❓ Question on Notice regarding the impact of the SWMR tunnelling process on heritage buildings, assessment of potential damage, and budget allocation for repairs. The Minister's response outlines assessments undertaken and risk management strategies, but defers budget questions to another minister.
AnsweredQoN 1313Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) has an assessment been made of the impact of the tunnelling process on these heritage buildings, especially in view of the fact that older buildings would probably not have been constructed with the sophisticated anchors that modern buildings have; (c) if such an assessment has not been carried out, will the Minister advise why not; (d) does the Minister have absolute confidence that these heritage buildings will not be damaged in the course of tunnelling for the SWMR; and (e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
(c) if such an assessment has not been carried out, will the Minister advise why not; (d) does the Minister have absolute confidence that these heritage buildings will not be damaged in the course of tunnelling for the SWMR; and (e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
(d) does the Minister have absolute confidence that these heritage buildings will not be damaged in the course of tunnelling for the SWMR; and (e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
(e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
5 of these places are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. These 5 places are the Wesley Church , the Horseshoe Bridge , the former Palace Hotel (Bankwest), the Gledden Building and the Royal Hotel . The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage. Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage. Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(c) if such an assessment has not been carried out, will the Minister advise why not; (d) does the Minister have absolute confidence that these heritage buildings will not be damaged in the course of tunnelling for the SWMR; and (e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
(d) does the Minister have absolute confidence that these heritage buildings will not be damaged in the course of tunnelling for the SWMR; and (e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
(e) if damage does occur to these heritage buildings, and accepting that heritage repairs are by nature costly, does the Minister have absolute confidence that the SWMR budget has allowed for the cost of repairs to these buildings?
5 of these places are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. These 5 places are the Wesley Church , the Horseshoe Bridge , the former Palace Hotel (Bankwest), the Gledden Building and the Royal Hotel . The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage. Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage. Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration. Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register. In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the William and Wellington Street Precinct ) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned. The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2. The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct. The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the Esplanade Reserve , the Perth Railway Precinct (which includes the Horseshoe Bridge ) and the Narrows Bridge , all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. (b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation. I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building. I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths. I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route. (c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above. (e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
(e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
35 days
(a) The Public Environmental Review (PER) prepared by Bowman Bishaw Gorham on behalf of the Environmental Protection Authority identified 19 buildings of “European Heritage Significance” adjacent to the proposed alignment within the Perth CBD. These places are listed in Table 13 on p.92 of the PER (Attachment 1).
5 of these places are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. These 5 places are the
Wesley Church
, the
Horseshoe Bridge
, the former
Palace Hotel
(Bankwest), the
Gledden Building
and the
Royal Hotel
.
The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage.
Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration.
Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register.
In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the
William and Wellington Street Precinct
) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned.
The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2.
The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct.
The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the
Esplanade Reserve
, the
Perth Railway Precinct
(which includes the
Horseshoe Bridge
) and the
Narrows Bridge
, all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places.
(b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation.
I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building.
I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths.
I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route.
(c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above.
(d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above.
(e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
5 of these places are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places. These 5 places are the
Wesley Church
, the
Horseshoe Bridge
, the former
Palace Hotel
(Bankwest), the
Gledden Building
and the
Royal Hotel
.
The Heritage Council recently commissioned heritage assessments for a further 10 of these individual places and all 10 assessments have now been completed to at least draft stage.
Of these, 8 places have been identified by the Heritage Council as likely to have cultural heritage significance at the State level with 4 of these to be considered for Registration on 9 May 2003 and the remaining 4 requiring amendment to the documentation prior to consideration for possible Registration.
Two places have been assessed as being below the threshold for entry on the Register.
In addition, the Heritage Council has identified a precinct of buildings along Wellington and William Streets (the
William and Wellington Street Precinct
) for which a heritage assessment has also been commissioned.
The status of the individual places and precinct heritage assessments is summarized in Attachment 2.
The Heritage Council is yet to make a recommendation to me in relation to the 10 individual places and the precinct.
The Heritage Council has identified that a further 3 places that will be directly impacted upon by the proposed rail alignment were not identified in Table 13 of the PER, bringing the total number to 22 places. These three places are the
Esplanade Reserve
, the
Perth Railway Precinct
(which includes the
Horseshoe Bridge
) and the
Narrows Bridge
, all three of which are already included on the State Register of Heritage Places.
(b) The PER makes reference to the potential for vibration impact to buildings located along the proposed railway alignment. In its review of the PER, the Heritage Council recommended to the Environmental Protection Authority that a detailed Structural Survey be undertaken for the heritage buildings likely to be affected by the proposal, to identify any potential risks to significant fabric and make appropriate recommendations to protect the fabric against dilapidation.
I am aware that investigation and analysis work has been carried out on behalf of WAGR to assess the risk of dilapidation to buildings located along the rail alignment, irrespective of the age of the building.
I am advised that the heritage buildings may be at less risk of catastrophe and damage than some of the newer, larger buildings that are less flexible and more difficult to repair. I am confident that the risk to the heritage buildings can be managed by recognised controls and forward planning of the tunnelling process, including analysis to predict surface settlement profiles; real time monitoring of ground and building movement ahead, to the side, and above the tunnelling machine; prevention measures to either improve ground or building stability; and strict control of face losses at the tunnel boring machine cutter head over critical lengths.
I understand that the tunnelling contractors have advised that there is little or no vibration from the tunnelling process, therefore there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the heritage buildings along the route.
(c) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above.
(d) Not applicable. Refer comments under (b) above.
(e) Not applicable. I am not aware of what allowance has been made within the SWMR budget in this regard. I suggest that this question be referred to my colleague the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.