Vol-2E App-K Landscape-and-Visual-Impact-Assessment

Chapter: Vol 1B Chapter 14 Visual impacts and urban design

Appendix Vol 2E App K Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Hi-res pdfs:

Low-res pdfs:

Section Pages
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of WestConnex 1
1.2 Overview of the project 2
1.3 Project location 4
1.4 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements 4
1.5 Study area 5
2.0 Urban and Landscape Design 7
2.1 Western surface works and the Kingsgrove motorway operations complex 8
2.2 Bexley Road South motorway operations complex 12
2.3 Arncliffe motorway operations complex 12
2.4 St Peters interchange and surrounds 16
3.0 Methodology 23
3.1 Project description 23
3.2 Analysis of existing environment 23
3.2.1 Definition of Landscape Character Zones 24
3.3 Assessment of landscape character and visual impact 25
3.3.1 Sensitivity and magnitude 25
3.3.2 Visual envelope mapping 26
3.3.3 Photos and panoramas 26
3.3.4 Assessment of night lighting impacts 26
4.0 Existing environment 29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Western surface works 32
4.2.1 Topography and visibility 32
4.2.2 Context 34
4.2.3 Heritage sites 43
4.2.4 Landscape Character Zones 44
4.3 Bexley Road surface works 52
4.3.1 Topography and visibility 52
4.3.2 Context 56
4.3.3 Heritage sites 63
4.3.4 Landscape Character Zones 63
4.4 Arncliffe surface works 69
4.4.1 Topography and visibility 69
4.4.2 Context 74
4.4.3 Heritage sites 77
4.4.4 Landscape Character Zones 77
4.5 St Peters interchange and surrounds 80
4.5.1 Topography and visibility 82
4.5.2 Context 82
4.5.3 Heritage sites 88
4.5.4 Landscape Character Zones 90
5.0 Policy and Planning Setting 99
5.1 Urban design, landscape character and visual amenity 99
6.0 Assessment of potential impacts 103
6.1 Construction visual impacts 103
6.1.1 Kingsgrove North construction compound (C1) 106
6.1.2 Kingsgrove South construction compound (C2) and Commercial Road 123
6.1.3 Bexley Road North construction compound (C4) 132
6.1.4 Bexley Road South construction compound (C5) 147
6.1.5 Bexley Road East construction compound (C6) 155
6.1.6 Pedestrian and Cyclist Routes – Beverly Hills, Kingsgrove, Bexley 165
6.1.7 Arncliffe construction compound (C7) 171
6.1.8 Canal Road construction compound (C8) 183
6.1.9 Campbell Road construction compound (C9) 198
6.1.10 Landfill Closure construction compound (C10) 207
6.1.11 Burrows Road construction compound (C11) 208
6.1.12 Campbell Road bridge construction compound (C12) 213
6.1.13 Gardeners Road bridge construction compound (C13) 216
6.1.14 Sydney Park construction compound (C14) 219
6.1.15 Western surface works – Construction activity within the roadway 227
6.2 Operation landscape character impacts 237
6.2.1 Western surface works 237
6.2.2 Bexley Road South motorway operations complex 242
6.2.3 Arncliffe motorway operations complex 245
6.2.4 St Peters Interchange and surrounds 249
6.3 Future character / context assessment 255
6.3.1 Western surface works 255
6.3.2 Bexley Road South motorway operations complex 255
6.3.3 Arncliffe motorway operations complex 260
6.3.4 St Peters Interchange 262
6.4 Operational visual impacts 264
6.4.1 Western surface works 264
6.4.2 Bexley Road South motorway operations complex 282
6.4.3 Arncliffe motorway operations complex 292
6.4.4 St Peters Interchange 313
6.4.5 Local road upgrades 349
6.4.6 Tolling gantries within the M5 East Motorway corridor 378
7.0 Mitigation and management measures 379
7.1 Construction 379
7.2 Operation 380
Appendix A Visual impact summaries A

Next appendix: Vol 2E App L Urban Design

Advertisements

One thought on “Vol-2E App-K Landscape-and-Visual-Impact-Assessment

  1. The St Peters interchange really concerns me. The photomontage makes it look pretty but I very much doubt it will ever look as good as the EIS Photoshopped image. While I admire the Lighthouse interchange in western Sydney, it is not in a residential setting, nor should it be. So I don’t think it’s appropriate in St Peters. At the very least, burying it in trees might help but there needs to be a guarantee that it will look at least as good as the ‘artistic impression’ provided in the EIS.

    I am also very concerned about the impact of traffic on the local streets. Mitchell Road and Copeland St/Swanson St/Erskineville Road are already major issues for local residents especially children. Local residents are already impacted by the current high levels of traffic particularly in the last five years by residential development. There have been many traffic accidents involving local pedestrians and cyclists and these incidences will only increase once high volume of traffic is redirected down Euston Road. It is naive to expect that local roads will not be greatly impacted. What specifically will be done to ensure local residents will still be able to transport their children to sport, school and recreational activities without increased dangers due to high volume traffic and residential development?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s