nsw department of justice · bed temporary correctional accommodation facility proposed at the site...

NSW Department of Justice

Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional Accommodation

Review of Environmental Factors

July 2016

GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional

Accommodation, 21/25637 | i

Declaration

This Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd and presents

an assessment of potential impacts that may result from activities associated with the new 400

bed temporary correctional accommodation facility proposed at the site of the existing

Wellington Correctional Centre (the proposal).

The NSW Department of Justice (DJ) is a public authority and is the determining authority as

defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The proposal

satisfies the definition of an activity under the Act and as such DJ must assess and consider the

environmental impacts of the proposal before determining whether to proceed.

This REF has been prepared in accordance with sections 111 and 112 of the EP&A Act and

clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A

Regulation). This REF provides a true and fair assessment of the proposed activity in relation to

its likely effects on the environment. It addresses to the fullest extent possible, all matters

affecting or likely to affect the environment as a result of the proposed activity.

On the basis of the information presented in this REF it is concluded that:

1. The proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment and therefore

an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

2. The proposal is not likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations, ecological

communities, or critical habitat. Therefore a species impact statement is not required.

3. The proposal is not likely to affect any Commonwealth land, is not being carried out on

Commonwealth land, or significantly affect any Matters of National Environmental

Significance.

Subject to implementation of the measures to avoid, minimise or manage the environmental

impacts listed in this REF, the proposal is recommended for approval.

Name of author and

qualifications

Ashleigh Cox, BRTP (Hons)

Designation Senior Environmental Planner

Name of reviewer and

qualifications

Monique Roser, BTP (Hons)

Designation Principal Environmental Planner

Organisation GHD Pty Ltd

Signature

Date 22/07/16

ii | GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional

Accommodation, 21/25637

Verification and determination

Verifier

I have examined this REF and the declaration by the author Ashleigh Cox and accept the report

on behalf of the NSW Department of Justice.

Name Penny Goldin

Designation Team leader and environmental planner

Organisation NSW Water Solutions, NSW Public Works

Signature

Determination

I determine that the proposal is approved and may proceed.

Name Andrew Cappie-Wood

Designation Secretary

Organisation Department of Justice

Signature


Accommodation, 21/25637 | iii

Executive summary

The Wellington Correctional Centre (the existing facility) is operated by Corrective Services

NSW (CSNSW) and accommodates a maximum operational capacity of 703 inmates including

maximum, medium and minimum security male inmates and minimum security female inmates.

It is located on the Mudgee-Goolma Road, Wellington NSW (the site), approximately 358

kilometres north-west of Sydney.

The unprecedented and unanticipated rise in inmate numbers in recent years, which has

exceeded previous inmate population projections, has placed demand pressures on the

correctional system. This has resulted in a number of inefficiencies and operational challenges.

The Department of Justice (DJ) is therefore proposing to construct and operate a 400 bed

temporary correctional accommodation facility with associated infrastructure and services at

the site (referred to as ‘the proposal’).

The proposal would be undertaken within a 12 hectare area located 340 metres south-west of

the existing facility (referred to as ‘the study area’). It would include:

1 x 400 bed temporary correctional facility accommodation

Ancillary buildings

Access roads and services.

The proposal would consist of portal frame buildings to enable construction within a short

timeframe, commencing in August 2016.

The location and footprint of the proposal is shown on Figure 1-1 and the site plans provided in

Appendix B.

Planning framework

The proposed works are permissible without consent pursuant to clause 26 of State

Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP). The Infrastructure

SEPP provides that development for the purposes of alternations of, or additions to, a

correctional centre, may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent on

land within a prescribed zone, if the development is in connection with an existing correctional

centre.

This Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has been prepared to assess the potential

environmental impacts of the proposed works in accordance with the requirements of Part 5 of

the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

Environmental impacts and mitigation

A number of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of

the proposal have been identified and are summarised below.

The impact assessment has identified that the proposal has the potential to result in limited

short term impacts on the amenity of the surrounding community and/or users of adjoining areas

during construction. Potential impacts, which include noise and vibration, traffic and access, air

quality, and visual impacts, are assessed in sections 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.11 respectively. No

significant impacts are identified.

iv | GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional


During standard and outside of standard recommended hours the noise affected construction

and demolition noise management levels are predicted to be exceeded during some stages.

However, maximum internal construction noise levels at all residential receivers are likely to be

below the Road Noise Policy criteria and therefore, sleep disturbance is unlikely to occur. Noise

emissions from the proposal during operation are unlikely to exceed the relevant noise emission

criteria at any time of the day, evening or night-time.

Construction of the proposal may impact local air quality through the generation of dust by

excavation, construction vehicles driving over exposed soils and wind blowing over stockpiles.

Dust impacts have the potential to impact on the amenity of those occupying nearby residential

properties. The operation of construction plant and equipment would also result in additional

exhaust emissions in the area.

Operation of the proposal would not impact topography, geology, soils or water quality at the

site. Aside from the building areas, the site would be covered in gravel or landscaped where

required. No erosion or sedimentation impacts are anticipated during operation.

Flora and fauna field surveys undertaken for the study area identified a number of species and

one ecological community (Box-Gum Woodland) listed under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act with

the potential to occur in the study area. It is unlikely that the proposal would affect any of these

biota primarily due to the degraded nature of the habitat proposed to be removed.

Construction and operation of the proposal would not result in any impacts to listed/known

Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal heritage items. Mitigation measures would be implemented to

ensure heritage listed items within proximity to the works are not impacted during construction.

The potential socio-economic risks associated with the proposal for inmates at the existing

facility include stigma and impact to town’s reputation, fear about impact on local crime, traffic

and assess and impact on community and social infrastructure. Given the temporary nature of

the facility and its anticipated life span of 5-7 years all risks and benefits associated with the

proposal are also temporary.

Prior to construction commencing, a construction environmental management plan (CEMP)

would be developed by the construction contractor, to detail how the environmental

management of the proposal would be implemented.

The demolition of the proposal would also be undertaken in accordance with a demolition

environmental management plan prepared by the contractor and approved by DJ prior to

commencement of works. The environmental management plan would document the

mechanisms for achieving compliance with the commitments made in this REF. The

environmental management plan would also outline, but not be limited to, appropriate measures

for the re-use of existing structures and general site rehabilitation.

Summary

Pursuant to the provisions of the EP&A Act, and Environmental Planning and Assessment

Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation), an environmental assessment of the proposal has been

undertaken. Consideration has been given to the likely impact of the activity on the environment,

having regard to all relevant factors. On the basis of the information presented in this REF, it is

concluded that by adopting the safeguards identified in this assessment it is unlikely that there

would be significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposal.


Accommodation, 21/25637 | v

Table of contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and purpose of the proposal ......................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposal summary .......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Proposal objectives ......................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Location and land use ..................................................................................................... 1

1.5 Land ownership ............................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Purpose of this report ...................................................................................................... 2

1.7 Scope and limitations ...................................................................................................... 2

2. Statutory considerations ............................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ......................................................... 5

2.2 Environmental planning instruments ................................................................................ 5

2.3 Other legislative considerations ....................................................................................... 7

2.4 Summary of approvals and consents ............................................................................... 9

2.5 Consultation .................................................................................................................... 9

3. Need for the project ................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Existing facility ............................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Project justification ........................................................................................................ 13

4. Site selection........................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Site selection development ............................................................................................ 14

4.3 Site selection criteria ..................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Option evaluation .......................................................................................................... 15

5. Description of the proposal ...................................................................................................... 18

5.1 The proposal ................................................................................................................. 18

5.2 Construction and demolition works ................................................................................ 19

6. Environmental assessment...................................................................................................... 22

6.1 Location and land use ................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Noise and vibration ........................................................................................................ 23

6.3 Traffic and access ......................................................................................................... 35

6.4 Air quality ...................................................................................................................... 47

6.5 Soils, erosion and water quality ..................................................................................... 48

6.6 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................................ 50

6.7 Heritage ........................................................................................................................ 62

6.8 Site contamination ......................................................................................................... 64

6.9 Waste management ...................................................................................................... 65

6.10 Bushfire hazard ............................................................................................................. 66

6.11 Visual ............................................................................................................................ 68

6.12 Socio-economic ............................................................................................................. 69

vi | GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional


6.13 Mitigation....................................................................................................................... 76

7. Environmental management .................................................................................................... 78

7.1 Environmental management plans ................................................................................. 78

7.2 Environmental management measures .......................................................................... 79

8. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 89

8.1 Justification of the proposal ........................................................................................... 89

8.2 Summary of REF findings .............................................................................................. 89

8.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 89

8.4 Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 90

9. References ............................................................................................................................. 91

Table index

Table 2-1 Consideration of relevant legislation ................................................................................ 7

Table 2-2 EPBC Act protected matters search results ..................................................................... 8

Table 2-3 Summary of approvals and consents for the proposal ...................................................... 9

Table 2-4 Consultation requirements under clauses 13-16 of the Infrastructure SEPP ..................... 9

Table 4-1 Sites considered unsuitable to construct proposal .......................................................... 15

Table 4-2 Sites considered suitable to construct proposal .............................................................. 15

Table 4-3 Site evaluation ............................................................................................................... 15

Table 6-1 Receiver IDs and locations ............................................................................................ 23

Table 6-2 Construction noise management levels at residences .................................................... 26

Table 6-3 Construction traffic noise criteria, LAeq(period, dB(A) .......................................................... 27

Table 6-4 Construction scenarios and equipment .......................................................................... 28

Table 6-5 Construction equipment noise levels .............................................................................. 30

Table 6-6 Predicted construction noise levels at representative sensitive receivers during

standard construction hours, dBA .................................................................................. 30

Table 6-7 Predicted construction noise levels at representative sensitive receivers outside

of standard construction hours, dBA .............................................................................. 31

Table 6-8 Road noise policy criteria ............................................................................................... 33

Table 6-9 Predicted operational and road traffic noise levels at representative sensitive

receivers, dBA ............................................................................................................... 34

Table 6-10 Estimated traffic volumes 2016 ...................................................................................... 37

Table 6-11 Level of service criteria for intersections ........................................................................ 37

Table 6-12 Existing 2016 SIDRA intersection performance .............................................................. 38

Table 6-13 Forecast construction traffic generation ......................................................................... 41

Table 6-14 2016 Construction phase intersection performance ........................................................ 41

Table 6-15 Forecast traffic movements............................................................................................ 41


Accommodation, 21/25637 | vii

Table 6-16 Forecast daily and peak hour traffic generation – weekday ............................................ 42

Table 6-17 Forecast daily and peak hour traffic generation – weekend ............................................ 43

Table 6-18 SIDRA intersection performance 2023 scenarios ........................................................... 44

Table 6-19 Sight distance requirements .......................................................................................... 45

Table 6-20 Minimum number of required parking spaces ................................................................. 45

Table 6-21 Survey effort for ecological assessment ......................................................................... 51

Table 6-22 Noxious weeds in the study area ................................................................................... 54

Table 6-23 Potential socio economic risks associated with construction and demolition ................... 73

Table 6-24 Potential socio economic risks associated with operational of the proposal .................... 74

Table 7-1 CEMP structure ............................................................................................................. 78

Figure index

Figure 1-1 Site location ................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2 Site features ................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1 Site zoning ................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6-1 Receiver locations ........................................................................................................ 24

Figure 6-2 Crash locations ............................................................................................................ 39

Figure 6-3 Construction traffic routes ............................................................................................. 40

Figure 6-4 Proposed carpark layout ............................................................................................... 46

Figure 6-5 Flora surveys and vegetation communities ................................................................... 56

Figure 6-6 Kurrajong tree in the proposal site ................................................................................ 57

Figure 6-7 Introduced groundcover vegetation and peppercorn trees in the proposal site ............... 58

Figure 6-8 Derived grassland north of the proposal site ................................................................. 58

Figure 6-9 Bushfire hazard ............................................................................................................ 66

Figure 6-10 Recorded incidents of selected offences, 2010 .............................................................. 73

Appendices

Appendix A – Clause 228 factors and ecologically sustainable development considerations

under the EP&A Act

Appendix B – Preliminary design plans

Appendix C – ISEPP consultation letters

Appendix D – SIDRA intersection results

Appendix E – Flora and fauna species lists

Appendix F – Flora and fauna likelihood of occurrence

viii | GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional


Appendix G – Heritage impact assessment


Accommodation, 21/25637 | ix

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

ATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

BOCSAR Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CSNSW Corrective Services NSW

dBA A-weighted decibels

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation

DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change

DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

DJ Department of Justice

DotE Department of the Environment

DPI Department of Primary Industries

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999

GHD GHD Pty Ltd

Infrastructure SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

LGA Local Government Area

LEP Local Environmental Plan

m2

square metre

m metre/s

NPI National Pollutant Inventory

NSW New South Wales

NRAtlas NSW Natural Resource Atlas

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

PBCP Prison Bed Capacity Program

PCT Plant Community Type

PCYC Police Community Youth Clubs

REF Review of Environmental Factors

RFS NSW Rural Fire Service

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

STCC Short-term correctional centres

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995


Accommodation, 21/25637 | 1

1. Introduction

This section provides details on the background of the proposal, its objectives and site

location.

1.1 Background and purpose of the proposal

The Wellington Correctional Centre (the existing facility) is located on the Mudgee-Goolma

Road, Wellington NSW (the site) approximately 358 kilometres north-west of Sydney.

The existing facility is operated by Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) and accommodates a

maximum operational capacity of 703 inmates including maximum, medium and minimum

security male inmates and minimum security female inmates. It accepts prisoners charged and

convicted under New South Wales and/or Commonwealth legislation.

The unprecedented and unanticipated rise in inmate numbers in recent years, which has

exceeded previous inmate population projections, has placed demand pressures on the

correctional system. This has resulted in a number of inefficiencies and operational challenges.

The Department of Justice (DJ) is therefore proposing to construct and operate a 400 bed

temporary correctional accommodation facility with associated infrastructure and services at the

site (referred to as ‘the proposal’). The proposal is anticipated to be operational for

approximately 5-7 years, at which time it will be demolished. The proposal is part of the Prison

Bed Capacity Program (PBCP) to be undertaken by DJ.

1.2 Proposal summary

The proposal would be undertaken within a 12 hectare area located 340 metres south-west of

the existing facility (referred to as ‘the study area’). It would include:

1 x 400 bed temporary correctional facility accommodation

Ancillary buildings

Access roads and services.

The proposal would consist of portal frame buildings to enable construction within a short

timeframe, commencing in August 2016. The proposal is intended to operate for a period of five

to seven years until such time that permanent facilities can be designed and delivered across

NSW, and then it would be demolished.

The location and footprint of the proposal is show on Figure 1-1 and the site plans provided in

Appendix B.

1.3 Proposal objectives

The objective of the proposal is to:

Provide additional prison accommodation and associated infrastructure to assist in

alleviating the current State shortage

Ensure compliance with legislation and conditions of approval, permits and licences.

1.4 Location and land use

The existing facility is located on the Mudgee-Goolma Road, approximately seven kilometres

north-east of the Wellington town centre. The site upon which the proposal is to be constructed

is referred to as lot 1, DP 1141897, and has a total area of approximately 142.4 hectares.

2 | GHD | Report for NSW Department of Justice - Wellington Correctional Centre - 400 Bed Temporary Correctional


The site currently contains existing utilities including optical fibre cable, a gas pipeline, sewer

valves and a water tank. A drainage line runs on a north-south alignment through the western

portion of the study area. A dam has been constructed outside of, but within the immediate

vicinity of the study area, to capture water from the drainage line. Refer to Figure 1-2.

1.5 Land ownership

The land is owned by the Minister of Justice.

1.6 Purpose of this report

For an activity subject to Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A

Act), section 111 of the Act imposes a duty on a determining authority to ‘examine and take into

account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by

reason of that activity’. Determining authorities make a determination about whether a proposal

can proceed, and on what basis.

The purpose of this REF is to summarise the results of the environmental impact assessment

for the proposal and provide information about the proposal as an input to the determination

process. DJ (as the determining authority) will consider the findings of the REF as part of the

determination process.

1.7 Scope and limitations

This report has been prepared by GHD for DJ and may only be used and relied on by DJ for the

purpose agreed between GHD and the DJ as set out in section 1.6 of this report. GHD

otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than DJ arising in connection with this

report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those

specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions

encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no

responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring

subsequent to the date that the report was prepared. The opinions, conclusions and any

recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD as described

throughout this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being

incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by DJ and others who

provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has not

independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept

liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the

report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

WE

LL

ING

TO

N C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

FA

CIL

ITY

CA

DIA

PLA

CE

CADONIA D

RIVE

BELA V

ISTA

LA

NE

TW

ELV

E M

ILE

RO

AD

GOOLMA ROAD

Jo

b N

um

be

r

Rev

isio

nA

N:\

AU

\Ora

ng

e\P

roje

cts

\21

\256

37

\GIS

\Ma

ps\D

elive

rab

les\2

1_

25

63

7_Z

001

_S

ite

Loc

ati

on

.mxd

Ma

p P

roje

ctio

n:

Tra

nsv

ers

e M

erc

ato

r

Ho

rizo

nta

l D

atu

m:

GD

A 1

99

4

Grid

: G

DA

19

94

MG

A Z

on

e 5

5

040

080

020

0

Me

tre

s

LE

GE

ND

o©

20

16

. W

hilst

ev

ery

ca

re h

as b

ee

n t

ake

n t

o p

rep

are

this

map

, G

HD

an

d N

SW

LP

I m

ak

e n

o r

ep

rese

nta

tio

ns

or

wa

rra

ntie

s a

bo

ut

its a

ccu

racy

, re

liab

ility,

co

mple

ten

ess o

r su

ita

bility f

or

an

y p

art

icu

lar

pu

rpo

se

an

d c

an

no

t a

cc

ep

t liab

ility a

nd

re

sp

ons

ibili

ty o

f a

ny k

ind

(wh

eth

er

in c

on

tra

ct,

tort

or

oth

erw

ise

) fo

r a

ny e

xpe

nse

s,

loss

es

, d

am

ag

es a

nd

/or

co

sts

(in

clu

din

g i

nd

ire

ct

or

co

nse

que

ntia

l d

am

ag

e)

whic

h a

re o

r m

ay

be

in

cu

rre

d b

y a

ny p

art

y a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e m

ap b

ein

g in

ac

cu

rate

, in

co

mp

lete

or

un

su

ita

ble

in a

ny w

ay

an

d f

or

any

re

aso

n.

Date

21

Ju

l 2

01

6

Da

ta s

ou

rce

: I

ma

gery

- ©

La

nd

an

d P

rope

rty

In

form

atio

n (

Extr

ac

ted

: 2

1/0

7/1

6);

Str

ee

ts -

NS

W L

PI

201

2 D

TD

B.

Cre

ate

d b

y:m

kin

g3

Le

ve

l 1

5,

13

3 C

as

tle

rea

gh

Str

ee

t S

yd

ney

NS

W 2

00

0

T 6

1 2

92

39

71

00

F

61

2 9

23

9 7

19

9

E s

yd

ma

il@

gh

d.c

om

.au

W

ww

w.g

hd

.co

m.a

u

Pap

er

Siz

e A

4

Sit

e l

oc

ati

on

Re

gio

na

l L

oc

ality

Ma

p

© L

an

d a

nd

Pro

pe

rty

In

form

ati

on

20

15

Fig

ure

1-1

21

-256

37

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f Ju

stice

Re

vie

w o

f E

nv

iro

nm

en

tal F

acto

rs f

or

We

llin

gto

n C

orr

ectio

na

l C

en

tre

Site location

Stu

dy A

rea

Bo

un

da

ry

Sit

e B

ou

nd

ary

Ca

da

str

e

WE

LL

ING

TO

N C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

FA

CIL

ITY

Ex

isti

ng

Fa

rmh

ou

se

Ex

isti

ng

Da

m

CADIA

PLA

CE

CADONIAD

RIV

E

TW

EL

VE

MIL

E R

OA

D

GOOLMA ROAD

Jo

b N

um

be

r

Rev

isio

nA

N:\

AU

\Ora

ng

e\P

roje

cts

\21

\256

37

\GIS

\Ma

ps\D

elive

rab

les\2

1_

25

63

7_Z

004

_S

ite

Fe

atu

res.m

xd

Ma

p P

roje

ctio

n:

Tra

nsv

ers

e M

erc

ato

r

Ho

rizo

nta

l D

atu

m:

GD

A 1

99

4

Grid

: G

DA

19

94

MG

A Z

on

e 5

5

020

040

010

0

Me

tre

s

LE

GE

ND

o©

20

16

. W

hilst

ev

ery

ca

re h

as b

ee

n t

ake

n t

o p

rep

are

this

map

, G

HD

an

d N

SW

LP

I m

ak

e n

o r

ep

rese

nta

tio

ns

or

wa

rra

ntie

s a

bo

ut

its a

ccu

racy

, re

liab

ility,

co

mple

ten

ess o

r su

ita

bility f

or

an

y p

art

icu

lar

pu

rpo

se

an

d c

an

no

t a

cc

ep

t liab

ility a

nd

re

sp

ons

ibili

ty o

f a

ny k

ind

(wh

eth

er

in c

on

tra

ct,

tort

or

oth

erw

ise

) fo

r a

ny e

xpe

nse

s,

loss

es

, d

am

ag

es a

nd

/or

co

sts

(in

clu

din

g i

nd

ire

ct

or

co

nse

que

ntia

l d

am

ag

e)

whic

h a

re o

r m

ay

be

in

cu

rre

d b

y a

ny p

art

y a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e m

ap b

ein

g in

ac

cu

rate

, in

co

mp

lete

or

un

su

ita

ble

in a

ny w

ay

an

d f

or

any

re

aso

n.

Date

21

Ju

l 2

01

6

Da

ta s

ou

rce

: I

ma

gery

- ©

La

nd

an

d P

rope

rty

In

form

atio

n (

Extr

ac

ted

: 2

1/0

7/1

6);

Str

ee

ts -

NS

W L

PI

201

2 D

TD

B.

Cre

ate

d b

y:m

kin

g3

Le

ve

l 1

5,

13

3 C

as

tle

rea

gh

Str

ee

t S

yd

ney

NS

W 2

00

0

T 6

1 2

92

39

71

00

F

61

2 9

23

9 7

19

9

E s

yd

ma

il@

gh

d.c

om

.au

W

ww

w.g

hd

.co

m.a

u

Pap

er

Siz

e A

4

© L

an

d a

nd

Pro

pe

rty

In

form

ati

on

20

15

Fig

ure

1-2

21

-256

37

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f Ju

stice

Re

vie

w o

f E

nv

iro

nm

en

tal F

acto

rs f

or

We

llin

gto

n C

orr

ectio

na

l C

en

tre

Site f

eatu

res

Stu

dy

Are

a B

ou

nd

ary

Site

Bo

un

da

ry

Dra

ina

ge

Fe

atu

res



2. Statutory considerations

This section provides an overview of the statutory framework relevant to the proposal,

including the assessment requirements, relevant environmental legislation and planning

instruments.

2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provide the statutory basis for

planning and environmental assessment in NSW. The EP&A Act provides the framework for

environmental planning and development approvals and includes provisions to ensure that the

potential environmental impacts of a development are assessed and considered in the decision

making process.

2.1.1 Application of Part 5 of the EP&A Act

As a result of the application of the Infrastructure SEPP (as described in section 2.2.1), the

proposal is subject to Part 5 of the EP&A Act. In relation to Part 5 activities, section 111 of the

EP&A Act imposes a duty on a determining authority to ‘examine and take into account to the

fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that

activity’. These matters are assessed in Section 6 of this REF. The environmental impact of the

works has been assessed against the factors listed under clause 228 of the EP&A Regulation

provided in Appendix A.

Section 110(1) defines a determining authority as ‘a Minister or public authority and, in relation

to any activity, means the Minister or public authority by or on whose behalf the activity is or is

to be carried out or any Minister or public authority whose approval is required in order to enable

the activity to be carried out’.

In accordance with clause 26 of the Infrastructure SEPP, DJ is the proponent and a determining

authority for the proposal. This REF has been prepared to satisfy DJ’s requirements under the

EP&A Act.

2.2 Environmental planning instruments

The environmental planning instruments that are relevant to the assessment of the proposal are

considered below.

2.2.1 State environmental planning policies (SEPPs)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The Infrastructure SEPP clarifies the consent arrangements for infrastructure projects.

According to clause 8(1), if there is any inconsistency, the Infrastructure SEPP prevails over

other environmental planning instruments.

Clarification of consent requirements

The existing facility is a gazetted correctional centre provided by clause 24 of the Instructure

SEPP. The definition of correctional centre provided by clause 24 includes premises declared

as such under section 225 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. The site on

which the proposal is to be constructed has been gazetted as a correctional complex. DJ are

currently seeking advice on the process for gazettal for the proposal site as a correctional

centre.



Clause 26 of the Infrastructure SEPP outlines the consent arrangement for correctional centres

and correctional complexes. It outlines development that may be carried without consent, as

follows:

Development for any of the following purposes may be carried out by or on behalf of a public

authority without consent on land within a prescribed zone if the development is in

connection with an existing correctional centre:

(a) transitional group homes that each contain not more than 5 bedrooms and

accommodate fewer residents than the number equal to the number calculated by

multiplying the number of bedrooms in the home by 2,

(b) sporting facilities or additions to sporting facilities, if the development does not involve

clearing of more than 2 hectares of native vegetation,

(c) demolition of buildings,

(d) replacement of accommodation, administration or other facilities in a correctional

complex,

(e) alterations of, or additions to, a correctional complex,

(f) construction, maintenance or realignment of security fencing with a height of not more

than 12 metres above ground level (existing).

In accordance with clause 26(e), the proposal comprises development for the purposes of

alternations of, or additions to, a correctional complex and would be carried out by or on behalf

of a public authority (DJ).

The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the

LEP) (refer to section 2.2.2). As defined by clause 24 of the Infrastructure SEPP, prescribed

zones in which development may be carried by or on behalf of a public authority without consent

include SP2 Infrastructure. Accordingly, the proposal also complies with this requirement.

As demonstrated above, the proposal can therefore be carried out without development consent

in accordance with clause 26(e) of the Infrastructure SEPP.

Other requirements under the Infrastructure SEPP

Clauses 13 to 16 of the Infrastructure SEPP outline the requirements for consultation with

councils and other public authorities for any infrastructure development carried out by or on

behalf of a public authority that meets the requirements under these clauses. A summary of the

statutory consultation undertaken is provided in section 2.5.

2.2.2 Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012

The Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP) applies to the land in which the

proposal is located. The proposal site is located within land zoned as SP2 Infrastructure:

Correctional Centre. Refer to Figure 2-1. The zone provisions provide that the proposal can be

carried out in this zone with consent. However, clause 5.12 of the LEP states that ‘…this Plan

does not restrict or prohibit, or enable the restriction or prohibition of, the carrying out of any

development, by or on behalf of a public authority, that is permitted to be carried out with or

without development consent, or that is exempt development, under State Environmental

Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007’. As the proposal is permitted without consent under the

Infrastructure SEPP, the consent requirements of the Wellington LEP do not apply to the

proposal.



2.3 Other legislative considerations

2.3.1 NSW legislation

Other environmental legislation that is directly relevant to the approval and/or assessment of the

proposal is considered in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Consideration of relevant legislation

Act Potential approval requirement

for correctional centres /

complexes

Relevance to the proposal

Roads Act 1993 Approval under section 138 for works to a public road

Section 138 of the NSW Roads Act 1993 (the Roads Act) requires applicants to obtain approval from the relevant roads authority for the erection of a structure, or the carrying out of work in, on or over a public road, or the digging up or disturbance of the surface of a road.

The proposal would include provision of a new road access to the site from Mudgee-Goolma Road (an arterial road).

These works require approval under section 138 of the Roads Act. The approval authority would be Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

National Parks

and Wildlife Act

1974

A heritage impact permit under section 87 of the Act to harm or desecrate an Aboriginal heritage object.

There are no listed Aboriginal heritage items or places located on or in the vicinity of the site. As a result of the existing levels of site disturbance, there is minimal likelihood that unknown items of Aboriginal heritage significance would be present.

Further information is provided in section 6.7.

Heritage Act 1977 Approval under section 57(1) for works to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object, precinct, or land listed on the State Heritage Register.

An excavation permit under section 139 to disturb or excavate any land containing or likely to contain a relic.

There are no listed heritage items located within or in the vicinity of the site. The nearest listed heritage item is located approximately 5.8 kilometres south of the study area.

As a result of the existing levels of site disturbance, there is minimal likelihood that unknown items of historic significance or relics would be present.


Threatened

Species

Conservation Act

1995 (TSC Act)

The TSC Act lists threatened species, populations or ecological communities to be considered in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant impact on threatened biota, or their habitats. If any of these could be impacted by the project, an assessment of significance that addresses the requirements of section 5A of the EP&A Act must be completed to determine the significance of the impact.

The proposal site has been cleared in the past and subject to previous disturbance. The proposal would not result in any impacts to listed flora, fauna or communities, and a species impact statement is not required.


Noxious Weeds

Act 1993

Under Part 3 Division 1 of the Act, all private landowners, occupiers, public authorities and Councils are required to control noxious weeds on their land.

Three noxious weed species were identified during the surveys. The proposal has the potential to cause the further spread of noxious weeds such as African Boxthorn and Tree of Heaven in the proposal site and study area.




2.3.1 Commonwealth legislation

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

An Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) protected

matters search was undertaken on 5 July 2016 for an area within a 500 metre radius of the

proposal site. The results of the search are summarised in Table 2-2. As no impacts are

predicted, an approval under the EPBC Act would not be required.

Table 2-2 EPBC Act protected matters search results

EPBC Act protected matter

Matter located within search radius

Comments Potential impact

World Heritage Properties

None The proposal would not impact on any World Heritage properties.

None

National Heritage Places

None The proposal would not impact on any National Heritage properties.

None

Wetlands of international importance(Ramsar sites)

None The proposal would not impact on any wetlands.

None

Threatened ecological communities

Two The literature review, database search and field surveys identified a number of species and one ecological community (Box-Gum Woodland) listed under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act with the potential to occur in the study area. It is unlikely that the proposal would affect any of these biota primarily due to the degraded nature of the habitat proposed to be removed.

None

Threatened species 19 species including seven birds, two fish, five mammals, four plant species and one reptile

Refer to comments above. None

Listed migratory species

Five species including one migratory marine bird, three terrestrial species, one wetlands species

None

Nuclear actions None The proposal does not involve a nuclear action.

None

Commonwealth Marine Areas

None No Commonwealth marine areas are located within the search radius.

None

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

None The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is outside the search radius.

None

Commonwealth land

None The proposal would not directly or indirectly impact on any Commonwealth land.

None



EPBC Act protected matter

Matter located within search radius

Comments Potential impact

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

Not relevant Not relevant. None

2.4 Summary of approvals and consents

A summary of approvals and consents required for the proposal is summarised in Table 2-3

below.

Table 2-3 Summary of approvals and consents for the proposal

Agency Activity Relevant legislation

DJ Determining authority for the

proposal

Clause 26 of the Infrastructure SEPP

RMS Approval authority for construction

of new access

Roads Act 1993

As a result of the application of the Infrastructure SEPP the proposal does not require

development consent and it is subject to assessment and determination under Part 5 of the

EP&A Act. DJ and RMS would be determining authorities for the proposal.

The new road access also requires approval from RMS under section 138 of the Roads Act.

No other approvals or consents are required.

2.5 Consultation

A summary of the consultation requirements undertaken for the proposal in accordance with

clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Infrastructure SEPP is provided in Table 2-4 below.

Table 2-4 Consultation requirements under clauses 13-16 of the

Infrastructure SEPP

Clause under Infrastructure SEPP Comments

13(1)(a) the development will have a substantial

impact on stormwater management services provided

by a council

Not applicable. The site is not

serviced by Council stormwater

infrastructure.

13(1)(b) the development is likely to generate traffic to

an extent that will strain the capacity of the road

system in a local government area

Applies. The proposal is likely to

generate traffic to an extent that will

strain the capacity of the existing road

system. A letter providing written

notice of the intention to carry out the

development was sent to Roads and

Maritime Services (RMS) on 7 July

2016 in accordance with clauses 13

(2) of the Infrastructure SEPP. A copy

of this letter is provided in Appendix C.

13(1)(c) the development involves connection to, and Applies. The proposal will involve




a substantial impact on the capacity of, any part of a

sewerage system owned by a council

connection to Council’s sewerage

system. A letter providing written

notice of the intention to carry out the

development was sent to Western

Plains Regional Council (Council) on 7

July 2016 in accordance with clauses

13 (2) of the Infrastructure SEPP. A

copy of this letter is provided in

Appendix C.

13(1)(d) development involves connection to, and use

of a substantial volume of water from, any part of a

water supply system owned by a council

Applies. The proposal will involve

connection to and use of water from

Council’s water supply system. A letter

providing written notice of the intention

to carry out the development was sent

to Council on 7 July 2016 in

accordance with clauses 13 (2) of the

Infrastructure SEPP. A copy of this

letter is provided in Appendix C.

13(1)(e) development involves the installation of a

temporary structure on, or the enclosing of, a public

place that is under a council’s management or control

that is likely to cause a disruption to pedestrian or

vehicular traffic that is not minor or inconsequential

Not applicable. The proposal does

not involve the installation of a

temporary structure on, or the

enclosing of, a public place.

13(1)(f) development involves excavation that is not

minor or inconsequential of the surface of, or a

footpath adjacent to, a road for which a council is the

roads authority under the Roads Act 1993 (if the public

authority that is carrying out the development, or on

whose behalf it is being carried out, is not responsible

for the maintenance of the road or footpath)


not involve excavation of the surface

of a footpath adjacent to a road.

14(1)(a) development is likely to have an impact that is

not minor or inconsequential on a local heritage item

(other than a local heritage item that is also a State

heritage item) or a heritage conservation area

Not applicable. Construction,

operation and demolition of the

proposal would not result in any

impacts to listed/known Aboriginal or

non-Aboriginal heritage items.

15(1)(2) A public authority, or a person acting on

behalf of a public authority, must not carry out, on

flood liable land, development that this Policy provides

may be carried out without consent and that will

change flood patterns other than to a minor extent….

Not applicable. The proposal is not

located on flood liable land.

16(2)(a) development adjacent to land reserved under

the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974—the

Department of Environment and Climate Change


located adjacent to land reserved

under the National Parks and Wildlife

Act 1974.

16(2)(b) development adjacent to a marine park Not applicable. The proposal is not




declared under the Marine Parks Act 1997—the

Marine Parks Authority

located adjacent to a marine park.

16(2)(c) development adjacent to an aquatic reserve

declared under the Fisheries Management Act 1994—

the Department of Environment and Climate Change


located adjacent to an aquatic

reserve.

16(2)(d) development in the foreshore area within the

meaning of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

Act 1998—the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority


located within the Sydney harbour

foreshore area.

16(2)(e) development comprising a fixed or floating

structure in or over navigable waters—the Maritime

Authority of NSW


not comprise a fixed or floating

structure in over navigable waters.

16(2)(f) development for the purposes of an

educational establishment, health services facility,

correctional centre or group home, or for residential

purposes, in an area that is bush fire prone land (as

defined by the Act)—the NSW Rural Fire Service

Applies. The location of the proposal

is more than 140m from the nearest

mapped bushfire prone land.

However, as the proposal is located

within the same lot identified as being

bushfire prone, a letter providing

written notice of the intention to carry

out the proposal was sent to the NSW

Rural Fire Service (RFS) on 7 July

2016. A copy of this letter is provided

in Appendix C.

At the time of writing this report, no response from Council, RMS or RFS has been received.

WE

LL

ING

TO

N C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

FA

CIL

ITY

CA

DIA

PLA

CE

CADONIA D

RIVE

BELA V

ISTA

LA

NE

TW

ELV

E M

ILE

RO

AD

GOOLMA ROAD

Jo

b N

um

be

r

Rev

isio

nA

N:\

AU

\Ora

ng

e\P

roje

cts

\21

\256

37

\GIS

\Ma

ps\D

elive

rab

les\2

1_

25

63

7_Z

002

_L

EP.m

xd

Ma

p P

roje

ctio

n:

Tra

nsv

ers

e M

erc

ato

r

Ho

rizo

nta

l D

atu

m:

GD

A 1

99

4

Grid

: G

DA

19

94

MG

A Z

on

e 5

5

040

080

020

0

Me

tre

s

LE

GE

ND

o©

20

16

. W

hilst

ev

ery

ca

re h

as b

ee

n t

ake

n t

o p

rep

are

this

map

, G

HD

an

d N

SW

LP

I m

ak

e n

o r

ep

rese

nta

tio

ns

or

wa

rra

ntie

s a

bo

ut

its a

ccu

racy

, re

liab

ility,

co

mple

ten

ess o

r su

ita

bility f

or

an

y p

art

icu

lar

pu

rpo

se

an

d c

an

no

t a

cc

ep

t liab

ility a

nd

re

sp

ons

ibili

ty o

f a

ny k

ind

(wh

eth

er

in c

on

tra

ct,

tort

or

oth

erw

ise

) fo

r a

ny e

xpe

nse

s,

loss

es

, d

am

ag

es a

nd

/or

co

sts

(in

clu

din

g i

nd

ire

ct

or

co

nse

que

ntia

l d

am

ag

e)

whic

h a

re o

r m

ay

be

in

cu

rre

d b

y a

ny p

art

y a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e m

ap b

ein

g in

ac

cu

rate

, in

co

mp

lete

or

un

su

ita

ble

in a

ny w

ay

an

d f

or

any

re

aso

n.

Date

21

Ju

l 2

01

6

Da

ta s

ou

rce

: I

ma

gery

- ©

La

nd

an

d P

rope

rty

In

form

atio

n (

Extr

ac

ted

: 2

1/0

7/1

6);

Str

ee

ts -

NS

W L

PI

201

2 D

TD

B.

Cre

ate

d b

y:m

kin

g3

Le

ve

l 1

5,

13

3 C

as

tle

rea

gh

Str

ee

t S

yd

ney

NS

W 2

00

0

T 6

1 2

92

39

71

00

F

61

2 9

23

9 7

19

9

E s

yd

ma

il@

gh

d.c

om

.au

W

ww

w.g

hd

.co

m.a

u

Pap

er

Siz

e A

4

© L

an

d a

nd

Pro

pe

rty

In

form

ati

on

20

15

Fig

ure

2-1

21

-256

37

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f Ju

stice

Re

vie

w o

f E

nv

iro

nm

en

tal F

acto

rs f

or

We

llin

gto

n C

orr

ectio

na

l C

en

tre

Site Z

onin

g

Stu

dy A

rea

Bo

un

da

ry

Sit

e B

ou

nd

ary

Ca

da

str

e

We

llin

gto

n L

EP

20

12

R5

, L

arg

e L

ot

Re

sid

en

tia

l

RU

1,

Pri

ma

ry P

rod

ucti

on

SP

2,

Infr

as

tru

ctu

re



3. Need for the project

This section discusses the existing facility and provides the context for the proposal.

3.1 Existing facility

The existing facility was opened in September 2007. It accommodates a maximum operational

capacity of 703 inmates including maximum, medium and minimum security male inmates and

minimum security female inmates.

The existing facility is currently running at or above capacity and is inadequate to meet the

current inmate population.

3.2 Project justification

The proposal would comprise a standalone, self-operating facility. There is an abundance of

available land on the site and the proposal can be adequately accommodated within the existing

site. Site investigations have confirmed that the proposal would not result in any impacts to

ecological or cultural heritage values at the property. Further information is provided in section

6.

The existing facility is unable to meet the increasing and changing demands of the growing

prison population. The proposal would respond to long term growth forecasts through the

provision of additional prison beds and associated infrastructure in the area.

It is considered that a temporary facility is the best way to meet the immediate needs of DJ

whilst longer term solutions are resolved and implemented. The longer term solutions will likely

involve the construction of larger permanent correctional facilities in defined locations.



4. Site selection

This section briefly describes the site selection methodology and the options considered

for the proposal.

4.1 Introduction

As discussed in section 3, an urgent need for additional prison accommodation in the area has

been identified. The following options were considered in relation to the proposal.

4.2 Site selection development

Based on preliminary layouts developed by DJ, the overall land footprint required for the

proposal is approximately 12 hectares.

DJ have determined that there is a significant benefit to co-locating the proposal with an existing

facility as there would be no need to acquire additional land to construct the proposal. It would

utilise existing land available at existing correctional facilities throughout NSW.

Therefore DJ require that the temporary accommodation facilities are constructed within the

lands already owned or directly accessible by The Minister for Justice and adjacent to existing

facilities.

Since mid-May 2016, DJ has been reviewing a list of sites provided by CSNSW as possible

locations for the facilities. These are as follows:

Emu Plains

St Heliers

Wellington

Kirkconnell

Lithgow

Bathurst

Goulburn

Kariong

Junee

Cessnock

Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre.

4.3 Site selection criteria

In order to assess each of these sites and their capacity to accommodate one of the new

facilities, a series of selection criteria was set up in order to rank the suitability of the possible

sites and their opportunities. These criteria were:

Owned by Minister of Justice or access available from other departments

Size of available land is in the vicinity of 10-16 hectares

Planning constraints or site conditions were not an impediment to proposal (either by REF

process or development application)

Timeframe to obtain development consent



Proximity to the greater Sydney region.

Further, a high level consideration of services availability and other site specific impediments

was undertaken.

Based upon the assessment, the following sites were considered unsuitable due to the reasons

identified in Table 4-1 below:

Table 4-1 Sites considered unsuitable to construct proposal

Limited land availability Planning issues

Lithgow Kariong (heritage / land ownership)

Bathurst Kirkconnell (land ownership / utilities

constraints) Goulburn

Cobham

The following sites in Table 4-2 were considered suitable for further review and investigation:

Table 4-2 Sites considered suitable to construct proposal

REF process Development application process

Emu Plains St Heliers

Wellington

Junee

Cessnock

In order to further investigate the suitability of these sites, further investigations were carried out,

including:

Site detail surveys to determine best location and siting suitability

Detailed investigation of existing services, and determination of required services to

service facilities

Completion of geotechnical studies

Development of a site specific masterplan.

4.4 Option evaluation

4.4.1 Evaluation of suitable sites

An evaluation of the sites considered suitable to construct the proposal is provided in Table 4-3

below.

Table 4-3 Site evaluation

Site Comments Ranking

Emu Plains Most desirable site to CSNSW due to its

proximity to the Sydney region, however the

site is impacted by flooding due to its

proximity to the Nepean River.

Most desirable

site, however

need to finalise

flood modelling



Site Comments Ranking

There are a number of available positions on

the Emu Plains landholding suitable to house

the temporary facilities.

DJ are currently undertaking flood modelling,

and earthworks calculations in order to

understand the extent of site preparation

works required in order to commence.

Current estimates are that the costs may be

in the order of $16-20 million and six months

to prepare the site ready for construction

activities.

The impacts upon the Women’s Dairy

Industries should be considered when

considering this site.

and earthworks

prior to

commencing

Wellington

and Junee

These sites are able to be considered for

approval through the REF process due to

their existing zoning, use and gazettal.

There is sufficient landholdings on each of

the sites to house one or two centres.

There are no areas of significant concern

from an approvals perspective that have

been identified at this time.

The significant issue with these sites are their

distance from Sydney and the impacts from a

cost and time perspective on the construction

and ultimate operation in these locations.

Desirable, able to

commence

approval process

Cessnock There are a number of available site

positions at this location.

DJ are currently resolving the best location

for a temporary facility whilst being mindful of

medium term proposals for 320, 280 and

2000 bed facilities.

The construction of one or more temporary

facilities in this location will likely mean that

the size of the 2000 bed facility will be

significantly reduced.

Desirable,

however need to

resolve location

for temporary

facility on site

4.4.2 Do nothing option

The do nothing option would not address the identified deficiencies associated with the

inadequate prison accommodation which is unable to meet the current and projected inmate

population. The do nothing option is not considered to be acceptable in terms of meeting the

objectives of the proposal.



4.4.3 Preferred option

Wellington was selected as a suitable candidate for the construction of the proposal for the

reasons outlined in Table 4-3.

There is an issue with the site’s distance from Sydney and the potential impacts from a cost and

time perspective on the construction and ultimate operation of the proposal. This issue has been

considered throughout this REF.

It is noted that DJ is considering the progression of the other sites and may progress these

concurrently or subsequently.

In order for DJ to continue to deliver on the NSW Government’s policy objectives and to address

current demand and network issues, it was recommended that the proposal proceed.



5. Description of the proposal

This section provides a description of the infrastructure to be provided for the proposal

including relevant details relating to its construction and demolition.

5.1 The proposal

Due to the urgent need for additional custodial accommodation in NSW, DJ and CSNSW have

worked to develop the concept for a correctional centre model that can be promptly erected and

house up to 400 prisoners in dormitory style accommodation.

The proposal would be designed to operate with a maximum security classification and would

be constructed from a secured panelised construction system utilising standardised modular

materials.

The proposal is intended to commence operations from February/March 2017 and operate for a

period of five to seven years, until such time that permanent facilities can be designed and

delivered across NSW, and then it would be demolished.

The proposal would be known as a short-term correctional centre (STCC) and would include the

following:

Four accommodation buildings, each housing 100 prisoners

Visits centre

Officer programs building

Clinic

Industries

Segregation unit

Open space/exercise area

Staff and visitor car park

Surrounding 3.6 metre high chainwire security fence.

Refer to preliminary design plans provided in Appendix B. A more detail description of the

proposal is provided below.

Accommodation

The accommodation is proposed to be housed in four single storey buildings. Each building

would accommodate 100 inmates and include kitchens and living/dining areas.

Visits centre

The visits centre would comprise a single storey building containing indoor and outdoor visit

areas and officer post.

Reception area and clinic

The reception area and clinic would be located within one single storey building, adjacent to the

visits centre.

Industries/workshops

Two workshop areas are located within separate single storey buildings. Workshop 1 is located

adjoining the reception area, whilst Workshop 2 is located adjoining the segregation unit.



Segregation unit

A segregation unit for solitary confinement is provided adjoining workshop 1.

Open space/exercise area

The proposal would include an exercise area which would comprise a new playing and open

space area.

Visitor and staff car parks

Two new car parks are proposed for visitor and staff car parking. visitor car park. A new access

to the car park would be provided from Mudgee-Goolma Road. The car park would provide

parking for approximately 160 cars (80 staff and 80 visitor).

5.1.1 Hours of operation and staff/visitor numbers

The facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The number of staff would be approximately 220, consisting of administration, education,

industries management and custodial staff.

The number of visitors to the facility would be limited to two sessions on weekends and public

holidays only. This is expected to be 90 visitors per session.

5.1.2 Traffic, access and servicing

Access to the facility will be from Mudgee-Goolma Road. A new intersection and access road

would be required, which would be located around 550 metres to the south of the existing

correctional facility access road.

The proposal is expected to generate 317 inbound and 317 outbound vehicle trips per day.

It is estimated that during the construction and demolition periods, up to 300 light vehicles and

50 heavy vehicles per day will be required for construction, seven days a week. This equates to

600 light vehicle movements and 100 heavy vehicle movements per day.

For further information on the proposed impacts due to increased traffic entering the site, refer

to sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3.

5.1.3 Drainage and utilities

The proposal will require connection to Council’s water supply and sewerage infrastructure.

The proposal will require some minor earthworks in order to improve the existing cleared area

for the construction of the building pad. The proposal is not anticipated to alter the current

drainage arrangements onsite.

5.2 Construction and demolition works

5.2.1 Indicative construction and demolition methodology

Construction methodology

Construction of the proposal is likely to include the following general activities by the

contractor(s):

Site establishment, construction compounds, fencing etc.

Establishment of construction access points/road

Installation of erosion and sediment controls



Clearing and removal of topsoil

Excavation works, grading and levelling the construction site for structures

Building works including brickwork, pre-cast and concrete foundation placement

Road, car park and associated civil works

Building services installation and fit out

Site stabilisation and landscaping with native vegetation.

Demolition methodology

The demolition would be undertaken in accordance with a demolition environmental

management plan prepared by the contractor and approved by DJ prior to commencement of

works. The environmental management plan would document the mechanisms for achieving

compliance with the commitments made in this REF.

The environmental management plan would also outline, but not be limited to, appropriate

measures for the re-use of existing structures and general site rehabilitation. It would also

consider matters including traffic management and erosion and sediment control measures

during demolition of the proposal.

During preparation of the environmental management plan, the requirements of the relevant

guidelines and legislation would be considered and all mitigation measures associated with the

demolition of the proposal outlined as discussed in sections 6 and 7.2.

Additional management plans would also be developed to address the removal of inmates from

the facility prior to demolition and the redeployment of existing staff to other facilities, as

required.

Demolition of the proposal is likely to include the following general activities by the contractor(s):

Site establishment

Removal of any hazardous materials

Removal of relocatable structures

Removal of concrete hardstand

Site clearance and testing (if required)

Site demobilisation and rehabilitation.

5.2.2 Construction and demolition equipment

The type of equipment likely to be required for the construction work would include:

Excavators or similar earthmoving equipment

Concrete agitators and pumps

Low loader transporters and delivery/material transport vehicles (construction spoil and

waste materials)

Light commercial and passenger vehicles

Small lifting machinery

Rollers

Pneumatic and general hand tools.



5.2.3 Construction and demolition site layout

The contractor would establish a compound area to accommodate construction activities for the

duration of the construction period. The compound area would accommodate the following

facilities:

Vehicle parking

Site office

Amenities

Stockpiles

Fuel storage.

5.2.4 Construction value

Construction of the proposal is anticipated to cost between $80-100 million.

5.2.5 Construction timeframe

Construction of the proposal is anticipated to take approximately seven months to complete.

Construction is currently programmed to commence in August 2016.

Construction of the proposal would be undertaken seven days a week, comprising two, eight

hour shifts starting at 6am.

5.2.6 Construction environmental management plan

The proposal would be undertaken in accordance with a construction environmental

management plan (CEMP) prepared by the construction contractor and approved by DJ prior to

the commencement of works. The CEMP would document the mechanisms for achieving

compliance with the commitments made in this REF and the conditions of approval that relate to

construction.



6. Environmental assessment

This section identifies and characterises the likely potential impacts associated with the

construction, operational and demolition phases of the proposal.

6.1 Location and land use

6.1.1 Existing environment

The site upon which the proposal is to be constructed is currently vacant land used for grazing.

The site is directly adjoined by:

Mudgee-Goolma Road to the west

Rural residential housing to the south

Land used for grazing and other agricultural facilities to the north and east.

Land uses in the surrounding area include:

Goolma Road to the west

The State Government Soil Conservation Service located at 6582 Goolma Road,

approximately 340 metres from the western boundary of the site (and approximately 470

metres from the area that would be subject to the proposal)

Residential housing located within Cadonia Estate, located at 6-28 Cadia Place,

Wuuluman, approximately 125 metres from the south-eastern boundary of the site (and

approximately 340 metres from the area that would be subject to the proposal).

6.1.2 Construction and demolition impacts

Other than the temporary occupancy of vacant areas within the site by construction plant and

equipment, the proposal would not result in any impacts to land use during construction. Given

the location of residential properties in close proximity to the construction site, some impacts

associated with noise and vibration, traffic and air quality impacts are likely to result. These

impacts are discussed in more detail in sections 6.2.2, 6.3.2 and 6.4.2 below.

Construction and demolition works would be short term in nature and would be carried out with

due diligence, duty of care and best management practices. This would be documented in the

project specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

6.1.3 Operational impacts

As noted in section 2.2.2, the proposal is consistent with the land use zoning of the site. The

proposal would expand the areas of operations on site, but would not result in changes to the

overall land use of the site.

6.1.4 Mitigation

Construction and demolition

The following mitigation measures would be included in the CEMP and implemented during

construction to minimise potential impacts on land use:

The neighbouring landowners are to be consulted with regard to the construction works,

predicted program and any access requirements as required.



Best management construction and demolition impacts are to be documented in a project

specific CEMP.

Land disturbance during construction is to be strictly limited to that required to undertake

the construction and demolition works.

Construction and demolition works would be undertaken in consideration of adjacent

vegetation.

Areas disturbed during construction would be returned to the pre-construction condition.

Operational

No additional mitigation measures would be required.

6.2 Noise and vibration


The existing facility is located in a rural area with low background noise levels. As such,

background noise measurements have not been conducted for the assessment of construction

and operational noise emissions from the site. The background noise level is assumed to be 30

dBA, which is the minimum noise level prescribed in the Environment Protection Authority’s

Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000).

The nearest sensitive receivers are located to the north-west and south-east of the site and are

shown below in Figure 6-1. Receiver IDs and locations are presented in Table 6-1 below. It is

noted that all sensitive receivers are residential.

Table 6-1 Receiver IDs and locations

Receiver ID Receiver location

R01 Gooma Road

R02 28 Cadia Place

R03 27 Cadia Place

R04 22 Cadia Place

R05 21 Cadia Place

R06 14 Cadia Place

R07 6 Cadia Place

R08 7 Cadia Place

R09 9 Cadonia Drive

R10 7 Cadonia Drive

R11 79 Twelve Mile Road

R12 59 Twelve Mile Road

R13 32 Cadonia Place




Construction noise criteria

The Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) (Department of the Environment and Climate

Change (DECC) (now Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW),

2009)) is specifically aimed at managing noise from construction.

The ICNG outlines standard hours for construction activities as 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday,

8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays and no work on Sundays or public holidays. The ICNG

acknowledges that the following activities have justification to be undertaken outside the

recommended standard construction hours assuming that all reasonable and feasible mitigation

measures are implemented to minimise the impacts to the surrounding sensitive land uses:

The delivery of oversized plant or structures that police or other authorities determine to

require special arrangements to transport along public roads

Emergency work to avoid the loss of life or damage to property, or to prevent

environmental harm

Works where a proponent demonstrates and justifies a need to operate outside the

recommended standard construction hours

Works which maintain noise levels at receivers to below the noise management levels

outside of the recommended standard construction hours.

Table 6-2 details the ICNG construction noise management levels at sensitive land uses and

residences near the proposal, respectively, where:

The noise affected noise management level represents the point above which there may

be some community reaction to noise. Where the predicted or measured LAeq(15min) is

greater than the noise affected level, the proponent should apply all feasible and

reasonable work practices to meet the noise affected level. The proponent should also

inform all potentially impacted residents of the nature of works to be carried out, the

expected noise levels and duration, as well as contact details.

The highly noise affected level represents the point above which there may be strong

community reaction to noise. Where noise is above this level, the relevant authority

(consent, determining or regulatory) may require respite periods by restricting the hours

that the very noisy activities can occur, taking into account:

– times identified by the community when they are less sensitive to noise (such as

before and after school for works near schools, or mid-morning or mid-afternoon for

works near residences

– if the community is prepared to accept a longer period of construction in exchange for

restrictions on construction times.

26 | G

HD

| R

ep

ort

for

NS

W D

ep

art

ment

of

Justic

e -

Welli

ngto

n C

orr

ection

al C

entr

e -

40

0 B

ed T

em

pora

ry C

orr

ection

al A

ccom

mod

ation,

21

/25

63

7

Ta

ble

6-2

C

onstr

ucti

on

no

ise

ma

na

ge

me

nt

leve

ls a

t re

sid

enc

es

Tim

e o

f d

ay

Managem

ent le

vel

LA

eq(1

5m

in)

How

to a

pply

Reco

mm

ended s

tandard

hours

:

Monday

to F

riday

7 a

m t

o 6

pm

Satu

rday

8 a

m t

o 1

pm

No w

ork

on S

undays

or

public

holid

ays

Nois

e a

ffect

ed

Rating b

ack

gro

und

level plu

s 10 d

B(A

)

– Pro

ject

specific

m

anagem

ent le

vel

– L

Ae

q(1

5 m

in) 40 d

B

The n

ois

e a

ffect

ed level r

epre

sents

the p

oin

t above w

hic

h t

here

may

be s

om

e c

om

munity

reaction to n

ois

e.

Where

the p

redic

ted o

r m

easu

red L

Aeq(1

5m

in)

is g

reate

r th

an t

he n

ois

e a

ffect

ed level, the

pro

ponent

sho

uld

apply

all

feasi

ble

and r

easo

nable

work

pra

ctic

es

to m

eet th

e n

ois

e

aff

ect

ed level.

The p

roponent

should

als

o info

rm a

ll pote

ntially

impact

ed r

esi

dents

of th

e n

atu

re o

f w

ork

s to

be c

arr

ied o

ut, the e

xpect

ed n

ois

e levels

and d

ura

tion,

as

well

as

conta

ct d

eta

ils.

Hig

hly

nois

e

Aff

ect

ed

75

dB

(A)

The h

ighly

nois

e a

ffect

ed level re

pre

sents

the p

oin

t above w

hic

h there

may

be s

trong

com

munity

react

ion to n

ois

e. W

here

nois

e is

above t

his

level, the r

ele

vant

auth

ority

(c

onse

nt, d

ete

rmin

ing o

r re

gula

tory

) m

ay

requir

e r

esp

ite p

eri

ods

by

rest

rict

ing the h

ours

th

at

the v

ery

nois

y act

iviti

es

can o

ccu

r, t

aki

ng into

acco

unt:

tim

es

identified b

y th

e c

om

munity

when t

hey

are

less

sensi

tive to n

ois

e (

such

as

befo

re

and a

fter

school fo

r w

ork

s near

sch

ools

, or

mid

-morn

ing o

r m

id-a

ftern

oon f

or

work

s near

resi

dence

s

if th

e c

om

munity

is p

repare

d t

o a

cce

pt

a longer

period o

f co

nst

ruct

ion in e

xchange f

or

rest

rict

ions

on c

onst

ruction tim

es.

Outs

ide r

ecom

mended s

tandard

hours

Nois

e a

ffect

ed

Rating b

ack

gro

und

level p

lus

five d

B(A

)

– Pro

ject

specific

m

anagem

ent le

vel

– L

Ae

q(1

5 m

in) 35 d

B

A s

trong just

ific

ation w

ould

typ

ically

be r

equir

ed f

or

work

s outs

ide t

he r

ecom

mended

standard

hours

.

The p

roponent

should

apply

all

feasi

ble

and r

easo

nable

work

pra

ctice

s to

meet

the n

ois

e

aff

ect

ed level.

Where

all

feasi

ble

and r

easo

nable

pra

ctice

s have b

een a

pplie

d a

nd n

ois

e is

more

than

five d

B(A

) above the n

ois

e a

ffect

ed level,

the p

roponent

should

negotiate

with t

he

co

mm

unity.



Sleep disturbance criteria during construction

The ICNG states that where construction works are planned to extend over more than two

consecutive nights, the noise impact assessment should include maximum noise levels and the

extent and number of times the maximum exceeds the rating background levels.

The INP application notes regarding sleep disturbance recommend that where the LA1(1min) or

LAmax exceeds the LA90(15min) by more than 15 dB(A) outside the bedroom window, a more

detailed analysis is required.

The ICNG also refers to the Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (EPA, 1999) for more

guidance on sleep disturbance from maximum noise level events. This guideline has since been

superseded by the Road Noise Policy. Both guidelines provide a discussion on research into

the effects of maximum noise events on sleep disturbance. The results of this research is aimed

at limiting the level of sleep disturbance due to environmental noise and concludes that the

LAmax or LA1(1min) level of any noise should not exceed the ambient LA90(15min) noise level by more

than 15 dB(A). This guideline takes into account the emergence of noise events, but does not

directly limit the number of such events or their highest level, which are also found to affect

sleep disturbance.

The Road Noise Policy provides further guidance, which indicates that:

Maximum internal noise levels below 50–55 dB(A) are unlikely to cause awakening

reactions

One or two noise events per night with maximum internal noise levels of 65–70 dB(A) are

not likely to significantly affect health and wellbeing.

For this assessment the background level plus 15 dB(A) has been used as a screening level

assessment of sleep disturbance which is consistent with the Industrial Noise Policy (application

notes.

Construction traffic noise criteria

The Road Noise Policy (DECCW, 2011) provides traffic noise target levels for residential

receivers in the vicinity of existing roads (Table 6-3). These levels are applied to construction

works to identify potential construction traffic impacts and the potential for reasonable and

feasible mitigation measures.

Table 6-3 Construction traffic noise criteria, LAeq(period, dB(A)

Type of development Day 7 am to 10 pm

Night 10 pm to 7 am

Existing residence affected by additional traffic on arterial roads generated by land use developments

60 Leq(15hr) 55 Leq(9hr)

Existing residence affected by additional traffic on local roads generated by land use developments


The application notes for the Road Noise Policy (DECCW, 2011) state that ‘for existing

residences and other sensitive land uses affected by additional traffic on existing roads

generated by land use developments, any increase in the total traffic noise level as a result of

the development should be limited to two dB above that of the noise level without the

development. This limit applies wherever the noise level without the development is within two

dB of, or exceeds, the relevant day or night noise assessment criterion.’



If road traffic noise increases from construction work are within two dB(A) of current levels the

objectives of the Road Noise Policy (DECCW, 2011) are met and no specific mitigation

measures are required.

Methodology

Noise modelling was undertaken using SoundPlan (v7.4). SoundPlan is a computer program for

the calculation, assessment and prognosis of noise exposure. SoundPlan calculates

environmental noise propagation according to ISO 9613-2 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound

during propagation outdoors’.

The following noise modelling assumptions were made:

Surrounding land was modelled assuming soft ground with a ground absorption

coefficient of 0.75

Atmospheric absorption was based on an average temperature of 10 °C and an average

humidity of 70%

Atmospheric propagation conditions were modelled with noise enhancing wind conditions

for noise propagation (downwind conditions) or equivalently a well-developed moderate

ground based temperature inversions

Modelled scenarios take into account the shielding effect from surrounding buildings and

structures on and adjacent to the site.

Noise sources were modelled assuming noise propagation in the 500 Hz octave band

frequency as per ISO 9613-2

Noise sources for each scenario are in some cases modelled at different locations. As

such the noise modelling assesses the noise source at multiple locations and takes the

maximum LAeq received noise level

The construction noise modelling takes into account the likely construction staging of

construction plant to predict the noise level at each receiver location. The predicted noise levels

are compared with the noise management levels for that receiver to determine whether there

might be noise impacts during construction.

During construction, it is unlikely that all machinery would be operational at the same time

during a particular stage or activity (like the modelling assumes), but taking a ‘worst case’

scenario approach helps to identify where noise impacts are likely to be a concern and assists

in the formulation of mitigation measures.

Based on our understanding of the project, the following stages of construction are expected

and provided in Table 6-4 below.

Table 6-4 Construction scenarios and equipment

Scenario Description Equipment

1 Site establishment

Trucks

Hand tools (electric)

Generator with acoustic enclosure

Excavator (small)

2 Bulk earthworks Bulldozer



Scenario Description Equipment

Excavator

Trucks

Compactor

Trucks (water cart)

Grader

3 Construction of perimeter fence

Bulldozer

Excavator

Crane (mobile)

4 Construction of perimeter road

Roller (vibratory)

Asphalt paver

Concrete pump and truck

Trucks

5 Construction of buildings

Trucks

Concrete pump and truck


Excavator (small)

6 Site compound area

Trucks


Compressor (silenced)


7 Demolition

Bulldozer

Excavator

Trucks

Compactor

Trucks (water cart)

Grader

Indicative equipment noise levels are summarised in Table 6-5 for construction activities. Other

equipment than that modelled may be used, however it is anticipated that they would produce

similar noise emissions.



Table 6-5 Construction equipment noise levels

Equipment Adopted sound

power level, dBA

Data source

Concrete pump and truck 108 AS2436 – 2010

Excavator 107 AS2436 – 2010

Bulldozer 108 AS2436 – 2010

Excavator (small) 100 AS2436 – 2010


89 AS2436 – 2010 with acoustic enclosure

Hand tools (electric) 102 AS2436 – 2010

Asphalt paver 108 AS2436 – 2010

Roller (vibratory) 108 AS2436 – 2010

Construction noise predictions

Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 outline construction noise levels during standard construction hours

and outside of standard construction hours at modelled sensitive receivers for each construction

scenario. The cells have been shaded (as per the key) where the noise management levels for

each time period are exceeded. Impacts to sensitive receivers have the potential to occur where

sensitive receivers experience noise higher than the relevant construction noise management

level.

Table 6-6 Predicted construction noise levels at representative sensitive

receivers during standard construction hours, dBA

Exceedance of noise management level cell shading key

Exceeds 75 dBA highly noise affected level

Exceeds 40 dBA noise management level during standard construction hours

Complies with standard hours noise management level


Construction activity scenario (refer to Table 6-4)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R01 Goolma Road 32 45 38 42 42 35 45

R02 28 Cadia Place 38 50 43 47 44 37 50

R03 27 Cadia Place 36 48 42 45 43 37 48

R04 22 Cadia Place 36 48 42 45 43 37 48

R05 21 Cadia Place 34 47 41 44 42 36 47

R06 14 Cadia Place 33 46 39 43 42 35 46



Exceedance of noise management level cell shading key

Exceeds 75 dBA highly noise affected level

Exceeds 40 dBA noise management level during standard construction hours

Complies with standard hours noise management level



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R07 6 Cadia Place 32 44 38 41 41 34 44

R08 7 Cadia Place 32 44 38 41 41 34 44

R09 9 Cadonia Drive 30 42 36 39 39 32 42

R10 7 Cadonia Drive 29 41 35 38 39 31 41

R1179 Twelve Mile Road

29 42 35 39 39 31 42


28 41 34 38 38 30 41

R13 32 Cadonia Place 27 39 33 36 38 31 39

Table 6-7 Predicted construction noise levels at representative sensitive

receivers outside of standard construction hours, dBA

Exceedance to noise management level cell shading key

35 dBA during standard construction hours

Complies with standard hours noise management levels



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R01 Goolma Road 32 45 38 42 42 35 35

R02 28 Cadia Place 38 50 43 47 44 37 37

R03 27 Cadia Place 36 48 42 45 43 37 37

R04 22 Cadia Place 36 48 42 45 43 37 37

R05 21 Cadia Place 34 47 41 44 42 36 36

R06 14 Cadia Place 33 46 39 43 42 35 35

R07 6 Cadia Place 32 44 38 41 41 34 34

R08 7 Cadia Place 32 44 38 41 41 34 34



Exceedance to noise management level cell shading key

35 dBA during standard construction hours

Complies with standard hours noise management levels



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R09 9 Cadonia Drive 30 42 36 39 39 32 32

R10 7 Cadonia Drive 29 41 35 38 39 31 31


29 42 35 39 39 31 31


28 41 34 38 38 30 30

R13 32 Cadonia Place 27 39 33 36 38 31 31

Vibration predictions

The nearest residential receivers are located approximately 500 metres from the proposed site.

At this distance it is expected that vibration from the proposed equipment will be negligible and

an assessment of vibration impacts is not deemed necessary for this proposal.

Construction traffic noise assessment

With regard to construction traffic using local roads, it is likely that there will be an increase of

more than 2 dB at a number of the nearest residential receivers. However, noise modelling

predicts that noise emission from the increase of traffic on Goolma Road due to construction

traffic will be below the noise criteria presented in Table 6-3. Daily construction vehicle

movements on the Mitchell Highway would not be significant when compared with the existing

traffic volumes in this road. As a result, no impacts from construction traffic movements are

expected.

Summary of noise impacts

During standard recommended hours the noise affected construction noise management level

of 40 dBA is predicted to be exceeded during some stages. The highly noise affected

construction noise management level of 75 dBA during standard recommended hours is not

predicted to be exceeded at all residential receivers.

Outside of standard hours the noise affected construction noise management level of 35 dBA is

predicted to be exceeded during the majority of stages. Based on the levels presented above,

the LAmax noise levels from construction activities may exceed the screening assessment level of

45 dBA. However, maximum internal noise levels at all residential receivers are likely to be

below the Road Noise Policy criteria of 50-55 dBA and therefore, sleep disturbance is unlikely to

occur.


Methodology

The Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000) provides guidance on the assessment of operational

noise impacts. The guidelines include both intrusive and amenity criteria that are designed to



protect receivers from noise significantly louder than the background level and to limit the total

noise level from all sources near a receiver.

The intrusive noise criteria controls the relative audibility of operational noise compared to the

background level at residential receivers. The intrusive criteria are determined by a 5 dB(A)

addition to the measured (or adopted) background level with a minimum of 35 dB(A). The INP

recommends that the intrusive noise criteria for the evening period should not exceed the

daytime period and the night-time period should not exceed the evening period. The intrusive

noise criteria are only applicable to residential receivers.

The amenity criteria control the total level of extraneous noise for all receiver types. The amenity

criteria are determined based on the overall acoustic characteristics of the receiver area, the

receiver type and the existing level of noise from commercial or industry in the area.

Both the intrusive and amenity criteria are calculated and, in the case of continuous noise

sources, the lower of the two in each time period (day, evening and night) normally apply.

Given the location of the site, noise monitoring has not been conducted and an adopted

background noise level of 30 dB(A) has been selected. As such, the relevant operational noise

criteria for all times of the day, evening and night is 35 dB(A).

The Road Noise Policy provides criteria for the assessment of noise emission from additional

traffic on existing roads due to new developments. Table 6-8 below presents the relevant criteria

from the Road Noise Policy.

Table 6-8 Road noise policy criteria

Roadcategory

Type of project/land use

Assessment criteria – dB(A)

Day (7 am – 10 pm)

Night (10 pm – 7 am)

Arterial roads

Existing residence affected by additional traffic on arterial roads generated by land use developments


Local roads

Existing residence affected by additional traffic on local roads generated by land use developments


Operational and road traffic noise predictions

Operational activities at the correctional facility are expected to involve the following noise

generating activities:

General activities, including outdoor activities

Mechanical plant, however the majority of mechanical plant is located within an internal

plant room

Car park usage

Noise emission from traffic using arterial and local roads to access the proposed site are based

on the numbers provided in the traffic section of this report. Please refer to section 6.3 for

specific numbers of traffic movements.

Noise emission from the use and operation of the correctional facility is expected to be similar to

that of the current operations. Noise modelling was also conducted for operational noise using

the same methodology as the construction assessment above. Results of the operational noise

emission assessment and road traffic noise assessment are provided below in Table 6-9.



Table 6-9 Predicted operational and road traffic noise levels at

representative sensitive receivers, dBA

Location Operational noise Road traffic noise

Noise

emission

level

LAeq,15 min

Criteria Daytime

noise

level

(7 am to 10 pm)

LAeq, 1hr

Daytime

criteria

Night-time

noise

level

(10 pm to 7 am)

LAeq, 1hr

Night-time

criteria

Goolma Road 26

35

43

55

40

50

28 Cadia Place 27 39 36







9 Cadonia Drive 23 37 34

7 Cadonia Drive 22 37 34

79 Twelve Mile Road

24 40 36

59 Twelve Mile Road

26 42 39

32 Cadonia Place 22 36 33

The results in Table 6-9 above demonstrate that all operational and road traffic noise levels

comply with the relevant criteria presented above.

6.2.4 Mitigation


It is expected that the construction and demolition works will be conducted in accordance with

the ICNG. As such, works should be undertaken with consideration to the following mitigation

measures:

Regularly train workers and contractors (such as at the site induction and toolbox talks)

on the importance of minimising noise emissions and how to use equipment in ways to

minimise noise.

Avoid any unnecessary noise when carrying out manual operations and when operating

plant.

Ensure spoil is placed and not dropped into awaiting trucks.



Avoid / limit simultaneous operation of noisy plant and equipment within discernible range

of a sensitive receiver where practicable.

Switch off any equipment not in use for extended periods e.g. heavy vehicles engines will

be switched off whilst being unloaded.

Avoid deliveries at night/evenings wherever practicable.

No idling of delivery trucks.

Keep truck drivers informed of designated vehicle routes, parking locations and

acceptable delivery hours for the site.

Minimise talking loudly; no swearing or unnecessary shouting, or loud stereos/radios

onsite; no dropping of materials from height where practicable, no throwing of metal items

and slamming of doors.

Maximise the offset distance between noisy plant and adjacent sensitive receivers and

determining safe working distances.

Use the most suitable equipment necessary for the construction works at any one time.

Direct noise-emitting plant away from sensitive receivers.

Regularly inspect and maintain plant to avoid increased noise levels from rattling hatches,

loose fittings etc.

Use quieter construction methods where feasible and reasonable.

The community should be notified prior to any out of hours works commencing.

The use of noisy equipment should be minimised during the night time period.

Activities involving large earth moving equipment should not be conducted outside of

standard working hours. It may be possible to conduct construction activities that have

lower noise emission, or conduct internal fit out works.

Operational

Noise emission from the proposal is unlikely to exceed the relevant noise emission criteria of

35 dBA at any time of the day, evening or night-time.

Should operations vary from those detailed above, and noise complaints be received from

nearby residential receivers, an assessment and measurements should be conducted and

reasonable and feasible mitigation measures should be investigated.

6.3 Traffic and access


This section outlines the exiting conditions at the proposed site, including traffic conditions,

accessibility and the existing road network performance.

Functional road hierarchy

Roads are classified according to the functions that they perform. The main purpose of defining

a road’s functional class is to provide a basis for establishing the policies, which guide the

management of the road according to their intended service or qualities. Functional road

classification involves the relative balance of the mobility and access functions.

In terms of functional road classification, State roads are strategically important as they form the

primary network used for the movement of people and goods between regions within Sydney,

and throughout the State. State roads are the responsibility of the Roads and Maritime Services



(RMS) to fund, prioritise and carry out works. State roads generally include roads classified as

Freeways, State Highways, and Main Roads under the Roads Act 1993, and the regulation to

manage the road system is stated in the Australian Road Rules (National Road Transport

Commission, 1999).

RMS generally define four levels in a typical functional road hierarchy, ranking from high

mobility and low accessibility, to high accessibility and low mobility.

These road classes are:

Arterial roads – controlled by RMS, typically no limit in flow and designed to carry vehicles

long distance between regional centres.

Sub-arterial roads – can be managed by either council or RMS under a joint agreement.

Typically their operating capacity ranges between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day,

and their aim is to carry through traffic between specific areas in a subregion, or provide

connectivity from arterial road routes (regional links).

Collector roads – provide connectivity between local sites and the-arterial road network,

and typically carry between 2,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day.

Local roads – provide direct access to properties and the collector road system and

typically carry between 500 and 4,000 vehicles per day.

Goolma Road

Goolma Road functions as an arterial road and provides access to the existing Wellington

Correctional Facility, located to the north of Wellington Town Centre. Goolma Road forms a

priority controlled T-intersection with Mitchell Highway, and provides access between Gulgong

in the east and Wellington in the west.

Goolma Road has the following characteristics:

The road has two way sealed carriageway approximately seven metres wide

Dashed centreline road marking

Sign posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour.

Mitchel Highway

Mitchel Highway functions as a national arterial road which provides access through the

northern and central regions of NSW and southern regions of Queensland. The highway is a

main arterial route for heavy vehicles passing through centres such Dubbo located to the north-

west of Wellington, and Orange to the south of Wellington.

Mitchell Highway has the following characteristics in the vicinity of the proposed development

site:

Two-way sealed carriageway and sealed shoulders approximately seven metres wide

Centreline road markings

Auxiliary passing lane at the Goolma Road intersection

Sign posted speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour at the Goolma Road intersection; with

generally a sign posted speed limit 80 km/hr outside the study area.

Historical background traffic growth

The following historical traffic growth trends were observed from available RMS traffic count

data for a 10-year period between 1995 and 2005:



2% linear growth per annum on Mitchel Highway, near Goolma Road

A negative growth rate of -0.5% on Goolma Road

For a conservative assessment, the following background growth rates have been assumed for

this study:

2% linear growth per annum on Mitchel Highway, near Goolma Road

1% linear growth per annum on Goolma Road.

These traffic growth rate have been assumed to estimate future background traffic volumes for

the roads in the vicinity of the proposed development site.

Existing daily and peak hour traffic

2016 traffic count data for Goolma Road and Mitchell Highway was obtained by extrapolating

data from 2005 RMS Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts.

A summary of the 2016 AM peak, PM peak and AADT volumes for the roads in the study area

are provided in Table 6-10. The existing traffic volumes along the roads in the study area are

within the functional classification range identified in section 6.3.1.

Table 6-10 Estimated traffic volumes 2016

Location AM peak hour PM peak hour AADT (vpd) HCV%

Goolma Road 992

992

9921

9

Mitchell Highway

at Macquarie

Bridge

8912

8912

8,9061

9

Note:

(1) Average Annual Daily Traffic was estimated by extrapolating 2005 RMS AADT counts with 2% per year growth

factor assumed for Mitchel Highway, and -0.5% per year for Goolma Road

(2) Peak hour traffic volumes assumed to be 10% of average daily traffic

(3) HCV – Heavy Commercial Vehicles

Existing intersection performance

The SIDRA 7 intersection modelling software was used to assess the proposed peak hour

operating performance of intersections on the surrounding road network. The criteria for

evaluating the operational performance of intersections is provided by the Guide to Traffic

Generating Developments (RMS, 2002) and reproduced in Table 6-11.

The criteria for evaluating the operational performance of intersections is based on a qualitative

measure (i.e. Level of Service (LoS)), which is applied to each band of average vehicle delay. It

is noted that LoS ‘D’ is generally an accepted operating condition along urban roads.

Table 6-11 Level of service criteria for intersections

Level of service Average delay per

vehicle (secs/veh)

Traffic signals, roundabouts Give way and stop signs

A < 14 Good operation Good operation

B 15 to 28 Good with acceptable

delays and spare capacity

Acceptable delays and

spare capacity

C 29 to 42 Satisfactory Satisfactory, but accident



Level of service Average delay per

vehicle (secs/veh)

Traffic signals, roundabouts Give way and stop signs

study required

D 43 to 56 Operating near capacity Near capacity and

accident study required

E 57 to 70 At capacity; at signals,

incidents will cause

excessive delays

Roundabouts require other

control modes

At capacity, requires

other control mode

F > 70 Over Capacity

Unstable operation

Over Capacity

Unstable operation

Source: Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (RMS 2002)

Notes:

1. The average delay for priority-controlled intersections is selected from the movement on the approach with

the highest average delay.

2. The level of service (LoS) for priority-controlled intersections is based on the highest average delay per vehicle for the most critical movement.

3. The degree of saturation is defined as the ratio of the arrival flow (demand) to the capacity of each approach.

A summary of the weekday AM and PM peak hour SIDRA interaction modelling results is shown

in Table 6-12 for the Mitchell Highway/Goolma Road intersection. The SIDRA modelling

indicates that the intersection currently operates satisfactorily during both the AM and PM peaks

with LOS A. Detailed performance of this intersection is shown in Appendix D.

Table 6-12 Existing 2016 SIDRA intersection performance

Intersection AM peak PM peak

Average

delay

LoS Control

type

Degree of

saturation

Average

delay*

LoS Control

type

Degree of

saturation

Goolma

Road /

Mitchell

Highway

6.9 A Give

way

0.105 7.2 A Give

way

0.111

Note:

1.* Average delay is given in seconds per vehicle.

2.** LoS – Level of Service

Public transport

Wellington Railway Station is serviced by regular train services to Dubbo, Orange, Bathurst,

Lithgow and Sydney. Charter coach services also operate between Wellington and major

centres.

A local bus service (TLDW – Wellington to Dubbo) operates around the town of Wellington,

operates four services Monday to Friday.

There are no public transport services that runs along Goolma Road to the Correctional Facility.



Crash data review

Crash data for the study area was obtained from the Transport for NSW centre for Road safety

website. The interactive crash statistics provides the number, severity and location of crashes

for a selected Local Government Area (LGA).

The study area was found to have two crashes during a 5 year period (2009 – 2015)

One serious injury crash located near the intersection of Mitchel Highway and Goolma

Road

One minor injury crash located near the existing facility.

See Figure 6-2 for crash locations and severity within the study area.

Figure 6-2 Crash locations

Source: Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety

Key findings

The existing traffic volumes on the surrounding road network are within the expected

functional classification outlined by RMS

The intersection of Goolma Road and Mitchel Highway operates satisfactorily at LoS A

Transport to and from the proposed correctional facility will depend on private vehicles for

mode of travel.


Based on traffic generation data provided by DJ, it is estimated that during the construction and

demolition periods, up to 300 light vehicles and 50 heavy vehicles per day will be required for



construction, seven days a week. This equates to 600 light vehicle movements and 100 heavy

vehicle movements per day.

For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that:

Each shift would generate 300 light vehicle movements, with 150 arrivals at the start of

the shift and 150 departures at the end of the shift.

As the construction heavy vehicles do not have peak periods, it is assumed that traffic is spread

evenly throughout the day. This equates to 100 heavy vehicle movements over 16 hours,

resulting in around six heavy vehicle movements per hour.

For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that construction routes for light and

heavy vehicles would be:

50% from Mitchell Highway north, to/from Dubbo

50% from Mitchell Highway south, to/from Wellington town centre.

The assumed construction routes are shown in Figure 6-3. Some construction traffic could also

access the site from Mudgee via Goolma Road to the northeast of the site. However, the above

traffic distribution assumption provides a worst case assessment of the construction traffic

impacts at the Mitchell Highway/Goolma Road intersection.

Figure 6-3 Construction traffic routes

Source: Google Maps modified by GHD



The estimated number of construction vehicles entering and leaving the site during the peak

periods is shown in Table 6-13.

Table 6-13 Forecast construction traffic generation

Type Daily AM PM

Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

Light vehicles 300 300 150 0 0 150

Heavy vehicles 50 50 3 3 3 3

Source: Department of Justice NSW modified by GHD

Construction of the proposal is expected to occur in 2016, with the demolition of the

development expected to occur during 2023. The intersection modelling software, SIDRA 7, was

used to assess the operational performance of the Mitchell Highway/Goolma Road intersection

during the construction/demolition phases for the proposal.

Table 6-14 provides a summary of the weekday AM and PM peak SIDRA results for Mitchell

Highway/Goolma Road intersection during the construction / demolition of the proposal, in 2016

and 2023 respectively. The SIDRA results indicate that intersection is expected to operate

satisfactorily, at LoS A during the weekday AM and PM peak periods during both the

construction and demolition phases of the development. Detailed performance measures can be

seen in Appendix D.

Table 6-14 2016 Construction phase intersection performance

Intersection Phase AM peak PM peak

Avera

ge

dela

y

LoS

Contro

l

type

Degre

eof

satu

ratio

n

Avera

ge

dela

y*

LoS

Contro

l

type

Degre

eof

satu

ratio

n

Goolma

Road /

Mitchell

Highway

2016

construction

7.9 A Give

way

0.129 7.3 A Give

way

0.157

2023

demolition

78.0 A Give

way

0.135 7.4 A Give

way

0.241




Proposed traffic generation

Details of expected traffic movements to and from the proposed development, including staff

shifts times, visiting times, deliveries and operational vehicles were provided by DJ, as

summarised in Table 6-15.

Table 6-15 Forecast traffic movements

Type Number of vehicles – arriving Number of vehicles – departing

Staff Vehicles - AM

Shift

Mon- Fri: 23 Overseers, 43

custodial, 12 Admin, 10

Mon-Fri: Approximately 88 staff in

total departing between 4-6 pm.



Type Number of vehicles – arriving Number of vehicles – departing

programs staff. Total: 88

vehicles arriving between 6-8

am.

Sat-Sun: 55 Total – arriving

between 6 am – 8 am

Sat-Sun: 55 Staff - All leaving

between 4-6 pm

Staff Vehicles - PM

Shift

7 days per week: 19 custodial

and 13 overseers arriving

between 5 pm-7 pm

Approximately 32 staff departing

between 6:30 – 8:30 am

Industries

Deliveries /

Pickups

Approximately ten trucks per

day

Ten trucks over business hours

Visits – AM Approximately 180 visits over

course of weekend

Assume 180 Vehicles staggered

from 8 am – 4 pm

180 over weekend

Visits – PM Nil Nil

General

Provisioning /

Maintenance

Vehicles

Approx. 5 maintenance vehicles

7 days (utes and trucks)

Approx. 5 maintenance vehicles 7

days

Escort Vehicles 2 escort vehicles per day 2 escort vehicles per day

Source: NSW Department of Justice

Based on the traffic generation data provided by DJ, the forecast daily traffic generation for the

proposed development is shown in Table 6-16. The proposal is expected to generate 317 in

bound and 317 outbound trips per day.

This traffic generation provided in Table 6-15 was used to determine AM and PM peak hour

traffic based on the following conservative assumptions:

All AM, PM and weekend peak period traffic assumed to arrive and depart the site during

the peak hour

10% of deliveries and general traffic to occur during the weekday AM, PM and weekend

peak hour

One escort vehicle to access the site during the AM, PM and weekend peak hours.

A summary of the vehicle movements is shown in Table 6-16 weekday AM and PM peak

periods, with a summary of the weekend traffic generation provided in Table 6-17.

While visitors have been kept to weekends only, total weekday trips are higher due to more staff

accessing the site. Weekday trips are considered to be the worst case scenario to determine

traffic impacts on the local road network.

Table 6-16 Forecast daily and peak hour traffic generation – weekday

# Type Daily AM PM




1 Staff Vehicles 120 120 88 32 32 88

2 Deliveries /

Pickup*

10 10 1 1 1 1

3 Visits* - - - - - -

4 General

Provision /

Maintenance*

5 5 1 1 1 1

5 Escort

Vehicles*

2 2 1 1 1 1

Total 317 317 91 35 35 91

Note: *Visitors staggered across the weekend; Peak hour vehicle trips assumed to be about 10% of total daily trips

Table 6-17 Forecast daily and peak hour traffic generation – weekend

# Type Daily AM PM


1 Staff Vehicles 87 87 55 32 32 55

2 Deliveries /

Pickup*

10 10 1 1 1 1

3 Visits* 180 180 10 10 - -

4 General

Provision /

Maintenance*

5 5 1 1 1 1

5 Escort

Vehicles*

2 2 1 1 1 1

Total 284 284 68 45 35 58

Note: *Visitors staggered across the weekend; Peak hour vehicle trips assumed to be about 10% of total daily trips

Traffic distribution

The traffic distribution for the forecast operational traffic is based on existing vehicular routes

made by staff and visitors at current Correctional facility site. These traffic distributions are

provided from the Proposed Mid-Western Correctional Centre at Wellington, NSW Traffic Impact

Assessment report (Traffix, 2003). Based on this report, the following assumptions have been

made for the proposed development:

93% of traffic accessing the site from the south, along Goolma Road

– 58% of traffic would travel along the Mitchell Highway, south of Goolma Road

– 35% of traffic would travel along the Mitchel Highway, north of Goolma Road

7% of traffic accessing the site from the north, along Goolma Road.



These traffic distributions were applied to the proposed traffic generated trips in Table 6-16 and

Table 6-17 to determine the forecast traffic movements at the Mitchell Highway / Goolma Road

intersection.

Intersection performance

The temporary correctional facility is expected to operate for up to a maximum of five years from

the proposed start of operation, expected to commence in March 2017. Table 6-18 provides a

summary the AM and PM peak hour SIDRA modelling results for the Mitchell Highway/Goolma

Road intersection for the with and without development scenarios in 2023, as this represents

the end of the operational phase of the proposal. It should be noted that no intersection

modelling has been undertaken for the weekend peak, as the weekday AM and PM peak

provides the worst case assessment of this intersection, based on the forecast trip generation

for the site.

The SIDRA modelling indicates that the proposal would result in a negligible change in

intersection performance during both the weekday AM and PM peak periods in 2023. The

Mitchell Highway/Goolma Road intersection is expected to continue to operate satisfactorily at

LoS A, at the end of the operation of temporary facility in 2023. Detailed performance measures

are provided in Appendix D.

Table 6-18 SIDRA intersection performance 2023 scenarios

Intersection AM peak PM peak

Avera

ge

dela

y

LoS

Contro

l

type

Degre

eof

satu

ratio

n

Avera

ge

dela

y*

LoS

Contro

l

type

Degre

eof

satu

ratio

n

Goolma

Road /

Mitchell

Highway

Without

development

6.5 A Give

way

0.128 6.6 A Give

way

0.117

With

development

8.1 A Give

way

0.238 6.7 A Give

way

0.188



Site access and parking

Sight distance

Access to the temporary correctional facility will be from Goolma Road. A new intersection and

access road would be required, which would be located around 550 metres to the south of the

existing correctional facility access road.

In assessing this proposed development, it is appropriate to assess the traffic safety of the

proposed entry/exit locations to/from the site. This is undertaken by determining whether there

is adequate longitudinal sight distance at the proposed access to allow drivers approaching the

driveway sufficient site distance to avoid potential conflicts. The specific sight distance criteria

used in the report has been derived from the Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5:

Intersections at Grade (Austroads, 2005) which specifies the following:

Approach sight distance (ASD)

This is the minimum requirement to provide the driver of a vehicle adequate distance to observe

the road layout in sufficient time to react and stop if necessary before entering the conflict area.



Approach sight distance is measured from driver eye height (1.15 m to 0.0 m, i.e. the road

surface).

Safe intersection sight distance (SISD)

This provides sufficient sight distance for a driver of a vehicle on the major road to observe the

vehicle from the minor road approach moving into a collision situation and to decelerate to stop

before reaching the collision point. Safe intersection sight distance is measured from the driver

eye height (1.05 m) to (1.05 m).

Table 6-19 shows the sight distance requirements at the access road. As the entrance is to be

located on a straight alignment of road (approx. 1 km+) and relatively flat grade, this gives

optimal sight distance conditions.

Table 6-19 Sight distance requirements

Driveway (entry /

exit)

ASD (minimum requirement) SISD (desirable requirement)

Required Measured Required Measured

Goolma road 160m+250 m (north)

+250 m (south) 240 m

+250 m (north)

+250 m (south)

Source: “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5: Intersections at Grade” (2005)

Parking

The number of parking spaces required for the proposal has been determined based on the

expected maximum number of staff and visitors accessing the site at the same time. This is

summarised in Table 6-20, which indicates that a minimum of 133 spaces would be required.

It is assumed that the morning and evening shifts at the proposed development would overlap,

to allow for staff handover at the facility. visitors expected at the site at during certain visiting

times spread over the weekend, assuming up to ten visitors per hour.

Table 6-20 Minimum number of required parking spaces

# Type Vehicle movements Minimum parking

spaces AM PM

1 Staff Vehicles 88 32 120

2 Deliveries / Pickup* 1 1 1

3 Visitors 10 - 10

4 General Provision /

Maintenance*

1 1 1

5 Escort Vehicles* 1 1 1

Total 133

Note: Assumes No public transport to centre for staff, so each staff member is utilising a vehicle

From the proposed carpark layout plan shown in Figure 6-4, about 160 parking spaces have

been allocated for the proposed site. This proposed number of parking spaces satisfies the

minimum number of parks as estimated in Table 6-20.



Figure 6-4 Proposed carpark layout

Parking dimensions

Parking space measurements would be in accordance with AS 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities,

Part 1: Off-street Car Parking (Australian Standards, 2004), the parking space measurements

will be as follows:

2.4 m wide

4.8 m long (car parking is controlled by a kerb which allows overhang)

Aisle width of 5.8 m.

Accessible parking spaces are to be provided in accordance with AS 2890.6 (2009) which

outlines that one space is required for every 100 car parking spaces.

Accessible parking measurements will be in accordance with AS 2890.6 (2009) Section 2.2.1,

which states a dedicated parking space of 2.4 m wide, 5.4 m long and must include a shared

area on one side of the space that is also 2.4 m wide and 5.4 m long.

6.3.4 Mitigation

Construction

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be prepared by the Contractor in

consultation with NSW Department of Justice, and provided to Council and RMS as

required. The TMP would be the primary management tool to manage potential traffic

impacts associated with construction and demolition of the proposed works.

Consultation with the appropriate road authority would be undertaken for the proposed

operational changes to Goolma Road where a new intersection and road access is

required.



Operational

During the operation phase, as the intersection at Goolma Road and Mitchel Highway are likely

to continue operating at a satisfactory standard, no mitigation measures would be required for

this stage of the development.

6.4 Air quality


A review of the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) maintained by the Commonwealth

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities revealed that

there are no scheduled premises triggering the minimum threshold values of annual pollutant

releases operating within the Wellington LGA.

Data provided on the Wellington LGA by the NPI identifies that emissions of nitrogen and

phosphorus are generated from sources such as unimproved pastures and forestry as well as

from cropping activities in the area. The emissions from these sources are expected to be well

below the criteria outlined in the air quality guidelines.

The nearest potentially sensitive receptors to the proposal site include:

The State Government Soil Conservation Service located at 6582 Goolma Road,



Residential housing located within Cadonia Estate located at 6-28 Cadia Place,


approximately 340 metres from the area that would be subject to the proposal)


Construction and demolition of the proposal may impact local air quality through the generation

of dust by excavation, construction vehicles driving over exposed soils and wind blowing over

stockpiles. Dust impacts have the potential to impact on the amenity of those occupying nearby

residential properties. The operation of construction plant and equipment would also result in

additional exhaust emissions in the area.

Impacts due to the generation of dust and exhaust emissions would be short term and

temporary and would be minimised by the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in

section 6.4.4.


Operation of the proposal is not expected to impact on local air quality.

6.4.4 Mitigation

Construction

The following mitigation measures would be included in the CEMP and implemented to ensure

that air quality impacts are minimised during construction:

All plant and machinery would be fitted with emission control devices complying with the

Australian Design Standards.

Machinery would be turned off when not in use and not left to idle for prolonged periods.

Dust generation would be monitored visually, and where required, dust control measures

such as water spraying would be implemented to control the generation of dust.



Any waste (such as excavated spoil) produced on-site would be stored appropriately to

reduce the production of dust.

Materials transported to and from the site would be covered to reduce dust generation in

transit.

Access points would be inspected to determine whether sediment is being transferred to

the surrounding road network. If required, sediment would be promptly removed from

roads to minimise dust generation.

Stabilisation of any excavated areas would occur as soon as practicable.

Fixed hoses would be used to dampen exposed surfaces to minimise dust generation,

where required.

Operational


6.5 Soils, erosion and water quality


Topography, geology and soils

Landforms within the vicinity of the site consist of mountain ranges, dissected plateaus

(tablelands), hills, ridges and plains. The topography of the site is generally flat as it has been

cleared and levelled for the purposes of the existing facility.

The geological map (Wellington 1:100,000 scale Geological Sheet No. 8632) indicates that the

study area is underlain by two geological formations, the Barnby Hills Shale and Cuga Burga

Volcanics. The interface of the geological formations strikes approximately north-north-east to

south-south-west through the study area. The Barnby Hills Shale is described as poorly bedded

to laminated, buff to brown to grey, quartzose shale and siltstone; minor rhyolitic tuff and

tuffaceous sandstone; calcareous sandstone and siltstone. The Cuga Burga Volcanics are

described as latitic, crystal-lithic sandstone, breccia, siltstone, tuff; latitie and lesser andesite,

basalt; minor allochthonous limestone, quartzose sandstone.

The CSIRO Australian Soil Resource Information System identifies the site as having an

‘extremely low probability of occurrence’ for acid sulphate soils.

Surface water

A drainage line runs on a north-south alignment through the western portion of the study area.

Outside of, but within the immediate vicinity of the study area, a dam has been constructed to

capture water from the drainage line. Refer to Figure 1-2. Wuuluman Creek, a tributary to the

Macquarie River, is located 150 metres from the study area at its nearest point. The Macquarie

River is located approximately five kilometres south of the site at its nearest point.

The proposal site is not identified as a flood hazard area as per the Wellington LEP 2012

mapping.

Groundwater

A search of the NSW Natural Resource Atlas (NRAtlas) online identifies that there are no

groundwater bores located within the site or study area. The nearest bore is located at Caves

Road, Apsley, approximately 13 kilometres from the site.




General erosion impacts

The proposal would not result in any impacts to the local topography.

Construction and demolition of the proposal would involve minor excavation and stockpiling of

soils. Excavation and stockpiling activities, if not adequately managed, could have the following

impacts:

Erosion through exposed soils and stockpiled materials.

Dust generation from excavation works, and vehicle movement over exposed soils.

An increase in sediment loads entering the stormwater system and the nearby receiving

waterways.

These impacts are considered to be minimal as exposure of soils and stockpiling of spoil would

be temporary and short term. Potential impacts would be minimised by implementing the

mitigation measures provided in section 6.5.4.

Ground water

Contamination of groundwater may occur through the seepage from material and waste

stockpiles, or spills of fuels, oils or other chemicals. As there are no underground bores located

within close proximity to the site, impacts to ground water are not expected.


Operation of the proposal would not impact topography, geology, soils or water quality at the

site. Aside from the building areas, the site would be covered in gravel or landscaped where

required. No erosion or sedimentation impacts are anticipated during operation.

6.5.4 Mitigation


The following mitigation measures would be included in the CEMP and implemented to

minimise potential impacts on soils and water quality during construction of the proposal:

General erosion control

Sediment and erosion control devices would be installed around work sites and

maintained to minimise the transport of sediment in accordance with Managing Urban

Stormwater, Soils & Construction, Volume 1 (Landcom 2004). These devices would be

inspected weekly and immediately after rainfall to ensure their effectiveness over the

duration of the works. Any damage to erosion and sediment controls would be rectified

immediately.

The area of exposed surfaces would be minimised and disturbed areas would be

stabilised progressively to ensure that no areas remain unstable for any extended length

of time.

Wherever possible, reuse soil and sediment that accumulates in erosion and sediment

control structures during site restoration unless it is contaminated or otherwise

inappropriate for reuse.

Cease work in the immediate vicinity of any areas of suspected contamination that are

identified prior to or during work. Ensure that these areas are not disturbed and are

cordoned off as a safety risk.



Vehicle and machinery movement would be confined to designated roads, tracks,

pathways and work areas. Designated lay-down areas would be selected to minimise

erosion or vegetation damage.

Manage stockpiles by implementing sediment and erosion control devices in accordance

with Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils & Construction, Volume 1 (Landcom 2004)

Cease work during heavy rainfall events when there is a risk of sediment loss off-site or

ground disturbance due to water logged conditions.

Ensure equipment, plant and materials are placed in designated areas where they are

least likely to cause erosion.

Following completion of work, restore land surfaces to as close as possible to pre-existing

conditions.

Operational


6.6 Flora and Fauna

6.6.1 Methodology

Desktop review

The assessment included a review of background ecology information obtained from database

searches and reviews. These searches included:

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of NSW Wildlife database– licensed data

for search of all terrestrial threatened flora and fauna species (within a 10 kilometre radius

of proposal site) (searched June 2016) (OEH 2016a).

OEH (2016b) NSW threatened species, online profiles.

Department of the Environment (DotE) (2016a) EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool

– for a 10 kilometre radius around the proposal site (searched June 2016).

DotE (2016b) Species profile and threats database, online profiles.

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Noxious weed declarations – Wellington LGA

control area (DPI 2016) (searched June 2016).

Field surveys

Flora and fauna field surveys were conducted by an ecologist on 27 June 2016. Where

appropriate, field surveys were conducted in accordance with the Threatened Biodiversity

Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities Working Draft

(Department of Conservation (DEC), 2004).

The primary objectives of the field surveys were to:

Determine the presence and/or potential for threatened flora and fauna species,

populations, ecological communities, listed under the NSW TSC Act and Commonwealth

EPBC Act, and their habitats to occur in the study area.

Determine the value of the habitat in the study area for flora and fauna species,

particularly for threatened species and species of conservation significance, and describe

potential impacts that would result from the proposal.



Describe the flora and fauna species, habitat, populations and ecological communities in

the study area in relation to their occurrence and quality in the locality. This included

ground truthing, reference to aerial photographs and vegetation mapping.

Determine the condition and extent of vegetation removal required for the proposal.

Survey effort for this project is summarised in Table 6-21.

Table 6-21 Survey effort for ecological assessment

Survey method Effort

Flora plot (see Figure 6-5) One 20 metre by 20 metre plot to assess Box-

Gum Woodland (derived grassland) in the

study area.

Flora transects (see Figure 6-5) Two flora survey transects through the

proposal site and part of the study area.

Fauna habitat assessment Potential fauna habitat identified within areas

of potential vegetation clearing and adjacent

areas, including searches for specific habitat

features such as hollow-bearing trees.

Opportunistic fauna observations Opportunistic fauna observations for all fauna

species encountered during flora surveys and

habitat assessment.

Flora

Flora surveys were conducted in the study area using a plot survey and random meandering

transect surveys (Figure 6-5).

Two 20 metre by 50 metre flora survey plots were surveyed. Within each plot the following

vegetation and habitat characteristics were recorded:

Description of vegetation

Groundcover species and abundance

Any signs of previous disturbance and grazing.

Two flora transects (random searches) were surveyed through the study area. As rare plants

often exist in discrete populations in specific areas, a random search can increase the

probability of finding rare plant populations. A random search effort also encompasses a greater

portion of the landscape, as the search is not limited to specific areas (only the stratification

unit), and is useful in surveying difficult terrain and irregular shaped search areas.

Vegetation mapping

Surveys of vegetation communities were undertaken to characterise vegetation formation, class,

structure and condition. Plant community composition is especially important for those areas

that have the potential to be a threatened ecological community.

Flora surveys enabled determination of the composition and extent of ecological communities

occurring in the study area. The study area was investigated by random meandering transects

to identify vegetation communities present and to identify any areas with the potential to be

classified as a threatened ecological community.



Native vegetation in the study area was initially assigned a vegetation community name based

on observed floristic and structural characteristics. Intact native vegetation communities were

defined according to NSW Plant Community Type (PCT) classifications used in the OEH

Vegetation Information System (OEH 2016c). Introduced or highly modified native vegetation

was defined based on structure and species composition. All vegetation communities were

mapped using aerial photographic interpretation guided by the field survey results and GPS

data.

For areas with the potential to classify as a threatened ecological community, an analysis was

undertaken using the criteria for classification under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. The flora

survey plot was located in an area that had the potential to meet the classification criteria for the

ecological community ‘White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland’ (TSC Act) and

‘White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland’

(EPBC Act) (both referred to as Box-Gum Woodland). This threatened ecological community is

listed as endangered under the TSC Act and critically endangered under the EPBC Act. The

plot was surveyed as detailed above.

Fauna

Fauna surveys comprised a habitat assessment for all fauna groups, observations of fauna

signs and opportunistic observations of fauna during flora surveys. Fauna habitat resources

were assessed to identify areas of potential habitat within the study area. Specific resources

such as shelter, basking, roosting, nesting and foraging sites for birds, bats, arboreal mammals,

amphibians, ground-dwelling mammals and reptiles were noted.

Habitat assessment

Habitat details recorded included presence or absence of:

Hollow-bearing trees (arboreal mammals, hollow-nesting birds and microchiropteran

bats).

Woody debris (birds and reptiles).

Feed trees (e.g. Allocasuarina spp. and mistletoe).

Waterbodies (amphibians).

Nests (birds).

Rocky outcrops (reptiles).

Other features likely to provide potential habitat for threatened fauna.

Searches for potential mammal, amphibian, and reptile habitat were undertaken and recorded

during flora surveys.

Birds

Species observed at other times (such as during flora surveys) were recorded as opportunistic

observations.

Observations of fauna signs

Any indirect evidence of fauna (e.g. scats, feathers, fur, tracks, dens, nests, scratches, chew

marks and owl wash) was recorded and/or photographed.

Assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of listed biota

An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence and possibility of impact was completed for listed

species, populations and ecological communities with the potential to occur in the study area.



In assessing which of these species, populations and ecological communities are ‘likely’ to

occur within the study area (as described in Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment:

Guidelines for Developments and Activities Working Draft) (DEC 2004) the following factors

were taken into consideration:

The presence of potential habitat within the study area

Condition and approximate extent of potential habitat within the study area

Species occurrence within the locality and region (including results of current and

previous surveys and results of database searches and literature review).

In addition, the possibility of impact by the proposal on threatened biota likely to occur or

present was assessed, and therefore whether an EP&A Act assessment of significance and/or

EPBC Act significance assessment was required to assess the significance of the impact.

Assessment of the potential impacts on listed biota

As the proposal is unlikely to impact any species or ecological communities listed under the

TSC Act or EPBC Act, no assessments of significance were required.

Development of safeguards and management measures

Safeguards and management measures for the proposal were developed based on the site

conditions and the potential impacts of the proposal (refer to section 6.6.4).


Vegetation communities

Vegetation in the study area is shown in Figure 6-5.

Scattered Kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus) trees are present throughout the study area

(Figure 6-6). These are consistent with the vegetation formation Grassy Woodlands and the

vegetation class ‘Western Slopes Grassy Woodlands’ (Keith 2004). The scattered Kurrajong

trees also form the following NSW Plant Community Type listed in the NSW Vegetation

Information System:

‘Derived Kurrajong grassy open woodland / isolated trees in the Brigalow Belt South

Bioregion and Nandewar Bioregion’ (PCT ID 436).

This vegetation community is a derived open woodland form of cleared grassy White Box

woodland. Although White Box (Eucalyptus albens) trees were not observed during surveys,

they are present in the locality and are likely to have been present in the study area previously.

White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla), which is an associated species of the vegetation

community, is present in the study area. In NSW, the groundcover composition of the vegetation

community varies due to soils and disturbance history including grazing, cropping and fertiliser

use. In the study area, the groundcover vegetation is largely degraded and dominated by

introduced species due to these factors (Figure 6-7). It is therefore unlikely to meet the

classification criteria for the threatened ecological community Box-Gum Woodland, either under

the TSC Act or the EPBC Act.

An area of native derived grassland north of the proposal site is dominated by Wallaby Grass

(Rytidosperma bipartitum) (Figure 6-8). This grassland is grazed and has a relatively low

diversity of flora species, with substantial cover of introduced species (see ‘P1’ data in Appendix

E). Due to the likely prior dominance of White Box and the dominance of native groundcover

vegetation, this derived grassland is consistent with the classification criteria for the threatened

ecological community Box-Gum Woodland, listed as endangered under the TSC Act.



The derived grassland in the study area does not meet the classification criteria for the EPBC

Act form of Box-Gum Woodland ecological community due to the degraded nature of the

understorey vegetation.

Flora species

Recorded flora species

Field surveys identified 51 flora species, or which 16 are native and 35 are introduced. These

species are listed in Appendix E.

The dominant tree species within the study area is Kurrajong. Other native tree species

recorded include White Cypress Pine, and species present in a roadside planting north of the

proposal site, including White Box, Yellow Box (E. melliodora) and Rough-barked Apple

(Angophora floribunda). Introduced trees identified in the study area include Peppercorn

(Schinus areira) and Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

Shrubs are largely absent throughout the study area. African Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) is

present under the Peppercorn trees in the north-western corner of the proposal site.

The groundcover vegetation in the proposal site is dominated by introduced flora species

including Star Thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), clover (Trifolium sp.) and an introduced annual

grass species. The latter two species were unidentifiable to species level due to their early

growth stage.

An area of native derived grassland north of the proposal site is dominated by Wallaby Grass

(Rytidosperma bipartitum).

No threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were recorded in the study

area.

Noxious weeds

Three flora species listed as noxious for the Wellington Shire Council control areas (Department

of Primary Industries (DPI) 2016) were recorded during flora surveys (Table 6-22).

Table 6-22 Noxious weeds in the study area

Name Class Occurrence

African Boxthorn

Lycium ferocissimum

Four Uncommon. Few individuals

under Peppercorn trees in the

north-west corner of the

proposal site (see Figure 6-5).

Blue Heliotrope

Heliotropium amplexicaule

Four Uncommon. Scattered

individuals in the proposal

site.

Tree of Heaven

Ailanthus altissima

Four Uncommon. Present under a

Kurrajong tree in the proposal

site (see Figure 6-5).

Noxious weed classes are prescribed by DPI. All noxious weed species observed are classified

as class four weeds. This means the growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that

continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be sold, propagated

or knowingly distributed.



African Boxthorn is also listed as a weed of national significance under the National Weeds

Strategy.

T

WE

LL

ING

TO

N C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

FA

CIL

ITY

T1

T2

P1

GOOLMA ROAD

Jo

b N

um

be

r

Rev

isio

nA

N:\

AU

\Ora

ng

e\P

roje

cts

\21

\256

37

\GIS

\Ma

ps\D

elive

rab

les\2

1_

25

63

7_Z

003

_E

co

log

y.m

xd

Ma

p P

roje

ctio

n:

Tra

nsv

ers

e M

erc

ato

r

Ho

rizo

nta

l D

atu

m:

GD

A 1

99

4

Grid

: G

DA

19

94

MG

A Z

on

e 5

5

060

12

018

024

030

Me

tre

s

LE

GE

ND

o©

20

16

. W

hilst

ev

ery

ca

re h

as b

ee

n t

ake

n t

o p

rep

are

this

map

, G

HD

an

d N

SW

LP

I m

ak

e n

o r

ep

rese

nta

tio

ns

or

wa

rra

ntie

s a

bo

ut

its a

ccu

racy

, re

liab

ility,

co

mple

ten

ess o

r su

ita

bility f

or

an

y p

art

icu

lar

pu

rpo

se

an

d c

an

no

t a

cc

ep

t liab

ility a

nd

re

sp

ons

ibili

ty o

f a

ny k

ind

(wh

eth

er

in c

on

tra

ct,

tort

or

oth

erw

ise

) fo

r a

ny e

xpe

nse

s,

loss

es

, d

am

ag

es a

nd

/or

co

sts

(in

clu

din

g i

nd

ire

ct

or

co

nse

que

ntia

l d

am

ag

e)

whic

h a

re o

r m

ay

be

in

cu

rre

d b

y a

ny p

art

y a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e m

ap b

ein

g in

ac

cu

rate

, in

co

mp

lete

or

un

su

ita

ble

in a

ny w

ay

an

d f

or

any

re

aso

n.

Date

21

Ju

l 2

01

6

Da

ta s

ou

rce

: I

ma

gery

- ©

La

nd

an

d P

rope

rty

In

form

atio

n (

Extr

ac

ted

: 2

1/0

7/1

6);

Str

ee

ts -

NS

W L

PI

201

2 D

TD

B.

Cre

ate

d b

y:m

kin

g3

Le

ve

l 1

5,

13

3 C

as

tle

rea

gh

Str

ee

t S

yd

ney

NS

W 2

00

0

T 6

1 2

92

39

71

00

F

61

2 9

23

9 7

19

9

E s

yd

ma

il@

gh

d.c

om

.au

W

ww

w.g

hd

.co

m.a

u

Pap

er

Siz

e A

4

© L

an

d a

nd

Pro

pe

rty

In

form

ati

on

20

15

Fig

ure

6-5

21

-256

37

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f Ju

stice

Re

vie

w o

f E

nv

iro

nm

en

tal F

acto

rs f

or

We

llin

gto

n C

orr

ectio

na

l C

en

tre

Flo

ra s

urv

eys a

nd

ve

ge

tatio

n c

om

mu

nitie

s

Stu

dy

Are

a B

ou

nd

ary

Site

Bo

un

da

ry

TF

lora

Su

rve

y P

lot

Flo

ra S

urv

ey T

ran

se

ct

Dra

ina

ge

lin

e -

in

tro

du

ce

d

gra

ssla

nd

De

rive

d g

rassla

nd

- B

ox-

Gu

m W

oo

dla

nd

Intr

od

uce

d g

rass

lan

d

Ku

rra

jon

g (

No

t B

ox-G

um

Wo

od

lan

d)

Ku

rra

jon

g P

lan

tin

g (

No

tB

ox-G

um

Wo

od

lan

d)

Ku

rra

jon

g w

ith

Tre

e o

fH

ea

ve

n

Lo

ca

lly n

ati

ve

tre

e p

lan

tin

g

Pe

pp

erc

orn

wit

h A

fric

an

Bo

xth

orn

Wh

ite

Cy

pre

ss

Pin

e



Figure 6-6 Kurrajong tree in the proposal site



Figure 6-7 Introduced groundcover vegetation and peppercorn trees in

the proposal site

Figure 6-8 Derived grassland north of the proposal site



Fauna

Fauna species

Surveys undertaken by GHD identified 15 fauna species. Of these, 13 species are native and

two species are introduced (refer to Appendix E). The species assemblage is typical of a

modified rural landscape. Thirteen bird species were identified during the field surveys. Some of

the commonly occurring native species include the Australian Magpie (Cracticus tibicen),

Magpie-Lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) and the Olive-backed Oriole (Oriolus sagittatus). No

threatened species were identified during the field surveys. No introduced bird species were

identified.

Two species of mammal were recorded during field surveys: the Eastern Grey Kangaroo

(Macropus giganteus) and the introduced Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The study area is

unlikely to provide habitat for many native mammals due to the sparseness of the tree cover,

lack of hollow-bearing trees and degraded nature of the landscape. Other introduced mammals

likely to occur include the Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Cat (Felis catus). No threatened species of

mammals were recorded during field surveys.

No amphibians were recorded during the field survey. Drainage lines in the study area (Figure

6-5) may provide habitat during periods of flow for commonly occurring species such as the

Eastern Sign-bearing Froglet (Crinia parinsignifera).

No reptile species were recorded during field surveys. Species likely to occur include snakes

such as the Eastern Brown Snake (Pseudonaja textilis).

Fauna habitat

Fauna habitat in the proposal site is limited and includes scattered paddock trees (none of

which contain hollows), derived native grassland north of the proposal site, and the planting in

the road reserve north of the proposal site.

Scattered Kurrajong and White Cypress Pine trees provide habitat for birds typical of degraded

rural environments. Olive-backed Orioles and Pied Butcherbirds (Cracticus nigrogularis) were

observed perching in these trees. A Grey Butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus) was observed

foraging for seeds from the fruits of the Kurrajong trees.

The derived native grassland may provide habitat for small lizards dependent on grassland

habitats. Grassland areas also provide foraging habitat for mammals such as the Eastern Grey

Kangaroo and birds such as the threatened Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii).

Superb Parrots, and other species, are likely to use vegetation corridors in the locality as

avenues for movement. The connectivity of these corridors aids in facilitating the movement of a

range of fauna across the landscape, including woodland birds, mammals and other fauna. In

the study area, corridors are largely limited to narrow plantings along roads.

Very little woody debris habitat is present in the study area.

The drainage line in the north-west of the proposal site is intermittent, highly degraded through

the spread of weed species, and unlikely to provide important habitat for fauna, other than

resident frogs.

Threatened biota

Threatened biota observed during surveys

No threatened species were observed during field surveys.



Likelihood of threatened biota occurring in the study area

The literature review, database search and field surveys identified one ecological community

(Box-Gum Woodland) listed under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act as being present in the study

area. In addition, a number of threatened flora and fauna species were identified as having a

low likelihood of occurrence (refer to Appendix F).

6.6.3 Construction, operational and demolition impacts

Potential direct impacts

Construction

Native vegetation/habitat removal

The proposal would remove 10 scattered, mature native trees, including eight Kurrajong trees

and two White Cypress Pine trees (see Figure 6-5). The diameter at breast height of the trunks

of these trees generally ranges from 40 to 100 centimetres; however, none of the trees contain

hollows. The proposal would also remove about seven Peppercorn trees (see Figure 6-5).

The removal of these trees would reduce movement, perching and foraging resources for birds

typical of agricultural landscapes; however, they constitute only a small proportion of the trees in

the study area and locality. A large area of open woodland is present on hills about 800 metres

east of the proposal site. Surrounding areas of woodland contain native eucalypt species which

tend to be preferred by woodland bird species more sensitive to disturbance.

The proposal would remove about 18 hectares of introduced groundcover vegetation. No native

groundcover vegetation would be removed.

Habitat fragmentation and connectivity

Fragmentation of the vegetation in the study area has previously occurred largely through

development for agriculture. The study area already has very limited vegetation connectivity.

Removal of habitat has created barriers to movement for some fauna species, particularly those

that are limited by dispersal abilities and habitat preferences.

The small amount of vegetation removal is unlikely to result in significant additional

fragmentation to that which has already occurred. The proposal would not remove any large

areas of native vegetation, sever any important corridors or otherwise isolate any areas of

habitat.

Injury and mortality

Death or injury may occur to any fauna present during the clearing of trees during construction.

If birds are present but not nesting during construction they will generally move away from the

proposal site to escape the disturbance.

Potential indirect impacts

Water quality, chemical and fuel impacts on flora and fauna

A drainage line runs through the north-west corner of the proposal site. During periods of water

flow in the drainage line, sedimentation has the potential to affect flora and fauna that may use it

as habitat.

The proposal has the potential to cause impacts to flora and fauna through spills of fuels and

chemicals. This may occur during refuelling operations or during preparation and use of

chemicals for weed management. Spills could potentially contaminate habitat for species

dependent on the drainage line.



As the proposal site is not in the vicinity of any creeks or wetlands it is unlikely that the proposal

would cause sedimentation or water quality impacts that could reach downstream waterbodies.

The proposal could also potentially affect flora through spray drift during application of

herbicides.

These impacts would be unlikely to be substantial due to the degraded nature of the proposal

site and the implementation of safeguards detailed in sections 6.5.4 and 6.6.4.

Weeds

The groundcover vegetation in the study area contains a range of introduced species. The

proposal has the potential to further introduce and spread weeds in the study area through the

movement of machinery and light vehicle traffic and disturbance associated with vegetation

removal and earthworks.

Three noxious weed species were identified during the surveys. The proposal has the potential

to cause the further spread of noxious weeds such as African Boxthorn and Tree of Heaven in

the proposal site and study area.

The implementation of safeguards detailed in section 6.6.4 would limit the potential for the

spread of weeds associated with the proposal.

Disturbance of fauna

The proposal has the potential to temporarily affect the use of the study area by fauna as a

result of increased disturbance during construction. The use of machinery may temporarily deter

some fauna species such as birds from using adjacent habitat including trees and grassland.

Pathogens

The proposal has the potential to result in the spread of pathogens such as bacteria and fungi.

This could occur through the spread of soils on vehicle tyres and operatives’ footwear. Impacts

of pathogens include spread of known diseases that are detrimental to fauna such as the

amphibian chytrid fungus.

The potential spread of pathogens would be minimised through the implementation of

safeguards outlined in section 6.6.4.

Cumulative impacts

The proposal would cause impacts additional to those that have occurred due to previous land

use activities in the study area; including agricultural activities and construction and

maintenance of roads and utilities. Other works that may contribute to cumulative ecological

impacts in the study area include loss of vegetation through maintenance of linear infrastructure

such as roads and powerlines. Given the small scale of vegetation removal involved, and the

degraded nature of the groundcover vegetation proposed to be removed, it is unlikely that the

proposal would cause significant cumulative ecological impacts.

Key threatening processes

One key threatening process listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act is relevant to the

proposal: clearing of native vegetation. This includes eight mature Kurrajong trees and two

mature White Cypress Pine trees as described above.

Summary of impact assessment

The literature review, database search and field surveys identified a number of species and one

ecological community (Box-Gum Woodland) listed under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act with the



potential to occur in the study area. It is unlikely that the proposal would affect any of these

biota primarily due to the degraded nature of the habitat proposed to be removed.

6.6.4 Mitigation

Biodiversity safeguards and management measures to be implemented at the site are detailed

below.

Pre-construction

All staff will be inducted and informed of the limits of vegetation clearing and the areas of

vegetation to be retained. Areas of vegetation not to be removed will be clearly marked

prior to construction.

Pruning or lopping of limbs will be conducted in preference to tree removal wherever

possible.


Removal of native vegetation will be minimised wherever possible.

Locally native flora species will be used for any revegetation around the proposal site.

Any herbicides used for weed control will be applied to the manufacturer's specifications

and as outlined in the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet.

Broad spectrum non-selective herbicides (residual herbicides) will not be used.

Herbicides selected for use will be appropriate for the species being treated.

Spraying of herbicides will not be undertaken in windy weather or within such distance of

a watercourse as will permit any of the herbicide to enter the water.

A weed management plan will be prepared as part of the CEMP for implementation

before, during and after the works. The weed management plan will include measures to

prevent the spread of weeds, particularly African Boxthorn and Tree of Heaven.

Vehicle and machinery wash/brush downs will be conducted before vehicles leave the

proposal site to minimise the risk of spreading weed and pathogen species during

construction.

Weed infested topsoil will be disposed of or treated and will not be stockpiled adjacent to

any areas of native vegetation.

Declared noxious weeds will be managed according to the requirements of the NSW

Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

6.7 Heritage


Aboriginal heritage

An Aboriginal Due Diligence archaeological assessment has been undertaken for the study

area by OzArk and is provided as Appendix F.

A search of the OEH administered Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

(AHIMS) database returned four records for Aboriginal heritage sites within the designated

search area. The four previously recorded sites are located within 2.5 kilometres of the study

area, with the closest located 650 metres to the north-east.



As part of the assessment, a field inspection was conducted on 27 June 2016. Within the study

area, no Aboriginal sites were recorded and no archaeologically sensitive landforms were

identified during the field inspection. The visual inspection also assessed that there is a very low

possibility of the proposal adversely impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage values.

Non-Aboriginal heritage

The following databases/registers were searched to determine the presence of non-Aboriginal

heritage items in the vicinity of the study area:

Australian Heritage Database

State Heritage Register

Section 170 Register (undertaken via the State Heritage Inventory search tool)

Wellington Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The following items within the Wellington LGA are listed on the State Heritage Register:

Blacks camp, located at University Road, approximately 5.8 kilometres south of the study

area

John Fowler steam road locomotive, located at 9 Amaroo Drive, approximately 7.7

kilometres south of the study area

Wellington convict and mission site – Maynggu Ganai, located at Curtis Street,

approximately 7.8 kilometres south-east of the study area

Wellington post office, located at 21 Maughan Street, approximately 6.5 kilometres south-

east of the study area.

There are no items of local heritage significance listed by the LEP within, or in the immediate

vicinity of, the study area.


Construction of the proposal would not result in any impacts to listed/known Aboriginal or non-

Aboriginal heritage items. Mitigation measures provided in section 6.7.4 would be implemented

to ensure heritage listed items within proximity to the works are not impacted during

construction.


Operation of the proposal would not result in any impacts to listed heritage items.

6.7.4 Mitigation


All land-disturbing activities must be confined to within the assessed site area. Should the

parameters of the proposed work extend beyond the assessed area, then further

archaeological assessment may be required.

Work crews involved in the proposed work should be made aware of the legislative

protection requirements for all Aboriginal sites and objects.

In the unlikely event that objects are encountered that are suspected to be of Aboriginal

origin (including skeletal material), it is recommended that activities should temporarily

cease within the immediate vicinity of the find locality and be relocated to other areas of

the subject site (allowing for a curtilage of at least 50 metres). OEH must then be



contacted to advise on the appropriate course of action to record and collect the identified

item(s).

Work crews should undergo cultural heritage induction to ensure they recognise

Aboriginal artefacts and are aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal objects under

the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the contents of the Unanticipated Finds

Protocol.

Operational

No mitigation measures would be required.

6.8 Site contamination


The NSW Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) Contaminated Lands Register was

searched on 11 July 2016. No listed contaminated sites were identified within the vicinity of the

site. The existing contamination status of the site is not known, however given the previous

agricultural and grazing uses on site, contamination is very unlikely.

The site and the surrounding area are not considered a salinity hazard.


The approach to managing any contaminated finds would be specified in the construction

environmental management plan (CEMP).

Appropriate mitigation measures, including preliminary soil testing and waste classification,

would be implemented to manage the potential for any contamination impacts during

construction.

The proposal would also have the potential to result in soil and water contamination via any

uncontrolled fuel or chemical spills from plant and equipment.

Potential impacts would be minimised by implementing the mitigation measures provided in

section 6.8.4.


Operation of the proposal would not impact contamination at the site. Aside from the building

areas, the site would be covered in gravel or landscaped where required. No site contamination

impacts are anticipated during operation.

6.8.4 Mitigation

Construction

Check machinery daily for oil, fuel or other liquid leaks.

Develop contingency plans to deal with spills which might occur during the course of

construction.

Undertake progressive soil testing of the proposal area during excavation works. Tests

would confirm the presence and type of any contaminants, and classify the soil for the

purpose of spoil management and removal.

An ‘unexpected finds protocol’ would be prepared and included in the CEMP to assist

with the identification, assessment, management, health and safety implications,



remediation and/or disposal (at an appropriately licenced facility) of any potentially

contaminated soil and/or water.

In the event that indicators of contamination are encountered during construction (such

as odours or visually contaminated materials), work in the area would cease until an

occupational hygienist can advise on the need for remediation or other action.

If dewatering is required during construction, the water would be tested (and treated if

necessary) prior to re-use, discharge or disposal.

Operational


6.9 Waste management


Wastes generated on site include domestic wastes including food scraps, aluminium cans, glass

bottles, plastic etc. These would be disposed of in allocated bins and removed from site weekly.


Construction of the proposal has the potential to generate the following wastes:

Surplus materials used during site establishment such as safety fencing and barriers

which may include plastics and metal. This is expected to be minimal as it is likely that

prefabricated structures would be used.

General construction waste such as excess concrete, timber, paper, plastic and metal.

Domestic waste including food scraps, aluminium cans, glass bottles, plastic and paper

containers, and putrescible waste generated by site construction personnel.

Surplus spoil from excavation activities (i.e. material not required for backfilling).

Demolition of the proposal is likely to generate the following wastes:

Structural steel from removal of walls and roof sheeting

Concrete from removal of the building slabs and walkways

Electrical cabling from removal of wiring

Industrial waste such as lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids and cleaning agents

Associated infrastructure from generators and main switchboard.


There would be an increase in operational waste associated with the proposal. Waste

management procedures for the proposal would be as per the operations of the existing facility,

which would include separation of waste for recycling and general disposal.

6.9.4 Mitigation


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to ensure the appropriate

management of waste during construction and operation:

Maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition at all times.



Ensure waste is placed in skip bins positioned in defined area(s) onsite or within the site

compound (if required).

Avoid surplus construction materials through appropriate planning of the construction

works.

Recycle waste in accordance with the NSW Government’s Waste Reduction and

Purchasing Policy.

All waste materials produced by the proposal would be assessed, classified, managed

and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (DECCW 2009)

and the waste management hierarchy.

Classify and dispose of waste (if unable to be reused or recycled) in accordance with the

EPA Waste Classification Guidelines (EPA 2014).

Any waste material identified as being contaminated would be managed in accordance

with the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and other relevant legislation.

Limit smoking to defined areas and provide butt bins for construction workers.

Operational

No mitigation measures would be required.

6.10 Bushfire hazard


The north-western corner of the site includes areas mapped as bushfire prone land in

categories 1, 2 and 3 under the Wellington LEP 2012. Refer to Figure 6-9. This means that the

site is at risk of being affected by bushfire.

Figure 6-9 Bushfire hazard

Source: NSW Planning and Environment




During construction, it is possible that hot work (such as welding) could ignite a bushfire. In the

instance of bushfire in the vicinity during construction, there is the possibility of damage to

equipment/machinery. In the event of a bushfire, work would cease and workers would be

evacuated in accordance with standard emergency response procedures.

The proposal would not be located within the portion of the site mapped as bushfire prone. An

existing cleared area would be used for construction.


Where relevant, the design of above ground items would take into account the bushfire

protection measures included in the RFS guideline Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. The

likelihood of assets being affected by fire would be assessed during detailed design.

General site maintenance would be undertaken as per existing maintenance procedures and

would minimise bushfire risk.

6.10.4 Mitigation


Avoid undertaking hot work (such as welding) outside during dry weather or periods of

prolonged bushfire risk.

In the event of a bushfire, work is to cease and workers evacuated in accordance with

standard emergency response procedures.

Design of above ground items must be in accordance with the bushfire protection

measures included in the RFS guideline Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Shrubs are not to be planted close to any buildings.

Fences, sheds and structures should be constructed of non-flammable material and be

clear of trees and shrubs.

Operational

General site maintenance to be undertaken as per existing maintenance procedures in

order to minimise bushfire risk.

All grasses are to be maintained to a height of a maximum 50mm.

The crowns of trees should be separated where practical such that there is a clear

separation distance between adjoining tree crowns.

Prune lower branches of trees to stop a surface fire spreading to the canopy of the trees.

Trees or shrubs are to be regularly cleared of any dead material.

Gas cylinders to be stored in an area that is clear of all flammable material and securely

tethered with non-flammable fastenings to prevent toppling over.

Driveways and access ways must allow for the safe passage for emergency vehicles to

all buildings and assets on the land.

Roof gutters should be free of leaves and other combustible material.



6.11 Visual


The nearest potentially sensitive receptors to the proposal site include:

State Government Soil Conservation Service located at 6582 Goolma Road,



Residential housing located within Cadonia Estate, located at 6-28 Cadia Place,


approximately 340 metres from the area that would be subject to the proposal).

The majority of activities occurring on site are contained within the existing buildings that are

located at the northern end of the site (refer to Figure 1-1). Therefore, most site activities are not

visible from the residences located to the western and south-eastern boundaries of the site, nor

are they visible from nearby roads (e.g. Goolma Road).


Construction and demolition activities would be visible from residences located south of the site

boundary and from vehicles travelling along adjacent roads. Temporary visual impacts may

occur as a result of ground disturbance, the presence of equipment and materials within the

work area and the presence of construction vehicles and personnel.

Overall, the potential visual impacts of construction and demolition activities are considered to

be minimal as the works would be temporary and short term.


The proposed new buildings and car parking areas would be visible from the residences located

to the western and south-eastern boundaries of the site and from nearby roads (e.g. Goolma

Road). The majority of activities that would occur on site would be contained within the

proposed buildings (refer to the preliminary site plan provided in Appendix B).

The proposal would be located entirely within lot boundaries of the existing correctional centre,

therefore it is consistent with the existing uses on site.

The proposed buildings on site would be single storey, which would be considered appropriate

in the context of the existing facility and surrounding landscape.

Minor landscaping would be provided along the western boundary of the site, along Goolma

Road in order to provide a buffer between the proposal and the adjoining visual receptors.

6.11.4 Mitigation

Construction

The following mitigation measures would be included in the CEMP and implemented during

construction to minimise potential impacts on land use and visual amenity:

Maintain construction sites in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

Ensure all work equipment and materials are contained within the designated boundaries

of the work site.

Limit construction vehicles and personnel on site to those needed for that activity, with all

excess equipment moved off-site to reduce visual impacts.



Operational

The detailed design of the proposal would take into account relevant urban design and

visual considerations.

Maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition at all times.

Ensure landscaped areas are regularly maintained.

6.12 Socio-economic


This assessment of the socio-economic risks has been undertaken based on a desktop review

of:

Socio-economic profile of Wellington from Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Census

data

Western Plains Regional Council Policies and Strategies

Crime Statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR)

NSW Inmate Census 2014 from Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW).

In assessing the context of the existing environment, it is important to acknowledge that

although the proposal is located within close proximity to the town of Wellington, NSW, the

proposal will provide for the broader NSW community. The proposal is being undertaken to

address an urgent need for additional custodial accommodation across New South Wales. The

proposal therefore has a broader regional context that needs to be taken into consideration

when assessing its social impact.

The existing environment has been assessed in regard to the existing facility in terms of

inmates, staff, visitors and community involvement. It has also considered the broader

Wellington community.

Wellington Correctional Centre

Profile of existing and potential future inmates

The existing facility was opened in September 2007 and has a maximum operational capacity of

703 inmates. The facility can accommodate 619 male inmates in maximum, medium and

minimum security and 84 female inmates in minimum security. CSNSW will house inmates as

close to family as possible. Although some inmates will be from the local region, it is anticipated

that some will be from across NSW due to their security classification and availability of

accommodation.

There is limited information about the demographic characteristics of inmates at the existing

facility. Information about inmates has been obtained from the 2014 NSW Inmate Census

conducted by CSNSW. This data collected from corrective centres across NSW has found that:

The largest proportion of inmates were aged between 25 to 34 years (34%). This was

followed by inmates aged 35 to 44 years (27%), 45 years and over (21%) and 18 to 24

years (18%).

24% of inmates identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI). 33% of the total

female inmate population identified as ATSI and 23% of the total male inmate population

identified as ATSI.

75% of inmates were born in Australia, 17% were born in non-English speaking countries

and 6% were born in other English speaking countries.



58% of the total NSW inmate population had never married, followed by those who were

married or in a de-facto relationship (29%).

The proposed temporary facility will house an additional 400 inmates. It is anticipated that they

will have similar characteristics to those identified in the above inmate census data.

Information on facility staff and current economic opportunities

The existing facility is the largest employer in Wellington with 224 staff employed by CSNSW.

Staff comprise of 134 custodial staff, 34 industries staff, 37 programs staff and 19 administration

staff. In addition, CSNSW has a community corrections office in the Wellington area. It also

engages other services such as Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network which

provide a number of personnel to the centre. It is anticipated that as a result of the proposal a

further 220 staff would be required.

The Wellington community’s economy is closely linked to the centre’s expenditure, particularly

in terms of staff salaries. Information provided by DJ indicates that the wages for staff annual

salaries is approximately $12 million. This in turn has benefits for the local community in

regards to accommodation, meals and other services and facilities used by staff that live locally.

In addition, the existing facility currently utilises local trade services for repairs and

maintenances as well as businesses that can offer services for the inmates for example

hairdresser for inmates and taxi services for visitors.

Visitors to the Wellington Correctional Centre

Opportunities for family and friends to visit the inmates are available on Saturdays, Sundays

and public holidays. During the 2015-2016 financial year, the centre had 6,930 family and friend

visits, which is around 60 visitors per visiting day. The facility is located approximately seven

kilometres north-east of Wellington town centre. There is no public transport, so access to the

existing facility for staff visitors is by private vehicle or local taxi.

There is limited data available on the profile of visitors to the existing facility. In 2012, CSNSW

conducted a survey of visitors to NSW correctional centre. The survey results identified that of

the respondents:

74% of were female

The average age was 43 years

The majority were born in Australia (77%), while 4% were born in the United Kingdom,

3% in Europe and 10% did not specify

The largest proportion of respondents were visiting a child (23%), followed by visiting their

husband/de facto (19%), sibling or friend (both 12%) and a parent (9%)

The most common reasons for visiting included maintaining relationship (76% always or

often visited for this reason), keeping the family together (54% always or often visited for

this reason) and companionship (46% always or often visited for this reason).

Visiting sessions for the proposed expansion will be consistent with the current centre

arrangements comprising of two sessions per week on weekends and public holidays only. This

is expected to be 90 visitors per session.

Community involvement

The existing facility has a community projects program which operates five days per week within

Wellington and surrounding areas. The community projects team work in partnership with

Council to maintain community assets. This work has been received positively by the

community. Other community projects include Police Community Youth Clubs (PCYC), various



churches and charitable organisations, Scout Centre, Wellington Caves Reserve and river

camping area.

The community projects team donated 4,543 hours of inmate labour valued at $78,759 to the

community in the 2015/16 financial year. In addition, the Centre has fundraised for local

charities and donated to the community organisation, Gungie Origin.

Along with NSW Police, the existing facility is an official partner of the Gungie Origin. The

organisation partners with local police to reduce crime in the community through a grass roots

approach. The organisation formulated the “Dob in a Dealer” program which was rolled out

nation-wide. The Gungie Origin also provides numerous programs targeting Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal youth. The existing facility is currently working with Gungie Origin to employ a full

time Aboriginal Youth social worker to assist troubled youth in the town.

The existing facility is also a strong supporter of the PCYC and is involved in an ongoing

maintenance program and fundraising campaigns.

The surrounding community

Local context

The Wellington Correctional Centre is located seven kilometres outside of the Wellington town

centre within the Western Plains Regional Council LGA. The existing facility is located within

the former Wellington Council LGA and therefore strategies and policies developed by

Wellington Council are applicable.

The Wellington town centre is the major suburban centre of the LGA. It is located 362

kilometres from Sydney on the Great Western Highway. The area is predominantly agricultural

with a growing tourism industry. The existing facility was opened in 2007 with the anticipation

that this would stimulate the local economy.

Community profile

The following provides a summary of the demographics of the Wellington urban centre from the

2011 ABS Census data. This area has been selected because it is the closest population

centre to the existing facility. The existing facility is not included within the boundary and

demographic data for the inmates has been provided earlier in section 6.12. A comparison for

the town centre has been made against data for the Wellington LGA and Greater NSW

(excluding the Sydney Metropolitan Area), as defined by the ABS Census. In 2011:

4,540 people lived in the Wellington urban centre, which was just over half of the total

population of Wellington LGA (8,493 people).

The median age in Wellington town was 42 years, one year older than the LGA (41)

which was the same for greater NSW.

A significant proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATIS) people were living

in both Wellington (25%) and the LGA (20%) compared to greater NSW (4.7%). The

Wiradjuri People are the traditional custodians of the land.

Unemployment in the Wellington urban centre was 12% this is significantly higher than

the LGA at 8.3%, which is also higher than greater NSW at 6.1%

For families without children the weekly income in Wellington urban centre was $1,559

this was slightly higher than the LGA of $1,429 however both are lower than greater NSW

at $1,788.

There was a higher proportion of one parent families (27%) than the LGA (21%) both are

higher than greater NSW at 17%.



Local Government Strategies

A review of the former Wellington Council policies has been undertaken. Although now

amalgamated to form the Western Plains Regional Council, the policies provide some context

regarding the vision for the area surrounding the Wellington Correctional Centre. It must be

acknowledged that GHD has not undertaken any formal consultation with Council. It is

recommended that this be undertaken as part of the development of the mitigation plan for the

potential socio -economic risks that have been identified.

Wellington 2025 Community Strategic Plan (2012)

This plan provides the vision, aspirations and priorities of the Wellington community (Wellington

Council, 2012). Wellington LGA has an abundance of rural land, which is used primarily for

agriculture, including sheep and cattle grazing, with some viticulture and tourism. Agriculture

and related activities are major industries, with cropping, wool, beef and prime lamb contributing

more than $43 million to the economy. There is also a growing tourism industry driven by the

local natural features, wineries and boutique galleries, which annually attract thousands of

visitors. It is considered a gateway to surrounding major regional centres. Wellington Town

Centre is the major suburban centre of the LGA.

The plan identifies that there are sometimes negative perceptions about Wellington town.

Community engagement as part of the plan identified that existing crime is a key concern for the

community. In addition the Wellington Correctional Centre may be contributing to a negative

community perception about Wellington. One of the strategic outcomes of the plan is to reduce

levels of crime and increase community safety through State and local initiatives as well as

collaboration with NSW Police and PCYC.

The plan highlights that Wellington needs to build its identity and reputation as a place to live,

work, invest, play and stay. It identifies agriculture and tourism as key industries that can help

improve its reputation. This could be achieved through creating more employment and training

opportunities especially for young people, improving internet and mobile connectivity, and

building on the heritage significance of buildings within the area. Improving these areas would

increase visitors and longer stays in the area.

The plan identifies that a range of accommodation options is needed in the LGA, including crisis

accommodation. This could be facilitated through collaboration with government agencies and

organisations, including Aging, Disability and Home Care (part of the Department of Family and

Community Services), Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal housing cooperatives.

Wellington Council Crime Prevention Plan (2011)

This plan outlines the Wellington crime profile, community concerns and actions to reduce crime

(Wellington Council, 2011). Based on Figure 6-10, Wellington has very high rates of crime within

NSW, particularly malicious property damage, breaking and entering a dwelling, stealing from a

dwelling, assault and sexual offences (all within the top ten NSW LGAs). In particular, the

number of offences related to malicious property damage and breaking and entering a dwelling

have increased by 21% and 43% respectively within 36 months to March 2011.



Figure 6-10 Recorded incidents of selected offences, 2010

Source: Wellington Council, 2011

The plan states that socio-economic situation may be a contributing factor to crime levels in the

area, including high rates of unemployment, high numbers of people on social benefits and high

indigenous populations particularly Aboriginal youth (the median age of the Aboriginal

population was 16 years compared to 42 years for the non-Aboriginal population). The plan

identifies that malicious property damage are problems primarily caused by youth due to lack of

programs and activities available to them.

The plan aims to reduce crime rates through collaboration with NSW Police, local community

and health services, Technical and Further Education (TAFE) outreach and PCYC to provide

information and programs particularly for youth.


Construction of the proposal is anticipated to take approximately seven months to complete. It

is therefore anticipated that majority of socio-economic risks are temporary. The majority of

which can be mitigated. Table 6-23 outlines the key risks associated with construction of the

proposal. In addition, given the temporary nature of the facility, it is anticipated that the

structures will be removed in 5-7 years once the facility is no longer required. Although the

timeframe for demolition has not been determined, the risks associated with this process have

been considered.

Table 6-23 Potential socio economic risks associated with construction

and demolition

Risk Detail

Amenity Increased construction traffic along Goolma Road and Mitchell Highway

may temporarily reduce the amenity particularly in the town centre. The

community may experience increased noise and air quality impacts as a

result of increased construction and demolition activities and associated



Risk Detail

traffic.

Construction and demolition activities may generate short term amenity

impacts on surrounding residential properties along Cadia Place. Noise

assessment reports indicate that there may be some properties that

experience higher noise levels than regulation standards during normal and

out of standard work hours.

Economic The proposal would generate jobs during construction, which could be

accessed by local residents. Depending on the split of local workers and

non-resident workers, the construction workforce could potentially increase

demand for housing and services (e.g. health). The construction workforce

would result in local economic benefits, including increased expenditure

particularly for food and accommodation services.

One of the risks associated with demolition is that jobs created during the

operation of the proposed facility will no longer exist. Consequently, any

workers that have moved to Wellington for the employment opportunities

generated by the Correctional Centre will have to find new employment.

Access As per the traffic impact assessment completed for the proposal (refer to

section 6.3) up to 300 light vehicles and 50 heavy vehicles per day would

be required for construction, 7 days a week. Construction vehicles are

expected to travel between Wellington town centre and the construction site

along Goolma Road and Mitchell Highway. Increased construction traffic

particularly through the town centre may potentially reduce the access of

road users, including motorists and bus passengers. Road users may

experience increased inconvenience, travel times, disruptions and potential

perception of traffic related safety risks.


Table 6-24 identifies the potential socio-economic risks associated with the proposal for inmates

at the existing facility. The risks have been identified through a desktop review of data,

community information and similar case studies. It is recommended to incorporate stakeholder

inputs to confirm the potential socio-economic impacts for the proposed temporary facilities.

Given the temporary nature of the facility and its anticipated life span of 5-7 years all risks and

benefits associated with the proposal are also temporary. This means that employment

generated by the proposal will no longer exist once the facility has been demolished, this will

have a significant impact on workers who move to the area.

Table 6-24 Potential socio economic risks associated with operational of

the proposal

Benefit/risk Detail

Potential positive benefits

Facility that services

broader NSW

The proposal is being undertaken to address an urgent need for

additional custodial accommodation across NSW. The facility will

assist in meeting the demand that is being experienced across

NSW.



Benefit/risk Detail

Economic impacts There are number of economic benefits associated with the

proposal. A more detailed economic assessment would provide

estimates of these benefits. In summary, potential economic

impacts would include:

Additional 220 jobs employed by CSNSW

Increased local procurements of goods and services

required to operate the facility

Inmate expenditure of local goods and services

Staff expenditure of local goods and services

Visitors expenditure including accommodation,

meals and local transport

In addition to the direct economic impact of the

temporary expansion, the proposal will create flow-

on or multiplier effects

Additional accommodation to support new workers

could result in an increase in local house prices due

to pressure on the housing market.

Demographic changes There is a potential that increased employment opportunities as a

result of the proposal would attract some employees to move into

the town of Wellington with their families for medium (five to six

years) to long term. Such in-migration of workers and their

families would promote growth in town.

Community benefit The existing facility has an active community projects program

with inmates working in partnership with Council to maintain local

community assets. The proposal would accommodate an

additional 400 inmates and may increase the capacity of the

community projects program to expand its projects leading to

increased demand for workers and innovation in the planning and

delivery of these programs. This would be a positive benefit to the

community.

Accommodation The potential increase in the local population would increase

demand for housing and accommodation facilities in town.

Currently in Wellington there are 150+ properties for sale and

remaining on market for over 300 days and 50 properties for rent.

It is therefore anticipated that the additional population as a result

of the proposal will benefit accommodation in the area increasing

property values and rental opportunities.

Potential risks

Stigma and impact to

town’s reputation

There is the potential that the community will be concerned that

the proposal will have an adverse impact on the character and

reputation of the Wellington town centre. Consultation as part of

the community strategic plan identified that there are sometimes

negative perceptions about Wellington town. There is the



Benefit/risk Detail

potential that this stigma could impact on investment in the town

particularly in regards to tourism and related new business

opportunities.

Fear about impact on local

crime

Crime within the community is already a concern as outlined

within the Council strategies. There is the potential that the

community may perceive that the proposal may result in an

increase in local crime due to prison escapees, visitors of inmates

or inmates choosing to stay within the local community after their

prison term. Although there is no evidence to suggest that this

may be the case, it would need to be investigated further.

Traffic and access The proposal is expected to generate 634 vehicle movements per

day (refer to section 6.3.3) The majority of trips are expected to

be taken by CSNSW staff and visitors of inmates. Traffic impacts

are expected to minor.

Impact on community and

social infrastructure

The proposal has the potential to increase local population

through the additional workforce required to support the proposal,

visitors to the facility as well as in-mates that choose to move into

the local area. The additional population is likely to increase

demand on existing community and social infrastructure facilities

and service including education, health and social services,

particularly those that support released inmates, if they are

already operating at capacity.

6.13 Mitigation

Mitigation measures should focus on enhancing both the positive economic and social impacts

of the proposal whilst mitigating or minimising the potential risks. Throughout the process,

engagement with the community and stakeholders will be crucial and it is recommended that

this commence immediately ahead of construction.


Consultation with the community to understand concerns regarding the proposal.

Communications materials should then be developed addressing their key concerns.

Consultation with affected adjoining landholders should be respectful and ongoing to

ensure impacts are minimised.

A construction environmental management plan should address impacts to adjoining

landholders and complied with during construction. A similar plan will need to be

developed for demolition.

Construction and demolition workforce should be sourced locally with appropriate training

opportunities provided for residents within the region.

Consultation with local government and businesses and service providers should be

undertaken to ensure that the required workforce can be accommodated within

Wellington. If this will cause excessive pressure alternative locations should be

considered for workforce accommodation.



Preparation of an employment management plan should be prepared prior to demolition

of the proposed temporary facility. The plan should consider opportunities to retain

workers on site, relocation of workers to other CSNSW sites or retraining programs so

that workers can stay within the local area.

Operational

Ongoing consultation with the community, surrounding landowners and key stakeholders to

identify and manage concerns with regards to the proposal.

Work with Council, tourism authorities and the local business community to maintain a

positive image about the proposal to maintain a positive image about the town and

encourage investment.

Collaboration with NSW Police, PCYC, Gungie Origin and other community and health

service providers should be undertaken to ensure that crime rates in the area are

monitored and managed.

The existing facility should seek opportunities to expand current levels of involvement in

the local community as a result of the proposal.

Consultation with health, emergency, education service providers and Local Government

should be undertaken to ensure there is existing capacity for future inmates’ families and

additional staff to the area can be accommodated.

Future workforce for the centre should be sourced locally where possible. Consider

training and upskilling of local population for suitable employment opportunities at the

expanded correctional facility. Training and upskilling should continue throughout the life

of the proposed facility so that employees have transferrable skills for when the

temporary facility closes.

Consultation with local governments and real estates should be undertaken to assess

housing market for staff moving to the area. Should there be insufficient housing stock it

is suggested that staff are accommodated at alternate locations.



7. Environmental management

This section provides an outline of the environmental management requirements for the

proposal, and a consolidated list of mitigation measures that form the environmental

management framework.

7.1 Environmental management plans

Under the State Government’s policy to improve the performance of the NSW construction

industry, preparation of a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) is mandatory

for all projects undertaken by or on behalf of government agencies or where funding is being

provided by the government. The Construction Policy Steering Committee and the then

Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources have produced environmental

management system and environmental management plan guidelines aiming to assist

contractors both in complying with the Government’s policy and in demonstrating that

compliance. The environmental management objectives and supporting actions presented in

this section are intended to assist in this process.

The CEMP would also consider the demolition of the proposal and would include a risk

assessment which ensures that the safeguards identified in this REF, as well as any others that

are considered relevant, are effectively translated into actual construction techniques and

environmental management activities, controls and monitoring/verification to prevent or

minimise environmental impacts. The CEMP should also identify the requirements for

compliance with relevant legislation and other regulatory any requirements to ensure

environmental safeguards described throughout this REF are implemented. The environmental

management objectives and supporting actions presented in this section are intended to assist

in this process. DJ would review the CEMP.

The CEMP should generally conform to the structure shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 CEMP structure

Section Details

Background Introduction to the document

Description of the proposal and project details

The context for the CEMP in regards to the overall project

The CEMP objectives

The contractor’s environmental policy

Environmental management Environmental management structure of the organisation and specific team responsibilities with respect to the CEMP and its implementation

Approval and licensing requirements relevant to the project

Reporting requirements

Environmental training

Emergency contacts and response

Implementation A project specific risk assessment

A detailed list of environmental management



Section Details

safeguards and controls

CEMP sub plans for specific environmental controls

A detailed schedule assigning responsibility to each environmental management activity and control

Monitor and review Environmental monitoring

Environmental auditing

Corrective action

CEMP review and document control procedures

7.2 Environmental management measures

Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in section 6 would be undertaken during a

number of phases of the project. These phases comprise:

Detailed design – refinement of the design details

Pre-construction – prior to the contractor arriving on site to carry out the works

Construction – during construction phase

Operation – post construction.

Demolition – post operation.

7.2.1 Land use

Objective(s)

Minimise impacts to surrounding land uses during construction and operation of the proposal.

Action(s)

Action/phase Responsibility


The neighbouring landowners are to be consulted with regard to the construction works, predicted program and any access requirements as required.

Contractor

Best management construction and demolition impacts are to be documented in a project specific CEMP.

Contractor

Land disturbance during construction is to be strictly limited to that required to undertake the construction and demolition works.

Contractor

Construction and demolition works would be undertaken in consideration of adjacent vegetation.

Contractor

Areas disturbed during construction would be returned to the pre-construction condition.

Contractor



7.2.2 Noise

Objective(s)

Compliance with relevant recommendations specified in the Interim Construction Noise

Guideline (DECC, 2009).

Avoidance/minimisation of noise impacts on nearby sensitive noise receivers.

Action(s)



Regularly train workers and contractors (such as at the site induction and toolbox talks) on the importance of minimising noise emissions and how to use equipment in ways to minimise noise.

Contractor

Avoid any unnecessary noise when carrying out manual operations and when operating plant.

Contractor

Ensure spoil is placed and not dropped into awaiting trucks. Contractor

Avoid / limit simultaneous operation of noisy plant and equipment within discernible range of a sensitive receiver where practicable.

Contractor

Switch off any equipment not in use for extended periods e.g. heavy vehicles engines will be switched off whilst being unloaded.

Contractor

Avoid deliveries at night/evenings wherever practicable. Contractor

No idling of delivery trucks. Contractor

Keep truck drivers informed of designated vehicle routes, parking locations and acceptable delivery hours for the site.

Contractor

Minimise talking loudly; no swearing or unnecessary shouting, or loud stereos/radios onsite; no dropping of materials from height where practicable, no throwing of metal items and slamming of doors.

Contractor

Maximise the offset distance between noisy plant and adjacent sensitive receivers and determining safe working distances.

Contractor

Use the most suitable equipment necessary for the construction works at any one time.

Contractor

Direct noise-emitting plant away from sensitive receivers. Contractor

Regularly inspect and maintain plant to avoid increased noise levels from rattling hatches, loose fittings etc.

Contractor

Use quieter construction methods where feasible and reasonable. Contractor

The community should be notified prior to any out of hours works commencing.

Contractor

The use of noisy equipment should be minimised during the night time period.

Contractor

Activities involving large earth moving equipment should not be conducted outside of standard working hours. It may be possible to conduct construction activities that have lower noise emission, or conduct internal fit out works.

Contractor



7.2.3 Traffic and access

Objective(s)

Ensure that construction vehicles do not cause excessive inconvenience to road and

pedestrian users.

Ensure the safety of road users, construction personnel, other workers and visitors to the

site for the duration of the proposal.

Minimise the pollution impacts resulting from the use of vehicles during construction.

Action(s)



A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be prepared by the Contractor in consultation with NSW Department of Justice, and provided to Council and RMS as required. The TMP would be the primary management tool to manage potential traffic impacts associated with construction and demolition of the proposed works.

Contractor

Consultation with the appropriate road authority to be undertaken for the proposed operational changes to Goolma Road where a new intersection and road access is required.

Contractor

7.2.4 Air quality

Objective(s)

Avoidance/minimisation of off-site dust nuisance to neighbouring residences, workers,

inmates visitors and the community.

Minimisation of air quality impacts resulting from machinery and vehicle emissions.

Action(s)



All plant and machinery would be fitted with emission control devices complying with the Australian Design Standards.

Contractor

Machinery would be turned off when not in use and not left to idle for prolonged periods.

Contractor

Dust generation would be monitored visually, and where required, dust control measures such as water spraying would be implemented to control the generation of dust.

Contractor

Any waste (such as excavated spoil) produced on-site would be stored appropriately to reduce the production of dust.

Contractor

Materials transported to and from the site would be covered to reduce dust generation in transit.

Contractor

Access points would be inspected to determine whether sediment is being transferred to the surrounding road network. If required, sediment would be promptly removed from roads to minimise dust generation.

Contractor



Stabilisation of any excavated areas would occur as soon as practicable. Contractor

Fixed hoses would be used to dampen exposed surfaces to minimise dust generation, where required.

Contractor

7.2.5 Soils, erosion and water quality

Objective(s)

To effectively manage sediment and erosion control during the construction stage of the

proposal.

Prevention/minimisation of impacts to adjacent water bodies during the construction and

operation of the proposal.

Action(s)



Sediment and erosion control devices would be installed around work sites and maintained to minimise the transport of sediment in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils & Construction, Volume 1(Landcom 2004). These devices would be inspected weekly and immediately after rainfall to ensure their effectiveness over the duration of the works. Any damage to erosion and sediment controls would be rectified immediately.

Contractor

The area of exposed surfaces would be minimised and disturbed areas would be stabilised progressively to ensure that no areas remain unstable for any extended length of time.

Contractor

Wherever possible, reuse soil and sediment that accumulates in erosion and sediment control structures during site restoration unless it is contaminated or otherwise inappropriate for reuse.

Contractor

Cease work in the immediate vicinity of any areas of suspected contamination that are identified prior to or during work. Ensure that these areas are not disturbed and are cordoned off as a safety risk.

Contractor

Vehicle and machinery movement would be confined to designated roads, tracks, pathways and work areas. Designated lay-down areas would be selected to minimise erosion or vegetation damage.

Contractor

Manage stockpiles by implementing sediment and erosion control devices in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils & Construction, Volume 1 (Landcom 2004)

Contractor

Cease work during heavy rainfall events when there is a risk of sediment loss off-site or ground disturbance due to water logged conditions.

Contractor

Ensure equipment, plant and materials are placed in designated areas where they are least likely to cause erosion.

Contractor

Following completion of work, restore land surfaces to as close as possible to pre-existing conditions.

Contractor



7.2.6 Flora and fauna

Objective(s)

Avoidance/minimisation of impacts to flora and fauna.

Minimise clearing of onsite vegetation.

Avoid weed invasion.

Action(s)


Pre-construction

All staff will be inducted and informed of the limits of vegetation clearing and the areas of vegetation to be retained. Areas of vegetation not to be removed will be clearly marked prior to construction.

Contractor

Pruning or lopping of limbs will be conducted in preference to tree removal wherever possible.

Contractor


Removal of native vegetation will be minimised wherever possible. Contractor

Locally native flora species will be used for any revegetation around the proposal site.

Contractor

Any herbicides used for weed control will be applied to the manufacturer's specifications and as outlined in the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet.

Contractor

Broad spectrum non-selective herbicides (residual herbicides) will not be used. Herbicides selected for use will be appropriate for the species being treated.

Contractor

Spraying of herbicides will not be undertaken in windy weather or within such distance of a watercourse as will permit any of the herbicide to enter the water.

Contractor

A weed management plan will be prepared as part of the CEMP for implementation before, during and after the works. The weed management plan will include measures to prevent the spread of weeds, particularly African Boxthorn and Tree of Heaven.

Contractor

Vehicle and machinery wash/brush downs will be conducted before vehicles leave the proposal site to minimise the risk of spreading weed and pathogen species during construction.

Contractor

Weed infested topsoil will be disposed of or treated and will not be stockpiled adjacent to any areas of native vegetation.

Contractor

Declared noxious weeds will be managed according to the requirements of the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

Contractor

7.2.7 Heritage

Objective(s)

Minimise potential impacts to items and places of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage due to

the proposal.



Action(s)



All land-disturbing activities must be confined to within the assessed site area. Should the parameters of the proposed work extend beyond the assessed area, then further archaeological assessment may be required.

Contractor

Work crews involved in the proposed work should be made aware of the legislative protection requirements for all Aboriginal sites and objects.

Contractor

In the unlikely event that objects are encountered that are suspected to be of Aboriginal origin (including skeletal material), it is recommended that activities should temporarily cease within the immediate vicinity of the find locality and be relocated to other areas of the subject site (allowing for a curtilage of at least 50 metres). OEH must then be contacted to advise on the appropriate course of action to record and collect the identified item(s).

Contractor

Work crews should undergo cultural heritage induction to ensure they recognise Aboriginal artefacts and are aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal objects under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the contents of the Unanticipated Finds Protocol.

Contractor

7.2.8 Site contamination

Objective(s)

Minimise the risk associated with potential site contamination during construction and operation

of the proposal.

Action(s)



Check machinery daily for oil, fuel or other liquid leaks. Contractor

Develop contingency plans to deal with spills which might occur during the course of construction.

Contractor

Undertake progressive soil testing of the proposal area during excavation works. Tests would confirm the presence and type of any contaminants, and classify the soil for the purpose of spoil management and removal.

Contractor

An ‘unexpected finds protocol’ would be prepared and included in the CEMP to assist with the identification, assessment, management, health and safety implications, remediation and/or disposal (at an appropriately licenced facility) of any potentially contaminated soil and/or water.

Contractor

In the event that indicators of contamination are encountered during construction (such as odours or visually contaminated materials), work in the area would cease until an occupational hygienist can advise on the need for remediation or other action.

Contractor

If dewatering is required during construction, the water would be tested (and treated if necessary) prior to re-use, discharge or disposal.

Contractor



7.2.9 Waste management

Objective(s)

Compliance with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste)

Regulation 2005.

Maximise reuse/recycling of waste material and minimise waste disposed of to landfill.

Action(s)



Maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition at all times. Contractor

Ensure waste is placed in skip bins positioned in defined area(s) onsite or within the site compound (if required).

Contractor

Avoid surplus construction materials through appropriate planning of the construction works.

Contractor

Recycle waste in accordance with the NSW Government’s Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy.

Contractor

All waste materials produced by the proposal would be assessed, classified, managed and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (DECCW, 2009) and the waste management hierarchy.

Contractor

Classify and dispose of waste (if unable to be reused or recycled) in accordance with the EPA Waste Classification Guidelines (EPA 2014).

Contractor

Any waste material identified as being contaminated would be managed in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and other relevant legislation.

Contractor

Limit smoking to defined areas and provide butt bins for construction workers.

Contractor

7.2.10 Bushfire hazard

Objective(s)

Minimise potential bushfire hazard associated with the construction and operation of the

proposal.

Action(s)



Avoid undertaking hot work (such as welding) outside during dry weather or periods of prolonged bushfire risk.

Contractor

In the event of a bushfire, work is to cease and workers evacuated in accordance with standard emergency response procedures.

Contractor

Design of above ground items must be in accordance with the bushfire protection measures included in the RFS guideline Planning for Bushfire

Contractor



Protection 2006.

Shrubs are not to be planted close to any buildings. Contractor

Fences, sheds and structures should be constructed of non-flammable material and be clear of trees and shrubs.

Contractor

Operational

General site maintenance to be undertaken as per existing maintenance procedures in order to minimise bushfire risk.

DJ

All grasses are to be maintained to a height of a maximum 50mm. DJ

The crowns of trees should be separated where practical such that there is a clear separation distance between adjoining tree crowns.

DJ

Prune lower branches of trees to stop a surface fire spreading to the canopy of the trees.

DJ

Trees or shrubs are to be regularly cleared of any dead material. DJ

Gas cylinders to be stored in an area that is clear of all flammable material and securely tethered with non-flammable fastenings to prevent toppling over.

DJ

Driveways and access ways must allow for the safe passage for emergency vehicles to all buildings and assets on the land.

DJ

Roof gutters should be free of leaves and other combustible material. DJ

7.2.11 Visual

Objective(s)

Minimise the visual impact of the proposal on surrounding land uses.

Action(s)



Maintain construction sites in a clean and tidy condition at all times. Contractor

Ensure all work equipment and materials are contained within the designated boundaries of the work site.

Contractor

Limit construction vehicles and personnel on site to those needed for that activity, with all excess equipment moved off-site to reduce visual impacts.

Contractor

Operational

The detailed design of the proposal would take into account relevant urban design and visual considerations.

DJ

Maintain the site in a clean and tidy condition at all times. DJ

Ensure landscaped areas are regularly maintained. DJ



7.2.12 Socio-economic

Objective(s)

Minimising the potential negative social impacts, particularly in relation to housing and

community facility and welfare needs related to the proposal.

Enhancement of the positive economic and social impacts of the proposal.

Action(s)



Consultation with the community to understand concerns regarding the proposal. Communications materials should then be developed addressing their key concerns.

Contractor

Consultation with affected adjoining landholders should be respectful and ongoing to ensure impacts are minimised.

Contractor

A construction environmental management plan should address impacts to adjoining landholders and complied with during construction. A similar plan would need to be developed for demolition.

Contractor

Construction and demolition workforce should be sourced locally with appropriate training opportunities provided for residents within the region.

Contractor

Consultation with local government and businesses and service providers should be undertaken to ensure that the required workforce can be accommodated within Wellington. If this will cause excessive pressure alternative locations should be considered for workforce accommodation.

Contractor

Preparation of an employment management plan should be prepared prior to demolition of the proposed temporary facility. The plan should consider opportunities to retain workers on site, relocation of workers to other CSNSW sites or retraining programs so that workers can stay within the local area.

Contractor

Operational

Work with Council, tourism authorities and the local business community to maintain a positive image about the proposal to maintain a positive image about the town and encourage investment.

DJ

Collaboration with NSW Police, PCYC, Gungie Origin and other community and health service providers should be undertaken to ensure that crime rates in the area are monitored and managed.

DJ

The existing facility should seek opportunities to expand current levels of involvement in the local community as a result of the proposal.

DJ

Consultation with health, emergency, education service providers and local government should be undertaken to ensure there is existing capacity for future inmates families and additional staff to the area can be accommodated.

DJ

Future workforce for the centre should be sourced locally where possible. Consider training and upskilling of local population for suitable employment opportunities at the expanded correctional facility. Training and upskilling should continue throughout the life of the proposed facility so that employees have transferrable skills for when the temporary facility closes.

DJ



Consultation with local governments and real estates should be undertaken to assess housing market for staff moving to the area. Should there be insufficient housing stock it is suggested that staff are accommodated at alternate locations.

DJ



8. Conclusion

This section provides a conclusion to the REF, including a summary of the proposal

justification and the findings of the REF.

This REF considers the potential impacts of the proposal to construct and operate a 400 bed

temporary correctional accommodation facility at Wellington. It has been prepared by GHD on

behalf of DJ to assist with determination of the proposal under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.

8.1 Justification of the proposal

The proposal forms part of DJ’s Prison Bed Capacity Program, which is being undertaken to

meet the unprecedented and unanticipated rise in inmate numbers in recent years, which has

exceeded previous inmate population projections. This has placed demand pressures on the

correctional system and has resulted in a number of inefficiencies and operational challenges.

The proposal would respond to long term growth forecasts through the provision of additional

prison beds and associated infrastructure in the area.

8.2 Summary of REF findings

The REF has considered the potential impacts of the proposal. It has been prepared in

accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act, and in particular, the requirements of section 111 of

the Act, and clause 228 of the Regulation. The REF has documented the potential

environmental impacts of the proposal, considering both potential positive and negative impacts,

and recommending management and mitigation measures to protect the environment where

required.

8.2.1 Clause 228 considerations

Clause 228 of the Regulation specifies the matters that must be taken into account, for the

purposes of Part 5 of the Act, when consideration is being given to the likely impact of an

activity on the environment. The potential impacts of the proposal have been considered in

sections 6.1 to 6.12 of the REF. The Clause 228 matters and how they relate to the proposal

are considered in Appendix A.

8.2.2 Ecologically sustainable development

DJ is committed to ensuring that its projects are implemented in a manner that is consistent with

the principles of sustainable development. These principles would be incorporated into the

management systems for the proposal.

Appendix A summarises how the principles of ecologically sustainable development adopted by

the EP&A Act have been addressed by the REF process.

8.2.3 Significance of impacts

Whilst some potentially negative impacts may result from the proposal, these impacts would be

short-term and localised and are not considered to be significant. Section 7.2 of the REF

provides the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts

and manage the environmental performance of the proposal.

8.3 Conclusion

The REF identifies that the proposal would have the potential for both positive and negative

impacts, and it identifies mitigation measures to reduce or manage the negative impacts.



Environmental investigations were undertaken during preparation of the REF to assess the

potential environmental impacts.

There are considered to be no significant environmental issues associated with the proposal.

Any potential adverse impacts resulting from the proposal are considered manageable through

the implementation of mitigation measures in section 7.2.

In conclusion, the proposal is needed in order to address demand pressures on the correctional

system that has resulted in a number of inefficiencies and operational challenges. It is

considered that the adverse environmental impacts would be generally short-term and localised

in nature. With the adoption and implementation of the proposed mitigation and management

measures listed in section 7.2 the potential environmental impacts of the proposal would be

adequately mitigated and managed, and are not considered to be significant.

8.4 Recommendation

It is recommended that environmental management plans be developed prior to

commencement of the construction and demolition phases of the proposal, incorporating the

mitigation measures outlined in section 7.2 of this REF.



9. References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Socio-economic profile of Wellington.

Australian Standards 2004, AS 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off-street Car Parking

Austroads (2005) Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5: Intersections at Grade.

Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Crime Statistics from the Wellington LGA.

Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW), 2014, NSW Inmate Census 2014.

DEC 2004, Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and

Activities – Working Draft. Department of Environment and Conservation, November 2004.

DECCW 2009, Interim Construction Noise Guideline.

DECCW 2011, Road Noise Policy, 12 December 2012. URL:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/roadnoiseappnotes.htm

DotE 2016a, Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of the Environment, online database,

accessed July 2016, URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html.

DotE 2016b, Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment,

Water, Population and Communities, online database, accessed July 2016, URL:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.

DPI 2016, Noxious Weed Declarations. NSW Department of Primary Industries, online

database, accessed July 2016. URL: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-

weeds/weeds/noxweed.

EPA 1999, Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise.

EPA 2000, Industrial Noise Policy.

EPA 2014, Waste Classification Guidelines.

Landcom 2004, Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils & Construction, Volume 1.

National Road Transport Commission, 1999, Australian Road Rules.

OEH 2016a, Atlas of NSW Wildlife database, Office of Environment and Heritage.

OEH 2016b, Threatened Species: Species, Populations and Ecological Communities of NSW.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, online database, accessed July 2016, URL:

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/index.aspx.

OEH 2016c, Vegetation Information System, VIS Classification 2.1. Website accessed July

2016. URL: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NSWVCA20PRapp/LoginPR.aspx.

Roads and Maritime (RMS) 2002, Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

Traffix (2003), Proposed Mid-Western Correctional Centre at Wellington, NSW Traffic Impact

Assessment report.

Wellington Council. 2012, Wellington 2025 Community Strategic Plan. Accessed 17 July 2016.

http://www.wellington.nsw.gov.au/images/CSP/Community_Strategic_Plan_Final_Copy_21.02.1

2.pdf

Wellington Council. 2011, Wellington Council Crime Prevention Plan. Accessed 17 July 2016.

http://www.wellington.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/Plans/CRIMEPREVENTIONPLAN4July2011N

OTracking.pdf

nsw department of justice · bed temporary correctional accommodation facility proposed at the site...

Documents