Dunns Creek Road

The report makes repeated references to widening Old Cooma Road between Googong Road and the Edwin Land/Ellerton Drive Extension intersection to three lanes in each direction.

This would be part of the No Dunns Creek Road – North option.

Yet there is no apparent discussion of the effect this may have on traffic flow along Cooma Street for NB traffic and for flow along Old Cooma Road for SB traffic.

What would occur is a funnelling effect, where NB traffic travelling through Queanbeyan would be funnelled from three lanes into one.

It is understood that QPRC may be considering widening of Cooma Street to two lanes in each direction for approximately 900 metres beyond the intersection, but a funnelling effect will still occur.

Likewise, SB through traffic along Old Cooma Road would be funnelled from three lanes to two and then one. Traffic flow will reduce as vehicles turn onto Googong Road and Wellsvale Drive, but there is now significant traffic volume further along Old Cooma Road.

This option (widening of OCR) also requires, as the report states, the elimination or relocation of the cycle path.

Furthermore, this six-lane roadway would only be busy for peak periods and would be superfluous most of the time. In other words a huge expense for minimal gain, if there is indeed any gain at all.

In fact the widening may worsen congestion.

This effect can be experienced on many roads. For example, leaving Sydney to travel to Canberra there are sections of four-lane highway near Liverpool. These compress to three lanes and then to two lanes and the funnelling effect now causes SB traffic to slow markedly and at times to stop completely where the road speed limit is 110kph.

Widening one section of road to multi-lane, where that road then reduces to a single lane, is known to be ineffective and counterproductive in many instances.

There is extensive discussion in the Stantec Report regarding No Dunns Creek Road (NDCR) options.

However some issues have not been discussed in detail or at all.

There is the obvious issue of traffic lights along Old Cooma Road (OCR) and ways that traffic flow might be improved with some changes.

To begin with, each of the three lights at Googong Road, Wellsvale Drive and Bunyip Drive was installed without provision for slip lanes for traffic moving along OCR in a NB direction.

This means there is the possibility of being stopped at all three sets of lights, adding minutes to any journey, particularly at peak times. If a fourth set of lights is installed or an existing three direction set of lights is re-developed with four directions, stopping times at the lights will increase further.

It is our view that all three existing intersections should have been designed with slip lanes for NB traffic.

Bunyip Drive has only a single lane exit onto OCR for traffic travelling in both NB and SB directions. There is no provision for a separate lane exit for SB traffic. It is also the case that traffic exiting OCR to travel south causes NB and SB traffic to stop. This could be improved with a Turn Left at Anytime After Stopping sign.

NB traffic flows along OCR have increased markedly with new housing developments and travel times have increased with the Googong township lights.

Likewise traffic travelling in a NB direction along OCR and arriving at the Edwin Land Parkway (ELP) intersection must stop at lights controlling any left turn. This too would benefit from a dedicated left turning lane without lights, so that traffic could then merge with WB traffic entering ELP, either from Cooma Road or from the Ellerton Drive Extension (EDE).

These changes alone could reduce travel times by several minutes. It would be difficult to determine the exact amount.

Duplication of the single lane sections of ELP would also assist, as would a realistic speed limit on the section now reduced to 50kmh. The speed “cushions” are a contentious issue but they too have the effect of slowing traffic. Pedestrian crossings would be a better solution as their use would be infrequent.

We believe a ramp over the Jerrabomberra roundabout to be unrealistic for many reasons, including practicality, cost and what would almost certainly be wide community opposition.

Signalisation is a better solution, with smart technology.

Traffic flows will improve further when work is completed on the overpass along the Monaro Highway, at the intersection of Lanyon Drive.

The report highlights many of the issues involved in some, but not all, of these suggestions and it is clearly acknowledged there would need to be some land resumption. However this would not involve homes, buildings or land currently in active use or that has high biodiversity values.

We contend also that the suggestion that OCR between Googong Road and ELP should not be re-developed as having three lanes in each direction. This issue is covered separately.

For SB traffic along OCR many of the same issues apply, depending on the exit point from Googong township.

OCR itself is now a well-formed road, mostly with a 100kph limit and traffic is mostly light. The report highlights changes that would improve traffic efficiency and safety. These appear to be well argued and sensible. It is doubtful that this road would need to have two lanes in each direction for the foreseeable future. The cost would not be justified at all.

Design Criteria

There are many issues to be considered under this title.

One is the issue of longitudinal grade considerations where the report states that “the design of containment facilities if required, would likely add to the earthworks and land resumption requirements”.

In other words, road lane configuration may well require overtaking lanes which would mean further resumption of land. This is a serious issue as it potentially adds to the already considerable imposition on landholders.

It is a reasonable assumption that without those overtaking lanes, speeds along Dunns Creek Road could be slow, especially as the modelling allows for a road that could be used by B-double trucks up to 26 metres. Noise is also a factor and it is considered below.

Noise

The assessment clearly states that the assessment is limited to “residential receiver locations”. The report states that non-residential receivers, as defined by the NSW RNP, “were not identified in proximity to the considered road alignment options”.

This is remarkable and suggests that the authors have little or no understanding of a typical rural lifestyle, which involves large periods of time outdoors. In our area we tend farm animals, exercise domestic pets, ride horses, tend to often extensive gardens and orchards and do a variety of other farm activities.

To use noise assessment criteria for residential land use is unacceptable. They particularly talk about noise levels “within a dwelling”.

Residents of areas like Fernleigh Park and rural lots on Old Cooma Road do not have the same environment as, for example, residents of Googong township, where there are multiple fences, stone walls and other barriers to sound, as well as well-insulated homes with double glazing.

Our homes are in more open country and far more susceptible to noise. This is further exacerbated in those areas where there are natural land features, such as hills and gullies, that will amplify sound.

I object to the Dunns Creek Road proposals on many grounds.

A very significant issue however is cost.

A Google search reveals that the cost of the Dunns Creek Road Report, prepared by Stantec, is approximately $117.7 million.

This is a truly staggering figure and suggests that the only people to benefit so far from the project are the consultants.

They foreshadow in the report the need for further extensive work as most of the report is based on aerial surveys and what they call desktop assessments.

I am amazed that a report that cost such a huge amount does not appear to have included detailed on-the-ground surveys such as

• Detailed assessment of slopes, creek crossings and the like
• Proper geotechnical surveys to examine what soil and rock are involved
• On-site biodiversity assessment
• On-site surveys of Aboriginal heritage sites

The list goes on.

As a ratepayer I object to QPRC spending even more money on a project that, if it is ever realised, will cost the federal and state governments and QPRC, huge sums of money.

Stantec estimates costs up to around $400 million for some options and they indicate that costs will rise further once on-site reviews occur. This might be in earthworks, bridge construction, noise barriers and a multitude of other factors.

Then, of course, there is the issue of greatly increased costs with regard to fuel, materials, labour, compensation, etc and these are only going to push costs much higher again.

I have searched the internet and as far as I can tell the grants promised by the federal and state governments would come nowhere near covering the costs.

Common sense tells me that this project is simply unaffordable.

Brave statements are made about how the project is needed and how it has community support, but nowhere has this been convincingly argued. I seriously doubt that the federal or state MPs could offer a sensible argument about Dunns Creek Road, supported by solid evidence, and one that fully explores other possibilities such as improvements to existing infrastructure and far better public transport.

It has been reported recently that QPRC has not been able to complete noise abatement work along Ellerton Drive. If this is the case I fail to see how they could find the money for proper noise abatement along the Dunns Creek Road options, particularly those that run through Fernleigh Park.

Community Support

The Stantec Report states in the Introduction (1.2 Purpose of the Report) that “there is strong community desire to further the Dunns Creek Road project”.

This may or may not be the case, but it appears to be an untested assertion, not an established fact.

Has there been a proper assessment done? Was there a community-wide survey? Is the project even widely known and understood?

It was instructive to attend the Googong consultation meeting on 21 July, 2026 where out of 12,000 residents only a very small number of Googong township residents attended. My estimate was 10 or 12 people who did not display keen interest in the project at all.

The Fernleigh Park consultation was far better attended and it is fair to say that there was certainly not a “strong desire” to see the project advance. The same is true for many residents who live along Old Cooma Road. In fact, they have indicated very strong opposition to options 2A, 2B and 2C.

It is true that communities can act in ways that support their own self-interest. However, if they were more aware of the potential impact a project may have on others, they might take a different approach.

We could make the equally dubious and untested assertion that there is wide community apathy and/or lack of knowledge about the project.

Investigative methodology

This section includes various terms that are not adequately explained.

For example, the report refers to “conceptual three-dimensional designs”. What are these exactly and how were they developed? Does this mean that the report is based on information from aerial mapping, from topological maps, from Google Earth or other means? Presumably the designs showed elevations, the degree angles of various slopes, the depth of gullies, waterways, creeks, timber density and more, but we question if this is an adequate method without on-ground surveying, professional geotechnical assessments and proper examination by road building experts.

Traffic Modelling

Further it is stated that “traffic modelling” was undertaken. This was to analyse projected traffic flows. This is examined in more detail elsewhere in this report but again we need to know how this modelling was done.

Was there in fact an on-ground detailed assessment done?

Number of vehicles using the numerous roads involved? What time periods were examined? Was there a detailed review of which directions traffic moved? Are the projections based on a presumed absolute number of residents in the area?

For example, taking up the last point, if QPRC simply keeps approving new subdivisions, under pressure from developers, then it is helping to create or worsen traffic congestion. If it sets a clear limit to the size of Googong township and other nearby developments, that will help to contain traffic volume. We understand that there are no caps set, but that the township alone can accommodate approximately 18,000 people.

Taking up the point about traffic movement, can Stantec tell us what percentage of traffic travelling NB along Old Cooma Road at peak hours in the morning travels through Queanbeyan and along Edwin Land Parkway and Ellerton Drive Extension? Can they tell us what percentage travels in a SB direction to the Monaro Highway.

Presumably these figures would include all the vehicles involved in earth work, construction including homes, schools, shopping centres and the like. We assume the volume of these vehicles to reduce in time, when most of the development is complete.

Do residents of Royalla, Burra, Urila and Mount Campbell for example, travel towards Queanbeyan to access Canberra or do they travel south along Old Cooma Road?

Has Stantec taken into account the fact that a large number of Googong township residents work from home? Or that traffic flows may reduce when schools are built and community facilities increase further. Or indeed by the dates they mention a greater proportion of residents may be retired, without the need to use roads in peak periods?

In other words, is the traffic modelling accurate, detailed and properly conceived? We cannot see evidence that this is the case.

It was interesting that at the council meeting on August 12 one speaker from the community was able to quote figures about traffic flow that would be very helpful to any project examining a possible Dunns Creek Road.

Community campaigns led by the Conservation Council ACT Region are calling for a 9800-hectare tract of land bordering the Murrumbidgee River, to be permanently protected from urban sprawl to protect endangered ecosystems, cultural heritage and natural bushland.

The area provides vital habitat for threatened species like the superb parrot, pink-tailed worm lizard and box gum grassy woodlands. These are the same woodlands identified in the Stantec Dunns Creek Road Report. Some of the other threatened species are also listed.

The campaign calls for distinct urban growth boundaries to be set.

Exactly the same argument can be made with regard to development in the wider Googong area.

Developers are generally not known for having an interest in ecosystems or endangered flora and fauna. Their primary interest is making healthy profits and paying dividends to shareholders.

It is our belief that unchecked development will have a range of serious impacts.

To begin with, the more residents live in the area the greater the impact will be on roads.

Secondly there is the impact that land clearing has on climate. Poorly planned urban developments can create greater heat from houses, roads and large buildings and while it may seem insignificant, it all adds to the problem of warming.

A typical development, such as Googong township, often sees native trees removed and replaced with other species.

Then there is the displacement of native animals, reptiles, amphibians and birds.

The Canberra campaign sensibly suggests that there are alternatives to urban sprawl. In particular they mention urban infill within established suburbs. This concept has already been considered by QPRC and needs far greater thought and planning.

Another point is that developments such as Googong township advantage one sector in the community, namely those with sufficient funds to build or purchase a property that typically will cost around $1 million (ie for a three-bedroom house on a block of approximately 420 sq metres).

Reports say that social housing accounts for less than only 0.4 per cent of Googong township properties.

If QPRC is anxious to cater for all residents it needs to consider affordable social housing and developments that cater to those with low and middle-range incomes.

In summary, it is important that QPRC consider setting caps for development that help to protect the environment and reduce the impact on infrastructure such as roads. It is important to develop other strategies that clearly acknowledge that people from all levels of society need somewhere to live.

The Stantec Report clearly demonstrates selective reporting in that the majority of comparison tables list Option 5 and Option 2A alone.

While more detailed comparison is provided in the spreadsheet provided by council, it is difficult to fact check these tables without further information. It is hard to understand how Stantec arrived at their conclusions on environmental values and constraints from a desktop review, without on-site investigation.

Option 2A is said not to intersect any conservation sites or Crown reserves, but it is easy to argue that environmental values are equally as high as those in the Wandiyali Reserve. The sites share the same box gum woodland and the same habitat for fauna and flora.

Residents along the path of Option 2A have been working for decades to restore the land and waterways, preserve and enhance habitats and control weed infestation.

Land zoning does not differentiate between the options.

Stantec recommends that biodiversity sites should not be considered for DCR due to their ecological importance, but further investigation may prove that the areas covered by Option 2A are of equal value to those covered by Option 5.

They claim also that there may be the potential for community concern or opposition to a road traversing a biodiversity site. This may be true but it totally misses the point that each of the options 2A, 2B and 2C traverse such sites, whether or not there is an identified stewardship. Such “concern and opposition” has already been amply demonstrated in regard to options 2A, 2B and 2C.

In fact there is recognition of this in the tables that list the biodiversity credits, as well as the amount of endangered box gum woodland that would be at risk.

Biodiversity credits are similar for 2A than 5. The impact on box gum woodland is 5.88ha for Option 2A compared to 2.88ha for Option 5.

Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs)

The report lists 6 possible TECs with up to 5 threatened flora species and 26 priority weeds. There is also discussion about wildlife corridors and the need for “dedicated fauna crossings, suitably sized culvert underpasses, fauna fencing along the road and other measures to reduce the impact of DCR”.

The report is of little use in distinguishing between the options in regard to TECs, primarily because it is a desktop assessment alone.

The fact that fauna travel is well known to the residents of Fernleigh Park and OCR and groups such as Landcare have been making provision for this over many years. A fully fenced wildlife park may help to protect native animals from predators and stop feral pests such as pigs and deer, but it limits the capacity for wildlife to travel and to escape risks such as bushfire.

Stantec’s 100-metre impact zone is unrealistic, as animals travel far greater distances. Wombats provide a good example of this and the same animal may be seen by numerous residents in a wide area of Fernleigh Park.

Heritage Studies

The number of sites is listed in the report, but comparable heritage studies have not been conducted. It is impossible to know the significance of the sites as listed.

Hydrology

Once again, the report is limited to desktop assessment and there is insufficient information to distinguish between the different DCR options, except to say that obviously the NDCR options have the least impact by a considerable margin.

Property Impacts

This is one section of the report where impacts are seriously understated and indeed misunderstood.

The report suggests that social impacts would be largely restricted to those properties where a road intersects the block.

The meeting we had personally with the mayor and deputy general manager reinforced our belief that many people fail to understand the true nature of living in rural and semi-rural areas and that there is little understanding of the term “direct impact”. Perhaps even a deliberate attempt to suggest that other properties are not impacted at all.

This is frankly incredulous.

All of the DCR options 2A, 2B and 2C do exactly what the authors claimed they attempted to avoid. They all dissect the community. Some properties would be partially disconnected from their community by the road and the report does not specify how they would gain access, eg to Fernleigh Drive, when they are on the far side of a busy arterial road.

The report certainly does not mention the impact of a road say 80 metres or 100 metres away from someone’s front verandah, which once looked out onto paddocks, farm land, natural bushland or whatever.

To say such a property was not “directly impacted” is wrong. The impact is visual, it is noise, it is pollution, it is decreased privacy and of course it would mean the property would be hugely devalued in dollar terms. Some properties would be unsaleable and possibly unliveable.

Sustainability has three central pillars – economic, environmental and social. DCR would have a dramatic impact on the sustainability of the Fernleigh area generally.

One issue that receives no mention in the Stantec Report is the pollution that occurs during road construction.

The following points are raised by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

Road construction can contaminate rainwater tanks via airborne dust, heavy machinery emissions and sediment-laden runoff settling on a roof catchment area.

Common contaminants for roadworks

• Heavy Metals: Zinc, copper, lead and cadmium from vehicle exhaust, tyre wear and disturbed roadside soil
• Hydrocarbons: Oil, grease and bitumen products resurfacing or from machinery leaks
• Particulate matter and silt: Fine dust, concrete slurry and pulverised rock that increase turbidity and alkalinity
• Chemicals: Solvents, paints or curing compounds accidentally washed or blown onto a roof.

It is almost certain that the authors of the Stantec Report gave no thought to the issue of pollution.

Roads are usually built prior to housing development. More than that residents in rural and semi-rural areas almost always do not have a connection to water mains and depend on roof top collection for all household water.

The measures suggested on the website would be time-consuming and costly, involving issues such as disconnecting tanks, using flush diverters and regular cleaning of roofs, guttering and downpipes.

Water filters could also become blocked, necessitating rapid change to ensure the sustainability of drinking water supplies.

Properties with dams would also be impacted by silt, dirt and other particles that destroy amphibians such as fish, turtles and frogs.

Native birds could also be impacted.

Road construction leaves behind pollutants that are easily spread (eg in windy weather or water runoff after rain) and these can be deposited on roofs and dams and also contaminate waterways and creeks.

There is some history worth noting.

Jerrabomberra Creek was identified as being particularly sensitive during the construction of Lake Burley Griffin. Measures were taken to avert the inflow of silt, farm waste and other pollutants. This is documented in an unpublished history of Fernleigh Park Estate.

Any disruption to the creek during the construction of DCR would have a major downstream impact on the wetlands areas that feed into Lake Burley Griffin.

This would be inevitable as the report suggests the need for major earthworks and bridge construction for all three options 2A, 2B and 2C.

(These aspects are critical for everyone to include in their submissions from their own experiences.)

This issue is covered in a range of responses that have been developed to the Stantec Report.

Social impact is clearly one of the most significant and far-reaching issues that needs to be properly addressed in any consideration of the Dunns Creek Road (DCR) options.

Yet it is barely mentioned in any section of the report.

Likewise the impact on property owners who face compulsory acquisition of part or the whole of their land, their buildings, including in some cases their homes. This is covered at 8.6 Property Impacts on pages 110 and 111.

The report makes the remarkable statement that there is the potential for “community contention if landholders are not supportive of the preferred option”. The report later suggests that feedback from landholders should be evaluated to reduce impacts.

There is then a statement that the cost of land acquisitions would need to be evaluated. In effect, costs associated with property acquisition, including legal costs, have not been estimated or included in the overall costing estimates.

The report appears to be referring only to those properties where the road directly impacts on the land. Properties that may be 50 to 100 metres from the road are presumably not included under the title “Property Impacts” yet some of these properties would lose a very large amount in value and possibly be unsaleable. Some would be unliveable because of noise and pollution.

Our argument is that the Stantec authors have discounted the inevitable social, financial and emotional damage that a road passing through this community would cause.

Loss of amenity

This impacts the whole community as the nature of a semi-rural community would be transformed in a negative way. Residents now enjoy relative peace and quiet. They have a close relationship with the land, with pleasant country views, with native trees and shrubbery, with wildlife and with the sights and sounds of nature.

This is both personal and a shared social amenity.

For many members of this community this aspect of their lives would be compromised or lost completely.

Social Cohesion

Semi-rural communities such as Fernleigh and those along Old Cooma Road (OCR), develop strong social connections and interdependence.

Social events and visits to our homes are regular and an important part of daily lives.

In addition, the Fernleigh Park Hall managed by the community for the community has held hundreds of social events. Many and varied events such as birthdays, weddings and Christmas parties to dances, pizza nights, Zumba classes, and more.

There are also regular events such as meetings of special interest groups, youth organisations like Scouts and events sponsored by the Landcare group, Cancer Council Morning Tea by the Fernleigh Park Residents Association and others.

DCR may not stop these events happening but a road that dissects the community and isolates some families and individuals will certainly cause disruption.

It’s not uncommon to find gates between many properties that surround our residents’ homes and these are open so we can walk to visit each other, allow neighbours to walk their dogs on different properties for example and assist with helping each other with tasks such as fencing, weed spraying and management of wildlife.

These open gates actually provide corridors for native animals, kangaroos in particular.

If Option 2B was chosen, the road would cut off most of those points of contact and the opportunities for social and recreational activities would be lost, as well as the ease of providing mutual self-help.

Residents would find themselves having to navigate detours, managing traffic congestion and enduring increased travel time, with an obvious impact on daily routines.

It is not anticipated that the Stantec Report would even acknowledge these issues. Perhaps social impacts were outside their remit, but they must be properly considered.

Mental health impacts

Air and noise pollution have already increased along OCR with increased traffic and years of earthworks and construction work in Googong township.

DCR along any of the routes 2A, 2B and 2C would only exacerbate this problem, leading to the possibility of increased stress and an effect on people’s mental health. Once again, none of these issues is covered in the Stantec Report. Rather there are many tables that refer to economic benefits and the like.

Mental health impacts would be greatest for those residents who had to either lose their property and home or have a road pass through their property.

The community has been largely disrupted by this socially lacking report, elderly residents, some facing surgery, cancer, and other health issues. Such residents are now facing massive stress from this “exercise” to find an option to a problem that was never theirs in the first place.

Now all families in the area must be wondering if they will lose a large amount of investment due to the impending threat of an arterial road devaluing their lifelong investment and rural home.

Biodiversity and Conservation

Biodiversity and conservation has been a key aspect of improving Fernleigh Park and the Old Cooma Road precinct. In the early days of Fernleigh Park most residents would purchase tubestock germinated from local seeds gathered in Fernleigh Park and neighbouring paddocks. Some years later the Landcare group was formed and has planted more than 10,000 trees. This work has transformed the landscape and created safe habitats for native flora and fauna. A look at the map of Landcare plantings will show a highly coordinated series of native plantings throughout Fernleigh and particularly along the creek.

There is huge social value in this work, as it may be done individually or collectively and it adds to the communal sense of pride and mutual achievement. This can be characterised in part as a “sense of place”, with the obvious feeling of belonging that results.

It is not unique to a place like Fernleigh, but it is nevertheless important to the community’s general health and wellbeing.

Residents of Fernleigh Park and OCR have lived here in many cases for 20 or 30 years or even more, in fact up to 45 or more years. In that time most have worked hard to develop their properties. What was once an overgrazed sheep paddock has been transformed by trees, shrubs, gardens, orchards, native grasses and lawns.

A road cutting through a large number of properties would cause considerable damage to this sense of belonging and to further enterprise.