1. What roles will the Department of Planning and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) have in the comparative analysis process of potential WestConnex ancillary facility options at Haberfield?
2. Who is responsible for undertaking this comparative analysis?
1. What safeguards will be in place to ensure the integrity of the report?
3. What skills and⁄or expertise will the organisation tasked with undertaking the comparative analysis be required to have?
4. What is the methodology and timeline for this comparative analysis?
5. Why was the analysis of air quality omitted?
6. What community consultation will be required as part of this comparative analysis?
7. Will the decision arising from the comparative analysis be considered a modification to the planning approval you have already granted?
8. Why was the use of Option B sites approved if there was a requirement for further comparative analysis, and an associated mitigation and management report for approval by the Secretary of Planning?
9. Will you as the Minister for Planning have final say in determining the use of sites?

I am advised:

(1) and (2) Roads and Maritime and Services (RMS) as the Proponent will undertake the comparative analysis. Should RMS decide to progress Option B for purposes other than parking and works that would not adversely impact on the acoustic amenity of residents, the comparative analysis must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for approval. The Department would undertake a rigorous review of the report, ensuring its integrity.

(3) and (4) These are matters for the Minister for Roads.

(5) The Department did not consider air quality to be an issue requiring a comparative analysis as in both options the expected impacts would be consistent.

(6) This is a matter for the Minister for Roads.

(7) A modification would only be required if the proposed use of the site is not consistent with the approval.

(8) All construction sites require a level of mitigation to reduce potential amenity impacts. Option B is a feasible option for tunnelling and support facilities. However, given the assessment identified that the level of impacts would be comparatively less under Option A, it was considered that RMS should identify additional mitigation measures that would be implemented to achieve comparable environmental outcomes and for this to be demonstrated in a report.

(9) Approval for the use sites has been given subject to the outcomes of the comparative analysis.