The M5 East Exhaust Stack, a Case of Conning the Community?

The M5 East Exhaust Stack, A case of conning the community?

Giselle Mawer and Judi Rossi

Residents Against Polluting Stacks (RAPS Inc)

Abstract:

The process of community consultation around the M5 East tunnel project has been acknowledged as “disastrous” by two Parliamentary Inquiries and an International Workshop on tunnel ventilation. It has certainly provided valuable lessons for government authorities, project proponents and community groups, and, as a result of political and community pressure have there have been some welcome changes in consultation practices for more recent tunnel projects such as the Cross City and Lane Cove projects.

However, the outcome from these projects still appears to all intents and purposes to be pre-ordained and fixed, especially with respect to the construction of unfiltered exhaust stacks. Instead of having meaningful input into decision-making processes, the function of community consultation processes seems to be one of legitimisingdecisions made behind closed doors.

This paper will present a community’s perspective on how government instrumentalities, which can mobilise effectively unlimited resources and use compliant consultants to overwhelm the expertise of regulatory instrumentalities in order to sanitise and legitimate a preordained outcome, trivialise the adverse impacts and avoid public accountability. It argues that such systematic degradation of the consultation process tramples on the rights of the community as major shareholders in public projects and erodes public trust.

Genuine incorporation of community input into decision making processes not only adds value to such public infrastructure projects, but it is also a significant part of building communities and social capital. One of the ironies of the M5 East community “con” has been the strengthened local community cohesion, expertise and networking that has developed in direct response to the bureaucratic and political mismanagement of the consultation process.

KEYWORDS

Community consultation, M5 East tunnel, exhaust stack, air pollution, resident action group, Residents Against Polluting Stacks

INTRODUCTION

The 35 metre high exhaust stack for the vehicle emissions from the M5East road tunnel sits amidst thousands of residents and workers in the Wolli Creek valley, just seven kilometres south of central Sydney. What's wrong with that? Well not a lot-if it is filtered, if the air is exhausted into the upper atmosphere, if there was community consultation on the proposal, if the community's health is protected or even if it is best engineering practice–but it's none of these things.

The $794 million M5 East is the longest road tunnel in Australia, or the Southern Hemisphere in fact, with only one unfiltered exhaust outlet for over 80,000 cars and trucks a day situated in the Wolli Valley at Turrella close to the political divide between the Rockdale, Canterbury and Marrickville electorates in inner South West Sydney.

The 800 metre exhaust tunnel and its stack were a political solution to an engineering problem. The 4 kilometre tunnel which joins the M5 from Bexley Road, Kingsgrove, to General Holmes Drive at Sydney airport, is under the ridge that links Bardwell Park and Arncliffe. The 'traditional' engineering solution was to place three exhaust stacks above this tunnel in the residential areas of a highly 'aspirational' community. Understandably, residents complained and after a vocal and sometimes violent six-week campaign, the Minister for Roads and Transport announced in 1997 that the three stacks would be replaced by one giant stack in an industrial area at Turrella.

What received scant media attention was the fact that the Labor government at that time held power in NSW by just one member and two of the proposed stacks were in the electorate of Rockdale (held by George Thompson) and the traffic congestion that would be reduced by the tunnel was in the marginal seat of Kogarah, subsequently won by the Labor candidate, Cherie Burton, at the next State election.

The single stack decision was the beginning of a whole new campaign by a whole new set of residents. Where previously, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) had attended public meetings and sought community comment, the RTA now adopted a fortress mentality, presumably as a result of a Ministerial directive. Residents most affected by the single exhaust stack first heard of the news on the radio or in the local newspapers. Brochures announcing, "no stacks near homes" were circulated in the areas that the three stacks had been moved from but not in the newly affected areas. Residents in these areas contacted the RTA and distributed 4 000 brochures themselves. (Refer figures 1 and 2)

Documents later released through a Parliamentary Motion showed that the Minister had directed that no members of the public or any of the local councils, Sydney Water or even other government authorities were to be informed of the decision until after it had been approved, in secret. This “improvement” to the 3 objectionable stacks took place without any consultation with the newly affected communities, without an EIS, a cost-benefit or a health-risk analysis. The change cost an extra $30million in capital costs, and more than $1mil in electricity pa, due to the peculiar ventilation design and the 800m exhaust tunnel to the one stack in a valley.

With opposition to the project growing daily, it truly became a case of conning the public or "manufacturing compliance". Residents Against Polluting Stacks (RAPS) came into being early in 1998, to campaign for a safer, more viable ventilation system for the tunnel. We have no party political affiliations and receive no funding other than donations. Despite regular claims to the contrary, we are not opposed to the M5 motorway, but to the adverse health effects of unfiltered exhaust from the stack on the local population, the degradation of a valuable urban bushland, the reduction of amenity for local residents and the abject failure of the relevant authorities to properly consult with the community in the planning process.

MANUFACTURING COMPLIANCE

In 1997, the RTA had a project that was a less than optimum engineering solution, unpopular with a new local community and the imperative to have the road completed in time for the Olympics. What little consultation has occurred since 1997 on the M5 East Stack has certainly been perceived by the community as an attempt to manufacture compliance, or in the words of one brave government consultant, a case of “masking abhorrence”. For example, the RTA has attended only one public meeting between 1997 and 2002, when a Property Value Guarantee was offered to residents living within an arbitrary 400 metre radius of the stack as a result of a green ban by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. It has not been interested in modifying any aspects of the “approved project” or addressing the very real concerns of air quality, health, visual, property and amenity impacts of the unfiltered M5 East exhaust stack.

The community has actively campaigned and sought to have the planning and assessment process reopened and the design reviewed. When the impossibility of this became evident, it tried to ensure filtration was installed in the stack. All reasonable avenues were explored-meetings with members of Parliament, government officials, expert studies, rallies and protests, Parliamentary inquiries, International expert forums, participation in government consultative committees- all with much promise, but very little result,(see fig 3)

The workshop presentation will provide specific examples of systemic attempts at manufacturing compliance, from media management, spin-doctoring, omission of information and misrepresentation. Two examples will be briefly dealt with in this paper:
Air Quality Consultative Committee

As a result of the approval conditions, an Air Quality Consultative Committee (AQCCC) was set up to fulfil the policy requirement for community consultation.. This was a formal mechanism for the community to be informed about and to have input into “the approved project”.

In fact the AQCCC meetings were the only way that the community was to have any input into the project. Members had to apply, stating their qualifications and were carefully vetted by the RTA. Meetings were held once a month with the agenda firmly set and managed by the RTA, and discussions always limited to the ‘approved project’, with committee members having no decision powers. No votes were permitted.

Although the AQCCC community representatives are told it is their duty to inform the public, no resources for disseminating information are supplied, despite repeated requests, and the RTA has steadfastly refused to hold any public meetings. In fact, some community members have been repeatedly criticised and accused of “disloyalty” and improper conduct for correctly relaying to the local press, information given to them during the meetings. Requests for presentations from community members were refused and any discussion of alternative technologies for ventilation systems was effectively prevented.

It seems that as long as these monthly committee meetings are held, community consultation is said to have occurred, regardless of how ineffectual or dysfunctional such a committee might be. DUAP/Planning NSW requires these committees to exist, not necessarily to function.

This process quickly becomes a cynical attempt on the part of the proponent to defuse legitimate community concerns and dissatisfaction by attempting to involve them in 'ownership' of the project, and by providing a controlled environment where at best, concerned people can “vent” their frustration, with the appearance of a possibility of follow-up action. Meetings were strictly limited to members and no observers or 'gallery' allowed.

Members were constantly told that their discussions had to be responsible and that contributions should be aimed to 'add value' to the project. In the case of the M5, however, there are clear cases and examples of these processes used by the proponents to frustrate this adding of value through:

• the provision of misleading information,
• delays in the timely provision of requested technical information until the occasion for its effective use has passed
• overloading lay participants with highly technical information often not relevant to the consideration.
• deliberate encouragement of lay concerns which could easily be put to rest by simple explanation
• denigration of members of the group who are not prepared to 'toe the line' and who go outside the group for information
• attacks on members who are seen to 'break ranks' and speak to the press, even though it is the an essential part of keeping the community informed
• failure to adequately control meetings especially with regard to running overtime.
• Refusing to provide detailed accurate minutes of proceedings.

Urban Design Consultations

The only other opportunity for formal community input was when the urban design of the stack itself had to be approved in 2000. The RTA was required to exhibit the proposal for public comment as to the construction materials used, appearance and structure. The 'to scale' display model showed the stack at approximately 15-18 metres high, surrounded by trees, together with a deceptive photomontage. When challenged about this misrepresentation of the 25-35 metres high stack (its height was at least 25 metres at that stage), the RTA representative claimed a school student must have squashed the model of the stack!

An independent urban design review, commissioned by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning[i] was scathing in its criticism of the urban design undertaken for the RTA, pointing out its deceptiveness and inadequacy in addressing the fundamental concerns:

Salient quotes from the review, indicative of its general tone include,

"The 35m stack seems more obscured in the photomontage than it would be in reality. Either the stack could be underscaled or the vantage point is chosen so as to mask impact…. It is clear that a twenty five metre stack is not screened by trees on a lower level. (page 5)

Although the level of community anxiety regarding this issue is obviously very high, it seems not to be acknowledged in this report. Nor is there any evidence in the report that the community’s perception of air quality is being addressed elsewhere. Furthermore, it would appear that the urban design of the stack is being considered independently of the role that the stack is actually taking" (page.6)

Though it is indeed possible to demonstrate, through carefully articulated and explained built precedent, that such infrastructure can be designed and built very well, this series of clumsily handled slides seems to have caused even greater community anxiety, perhaps reinforcing a perception that the stack was poorly conceived and like the images suggest, was liable to be shoddily designed." (page 7)

Commenting on the RTA's response to community input to the process they noted

While many of the questions are elementary, they angered many of the respondents because they were not asked about the most fundamental aspect of the proposal, namely the impact of the stack on local air quality. Many of the respondents would like to know more about the process that the RTA and their consultants used to assess the issue of air quality and to approach the operational design of the stack. Because this issue appears not to have been seriously addressed, it continues to seriously undermine the design process14" (page 8)

and'

It can only lead to more resentment of the RTA which could be perceived as using the community consultation process to legitimate a preordained outcome." (page 9)

Considering the nature of the proposal and its functional role, the most positive benefit that could be pursued should relate to air quality….The public should be better informed and absolutely assured that the work to achieve best possible air quality has been done. If these assurances cannot be made, then perhaps no architect should work on the project either." (page 15)

As a positive role in the local and greater environment has become a non issue, its benefit as a great piece of infrastructure has been downgraded and the task has become one of masking abhorrence. (p17).

Presumably because of this disastrously scathing review of the urban design, DUAP then proceeded to commission its own Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) to produce the bizarrely named document “An Independent Consideration of the Randall Hill Background Report.” thus creating a new meaning for the word independent. While acknowledging many of the issues raised by Randle Hill & Associates (RHA), UDAS conveniently came to a totally different conclusion:

“RHA in their report have not adequately considered the nature of the project, and as a result compare the current stack design with what might be achievable in more ideal circumstances. Clearly the process has been very difficult because the exhaust stack is an element the community simply do not want-whether it is well designed or not. It is to the credit of the RTA and their consultants that they have achieved an acceptable outcome at all.

Seen in this light, UDAS considers that there is still some potential for the design to be improved without revisiting the entire consultation process. The improvements relate to the proposed materials and finishes of the stack”.

The forum for public comment made no mention of the air quality or health risks of the exhaust which were the main concerns of the community, as they had been from the beginning of the project. Instead, residents were only asked to nominate a colour for the stack! Deceptive as it was, and even though most residents were opposed to the single stack, the exhibition was sufficient to count as community consultation and a 35 metre high stack was approved in August 2000 by DUAP. See Fig 4 for comparison of RTA graphic with final result.

IMPLICATIONS

Genuine community consultation is recognised as an important way of building communities and social capital. The 1992 Guiding Principles for ecologically sustainable development adopted by Federal and State Governments, state that ’decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect them’.

Apparently, the intent of the policy is to enable members of the community and appropriate organisations to have an effective input into the development and planning of major projects. It is expected that this consultative process should continue through all phases of the project, planning, construction and operation.

The input at the planning stage is formalised into the EIS process and for all its faults does provide an effective means of highlighting significant matters of community concern. At times this process has led to significant changes to projects or even to their abandonment. In other words it has the potential to be 'effective' and to promote change and bring about real improvements.