❓ Dr. Edwards questions the Minister representing the Minister for Transport regarding compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) during the City Northern Bypass construction, specifically concerning potential damage to heritage buildings in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct due to dewatering activities. The Minister defends MRWA's actions, stating monitoring was undertaken and the precinct was initially considered outside the impact zone.
AnsweredQoN 80Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
80. Dr EDWARDS to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport:
(1) Given that the Design & Construct Project Deed for the City Northern Bypass in section 2.4states that the D&C Contractor must comply with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), why did Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) fail to ensure that the tunnel contractor developed and implemented a drawdown impact monitoring program to provide early warning of unacceptable adverse impacts on heritage buildings as required in the 1996 EMP when construction started and in line with the stated heritage objectives in section 2.12.1?
(2) Given that the 1996 EMP in section 2.8.3(i)required the contractor to identify structures etc that may be sensitive to drawdown and to use these locations as a basis for the drawdown impact monitoring program, why did MRWA fail to ensure that this requirement was undertaken in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(3) Does the Minister accept that the tunnel contractor failed to fulfil their contractual obligations with respect to section 2.8.3(i)of the 1996 EMP before that particular EMP was significantly downgraded in August 1997 within weeks of the first complaints from the residents of the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Did MRWA receive written advice from the tunnel contractor that residents in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct were complaining of cracks appearing in their houses in late July 1997 as required in section 2.4(b)of the Design and Construct Project Deed?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) On what date did MRWA receive that written advice?
(8) Given that MRWA received written advice from the tunnel contractor that residents were complaining of cracks appearing in their houses, prior to the downgrading of the 1996 EMP, why did MRWA approve of the removal of -
(a) section 2.8.2(i) (e);
(b) section 2.8.1(iii);
(c) section 2.8.2(iii) (c);
(d) section 2.8.3(i)and (d); and,
(e) section 2.8.3(iii)
(e) when these sections related to critical aspects of dewatering drawdown monitoring?
(9) Does the Minister accept that MRWA were negligent in failing to ensure full compliance with the relevant 1996 EMP?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Given that section 2.12.3 of the 1996 EMP states "the specific control actions to be employed to ensure protection of European Heritage structures will include; define protective works and establish baseline monitoring", why did MRWA not ensure that this was carried out by the tunnel contractor in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(12) Does the failure of the tunnel contractor to implement section 2.12.3run counter to what was specified in the contract?
(13) If not, why not?
(14) Does the Minister accept that MRWA were negligent in failing to ensure compliance with the relevant 1996 EMP?
(15) If not, why not?
(16) Given the 1996 EMP required the tunnel contractor to assemble historical data on groundwater levels in the vicinity of the tunnel, section 2.8.3(iii)and to identify localised water table level variations and to monitor long term impacts, section 2.8.3(iii)and that these measures were not implemented with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct, does the Minister accept that the findings of the Woodward Clyde report which indicated an "absence of accurately recorded historical data in the Moir and Brookman Street area with respect to groundwater levels", is evidence of -
(a) the critical importance of the monitoring of dewatering impacts as required in section 2.8.3of the 1996 EMP;
(b) the lack of quality control by MRWA when the tunnel contractors were permitted to significantly downgrade the 1996 EMP so as to remove the specific sections which required the very monitoring that the Woodward Clyde report identified as lacking?
(17) Given that the Design and Construct Project Deed, section 4.5(a), requires MRWA to arrange monitoring and audits (including testing), to see if the contractor is complying with the Deed, including section 2.4(a), the Environmental Management Plan, what monitoring and auditing was undertaken with respect to the requirements of -
(a) section 2.8.3(i)and (d);
(b) section 2.8.3(iii);
(c) 2.12.2(a), and (e);
(d) 2.12.3(iii), and (v),
with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(18) Given that MRWA commissioned the independent report by Woodward Clyde to investigate the effects of the tunnel dewatering on the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct, why was section 9, the recommendations, removed from the final report?
(19) Given that the Woodward Clyde report recommended that an opportunity remained to "determine with some improved confidence what influence the Northbridge tunnel dewatering activities are having on regional water levels", why did MRWA not ensure that these recommendations were implemented?
(20) Does the Minister acknowledge that the failure of MRWA to implement the recommendations of the Woodward Clyde report demonstrates that they were not acting in the best interests of the residents of the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(21) If not, why not?
(22) Given that section 6.2of the Deed states that any cost savings arising from changes to the design and project delivery should benefit MRWA and the contractor equally, does the Minister accept that this creates a perception of a conflict of interest when MRWA approved the downgrading of the 1996 EMP to remove requirements for monitoring dewatering drawdown which were essential for comprehensive environmental management?
(23) If not, why not?
(1) Given that the Design & Construct Project Deed for the City Northern Bypass in section 2.4states that the D&C Contractor must comply with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), why did Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) fail to ensure that the tunnel contractor developed and implemented a drawdown impact monitoring program to provide early warning of unacceptable adverse impacts on heritage buildings as required in the 1996 EMP when construction started and in line with the stated heritage objectives in section 2.12.1?
(2) Given that the 1996 EMP in section 2.8.3(i)required the contractor to identify structures etc that may be sensitive to drawdown and to use these locations as a basis for the drawdown impact monitoring program, why did MRWA fail to ensure that this requirement was undertaken in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(3) Does the Minister accept that the tunnel contractor failed to fulfil their contractual obligations with respect to section 2.8.3(i)of the 1996 EMP before that particular EMP was significantly downgraded in August 1997 within weeks of the first complaints from the residents of the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Did MRWA receive written advice from the tunnel contractor that residents in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct were complaining of cracks appearing in their houses in late July 1997 as required in section 2.4(b)of the Design and Construct Project Deed?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) On what date did MRWA receive that written advice?
(8) Given that MRWA received written advice from the tunnel contractor that residents were complaining of cracks appearing in their houses, prior to the downgrading of the 1996 EMP, why did MRWA approve of the removal of -
(a) section 2.8.2(i) (e);
(b) section 2.8.1(iii);
(c) section 2.8.2(iii) (c);
(d) section 2.8.3(i)and (d); and,
(e) section 2.8.3(iii)
(e) when these sections related to critical aspects of dewatering drawdown monitoring?
(9) Does the Minister accept that MRWA were negligent in failing to ensure full compliance with the relevant 1996 EMP?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Given that section 2.12.3 of the 1996 EMP states "the specific control actions to be employed to ensure protection of European Heritage structures will include; define protective works and establish baseline monitoring", why did MRWA not ensure that this was carried out by the tunnel contractor in the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(12) Does the failure of the tunnel contractor to implement section 2.12.3run counter to what was specified in the contract?
(13) If not, why not?
(14) Does the Minister accept that MRWA were negligent in failing to ensure compliance with the relevant 1996 EMP?
(15) If not, why not?
(16) Given the 1996 EMP required the tunnel contractor to assemble historical data on groundwater levels in the vicinity of the tunnel, section 2.8.3(iii)and to identify localised water table level variations and to monitor long term impacts, section 2.8.3(iii)and that these measures were not implemented with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct, does the Minister accept that the findings of the Woodward Clyde report which indicated an "absence of accurately recorded historical data in the Moir and Brookman Street area with respect to groundwater levels", is evidence of -
(a) the critical importance of the monitoring of dewatering impacts as required in section 2.8.3of the 1996 EMP;
(b) the lack of quality control by MRWA when the tunnel contractors were permitted to significantly downgrade the 1996 EMP so as to remove the specific sections which required the very monitoring that the Woodward Clyde report identified as lacking?
(17) Given that the Design and Construct Project Deed, section 4.5(a), requires MRWA to arrange monitoring and audits (including testing), to see if the contractor is complying with the Deed, including section 2.4(a), the Environmental Management Plan, what monitoring and auditing was undertaken with respect to the requirements of -
(a) section 2.8.3(i)and (d);
(b) section 2.8.3(iii);
(c) 2.12.2(a), and (e);
(d) 2.12.3(iii), and (v),
with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(18) Given that MRWA commissioned the independent report by Woodward Clyde to investigate the effects of the tunnel dewatering on the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct, why was section 9, the recommendations, removed from the final report?
(19) Given that the Woodward Clyde report recommended that an opportunity remained to "determine with some improved confidence what influence the Northbridge tunnel dewatering activities are having on regional water levels", why did MRWA not ensure that these recommendations were implemented?
(20) Does the Minister acknowledge that the failure of MRWA to implement the recommendations of the Woodward Clyde report demonstrates that they were not acting in the best interests of the residents of the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct?
(21) If not, why not?
(22) Given that section 6.2of the Deed states that any cost savings arising from changes to the design and project delivery should benefit MRWA and the contractor equally, does the Minister accept that this creates a perception of a conflict of interest when MRWA approved the downgrading of the 1996 EMP to remove requirements for monitoring dewatering drawdown which were essential for comprehensive environmental management?
(23) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 November 2000
Response time
97 days
The Minister Replied:
(1) The tunnel contractor developed and implemented a program to monitor the impact of the dewatering process. The contractor also undertook dilapidation surveys in line with their stated objective under the environmental management plan to protect buildings of heritage significance within or near vicinity of the site.
(2)-(4) Monitoring sites were established in accordance with 2.8.3 (i)(b) adjacent to dewatering piezometers to assess the draw-down impact. The Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct was considered beyond the likely area of influence. However, in response to concerns expressed by local residents, monitoring locations were subsequently established within that precinct.
(5)-(7) Main Roads received a complaint concerning damage to property from a Ms Cristoffanini on 28 July 1997 which was forwarded to the contractor the same day. Main Roads also received a complaint from a Mr Mark Butler via the Minister's office on 5 August 1997. This was referred to the contractor on the same day. BCJV acknowledged the claim on 7 August 1997. There were no other complaints from residents in the precinct in July or August 1997.
(8)-(10) Acceptance of the revision to the Environmental Management Plan was based on the review undertaken by Main Roads and the acceptance of the plan by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Furthermore, the contractor had advised that groundwater modelling had indicated that the influence of the dewatering would be limited to 100 metres either side of the tunnel. The complaints concerned properties located over 400 metres from dewatering activity.
(11)-(13) The objective of the EMP with respect to European Heritage was to protect existing buildings within, and in the near vicinity of, the site. This was consistent with the contractor's tender submission to minimise the impact on building located adjacent to the site such as Tom Burke House and the Protestant Hall in Beaufort Street.
Buildings located over 100 metres away were considered outside of the area of influence of the contractor's activities.
(14)-(15) No. Monitoring to ensure compliance with the EMP was undertaken by regular internal audits by BCJV. The audit reports were reviewed by Main Roads.
(16)-(17) No. The Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct was beyond the anticipated impact of the contractor's activities. However, in response to concerns expressed by local residents, monitoring sites were established by the contractor in that precinct. There was no specific audit of the EMP by Main Roads with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct.
(18) Section 9 of the draft Woodward Clyde report was not included in the final report as it was not part of the consultant's brief. The recommendations however were referred to the contractor for their consideration prior to the final report being released. A copy of the draft report, including recommendations, was provided to the residents.
(19)-(21) Two detailed studies had been undertaken and it was considered that further studies would not necessarily establish the cause of house cracking. Main Roads' action was to facilitate a resolution of the complaint between the residents and the contractor. A meeting between the relevant parties was arranged within a week of the report being released to the residents and a process for determining a contribution from the contractor for repairs was agreed.
(22)-(23) There is no perceived conflict of interest as the changes to the EMP were in accordance with the provisions of the Deed and had been endorsed by the DEP. There has been no change sought by the Contractor in accordance with Section 6.2 (a) of the Deed with respect to changes to the Environmental Management Plan.
(1) The tunnel contractor developed and implemented a program to monitor the impact of the dewatering process. The contractor also undertook dilapidation surveys in line with their stated objective under the environmental management plan to protect buildings of heritage significance within or near vicinity of the site.
(2)-(4) Monitoring sites were established in accordance with 2.8.3 (i)(b) adjacent to dewatering piezometers to assess the draw-down impact. The Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct was considered beyond the likely area of influence. However, in response to concerns expressed by local residents, monitoring locations were subsequently established within that precinct.
(5)-(7) Main Roads received a complaint concerning damage to property from a Ms Cristoffanini on 28 July 1997 which was forwarded to the contractor the same day. Main Roads also received a complaint from a Mr Mark Butler via the Minister's office on 5 August 1997. This was referred to the contractor on the same day. BCJV acknowledged the claim on 7 August 1997. There were no other complaints from residents in the precinct in July or August 1997.
(8)-(10) Acceptance of the revision to the Environmental Management Plan was based on the review undertaken by Main Roads and the acceptance of the plan by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Furthermore, the contractor had advised that groundwater modelling had indicated that the influence of the dewatering would be limited to 100 metres either side of the tunnel. The complaints concerned properties located over 400 metres from dewatering activity.
(11)-(13) The objective of the EMP with respect to European Heritage was to protect existing buildings within, and in the near vicinity of, the site. This was consistent with the contractor's tender submission to minimise the impact on building located adjacent to the site such as Tom Burke House and the Protestant Hall in Beaufort Street.
Buildings located over 100 metres away were considered outside of the area of influence of the contractor's activities.
(14)-(15) No. Monitoring to ensure compliance with the EMP was undertaken by regular internal audits by BCJV. The audit reports were reviewed by Main Roads.
(16)-(17) No. The Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct was beyond the anticipated impact of the contractor's activities. However, in response to concerns expressed by local residents, monitoring sites were established by the contractor in that precinct. There was no specific audit of the EMP by Main Roads with respect to the Moir Brookman Heritage Precinct.
(18) Section 9 of the draft Woodward Clyde report was not included in the final report as it was not part of the consultant's brief. The recommendations however were referred to the contractor for their consideration prior to the final report being released. A copy of the draft report, including recommendations, was provided to the residents.
(19)-(21) Two detailed studies had been undertaken and it was considered that further studies would not necessarily establish the cause of house cracking. Main Roads' action was to facilitate a resolution of the complaint between the residents and the contractor. A meeting between the relevant parties was arranged within a week of the report being released to the residents and a process for determining a contribution from the contractor for repairs was agreed.
(22)-(23) There is no perceived conflict of interest as the changes to the EMP were in accordance with the provisions of the Deed and had been endorsed by the DEP. There has been no change sought by the Contractor in accordance with Section 6.2 (a) of the Deed with respect to changes to the Environmental Management Plan.
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.