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