BREC calls for rethink on Springfield-Ripley Road Corridor

The Brisbane Region Environment Council(BREC) calls on State and Local authorities to rethink the announced Springfield to Ripley road corridor. BREC believes the current proposals have failed to adequately consider the conservation, cultural heritage and potential ribbon development impacts of the announced road.

The proposed routes will go through regional significant bushland and significant cultural areas in an absolutely critical nature conservation corridor.

The desktop studies done too date have been inadequate.

BREC believes that this road will entrench innapropriate urban growth in a regional significant openspace corirdor.

BREC recommendations for the road EIS are:

Additional BREC initial comments on the existing Stage 1,2 & 3 reports

The needs survey in Stage 1 summarised future need.

However

• The multimodal linking of Ipswich to New Ripley appears to have modelled grounds which have some credibility although not balanced against other competing corridor development
• The linking of Springfield to New Ripley to Deebing to Amberley could not be adequately justified in terms of accuracy of demands, population increase, land release, infrastructure planning and timing.

• The amount of land available does not appear to have been modelled beyond using a strategic plan and perhaps one in preparation(2004) which has not put adequate constraints on future urban The topic areas of Cultural Heritage, Cultural Knowledge, Land Claims

  Endangered and of concern Regional Ecosystems,

  Ecological Processes,

  New Biodiversity mapping,

  Icon Species,

  Air Quality and Windfield Study

  multiple hazards (SPP/2003)

  resource use,

  conservation reserve system,

  infrastructure charges plans and

  competing future urban nodes/connurbations on a subregional and regional basis should have been sieved in all earlier stages.

• The conclusion that the corridor should be preserved is notional but should be questioned on its landscape, resource, ecological, aesthetic , Cultural and environmental impact. Accumulated, sociological, hazard and offsite impacts should have been included at stages one, two and three.
• Alternative nodal development IE Yamanto vs New Ripley vs Springfield vs Yaraka warrants evaluation across a range of multidisciplined needs criteria.

• How this fits into the landscape with minimal imprint has had little scoping IN TERMS of cut and fills and other factors

• This exercise does not have the information to do an input /output assessment, generating employment and industry indicators(Jensen and Mandeville) The glut of industrial land and unoccupied industrial land is poorly documented and largely underestimated in Greater Brisbane.
• While including the above unassessed real and potential impacts above, it is noted the very large inadequacies in the hazards, ecological and cultural heritage preliminary assessments. This damages the credibility of stages one ,two and three

• The needs assessment can be subdivided and debunked in several ways.. The new Ipswich motorway congestion figures can be lessened by Ipswich to Redbank Plains Upgrade/new link to Augusta Parkway. Ripley can function by a range of enhanced services to the Cunningham Highway And Ipswich

INTENTIONS

The figures of another 70,000 pop increase by 2031 lacks the support of referenced studies. This may be feasible with the selection of route C, but only 3000 —4000 ha plus Springfield hectares may be unconstrained. This does not give a required population and gives a bad signal for unwanted satellite towns of 30,000 plus elsewhere.getting a free road.

However the situation pre empts SEQ2021 which is electing to put only 200,000 in the western corridor by 2021.

The land use budget of unconstrained undeveloped land is not readily apparent in the documents

The lack of a definitive figure for unconstrained land is strongly visible in the wide amplitude of the chosen route "C" corridor and the listing of unquantified constraints not used in route selection in 3 chpt. 2.1.1 page 9 .

• Powerlines etc
• Sites of significant archeological or heritage value
• Local conservation or significant flora or ecological sites.
• Local effects of past mining
• Existing and future landuse elements

However in the next paragraph it is stated they were used "in the overall analysis in Stage 3

By deduction , the apparent desktop studies fall down in

• Lack of unconstrained land use budget and PIFU figures
• Lack of new field work generally on above constraints
• Lack of field work on Routes A B or C and application of 3 constraints(admitteded)
• Short term justification unavailable
• Poor scoping of new constraints

10,000 hectares or less is needed for 100,000 pop. where shared regional services could be laminated . This would take up half the"western corridor " specified by regional planners

Other Priorities

• Request an update of needs survey
• Release of better maps and reports
• Land use budget