lidcombe forensic pathology and coroner’s court · environmental impact statement - lidcombe...

Environmenta l Impact Statement

Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court

PO Box 119 Lennox Head NSW 2478

T 02 6687 7666

PO Box 1446 Coffs Harbour NSW 2450

T 02 6651 7666

PO Box 1267 Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 6772 0454

Unit 10 Warina Walk Arcade 156 Molesworth St

Lismore NSW 2480 T 02 6621 6677

[email protected]

Prepared for: Root Projects Australia Pty Ltd and NSW Health Infrastructure

© GeoLINK, 2016

mailto:[email protected]

UPR Description Date Issued Issued By 2624-1008 First Issue 23/06/2016 Simon Waterworth 2624-1012 Second Issue 27/06/2016 Simon Waterworth 2624-1014 Third Issue 18/07/2016 Simon Waterworth

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court i 2624-1014

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 1.

1.1 Preliminary 1 1.2 Need for the Project 1 1.3 Project/ Design Objectives 2 1.4 Analysis of Alternatives 3 1.5 Planning and Environmental Approvals 5

1.5.1 Permissibility 5 1.5.2 State Significant Development 5

1.6 Purpose of this EIS 6 1.7 Structure and Scope of EIS 6 1.8 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) 6 1.9 The Proponent and Project Team 8

The Site and Locality 9 2.

2.1 Cadastral Description 9 2.2 Land Title, Ownership and Acquisition 9 2.3 Site Context 10 2.4 Site History 12 2.5 Site Analysis 13

2.5.1 Road Network and Access 13 2.5.2 Existing Buildings 13 2.5.3 Existing Infrastructure 13 2.5.4 Topography 13 2.5.5 Vegetation 13

Description of the Proposal 17 3.

3.1 Overview 17 3.2 Description of New Building Works 18

3.2.1 Description of Levels 18 3.2.2 Design 18 3.2.3 Building Character and Materials 19 3.2.4 Building Height, Setbacks and Gross Floor Area 19

3.3 Earthworks 20 3.4 Access and Parking 20

3.4.1 Car parking 20 3.4.2 Motorbike and Bicycle – Staff 20 3.4.3 Motorbike and Bicycle – Public 21

3.5 Landscaping Works 21 3.6 Signage 22 3.7 Tree Removal 22 3.8 Public Utility Adjustments 22

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court ii 2624-1014

3.8.1 Water 22 3.8.2 Sewer 22 3.8.3 Electrical 23 3.8.4 Telecommunications 23 3.8.5 Gas 23 3.8.6 Road Upgrades 23 3.8.7 Stormwater 23

3.9 Project Value and Job Creation 23

Stakeholder Consultation 24 4.

4.1 Cumberland Council 24 4.2 Office of Environment and Heritage NSW EPA 24 4.3 NSW Roads and Maritime Services 24 4.4 Sydney Water 24 4.5 Telstra 25 4.6 Stakeholder Consultation 25 4.7 Community Consultation 25

4.7.1 Consultation with the Aboriginal Community 25 4.7.2 Community notification and information sessions 25

4.8 Ongoing or Future Consultation 26

4.8.1 Ongoing or Future Consultation 26

Statutory Planning Framework 27 5.

5.1 The Planning Approval Pathway 27

5.1.1 Permissibility 27 5.1.2 State Significant Development 27

5.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 28 5.3 State Environmental Planning Policies 28

5.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development 28

5.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land 29 5.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) 30 5.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (State & Regional Development) 2011 30

5.4 Local Environmental Plan 30 5.5 Development Control Plans 32 5.6 Developer Contributions Plan 32 5.7 Other NSW Legislation 32

5.7.1 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 32 5.7.2 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 32 5.7.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994 33 5.7.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 33 5.7.5 Heritage Act 1977 33 5.7.6 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 34

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court iii 2624-1014

Non-statutory Planning Framework 36 6.

6.1 State Priorities NSW 36 6.2 A Plan for Growing Sydney 36 6.3 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan 2012 37 6.4 Sydney’s Cycling Future 2013 37 6.5 Sydney’s Walking Future 2013 37 6.6 Healthy Urban Development Checklist, NSW Health 38 6.7 The State Infrastructure Strategy – “First Things First” 38

Environmental Assessment 39 7.

7.1 Vegetation 39

7.1.1 Existing Environment 39 7.1.2 Potential Impacts 39

7.2 Built Form and Urban Design 43

7.2.1 Surrounding Development 43 7.2.2 Site Layout, Open Space, Streetscape 43 7.2.3 Services and Operation 43

7.3 Visual Amenity 44

7.3.1 Assessment Methodology 44 7.3.2 Existing Visual Environment 44 7.3.3 Visual Impact Assessment 46

7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles 46 7.5 Transport and Accessibility 49

7.5.1 Existing Environment 49 7.5.2 Traffic Assessment 51 7.5.3 Car parking assessment 53 7.5.4 Bicycle Provision 53 7.5.5 Construction traffic 54 7.5.6 Conclusion 56

7.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 56

7.6.1 Overview 56 7.6.2 Sustainable Design Approach 56 7.6.3 Key design considerations 57 7.6.4 Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development 58

7.7 Aboriginal Heritage 60

7.7.1 Due diligence approach 60 7.7.2 Site history/disturbance 60 7.7.3 Aboriginal heritage significance 61 7.7.4 Potential impacts 61

7.8 Non-Aboriginal Heritage 62

7.8.1 Heritage assessment approach 62

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court iv 2624-1014

7.8.2 The existing site 62 7.8.3 Potential impacts 63 7.8.4 Findings 64

7.9 Noise and Vibration 64

7.9.1 Existing Noise Environment 65 7.9.2 Construction Noise Assessment 66 7.9.3 Vibration Impacts 67 7.9.4 Operational Noise Impacts 67 7.9.5 Noise Mitigation 68

7.10 Soils 68

7.10.1 Geotechnical Investigations 68 7.10.2 Acid Sulfate Soils 71 7.10.3 Contamination 71 7.10.4 Erosion and Sediment Control 73

7.11 Utilities 73

7.11.1 Hydraulic and Fire Services 73 7.11.2 Electrical, Communications and Lighting 75

7.12 Drainage and Stormwater 76

7.12.1 Existing site conditions 77 7.12.2 Flooding and Onsite Detention 77 7.12.3 Proposed Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure 77

7.13 Waste 78

7.13.1 Construction Waste 78 7.13.2 Operational Waste 79

7.14 Building Code of Australia 79 7.15 Structural Design 79 7.16 Access for People with Disabilities 80 7.17 Construction Management Plan 80 7.18 Socio-Economic Impacts 80 7.19 Cumulative Impacts 81

Environmental Risk Assessment 82 8.

8.1 Assessing Environmental Risk 82 8.2 Methodology 82

8.2.1 Project Team Discussions 82 8.2.2 Determination and Assigning the Environmental Risk Rating 82 8.2.3 Environmental Risk Rating 82

Environmental Management 87 9.

9.1 Environmental Management Plan 87 9.2 Mitigation Measures 87

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court v 2624-1014

Justification and Conclusion 91 10.

Illustrations Illustration 2.1 The Proposed Development Site 15 Illustration 2.2 Site Context 16

Tables Table 1.1 Analysis of the options 4 Table 1.2 Summary of and Location of SEARs in the EIS 6 Table 1.3 Project Team and Responsibilities 8 Table 5.1 Summary of Consistency with Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 31 Table 5.2 Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment 34 Table 6.1 Consistency with State Priorities NSW 36 Table 7.1 Summary of Trees Identified for Removal 39 Table 7.2 CPTED Assessment 47 Table 7.3 Summary of Measured Noises Indices 65 Table 7.4 Predicted Noise Levels from FPCC plantroom 67 Table 7.5 Pollutant removal requirements and compliance. 78 Table 8.1 Risk Matrix 83 Table 8.2 Environmental Risk Assessment 84 Table 9.1 Mitigation Measures 88

Plates Plate 2.1 Area of Proposed Acquisition 10 Plate 2.2 View from the site to Joseph Street and Carnarvon Golf Course 11 Plate 2.3 View from the site to the Botanica Residential Estate 11 Plate 2.4 View of Main Avenue 12 Plate 2.5 View of the Site from Joseph Street 12 Plate 7.1 View from Main Avenue 45 Plate 7.2 View from Joseph Street 1 45 Plate 7.3 View from Joseph Street 2 45 Plate 7.4 Assumed Access and Egress 52 Plate 7.5 Construction Vehicle Route Plan 55 Plate 7.6 Historical Aerial Imagery 63 Plate 7.7 Works location, adjoining residential receivers and noise logger locations 65 Plate 7.8 Location of the Geotechnical Investigations 69 Plate 7.9 Sampling and Borehole Locations 72

Figures Figure 7.1 Variation of noise during a typical weekday 66

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court vi 2624-1014

Appendices Appendix A Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Appendix B Architectural Plans Appendix C Survey Plan Appendix D Traffic and Parking Assessment Appendix E Landscape Design Appendix F Capital Investment Value Assessment Appendix G SEPP 33 Assessment Appendix H Stage 2 Contamination Assessment Appendix I Non- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Appendix J Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment Appendix K Aboricultural Development Impact Assessment Appendix L Built Form and Urban Design Assessment Appendix M Ecological Sustainable Development Report Appendix N Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix O Geotechnical Assessment Appendix P Preliminary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Appendix Q Infrastructure Management Plan Appendix R Structural and Civil Services Design Report Appendix S BCA Report Appendix T Accessibility Report Appendix U Preliminary Construction Management Plan Appendix V Waste Management Plan

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court vii 2624-1014

Glossary of terms and acronyms

Term Description/Definition Annual average daily traffic (AADT)

The total traffic in both directions at a specified location calculated from mechanically obtained axle counts.

Australian height datum (AHD)

The standard reference level used to express the relative height of various features. A height given in metres AHD is essentially the height above sea level.

Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS)

This holds information about Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal Places with special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture, and archaeological reports.

Amenity The degree of pleasantness of an area or place. Archaeological site A site with any material evidence of past Aboriginal activity that

remains within a context or place that can be reliably related to that activity.

Acid Sulphate soils (ASS) Naturally acid clays, mud and other sediments usually found in swamps and estuaries. They may become extremely acidic when drained and exposed to oxygen, and may produce acidic leachate and runoff that can pollute receiving waters and liberate toxins. ASS are classified as materials which are above the groundwater, are undergoing oxidation and have a pH of less than 4.0.

Borehole A hole produced in the ground by drilling for the investigation and assessment of soil and rock profiles.

Catchment The area drained by a stream or body of water, or the area of land from which water is collected.

Concept design Initial functional layout of a concept, such as a building, to provide a level of understanding to later establish detailed design parameters.

Culvert An enclosed channel for conveying a stream below a road. CIV Capital investment value CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles dBA Decibels using the A-weighted scale. Decibels are used to measure

sound levels. dBA measures loudness according to the human perception of sound.

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage Decibel Decibels are used to measure sound levels. Earthworks The process of extracting, moving and depositing earth during

construction. Ecologically sustainable development (ESD)

Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained and the total quality of life, now and in the future can be increased. ESD incorporates four key principles: the precautionary principle inter-generational equity conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources.

Endangered ecological community (EEC)

An ecological community identified by relevant legislation as having endangered status.

EIS Environmental impact statement.

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court viii 2624-1014

Endangered species Those plant and animal species listed under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or listed as endangered under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Commonwealth). FASS Forensic and Analytical Science Services Flood immunity Relates to the level at which a particular structure would be clear of a

certain flood event. A project objective is to provide flood immunity on at least one carriageway between 1% AEP (target) and 20% AEP (absolute minimum).

FPCC Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court Geological unit A volume of rock of identifiable origin and age range that is readily

mapped, such as a series of inter-bedded sandstone and claystone beds or a body of granite.

Geotechnical Application of the methods of engineering and science to construction that involves natural soil and rock materials.

Grade/ gradient Slope or steepness. Habitat The place where an organism lives. Habitats are measurable and can

be described by their flora and physical components. HI New South Wales Health Infrastructure HV Heavy vehicle. Intersection A junction between roads where the connection is made at the same

level (grade). Traffic on the connecting road has to wait for a gap in the through road to join or cross that road.

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council. LEP Local environmental plan. LGA Local government area Longitudinal section or ‘long section’

The section drawn along the length of the route showing vertical elevation.

NPC Net present cost Project area The site and surrounding land that is potentially affected by the

project. SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy The project Construction of a new Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court Threatened species Animals or plants listed as endangered or vulnerable under the NSW

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

TSC Act NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. This is an Act to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of animals and plants.

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court ix 2624-1014

Statement of Validity Submission of Environmental Assessment (Environmental Impact Statement)

Prepared under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

Environmental Impact Statement prepared by

Name Simon Waterworth

Qualifications Burp, MBA, CPP Director/ Town Planner

Address GeoLINK PO Box 1446 COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450

In respect of

Applicant & Land Details

Proponent Health Infrastructure

Subject Site Lidcombe Government Precinct

Land to be developed

Lot & DP Lots 1-3 DP850697 located in Weeroona Road, Lidcombe

Project Summary Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Part 4 of the EP&A Act

Declaration

I certify that I have prepared the contents of the EIS in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation and that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report is not false or misleading.

Signature ........................................................... Name SIMON WATERWORTH

Date 23 June 2016

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court x 2624-1014

Executive Summary The Proposal

The proposal involves the construction of a new Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court (FPCC) at Lidcombe. It will replace the existing facility which is situated on Parramatta Road, Glebe. The proposal includes a three level development summarised as follows:

■ Ground floor – public amenity, mortuary (dirty), mortuary (clean), body transfer and back of house; ■ First floor – public amenity, registry, police advocates, shared staff amenity, forensic

administration, case management unit, meeting/ training/ media; and ■ Second floor – courtrooms, court waiting area, interview rooms, Coroner’s office.

It is to be assessed and determined by the Department of Planning and Environment as State Significant Development under Part 4 Division 4.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

Purpose of Report

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for New South Wales Health Infrastructure (HI) to be lodged as part of a State Significant Development (SSD) Application. The EIS describes the proposal in detail, assesses all potential impacts of the proposal and how the works relate to the local, state and federal statutory environmental assessment framework. The report also sets out the commitments made by HI to manage and minimise potential impacts arising from the development.

The Site

The site of the proposed new Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court is described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 850697. The address of the site is Weeroona Road, Lidcombe. The site is located on a block that has frontages to Weeroona Road, Joseph Street and Main Avenue.

The site forms part of an existing New South Wales (NSW) government precinct which accommodates the NSW Forensic Analytical Science Services and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). There are also a number of disused buildings within the precinct.

Planning Approval Pathway

The proposal is declared state significant under Clause 8 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (State and Regional Development or SRD SEPP) as it includes a medical research facility with a capital investment value (CIV) of over $30 million and is development that is permitted with consent.

Conclusion

The proposal will result in a much needed improvement to facilities for the NSW Sate Coroner and the Department of Forensic Pathology which are operating under considerable stress at their current location. The project will benefit staff, stakeholders and the wider community. The potential impacts of the development are assessed as minor and are able to be managed by implementation of mitigation measures and consent conditions. Given the community benefit and planning merits of the proposal, the proposal warrants approval by the Minister of Planning and Environment or delegate.

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court 1 2624-1014

Introduction 1.1.1 Preliminary

GeoLINK has been engaged by HI to prepare an EIS and lodge a SSD Application under Part 4 Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act for a new Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court to be located in Lidcombe, Sydney NSW.

The SSD Application seeks development consent for:

■ Earthworks and associated excavation for site preparation; ■ Construction of a new three level building including:

- Ground floor – public amenity, mortuary (dirty), mortuary (clean), body transfer and back of house;

- First floor – public amenity, registry, police advocates, shared staff amenity, forensic administration, case management unit, meeting/ training/ media; and

- Second floor – courtrooms, court waiting area, interview rooms, Coroner’s office.

■ Access and transport facilities including public access points from Main Avenue, a new secure private access road off Weeroona Road for staff, drop off locations, public and staff car parking and bicycle parking;

■ Infrastructure and services upgrades; ■ Security fencing; and ■ Landscaping works.

The development is declared SSD under Clause 8 of the State and Regional Development SEPP it includes a hospital/ medical research facility with a CIV of over $30 million and is development that is permitted with consent. As such an EIS is required to assess environmental impact of the proposal.

The Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment has issued the Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) under Section 78A (8A) of the EP&A Act and Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPAR 2000) for the EIS.

The purpose of the EIS is to address the SEARs described in the proposal, documenting all potential impacts of the proposal on the environment, and detailing protective measures to be implemented to reduce environmental impacts.

1.2 Need for the Project

The offices of the NSW State Coroner and the Department of Forensic Pathology have been located in 50 Parramatta Road, Glebe since 1972. The current facilities are operating under considerable stress. Whilst they were refurbished in 1995, the facilities have reached capacity and the end of their economic life and can no longer effectively meet current and future deliverables and government objectives (Ross Petsas Luksza 2014). Concerns have been raised that the deteriorating facilities compromise work health and safety requirements and impact on the quality of service delivered. Current court facilities are not sufficient for the number of coronial inquests and these spatial constraints have resulted in use of offsite facilities.


Failure to address these issues may expose NSW Health and NSW Department of Attorney General and Justice to the following risks:

■ Failure to meet the needs and expectations of the NSW community of the coronial service. ■ Reputational damage through inability to adequately cater for a mass casualty event. ■ Reputational risk through specimen contamination or unsatisfactory work practices and outcomes

through poor facilities and a compromised workflow. ■ Inability to meet with increased demand for services. ■ The continued deterioration of the Glebe facility, and ongoing capital expenditure and

maintenance costs to keep the facility operational. ■ Unplanned funding and supplementation required to support Glebe in the short to medium term. ■ Forensic Pathology, fails to meet the strategic objectives of NSW Health Pathology for

centralization of Forensic Pathology services. ■ Difficulties in retaining current staff and recruiting new staff.

A Business Case has been prepared by Root Projects Australia Pty Ltd to investigate a range of options in order to determine how to best provide Forensic Pathology and the Coroner’s Court with the facilities to meet the current and projected demand for services for the southern half of NSW and the greater Sydney metropolitan area for the next 20 years. The Business Case documents the proposal in detail, including justification of service rationale and identification and analysis of a range of project options to determine a preferred facility model. The Business Case also demonstrates value for money and benefits that the preferred option will provide. The financial requirements, both recurrent and capital, and the management case for the delivery of the project are also presented.

The recommended preferred option in the Business Case is the construction of a new facility at the Lidcombe site. The reasons for this preferred option are that it:

■ Delivers the best outcome against the predetermined evaluation criteria as well as providing best value for money;

■ Provides the best outcomes based upon the whole of life costs analysis; and ■ Best provides for future opportunities to derive benefits and efficiencies from the creation of a

forensic precinct at the Lidcombe site.

1.3 Project/ Design Objectives

The FPCC has been designed around the following design objectives:

■ Providing a safe, secure and quality environment for staff, students and the public; ■ Providing a landscaped, courtyard focus to the design; ■ To use ‘fences’ where only absolutely required to provide security and enclosure and to

encourage the built form and building mass to enclose those spaces which require privacy and security for staff, families and all stakeholders;

■ To optimise access to natural light, whilst acknowledging the preference to control thermal performance and glare local to the workplace environment;

■ To optimise the gradient across the site to minimize excavation, cut and fill; ■ To connect and integrate all project stakeholders, with collaboration opportunities in both public

space on both the ground and first floors; ■ Consider the counselling and viewing areas within the building as special destinations with

memorable courtyard outlooks and views; ■ To develop generic spaces where possible, including hot desk style workstations, shared

(bookable) meeting rooms;


■ Integrated site wide circulation and security principals established during concept design including separation of back of house, body arrivals, front of house and judicial circulation routes (both vertically and horizontally);

■ To provide necessary car parking to support the development; ■ To establish clear access and way finding; and ■ To allow for future expansion on the second floor to accommodate possible additional justice

requirements.

1.4 Analysis of Alternatives

A number of options were considered in the Business Case prepared for the delivery of FPCC facilities. An options development process, in accordance with the NSW Health Process of Facility Planning, was undertaken as part of the Business Case which considered a long and short list of options. A value management exercise was undertaken which critically evaluated the options. Key stakeholders had input into and informed the outcome of this process. The options considered in detail by the Business Case are:

■ Option 1a - Base case – upgrade existing facility at Glebe (Do Minimal/ Keep Safe and Operating);

■ Option 1b - Base case including Information Technology and equipment upgrades; ■ Option 2 - Minimum scope refurbishment, to improve spatial layout but no increase in overall

area; ■ Option 3 - Expand all services at Glebe through major redevelopment; and ■ Option 4e - Construct new facilities at Lidcombe.

A series of sub options were also considered and assessed under Option 4.

Options 1a and 1b involved a minimal refurbishment of the existing facility at Glebe but no additional increase in floor area or capacity of the existing facility and minimal safety improvements to the facility. Option 1b would result in additional improved IT facilities and services and equipment. Both options would provide marginally better facilities but would not provide for any expansion of the service and no real change to how the facility operates. These options did not meet the requirements of the functional design brief and did not have stakeholder support.

Option 2 provided for a minimum scope refurbishment to improve the overall layout of the facility. This option would see some efficiencies and improvements to how the facility operates but would not increase capacity of the facility to accommodate any expansion of the service.

Option 3 provided for a major redevelopment of the Glebe site to enable expansion of the service and provide better facilities for staff, stakeholders and the general public. It still would not be able to meet the requirements of the functional design brief it would allow for an increase in capacity of the facility and would see some efficiencies and improvements to how the facility operates.

Option 4e was determined as best addressing the service and functional requirements and has been assessed in greater detail in the Business Case. All options have each been assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by the Business Case process. A functional and service needs and capital cost comparison for all identified options are provided in Table 1.1.


Table 1.1 Analysis of the options

Option Area (m2) Capital Cost ($ million) 1a 5,770 5 1b 5,770 12 2 5,770 64 3 8,109 95 4e 9,396 91

Source: RPL FPCC Business Case

The Business Case determined that, whilst Options 1a and 1b represented the lowest capital and net present cost (NPC), they did not meet the identified functional area requirements and were unable to address the service needs of the FPCC. Of the options assessed the Business Case determined that Option 4e represented the greatest value for money in terms of estimated capital cost and NPC.

This option (the Lidcombe site) was then investigated further as part of the Forensic Services Precinct Plan Report. The Precinct Plan looked at a number of locations for the proposed new FPCC facility based on the following criteria:

■ Land that is not currently utilised; ■ Site location allowing for the larger site development and staging without hindrance; ■ Ease of potential future expansion; ■ Adjacencies of possible precinct partners; ■ Buildings aspect and prominence within the site; and ■ Ease of access for public and secure movements.

These locations included:

■ North west corner of the precinct; ■ North east corner of the precinct; ■ South east corner of the precinct; ■ South west corner of the precinct; and ■ Middle of the precinct.

The north west corner was identified as the preferred location for the FPCC with only the unused Doctors residences of the old hospital contained within this area. With the prominence of being on the corner of Joseph Street and Main Avenue, it’s felt that this would benefit the public interface required for the Coroners Courts. The site also has good outlook to the west over the neighbouring golf course and landscape filtered outlook to the north to the Botanica housing estate, which could be utilised for both staff and public within the building. Utilising a separate secure road system linking to Weeroona Road to service the greater Lidcombe Precinct would allow for discrete traffic movement to and from the rear of the FPCC and other facilities while the public movements to and from the FPCC would be concentrated from the public entrance of the building in Main Avenue.

The design team identified that locating the FPCC in this position allows for further development of the precinct in a number of phases, without effecting its ongoing operation, or the development of the precinct. The preferred location confirms the general location previously identified in the Business Case and associated studies.


1.5 Planning and Environmental Approvals

1.5.1 Permissibility

The proposed FPCC site is located within the Cumberland (previously City of Auburn) Local Government Area (LGA). Planning controls within this area are set out in the Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010). The subject site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Research Station pursuant to the provisions of ALEP 2010. The proposed use is permitted with consent in the SP2 Infrastructure Zone.

The proposal can be defined under ALEP as follows:

■ The Corner’s Court is defined as a “public administration building”; and ■ The Forensic Pathology facility is defined as partly a “mortuary and a “health services facility”.

Mortuaries and public administration buildings are permitted with development consent under both the ALEP 2010 and the Infrastructure SEPP. Health services facilities are prohibited development under ALEP 2010. However, they are permissible under the Infrastructure SEPP as the SP2 Infrastructure Zone is a prescribed zone and health services facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone.

1.5.2 State Significant Development

Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) provides that development is declared to be SSD for the purposes of the EP&A Act if:

■ The development is not permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act; and

■ The development is specified in Schedule 1 or 2.

The development is not permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act (see permissibility section below) and the development is specified in Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the SRD SEPP. Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the SRD SEPP provides:

“Development that has a capital investment value of more than $30 million for any of the following purposes:

(a) hospitals, (b) medical centres, (c) health, medical or related research facilities (which may also be associated with the facilities or

research activities of a NSW local health district board, a University or an independent medical research institute).”

Part of the proposed development is for the purposes of medical and related research associated with the activities of NSW Pathology (which falls under the relevant Local Health District) and has an estimated CIV of $64 million.

Clause 8(2) of the SRD SEPP relevantly provides that “If a single proposed development the subject of one development application comprises development that is only partly State significant development declared under subclause (1), the remainder of the development is also declared to be State significant development…”. Therefore the remainder of the development (being the Coroner’s Court and the mortuary) is also SSD.


1.6 Purpose of this EIS

This EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts of establishing the proposed FPCC and has been prepared pursuant to the EP&A Act and EP&A Regulations including the SEARs General Requirements (refer Section 1.8 below).

1.7 Structure and Scope of EIS

Section 2 of this report identifies the subject site and its regional context, describes the physical characteristics and provides an analysis of the land. Section 3 provides a detailed description of the proposal. Section 4 discusses community and stakeholder consultation that has and will be undertaken for the project. Sections 5 and 6 outline the planning approval pathway for the proposal and provide an assessment of the proposal as it relates to the statutory and non-statutory planning frameworks. The environmental assessment of the proposal is contained in Section 7. An Environmental Risk Assessment is included in Section 8. Recommended environmental management and mitigation measures are contained in Section 9. Section 10 contains a conclusion to the EIS and provides justification for the proposal.

1.8 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs)

In accordance with Section 89G of the EP&A Act, the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment issued the requirements for the preparation of the EIS on 6 April 2016. A copy of the SEARs is attached as Appendix A.

The SEARs require that the EIS must be prepared in accordance with, and meet the minimum requirements of Clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 (the Regulation). The SEARs also include specific requirements that must be included in the EIS. Table 1.2 provides a summary of the individual matters listed in the SEARs and identifies where these requirements are addressed in this EIS and the accompanying specialist studies.

Table 1.2 Summary of and Location of SEARs in the EIS

SEARs Location General Requirements Report Appendix An environmental risk assessment to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the development

Section 8 n/a

The EIS must meet the minimum requirements of Clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 (the Regulation)

Sections 1 - 4 n/a


SEARs Location General Requirements Report Appendix Where relevant, the assessment of key issues below, and any other significant issues identified in the risk assessment, must include:

■ Adequate baseline data; ■ Consideration of the potential cumulative impacts due to

other developments in the vicinity (completed, underway or proposed); and

■ Measures to avoid, minimise and if necessary, offset predicted impacts, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risks to the environment

Section 7.19 Section 8 Section 9

n/a

A report from a qualified Quantity Surveyor providing:

■ A detailed calculation of the CIV (as defined in Clause 3 of the Regulation) of the proposal, including details of all assumptions and components from which the CIV calculation is derived. The report shall be prepared on company letterhead and indicate the applicable GST component of the CIV;

■ An estimate of jobs that will be created during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development; and

■ Certification that the information provided is accurate at the date of preparation

Section 3.9 Appendix F

A Statutory and Strategic Context Sections 5 & 6 n/a Policies Sections 5 & 6 n/a Built Form and Urban Design Section 7.2 Appendix L Environmental Amenity Section 7.3 and

7.9 Appendix L

Transport and Accessibility Section 7.5 Appendix D Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Section 7.6 Appendix M Non Aboriginal Heritage Section 7.7 Appendix I Aboriginal Heritage Section 7.8 Appendix J Noise and Vibration Section 7.9 Appendix N Contamination Section 7.10 Appendix H Utilities Section 7.11 Appendix Q Contributions Section 5.5 n/a Drainage and Stormwater Section 7.12 Appendix R Waste Section 7.13 n/a

Plans and Reports Architectural drawings (dimensioned and including RLs), Site Survey Plan, Site Analysis Plan, Shadow Diagrams, View Analysis/ Photomontages and schedule of materials and finishes

Section 2.5 Appendix B

Stormwater Concept Plan Section 7.12 Appendix R


SEARs Location General Requirements Report Appendix Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Section 7.10 Appendix P Landscape Plan Section 2.5 Appendix E Preliminary Construction Management Plan and a Preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan

Sections 7.17 Appendix D and Appendix U

Geotechnical and Structural Report Section 7.10 & 7.15

Appendix O & R

Accessibility Report Section 7.16 Appendix T Arborist Report Section 7.1 Appendix K Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan (if required) Section 7.10 n/a

1.9 The Proponent and Project Team

This EIS has been prepared for HI with the assistance of a comprehensive project team. The project team and their responsibilities are outlined in Table 1.3 below.

Table 1.3 Project Team and Responsibilities

Name Responsibility Health Infrastructure Project Director Root Project Australia Project management Silver Thomas and Hanley Principal Architects Cox Architecture Architectural Sub-consultants Site Image Landscape Architects Landscape Architects GeoLINK Town Planner Cardno Site/ Civil and Structural Engineers, flooding Parking and Traffic Consultants Traffic and Access Coffey Site contamination and geotechnical assessment Birds Tree Consulting Arborist ARUP Noise, dangerous, mechanical and vertical transport

Engineers and flammable goods storage GML Heritage Aboriginal heritage GBA Heritage Non-Aboriginal heritage HealthKare Intelligence FE&E Consultants Jacobs Electrical, security and ICT services Warren Smith and Partners Fire protection and hydraulic system Engineers Steensen Varming ESD Consultants Modern Building Certifiers BCA Consultants Minale Tattersfield Wayfinding Consultants Amec Foster Wheeler Australia Laboratory Consultants Aquenta Cost Planning Consultants IAccess Consultants Access Consultants


The Site and Locality 2.2.1 Cadastral Description

The proposed FPCC facility and associated works are proposed within the existing Lidcombe government precinct which is located on land described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 850697. The address of the site is Weeroona Road, Lidcombe. The site is located on a block that has frontages to Weeroona Road, Joseph Street and Main Avenue. The location of the proposed FPCC facility is shown in Illustration 2.1.

2.2 Land Title, Ownership and Acquisition

The ownership details of Lots 1 to 3 DP 850697 are:

■ Lot 1 – Health Administration Corporation encompassing the existing Forensic and Analytical Science Services (FASS) facility and the site for the proposed new FPCC facility.

■ Lot 2 – The State of NSW encompassing the Office of Environment and Heritage facilities. ■ Lot 3 – Health Administration Corporation encompassing the existing (disused) Mineral Resources

Building.

Searches undertaken on behalf of HI indicate that an acquisition for part of Lots 2 and 3 was prepared and registered under plan DP 1158586 on 11 November 2010. However it is noted that this land acquisition was not completed with title searches indicating that plan DP 1158586 has not been gazetted with Government Property NSW. It was intended that Lot 21 be acquired for health purposes and Lot 23 revert to the Crown for department purposes and it is assumed that this process was undertaken as part of the ‘New Dimension: Forensic Biology and DNA enhancement project feasibility’ (STH Architects Schematic Design 2016).

The development includes staff parking and the secure parking loading on the south side of the proposed new FPCC building, accessible via a secure entry off Weeroona Road, with public access and parking on Main Avenue. The secure entry will require part acquisition of Lot 2 which is currently owned by the State of NSW (Crown Land). A land acquisition proposal is currently being negotiated between the NSW Health Administration Corporation and Government Property NSW (GPNSW) and the Office of Environment and Heritage. The area of acquisition is shown in Plate 2.1.


Plate 2.1 Area of Proposed Acquisition

2.3 Site Context

The suburb of Lidcombe is located approximately 15 kilometres (km) west of the Sydney central business district. Lidcombe town centre is focused around the train station and provides a local shopping and minor commercial precinct. Lidcombe is bordered by the largely residential suburbs of Auburn, Berala, Regents Park and the industrial suburb of Chullora. The site is located approximately 2.2km south of Lidcombe Town Centre. The site is located within the Cumberland Council LGA. A locality plan is shown in Illustration 2.2.

The precinct is surrounded by land being used for a range of purposes including:

■ Residential immediately to the north and east. ■ University of Sydney and TAFE facilities and Rookwood Cemetery further to the north east. ■ A golf course immediately to the west. ■ Residential further to the west. ■ Railway lines and the Juniperina Juvenile Justice Centre immediately to the south. ■ Predominantly industrial uses further to the south.

Photographs of some of the surrounding land uses to the site and view of the site are shown in Plates 2.2 - 2.5.


Plate 2.2 View from the site to Joseph Street and Carnarvon Golf Course

Plate 2.3 View from the site to the Botanica Residential Estate


Plate 2.4 View of Main Avenue

Plate 2.5 View of the Site from Joseph Street

2.4 Site History

The subject site south of Main Avenue, Lidcombe, was originally in the south western corner of the extensive Lidcombe State Hospital and Home Site. The subject site was later subdivided and used for a motor vehicle testing laboratory (GBA Heritage 2016). Over the years the site has developed into a government agency precinct containing:

■ Mineral Resources building in the south west corner of the site. This building is currently vacant; ■ Office of Environment and Heritage in the south east corner of the site; and ■ FASS in the north east corner of the site.


2.5 Site Analysis

A site analysis plan has been prepared for the site as part of the architectural plans for the proposal. The Architectural plans are attached as Appendix B. A description of the site analysis is provided below.

2.5.1 Road Network and Access

Joseph Street is a busy six lane roadway that accommodates heavy traffic movement particularly during peak periods of the day. Weeroona Road is only two lanes but adjoins a rail line which links two stabling yards to the east. Main Avenue is a relatively quiet roadway primarily servicing a residential area. Access to the site is via three operating connections to Weeroona Road. A range of on grade car parking areas and loading zones for different facilities exist on site. A previous connection to Main Avenue is not currently in use. The NSW FASS facility is separated by security fencing and controlled access points. Several internal service roads connect the precinct with parking areas distributed around the site.

2.5.2 Existing Buildings

Buildings currently in use include the FASS facilities, and the Office of Environment and Heritage, located in the north east and south east quadrants of the site respectively. Existing buildings not currently in use include the single storey former Doctors residences (to be removed under a separate project) and the former three storey Mineral Resources Building (MRB). The buildings range from one to three stories and are disbursed over the site. The outline of the existing buildings is shown in the development plans (refer Appendix B).

2.5.3 Existing Infrastructure

The site contains a significant amount of infrastructure including:

■ Sewerage mains; ■ Telstra Optic Fibre mains cables; ■ Underground electricity mains; ■ Stormwater pipes and drains; and ■ Water mains.

The location and extent of this infrastructure is shown on the Survey Plan (refer Appendix C).

2.5.4 Topography

The site slopes generally from east to west, with a fall of approximately 14 metres (m) across the precinct from its highest to lowest points. The lowest part of the site is along the western boundary, towards the MRB in the south west corner of the site. An existing culvert is located towards the middle of the site on the western side of the precinct.

2.5.5 Vegetation

The site is a highly modified and disturbed environment with standalone ornamental (anthropogenic) plantings found throughout the site. Habitat connectivity is fragmented and highly disconnected due to


the surrounding developed residential and urban areas. None of the trees located within the proposal footprint are identified as threatened species or elements of endangered ecological communities (EECs) under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Although these ornamentally planted trees offer limited biodiversity values, they do provide a moderate level of visual amenity throughout the site.

Construction works entrance

Jose

ph S

treet

Main Avenue

Weeroona Road

' Land and Property Information 2015

0 40

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathologyand Coroners Court2624-1013

Illustration

The Proposed Development Site

North 2.1

Drawn by: KHP Checked by: RE Reviewed by: SJW Date: 27/06/2016Source of base data: Land and Property InformationInformation shown is for illustrative purposes only

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathologyand Coroner�s Court

' Land and Property Information 2015

2624-1011

Illustration

Site Context

North 2.2

Drawn by: KHP Checked by: RE Reviewed by: SJW Date: 16/06/2016Source of base data: Land and Property Information

The site

Information shown is for illustrative purposes only

0 5 km


Description of the Proposal 3.3.1 Overview

This EIS has been prepared to accompany a SSD Application for a new FPCC which will be assessed under Part 4 Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act. The project has been established based on a previously prepared supporting documentation including:

■ FPCC Business Case; ■ FPCC Forensic Services Precinct Plan; and ■ FPCC Schematic Design.

Appendix B contains the architectural plans produced as part of the Schematic Design and also contains a copy of the Precinct Plan. The project involves construction of a new building and associated infrastructure to accommodate the NSW FPCC. The new building works will involve the construction of a three storey building that will:

■ Have a relatively compact footprint; ■ Be a low rise three storey building; ■ Be of minimal impact to residential neighbours; ■ Have a narrow footprint, good access to natural light is achieved on all sides; ■ have a north south alignment of floor plate to minimise impact of fall across site; ■ Maximise views to west with a north south orientation; and ■ Provide for future expansion on the upper floors without increasing the proposed footprint.

The project also includes earthworks, service/ infrastructure relocation and upgrades, additional car parking, new access arrangements, landscaping, tree removal, new signage and other associated works.

A set of architectural plans are attached as Appendix B and include:

■ Site Analysis ■ Site Plan ■ Floor Plans ■ Roof Plan ■ Elevations ■ Shadow Diagrams ■ Existing Surrounding Context ■ Site Massing ■ Building Character ■ Materials ■ Landscape Concept Plan ■ Signage Plan ■ Precinct Plan.

The proposed new building within the Lidcombe government precinct will be located fronting Main Avenue on the corner of Main Avenue and Joseph Street. The location of the new building is shown in the Site Plan which is provided as part of Appendix B.


3.2 Description of New Building Works

3.2.1 Description of Levels

A description of each level is provided below.

■ The ground floor contains public entry, main lobby, reception, café, public amenities, privacy courtyards, public waiting area, private waiting rooms, counselling and meeting rooms and mortuary;

■ The first floor contains the Forensic Pathology unit, training and meeting facilities, foyer, public waiting area, public amenities, registry reception, staff amenities and administration area; and

■ The second floor contains three courtrooms, a court waiting area, interview rooms and the Coroner’s office.

3.2.2 Design

The new FPCC building will be located on the corner of Joseph Street and Main Avenue. Along Main Avenue the design of the building seeks to provide amenity via a landscaped forecourt servicing visitors, staff, and members of the public who choose to use the facility’s café. The façade massing and design is sufficiently prominent within the streetscape, but is also respectful to the scale of the surrounding development. On Joseph Street the façade design is responsive to the streetscape – with vertical green architectural blades reflecting the tree lined street. A landscape strategy integrating security fencing and planting secures the building while providing amenity to pedestrians. Substantial setbacks from the immediate streetscape provide sufficient relief between the public frontage and the building’s built form.

The following design principles have been applied to the design:

Internal Zoning

■ Clearly separating mortuary and court areas; ■ Careful regard for interfaces between all of the building users; ■ Creation of collaboration zones for common interaction between building users; ■ Wayfinding; ■ Principle routes simply arranged; ■ Secondary routes without dead ends; and ■ Maximising external views along principles routes, aiding wayfinding.

Amenity and Landscape

■ Access and views to green courtyard space from the main staff amenity area; ■ Views to outside from viewing/ waiting rooms, particularly optimising access to green views; and ■ Maintaining light and views to and from the mortuary.

Support Spaces

■ Support spaces distributed evenly throughout the building.


3.2.3 Building Character and Materials

STH Architects has adopted a mix of simple forms to the Main Avenue (north) façade which break the building form into simple ‘blocks’. The main foyer area extends across three floors, lightweight glass façades are used to soften the height and to form an entrance appropriate for a significant civic building. Public art, landscaping and façade articulation will soften the extent of the northern façade, break down the mass and create points of interest.

The eastern façade that faces the car park has a number of plant rooms. The façade continues the use of form and expresses the different uses with clear and identifiable changes in façade treatment. The plant will require a number of louvres for ventilation and this will be married with a similar material that, while not the same, will be read as a simple and elegant form sitting over the base of the ground floor. The ground floor will have a mix of simple materials such as brick and render that will break down the perceived length as well as tying into the northern façade.

This concept is continued to the southern façade with a security fence that requires a degree of opaqueness. To the west, the façade takes on a prominent role. The design team has developed a response to break down the form of the building by articulating the façade with elements protruding out such as the stairs and counselling suites. This is further enhanced by the introduction of blades that are an architectural expression of trees found on the site and that of the golf course across the road. The blades will be articulated with varying heights and sizes, and will also assist in lessening glare issues internally and reducing the darkness of tint to the windows and improving thermal comfort. The response will continue the ‘green corridor’ off Joseph Street with the introduction of the blades that will appear to move and activate the façade as traffic passes by.

Cladding finishes for the building include:

■ Frameless glass with patch fittings to the main entry foyer; ■ General windows to be aluminium framed glazing with colour back glass spandrels; ■ Composite aluminium clad steel framed screens to western façade; ■ Composite aluminium panel system for general cladding; ■ Powder coated aluminium louvres to plant rooms; ■ Feature trencadis (mosaic) tiles to areas such as stair cores to Joseph Street and to the café wall

to Main Avenue; ■ Black zinc cladding to key façade areas such as the plant room facing onto Main Avenue; ■ Off form concrete, incorporating public art cast into the meeting/ training area; and ■ Rendered blockwork generally with textured brickwork and stone cladding to walls around the

viewing courtyards and to the façade facing the public carpark at ground floor.

A full list of external finishes as well as visual montages have been included in the architectural plans (refer Appendix B).

3.2.4 Building Height, Setbacks and Gross Floor Area

The new building will be three storeys including the ground floor. The roof line of the building will be 13.95m above existing natural ground level at its highest point. The height of each floor is:

■ Ground floor - 4.5 m; ■ First floor – 4 m; and ■ Second floor - partially 4.5 m (court rooms) and partially 3 m.


The northern end of the building is set back 21 m from Joseph Street. The building is generally aligned with the housing in the residential area to the north of the site (Botanica Estate) and perpendicular to Main Avenue. The setback from Main Avenue is 15 m. The gross floor area of the new building will be 8758.5 m2 and will comprise of:

■ Ground floor – 4515.7 m²; ■ First floor – 2462.8 m2; and ■ Second floor – 1780.0 m².

These details are shown on the architectural plans which area attached as Appendix B.

3.3 Earthworks

The existing ground level has a significant gradient (approximately 4.5 percent) through the site running from east to west with the lowest level to the south of the proposed building. This change in level has triggered a number of design responses. The ground floor has settled at RL35.85 to allow for a near neutral cut and fill over the site. Parking levels have been staggered across the site to assist in managing the level difference and to reduce the amount of cut that is required. Some low level retaining walls will be introduced at the east of the parking areas, and between the middle parking bays. Battering soil to the west (Joseph Street) will be investigated to enhance the landscape response as well as lessening the overall perceived height of the building.

3.4 Access and Parking

3.4.1 Car parking

Parking layouts have been developed in accordance with advice from the traffic and parking assessment report (Refer Section 7.5 and Appendix D). Public parking is separate from staff parking and accessed from Main Avenue. Provision of 71 spaces has been made available to the public. The staff car park is separated from the public section with a landscape buffer which also accommodates the electrical substation and standby generator. Staff parking will be accessed from Weeroona Road by way of a secure and private road. Landscaping has been introduced where possible to soften the parking area and provide some shading with high canopy trees.

The Coroner’s car parking has been relocated from the lower ground floor to the ground floor, and is also accessed from the secure staff road from Weeroona Road and via the secure and gated staff carpark. Police and Funeral Directors parking will be located to the south of the staff parking.

3.4.2 Motorbike and Bicycle – Staff

The Traffic Consultants parking demand estimate assumes only one percent (1%) of staff travel to the site by something other than car (i.e. bus, motorcycle, bicycle, walk, etc.). Based on the advised staff numbers totalling 110 full time equivalent it assumes the need for only one motorcycle parking space. On this basis, this could be accommodated within the general parking provision.

Bicycle provision has been based on the Auburn DCP rate for a commercial building (identified as the best ‘fit’ for this site) is one space per 10 employees. Therefore 11 bicycle racks/hoops have been provided. These areas are located undercover in a secure location.


3.4.3 Motorbike and Bicycle – Public

Parking and Traffic Consultants surveys at other medical sites show that the percentage of visitors that use bicycle or motorcycle to travel to site is less than one percent. On that basis it’s recommend that any motorcycle demand can be accommodated within the proposed public car parking provision.

Parking and Traffic believe it would be unlikely that there would be any demand for bicycle parking from visitors to the facility. However, provision for a small number of bicycle hoops close to the building entry has been made.

3.5 Landscaping Works

A landscape design has been prepared by Site Image Landscape Architects for the project (refer to Appendix E) to provide:

■ Consistency with the existing landscape of the site and surrounds which establishes a parkland type address to the south and east; a civic address to the formal landscape character of Main Avenue to the north; and a significant green outlook across Joseph Street to the golf landscape to the west. The landscape and building design integrate with the precinct plan, which propose a contemporary landscape ‘campus’ identity.

■ Incorporating substantial existing trees where suitable/ possible with shared connective open space, walkways, small plaza amenity areas, and tree-lined roads and shade trees to carpark areas.

■ The aim of the landscape design will be to balance the integration of the site with the setting and surrounds, creating an internal landscape that expresses the structure, layout and functionality of the precinct. Creating a strong sense of place, ownership and collective identity will benefit the morale and well-being of staff and visitors, and will assist integration with the neighbouring residential, commercial and institutional areas.

■ The residential estate opposite the site across Main Avenue is a large scale site, and its perimeter was planned and anticipated in the design of that estate, with landscape setback from the roadway. Sharing of the entry from Joseph Street with the community is an important consideration, and the address of the FPCC building has equally provided landscape setback and has respected the formal roadway landscape and treatments.

■ Sustainable design principles that will be considered in the developed landscape design include sustainable transport, solar lighting, water recycling, WSUD detailing of road edges and water collection areas. Detail design and engineering aspects of landscape design include security and safety by design principles including clear visibility and lighting, passive surveillance and secure boundary treatments that integrate with the adjoining boundaries and streetscapes rather than create an imposing visual character. Engineering aspects include WSUD, including permeable paving, bio-retention opportunities and water detention provisions. Streetscape design and suitable landscape to parking areas will have a suitable balance of canopy trees for shade and open visual character for lighting and surveillance.


Landscape elements will include:

■ A parkland/campus landscape setting will provide scattered tall trees in broad lawns, with limited garden areas;

■ Garden areas to the façade and carpark perimeter will be low shrubs, groundcovers and grasses to not restrict visual access;

■ A carpark level change to be a sloping garden with dimension to allow shade tree planting; and ■ The various rooftop terraces are to provide significant amenity, providing seating and

relaxation/breakout spaces.

3.6 Signage

New signs will be installed as part of the project. The location and details of these signs are shown on the signage plan prepared by STH Architects (refer Appendix B). These signs are to be consistent with government branding for each respective government department.

3.7 Tree Removal

The proposal will require tree removal due to the building footprint, car parking, rear access and associated works. A tree removal plan has been prepared by STH Architects and is included in the architectural plans (refer Appendix B). The plan identifies all trees proposed for removal as a result of the proposal footprint. A total of 66 trees have been assessed as being impacted upon by the proposal. These trees and an assessment of the impact of their removal are discussed in Section 7.1.

3.8 Public Utility Adjustments

3.8.1 Water

Sydney Water Corporation requires the domestic cold water services connections to be taken off the water main fronting the development. Incoming domestic, fire hydrant and fire sprinkler services to service the site will be taken from the 300 mm PVC main in Palm Circuit.

3.8.2 Sewer

It is proposed to provide a new Sydney Water sewer side line off the existing 150 mm sewer main in Weeroona Road to service Lot 2, allowing the Sydney Water sewer main to be disused to the boundary of Joseph Street, which would allow an unimpeded area for the new site. There are a number of existing house service sewer lines traversing the site area, from the buildings that are to remain on the eastern side of the precinct to the sewer connection to the west. These sewer drainage services will need to be connected together and diverted from the proposed footprint of the new building. A new house service line will connect to the existing Sydney Water sewer main and run via gravity to the proposed building site.


3.8.3 Electrical

A new 1.5MVA kiosk substation is proposed to support the new facility. The new kiosk substation is proposed to be located on the FPCC precinct within the secure staff carpark area. Access to the substation will be via the secure entry road off Weeroona Road. An Application for Connection has been submitted to Ausgrid and they have confirmed that a new substation will be required.

3.8.4 Telecommunications

Dual telecommunications lead-in carrier cables (from separate service providers) are required to support the new FPCC development. Two separate and dedicated carrier/ campus distributor rooms are proposed for the new building.

3.8.5 Gas

The gas supplier (Jemena) has advised that they will only reply to enquiries on developments when a Development Application has been approved. However the same concept as the domestic water supplies is proposed to be used, with proposed connections from Palm Circuit and Weenoona Road.

3.8.6 Road Upgrades

A commercial crossover at the boundary of Weeroona Street will be required to service the secure access. This will be approximately 12.2 m long. Public access from Main Avenue is proposed through dedicated crossovers into the front main entrances of the new facility.

3.8.7 Stormwater

The proposed stormwater approach involves constructing an underground pipe network from the FPCC development site via a stormwater quality treatment discharge device to the new 1500 mm x 450 mm deep box culvert extension from Joseph Street box culvert inlet. The treatment device would reduce gross pollutants, suspended solids, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and to acceptable council requirements. Maintenance access to the device is required to remove and clean collected solids. The new culvert will have two or three connection points and overland flow inlet pits incorporated for this and future development.

3.9 Project Value and Job Creation

The estimated CIV for the project is $83,240,000 excluding goods and services tax. A CIV assessment has been prepared by Aquenta and is attached as Appendix F.

The proposal will result in the following job creation:

■ no additional full time equivalent operational staff as it is proposed that the operational and staffing profile for the operation will not change as a result of the new facility; and

■ 250 full time equivalent construction jobs during the construction period.


Stakeholder Consultation 4.4.1 Cumberland Council

HI representatives met with Auburn Council (now Cumberland Council) on 17 March 2016 for initial discussion on the proposed FPCC project. Council representatives were:

■ Glenn Francis - Executive Manager Planning; and ■ Michael Lawani – Team Leader, Development Assessment.

Discussions included various development assessment matters including:

■ Transport, access, traffic and parking; ■ Adjoining heritage item; ■ Adjoining land uses; ■ Potential for site contamination from previous land uses; ■ Stormwater; and ■ Tree removal.

There were also a number of informal contacts to Council from various specialist consultants in regard to stormwater matters. Cumberland Council has also provided extensive comments on the proposal as part of the response to the SEARS. These comments have been addressed in the body of the EIS.

4.2 Office of Environment and Heritage NSW EPA

Given that OEH has an office and depot within the precinct, two meetings were held onsite (13 April 2016 and 29 May 2016) to identify the works that will be undertaken such as identifying the existing buildings to be removed and location for replacement sheds to be constructed. A workshop was also conducted on 9 September 2015 in Glebe with other interested parties to discuss and identify what features would make the proposal attractive to work in or to where to relocate.

4.3 NSW Roads and Maritime Services

Roads and Maritime Services issued a letter to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment dated 23 March 2016 advising that no further requirements were warranted as part of the proposal. Roads and Maritime Services advised that should any proposed works in any way affect Roads and Maritime assets, the necessary consultation would occur during detailed design and delivery phases.

4.4 Sydney Water

Formal consultation with Sydney Water through a Section 73 application cannot be lodged until development consent is issued. A feasibility application was lodged with Sydney Water on 3 June 2016 to ascertain capacity and other general requirements.


4.5 Telstra

A meeting was held onsite with Telstra representatives on 29 April 2016 to discuss and agree upon design requirements for current Telstra infrastructure diversions and future connection requirements.

4.6 Stakeholder Consultation

Given the significance of this project and the fact that it includes stakeholders from a number of government agencies a Stakeholder and Communications Plan was developed for the project. It provides an overview of the objectives, governance, methodology, timeframes, accountabilities and other information relevant to identifying, delivering and monitoring stakeholder consultation and communications for the duration of the project.

There has also been an ongoing consultation process undertaken during the project. The initial focus was on providing input into determining the user requirements, Functional Design Brief and options evaluation. This process was informed through information gathered, investigated and verified by key stakeholders from the FPCC Service through a series of project planning team (PPT) meetings, value management workshop, and preliminary site due diligence. This process of stakeholder consultation has been ongoing throughout the project in line with the established governance protocols.

4.7 Community Consultation

4.7.1 Consultation with the Aboriginal Community

Informal consultation was undertaken with the Metropolitan Local Area Land Council as part of the due diligence Aboriginal heritage assessment. This is discussed further in Section 7.7.

4.7.2 Community notification and information sessions

Local community engagement (drop-in briefing sessions) were held on Thursday 23 June 2016 and Saturday 2 July 2016 at the Carnarvon Golf Club. Residents were notified of the two consultation/ briefing sessions via letter box drops to adjacent residents along Main Avenue and also by an advertisement that was placed in the local paper (Auburn Review) advising of the briefing session.

A total of 6 residents attended the session on 23 June 2016 and 8 residents attended the session on the 2 July 2016. The main items that were discussed at both sessions were:

■ Vehicle traffic associated with the Main Avenue frontage, access and traffic impact to Botanica Estate. This issue was the common point of discussion throughout the sessions.

■ No real negative feedback was received on the use or function of building (Forensic Pathology or Coroners Court).

■ Generally positive feedback on the building design, architecture/facade, bulk/scale. However a few attendees made the comment the building and/or vehicle access should be moved to be positioned elsewhere on the site and away from Main Avenue.


4.8 Ongoing or Future Consultation

4.8.1 Ongoing or Future Consultation

The following measures will be adopted to ensure Council, stakeholders, adjoining property owners and the wider community are kept informed of the project’s progress before and during construction:

■ Prior to commencement of work, the proponent must notify in writing the Council and the occupier of any land within 40 m of the boundary of the site works. The notification should outline the project and the expected timing for commencement and completion of construction works.

■ Complaints received prior to and during the undertaking of works shall be recorded and attended to promptly. On receiving a complaint, works shall be reviewed to determine whether issues relating to the complaint can be avoided or minimised. Feedback shall be provided to the complainant explaining what remedial actions were taken.

■ The proponent shall develop a complaints management system and record details of all complaints received and the means of resolution of those complaints. The Complaints Register shall be made available to Council on request.

■ A site notice board must be located at the entrance or other appropriate location on the site in a prominent position and must including the following:

- 24-hour contact person for the site; - Telephone, facsimile numbers and email addresses; and - Site activities and time frames;

■ The site notice must be erected no less than two days prior to the commencement of works.


Statutory Planning Framework 5.5.1 The Planning Approval Pathway

5.1.1 Permissibility

The proposed FPCC site is located within the Cumberland LGA. Planning controls within this area are set out in the ALEP 2010. The subject site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Research Station pursuant to the provisions of ALEP 2010. Permitted with consent in the SP2 Infrastructure Zone is the purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map (SP2 Infrastructure – Research Station) including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to development for that purpose; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Car parks; Community facilities; Depots; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Freight transport facilities; Funeral homes; Kiosks; Markets; Mortuaries; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Roads.


■ The Corner’s Court is defined as a public administration building which means a building used as offices or for administrative or other like purposes by the Crown, a statutory body, a Council or an organisation established for public purposes, and includes a courthouse or a police station; and

■ Part of the Forensic Pathology facility can be defined as a mortuary which means premises that are used, or intended to be used, for the receiving, preparation, embalming and storage of bodies of deceased persons pending their interment or cremation; and

■ Part of the Forensic Pathology facility can be defined as a health services facility under ALEP2010, and State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP). A health services facility which means a facility used to provide medical or other services relating to the maintenance or improvement of the health, or the restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of disease in or treatment of injury to persons, and includes the following:

a. day surgeries and medical centres; b. community health service facilities; c. health consulting rooms; d. facilities for the transport of patients, including helipads and ambulance facilities; and e. hospitals.

Mortuaries are permitted with development consent under both the ALEP 2010 and the ISEPP. Health services facilities and public administration buildings are prohibited development under ALEP 2010. However, they are permissible under the ISEPP as the SP2 Infrastructure Zone is a prescribed zone and health services facilities and public administration buildings may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone.

5.1.2 State Significant Development

Clause 8 of SRD SEPP provides that development is declared to be SSD for the purposes of the EP&A Act if:

■ The development is not permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act; and


■ The development is specified in Schedule 1 or 2.

The development is not permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act (see permissibility section below) and the development is specified in Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the SRD SEPP. Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the SRD SEPP provides:

“Development that has a capital investment value of more than $30 million for any of the following purposes:

(d) hospitals, (e) medical centres, (f) health, medical or related research facilities (which may also be associated with the facilities or

research activities of a NSW local health district board, a University or an independent medical research institute).”

Part of the proposed development is for the purposes of medical and related research associated with the activities of NSW Pathology (which falls under the relevant Local Health District) and has an estimated CIV of $64 million.

Clause 8(2) of the SRD SEPP relevantly provides that “If a single proposed development the subject of one development application comprises development that is only partly State significant development declared under subclause (1), the remainder of the development is also declared to be State significant development…”.

It follows that the remainder of the development (being the court complex and the mortuary) is also SSD.

5.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The EP&A Act is the primary legislation for environmental planning in NSW. It establishes the legislative framework that governs land use, development assessment and decision making. The EPAR 2000) create the required administration and allocate roles and responsibilities for land use and assessments. This section summarises the relevant policies and plans that are called up under Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act.

5.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

5.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

The aims of this policy are as follows:

■ To amend the definitions of hazardous and offensive industries where used in environmental planning instruments.

■ To render ineffective a provision of any environmental planning instrument that prohibits development for the purpose of a storage facility on the ground that the facility is hazardous or offensive if it is not a hazardous or offensive storage establishment as defined in this policy.

■ To require development consent for hazardous or offensive development proposed to be carried out in the western division.

■ To ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous or offensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce the impact of the development are taken into account.


■ To ensure that in considering any application to carry out potentially hazardous or offensive development, the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether the development is hazardous or offensive and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impact.

■ To require the advertising of applications to carry out any such development.

Potentially hazardous industry as defined in SEPP 33 “means a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose a significant risk in relation to the locality:

a. to human health, life or property, or b. to the biophysical environment,

and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment”.

If a development is found to be potentially hazardous according to SEPP 33 screening, a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) is required in accordance with guidelines and circulars published by the NSW Department of Planning. The objectives of a PHA are to:

■ Identify potential hazards associated with the proposed and existing facilities. ■ Determine likelihood of occurrence and consequences to people and the environment of identified

hazards. ■ Assess the risk in terms of location and land use. ■ Recommend safeguards and mitigation measures if required to achieve an acceptable level of

risk.

In accordance with SEPP 33 the hazardous substances and dangerous goods to be held or used on site are required to be identified and classified in accordance with a risk screening method contained within the document entitled Applying SEPP 33 Consultation Draft July 2008. Hazardous materials are defined in this publication as substances falling within the classification of the Australian Code for Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Dangerous Goods Code).

ARUP have provided advice on the applicability of SEPP 33 to the proposed FPCC facility. This advice is attached as Appendix G. ARUP have advised that although the proposal will store quantities of dangerous goods (DGs), the risk screening undertaken indicates that the FPCC would not trigger the thresholds to be classified as potentially hazardous. Accordingly, there is no requirement to undertake PHA for the project. The application of codes and standards would therefore be sufficient in providing protections and risk mitigation with regard to the storage of dangerous goods.

5.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The object of this policy is to provide for a statewide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land. It aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment by:

■ Specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work. ■ Specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining

development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out remediation work in particular.

■ Requiring that remediation work meets certain standards and notification requirements.


Coffey were engaged by HI to undertake a Stage 2 Contamination Assessment as part of the project. This report is attached as Appendix H and is discussed in detail in Section 7.10.

5.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP)

ISEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. Division 10 of the ISEPP outlines the approval requirements for health facilities. Clause 58 of the ISEPP stipulates the thresholds for Health Facilities that can be assessed as Development without Consent. The proposal does not meet any of these requirements and therefore requires development consent.

A matter for consideration under the ISEPP is the referral requirements for Traffic Generating Development. Clause 104 and Schedule 3 of ISEPP defines traffic generating development which requires referral to Roads and Maritime for comment. The proposal would be defined as “other development” which is required to be referred to Roads and Maritime if the proposal has a capacity for greater than 200 or more vehicles. The proposed development will have less than 200 carparks and therefore does not trigger formal consultation with Roads and Maritime under the ISEPP.

Roads and Maritime were consulted during the SEARs process and has advised that Roads and Maritime Services issued a letter to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment dated 23 March 2016 advising that no further requirements were warranted as part of the proposal.

5.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (State & Regional Development) 2011

The relevant provisions of this SEPP are discussed in detail in Section 5.1.

5.4 Local Environmental Plan

Name: Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010 (ALEP 2010)

Zone: The subject land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Research Station

The SP2 Infrastructure Zone objectives are:

■ To provide for infrastructure and related uses; and ■ To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of

infrastructure.

The proposal is consistent with the SP2 zone objectives as the works relate to the provision of an infrastructure facility. Part of the project relates to a research facility (Forensic Pathology) which is generally consistent with the second zone objective.


■ The Corner’s Court is defined as a “public administration building”; ■ The Forensic Pathology facility is defined as partly a “mortuary and a “health services facility”.

Mortuaries are permitted with development consent under both the ALEP 2010 and the ISEPP. Health services facilities and public administration buildings are prohibited development under ALEP 2010. However, they are permissible under the ISEPP as the SP2 Infrastructure Zone is a prescribed zone and health services facilities and public administration buildings may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone (refer Section 5.3).


The Development’s consistency with relevant clauses of ALEP 2010 is discussed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Summary of Consistency with Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010

Local Planning Instruments and Controls ALEP 2010 Clause 4.3 Height of

Buildings There is no maximum height control on the site.

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

There is no maximum floor space ratio on the site.

Clause 5.6 Architectural Roof Features

The objective of this clause is to:

■ To ensure that any decorative roof element does not detract from the architectural design of the building, and

■ To ensure that prominent architectural roof features are contained within the height limit.

The proposal contains a number of ‘fins’ on the external elevations of the building. STH Architecture has incorporated these as architectural and structural features for the building. They do not detract from the architectural design of the building and do not exceed any height limits. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with this clause.

Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. A total of 66 trees have been assessed as being impacted upon by the proposal. These trees require development consent under Clause 5.9. An Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment report for the site was prepared by Birds Tree Consultancy. The impact on biodiversity values is assessed in Section 7.1. While the impact on visual amenity is discussed in Section 7.3.3.

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

This clause sets out requirements in relation to heritage conservation, including the preparation of heritage impacts statements and conservation management plans. The site contains no heritage items but adjoins a locally and state listed heritage item. GBA Heritage has prepared a Non-Aboriginal Heritage assessment of the proposal and its impacts to adjoining heritage items. This is discussed in Section 7.8 and Appendix I.

Clause 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

The site is located within land mapped as Class 5 and has a low probability of ASS occurrence. Excavation works proposed would not disturb ASS.

Clause 6.3 Flood Planning The Flood Planning Map did not identify the site as being within flood prone land. Surface runoff and localised flood impacts are discussed and assessed in Section 7.12.


5.5 Development Control Plans

The Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 (ADCP 2010) supports the provisions of ALEP 2010 and provides a set of development objectives and provisions for development within the Auburn LGA. DCPs are not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of SSD. The proposal is therefore not subject to the requirements of the ADCP 2010. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of the ADCP 2010.

5.6 Developer Contributions Plan

There are a number of developer contribution plans that apply to development within the Cumberland LGA. Advice issued from the Department of Planning and Environment has identified that, in principle, the limitations on the imposition of developer contributions on public sector developments remain as outlined in Circular D6 – Crown Development Applications and conditions of consent. (DLWC 2002 page 12 Section 27) which states that “Crown developments for community services e.g. education, health, community services and law and order are exempt from general developer charges.”

5.7 Other NSW Legislation

5.7.1 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) includes provisions relating to the protection of the environment. One of the objectives of the Act is to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in NSW, having regard to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development. There are serious offences under this Act for causing pollution of air, noise, water or land. NSW Health and the appointed contractor are required to meet the waste licensing obligations of Clauses 39 to 42 of Schedule 1 of the POEO Act in relation to the proposed works.

The Contractor and Health NSW are obliged to notify OEH when a “pollution incident” occurs that causes or threatens “material harm” to the environment.

5.7.2 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides the basis for the legal protection and management of Aboriginal sites within NSW. Sections 84 and 90 of the NPW Act provide statutory protection for any physical/ material evidence of Aboriginal occupation of NSW and places of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. The key principles of the Act in relation to Aboriginal heritage are the prevention of unnecessary or unwarranted destruction of Aboriginal objects, and the active protection and conservation of objects which are of high cultural significance. It is an offence to knowingly disturb an Aboriginal object, irrespective of its nature or significance, without the prior consent of the Director-General of the NSW OEH.

A due diligence assessment prepared by GML Heritage for the proposed development (refer Section 7.7 and Appendix J). The assessment concluded that it is unlikely that Aboriginal objects would be located in the area of the proposed activity. Notwithstanding this, GML Heritage recommended safeguards that:

■ Once the initial soil stripping is complete, a member form the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council be invited to inspect the soil horizons in the Zone 2B locality 0; and


■ An unexpected finds procedure be adopted in the event of the discovery of any Aboriginal objects during construction.

5.7.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994

Concurrence is required from the Minister for Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (TIRIS) (formerly Industry and Investment) for dredge and reclamation works on land that is periodically inundated by water in accordance with Section 199 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

The proposal is not within a marine environment and no marine vegetation would be affected.

The works do not occur in areas that are likely to be supporting threatened aquatic habitat for flora or fauna. Thus the proposal is considered unlikely to impact on any threatened aquatic species and communities.

5.7.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) aims to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and communities listed under the Act. Obligations placed on HI under the TSC Act in relation to the proposal includes consideration of threatened species, populations, ecological communities, key threatening processes and recovery plans in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.

The TSC Act inserts provisions to the approvals process if it is determined under the provisions of the EP&A Act that there is likely to be a significant effect on a threatened species, population or ecological community. If this is the case the Act requires a Species Impact Statement (SIS) to be prepared. The determining authority must seek the concurrence of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife where there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or endangered ecological communities, or their habitats or where the proposal impacts on identified critical habitat or contributes to the operation of a key threatening process.

In relation to the proposal, removal of trees is required as part of the development footprint. The ecological impact of the removal of these trees is assessed in Section 7.1. The assessment has concluded that the proposal will not have any significant ecological impact including any impact upon any of threatened species, populations, or EECs under the TSC Act.

5.7.5 Heritage Act 1977

The Heritage Act 1977 provides for the conservation of items of environmental heritage in NSW. The Act defines heritage as items or places that are of state and/ or local heritage significance and include: places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects and precincts. As part of NSW heritage protection and management the Act establishes a register including an inventory and list to protect the listed items.

Under Section 170 of this Act government departments are required establish and keep a register entitled the “Heritage and Conservation Register”. The site is not included on the NSW Health Section 170 Register.

No part of the subject site is listed as an item of state significance on the NSW State Heritage Register. Accordingly, development proposals for this site do not require heritage approval under the


NSW Heritage Act 1977. The site however adjoins the Lidcombe Hospital Precinct which is item number 01744 on the State Heritage Register and is also listed as a Heritage Conservation Area under ALEP 2010. The site has undergone significant modification as part of an adaptive reuse of a former historic core of buildings and 'village green' and residential precinct. No part of the proposal would impact or encroach on the heritage item and the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact on this heritage item. This is further discussed in Section 7.7.

The archaeological provisions of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 are applicable, however, as all “relics” are protected under the NSW Heritage Act, regardless of whether or not the place is listed as a heritage item at a local, State or national level. Should any unexpected relics be disturbed during excavation of the site they must be managed under the archaeological provisions of the NSW Heritage Act.

5.7.6 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), any action that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance or other aspects of the environment, such as on Commonwealth land, may progress only with approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under Part 9 of the EPBC Act. A search was undertaken on the Australian Heritage Database which indicates that a site adjoined the subject site. The matters of national environmental significance and Commonwealth land are considered below in relation to the proposal.

Table 5.2 Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment

Factor Impact

a Any Environmental Impact on a World Heritage Property?

The proposed works are not in proximity to any lands listed as World Heritage Property, and therefore would have no impact on such lands. Extensive mitigation measures stated within Section 9 of this EIS would negate any potential environmental impacts off site.

Nil

b Any Environmental Impact on National Heritage Places?

The proposed works are in proximity to The Lidcombe former hospital site which is a listed item on the National Heritage database. A comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the proposal has been included in Section 7.8 and Appendix I. This assessment has determined that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on this heritage item. Extensive mitigation measures stated within Section 9 of this EIS would negate any potential environmental impacts off site.

Minimal

c Any Environmental Impact on Wetlands of International Importance?

The proposed works are not in proximity to any lands listed as Wetlands of International Significance (Ramsar Sites), and therefore would have no impact on such lands. Extensive mitigation measures stated within Section 9 of this EIS would negate any potential environmental impacts off site.

Nil

d Any Environmental Impact on Commonwealth Listed Threatened Species or Ecological Communities?

It is not expected that any Commonwealth listed species would be impacted by the proposed works.

Nil


Factor Impact

e Any Environmental Impact on Commonwealth Listed Migratory Species?

It is not expected that any Commonwealth listed migratory species would be impacted by the proposed works.

Nil

f Does Any Part of the Proposal Involve a Nuclear Action?

The proposal does not involve a nuclear action. Nil

g Any Environmental Impact on a Commonwealth Marine Area?

The proposal does impact on a Commonwealth Marine Area. Nil


Non-statutory Planning Framework 6.6.1 State Priorities NSW

NSW State Priorities are the new strategic vision recently announced (September 2015) by the NSW State Government, including 30 key reforms and 12 personal priorities of the Premier. An assessment of the proposal against relevant priorities is provided in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 Consistency with State Priorities NSW

Relevant Priority Comment Creating Jobs Although the proposal will result in no real significant increase in

operational jobs as a result of the new FPCC facility, it will add to the number of construction jobs in NSW.

Building Infrastructure The new FPCC facility represents a substantial infrastructure project for the NSW Government. The project value is has a capital investment value of $83,240,000.

Improving Government Services

The current facilities in Glebe: - are operating under considerable stress; - have reached capacity; - are at the end of their economic life; and - can no longer effectively meet current and future deliverables and

government objectives. Concerns have been raised that the deteriorating facilities compromise work health and safety requirements and impact on the quality of service delivered. Current court facilities are not sufficient for the number of coronial inquests and these spatial constraints have resulted in use of offsite facilities. The proposal will greatly improve Forensic Pathology and Coronial Court services within NSW.

The project is therefore considered to be consistent with relevant NSW Priorities as it will build infrastructure, add to the creation of construction jobs and will improve forensic pathology and coronial services for the State of NSW.

6.2 A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney was released by the NSW Government in December 2014 and is the Government’s strategic land use plan for the Sydney metropolitan area over the next 20 years. The Plan provides key directions and actions to guide Sydney’s productivity, environmental management, and liveability – including the delivery of housing, employment, infrastructure and open space. The following directions for the Plan for Growing Sydney are relevant to the project:

■ To undertake long-term planning for social infrastructure to support growing communities; and ■ Expansion of health facilities to service a growing population.

The facility provides vital coronial and pathologist services to the NSW community. The Coronial jurisdiction has an extensive public interface including processing of inquests, bereavement services, body viewing and other associated formalities involving the processing of bodies in NSW. The Coroners Court services involve a commitment to the community for the delivery of all its services in a


professional and timely manner, whilst respecting the dignity of both the deceased and next of kin. Forensic and related technical intelligence are specialised disciplines that are central to the Coroners and police capacity to deliver their mandated responsibilities. The proposal will result in a facility that will significantly improve the ability of Forensic Pathology and the Coroners Court to deliver their important services to Sydney and to NSW. The project is therefore considered consistent with the aforementioned directions as well as many of the goals identified in the Plan for Growing Sydney.

6.3 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan 2012

The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan provides a framework for delivery of integrated and modern transport systems.

The subject site is located in Lidcombe, approximately 14kms east of Sydney CBD. It has excellent road connections in all directions, making access by car (or motorcycle) relatively easy. It is serviced by the following major roads:

■ North – M4 Western Motorway (M4), Parramatta Road and A6 (Joseph Street); ■ South – Hume Highway, M5 and A6; ■ East – A22 (Hume Highway) and A34 (Milperra Road); and ■ West – A22 and M4.

The transport environment at the proposed site is served by multiple transport modes that are potentially available to staff and public, including road, bus and heavy rail. These services and their adequacy to meet the likely future demand from the proposed development area is addressed in Section 7.5.

6.4 Sydney’s Cycling Future 2013

Sydney’s Cycling Future 2013 outlines the NSW Government’s plan to create safer and easier bicycle facilities for Sydney residents and visitors. The subject site is reasonably accessible by bicycle from all directions. This is mainly due to the existing road network as the site is not connected to any dedicated cycle paths. In most cases cyclists will be required to share the road with motor vehicles. Some of these roads are major arterial routes, which may deter some cyclists from using them. The topography surrounding the site is relatively flat, which could make cycling an attractive option for staff and users of the facility. However, cycling is only likely to be an attractive mode share for staff working at the site, and even then only for those staff that live within a relatively close distance to the facility.

Bicycle parking is an important element in encouraging active travel as part of the journey to work. The proposal provides 11 staff bicycle spaces in an enclosed room within the building which is in excess of Council’s DCP requirements. Although the DCP does not identify bicycle parking provisions for visitors, two bicycle racks have been incorporated into the proposal to assist with promoting and accommodating alternative active travel options to the site.

6.5 Sydney’s Walking Future 2013

Sydney’s Walking Future 2013 seeks to make walking the transport of choice for shorter trips (under two kilometres) and help people readily access public transport through provision of improved pedestrian access. Walking to the new facility will only be an attractive option for people who live


close to the proposed site. A reasonable volume of low-density residential development is located to the north, east and west of the site (the latter is dissected by the Caernarvon Golf Course but still within reasonable walking distance). Walkers are only likely to be staff working at the site; however staff on early morning or late evening/ night shifts would be unlikely to walk for safety reasons unless living in very close proximity to the proposed site. The site is served by four bus routes/ stops which are located approximately 350m from the site which would encourage use of a combination of public transport and walking to get to work.

6.6 Healthy Urban Development Checklist, NSW Health

The purpose of the Healthy Urban Development Checklist is to assist health professionals to provide advice on urban development policies, plans and proposals. It is intended to ensure that the advice provided is both comprehensive and consistent. The checklist is principally about helping to answer the questions:

■ What are the health effects of the urban development policy, plan or proposal? ■ How can it be improved to provide better health outcomes?

The proposal seeks to relocate the existing FPCC from Glebe to the Lidcombe Government Precinct. It is considered that clustering the new FPCC facility with existing government services such as FASS is a positive move in terms of transport and physical connectivity. As discussed in Section 7.5, the subject site has good proximity to public transport facilities and services. Provision is to be made for cycling and pedestrian access (refer Sections 7.5). The site is in proximity to existing housing however given the nature of the facility travel will be required by users of the facility in most circumstances. The proposal has also adequately addressed community safety and security (refer Section 7.4). It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the NSW Healthy Urban Development Checklist.

6.7 The State Infrastructure Strategy – “First Things First”

The State Infrastructure Strategy “First Things First” is an assessment of priority infrastructure problems and solutions for the next two decades for the NSW government, the community, business and all who have an interest in the success of NSW.

The Strategy builds on the NSW government’s existing public commitments and outlines a forward program of more than 70 urban and regional projects and reforms across a range of portfolios including health.

The report indicates that the NSW health system faces growing demand from an ageing population, lifestyle diseases and new care technologies. This will require new models of care, including more beds in smaller, specialist medical facilities and community health centres. The redevelopment of the NSW FPCC at the Lidcombe Government Precinct is identified as a major health facility upgrade and therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the State Infrastructure Strategy.


Environmental Assessment 7.7.1 Vegetation

7.1.1 Existing Environment

The site of the proposal is a highly modified and disturbed environment with standalone ornamental (anthropogenic) plantings found throughout the site. These are mainly native with some exotic species intermixed. Habitat connectivity to the site is also fragmented and highly disconnected due to the surrounding developed residential and urban areas. None of the subject trees are identified as threatened species or elements of EECs within the TSC Act (Bird 2015). Although these ornamentally planted trees offer limited biodiversity values, they provide a moderate level of visual amenity throughout the site.

7.1.2 Potential Impacts

An Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment report for the site was prepared by Birds Tree Consultancy and is attached as Appendix K. The report assesses the health, condition and stability of the trees as well as their viability for retention and relative retention value. The scope of this report includes all trees within areas that may be impacted by the proposed development. A total of 391 trees were assessed as part of the report. The Arborist report provides commentary on all of the trees and provides recommendations in regard to retention and value of each tree as well as comments on minimising impacts on existing plantings during construction. The report also provides the location, size, species type, general description of the health of each tree and recommended tree protection zones (TPZ’s).

From this report the Project Architect STH Architects prepared a tree removal plan for the proposal which is included in Appendix B. This plan identifies which trees are likely to be impacted upon by the proposal. The value of each tree is shown as either:

■ Very high retention value; ■ High retention value; ■ Low retention value; or ■ Very low value.

Table 7.1 identifies the trees proposed for removal as a result of the proposed work footprint (either as a result of the carpark, access road or building envelope). A total of 66 trees have been assessed as being impacted upon by the proposal.

Table 7.1 Summary of Trees Identified for Removal

Tree Number

Species Value Reason for Removal

3 Corymbia citriodora

Moderate Within access road footprint

5 Eucalyptus microcorys

Low Within access road footprint




Tree Number


7 Corymbia citriodora





High Within access road footprint





111 Corymbia robusta

Very High Within access road footprint

112 Casuarina spp Low Within access road footprint 113 Casuarina spp Low Within access road footprint 116 Casuarina spp Low Within access road footprint 117 Casuarina spp Low Within access road footprint 188 Eucalyptus

moluccana High Within access road footprint

189 Eucalyptus moluccana








194 Eucalyptus amplifolia




196 Acacia falcata Low Within access road footprint 205 Eucalyptus

robusta Low Within access road footprint




High Within building footprint


Very High Within building footprint


Very High Within building footprint




Low Within building footprint




Tree Number










306 Acacia longifolia










313 Eucalyptus robusta

High Within car park footprint

314 Melaleuca decora



Low Within car park footprint


Very high Within building footprint











324 Grevillea robusta


328 Eucalyptus robusta

Very high Within car park footprint



331 Eucalyptus scoparia


339 Lophostemon confertus



Very high Within car park footprint


Tree Number



High Too close to the building footprint and within car park footprint


High Too close to the building footprint and within car park footprint


Moderate Within car park footprint



345 Ligustrum lucidum




347 Leptospermum petersonii


348 Leptospermum petersonii


359 Acer negundo Low Within car park footprint 369 Erythrina spp Low Within car park footprint 370 Conifer Low Within car park footprint 371 Ligustrum

lucidum Low Within car park footprint


Low Environmental pest

A search was completed on the ‘Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife’ website on 3 June 2016 for flora and fauna species that are listed as threatened in NSW and nationally within a 10km radius of the site. No native flora was recorded in proximity to the site. However, 17 vulnerable and endangered native flora were recorded within the broader 10km radius. The Arborist report has not identified any threatened flora within the study area.

A total of 22 fauna species have been recorded in proximity to the site. These species are listed as vulnerable in NSW and endangered in the Commonwealth. None of the above species were sighted during the site inspection on 2 February 2016 and no significant habitat values were identified within the site. Furthermore, it was determined that there are no significant habitat values in proximity to the site which are likely to be impacted by the proposed works.

An extensive search was conducted using the EPBC Act protected matters search tool. The search identified no items that would be impacted upon by the proposal.

Given the limited biodiversity values that exist within the site and surrounding it is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on the threatened flora or fauna. If non-mobile fauna or habitat features are identified (e.g. birds nest) before or during construction, a suitably licensed and experienced Ecologist is to be contacted immediately and appropriate measures would be discussed and implemented prior to commencement/ re-commencement of works. If an animal is injured during construction WIRES is to be contacted to arrange for capture/ removal of the animal from the works area.


7.2 Built Form and Urban Design

Silver Thomas Hanley - STH Health Architecture prepared a Built Form and Urban Design Assessment to address the SEARs. This is attached as Appendix L. A summary of how the design has responded to potential impacts on the built form, urban design and visual amenity is provided below.

7.2.1 Surrounding Development

Generally the surrounding Lidcombe area has a diverse land-use and landscape character of residential, industrial, cemetery, institutional, education and recreation. The overall precinct has a visual identity of scattered mature canopy trees, with the distinct landscape character of the golf course to the west, new residential estates to the north and east, and the railway to the south. The ‘heritage’ style entry road to the north has a distinctive formal character with its sandstone gatehouse and entry wall; Canary Island Palms and Norfolk Island Pines along Main Avenue and accompanying regular roadside planting beds. The fairways and scattered canopy trees of the adjacent Carnarvon Golf Course creates an expansive landscape outlook, moderated by the broad pavement of Joseph Street and commencing level change that defines the western edge of the site.

7.2.2 Site Layout, Open Space, Streetscape

The proposed location and orientation of the new facility at the corner of Joseph Street and Main Avenue was chosen following careful analysis of the existing site conditions, existing buildings and stakeholder requirements, as well as minimising impact on adjacent residential land, whilst also ensuring the building is identifiable as an important civic building.

The public interface is located at the corner of Joseph Street and Main Avenue, and consists of a landscaped forecourt, café, and access points into the building as well as the public carpark. This open space is intended to be a transitory place of clear wayfinding as well as a place for quiet respite for families attending the facility, and provides for discrete courtyards for visitors within the building. A large entry atrium engages with the Main Avenue and Joseph Street corner and acts as a visual vocal point for the public interface.

7.2.3 Services and Operation

Service zones are integrated into the design of the building and are consolidated within two dedicated areas of the back of house, at the eastern and southern zones of the facility. This not only allows efficiency of building operations, but ensures privacy and separation from publically accessible areas.

The ground floor at the southern end of the building is designated purely for back of house services such as waste management and deliveries to the building. This area is housed in a discrete and utilitarian single storey built form to the south of the development. The back of house yard is set back further from Joseph Street and screened with security fencing. This zone will be accessed from the proposed new service road off Weeroona Road, with minimal impacts on the adjacent residential areas and a level of discretion is maintained. This location for the service road is considered appropriate, as Weeroona Road is the current access point for other facilities on the site.


7.3 Visual Amenity

The visual impact of the proposal was assessed through consideration of visual modification to the existing environment caused by the proposal and the visual sensitivity of the surrounding environment. Visual modification refers to the effects the proposal has on the existing environment. It compares the appearance of the development, the existing environment’s ability to absorb the development’s appearance and the distance at which the development is viewed. These visual impacts compare visual qualities to the existing environment before development to provide a methodical comparison. Visual modification is furthermore influenced by vegetation including tree height and foliage density, as well as topography, and considers their ability to screen or buffer unwanted views or accentuate desired vistas. Colours and textures contrasting to the existing environment also influence the level of visual modification.

7.3.1 Assessment Methodology

The method applied to assessing the visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape and visual amenity involved a systematic evaluation of the existing visual environment and applying judgements. The assessment undertaken involved:

■ Description of the existing landscape and visual environment; ■ Review of aerial photograph of site locality and surrounding context; ■ Comprehensive site inspection and photographic survey to provide a graphic representation of the

visual amenity of the landscape illustrating potential views including an analysis of these views; ■ Visual impact assessment; and ■ Mitigation strategy and visual safeguards to minimise visual impacts.

7.3.2 Existing Visual Environment

The site is located within the urban area of Lidcombe in the middle of an established mixed use area which contains residential, recreational, industrial and government services. The site of the new works currently contains derelict buildings previously used as dwellings. These buildings are on the north western side of the site and face Main Avenue.

Typical views into the site as it currently exists from Main Avenue and dwellings to the north and from Joseph Street from the west are shown in Plates 7.1 to 7.3.


Plate 7.1 View from Main Avenue

Plate 7.2 View from Joseph Street 1

Plate 7.3 View from Joseph Street 2


The development site is currently viewed by:

■ The residents and occupants of the dwellings to the north fronting Main Avenue north of the site; ■ Staff and visitors of the FASS facility east of the proposal site; ■ Pedestrians walking either side of Main Avenue and Joseph Street; and ■ Vehicles travelling along Main Avenue and Joseph Street.

7.3.3 Visual Impact Assessment

The proposed three storey development impacts minimally on adjacent residential development in terms of height, with similar heights to existing building on the proposed site. The waiting areas at the front of the facility respond to the scale of the homes in the housing estate across Main Avenue, while the main foyer encompasses three floors, forming an entrance appropriate for a civically significant public building.

All staff, service, and back of house activities will occur at the rear of the facility, with entry and exit points off Weeroona Road, so that there is limited visual impact to residential land. Landscape buffering and screening will be implemented to ensure there are no clear sight lines to external back of house areas. Additionally, all courtyards within the building are clearly separated from publicly accessible zones so that visual privacy is maintained.

The biggest impact will come from removal of trees as a result of the proposed works. The change to the views of residents, pedestrians and vehicles from what exists now will be significantly different as a result of the new FPCC building. However a landscape buffer with integrated security fencing along the Joseph Street boundary will provide a soft edge for pedestrians, while also acting as a visually deterring element. Along the western façade, windows to sensitive areas, in particular, the mortuary, are designed to be high level, to ensure visual privacy is maintained. Although there will be a substantial change in views into the site it is considered that the proposal will not create a significant deleterious visual impact on the amenity of the local area.

7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles

The FPCC is recognised as a high risk area for managing the safety and security of staff and visitors. Ensuring a safe environment for all has been a critical objective in the design of the new facility. Current policies and procedures will be followed to ensure contemporary regulations, occupational health and safety, and accreditation requirements are addressed. The design has been carried out in accordance with:

■ Protecting People and Property, NSW Health Policy and Standards for Security Risk Management in NSW Health Agencies, 2013;

■ Physical Security Management Guidelines – Australian Government, 2011; ■ NSW Health Policy & Standards for Security Risk Management in NSW Health Agencies, 2013;

and ■ Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles (CPTED).

A security report has been prepared for the proposed facility by the Jacobs Group. Due to the sensitivity of information contained within this report, it is not available for public distribution. The security for the facility has been designed around the following parameters:

■ Integrated Access Control & Intrusion Detection (ACID) System;


■ Fixed and Mobile Duress Alarm System (MDAS); ■ CCTV system to include an IP based Digital Video Management System (DVMS); ■ Intercommunications System; ■ Security Fencing; ■ Physical Barriers (including Gates and Bollards); and ■ Screening and Contraband Detection Equipment.

In terms of assessing the proposal security and crime prevention measures, the most appropriate document is the Department of Planning’s guideline titled Crime Prevention and the Assessment of Development Applications (2001). The design of the new building has taken into consideration the principles of CPTED, which are outlined in the aforementioned guideline. CPTED principles that need to be considered when designing to minimise crime:

■ Surveillance; ■ Access control; ■ Territorial reinforcement; and ■ Space management.

Table 7.2 below provides an assessment against the four principles of CPTED with regard to the proposed redevelopment.

Table 7.2 CPTED Assessment

CPTED Principles Comment Surveillance - The attractiveness of crime targets can be reduced by providing opportunities for effective surveillance, both natural and technical. Good surveillance means that people can see what others are doing. People feel safe in public areas when they can easily see and interact with others. Would-be offenders are often deterred from committing crime in areas with high levels of surveillance. From a design perspective, ‘deterrence’ can be achieved by:

■ Clear sightlines between public and private places;

■ Effective lighting of public places; ■ Landscaping that makes places attractive,

but does not provide offenders with a place to hide or entrap victims.

The following security and surveillance measures have been adopted in the design of the building:

■ The proposal is located within an existing high level security precinct and is adjacent to residential land uses (across from Main Avenue) which provides natural surveillance towards the front entrance and also the entrance area and outdoor seating area.

■ All access areas and pedestrian paths will be well lit and have security and camera surveillance.

■ 24 hour security coverage will be provided by appropriately trained security staff.

■ Visual oversight (either via CCTV or direct vision) of the main entrance and throughout the site and building will be provided.


CPTED Principles Comment Access Control - Physical and symbolic barriers can be used to attract, channel or restrict the movement of people. They minimise opportunities for crime and increase the effort required to commit crime. By making it clear where people are permitted to go or not go, it becomes difficult for potential offenders to reach and victimise people and their property. Illegible boundary markers and confusing spatial definition make it easy for criminals to make excuses for being in restricted areas. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the barriers are not tall or hostile, creating the effect of a compound. Effective access control can be achieved by creating:

■ Landscapes and physical locations that channel and group pedestrians into target areas.

■ Public spaces which attract, rather than discourage people from gathering.

■ Restricted access to internal areas or high-risk areas (like carparks or other rarely visited areas). This is often achieved through the use of physical barriers.

Access control will be achieved through the following measures:

■ Public access will be through the main entrance during business hours. Access after-hours will be via a secure area where there is a security presence.

■ All none public areas will be secure zones, with the capacity to lock down if required. Access to the secure zone will be via proximity card (or similar system) only.

■ All entrances and exits will be secure with appropriate access control devices. Secure external doors are to be linked to an alarm and duress system, and intercom with video and audible recognition located at external access points.

■ The FPCC building will also have the following access controls:

- Passive infrared movement detectors (PIR); - Reed switches; - Card Readers; - Fixed duress buttons; - Electronic Locking Devices; - Remote arming station(s); - Pedestrian gate (access controlled); and - Vehicle barriers.

Territorial Enforcement – Community ownership of public space sends positive signals. People often feel comfortable in, and are more likely to visit, places which feel owned and cared for. Well used places also reduce opportunities for crime and increase risk to criminals.

If people feel that they have some ownership of public space, they are more likely to gather and to enjoy that space. Community ownership also increases the likelihood that people who witness crime will respond by quickly reporting it or by attempting to prevent it. Territorial reinforcement can be achieved through:

■ Design that encourages people to gather in public space and to feel some responsibility for its use and condition.

■ Design with clear transitions and boundaries between public and private space.

■ Clear design cues on who is to use space and what it is to be used for. Care is needed to ensure that territorial reinforcement is not achieved by making public spaces private spaces, through gates and enclosures.

The following design principles and measures have been adopted to provide for territorial enforcement:

■ Provision of an attractive safe outdoor gathering space for staff and visitors outside the building.

■ Provision of an all-weather space. ■ Contemporary and attractive finishes. ■ Generous covered entry pathways to allow

ease of access for all visitors including less mobile patients.


CPTED Principles Comment Space Management - Popular public space is often attractive, well maintained and well used space. Linked to the principle of territorial reinforcement, space management ensures that space is appropriately utilised and well cared for. Space management strategies include activity coordination, site cleanliness, rapid repair of vandalism and graffiti, and the replacement of burned out pedestrian and car park lighting and the removal or refurbishment of decayed physical elements.

The following measures and principles have been adopted to ensure appropriate space management:

■ Locally sourced and very hardy planting schedule.

■ Implementation of an ongoing maintenance program.

■ Contemporary and attractive design of entry forecourt.

■ External surfaces will be selected with consideration of future cleaning, maintenance and durability.

A high level of importance has been placed on security and surveillance in the design of the proposal due to the high risk nature of the facility. It is considered that the proposed design measures will significantly reduce the risk of criminal activities. The proposal provides adequate public surveillance and does not provide opportunities for concealed criminal behaviour; therefore suitably addressing principles of crime prevention through environmental design.

7.5 Transport and Accessibility

Parking and Traffic Consultants were engaged to prepare a traffic impact assessment to determine the anticipated transport conditions in the vicinity of the proposal and to provide strategic design advice to ensure an appropriate transport network. This assessment includes consideration of the following:

■ The road network serving the development property; ■ The traffic activity associated with the development proposal and the adequacy of the surrounding

road network; ■ Proposed parking provision in the context of the relevant planning control requirements; ■ The proposed car park, vehicular access and internal circulation arrangements in relation to

compliance with the relevant standards; ■ Construction Traffic; and ■ Active Travel.

Parking and Traffic Consultants detailed traffic impact assessment can be viewed in Appendix D.

7.5.1 Existing Environment

The subject site is located approximately 14kms east of Sydney CBD and is situated between Joseph Street, Main Avenue and Weeroona Road. The site is well connected by the road network in all directions, including:

■ North – M4 Western Motorway (M4), Parramatta Road and A6 (Joseph Street), ■ South – Hume Highway, M5 and A6; ■ East – A22 (Hume Highway) and A34 (Milperra Road); and ■ West – A22 and M4.

7.5.1.1 Public transport


The transport environment at the proposed site is served by multiple transport modes that are potentially available to staff and public, including road, bus and heavy rail. The site is served by four bus routes located approximately 350m from the site. Lidcombe and Berala Railway Stations are located approximately 2kms from the site. Cycle paths are accessible from all directions, due to the good road network. In some instances, cyclists are required to share the road with motor vehicles. Some of these roads are major arterial routes, which may deter some cyclists from using them.

Walkers are only likely to be staff working at the site; however staff on early morning or late evening/ night shifts would be unlikely to walk, for safety reasons, unless living in very close proximity to the proposed site. A comprehensive review of public transport and other alternative transport options is provided in Appendix D.

7.5.1.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

Typical daily traffic volumes are not presented in this assessment as the road network has been assessed on the basis of the peak traffic activity. In this regard, the modelling and projected traffic activity has been established to include the key morning and afternoon periods, which represents the peak loads and therefore worst case scenarios.

To identify the existing traffic conditions, video survey counts were undertaken at 5 locations around the site. These surveys were undertaken on Wednesday 18 May 2016 between 6:00am and 8:00am and 2:30pm and 4:30pm. These periods were selected in order to identify the morning and afternoon peaks associated with the peak arrivals and departures from the site. The traffic data collected established that the peak periods at the following intersections were as follows:

1. Botanical Drive and Joseph Street - Morning peak – 06.30 to 07.30 (4,531 vehicles) - Afternoon peak – 15.30 to 16.30 (4,622 vehicles)

2. Main Avenue and Joseph Street - Morning peak – 06.30 to 07.30 (4,394 vehicles) - Afternoon peak – 15.30 to 16.30 (4,467 vehicles)

3. Weeroona Road and Joseph Street - Morning peak – 07.00 to 08.00 (5,314 vehicles) - Afternoon peak – 15.30 to 16.30 (5,622 vehicles)

4. Botanica Dr and Main Avenue - Morning peak – 07.00 to 08.00 (95 vehicles) - Afternoon peak – 15.30 to 16.30 (109 vehicles)

5. Weeroona Rd and Main Avenue - Morning peak – 07.00 to 08.00 (506 vehicles) - Afternoon peak – 15.30 to 16.30 (546 vehicles)


7.5.1.3 Existing intersection Level of Service

In order to confirm the current operation of the intersection, an assessment was undertaken by PTC using the SIDRA Intersection Network modelling software (Version 6.1), which presents a range of performance indicators (Level of Service, Average Delay, etc). The following intersections were modelled:

■ Main Avenue and Weeroona Road; ■ Main Avenue and Botanica Drive; ■ Main Avenue and Joseph Street; ■ Botanica Drive and Joseph Street; and ■ Weeroona Road and Joseph Street.

Based on the traffic volumes, the results indicate the abovementioned intersections, with the exception of Weeroona Road and Joseph Street provide an acceptable level of service ranging between A to B during the peak AM and PM Peaks. This indicates that the intersections are currently providing a satisfactory level of service with minimal delay. In regards to the intersection of Weeroona Road and Joseph Street, the results indicate the intersection currently operates beyond its practical capacity where the average delay exceeds 70 seconds during the AM peak.

7.5.2 Traffic Assessment

7.5.2.1 Traffic Generation

Due to the range of services that the proposed site will offer, the traffic activity associated with the proposal has been derived by reviewing the anticipated peak parking demand generated by the site. Previous parking investigations undertaken by PTC in 2015 had identified that the parking demand generated by the proposal at any time would require approximately 182 parking spaces, consisting of:

■ 87 staff parking spaces (the pathology department, counsellors and magistrate and coroners court staff);

■ 71 public parking spaces (relative and friend viewings and public court attendance); and ■ 24 other parking spaces (Couriers/Engineers, Police and others).

Overall traffic generation (combined staff, other and public component) of the development should generate a morning peak of 155 two-way vehicles trips and an afternoon peak of 135 two-way vehicle trips. The worst case daily traffic flows generated by the development is in the order of 346 two-way vehicle trips. This assumes that all 4 courts are in session at one time which generates up to 45 one-way vehicle trips arriving/departing at the public car park during each peak periods. In reality, the operation of the courts does not form part of the typical daily operation of the site, as these events are likely to occur only 3 times a month.

7.5.2.2 Traffic distribution

Due to the various uses on site, the public and staff car park areas are separated within the design. The public car park is provided within the northern side of the development site with a singular access and egress driveway located on the Main Avenue frontage. The staff car park is provided within the southern side of the development site with a singular access and egress driveways located on the Weeroona Road frontage.


Parking and Traffic Consultants assumed that road users would predominantly utilise the shortest route available to the closest State/regional road. The assumed access and egress to the development is presented in Plate 7.4.

Plate 7.4 Assumed Access and Egress

Source: Parking and Traffic Consultants 2016

7.5.2.3 Traffic Generation

In order to assess the sole impact associated with the project, a sensitivity assessment of the background traffic growth has been undertaken at 5 and 10 years with and without development. This adopted an annual growth rate of 1.2% applied all roads surveyed. A 1.2% growth rate has adopted as this represents the growth in the 5 year (2011-2016) historical Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes referenced from a RMS permanent count stations located on Joseph Street, south of the intersection between Weeroona Avenue and Joseph Street.

Intersection modelling undertaken by PTC indicates that during the morning and afternoon peak periods the following intersections would continue to operate similar to the existing situation as a result of the proposal:

■ Main Avenue and Weeroona Road; ■ Main Avenue and Botanica Drive; ■ Main Avenue and Joseph Street; and ■ Botanica Drive and Joseph Street;

In this regard, the development proposal would not cause any detrimental impact on the operation of the road network at these intersections in the context of the existing traffic activity. The traffic distribution assumes between 131-135 total trips would utilise the Joseph Street and Weeroona Avenue intersection to access the FPCC site during the peak hour periods. As such this intersection would experience the greatest increase in average delay. The traffic modelling undertaken by PTC (refer Appendix D) indicates that that all intersections would continue to operate beyond their practical capacity where the average delay exceeds 70 seconds during both peak periods with and without development. When an intersection operates at a level of Service F, a small increase in traffic


entering the intersection would result in the average delay increasing at an exponential rate.

Typically, the traffic impact associated with a development is measured against existing road conditions and, if a negative impact is likely, road or intersection works may be required to counter this impact, i.e. to retain the current road conditions following the completion of the development. The analysis has been undertaken based on a worse case assessment whereby all potential FPCC traffic arrive and depart the site. It has been assumed that all potential FPCC traffic would arrive and depart the site during the key site peak periods, where in reality arrivals and departures would be typically spread throughout the day. The modelled scenario demonstrated that the road network would continue to operate with similar levels of average delay capacity following the completion of the FPCC, if background growth is not included. Incorporating the background growth (1.2%) modelled, the results show that the road network will still continue to operate well, with the exception of the intersection between Weeroona Road and Joseph Street. The results indicate that traffic demand at this intersection is already experiencing excessive delays with a level of service F.

7.5.2.4 Road Network Improvements

Concern has been raised regarding the potential short cutting through the Botanica Estate adjacent to the public access off Main Avenue from users departing the of the FPCC. Consideration could be given to restricting the exiting to a left in/left out arrangement within the public car park by means of a central median along Main Avenue. However, this would restrict public access to and from the opposite roadway leading from the Botanica Estate wanting to turn right towards Joseph Street. Further stakeholder and public consultation should be undertaken to determine what options would be suitable to mitigate these impacts. To mitigate the need for a raised central median, the design may consider incorporating wayfinding guidance signage within the property boundary on exit. The provision of way-finding signage would direct and reinforce drivers to utilise the most suitable route of travel to access the greater road network.

7.5.3 Car parking assessment

Car parking rates required for a variety of commercial land uses are outlined within Auburn DCP 2010. However due to the unique operational requirements for the proposed facilities, a separate parking demand study was prepared to established the future operational requirements of the Pathology and Coroners Court. The study did not benchmark the existing site parking and traffic requirements due to the different operational environment. In summary, the study concluded that the FPCC would require a minimum of 183 parking spaces to accommodate the anticipated parking demand generated by the uses and the number of employees/visitors to the site. This requirement was estimated using user group information supplied by the Forensic Pathology, Coroners’ Court and Counsellors. Where information was not available, data from other comparable health-related sites and from onsite observations was adopted. Details relating to the calculation of parking demand associated with the site have been adopted from the PTC Parking Demand Study (refer Appendix D), which suggests a maximum parking demand of 183 parking spaces. The proposal will provide 188 parking spaces (plus 3 pickup/drop off spaces) for the various user groups, which exceeds the minimum spaces required.

7.5.4 Bicycle Provision

Bicycle parking is an important element in encouraging active travel as part of the journey to work. To promote active transport, Auburn DCP 2010 requires all developments with a total gross floor area exceeding 100 m2 make provision for the parking of bicycles. In selecting an appropriate rate for bicycle spaces, reference is made to Section 5.1.4 of the DCP, which outlines car parking for


commercial developments. In reference to this section, it has been assessed that the site primarily operates as a Business and Office Premises. A Business and Office Premises requires the provision of bicycle spaces on site at a rate of 1 bicycle space per 10 employees which is a minimum requirement. It is understood the proposed site would accommodate up to 91 employees at any one time, therefore the minimum number of bicycle spaces is 9.1 bicycle spaces (91 employees/1 bicycle space per 10 employees).

The design provides eleven bicycle spaces within an enclosed room. The DCP does not identify bicycle parking provisions to visitors as such, however a provision of 2 bicycle racks have been provided within the design to assist with promoting alternative active travel options to the site.

7.5.5 Construction traffic

The Parking and Traffic Consultants report (refer Appendix D) includes a preliminary construction traffic management plan (CTMP). A comprehensive CTMP will be developed following the engagement of project contractor(s), whereby accurate construction traffic and parking demands and impact mitigation strategies will be developed and implemented.

Parking and Traffic Consultants undertook a preliminary review of available routes and access/ egress for construction vehicles into the site. All construction vehicles would enter and exit via the southern access leading from Weeroona Road as it benefits from access from all directions. The use of the access to the north should be limited only to small site vehicles due to its proximity to residential land uses. A potential construction vehicle access and egress route that may serve the site is presented in Plate 7.5.


Plate 7.5 Construction Vehicle Route Plan

Source: Parking and Traffic Consultants 2016

The construction project will involve the use of a number of different vehicle types in relation to the various tasks involved. The project involves the construction of a Health facility and additional roadworks which will require delivery of various materials including reinforcement, concrete, asphaltic concrete, road pavement, concrete kerb and gutter and footpaths and drainage. This requires delivery of building and pavement materials and will typically involve the use of a vehicle type up to a ‘Articulated Vehicle” (19m in length) and “truck and trailer” combination (20m in length), as well as concrete agitators for the delivery of concrete to a pump location. Other deliveries to the site will involve a mix of small trucks and vans.


During the works the number of the workers on site will vary throughout the various construction stages. Details of the anticipated number construction workers on site will be provided at a later design stage once the proposed design layout has been agreed with all stakeholders. Subsequent to this, the TMP will be updated to incorporate the anticipated number of construction works on site. This information would be used to establish the required size of on-street parking required within the site. The availability of parking on-site should be restricted to encourage, contractors and site personnel to adopt car-pooling and public transport.

7.5.6 Conclusion

The traffic activity associated with the development generating an additional 155 two-way vehicle trips in the AM Peak and 135 two-way vehicle trips will not have any detrimental impact on the operation of the surrounding road network. The proposed parking provision of 188 spaces (plus 3 drop off spaces) on site which addresses the maximum parking demand that may be generated by the site which is 183 spaces. In order to promote active travel to the site, a provision of 10 bicycle parking spaces has been provided within a secure room for staff, whilst an additional 2 bicycle racks are provided for the public. The parking and vehicular access arrangements have been designed in accordance with the relevant standard, being AS2890.1, AS2890.2 and AS2890.6.

7.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

7.6.1 Overview

Steensen Varming Australia Pty LTD have prepared a Green Star Feasibility report for the proposed FPCC which is attached as Appendix M. The purpose of the report is to develop a set of Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) initiatives for the facility based on:

■ NSW Health requirements (In particular: Design Guidance Note No 6 Rev B); ■ HI Engineering services guides; ■ Environmental Performance Guide for buildings (EPGB); ■ NSW Government Sustainability Policy; and ■ NCC (BCA) Section-J.

The inclusion of an ESD scope within the project aims to ensure the project responds appropriately to the principles of sustainable design and ensure HI continues to deliver environmentally responsible projects. The ESD scope prepared within the report aims to address key performance areas identified within NSW HI Engineering Guidelines, including:

■ Energy & Greenhouse Gas Emissions; ■ Sustainability Targets; ■ Potable Water Demand Reduction; ■ Sustainable Material Selection; ■ Maintenance & Logistical Support; and ■ Emerging Technologies.

7.6.2 Sustainable Design Approach

Sustainable building design comes from a holistic and integrated design approach that builds on an increased awareness of site opportunities, form and function. It needs to encompass and target a broad range of topics; that include energy, water, indoor environmental quality, materials, and waste


minimisation. The greatest challenge for buildings of this type is to reduce their energy consumption, while maintaining their specific functional needs. Buildings such as the Forensics Pathology and Coroners Court buildings are complex as they consist of a wide range of functional and servicing requirements that place a high demand on energy and water consumption, and can lead to substantial waste generation. To reduce the high energy and water demands, suitable and appropriate sustainable design initiatives have been considered and implemented in the design of the FPCC proposal in order to achieve an environmentally sensitive and energy efficient building. As part of a holistic design approach the concept design has considered:

■ Site selection; ■ Positioning, massing and orientation of buildings; ■ Occupant comfort; ■ Energy and water reduction; ■ Material selection; ■ Emissions reduction; and ■ Waste reduction.

7.6.3 Key design considerations

7.6.3.1 Minimisation of resource consumption

Healthcare facilities offer a considerable challenge in their sustainable design approach. They generate vast amounts of waste, are heavy users of materials, energy and water. They incur high chemical use, infection control and strong regulatory requirements. Notwithstanding this a 4 Star Green Star Equivalency rating is being pursued for the project in accordance with the project brief. This demonstrates the projects commitment to the practice of sustainable design during the design, construction and operation of this facility. Further details of the measures to reduce resource consumption are outlined in Appendix M.

7.6.3.2 Natural daylight & daylight uniformity

Promote natural daylight to all administrative areas, general circulation and courtroom spaces. The main drivers for the promotion of daylight are as follows:

■ Reduced energy consumption associated with electric lighting; ■ Benefits to human health and well-being; and ■ Appearances of space.

7.6.3.3 Secure places of respite

Terraces and internal courtyards provide a secure and easily accessible breakout space for the happiness and wellbeing of staff. Places of respite have been proven to rejuvenate the senses and reduce stress levels for employees. Secure places or respite have been applied on all levels as identified below:

■ Level 0 - For the mortuary staff & counselling; ■ Level 1 - For general staff; and ■ Level 2 - For the courts and coroners suites staff.


7.6.3.4 Mixed mode ventilation

In opting for a mixed mode ventilation strategy, large energy savings can be achieved in comparison to a standard air-conditioning approach. There are two main drivers for natural ventilation:

■ Stack or buoyancy ventilation which works on the principal of hot air rising due to a density difference. Hot air inside will rise and accumulate at roof level where it will be exhausted, this results in cooler fresh air being drawn in at low level.

■ Cross ventilation occurs when two opposite sides of the building have openings that promote external breezes to pass through due to a difference in pressure created across the two facades. Through utilizing existing openings in the east and west facades of the atrium, cross ventilation could be maximised through the foyer and adjacent spaces.

The current arrangement facilitates the use of mixed mode ventilation in the courtroom waiting areas. For the vast majority of a typical day, these spaces are subject to a minimal number of occupants and internal loads, making the acceptable to a passive servicing approach. Limitations to this strategy include traffic noise from Joseph Street combined with the often acoustic sensitive nature of the courtroom spaces.

7.6.3.5 High performance and climate responsive façade design

The optimisation of the building envelope can contribute significantly to occupant experience, enhanced thermal comfort and improved system efficiency. In optimising the building envelope the design is attempting to achieve the correct balance between competing factors such as daylight, glare, solar heat gain, comfort, views and connectivity, building aesthetics and architectural intent.

The proposed building design is positioned in the north / south axis, creating a high proportion of eastern and western façade area. It’s well known that east/ west orientated solar is challenging to control against due to the rapid change in altitude and the suns position. Effective strategies for solar control include high performance glass, internal reflective blinds, vertical shading devices, awnings, natural shading from trees, and southerly orientated pop out windows among others.

7.6.4 Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development

The proposal has also been assessed against the ESD principles outlined in Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 which is summarised below.

7.6.4.1 The precautionary principle

Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 states “the precautionary principle”, namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

1. “Careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment.

2. An assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options’”.

In the case of the proposal, the precautionary principle has been applied in the Environmental Assessment (Section 7) undertaken for the proposal. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal would be minor due to the nature of the works which are predominantly restricted to the existing highly

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/epaar2000480/s164a.html#application


disturbed nature of the site. The proposal is required to address the need to upgrade FPCC services to a modern contemporary standard and improve the level of service to the State of NSW. All works would be undertaken in accordance with the safeguards outlined in Sections 8 of this EIS.

7.6.4.2 Intergenerational equity

Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 defines inter-generational equity as “the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations”.

The proposal would not significantly affect the viability of local or threatened species, or any EECs or other environmental resources including water, soil and air. Therefore local environmental values would not be substantially adversely affected by the proposal and would be maintained for future generations. Without the works proceeding, the level of FPCC services provided to the State of NSW would continue to decline. Overall, the socio-economic, safety and environmental safety benefits of the proposal would occur only at limited minimal potential environmental expense.

7.6.4.3 Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 requires the “conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity”, namely, that conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

The impacts to ecological integrity and conservation of biological diversity at the site have been thoroughly assessed as part of this EIS. No threatened species, endangered populations or EECs are likely to be affected by the proposal. No populations of native species are likely to be made locally rare or unviable as a result of the proposal. Consequently the ecological integrity and biological diversity would be maintained at the site.

7.6.4.4 Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms

The following principles of valuation, pricing and incentive as per Schedule 2 of the EPAR 2000 are acknowledged as part of this review:

■ Polluter pays, that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement.

■ The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste.

■ Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

This EIS has undertaken a thorough assessment of potential impacts and consequently has developed a set of mitigation measures and safeguards to ensure sound environmental practices and outcomes. The capital investment of the Proposal includes expenditure on ensuring that the building includes adequate ESD measures.


7.7 Aboriginal Heritage

7.7.1 Due diligence approach

An Aboriginal heritage (due diligence) assessment was undertaken by GML Heritage for the proposed development (refer Appendix J). The objective of the due diligence assessment was to determine if there are any areas that have potential to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage and to assess whether the proposed development will destructively impact upon known and/or concealed heritage sites. The approach to the preparation of the due diligence assessment was based on the following current best practice guidelines including:

■ DECCW, Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (13 September 2010) (Due Diligence Code of Practice);

■ DECCW, Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (24 September 2010);

■ DECCW, Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010. Part 6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (April 2010) (OEH 2010 guide); and

■ Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 2013 (the Burra Charter).

The due diligence assessment involved the following tasks:

■ AHIMS database search. ■ Identification of landscape features that indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects. ■ Discussion with respect to the extent of the development footprint. ■ Desktop assessment and visual inspection carried out with a member of the Local Area Land

Council. ■ Further investigation and impact assessment.

7.7.2 Site history/disturbance

The study area has a long history of disturbance due to previous and existing land uses. Historical plans of the study area indicate that it was cleared of brush by 1912 and situated on the south side of what is now Main Avenue, the key access road to the Lidcombe Hospital site from Joseph Street. By 1921 a railway corridor was introduced to the southern boundary of the study area. A concrete-lined canal likely associated with stormwater and the irrigation system employed at Lidcombe Hospital (still visible today) extending northwest–southeast across the study area is visible in an aerial photograph of the site from 1930. Beyond this channel, the study area generally remained open, cleared of brush and without further development until after 1930.

By 1965 the portion of land which now comprises the study area was excised from the Lidcombe Hospital site and established as a Commonwealth Laboratory. An aerial photograph of the study area from 1965 illustrates that an additional two medical officers’ residences were constructed along the northern boundary, along with several long narrow buildings (extant) in the northeast corner of the study area. Construction of the large U-shaped building at the centre of the study area, currently used by the NSW Forensic and Analytical Science Service (FASS), was underway in 1965.


By 1970, development of the site extended no further south than the U-shaped FASS building. Between 1970 and the present, several substantial buildings were constructed along the southern boundary of the study area and within the southeast corner. A Mineral Resources Building was constructed in the southwest corner of the study area after 1970. At present, the study area contains laboratories for multiple state agencies including the OEH, the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and FASS.

7.7.3 Aboriginal heritage significance

The assessment by GML Heritage of the environmental context within which the study area is located suggests that there is generally low potential for Aboriginal objects. Predictive modelling for the Cumberland Plain suggests that given the distance to water sources, the absence of lithic resources and the landforms present, it is most likely that the study area would have been used for more ephemeral activities unlikely to result in a material record. The construction of substantial facility buildings across the site, particularly to the south and east, would have removed all soil condition and integrity. In terms of predictive modelling, it may be stated that the study area does not contain previously recorded Aboriginal sites. A review of the local landscape context in association with the AHIMS search suggests that the study area has low potential for Aboriginal objects and/or buried soil horizons below the current surface level.

With respect to soil condition and integrity, the entire study area has been subject to vegetation clearance. This may have affected soil integrity, but is unlikely to have altered its condition. However, the process of development evident across approximately two-thirds of the study area appears extensive and would have impacted both soil condition and integrity. As such, these areas associated with development hold very low to no Aboriginal archaeological potential.

7.7.4 Potential impacts

The due diligence assessment prepared by GML Heritage concluded that there is a very low likelihood of the Aboriginal objects occurring within the area of the proposed development. This is primarily due to the location of the site away from landforms likely to have a high potential to contain Aboriginal sites and the extent of previous land disturbance to the site. There were also no recorded Aboriginal sites listed on the OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) sites register within the subject site.

The due diligence assessment provides recommended mitigation measures for the proposal which should be adopted if it is approved. These measures and include:

■ Once the initial soil stripping is complete, a member form the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council be invited to inspect the soil horizons in the Zone 2B locality (refer Appendix J); and

■ An unexpected finds procedure be adopted in place in the event of the discovery of any Aboriginal objects during construction (refer Section 9.2).


7.8 Non-Aboriginal Heritage

7.8.1 Heritage assessment approach

GBA Heritage were engaged to undertake a Non-Aboriginal Heritage analysis of the subject site in which the report evaluated the potential heritage impact of the redevelopment in relation to the adjacent Former Lidcombe Hospital Conservation Area and the Mintali Special School (residence) located to the south across railway lines. This report is attached as Appendix I.

The main objective of this Statement of Heritage Impact is to analyse the overall heritage impact of the proposed development in relation to the Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) specified in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) and the guidelines endorsed by the NSW Heritage Council. This Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared in accordance with guidelines outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, known as The Burra Charter, and the New South Wales Heritage Office (now the Heritage Division of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage) publication, NSW Heritage Manual.

7.8.2 The existing site

Much of the subject site is open space characterised by grassy areas and stands of mature trees. It encompasses three single storey houses with terracotta roofs along the northern boundary, each with rear sheds and/ or garages. A fourth house is adjacent to the west, as is an existing three storey laboratory. A thick strand of mature trees is immediately south. Plate 7.6 below compares a 1943 aerial photograph with a modern aerial image of Main Avenue and the subject site.


Source: GBA 2016

Plate 7.6 Historical Aerial Imagery

According to GBA 2016 assessment, the proposal is within and adjacent to the Former Lidcombe Hospital Site, Heritage Conservation Area (this includes the roadway connecting the subject site with Main Avenue). This area is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of the Auburn LEP 2010. The assessment identified that Cumberland Council does not have a formal Statement of Significance for the Former Lidcombe Hospital Site, Heritage Conservation Area. The NSW Heritage Council lists the Lidcombe Hospital Precinct in the NSW Heritage Register as an item of State heritage significance. This state listing has the same boundary as the listing in ALEP 2010.

7.8.3 Potential impacts

The heritage significance of Main Avenue, within the Former Lidcombe Hospital Conservation Area, demonstrates the historic development pattern of the former hospital and the aesthetic qualities of remnant pines. These aspects of Main Avenue’s significance will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development will not impact on the vista up and down Main Avenue. The design of the new driveway access to/from Main Avenue and the upgrade of the existing driveway are to be detailed in consultation with the project landscape consultants and the project arborist to ensure the existing pine and palm trees along Man Avenue are not impacted upon.


The proposed FPCC building is approximately 250m from the Former Lidcombe Hospital Site Heritage Conservation Area: the Village Green and surrounding hospital buildings. The proposed building will be obscured from this section of the former hospital site by existing two storey lab buildings that sit on rising topography to the east of the subject site. A spread of mature eucalyptus trees and other vegetation will almost completely block any views to and from the historic hospital buildings to the proposed development.

The proposed access will not adversely impact any avenue trees or the ability for Main Avenue to demonstrate the historic development pattern of the area. As such, the significance of Main Avenue within the listed Former Lidcombe Hospital Site Conservation Area will not be adversely affected. The proposed access will remove minor sections of hedging, grass lawn and a planted garden bed. None of these elements are identified as significant elements of the Former Lidcombe Hospital Conservation Heritage Area.

There is one other listed heritage item in the vicinity of the proposed development (Mintali Special School, early twentieth century residence) which is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of ALEP 2010. This heritage item is located approximately 350m from the proposed building and is visually separated from it by a railway line and intervening development, including high boundary walls to the neighbouring Juniperina Juvenile Justice Centre. The proposed development will not be visible from this listed heritage item and will have no adverse heritage impact on it.

7.8.4 Findings

The Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by GBA Heritage has determined that the proposal will not have a significant heritage impact on:

■ Former Lidcombe Hospital Site Heritage Conservation Area, which is listed as an item of local heritage significance in Schedule 5 of the Auburn LEP 2010 and included on the State Heritage Register as the Lidcombe Hospital Precinct; or

■ The Mintali Special School located at 169 Joseph Street, Lidcombe which is which is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of ALEP 2010.

Furthermore, the report identifies no heritage impediment to the consent authority granting approval to the proposed development.

7.9 Noise and Vibration

ARUP were engaged by Health Infrastructure to assess impacts from construction and operational noise from the proposal which is attached as Appendix N. This Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment:

■ Assesses the existing noise environment; ■ Describes the proposed works; ■ Documents the likely construction and operational noise impacts of the proposal on the noise

sensitive receivers; and ■ Details protective measures to be implemented.


7.9.1 Existing Noise Environment

Arup have undertaken measurements of the existing noise environment using noise loggers. Plate 7.7 shows the proposed site location, adjoining residential areas and the location of the noise monitoring locations.

Plate 7.7 Works location, adjoining residential receivers and noise logger locations

A summary of measured unattended broadband noise levels is provided in Table 7.3. Results are presented under day, evening and night time periods as defined in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

Table 7.3 Summary of Measured Noises Indices

Location Time Period Rating Background Level (RBL) – dB(A)

LAeq (period) , dB

Location 1 – West of site

Day (7:00 – 18:00) 50 61 Evening (18:00 – 22:00) 49 60 Night (22:00 – 7:00) 44 59

Location 2 – North of site

Day (7:00 – 18:00) 47 57 Evening (18:00 – 22:00) 46 56 Night (22:00 – 7:00) 43 54


The variation of noise during a typical weekday on site is shown in Figure 7.1 below.

Figure 7.1 Variation of noise during a typical weekday

7.9.2 Construction Noise Assessment

7.9.2.1 Noise Limits

Guidance on noise levels is given in the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines for NSW (ICNG). This proposes that if construction noise exceeds the RBL (refer Table 7.2 above) by up to 10 dB then the area can be considered as being ‘noise affected’. Noise levels above 75 dB(A) are considered ‘highly noise affected’ and specific measures should be implemented. The RBL for the site is 47 dB(A) (location 2 for daytime).

7.9.2.2 Source Noise Levels

Indicative construction activity noise source levels have been assumed for the proposed construction works, based on previous construction noise assessments for building projects conducted by Arup and on the likely construction methodology.


The following major construction activities have been modelled:

■ Demolition ■ Excavation ■ Sheet piling ■ Construction.

7.9.2.3 Predicted construction noise levels

The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment calculated construction noise impacts as a result of the works. The report determined that even with “feasible and reasonable” mitigation levels in place, the Noise Affected Level is predicted to be exceeded at residential receivers (for all activities) and at all receivers (for construction works). However provided that construction works occur during standard hours, no additional mitigation measures are required to be considered under the ICNG. However, if out of hours work (OOHW) is required as part of the FPCC construction works, construction noise levels would be more than 5 dB(A) above the Noise Affected Level for OOHW at residential receivers. This would trigger additional administrative measures to be determined in consultation with the affected community and the consent authority, e.g. provision of respite periods.

7.9.2.4 Construction Noise Management

The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment recommends that a Construction Noise Management Plan be prepared prior to works commencing.

7.9.3 Vibration Impacts

Vibration from the works is not expected to cause a significant impact. ARUP have determined that vibration can be controlled as part of a vibration management plan. Requirements for this plan are included in the noise and vibration impact assessment (refer Appendix N).

7.9.4 Operational Noise Impacts

The noise and vibration assessment report prepared by ARUP has undertaken an assessment of the mechanical services noise impact based on preliminary selection of major mechanical plant equipment (i.e. air-handling units, cooling towers, chillers) and schematic design mechanical drawings. Predicted noise levels from mechanical plant at the most affected noise sensitive residential receiver are summarised in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Predicted Noise Levels from FPCC plantroom

Receiver Predicted Level Time Period Criteria Compliance Residential

receivers north of the FPCC site

44 dB

Day 47 dB Yes Evening 46 dB Yes night 44 dB Yes

Source: ARUP 2016

The screening calculations undertaken by ARUP indicate that typical mechanical equipment associated with the FPCC building is likely to comply with the project noise criteria at nearby receivers. However compliance will be subject to the individual items of plant selected, and the cumulative impact from all items of plant must be considered as part of ongoing design. As ongoing design of the


FPCC building continues, plant selection will be refined, sited and (if necessary) fitted with noise mitigation measures such as attenuators, acoustic louvres or acoustic screening so that the specified noise criteria is not exceeded.

7.9.5 Noise Mitigation

Until the contractor is appointed and he has determined the construction methods and programme it is not possible to undertake detailed predictions of the noise levels that will be generated. However, it will be made a specific requirement of the Contractor’s scope that they deal effectively with construction noise and vibration by planning, mitigation and consultation. They will be required to comply with the requirements of the appropriate codes – particularly any Cumberland Council Construction Policy and Interim Construction Noise Guideline for NSW. This will include:

■ Appointing a named member of the site staff who will act as the Responsible Person with respect to noise and vibration.

■ Ensuring that the Responsible Person keeps the local community advised on expected activities. ■ Ensuring that the Responsible Person checks the conditions of the powered equipment used on

site daily to ensure plant is properly maintained and that noise is kept as low as practicable. ■ Ensuring that the Responsible Person controls the working hours on site to ensure that work is

only done during the acceptable periods as defined in the Interim Construction Noise Guideline for NSW (7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays and 8:00 am to 1:00 pm on Saturdays. No work on Sundays).

■ Ensuring that noise levels are kept as low as is reasonably practicable and providing appropriate and safe noise mitigation methods following the guidance in AS2436-1981: Guide to noise control on construction, maintenance and demolition sites.

■ Ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the limits specified in the Interim Construction Noise Guideline for NSW.

■ Maintaining appropriate records of complaints.

7.10 Soils

7.10.1 Geotechnical Investigations

A Geotechnical investigation was undertaken by Coffey Geotechnics Australia Pty Ltd (refer to Appendix O) for the construction of the proposed Forensic Pathology & Coroners Court. The aim of the investigation was to assess the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions across the site in order to provide:

■ An assessment of the geotechnical suitability of the site for the proposed development; ■ Recommendations on site preparation and earthworks; ■ Recommendations on excavations and retaining structures; ■ An appropriate foundation system for the proposed development, including an assessment of

allowable bearing pressures and likely settlements; ■ Suitable parameters for the design of new pavements; and ■ Recommendation on asphalt service roads/car park pavements. The geotechnical investigation consisted of a desktop analysis and drilling eight cored boreholes within the proposed building to depths of between 7 m and 10 m. Six large diameter boreholes were also drilled to 2 m depths within the public/ staff car parking, the funeral parking area and along the southern access track (refer to Plate 7.8).


Source: Coffey Geotechnical Investigation Report 2016

Plate 7.8 Location of the Geotechnical Investigations


7.10.1.1 Desktop analysis

The Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet (9130 Edition 1 1983) indicates that the site is underlain by Bringelly Shale of the Wainamatta Group. Bringelly Shale typically consists of dark grey to black shale, laminate with bands of carbonaceous claystone and lithic sandstone. The Soil Landscape Series Sheet (9130 Edition 1983) indicates that the site is underlain by residual podzolic “Blacktown” soils notes that potential issues for development on this soil may include moderate reactivity, high plasticity subsoils. 1943 aerial photographs of the site indicate the landscape at the time comprised of naturally undulating slopes with natural gullies where the existing concrete lined drains are now located. In 1943 the site was vacant comprising open grassed areas with trees located along the western boundary and the centre of the site. The Botany Bay 1:25,000 Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map (9130S3 Edition 2 1997) indicates that the site is within the area of no known occurrence of acid sulfate soils.

7.10.1.2 Subsurface conditions

The subsurface geotechnical investigation undertaken by Coffey indicated the following:

■ Fill between 0.3 m and 2.0 m thick, consisting of variable clay, gravel and cobbles; ■ Residual soil consisting of high plasticity silty clay, generally very stiff to hard consistency with a

trace of fine to medium gravel sized ironstone fragments. The top of this unit occurred generally between 0.1 m and 1.1 m below ground surface;

■ Extremely to highly weathered, very low to low strength shale, encountered below the residual soil. The top of this unit occurred between 1.5 m and 2.5 m below ground surface; and

■ Moderately to slightly weathered, low to medium strength shale. The top of this unit was encountered between 2.7 m and 6.5 m below ground surface, with the deepest weathering encountered to the south and west of the site.

7.10.1.3 Groundwater

Standpipes were installed in two boreholes to assess groundwater levels. Groundwater was encountered at 3.96 metres at one borehole and 5.34m at the other. It is expected that groundwater seepage will be experienced during footing construction, particularly where piled footings are constructed within the material in the southern and western extents of the site. Based on Coffeys experience with similar projects, it is expected that seepage through rock defects into open bored piles will be controllable during construction by conventional sump pumping methods. Where seepage beyond typical conditions is observed during construction, consideration should be made to the use of bentonite slurry or similar to avoid compromising concrete placement.

7.10.1.4 Findings

The investigations determined that the there are no significant geotechnical constraints for the FPCC proposal. The report provides various recommendations in regard to:

■ Building Foundations ■ Excavations ■ Earthworks ■ Groundwater.


7.10.2 Acid Sulfate Soils

The site is located within land mapped as Class 5 (pursuant to ALEP 2010) and has a low probability of ASS occurrence. ALEP 2010 requires development consent for works within 500 m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5.0 m Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1.0 m Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land. The proposal is above 30.0 m AHD. The proposal will therefore not impact on ASS

7.10.3 Contamination

7.10.3.1 Overview

Coffey Geotechnics Australia Pty Ltd (Coffey) was engaged to investigate soil contamination in the northern portion of the site where development activity is proposed. Coffey carried out a Stage 1 Initial Contamination Assessment and a Stage 2 Contamination Assessment for the proposed FPCC development. The Stage 2 Contamination Assessment is attached as Appendix H. The objectives of the assessment were to:

■ investigate potential surface and subsurface contamination underlying the site to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed redevelopment; and

■ assess what remediation works, if any, may be required to make the site suitable for the proposed redevelopment.

The assessment involved:

■ Intrusive site investigation works (including drilling, sampling); ■ Laboratory analysis of samples; ■ Interpretation of the data; and ■ Assessment of the suitability of the site for the proposed redevelopment.

Plate 7.9 shows the location of the sampling regime across the site.

This report has been prepared in general accordance with industry and NSW EPA guidelines, particularly the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites (NSW OEH, 2011), relevant sections of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (the ASC NEPM) (NEPC 1999, amended 2013) and State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land. It should be noted that this Contamination Investigation included an assessment of the disused cottages which are to be removed as part of a separate proposal/activity.


Source: Coffey Contamination Assessment Report 2016

Plate 7.9 Sampling and Borehole Locations

7.10.3.2 Findings of the contamination assessment

Results from the stage 2 contamination investigation indicated that:

■ All samples collected during this investigation returned results below human and environmental assessment criteria for commercial/industrial land use. Sampling and analysis of the parts of the site with minimal potential for impact from previous use was sufficient to provide a representative assessment which was supplemented by judgemental sampling and analysis in areas where potential for impact was suspected.

■ Fill soils classify as GSW under the six step procedure documented within NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste. A waste classification of GSW allows these soils to be reused onsite (subsequent to geotechnical classification) or exported offsite as GSW.

■ Natural soil horizons below fill soils satisfy the definition of VENM allowing this material to be reused onsite or exported offsite as VENM.


It is therefore concluded that a Remedial Action Plan is not required for the site based on the findings of the report contained at Appendix H.

7.10.3.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings, Coffey recommended that the contractor implement an unexpected materials management protocol during earthworks that is focussed on identifying and managing fibro fragments and other potential contamination sources of contamination.

7.10.4 Erosion and Sediment Control

Soil and erosion control procedures and devices will be required to be provided during construction. Controls are to be in line with relevant authorities. This will include the Cumberland Council requirements, the EPA and Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction (“the blue book”). A preliminary Soil and erosion control plan has been prepared for the project which is attached as Appendix P.

7.11 Utilities

An Infrastructure Management Plan has been prepared by the various specialist consultants and is attached as Appendix Q. A summary of the various disciplines is provided below.

7.11.1 Hydraulic and Fire Services

Warren Smith & Partners were engaged to prepare a Hydraulic and Fire Services design for the proposal. The report investigates the capacity, condition and location of the existing hydraulic infrastructure and addresses design requirements that need to be considered as part of the proposed redevelopment works. The Report identifies proposed design options and captures the design intent of the hydraulic and fire services for the redevelopment.

7.11.1.1 Water Supply

The site is fronted by the following Sydney Water Corporation watermains:

■ 900 mm CICL and 450mm DICL watermain in Joseph Street ■ 300 mm uPVC watermain in Palm Circuit ■ 200 mm DICL watermain in Weeroona Road.

Sydney Water Corporation requires that the domestic cold water services connection be taken off the watermain fronting the development. Therefore, the incoming domestic, fire hydrant and fire sprinkler services to service the proposed building will be taken from the existing 300 mm uPVC main in Palm Circuit.


The new building will also be serviced by the following arrangements:

■ A Sydney Water water meter and reduced pressure zone device will be provided on the property boundary;

■ A potable cold water pump set will provide potable cold water to all fixtures and fittings throughout the facility;

■ A potable cold water storage tank and pressure pump set will be provided to provide water to all Mortuary fixtures and fittings;

■ Pipework will be sized to achieve flows with a maximum velocity of 1.6 m/sec to minimise velocity noise and water hammer;

■ Pressure sensitive zones will be fitted with pressure limiting valves; ■ The hot water system will consist of two (2) central hot water plant and circulation pipe system.

One will provide hot water to all Forensic Pathology fixtures and fittings, whilst the other will provide hot water to all Coroner’s Courts and Administration fixtures and fittings; and

■ Pulse water meters will be installed on all major users of water and wired to the BMCS for data collection. The meters will be installed on such items as hot water generation plant, mechanical plant, etc.

7.11.1.2 Sewer

The overall site is serviced by an existing 225 mm Sydney Water Corporation vitrified clay sewer main located half way along the Joseph Street frontage and enters the site at the junction of Lot 1 Weeroona Road and Lot 2 Joseph Street. The sewer main then extends east, parallel to the stormwater culvert to service Lot 2 (480) Weeroona Road.

It is proposed to provide a new Sydney Water sewer side line off the existing 150 mm sewer main in Weeroona Road to service Lot 2, allowing the Sydney Water sewer main to be disused to the boundary of Joseph Street, which would allow an unimpeded area for the new building site. There are also a number of existing house service sewer lines traversing the proposed building envelope, from the buildings that are to remain on the eastern side of the precinct to the sewer connection to the west. These sewer drainage services will need to be connected together and diverted from the proposed foot print of the new building.

The new building will be serviced by the following arrangement:

■ The sewer system will be sized in accordance with the requirements of AS 3500 based on fixture loading units incorporating diversity factor;

■ Sewer drainage pipe work from wet area groups will be configured so that waste fixture outlets (basins, showers) will enter the main pipe on the upside of soil waste fixture (water closet) connections where possible;

■ A waste water treatment plant of either chemical or heat will be installed to capture all fixtures associated with the PC3 Laboratory prior to connection to the outgoing sewer drainage system. This platform will be located on Level 0, under the PC3 laboratory;

■ The vertical sanitary plumbing pipe ducts will be provided in an arrangement that will allow future flexibility for installation of additional sanitary fixtures such as basins and toilets;

■ Sanitary plumbing pipe work from wet area groups will be configured so that waste fixture outlets (basins, showers) will enter the main pipe on the upside of soil waste fixture (water closet) connections where possible;


■ Soil and waste stacks and vent pipes will be located in close proximity to wet area facilities ensuring that horizontal pipe work lengths are kept to a minimum. Soil and waste stacks will be provided with 100 mm diameter inspection access fittings close to the drainage connection and at each floor connection (450 mm above FFL); and

■ Acoustic lagging will be provided on all pipe work in noise sensitive areas.

7.11.1.3 Gas Supply

The site is fronted by the following Jemena Natural Gas mains:

■ 63 mm PE 210 kPa natural gas main in Joseph Street; ■ 50 mm nylon 210 kPa natural gas main in Palm Circuit; and ■ 350 mm 1,050 kPa secondary natural gas main in Weeroona Road.

A new authority natural gas meter will be supplied for the development and located on the Ground Floor. Natural gas services will be supplied to the potable hot water generation plant and mechanical hot water Boilers. The natural gas service will consist of copper tube and brass fittings. The natural gas service will be sized in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 5601.1 – 2010 – Gas Installation, Part 1; General Installation, incorporating a diversity factor.

7.11.1.4 Fire Fighting Services

Incoming Domestic, Fire Hydrant and Fire Sprinkler Services to service the building will be taken from the 300mm PVC main in Palm Circuit. Fire stop collars will also be provided at each point where UPVC pipe passes through concrete floor slabs or fire rated walls.

7.11.2 Electrical, Communications and Lighting

Jacobs Group were engaged to design electrical, communication and lighting facilities for the FPCC proposal.

7.11.2.1 Electrical

There are currently two Ausgrid substations on site serving the Lidcombe government precinct. The substations serve the following:

S.2527 (Weeroona Joseph No. 3) – Two x 1MVA transformers supplying:

1. Department of Mines #1 supply 2. Department of Mines #2 supply 3. Scientific Laboratories 4. SRA (now Sydney Trains) Signal Hut “On Light/Power Board” (inside the rail corridor)


S.437 (Weeroona Joseph No. 1) – 1MVA transformer supplying:

1. EPA Laboratory #1 Supply 2. Weeroona Road (residential) 3. WDNO 4. EPA Laboratory #2 Supply

It has been established that these substations will not be able to support the FPCC precinct due to their location, distance to the proposed FPCC building and lack of available spare capacity Based on a maximum demand assessment by Jacobs, a new 1.5MVA kiosk substation is proposed to support the new facility. The new kiosk substation is proposed to be located on the FPCC facility within the secure staff carpark area. Access to the substation will be via the secure entry road off Weeroona Road.

An Application for Connection has been submitted to Ausgrid and they have confirmed that a new substation will be required.

7.11.2.2 Communications

The site currently connects into the Telstra network at four locations:

■ One connection at the north-east entrance from Main Avenue serving the FASS building; ■ One connection at the north-west end of Joseph Street serving the FASS building; and ■ Two connections along Weroona Road serving the OEH buildings.

As the site is currently on three separate titled lots with three separate tenant/departments, each building has its own dedicated connections into the Telstra network. There are no existing internal underground ICT connections linking the various departments/buildings. According to Dial-before-You-Dig (DBYD) data, there are Telstra, NBN and Singtel Optus infrastructure services present around the site perimeter. There are currently no Singtel Optus or NBN connections servicing the site.

Dual telecommunications lead-in carrier cables (from separate service providers) are required to support the new FPCC development. Two separate and dedicate carrier/campus distributor rooms are proposed for the new building.

7.11.2.3 Lighting

Due to the 24 hour operation of the use and the need to maintain safe access for staff and users, pedestrian paths and the entrance will be illuminated during the night. The electrical engineers for the project have advised that the design of the external lighting for the FPCC facility will be carried out in accordance with AS 4282 - 1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” in relation to the impact of obtrusive light. The standard is written to control both the levels of light and glare. It is not anticipated that the development will have any adverse lighting impacts.

7.12 Drainage and Stormwater

Cardno were engaged by Health Infrastructure to prepare an assessment of stormwater implications within the site and to prepare a flood/stormwater drainage assessment, a stormwater management plan and an integrated water cycle management plan for the proposal. These plans are included within the Structural and Civil Services Design report (refer Appendix R) and the Infrastructure Management Plan (refer Appendix Q).


7.12.1 Existing site conditions

The existing government precinct has a concrete lined channel that has capacity close to the 100yr ARI event. The flood affectation of the precinct would not be described as mainstream flooding but rather overland flow in the channel, with minor stormwater affectation throughout the remainder of the site which can be suitably addressed through stormwater drainage in the future. The existing channel discharges overland flow from the site via a 1.5 m W x 0.65 m H box culvert under Joseph Street to the west, which has been calculated to have a capacity equivalent to less than the 20yr.

7.12.2 Flooding and Onsite Detention

The site is not flood affected but has significant overland flow traversing through it. It is within the Haslam’s Creek Catchment which is locally flood affected closer to its outlet and has been subject to a number of flood assessments so development upstream is sensitive to downstream flooding impacts.

Cardno has performed an overland flow flood analysis for the 1 in 20, 1 in 100 years and PMF flows for the catchment upstream of Joseph Street. Both existing and future conditions have been modelled. The recommendations of the Cardno overland flow flood study note that, after extension of the existing RMS box culvert underneath Joseph Street (existing 1500 x 600) with a 1500 mm wide x 600 mm high (clear) box culvert within the site, no significant alteration in overland flow flood levels will exist at the southern end of the FPCC development, provided it is not filled. Cardno have determined that, as there are no increases in flow off-site (despite the fact that no allowance for OSD has been made within the modelling and runoff from the roof and carpark are modelled as discharging directly to the drainage network), that OSD requirements are not necessary for the FPCC proposal.

Overland flow from the north of the site for events up to the 1:100 year storm will be diverted around the new development building and carpark with the help of drainage kerbs, swales and diversion channels to ensure overland flow protection up to extreme events for the adopted building level of RL35.85. It is therefore considered that no increased flood impacts would result from the proposal.

7.12.3 Proposed Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure

The proposed stormwater treatment approach involves constructing an underground pipe network from the FPCC development site via a stormwater quality treatment discharge device to the new 1500 mm x 450 mm deep box culvert extension from Joseph Street box culvert inlet. The treatment device would reduce gross pollutants suspended solids, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and to acceptable council requirements. Maintenance access to the device is required to remove and clean collected solids. The new culvert will have 6 drainage inlet points and overland flow inlet pits incorporated for this and future development.

Cardno undertook music modelling in accordance with the Draft NSW MUSIC Modelling Guidelines, August 2010 (refer Appendix R). Three treatments nodes are proposed as part of the water cycle treatment train:

■ Humes Humegard – is a primary treatment device which is proposed for the main car park areas (staff and public) to target gross pollutants, coarse sediments and attached TN and TP. The Humegard treatment node within the MUSIC model was provided by Humes.

■ Humes Humeceptor – is a secondary treatment device which is proposed for the northern car park to target hydrocarbons, fine suspended solids and attached TN and TP. The Humes Humeceptor treatment node within the MUSIC model was provided by Humes.

■ Humes Jellyfish – is a stormwater treatment device which is proposed to reduce suspended solids


and nutrient levels in the site’s stormwater runoff. The JellyFish product provides effective treatment over a very small footprint. The JellyFish is available in a number of configurations. The JellyFish treatment node within the MUSIC model was provided by Humes. A JellyFish model JF3600-24-5 was selected to provide suitable treatment of stormwater.

The music results are shown in Table 7.5 and show that the proposal will comply with the minimum pollutant reduction targets set by Council.

Table 7.5 Pollutant removal requirements and compliance.

Pollutant Required Reduction Proposal Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 80% 81.5% - Treatment exceeds minimum Total Phosphorus (TP) 45% 63.7% - Treatment exceeds minimum Total Nitrogen (TN) 45% 53.8% - Treatment exceeds minimum Gross Pollutants 80% 81.5% - Treatment exceeds minimum

7.13 Waste

A preliminary waste management plan has been prepared by Coffey Geotechnics Australia Pty Ltd (refer Appendix V) for the construction and operation of the proposed FPCC facility. The preliminary waste management plan addresses both the construction and operational phases.

7.13.1 Construction Waste

The nature of the proposed works will result in the following waste during the construction phase:

■ Sediment spoils from earthworks; ■ Vegetation waste from tree removal; ■ Demolition waste including hazardous materials; ■ Construction and building waste; and ■ Packaging and general waste.

The preliminary waste management plan (Appendix V) has been prepared in accordance with the EPA’s “Waste Classification Guidelines (2008)” and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The Waste Management Plan includes measures that provide for:

■ Education and encouragement of the separation of recyclable materials for reuse elsewhere; ■ Encouragement of waste reduction practices such as safe storage of materials to avoid damage; ■ Minimisation of the use of packaging materials; ■ Management of the removal of clinical and other waste by an approved environmental services

contractors; ■ Disposal of general waste that is not recyclable at an approved Waste Management Facility; ■ Reuse of clean sediment spoils to be used on site where required and appropriate disposal of

unclean or excess spoil at an approved facility; and ■ Mulching of vegetation for reuse within the site where appropriate.


7.13.2 Operational Waste

The preliminary waste management plan (Appendix V) outlines how waste generated from the FPCC will be captured, stored and disposed of. Given that part of the facility involves a mortuary, waste disposal is a highly sensitive and important component of the facility. Segregation of clinical waste and the recycling of non-clinical waste will occur at the point of generation. Adequate storage of separate waste containers for each type of waste and recycling will be provided. Secure paper recycling bins will be located in the clerical, staff station and office areas. Waste will be removed daily and as required during the day services staff. A combination of fixed and mobile sharps bins will be located in the units. When full, sharps bins will be sealed and placed in the disposal room for collection. All waste will be disposed of in strict compliance with the Waste Management Guidelines for Health Facilities, 2005.

7.14 Building Code of Australia

A BCA 2016 Design Compliance Report was prepared for the proposal by Modern Building Certifiers (MBC) and is attached as Appendix S. The report outlines key BCA 2016 compliance issues pertaining to the design of the FPCC building which are:

■ Fire separation and compartmentation between new and existing buildings ■ Egress strategy ■ Fire services and equipment ■ Fire engineering strategy ■ Essential fire safety measures ■ Access requirements for people with disabilities ■ Sanitary facilities ■ Energy efficiency.

The BCA Design Compliance Report determined that the proposal is capable of satisfying the requirements of the Building Code of Australia 2016. The documentation will need further detailing such as architectural design specifications, service design, etc. These matters would be suitably assessed and resolved at the construction certificate stage.

7.15 Structural Design

Cardno were engaged by Health Infrastructure to prepare a Structural and Civil Services Design Report which is attached as Appendix R). The structural design is summarised as follows:

“The proposed building will be of reinforced and post tensioned concrete fire rated to a minimum level of 2 hours to comply with the Buildings Code of Australia Type A construction for Class 5, 8 and 9b categories. A wide shallow one way beam and post tension slab system has been conceptualised spanning up to 10m to support the administration and registry offices, court rooms and plant rooms. The ground floor mortuary is joint free post tensioned slab on grade to provide a strong degree of crack control and waterproofing for envisaged daily wetting / drying. The roof is envisaged to be insulated colour bond metal deck supported by purlins spanning between steel rafters supported by 2 hours fire rated columns on the façade and unrated internal columns remote from the facade in accordance with the BCA. Cut and fill analysis has recommended a finalised floor level of RL35.85 to minimise importation of fill. The existing stratum of soil, fill, weak shale and strong shale can be reworked on site to form a suitable fill structural platform to support the ground floor and pavements. The superstructure (Levels 1, 2 and roof) will be supported by discrete columns and bored piers to


rock.”

7.16 Access for People with Disabilities

I-access Consultants prepared a desktop high level review of the architectural plans. The Accessibility Report is attached as Appendix T. The access report provides advice on areas where the plans need amendment to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia 2016 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The comments indicate the proposal is capable of satisfying the requirements of the aforementioned legislation. However many design items will require further detailing and development during the detailed design phase of the project.

7.17 Construction Management Plan

Root Projects Australia were engaged by HI to prepare a Preliminary Construction Management Plan (PCMP) for the proposal which is attached as Appendix U. The Objective of the PCMP is to outline parameters for site management practices during construction and is intended to provide sufficient information to support the SSD Application, prior to engagement of a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. The PCMP details the management practices relating to:

■ Environmental Management of the site including:

- Erosion and sediment control - Vegetation protection - Noise attenuation - Vibration attenuation - Air quality - Traffic control - Pedestrian / Cycleway Control - Waste Management - Soil Contamination Contingency

■ Management of the site including:

- Communication and notification - Work health and safety including protective clothing and equipment - Site security - Hours of operation

The report stipulates that it will be the responsibility of the selected contractor to prepare detailed Environmental and Site Management Plans in accordance with the Development Consent, for authority approval and implementation prior to construction.

7.18 Socio-Economic Impacts

The proposed FPCC proposal will result in a much needed improvement in facilities of the existing offices of the NSW State Coroner and the Department of Forensic Pathology which have been located in 50 Parramatta Road Glebe since 1972. The current facilities are operating under considerable stress and can no longer effectively meet current and future deliverables and government objectives. Concerns have been raised that the deteriorating facilities compromise work health and safety requirements and impact on the quality of service delivered. Current court facilities and are not


sufficient for the number of Coronial inquests and these spatial constraints have resulted in use of offsite facilities.

Failure to address these issues may expose NSW Health and NSW Department of Attorney General and Justice to various risks (refer Section 1.2).

After an extensive options analysis, relocation to the Lidcombe government precinct site was determined to be the preferred option as it:

■ Delivers the best outcome against the predetermined evaluation criteria as well as providing best value for money;

■ Provides the best outcomes based upon the whole of life costs analysis; and ■ Best provides for future opportunities to derive benefits and efficiencies from the creation of a

forensic precinct at the Lidcombe site.

The proposal will also inject a significant capital investment into the Lidombe and greater region which will stimulate indirect employment as a result of the employment of contractors during the construction works and potential employment opportunities.

7.19 Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate and more effective use of underutilised NSW Health Land. Existing services and infrastructure are adequate (some with minor augmentation) to service the proposal. A high level review was conducted of planned or approved development application proposals within proximity to the site from Council’s website. The findings of this indicated that there are no planned or approved developments within proximity to this development that would result in significant implications in regard to traffic, infrastructure services and environmental impacts. There were also no specific cumulative impact matters raised with Council in the initial consultation meeting or SEAR’s response. It is expected that the proposal may add to a number of cumulative impacts including resource consumption (e.g. construction material) and generation of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. through operation of vehicles and equipment). However, the environmental management measures identified within Section 9 and the choice of methodology for completion of the proposal aim to minimise the extent to which the proposal contributes to cumulative adverse environmental impacts in the locality.


Environmental Risk Assessment 8.The SEARs state that the EIS must include an environmental risk assessment to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the development. Where relevant, the assessment of key issues below, and any other significant issues identified in the risk assessment, must include:

■ adequate baseline data; ■ consideration of the potential cumulative impacts due to other developments in the vicinity

(completed, underway or proposed); and ■ measures to avoid, minimise, and if necessary, offset predicted impacts, including detailed

contingency plans for managing any significant risks to the environment.

8.1 Assessing Environmental Risk

An environmental risk assessment has been prepared for the proposed FPCC project. This environmental risk assessment identifies, assesses and evaluates the potential risk of the various activities associated with the proposal. The risk assessment process involved the following:

■ Selection and development of an appropriate risk assessment process; ■ Identification of all potential environmental risks; ■ Analysis of all potential environmental risks; and ■ Evaluation of environmental risks.

8.2 Methodology

8.2.1 Project Team Discussions

Individuals from the Project Team held a number of meetings to identify, analyse and value potential environmental risks for the proposal.

8.2.2 Determination and Assigning the Environmental Risk Rating

Risk assessment is the process by which environmental hazards and associated impacts are systematically identified, assessed and ranked according to perceived risk. This environmental risk assessment has been carried out to ensure that all potential risks are identified so that they can be addressed by means of appropriate and effective controls through the development assessment process.

In this environmental risk assessment, risks have been characterised by combining the likelihood of the event occurring and the potential consequence of the event to specify the level of environmental risk associated with each potential impact. The risks have been classified as being high, medium or low. The risk matrix identified in Table 8.1 was used to assist in determining the ranking.

8.2.3 Environmental Risk Rating

The Risk Assessment Matrix (as shown below in Table 8.1) illustrates how the residual environmental impacts of a proposal are assigned. The sum of the values assigned provides an indicative ranking of


potential residual impacts after the mitigation measures are implemented as follows:

■ The significance of impact is assigned a value between 1 and 5 based on:

- the receiving environment; - the level of understanding of the type and extent of impacts; and - the likely community response to the environmental consequence of the project.

■ The manageability of environmental impact is assigned a value between 1 and 5 based on:

- the complexity of mitigation measures; - the known level of performance of the safeguards proposed; and - the opportunity for adaptive management.

Table 8.1 Risk Matrix

Significance of Impact

Manageability of Impact 5

Complex 4

Substantial 3

Elementary 2

Standard 1

Simple 1 – Low 6

(Medium) 5

(Low/Medium) 4

(Low/Medium) 3

(Low) 2

(Low) 2 – Minor 7

(High/Medium) 6

(Medium) 5

(Low/Medium) 4 (Low/Medium)

3 (Low)

3 – Moderate 8 (High/Medium)

7 (High/Medium)

6 (Medium)

5 (Low/Medium)

4 (Low/Medium)

4 – High 9 (High)

8 (High/Medium)

7 (High/Medium)

6 (Medium)

5 (Low/Medium)

5 – Extreme 10 (High)

9 (High)

8 (High/Medium

7 (High/Medium)

6 (Medium)

Table 8.2 provides the outcomes of the Environmental Risk Assessment undertaken for the proposal.


Table 8.2 Environmental Risk Assessment

Parameter impact Mitigation Significance Manageability Residual impact

Biodiversity ■ Loss of trees within the development site.

■ Impacts to flora and fauna.

■ Vegetation clearing would be limited to the amount required to undertake the works.

■ Disturbances beyond the limit of works (particularly within the drip line of adjacent retained trees) would be avoided.

■ If non-mobile fauna or habitat features are identified (e.g. birds nest) before or during construction, a suitably licensed and experienced ecologist is to be contacted immediately and appropriate measures would be discussed and implemented prior to commencement/re-commencement of works

■ Tree protection measures would be installed for remaining trees in proximity to the development footprint.

3 2 5 (Low/Medium)

Environmental Amenity, Built Form and Urban Design

■ Visual impact of the development when viewed from the public domain and adjoining residential development.

■ Loss of trees within the development site.

■ Implementation of screening and landscaping in accordance the landscape design.

■ The building has been sited and designed to reduce the impact of height and bulk, within the context of functional requirements and the topographical features of the site.

■ The proposed development is not expected to significantly change pollution levels in the area. Measures will be implemented during construction to minimise dust.

4 3 7 (High /Medium)

Transport and accessibility

■ Increased traffic on local roads.

■ Increased parking on

■ Provision of adequate access to adjoining streets. ■ Provision of adequate car parking.

2 1 3 (low)



local roads. ESD ■ Significant demand

on energy resources. ■ ESD measures have been implemented into the

design of the built form and construction methodologies.

3 1 4 (medium/ low)

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage

■ Damage to Aboriginal sites or artefacts.

■ Damage to historic heritage sites.

■ Once the initial soil stripping is complete, a member form the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council be invited to inspect the soil horizons

■ An unexpected finds procedure be adopted in place in the event of the discovery of any Aboriginal objects during construction

■ If any item of European heritage is discovered during works, work shall cease immediately and the project heritage consultant or Office of Environment and Heritage be notified.

4 1 5 (low/medium)

Noise and vibration

■ Increase in noise and vibration during construction activities.

■ Increase in noise levels during operation and function of the facility.

■ Appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented to ensure vibration and noise levels do not compromise human comfort or damage to adjacent building/ structures;

■ Appropriate sound minimisation measures to be incorporated in the design to reduce operational and construction noise

■ Works are to be carried out during normal work hours (ie 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday; 8 am to 1 pm Saturdays. No work on Sunday and Public Holidays).

4 2 6 (medium)

Soils ■ Exposure of contamination or hazardous materials during construction.

■ Implement an unexpected materials management protocol during earthworks that is focussed on identifying and managing fibro fragments and other potential contamination sources of contamination.

■ An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be

4 2 6 (medium)



■ Soil erosion as a direct result of the works.

prepared and implemented to minimise erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction.

■ Rehabilitation, and erosion and sedimentation control maintenance and monitoring procedures would also be adhered to.

Utilities ■ Impacts to adjacent utilities

■ The development will comply with the requirements of the relevant public authorities in regard to the connection to, relocation and/or adjustment of services affected by the construction

2 1 2 (low)

Waste ■ Poor waste practices ■ A detailed Construction Waste Management Plan will be prepared by an appropriately qualified person prior to the commencement of works.

■ Resource management hierarchy principles would be followed.

■ Working areas would be maintained, kept free of rubbish and cleaned up at the end of each working day.

3 1 4 (low/medium)

Stormwater ■ Reduced water quality from poor quality runoff.

■ During construction, erosion and sediment controls will be undertaken.

■ Installation of stormwater treatment devices.

4 1 5 (low/medium)


Environmental Management 9.9.1 Environmental Management Plan

All works/activities would be delivered in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which incorporates environmental site inductions, toolbox sessions and awareness. A CEMP would be developed, reviewed and approved prior to any works/activities commencing, and would include all relevant sub plans:

■ Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ■ Demolition/Construction Waste Management Plan ■ Traffic Control Plan ■ Access and Movement Plan (for construction staff). The CEMP would incorporate all relevant safeguards detailed in this EIS and the requirements of the development consent. These would be implemented and complied with throughout all stages of the proposal. The CEMP would be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval.

All construction staff and site personnel would be made aware of their environmental responsibilities and safeguard measures within the CEMP to minimise environmental impacts.

An onsite meeting would be held with each relevant contractor, construction staff, site personnel and HI Project staff before the commencement of works/activities, including site establishment. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the environmental safeguards that are required to be implemented for the relevant phase of works. The meeting would also include relevant environmental awareness and toolbox talks.

Relevant environmental aspects to be considered for environmental awareness/toolbox training include the limit of works, environmentally sensitive areas (native flora), pollution prevention, vegetation trimming and removal (noxious weed management, protection of native flora/ fauna), construction methodology (excavation) and hazards (mass movement). The training would also address who is responsible for the various components, e.g. inspection and maintenance of sedimentation and erosion controls, etc. Environmental awareness/toolbox talks would commence early in the program and continue as new personnel/contractors are engaged.

9.2 Mitigation Measures

The collective measures required to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed works are detailed in Table 9.1 below. These measures have been derived from the previous assessment in Section 7 and those detailed in appended consultants’ reports.


Table 9.1 Mitigation Measures

Issue Action Biodiversity ■ Tree protection and site management measures must be

implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist Report prepared by Birds Tree Consulting dated November 2015.

■ If non-mobile fauna or habitat features are identified (e.g. birds nest) before or during construction, a suitably licensed and experienced ecologist is to be contacted immediately and appropriate measures would be discussed and implemented prior to commencement/ re-commencement of works. If an animal is injured during construction WIRES is to be contacted to arrange for capture/ removal of the animal from the works area.

Environmental Amenity ■ Landscape buffering and screening will be implemented in generally in accordance with the Landscape Design prepared by Site Image Landscape Architects (undated) to: - Limit the impact of the development on adjoin residential

land uses; - Ensure maintenance of privacy - Ensure there are no clear sight lines to external ‘back of

house’ in the immediate vicinity. Traffic and Accessibility ■ The recommendations of the traffic and parking impact

assessment report prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants dated June 2016 in relation to transport management are to be implemented.

■ A comprehensive Construction Traffic Management Plan will be developed following the engagement of Project contractor(s).

Ecologically Sustainable Development

The detailed design of the development will incorporate all of the ESD principles prepared by Steensen Varming Australia Pty LTD dated April 2016.

Aboriginal Heritage ■ Works are to be in accordance with the Aboriginal heritage (due diligence) assessment was undertaken by GML Heritage dated May 2016: - Once the initial soil stripping is complete, a member form

the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council be invited to inspect the soil horizons

- An unexpected finds procedure be adopted in place in the event of the discovery of any Aboriginal objects during construction

- the following measures will be implemented in the event that suspected Aboriginal material were uncovered as a result of the proposed works: • work in the surrounding area is to stop immediately • a temporary fence is to be erected around the site,

with a buffer zone of at least 10 metres around the known edge of the site

• an appropriately qualified archaeological consultant is to be engaged to identify the material, and

• if the material is found to be of Aboriginal origin, the Aboriginal community is to be consulted in a manner as outlined in the OEH guidelines: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (2010).


Issue Action Non-Aboriginal Heritage ■ Potential archaeological impacts will be managed in

accordance with the recommendations identified in the Non- Aboriginal Heritage assessment prepared by GBA Heritage dated 2016.

■ If any item of European heritage is discovered during works, work shall cease immediately and the project heritage consultant or Office of Environment and Heritage notified.

Noise and Vibration ■ The recommendations of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by ARUP dated June 2016 are to be implemented to ensure that any potential adverse construction and operational noise and vibration impacts are adequately managed and mitigated.

Soils Contamination ■ The recommendations of the Stage 2 Contamination

Investigation prepared by Coffey dated May 2016 will be implemented prior to, and during construction.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control ■ A detailed soil and sedimentation plan will also be prepared in

accordance with The Blue Book prior to construction. To prevent soil erosion and sedimentation during construction works, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: - Land disturbance will be limited to that necessary for

implementation of the works. - Erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented

in and around the work site including downslope of all unprotected disturbed areas prior to the commencement of works to capture any sediment passing from the site. These controls will be kept functional to the end of the construction works, or in the case of stockpiles, until they are removed.

- To limit the spread of sediment by vehicle movements, soils will not be transported unless ‘spreadable’ i.e. the soil is not in a free flowing state and all construction equipment will be washed down at the end of each day before moving off site.

Geotechnical Conditions ■ The recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation

undertaken by Coffey dated April June 2016 will be implemented prior to, and during construction.

Utilities ■ The development will comply with the requirements of the relevant public authorities in regard to the connection to, relocation and/or adjustment of services affected by the construction of the proposed development as outlined within the Infrastructure Management Plan dated June 2016.


Issue Action Waste ■ A detailed Construction Waste Management Plan will be

prepared by an appropriately qualified person prior to the commencement of works. The Waste Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with the EPA’s “Waste Classification Guidelines (2008)” and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Clean sediment spoils would be reused on site where required and appropriate.

■ The following Resource management hierarchy principles would be followed: - Avoid unnecessary resource consumption as a priority. - Avoidance is followed by resource recovery (including

reuse of materials, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery).

- Disposal is undertaken as a last resort (in accordance with the Waste Avoidance & Resource Recovery Act 2001)

Drainage and Stormwater ■ The proposal will be in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Cardno Dated June 2016.

Construction Impacts ■ A Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared by the appointed contractor prior to the commencement of works. The CMP will establish site management principles generally in accordance with the Preliminary Construction Management Plan prepared by Root Projects Australia dated May 2016.


Justification and Conclusion 10.The Proposal would deliver of a much needed upgrade to existing NSW State Coroner and the Department of Forensic Pathology facilities which have been located in Glebe since 1972. The current facilities are operating under considerable stress and have reached capacity and the end of their economic life and can no longer effectively meet current and future deliverables and government objectives. Concerns have also been raised that the deteriorating facilities compromise work health and safety requirements and impact on the quality of service delivered. Current court facilities are not sufficient for the number of coronial inquests and these spatial constraints have resulted in use of offsite facilities.

The potential environmental impacts posed by the Proposal have been thoroughly examined through this EIS. Some minor impacts would occur locally. However, it is unlikely that any significant or long-term adverse impacts would eventuate. To help ensure that the extent of impacts is limited and that unavoidable impacts likely to occur are managed and minimised, mitigation measures and safeguards have been developed and would be implement and monitored

The Proposal is considered justifiable taking into account the potential environmental impacts and subsequent mitigation measures and safeguards. The Proposal substantially supports the economic development and associated socio-economic and community benefits of a sustainable improvement to the level of FPCC service to the residents of NSW. The proposal is in accordance with ESD principles and consistent with the objectives of the EP&A Act and deserves favourable consideration by the Minister of Planning and Environment and Planning.


Copyright and Usage GeoLINK, 2016

This document, including associated illustrations and drawings, was prepared for Health Infrastructure to be lodged with a State Significant Development Application for the Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroners Court to be assessed by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. It is not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person, corporation or organisation without the prior consent of GeoLINK or Health Infrastructure. GeoLINK accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever arising to any person or corporation who may use or rely on this document for a purpose other than that described above.

This document, including associated illustrations and drawings, may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form without the prior consent of GeoLINK. This includes extracts of texts or parts of illustrations and drawings.

The information provided on illustrations is for illustrative and communication purposes only. Illustrations are typically a compilation of data supplied by others and created by GeoLINK. Illustrations have been prepared in good faith, but their accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. There may be errors or omissions in the information presented. In particular, illustrations cannot be relied upon to determine the locations of infrastructure, property boundaries, zone boundaries, etc. To locate these items accurately, advice needs to be obtained from a surveyor or other suitably-qualified professional.

Topographic information presented on the drawings is suitable only for the purpose of the document as stated above. No reliance should be placed upon topographic information contained in this report for any purpose other than that stated above.

Environmental Impact Statement - Lidcombe Forensic Pathology and Coroner’s Court 2624-1014

Appendix A Secretary’s Environmental Assessment

Requirements


Appendix B Architectural Plans


Appendix C Survey Plan


Appendix D Traffic and Parking Assessment


Appendix E Landscape Design


Appendix F Capital Investment Value Assessment


Appendix G SEPP 33 Assessment


Appendix H Stage 2 Contamination Assessment


Appendix I Non- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment


Appendix J Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment


Appendix K Aboricultural Development Impact Assessment


Appendix L Built Form and Urban Design Assessment


Appendix M Ecological Sustainable Development Report


Appendix N Noise and Vibration Assessment


Appendix O Geotechnical Assessment


Appendix P Preliminary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan


Appendix Q Infrastructure Management Plan


Appendix R Structural and Civil Services Design Report


Appendix S BCA Report


Appendix T Accessibility Report


Appendix U Preliminary Construction Management Plan


Appendix V Waste Management Plan


Appendix W Waste Management Plan