear bias in support of high density development, even where it fails to meet long established planning guidelines
We would argue that higher ratios of open space are more important in developments with no private open space, like 10 storey apartment developments. The lowest ratio of any LGA quoted by Hassell was 1.2 ha /1,000 people, but his was based on Marrickville where there is significant cumulative private open space in backyards. It is also a suburb that most people would regard as having insufficient open space. There will be virtually no backyards at all in the proposed Rhodes development. While Concord has 3.6 ha/1,000 people, virtually none of this is within walking distance for a mother with a stroller. The closest public playing field will be about 3 kilometres away. While Hassell talks about the McIllwaine/Brays/Rhodes parks, the discussion fails to acknowledge that they are regional parks, already densely occupied on weekends and that McIlwaine Park is regarded as unsuitable for family activity from late afternoon onwards. Failure of to exhibit an Environmental Impact Study with the draft REP7 March 2000. The DUAP Director General's Requirements for the EIS were issued over 12 months ago, probably before the REP had been gazetted. There was no community involvement in the formualtion of the DG's Requirements. Waterways, DPWS and EPA have indicated they would support community involvement in any review of the DG's requirements.
In spite of (or a cynic might say "because of"):
no Environmental Impact Study was done and exhibited with the draft REP. If this can be a proper exercise of the Minister's discretion (as claimed by DUAP) then when will the Minister be obliged to present an EIS? Failure of DUAP to consult properly with the local community before Gazetting SREP 29:
Failure of to re-exhibit draft REP in spite of significant changes:
These changes to the REP were made without advice or consultation, and the REP should have been re-exhibited so that the community had an opportunity to comment. DUAP has improved its performance in the mid 2000 round of community consultation, instituting a small web site, http://www.duap.nsw.gov.au/rhodes.htm with a link to the plan, and copies of the maps available. Copies of relevant documents can be obtained by emailing DUAP from there web site (click link above), or can be viewed at Concord Library, Concord Road, Concord West (between Yaralla Street and Strathfield North Public School) Virtually No 7 March 2000. It appears that there will be a "Homberg Style" committee established. The terms of reference and proposed membership, subject to advertisement should be available shortly.
There has been no consultation on remediation to
date. Just a presentation on the degree of
contamination. The consultation process is not in
accordance with the National
Environment Protection Council Guideline on Community
Consultation and |
|
If you have any information of relevance to this project
or wish to advise of any corrections that need to
be made, please advise the webmaster.
rhodes@drive.to If you become aware of later figures being available please provide copies of the relevant report so that it may be analysed and the pages updated. |
