Alternative Option
It has been demonstrated that it is possible to upgrade the highway to four lanes at a lower cost without demolishing historic highway shops, removing highway parking or losing passing trade. Furthermore, this would allow the highway widening project and the town redevelopment project to proceed separately at their own speed. How and why the RTA became embroiled in the town’s redevelopment is of serious concern.
A memo between Council departments dated 30.6.99 demonstrates that the Group Manager of Health and Development approached both the Strategic Planning Manager and the Transport Corridor Manager prior to the Preferred Option being adopted by Council. The memo proposed one alternative option that conserved the highway shop buildings but still provided for a service road. This proposition received an angry “none of your business” response by the Strategic Planning Manager and was subsequently ignored. The RTA did have a similar alternative plan on the board.
Extract from ACMMR submission to REF GWH Widening Lawson Section II,
7th April, 2006
ACMMR Alternative Option
ACMMR believes that its alternative option offers the answers to some of the issues raised in the previous section of this submission. Our option, as outlined at REF, Vol 1, p.119 offers the RTA the opportunity to disentangle its operation from that of BMCC by doing away with the need for demolition of the existing shops. ACMMR has proved that the highway can be widened into the rail land now confirmed as being purchased by the RTA, and that there is still ample room for four highway lanes, highway parking, parking transition lane, right hand and left hand turn filter lanes and cycle lanes. This situation is very much akin to the highway widening that has taken place at Blaxland. The outcomes of the Blaxland highway widening are discussed in Vol III as part of the Retail Impact Studies, and the findings in support of the Blaxland situation are very favourable. There is therefore no reason to question the same outcomes being achieved from this same scenario at Lawson.
The stated objections (Part 1, 6.12) to this option (equivalent to Hill PDA Option 4) have little basis:
The proposal would not be consistent with Council’s planning for redevelopment of Lawson Village that proposes demolition of all shops, except the hotel, between Honour Avenue and Staples Street.
Obviously, but bearing in mind that ACMMR and other organisations in Lawson, and in fact many local residents, oppose Council’s plan for historic reasons detailed in the Heritage Assessment compiled by Prof. Ian Jack, this objection is not deemed to have any real value by ACMMR. We feel that Council has consistently ignored all comment opposing its plan of demolishing an historic precinct. Indeed, we feel it has deliberately suppressed the Heritage Assessment provided by Prof. Ian Jack not to mention the failure to act on the advice given by the National Trust, a NSW Commission of Enquiry (Dr Mark Carlton), independent local historian Ruth Longdin and the Heritage Office to establish the historic status of the town BEFORE decisions were made. The whole process has been politically driven, and therefore has been bereft of logic and due process.
Would significantly impact on State Listed Heritage, being the infrastructure and curtilage of Lawson Railway Station.
This presupposes that a ramp and a brick wall are historically more important than an entire row of historical shops listed as having local historical significance within an historic precinct. Even the option which retains the infrastructure and curtilage of the Lawson Railway Station and cuts into the hotel could still allow retention of the historic highway shops by diverting the highway. Considering the speed limit in this area would be 60kph there shouldn’t be any problem with this. As in other areas, the road does not necessarily have to follow a straight line. In any case the slope of the ramp contravenes Australian Standard 1428 – it is too steep for the disabled and should be rebuilt.
Would not impact on the Blue Mountains Hotel and therefore not provide financial support and commitment to renovate the Hotel back to original heritage fabric in accordance with Council’s Draft Conservation Management Plan.
This argument has absolutely no relevance to the actual viability of this plan. It is like saying that the highway widening would not impact on the neighbourhood centre. So? In fact this comment, “it would NOT impact”, acknowledges that the highway corridor could be fitted in between the hotel and railway curtilage. Whoever pays for the eventual and desirable restoration to original condition of the hotel does not affect the viability of this option.
Would enable vehicles to double-park on the transition lane and potentially impact on Highway operation and safety.
Would provide parking for fewer vehicles (15) in front of the shops.
Not according to the REF Lawson Stage Two: “It should be noted however that there is no loss of parking spaces on the southern side of the highway”. (Option 4 p.43 REF Vol.3). In fact according to the REF there is a net gain of 4 spaces (from 24 to 28). In any case even if there were a small loss in parking spaces, it would not begin to compare with the loss of an entire row of shops with historical significance within an historical precinct, never mind the huge increase in parking off-highway. The logic of saving the highway shops from going out of business by demolishing them and putting parking in their place is absolutely bizarre, especially considering parking can be accommodated. This is not a reasonable argument for the dismissal of the ACMMR option. Would require a split-level carriageway and a median safety barrier with end terminals between Honour Avenue and New Street that would be visually obtrusive.
Not if the pedestrian underpass were reconstructed - there are important safety and access considerations with the tunnel which need to be addressed anyway.
Would require a longer and higher retaining wall (up to 2m high) along the railway boundary opposite the shops that would be more visually imposing.
If this were true, it could hardly constitute a major objection when weighed against the value of retaining Lawson’s history, or the massively disruptive if not dangerous impact of constructing a retaining wall behind the existing shops. Would not provide a landscaped island between New and Staples Streets to separate the shops from highway traffic.
Again, surely a minor objection when compared to the loss of Lawson’s history, and in any case there would be ample room for landscaping on the footpath outside the shops. It is quite evident that the objections posted by the RTA towards the ACMMR alternative plan have no real bearing on the viability of this option. Given this, it is imperative, in the interests of preserving the historic fabric of the town, reducing the risks of this project to the community and enabling the highway project move forward in line with the State Govt. commitment, that this plan be immediately and seriously re-examined.