In the matter of the MELBOURNE METRO RAIL PROJECT: INQUIRY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CONTENTS

Further Submissions on behalf of the City of Melbourne

CONTENTS .. ... .......................................................................................................... ...... .................. 1

CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT .................... .......... ..... ... .... ... ................. ............... 2

CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OPTIONS ................................. 2

THE INCOR.PORATED DOCUMENT ................................. .................... ................ ... ....... .. .. .......... 2

The inclusion of the EPRs into the Incorporated Document .. .. ..... ........... .. .............................. 3

The ability for third parties to scrutinise and enforce the Construction Environment Management Plan .................................... .. .............................. ................................................. 4

The inclusion of below-ground infrastructure to public scrutiny and enforcement.. .............. . 6

The publication of all elements of the Environmental Management Framework .................... 7

TIIE DRAFT EPRS ....... .. ... ....... .. ..................................................... .... ............................................. 8

) The need to include Fawkner Park in the protective area of the EPRs .... ...... ..... ... ... ............... 8

The need for the express recognition of the Melbourne Visitor Centre ................ ... ............... . 9

The need for a new surface water EPR .................................. .... ........ ....... .... ......... ................ 10

Financial compensation for trees .................................................................. .. .... ............ ....... 10

Response to the Mercantile Cricket Association ...................................... .... ... ... ....... ............ 11

OTHER MA TIERS ........ .. ........... ... ................................................. ... ............................................. 11

Information in response to the submission of the Bourke and Wills Society ........................ 11

CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT

1. First, the City of Melbourne states its continuing support for the Melbourne Metro Rail Project (Project). Indeed, many of the City of Melbourne's reservations about the Project such as:

a) the proposal to use Fawkner Park as a works area;

b) the proposal to build emergency access shafts in Fawkner Park and the Domain Parklands; and

c) the above-City-Link alignment that had the capacity to undermine the value of the Domain Parkland's--Tom's Block-

have been addressed through the technical notes offering design changes to the project.

2. Moreover, extensive changes to the Project documentation have been made in response to suggestions by the staff of, and parties acting for, the City of Melbourne.

3. The City of Melbourne will continue working in a partnership with the Authority at least until trains commence operation.

CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OPTIONS

4. The City of Melbourne also states its continuing support for the alternative design for the Western Portal, noting that this outcome was supported by:

a) Rob Milner;

b) Peter Lovell;

c) Sean Smedley; and

d) Owen Boushel.

5. All experts agreed that the Alternative Design Option delivered a better outcome from their point of view or area of expertise.

6. Support for the alternative design for the western portal also featured heavily in submissions from the public.

7. In relation to the location of the proposed substation, we acknowledge the constraints described in TN 70, namely west of the siding site with improved landscaping to contribute to Moonee Ponds Creek ecology, but the City of Melbourne will work with the Authority regardless of the final location chosen.

THE IN CORPORA TED DOCUMENT

8. The principal changes sought to be made to the Incorporated Document by the City of Melbourne are:

2

)

)

a) the inclusion of the EPRs as an attachment to the Incorporated Document;

b) greater reference to the Construction Environment Management Plan in the Incorporated Document;

c) provision for Development Plans for below-ground infrastructure; and

d) an obligation for the Authority to publicise all components of the Environmental Management Framework.

The inclusion of the EPRs into the Incorporated Document

9. The City of Melbourne proposes that the EPRs should be included as an attachment to the Incorporated Document, to both assist in their visibility and accessibility, but to also ensure that the progress that has been achieved in this IAC process is not undermined by short term, contractual pressures.

10. For this reason, the City of Melbourne contends that the Incorporated Document should be amended to include the following words:

Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works associated with the Project (including Early Works under clause 5.4), an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) must be prepared for the Project or any stage or part of the Project. The EMF must include Environmental Performance Requirements consistent with those in Appendix 3 of this document. Any amendments to those EP Rs must create no new or greater environmental risks or impacts.

11. A new Appendix 3 would then include the EPRs that have been the subject of the IAC process.

12. This is an adaptation of the East West Link (Eastern Section) Project Incorporated Document that provides:

5.2 The Performance Requirements in the Environmental Management Framework must be consistent with the Performance Requirements in Table 2 of this document. (The Urban Design Framework referred to in the Performance Requirements is the Urban Design Framework in the Comprehensive Impact Statement for the Project, except that the Urban Design Principles are the Urban Design Principles in Table 1 of this document.)

13. Incorporating this provision will improve transparency by making the EPRs more readily accessible. It will also assist in the protection of the standards contained in the EPRs by requiring an amendment to the Incorporated Document should an EPR be sought to be imposed that increases environmental impacts or risks.

14. A similar issue was addressed in the Assessment Committee Report for the East West Link (Eastern Section) Project. 1 The Assessment Committee concluded:

17.4.3 Referencing of Performance Requirements

1 30 May 2014 at page 367

3

The Performance Requirements are proposed to be applied contractually between the successful contractor and LMA.

Given that many of the Performance Requirements are a direct result of responding to planning issues and go to the essence of project impacts and delivery, the Committee does not consider applying the Performance Requirements solely through this contractual pathway is appropriate.

The Committee is making recommendations on the Incorporated Document in the relevant Planning Schemes which effectively authorise the Project to proceed, along with the other Applicable Approvals.

Thus the Committee considers that there should be a stronger and direct link between the planning instruments and the Performance Requirements. The Committee considers that the best way to do this would be to include or link the final Performance Requirements to the Incorporated Document.

The Committee considers this would:

• Provide a more transparent approach to ensure the Project is delivered within the agreed Performance Requirements,·

• Assist more effective enforcement action where Project implementation is not meeting Performance Requirements; and

15.

• The Committee further discusses its rationale for including the Performance Requirements in the Incorporated Document in Chapter I 8. 4 of this report.

17.5 Findings

The Committee finds that the Performance Requirements as amended in Appendix E should be applied to the Project and will assist in reducing the impacts of the final design. To improve certainty and provide for more effective project and environmental management, the Performance Requirements should be included in the Incorporated Document. The Committee has recommended accordingly. 2

City of Melbourne contends similar reasoning should apply in the present case.

The ability for third parties to scrutinise and enforce the Construction Environment Management Plan

16. The Incorporated Document should also be amended to make greater reference to the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

17. Much of this hearing has been concerned with the management of impacts from the construction process on existing uses and development in the project area. Unless there is an obligation for contractors to comply with the Construction Environment Management Plan in the Incorporated Document, it might be argued that the CEMP is not a matter that can be enforced by affected third parties.

2 Emphasis added.

4

)

)

18. For this reason, the City of Melbourne contends the Incorporated Document should be amended to include the following words:

5. 7 Construction Environment Management Plan

5. 7. I The use and development permitted by this Incorporated Document must be carried out generally in accordance with a Construction Environment Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Melbourne 1\1etro Rail Authority in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority and relevant municipal council(s).

5. 7. 2 The Construction Environmental Management Plan may:

a) be prepared and approved for stages of the Project; and

b) be amended from time to time to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority;

5. 7.3 Amendments to the Construction Environmental Management Plan to clarify or improve environmental management practices or procedures or add new obligations and associated controls, without increasing or introducing new environmental risks or impacts, must be endorsed by the Independent Auditor and prepared to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority after consultation with the relevant municipal council(s).

5. 7. 4 Amendments to the Construction Environmental Management Plan which provide for a change to work methods or scope that results in increased or new environmental risks or impacts must be endorsed by the Independent Auditor and prepared to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority and relevant municipal council(s).

19. This seeks to adapt the form of a corresponding provision in the Incorporated Document for the East West Link that provides:

5.3 The Construction Environmental Management Plan must:

a) Be in accordance with the Environmental Management Framework in the Comprehensive Impact Statement for the Project amended as required in clauses 5.1 d) and 5.2 of this document.

b) Include the following:

i) An air quality management and monitoring plan.

ii) A noise management plan.

iii) A surface water management plan.

iv) A groundwater management plan to manage potential groundwater impacts, including the risks of "mobilisation" and "migration " of contaminated groundwater.

v) tree management plan.

vi) A White 's Skink management plan.

vii) A communication plan.

5

viii) A contamination management plan.

5. 4 The Construction Environmental Aianagement Plan may:

a) Be prepared and approved for stages of the Project.

b) Be amended.from time to time to the satisfaction of the Linking Melbourne Authority and the Minister for Planning as provided for in clause 5. 5 or 5. 6 or otherwise appropriate.

5.5 Amendments to the Construction Environmental Management Plan to clarify or improve environmental management practices or procedures or add new obligations and associated controls, without increasing or introducing new environmental risks or impacts, must be endorsed by the Independent Auditor and prepared to the satisfaction of the Linking Melbourne Authority after consultation with the relevant municipal council(s).

5. 6 Amendments to the Construction Environmental Management Plan which provide for a change to work methods or scope that results in increased or new environmental risks or impacts must be endorsed by the Independent Auditor and prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning after consultation with the Linking Melbourne Authority and relevant municipal council(s).

20. The Committee has requested examples of construction management plans from other projects. Although we were unable to get the documents from the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, we were able to get copies of the CEMPs from:

a) the Emporium development; and

b) the Peter Doherty development.

21. These documents have been provided to the Committee.

22. The Committee has heard from Melbourne Health that the construction impacts of the VCCC building were greater than those arising from the construction of the Peter Doherty building. The City of Melbourne had little or no involvement in the management of construction from the VCCC building, it being a project of the Minister for Health and therefore exempt from the operations of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. 3

The inclusion of below-ground infrastructure to public scrutiny and enforcement

23. Planning approval is being sought for the whole of the Project, including the below­ground infrastructure. However, as the Incorporated Document is presently drafted,

3 Section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifies that ' a planning scheme is binding on every Minister, government department, public authority and municipal council except to the extent that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, directs by Order published in the Government Gazette'. Pursuant to this, the Governor in Council has ordered that 'Planning Schemes shall not be binding on the use and development ofland carried out or on behalf of the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, the Minister for Health or the Minister for Education'.

6

)

)

there is no requirement for a Development Plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning in relation to below ground infrastructure.

24. The reasoning for this is perhaps that the below ground infrastructure has little or no visual impact and therefore should be of no concern to third parties.

25. However, given the remnant possibility that tunnels may be positioned immediately beneath sensitive areas such as Domain Parklands- Tom's Block, and out of concern for other infrastructure such as adits and the foundations of buildings, the City of Melbourne contends that below ground infrastructure should be also be subject to the Development Plan process. It would also give some greater certainty to those parties such as the North West Melbourne Association who have expressed concerns about tunnel depth.

26. The City of Melbourne therefore contends that the Incorporated Document should be amended to require a Development Plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning for development also relating to:

... any below-ground rail tunnels or infrastructure such as ticketing areas, adits or cross-passages.

27. Without such an amendment to the Incorporated Document, the tunnels and their impacts may be beyond third party scrutiny and enforcement.

The publication of all elements of the Environmental Management Framework

28. Finally, the City of Melbourne believes that all elements of the Envirorunental Management Framework should be readily available to Members of the public through the website referred to in clause 5.8 of the draft Incorporated Document.

29. The Incorporated Document should therefore be amended in the following way:

5.8 Availability of approved plans

5. 8.1 A current version of each of the following approved plans must be available on a clearly identifiable Project website until commencement of public train operations through the tunnels:

a) each Development Plan approved under clause 5.1;

b) Environmental Management Framework (including Environmental Performance Requirements) approved under clause 5.2;

c) Urban Design Strategy approved under clause 5.3; and

d) each Early Works Plan approved under clause 5.4. ; and

e) each of the following plans referred to in Appendix 2:

1. Construction Environmental Management Plan,·

2. Site Environment Implementation Plan.·

3. Community and Stakeholder Engagement Management Plan;

4. Transport Management Plan;

5. Operations Environmental Management Plan;

7

6. Business Disruption Plan,· and

7. Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

30. By way of example, if a construction management plan mandated the use of a hammer and chisel by reason of the proximity of residential homes, and a jackhammer was being used, a third party might be justifiably concerned if the Construction Environmental Management Plan was not readily available to scrutinise and draw to the attention of the builders concerned. Comparable examples for the other documents can be readily imagined.

THE DRAFT EPRS

31. The City of Melbourne has limited residual concern with the substance of the EPRs­most of our suggestions having been taken into account in the present draft.

32. Matters outstanding include:

a) the need to include Fawkner Park in the protective components of the EPRs while Fawkner Park remains in the Project Area;

b) the need for express recognition of the value of the Melbourne Visitor Centre; and

c) the need for a new Surface Water EPR.

33. These matters can be seen in the letter from Hunt and Hunt to the IAC dated 4 October 2016.

The need to include Fawkner Park in the protective area of the EPRs

34. It has been proposed to remove references to Fawkner Park in the EPRs by reference to the fact that the park is no longer required as a laydown or works area.

35. However, Fawkner Park continues to be remain within the Project Land:

8

)

)

36. This is partly an artefact of the previously foreshadowed works area, but it is also a reflection of the path of the tunnels. While this remains the case, it is submitted that any relevant protections in the EPRs should still remain in favour of Fawkner Park.

The need for the express recognition of the Melbourne Visitor Centre

37. Stephen Nagle gave compelling evidence for the importance of the Melbourne Visitor Centre for:

38.

39.

40.

a) tourism operators within Melbourne and the broader Victorian region; and

b) visitors to Melbourne.

The Authority did not seem to take issue with this, save to suggest that the interests of the Melbourne Visitor Centre could be dealt with in a manner similar to other impacted businesses.

It is submitted that the Melbourne Visitor Centre deserves particular attention because of the multiplier effect that it generates on other businesses and by reason of the extraordinary public service it provides to visitors to Melbourne. It' s success cannot be seen solely in terms of its financial return and in this sense impacts on it are not remedied by financial compensation alone.

On this basis, it is submitted that it is appropriate for the Melbourne Visitor Centre to receive the following references in the EPRs:

Bl -A new paragraph at the end should be added as follows:

"Provide acquired businesses with access to a central point of contact and case management approach, with opportunities to seek priority access to other State Government business support and mentoring services."

Business - A new EPR should be added to Business as follows:

9

"Work with City of Melbourne to identify suitable alternative sites for a visitor information service that meet City of Melbourne's requirements, to mitigate the potential loss of the existing site of the Melbourne Visitor Centre at Federation Square due to construction works. The identification of these alternative sites should also take into account the unique design, location and service delivery requirements of the service. "

The need for a new surface water EPR

41. Finally, the City of Melbourne seeks the addition of the words:

In consultation with City of Melbourne undertake the necessary alterations to the existing I 200mm diameter Council drain required to facilitate the construction of the Flinders Street underpass, to allow for the concurrent extension of the drain to the drain 's discharge point at the Yarra River.

42. The Committee will recall that this EPR was suggested in the evidence of Barry Fox who stated:

Section I 7. I 6 of the EES broadly addresses the issue to service relocation, including stormwater drainage, required to facilitate the Early Works component of this project. The proposed new underpass connection between CBD South Station and Flinders Street Station is likely to require the alterations to the I 200mm diameter Council stormwater drain. This drain is approximately 100 years old and approaching end of its asset life. Given the MA1RP will require significant works to be undertaken on this drain to facilitate the construction of the Flinders Street underpass, the opportunity should be taken to extend the scope of this work as far as the drainage outlet to the Yarra River, ensuring the continued serviceability of this drain for another I 00 years.

43. It seems to us that if Mr Fox is correct that:

a) the proposed new underpass connection between CBD South Station and Flinders Street Station will require the alterations to the 1200mm diameter Council stormwater drain; and

b) this drain is approximately 100 years old and approaching end of its asset life-

there is sense in requiring the Authority to work with the City of Melbourne in ensuring that any works are carried out in a manner consistent with their long term management.

Financial compensation for trees

44. The City of Melbourne asks that the Committee removes the words "(excluding sections 8.2 and 8.3)". from EPR AR3.

45. The City of Melbourne says that just as it might be inappropriate for the Committee to fix the payment of compensation under the terms of a local law, it would be equally inappropriate for the Committee to recommend that the levy should not be paid.

10

)

)

46. The City of Melbourne is in discussion about the removal and replacement of trees in the Project Area and any consequential compensation issues that might arise. We ask the Committee avoid making any findings about the issue of compensation for trees to be removed or replaced under the City of Melbourne's local laws and leave that matter to be determined outside the IAC process.

Response to the Mercantile Cricket Association

47. The MCA has submitted that it has particular requirements for its relocation and is concerned that the City of Melbourne is not responding to its needs and requirements in a timely way. Proposed EPR SC 6 (V3) provides:

In consultation with the City of Melbourne develop a relocation strategy for sports clubs and other formal users of directly impacted recreational facilities. The strategy should aim to identify available local alternative facilities for formal recreational users displaced from recreational facilities by the project. This strategy should avoid displacing existing users at alternative facilities and provide adequate modification to clubs to minimise the impact of relocation.

48. We support this EPR being included. The strategy referred to in the EPR has not yet been developed. There are numerous sporting clubs that currently use Edmund Herring Oval that will need to be accommodated. The City of Melbourne will endeavour to accommodate needs and requirements of displaced clubs. This needs to be done having regard to other clubs and users.

OTHER MATTERS

Information in response to the submission of the Bourke and Wills Society

49. The Burke and Wills statue currently situated on Swanston to the south of Collins Street on the footpath adjacent to the City Square is part of the City of Melbourne Art Collection managed and maintained by the City of Melbourne.

50. The Burke and Wills Society and the National Trust have made submissions in relation to the location of the final siting of the statue. The submissions do not include claims about the ownership of the statue.

51. The submissions made by the Burke and Wills Society and the National Trust aim to use this project as an opportunity to review the siting of the statue. The monument has been located at one of two sites at City Square since 1980. Many of the artworks in the collection have been moved more than once since their initial installation.

52. The City of Melbourne's primary concern is to ensure that this significant monument is not adversely impacted during the construction of the project. The final , detailed design and construction method for the station structure and station entrance are not yet known.

53. The City of Melbourne acknowledges that proposed EPRs seek to minimise construction footprints and minimise impacts on existing land uses. It is assumed that

11

the statue may need to be removed and stored during construction to ensure its protection. The first matter of concern to City of Melbourne is the way in which this is done and the expertise required to ensure that this is done in an appropriate manner.

54. If the statue does need to be removed and placed in storage, this provides an opportunity for a review of the siting of the artwork. The Burke and Wills Society has been seeking the relocation of the statue for some time, even before the Project was proposed.

55. The City of Melbourne acknowledges the interests and importance of these two key stakeholders but is of the view that given the significance of the statue, broader consultation is required and that the decision for the final location should be made by the City of Melbourne. On this basis it would be premature if not inappropriate for a long term decision to be made through the EES process at this time.

Matthew Townsend Owen Dixon Chambers

6 October 2016

Instructed by Hunt and Hunt Lawyers

12

)