In the case of the Harbour Tunnel, the
Department of Main Roads (now the Roads and Traffic Authority) decided
that an EIS was necessary under Part V of the Act. Therefore the private
joint venture, Transfield Kumagai, who were proposing the Tunnel, were
responsible for the preparation of an EIS. They wrote to the Director
of the Department of Environment and Planning to find out what specific
areas should be covered.
DIRECTOR'S REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SYDNEY HARBOUR TUNNEL
The environmental impact statement should
adequately address all those matters listed in clause 57 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1980 with particular regard for
the following:
- Objectives and justification of the
tunnel proposal in terms of relevant key environmental, social and
economic considerations including for the capacity of the Sydney Harbour
Bridge and its approaches to accomodate the future growth of traffic
across the harbour, having regard for relevant regional planning factors
and origin/destination travel pattern forecasts.
- Integration of each of the alternative
proposals with the regional network of roads north and south of the
existing harbour crossing, with particular regard for potential changes
in traffic patterns on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Warringah and
Cahill Expressways, the Western and Eastern Distributors and inner
suburbs.
- Compatibility of the approach roads
and tunnels with existing land uses and development, the provisions
of existing planning instruments and with any relevant strategic plans
of the Sydney City Council, Darling Harbour Authority and North Sydney
Municipal Council. Compatibility of the proposed immersed tube tunnel
under the harbour with any relevant strategic plans of the Maritime
Services Board associated with the operation of Port Jackson...
...back to
top
