Land Use Safety Study - planning.nsw.gov.au

Land Use Safety Study

Carter Street Precinct

For NSW Department of Planning and Environment

12 June 2018

Doc. No.: J-000276-LUSS-REP1

Revision: 0

Arriscar Pty Limited ACN 162 867 763 www.arriscar.com.au

Sydney Level 26 44 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 T: +61 2 9089 8804

Melbourne Level 2 Riverside Quay 1 Southbank Boulevard Southbank VIC 3006 T: +61 3 9982 4535

Land Use Safety Study: Carter Street Precinct

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Name Organisation From

(Issue) To

(Issue)

Doris Yau NSW Department of Planning and Environment A Current

Krishti Akhter NSW Department of Planning and Environment A Current

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND AUTHORISATION

Rev Date By Description Check Approved

A 7 Mar 2018 PS First draft for client review. JPM PS

B 25 May 2018 PS Second draft for client review. JPM PS

0 12 June 2018 PS Final report. JPM PS

Arriscar Pty Limited, and its respective officers, employees or agents are individually and collectively referred to in this clause as 'Arriscar'. Arriscar assumes no responsibility, and shall not be liable to any person, for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with Arriscar for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract. © Arriscar Pty Ltd


Doc Number: J-000276-LUSS-REP1 Page 3 Revision: 0

Summary

Arriscar Pty Ltd (Arriscar) was engaged by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Planning and

Environment (DP&E) to undertake a Land Use Safety Study (LUSS) for the Carter Street Precinct in

Lidcombe, NSW. The findings of this study will be used to inform the revised Draft Precinct Plan.

The scope of the LUSS included estimation of the risks posed by the existing pipelines in the study

area using Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) techniques. The following existing pipelines were

identified to potentially contain hazardous materials and were included in the QRA:

• Natural gas pipelines operated by Jemena Gas.

• A Jet Fuel pipeline operated by Viva Energy.

• The Sydney Metropolitan Pipeline (SMP) operated by Caltex.

• An Ethylene pipeline owned by Qenos.

Most of the proposed land uses in the current indicative masterplan, Local Environmental Plan (LEP)

and Development Control Plan (DCP) comply with the DP&E’s individual risk criteria for land use

safety planning.

Future sensitive use development should not be permitted within the extent of the 0.5 x 10-6 per

year cumulative individual fatality risk contour and future residential development should not be

permitted within the extent of the 1 x 10-6 per year cumulative individual fatality risk contour (Refer

to Figure 9). Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should

demonstrate compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but

not limited to, cumulative societal risk.

An approved, and yet to be constructed, child care centre is located at the corner of Carter Street

and Birnie Road. This development was approved prior to the LUSS and complies with the current

zoning in the LEP; however, the risk at this location is greater than the DP&E’s risk criterion of 0.5 x

10-6 per year for such a sensitive use development. The consent authority should resolve this

existing land use safety conflict by adopting the principles outlined in Section 4.2.4 of HIPAP No. 10

(Refer to Section 6.1.1).

The societal risk from the pipelines in the study area is tolerable as the cumulative societal risk curve

does not extend beyond the ALARP region (Also refer to Section 3.2.4). However, it is relatively

close to the upper ‘intolerable’ criterion line and future residential intensification beyond that

proposed under the indicative masterplan may be inappropriate.

Three planning proposals have been submitted by land owners (Refer to Section 5). These are

generally consistent with the indicative masterplan and outline land uses that are generally

appropriate based on the DP&E’s risk criteria for land use safety planning.

The proposed risk-based development controls are included in Section 4 and recommendations for

each relevant stakeholder are included in Section 6.



Contents

Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Notation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Reporting ..................................................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 12

1.3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 12

1.3.2 Scope of the LUSS ........................................................................................................................ 12

1.3.3 Facilities Covered in the QRA ...................................................................................................... 13

1.3.4 Scope of QRA ............................................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 14

2 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Carter Street Precinct .................................................................................................................. 16

2.2 Land Use and Indicative Lot Plan ................................................................................................. 16

2.3 Future Population Estimates ....................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Potentially Hazardous Facilities and Operations ......................................................................... 19

3 Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 21

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning ................................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Individual Fatality Risk ................................................................................................................. 22

3.2.2 Injury Risk .................................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.3 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation ................................................................... 23

3.2.4 Societal Risk ................................................................................................................................. 23

3.2.5 Qualitative Risk Criteria ............................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Assessment of Risks for Carter Street Precinct............................................................................ 24

3.3.1 Individual Fatality Risk ................................................................................................................. 24

3.3.2 Risk of Acute Toxic Injury or Irritation ......................................................................................... 25

3.3.3 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation (Exceeding 14 kPa) .................................... 25

3.3.4 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation (Exceeding 23 kW/m2) .............................. 25

3.3.5 Risk of Injury (Exceeding 7 kPa) ................................................................................................... 26

3.3.6 Risk of Injury (Exceeding 4.7 kW/m2) .......................................................................................... 26

3.3.7 Qualitative Risk Criteria ............................................................................................................... 26

3.3.8 Societal Risk ................................................................................................................................. 27

4 Risk-Based Development Controls ................................................................................................... 29

Area A – Open Area Adjacent to Haslams Creek ........................................................................................ 32

Area B (B1, B2 and B3) – Enterprise Corridor ............................................................................................. 33

Area C – Recreational Area at Intersection of Hill Road and Carter Street ................................................. 34

Area D – Enterprise Corridor (East of Birnie Avenue) ................................................................................ 35

Area E – Residential Areas Fronting Carter Street ..................................................................................... 36

5 Planning Proposals .......................................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 37

5.2 Meriton Group’s Urban Design Report for 1-13 Carter Street and 23 Uhrig Road ..................... 37



5.3 AYMCI’s Submission to DPE / Master Plan Review ...................................................................... 39

5.4 SLA’s Urban Design Analysis and Masterplan Concept for 12-14 Birnie Avenue ........................ 40

6 Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 43

6.1 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 43

6.1.1 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................................... 43

6.1.2 Planning Proposals ...................................................................................................................... 43

6.1.3 Risk-Based Development Controls .............................................................................................. 44

6.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 44

7 References ...................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A Land Use Zones from Auburn LEP ................................................................................. 48

A.1 Zone B2 Local Centre ................................................................................................................. 48

A.2 Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor ...................................................................................................... 48

A.3 Zone R4 High Density Residential .............................................................................................. 49

A.4 Zone RE1 Public Recreation ....................................................................................................... 50

A.5 Zone SP2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 50

List of Figures

Figure 1 Land Use Zones from Auburn LEP [Ref. 7] ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Existing Indicative Structure Plan, from 2016 DCP [Ref. 2] ......................................................... 10

Figure 3 Draft Indicative Structure Plan .................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4 Study Area [Ref. 3] ....................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5 Draft Indicative Lot Plan [Ref. 6] .................................................................................................. 17

Figure 6 Approximate Pipeline Locations .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 7 Overview of QRA Process [Ref. 4] ................................................................................................ 21

Figure 8 Indicative Societal Risk Criteria .................................................................................................... 23

Figure 9 Cumulative Individual Fatality Risk .............................................................................................. 25

Figure 10 Societal Risk FN Curve ................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 11 Areas Requiring Specific Risk-Based Planning Controls ............................................................... 31

Figure 12 Four Phases of Meriton Group’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 8] ....................................................... 38

Figure 13 Site of AYMCI’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 1] .................................................................................. 39

Figure 14 Site of SLA’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 9] ....................................................................................... 40

List of Tables

Table 1 Total Estimated Future Residential Population in Study Area ..................................................... 18

Table 2 Total Estimated Non-Residential Population in Study Area ........................................................ 19

Table 3 Individual Fatality Risk Criteria .................................................................................................... 22



Notation

Abbreviation Description

Arriscar Arriscar Pty Ltd

DA Development Application

DCP Development Control Plan

DP&E NSW Department of Planning and Environment

HAZID Hazard Identification

HIPAP Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LSIR Location-Specific Individual Risk

LSIFR Location-Specific Individual Fatality Risk

LUSS Land Use Safety Study

MAE Major Accident Event

NSW New South Wales

PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis

pmpy per million per year (Note: 1 pmpy = 1 x 10-6 per year)

QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

RA Risk Analysis

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

VCE Vapour Cloud Explosion

VPA Voluntary Planning Agreement



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Arriscar Pty Ltd (Arriscar) was engaged by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Planning and

Environment (DP&E) to undertake a Land Use Safety Study (LUSS) for the Carter Street Precinct in

Lidcombe, NSW. The findings of this study will be used to inform the revised Draft Precinct Plan and

future rezoning.

Existing Carter Street Precinct Plan

In November 2015, the Carter Street Precinct was rezoned to enable redevelopment for:

• a high density urban community with a minimum of 5,500 dwellings, including a range of

housing options and buildings with maximum heights up to 29.9m (8 storeys) to 72m (22

storeys);

• employment uses along the M4 Motorway corridor, within building heights up to 24m (6

storeys);

• a mixed-use village centre and village square focused around Uhrig Road;

• a new primary school;

• a community facility; and

• new public open space, including a 2.98-hectare open space area adjoining the proposed

school site, a village park on Uhrig Road, and a new linear foreshore reserve along Haslams

Creek south of John Ian Wing Parade.

The rezoning incorporated new land use zones and controls into Auburn Local Environmental Plan

(LEP) 2010 [Ref. 7] and a Development Control Plan (DCP) [Ref. 2]. The land use zone map from the

LEP is reproduced below in Figure 1 and the indicative structure plan from the 2016 DCP is

reproduced below in Figure 2.

Since rezoning, several Development Applications (DAs) within the eastern portion of the precinct

have been approved or are being assessed by the City of Parramatta. These applications relate to

both subdivision and construction of buildings. Some landowners have prepared preliminary

planning proposals / master plans for their sites, mainly seeking additional uplift.

Hill Road Off Ramp

In late November 2015, the NSW Government committed funding for the new westbound off-ramp

from the M4 Motorway at Hill Road. The new westbound off ramp requires road widening outside

of the existing road corridor within both the Carter Street Precinct and Sydney Olympic Park.

However, the design of the offramp has since changed in late 2017.

Draft Carter Street Precinct Plan

The Department has prepared a revised draft Precinct Plan to accommodate the proposed changes

to the design of Hill Road and the M4 Motorway westbound off ramp. The proposed land use for

the draft Precinct Plan formed the basis for the QRA.

The draft Precinct Plan retains the total floor space available under existing controls (around a

minimum 5,500 dwellings) but proposes to relocate the school site from the north of the planned

major public open space to its eastern side, to improve its relationship with the open space and

planned village centre along Uhrig Road.



Other key proposed changes include expanding the major public open space from 2.98 hectares to

3.4 hectares and relocating residential floor space from the northern part of the Precinct’s boundary

closer to Carter Street, to reduce overshadowing and provide increased amenity. It is also proposed

to increase the maximum building height at the site at 2 Hill Road, located in the Precinct’s western

edge, to enable floor space on the site to be moved away from the pipeline easement.

The revised draft Indicative Structure Plan is shown at Figure 3.

Sydney Olympic Park Master Plan 2030 (2016 Review)

The draft Carter Street Precinct Plan supports Sydney Olympic Park as the urban hub of the Olympic

Peninsula. As part of the remaster planning process for the Carter Street Precinct, opportunities to

better integrate the two precincts are being explored.

The DP&E intends to prepare a new State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) that will amend the

Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010, as it relates to the Carter Street Precinct.



Figure 1 Land Use Zones from Auburn LEP [Ref. 7]



Figure 2 Existing Indicative Structure Plan, from 2016 DCP [Ref. 2]



Figure 3 Draft Indicative Structure Plan



1.2 Reporting

The LUSS included a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) of the natural gas, fuel and ethylene

pipelines located in the study area. Two reports were prepared by Arriscar to separate the detailed

technical risk analysis aspects from the strategic land use safety planning aspects:

1. A Risk Analysis (RA) report, which includes an estimation of the risks associated with the

natural gas, fuel and ethylene pipelines located in the study area.

2. A Land Use Safety Study (LUSS) report, which includes an assessment of the risks associated

with the natural gas, fuel and ethylene pipelines and identifies the land use safety planning

implications for the study area.

The ‘analysis’ steps of the QRA are included in the separate RA report. This analysis has been

undertaken in accordance with the guidance provided by the NSW DP&E in Hazardous Industry

Planning Advisory Paper (HIPAP) No. 6 - Hazard Analysis (2011).

This report is for the LUSS and includes the ‘assessment’ steps of the QRA. The quantitative

assessment of the risk has been undertaken in accordance with the criteria published by the DP&E

in HIPAP No. 4 - Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning (2011) and HIPAP No. 10 – Land Use Safety

Planning (2011) (Refer to Section 3.2).

1.3 Scope

1.3.1 Study Area

The study area for the LUSS and QRA includes the land identified in Figure 4 (Bordered by yellow

line). It includes land within the Carter Street Precinct.

1.3.2 Scope of the LUSS

The scope of the LUSS included:

1. A review of the previous safety related studies undertaken for the study area (including

Safety Management System and other risk studies) and consultation with pipeline owners

to identify the current pipeline status.

2. Estimation of the risks posed by the existing pipelines in the study area using QRA

techniques. The modelling was based on the information provided by the Urban Renewal

Team (including population density, proposed location of land uses and other relevant

information).

3. A review of landowner’s preliminary planning proposals in the context of the QRA results to

establish if these are consistent with the relevant risk criteria for land use safety planning.

4. Providing advice and justification on the preferred location of land uses (including

residential commercial, retail and education uses) and other planning controls (including

setbacks if needed), in the context of the QRA results and consistent with the risk criteria

for land use safety planning published in HIPAP No 10.

5. A review of the existing draft planning controls for the area and, where necessary

recommending amendments to the proposed standards and planning controls for the study

area.



Responding to any issues raised in submissions regarding hazards and risks following public

exhibition of the revised precinct and development control plan was excluded from the scope of

work at this stage.

1.3.3 Facilities Covered in the QRA

The scope of the LUSS (Refer to Section 1.3.2), included estimation of the risks posed by the existing

pipelines in the study area using QRA techniques. Any potentially hazardous facilities outside the

study area (e.g. liquid waste treatment plant) were excluded from the QRA and the scope of the

LUSS.

The following existing pipelines were identified to potentially contain hazardous materials and were

included in the scope of the QRA:

• Natural gas pipelines operated by Jemena Gas.



• An Ethylene pipeline owned by Qenos (Licenced but not currently in operation).

Some non-operational pipelines were identified during the study and were excluded from the scope

of the QRA. This included the Viva 500 pipeline and an unlicensed Naphtha pipeline.

Some segments of the Viva 500 pipeline have been laid along the pipeline route from Clyde to

Botany; however, these segments have not been connected and the pipeline has not been used (The

Viva 500 pipeline was laid as a conduit for a potential future pipeline utilising the pipeline

easement). It was agreed with DP&E to exclude this pipeline from the scope of the QRA.

It was agreed with DP&E to include the Ethylene pipeline in the QRA since Qenos holds a current

operating licence. This pipeline, which does not currently contain Ethylene, is unlikely to be used

for Ethylene since the Clyde refinery and Basell plastics plant have been decommissioned and

demolished.

Other facilities and operations in the study area (e.g. electrical substation) were excluded from the

scope of the QRA; however, the potential for these to affect the existing pipelines was considered

during hazard identification. Natural hazards (e.g. flooding, lightning, etc.) were also considered

during the hazard identification.

1.3.4 Scope of QRA

The scope of the QRA included a quantitative analysis and assessment of the fatality, injury, property

damage and biophysical environment damage risks for which the DP&E has specified risk criteria in

HIPAP No. 4 and HIPAP No. 10. The QRA did not include an assessment of the following risks:

• Risks to the biophysical environment associated with ongoing operation and maintenance

of the existing pipelines (These are existing risks that are not relevant for the scope of the

LUSS);

• Risk of damage to infrastructure and utilities in or near the pipeline easements (e.g.

electrical power or water supply);

• Fatality or injury risks for personnel involved with the construction of new infrastructure

(e.g. Hill Road off ramp) or new buildings in the study area and/or personnel who damage

the existing pipelines;



• Risks during the construction and redevelopment phase (i.e. The QRA is for the final state

of precinct redevelopment as described in Section 2); and

• Fatality or injury risks for personnel involved with the ongoing operation and maintenance

of the existing pipelines.

1.4 Objectives

The principal objective of the study was to perform a QRA and LUSS covering the scope outlined in

Section 1.3 and in accordance with the NSW HIPAP guidelines. For the QRA, this included:

• Identification of the hazards for all potentially hazardous substances in the existing

pipelines;

• Identification of all ‘Major Accident Events’ (MAEs) resulting in loss of containment, fire,

explosion and/or toxic releases from the existing pipelines, and the appropriate and

relevant representative scenarios for each MAE;

• Quantification of the consequences of potential harmful effects for each representative

scenario, including the potential for impact on surrounding land uses;

• Quantification of the likelihood of occurrence of each representative scenario;

• Using assumptions that are appropriate and justified, with a focus on minimising uncertainty

and obtaining the ‘cautious best estimate’;

• Generation of Location-Specific Individual Risk (LSIR) contours for comparison with the

DP&E’s risk criteria for land use safety planning (viz. as per HIPAP No. 4 and HIPAP No. 10);

and

• Estimation of societal risk for comparison with the DP&E’s indicative risk criteria for land

use safety planning (viz. as per HIPAP No. 4 and HIPAP No. 10).



Figure 4 Study Area [Ref. 3]



2 STUDY AREA

2.1 Carter Street Precinct

The Carter Street Precinct includes 52 hectares of land directly south west of Sydney Olympic Park.

The precinct is an established industrial area with mainly large warehouse facilities offering logistics

services.

Carter Street is the main east‐west road through the precinct, while Uhrig Road links with Sydney

Olympic Park. Entry to the precinct is currently available from the M4 Motorway and Parramatta

Road at Hill Road and from Parramatta Road at Birnie Avenue.

2.2 Land Use and Indicative Lot Plan

The land use for the QRA is based on the draft Indicative Lot Plan [Ref. 6] (Refer to Figure 5) and the

draft Indicative Structure Plan (Refer to Figure 2).

The Indicative Masterplan is similar to the Indicative Structure Plan from the 2016 Carter Street

Precinct DCP (Refer to Figure 2), with similar zoning to the Auburn 2010 LEP (Refer to Figure 1). For

example, commercial uses are still proposed to be located to the south of Carter Street and high-

rise residential and local centre uses are still proposed to be located to north of Carter Street. The

main differences in the Indicative Masterplan include:

• relocation of the school to be adjacent to the central park (which will be used by the school

for outdoor activities); and,

• the introduction of a light rail system along Uhrig Road (Note: This terminates before

reaching Carter Street).



Figure 5 Draft Indicative Lot Plan [Ref. 6]

2.3 Future Population Estimates

The estimated future population for the QRA was based on the proposed Indicative Masterplan [Ref.

6] (Refer to Figure 5) and the following data sources:

• Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 census data for Lidcombe, Newington and Sydney

Olympic Park.

• DP&E, 2015, Carter Street, Lidcombe, Priority Precinct, Finalisation Report.

• DP&E, Yield Study for Carter Street Precinct, Doc. No. 17016_Yield Study_v11 (Provided

May 2018).

• School population data provided to the DP&E by the Department of Education, October

2017.



The estimated future residential population in the study area is listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Total Estimated Future Residential Population in Study Area

Lot No. of Levels Total Population

Haslam 2 (HC 02) 22 653

Haslam 3 (HC 03) 22 942

Park 1 (P 01) 28 1,582

Park 2 (P 02) 30 1,086

Haslam South 1 (HS 01) 12 437






Haslam South 7 (HS 07) - 47

Carter Town Centre 2 (TC 02) 25 869


Carter Town Centre 4 (TC 04) 33 1,157





Carter Street North 2 (CSN 02) 13 415



Carter Street North 5 (CSN 05) 28 1,096

Carter Street South (CS 01) 20 548

Total = 15,824

The population at each residential area outside the Carter Street Precinct was based on occupancy

rates of 3.0 persons per dwelling for Newington and 3.2 persons per dwelling for Lidcombe (2016

census data).

The school population was estimated to be 1,000 students and 50 staff (data provided by

Department of Education).

The population in each commercial or retail building (Refer to Table 2) was based on 1 person 30 m2

of GFA (DP&E 2015 Finalisation Report).



Table 2 Total Estimated Non-Residential Population in Study Area

Lot No.

Commercial/Retail Population

No. Levels Day Indoor Day

Outdoor Night

Indoor Night

Outdoor

Haslam 2 (HC 02) 1 17 2 17 2

Haslam 3 (HC 03) 1 12 1 12 1

Park 3 [School] - 709 236 - -

Open Space [Opposite School] - - 105 - 100

Carter Town Centre 6 (CTC 06) 9 185 20 185 20





Carter Street South 1 (CS 01) 1 82 9 82 9

Carter Street South 1 6 781 87 78 9



Total = 6068 1017 1172 229

2.4 Potentially Hazardous Facilities and Operations

Pipelines containing potentially hazardous materials are present in the Carter Street Precinct. These

include:

• Seven Natural Gas pipelines operated by Jemena Gas.



• An Ethylene pipeline owned by Qenos (Licenced but not currently in operation).

Most of these pipelines are in three easements to the south of Carter Street (Refer to Figure 6).



Figure 6 Approximate Pipeline Locations

The three largest diameter Jemena Natural Gas pipelines are in a common easement. To the west

of Hill Road, relatively short sections of these pipelines are above ground at the Stormwater Channel

and the bridge over Haslam’s Creek.

The four smaller diameter Jemena Natural Gas pipelines are located in adjoining streets and provide

gas to customers in the precinct.

The Viva Jet Fuel pipeline and Caltex SMP are in a common easement, which is immediately adjacent

to Carter Street. These pipelines are entirely underground and pass under Hill Road, the Stormwater

Channel and Haslam’s Creek.

To the west of Hill Road, the Qenos Ethylene pipeline appears to be in the same easement as the

three main Jemena Natural Gas pipelines and relatively short sections are also above ground at the

Stormwater Channel and the bridge over Haslam’s Creek. To the east of Hill Road, the Qenos

Ethylene pipeline is in a separate easement.



3 RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 Introduction

Land use safety planning (including the development of planning controls) for the Study Area,

requires an understanding of the hazards and risks posed by the relevant potentially hazardous

operations. The risk analysis undertaken for the LUSS involved the quantitative estimation of the

consequences and likelihood of accidents (viz. a Quantitative Risk Assessment or QRA).

Diagrammatically, the QRA process is as follows:

Figure 7 Overview of QRA Process [Ref. 4]

A review of previous safety related studies was undertaken for the Study Area and the pipeline

operators were consulted with to identify the current pipeline status and operating parameters

required for the QRA (e.g. operating pressure, pipeline diameter, pipeline wall thickness, etc.).

The QRA was also based on the information provided by the DP&E’s Urban Renewal Team (including

population density, proposed location of land uses and other relevant information).

A hazard and risk analysis cannot be carried out in isolation and requires criteria against which the

acceptability of the estimated risk can be assessed. Qualitative and quantitative risk criteria for land

use safety planning have been established in NSW by the Department of Planning & Environment

(DP&E) and these apply for three broad contexts [Ref. 4 (Section 2.1.4) and Ref. 5 (Section 5.1.2)]:

1. Strategic planning (Zoning and rezoning).

2. Assessment of development for potentially hazardous development.

3. Assessment of development in the vicinity of potentially hazardous development.

The qualitative and quantitative risk criteria for land use safety planning currently established in

NSW, which may be common to more than one context, are summarised in Section 3.2.

As

se

ss

me

nt

An

aly

sis

Hazard

Identification

Estimate

Likelihood

Estimate

Consequences

Calculate RiskCompare

Against Criteria

Consider Risk

Mitigation and

Management

Options

Compare

Against Criteria

Consider Risk

Mitigation and

Management

Options



3.2 Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning

3.2.1 Individual Fatality Risk

The individual fatality risk imposed by a proposed (or existing) industrial activity should be low

relative to the background risk. This forms the basis for the following individual fatality risk criteria

adopted by the NSW DP&E [Ref. 4].

Table 3 Individual Fatality Risk Criteria

Land Use Risk Criterion [per million per year]

Hospitals, schools, child care facilities and old age housing developments

0.5

Residential developments and places of continuous occupancy, such as hotels and tourist resorts

1

Commercial developments, including offices, retail centres, warehouses with showrooms, restaurants and entertainment centres

5

Sporting complexes and active open space areas 10

Industrial sites 50 *

* HIPAP 4 allows flexibility in the interpretation of this criterion. For example, ‘where an industrial site

involves only the occasional presence of people, such as in the case of a tank farm, a higher level of risk

may be acceptable’.

The DP&E has adopted a fatality risk criterion of 1 per million per year (or 1 x 10-6 per year) for

residential area exposure because this risk is very low in relation to typical background risks for

individuals in NSW.

3.2.2 Injury Risk

The DP&E has adopted risk criteria for levels of effects that may cause injury to people but will not

necessarily cause fatality. Criteria are included in HIPAP No. 4 for potential injury caused by

exposure to heat radiation, explosion overpressure and toxic gas/ smoke/dust.

The DP&E’s suggested injury risk criterion for heat radiation is as follows:

• Incident heat flux radiation at residential and sensitive use areas should not exceed 4.7

kW/m2 at a frequency of more than 50 chances in a million per year.

The DP&E’s suggested injury/damage risk criterion for explosion overpressure is as follows:

• Incident explosion overpressure at residential and sensitive use areas should not exceed 7

kPa at frequencies of more than 50 chances in a million per year.

The DP&E’s suggested injury risk criteria for toxic gas/ smoke/dust exposure are as follows:

• Toxic concentrations in residential and sensitive use areas should not exceed a level which

would be seriously injurious to sensitive members of the community following a relatively

short period of exposure at a maximum frequency of 10 in a million per year.

• Toxic concentrations in residential and sensitive use areas should not cause irritation to eyes

or throat, coughing or other acute physiological responses in sensitive members of the

community over a maximum frequency of 50 in a million per year.



3.2.3 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation

Heat radiation exceeding 23 kW/m2 may cause unprotected steel to suffer thermal stress that may

cause structural damage and an explosion overpressure of 14 kPa can cause damage to piping and

low-pressure equipment. The DP&E’s criteria for risk of damage to property and accident

propagation are as follows:

• Incident heat flux radiation at neighbouring potentially hazardous installations or at land

zoned to accommodate such installations should not exceed a risk of 50 in a million per year

for the 23 kW/m2 heat flux level.

• Incident explosion overpressure at neighbouring potentially hazardous installations, at land

zoned to accommodate such installations or at nearest public buildings should not exceed a

risk of 50 in a million per year for the 14 kPa explosion overpressure level.

3.2.4 Societal Risk

The DP&E’s suggested societal risk criteria (Refer to Figure 8), recognise that society is particularly

intolerant of accidents, which though infrequent, have a potential to create multiple fatalities.

Below the negligible line, provided other individual criteria are met, societal risk is not considered

significant. Above the intolerable level, an activity is considered undesirable, even if individual risk

criteria are met. Within the ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP) region, the emphasis is on

reducing risks as far as possible towards the negligible line. Provided other quantitative and

qualitative criteria of HIPAP 4 are met, the risks from the activity would be considered tolerable in

the ALARP region.

Figure 8 Indicative Societal Risk Criteria



3.2.5 Qualitative Risk Criteria

Irrespective of the numerical value of any risk criteria level for risk assessment purposes, it is

essential that certain qualitative principles be adopted concerning the land use safety acceptability

of a proposed development or existing activity. The qualitative risk criteria outlined in HIPAP No. 4

encompass the following general principles:

• Avoidance of all ‘avoidable’ risks;

• Reduction, wherever practicable, of the risk from a major hazard, even where the

likelihood of exposure is low;

• Containment, wherever possible, within the site boundary of the effects (consequences)

of the more likely hazardous events; and,

• Recognition that if the risk from an existing installation is already high, further

development should not be permitted if it significantly increases that existing risk.

3.3 Assessment of Risks for Carter Street Precinct

3.3.1 Individual Fatality Risk

The cumulative individual fatality risk contours for all the pipelines included in the QRA for the study

area are shown on Figure 9.

Whilst the cumulative individual fatality risk contours generally comply with the DP&E’s relevant

risk criteria for the indicative masterplan (Refer to Section 3.2.1), there is a small encroachment (c.

15 m) of the 1 x 10-6 per year individual fatality risk contour into the residential lots to the west and

east of Hill Road on the northern side of Carter Street (Refer to Figure 9). However, the cumulative

fatality risk is less than the relevant DP&E criterion for most of the lot area, particularly where

residences are likely to be located. In accordance with Section 2.1.4 of HIPAP No. 4, this is

considered acceptable.

The 0.5 x10-6 per year contour extends approximately 80 m beyond the northern boundary of Carter

Street (i.e. from curb on north side of the street) and does not reach the proposed location of the

school on the indicative masterplan (Refer to Figure 9).

The cumulative individual fatality risk at the nearest sensitive use (viz. an approved, and yet to be

occupied, child care centre near the intersection of Carter Street and Birnie Road – Refer to Figure

9) is greater than the DP&E’s risk criterion of 0.5 x10-6 per year for such a sensitive use development.

The maximum cumulative individual fatality risk in the study area is approximately 2 x 10-6 per year

and this only occurs at the pipe bridge over Haslams Creek. Therefore, the DP&E’s individual fatality

risk criteria for commercial, open space and industrial uses (viz. 5 x 10-6, 10 x 10-6 and 50 x 10-6 per

year, respectively - Refer to Section 3.2.1) are fully complied with for the indicative masterplan.



Figure 9 Cumulative Individual Fatality Risk

3.3.2 Risk of Acute Toxic Injury or Irritation

No credible events with the potential to cause acute toxic injury or irritation were identified for

inclusion in the risk analysis. Therefore, the cumulative risk of acute toxic injury or irritation

complies with the relevant DP&E risk criteria (Refer to Section 3.2.2).

3.3.3 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation (Exceeding 14 kPa)

There are no “neighbouring potentially hazardous installations” or “land zoned to accommodate

such installations” in the study area; therefore, the DP&E criterion for property damage and accident

propagation (overpressure exceeding 14 kPa) is not applicable. Notwithstanding that the DP&E

criterion is not applicable, the cumulative risk of property damage and accident propagation

(overpressure exceeding 14 kPa) does not reach 50 pmpy at any location in the study area.

The cumulative risk of property damage and accident propagation (overpressure exceeding 14 kPa)

complies with the relevant DP&E risk criterion (Refer to Section 3.2.3).

3.3.4 Risk of Property Damage and Accident Propagation (Exceeding 23 kW/m2)

There are no “neighbouring potentially hazardous installations” or “land zoned to accommodate

such installations” in the study area; therefore, the DP&E criterion for property damage and accident

propagation (Heat radiation exceeding 23 kW/m2) is not applicable. Notwithstanding that the DP&E

criterion is not applicable, the cumulative risk of property damage and accident propagation (Heat

radiation exceeding 23 kW/m2) does not reach 50 pmpy at any location in the study area.

1 x 10-6 p.a.

0.5 x 10-6 p.a.

School Pipe

Bridge

Child Care

Centre



The cumulative risk of property damage and accident propagation (Heat radiation exceeding 23

kW/m2) complies with the relevant DP&E risk criterion (Refer to Section 3.2.3).

3.3.5 Risk of Injury (Exceeding 7 kPa)

The cumulative risk of injury (overpressure exceeding 7 kPa) does not reach 50 pmpy at any location

in the study area.

The cumulative risk of injury (overpressure exceeding 7 kPa) complies with the relevant DP&E risk

criterion (Refer to Section 3.2.2).

3.3.6 Risk of Injury (Exceeding 4.7 kW/m2)

The cumulative risk of injury (Heat radiation exceeding 4.7 kW/m2) does not reach 50 pmpy at any

location in the study area.

The cumulative risk of injury (Heat radiation exceeding 4.7 kW/m2) complies with the relevant DP&E

risk criterion (Refer to Section 3.2.2).

3.3.7 Qualitative Risk Criteria

The qualitative risk criteria outlined in HIPAP No. 4 encompass the following general principles:

• Avoidance of all ‘avoidable’ risks;

• Reduction, wherever practicable, of the risk from a major hazard, even where the

likelihood of exposure is low;

• Containment, wherever possible, within the site boundary of the effects (consequences)

of the more likely hazardous events; and,

• Recognition that if the risk from an existing installation is already high, further

development should not be permitted if it significantly increases that existing risk.

In this case, the pipelines are existing facilities rather than proposed developments. Additional risk

reduction is not practicable (except possibly for minimising exposure – Refer to recommendations

in Section 6) and there is no ‘site boundary’ as such (the easements are too small and accessible to

contain the effects of events involving the pipelines).

The cumulative individual fatality risk and societal risk are significant. Development beyond that

proposed in the indicative masterplan should not be permitted in some areas (e.g. sensitive use

developments adjacent to Carter Street) and population intensification beyond the levels presented

in Section 2.2 should be avoided. Development controls should be developed with an understanding

that residential development, development with sensitive uses and population intensification

should be discouraged within some areas of the Precinct. This is the basis for the proposed risk-

based development controls in Section 4.

The established zoning and indicative masterplan provide limited scope to apply the avoidance of

all ‘avoidable’ risk criterion. For example, high density residential uses are already permitted along

Carter Street (north side) and it is no longer practicable to re-zone for a lower population density.

However, ensuring that commercial uses are retained along Carter Street (south side) is practicable

and consistent with the established zoning and indicative masterplan and would comply with the

avoidance of all ‘avoidable’ risk criterion. This is reflected in the proposed risk-based development

controls in Section 4.



3.3.8 Societal Risk

The cumulative societal risk curve for all the pipelines in the study area is shown in Figure 10.

As the quantitative and qualitative risk criteria from HIPAP No. 4 are met, the societal risk from the

pipelines in the study area is tolerable as the cumulative societal risk curve does not extend beyond

the ALARP region (Also refer to Section 3.2.4). However, it is relatively close to the upper

‘intolerable’ criterion line.



Figure 10 Societal Risk FN Curve

NEGLIGIBLE

ALARP INTOLERABLE



4 RISK-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

Within the Study Area, there are multiple areas where the combination of land use zoning and risk

warrants specific risk-based planning controls (Refer to Figure 11).

A summary table is included after Figure 11 for each specific area. The information in each table

provides a guide for land use safety planning throughout the Study Area. How this is achieved needs

to be determined by the DP&E as some of the proposed controls will only apply to the areas

identified in Figure 11 and should not be applied to all other similarly zoned areas defined within

the DCP. For example, sensitive use developments (e.g. child care centres) are currently ‘permitted

with consent’ in areas zoned B6 – Enterprise Corridor (Refer to Appendix A.2), however, this type of

development should be prohibited in Areas B and D (Lots CS 01, CS 02 and CS 03), despite its B6

zoning, since the cumulative risk from the existing pipelines exceeds the relevant DP&E risk criterion

for land use safety planning.

The current zoning is identified in each table for each area. Also, the proposed controls for future

developments (i.e. development near the existing potentially hazardous pipelines) are included,

together with the basis for each control.

The risk-based development controls shown in the summary tables are based on the magnitude of

the cumulative individual fatality risk and societal risk relative to the DP&E’s quantitative risk criteria

for land use safety planning (Refer to Section 3.3), as well as other relevant risk considerations.

Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should demonstrate

compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but not limited to,

cumulative societal risk.

The key points are as follows:

Individual Risk

• Future residential development should not be permitted within the extent of the 1 x 10-6

per year cumulative individual fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9). This restriction

applies to residential developments and places of continuous occupancy, such as hotels,

motels and tourist resorts (As per Section 2.4.2.1 of HIPAP No. 4).

• Sensitive uses should not be permitted within the extent of the 0.5 x 10-6 per year

cumulative individual fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9). This restriction applies to

sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, child-care facilities and old age housing

development (As per Section 2.4.2.1 of HIPAP No. 4).

• Additional potentially hazardous pipelines should not be permitted unless the proponent

can demonstrate that the extent of the cumulative individual fatality risk contours will not

increase beyond the levels reported in Section 3.3.1 (Figure 9) and that all other cumulative

individual risks remain below the DP&E criteria for land use safety planning (Refer to

Sections 3.3.2-3.3.6).



Societal Risk

• For the area within the Enterprise Corridor (Areas B1, B2, and B3 on Figure 11) and the rest

of the precinct, population intensification beyond that considered in the QRA & LUSS (Refer

to Section 2.2) should only be permitted if the proponent can demonstrate that the societal

risk complies with the DP&E’s criteria (Note: A societal risk analysis is only required with the

Development Application if the proposed development would potentially increase the total

population for the applicable lot above the level assumed in this QRA & LUSS). This

potentially applies for the entire precinct; however, it is particularly relevant for areas A-E

on Figure 11.

• Additional potentially hazardous pipelines should not be permitted unless it can be

demonstrated that the magnitude of the societal risk will continue to comply with the

DP&E’s indicative societal risk criteria.

Other Risk Considerations

• The magnitude of the individual and societal risk is very dependent on the historically low

likelihood of major pipeline failures; however, the consequences if a failure were to occur

could be very severe. To comply with the DP&E’s qualitative risk criteria, it should be

ensured that building design and emergency response arrangements are commensurate

with the hazard posed by the potentially hazardous pipelines.

• Development should not be permitted near the pipeline easements. Therefore, future

development may not be practicable for Areas A and C and the part of Area B depending on

the location of the easements relative to the proposed development (Also refer to Figure

6). This might also apply for part of Area D, depending on the location of the easements

relative to the proposed development.



Figure 11 Areas Requiring Specific Risk-Based Planning Controls

A

B2

D

E

B1C

B3



Area A – Open Area Adjacent to Haslams Creek

Description Southern part of land adjacent to Haslams Creek, shown as mostly open space area on the indicative master plan (Refer to Figure 5). There is no lot number shown on the indicative masterplan for this Area.

Zoning R4 – High Density Residential (Refer to Appendix A.3) and RE1 – Public Recreation (Refer to Appendix A.4)

Note: The indicative masterplan shows this Area as open space (Refer to Figure 5); however, it is currently zoned R4 in the LEP, with only a narrow RE1 zone immediately adjacent to the creek (Refer to Figure 1).

The R4 zoning for this Area is to primarily provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment. However, hospitals, schools, child-care facilities & old age housing (viz. Defined as ‘sensitive uses’ in HIPAP No. 4), and some commercial uses (e.g. Restaurants and cafes) and open space uses (e.g. Recreation areas), are currently permissible with consent. Some places of continuous occupancy are currently prohibited (e.g. residential accommodation and correctional facilities) and major recreation facilities are prohibited.

The RE1 zoning for this Area is to provide land for public open space or recreational purposes. However, centre-based child care facilities and respite day care centres (viz. Defined as ‘sensitive uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent. Also, restaurants or cafes (viz. Defined as ‘commercial uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent.

Residential or sensitive uses are not appropriate in this Area based on the cumulative LSIFR (See below). Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should demonstrate compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but not limited to, cumulative societal risk.

Multiple pipeline easements pass through this Area; therefore, future development may not be practicable.

Individual Risk The cumulative LSIFR is ≥1.0 pmpy at this Area (Refer to Section 3.3.1). All other cumulative individual risks are below the DP&E criteria for land use safety planning (Refer to Sections 3.3.2-3.3.6).

Societal Risk The cumulative societal risk from the pipelines in the study area is tolerable as the cumulative FN curve does not extend beyond the ALARP region (Refer to Section 3.3.8).

Category of Development for Land Use Safety Planning *

Current Control Proposed New Development

Proposed Control Basis

SENSITIVE USES

(Hospitals, schools, child-care facilities & old age housing)

Permitted with consent

Prohibited

The cumulative LSIFR is ≥0.5 pmpy at this Area.

There are no existing sensitive use developments and future sensitive use developments are to be prohibited.

RESIDENTIAL

(Residential developments & places of continuous occupancy, such as hotels & tourist resorts)


Prohibited

The cumulative LSIFR is ≥1 pmpy at this Area.

There are no existing residential developments and future residential developments are to be prohibited.

COMMERCIAL

(Including offices, retail centres, warehouses with showrooms, restaurants & entertainment centres)

Permitted with consent *


The cumulative LSIFR is ≤5 pmpy at this Area.

Commercial developments may be permitted in the future (As per current R4 and RE1 Zoning).

* Only some commercial uses are currently permissible with consent (Refer to Appendix A).

Any proposed population intensification will require a societal risk assessment. Consent must not be based on complying with individual risk criteria alone.

OPEN SPACE

(Sporting complexes & active open space areas)




There are no existing active open space uses in this Area.

* Some open space uses are currently permissible with consent (Refer to Appendix A).


INDUSTRIAL Prohibited Prohibited


This Area is not zoned for industrial uses.

There are no existing industrial uses and future industrial uses are prohibited.

* Note: ‘Industrial’, ‘residential’, etc. uses, as defined in HIPAP No. 4, may not align with zones defined in the DCP (e.g. RE1, etc.).



Area B (B1, B2 and B3) – Enterprise Corridor

Description Lots CS 01, CS 02 and part of Lot CS 03 (Refer to Figure 5).

Zoning B6 – Enterprise Corridor (Refer to Appendix A.2)

The zoning for this Area is to primarily provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses). However, hospitals, schools, child-care facilities & old age housing (viz. Defined as ‘sensitive uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) and residential developments & places of continuous occupancy, such as hotels & tourist resorts (viz. Defined as ‘residential uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent. Also, some open space uses (e.g. Recreation areas) are currently permissible with consent. Some places of continuous occupancy are currently prohibited (e.g. Caravan parks and correctional facilities) and major recreation facilities are prohibited.

Residential or sensitive uses are not appropriate in this Area based on the cumulative LSIFR (See below). Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should demonstrate compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but not limited to, cumulative societal risk.






SENSITIVE USES



Prohibited



RESIDENTIAL


Permitted with consent /

Prohibited * Prohibited


There are no existing residential developments and future residential developments are to be prohibited.

* Some places of continuous occupancy are currently permissible with consent and some are currently prohibited (Refer to Appendix A).

COMMERCIAL





There are existing commercial developments at this Area and these developments may be permitted in the future.


OPEN SPACE



Prohibited *


Prohibited *


There are no existing open space uses in this area; however, the indicative masterplan shows an open space area in Area B3.

* Some open space uses are currently permissible with consent and major recreation facilities are prohibited (Refer to Appendix A).









Area C – Recreational Area at Intersection of Hill Road and Carter Street

Description Public recreation area at the intersection of Hill Road and Carter Street (Refer to Figure 5).

Zoning RE1 – Public Recreation (Refer to Appendix A.4)

The zoning for this Area is to provide land for public open space or recreational purposes. However, centre-based child care facilities and respite day care centres (viz. Defined as ‘sensitive uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent. Also, restaurants or cafes (viz. Defined as ‘commercial uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent.

It is not appropriate to rezone this Area for residential or sensitive uses based on the cumulative LSIFR (See below).

Multiple pipeline easements pass through this Area; therefore, future development may not be practicable.






SENSITIVE USES



Prohibited



* Only some sensitive uses are currently permissible with consent (See above).

RESIDENTIAL


Prohibited Prohibited


There are no existing residential developments and future residential developments are prohibited.

COMMERCIAL





There are no existing commercial developments at this Area and these developments may be permitted in the future (As per current RE1 Zoning).

* Only some commercial uses are currently permissible with consent (Refer to Appendix A).


OPEN SPACE





This Area is zoned for open space uses.









Area D – Enterprise Corridor (East of Birnie Avenue)

Description Part of Lot CS 03 to the south of Carter Street (Refer to Figure 5).

Zoning B6 – Enterprise Corridor (Refer to Appendix A.2)

The zoning for this Area is to primarily provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses). However, hospitals, schools, child-care facilities & old age housing (viz. Defined as ‘sensitive uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) and residential developments & places of continuous occupancy, such as hotels & tourist resorts (viz. Defined as ‘residential uses’ in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent. Also, some open space uses (e.g. Recreation areas) are currently permissible with consent. Some places of continuous occupancy are currently prohibited (e.g. Caravan parks and correctional facilities) and major recreation facilities are prohibited.

Sensitive uses are not appropriate in this Area based on the cumulative LSIFR (See below). Rezoning of this Area for residential uses may be appropriate based on the cumulative LSIFR; however, this would be contingent on compliance with the societal risk criteria (See below). Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should demonstrate compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but not limited to, cumulative societal risk.






SENSITIVE USES



Prohibited



RESIDENTIAL



Prohibited *


Prohibited *


There are no existing residential developments and future residential developments may be permitted in the future.



COMMERCIAL







OPEN SPACE



Prohibited *


Prohibited *


There are no existing open space uses in this area.

* Some open space uses are currently permissible with consent and major recreation facilities are prohibited (Refer to Appendix A).









Area E – Residential Areas Fronting Carter Street

Description Residential areas fronting Carter Street (Northern side) through to Haslams Creek. This includes Lots HC 03, P 01, P 02, TC 04, TC 07, TC 08, TC 10, CSN 03, CSN 04 and CSN 05 (Refer to Figure 5).

Includes northern part of land adjacent to Haslams Creek, shown as an open space area on the indicative master plan (Refer to Figure 5). There is no lot number shown on the indicative masterplan for this Area.

Zoning B2 – Local Centre (Refer to Appendix A.1), R4 – High Density Residential (Refer to Appendix A.3) and RE1 – Public Recreation (Refer to Appendix A.4)

Note: The indicative masterplan shows the northern part of land adjacent to Haslams Creek as open space (Refer to Figure 5); however, it is currently zoned R4 in the LEP, with only a narrow RE1 zone immediately adjacent to the creek (Refer to Figure 1).

The zoning for this Area is predominantly for high density residential uses and commercial uses (e.g. retail, business, entertainment and community uses). However, some sensitive uses (viz. As defined in HIPAP No. 4) are currently permissible with consent in all three zones (Refer to Appendix A).

Sensitive uses are not appropriate in this Area based on the cumulative LSIFR (See below). Development applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should demonstrate compliance with the DP&E’s qualitative and quantitative risk criteria, including, but not limited to, cumulative societal risk.






SENSITIVE USES



Prohibited



RESIDENTIAL



Prohibited *


Prohibited *


Residential developments may be permitted in the future.



COMMERCIAL







OPEN SPACE



Prohibited *


Prohibited *


There are no existing active open space uses in this Area.

* Some open space uses are currently permissible with consent (Refer to Appendix A). Major recreation facilities are prohibited for Zone R4 (Refer to Appendix A).









5 PLANNING PROPOSALS

5.1 Introduction

Three Planning Proposals (PPs) are applicable for the Study Area:

• Meriton Group’s Urban Design Report for 1-13 Carter Street and 23 Uhrig Road, which was

prepared by SJB Architects and issued 19 July 2017 (PP No. 1);

• AYMCI’s Submission to DPE / master plan review for Carter Street, which was prepared by

Architectus and issued 23 January 2017 (PP No. 2); and

• SLA’s Urban Design Analysis and Masterplan Concept for 12-14 Birnie Avenue, which was

prepared by SJB Architects and issued 19 May 2017 (PP No. 3).

PP No. 1 and PP No. 3 both acknowledge the presence of pipeline easements in the Study Area.

However, the potential risks from the potentially hazardous pipelines do not appear to have been

considered in the PPs.

Some of the PPs show the light rail continuing along Uhrig Road and potentially onto Carter Street.

However, the indicative masterplan now has the light rail terminating before reaching Carter Street

(Refer to Section 2.2), which limits the potential for interaction with the pipelines.

Key points from the PPs that are relevant to the LUSS are discussed in Sections 5.2 - 5.4.

5.2 Meriton Group’s Urban Design Report for 1-13 Carter Street and 23 Uhrig Road

Development across the Meriton Group’s site is divided into four phases of design and construction

(Refer to Figure 12). Construction of the Phase 1 development is currently underway, and a DA has

been submitted for Phase 2. Phases 3 and 4 are future development phases.



Figure 12 Four Phases of Meriton Group’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 8]

Key points that are relevant for the LUSS from this PP include:

• A 2,000 m2 multipurpose community centre is proposed for the Phase 4 development. This

would be an appropriate land use based on the risk results presented in Section 3.3 and is

potentially a better option than residential or sensitive uses due to the higher DP&E fatality

risk criterion (Refer to Section 3.2.1). If a community centre is included in the Phase 4

development, then it should still be ensured that the cumulative societal risk is compliant

with the DP&E’s indicative societal risk criteria (Note: This is addressed by the proposed risk-

based planning controls – See Area E in Section 4).

• A child care centre is included within the Phase 01 development, which is already underway.

The cumulative individual fatality risk at this approved, and yet to be occupied, child care

centre is greater than the DP&E’s risk criterion of 0.5 x10-6 per year for such a sensitive use

development (Refer to Recommendation No. 5 in Section 6.2).

• The potential landscaped setback identified along the south side of Carter Street is

described as aligning with the “blast easement for the existing gas line” (Refer to Section 2.2

of PP No. 1). “Blast easement” is not defined and it is not clear which “gas line” is being

referred to in the PP. The potential landscaped setback area along the south side of Carter

Street (Refer to Figure 1.1.9 in Section 2.2 of PP No. 1) appears to align with the easements

for the Viva Jet Fuel pipeline, Caltex SMP, Jemena Natural Gas pipelines and Qenos Ethylene

pipeline (Refer to Figure 6); however, this area is currently used for car parking for the

commercial facilities to the south of Carter Street. It is not clear how this area would be

converted into a landscaped area; however, this would not be an inappropriate land use

based on the risk results presented in Section 3.3.



• A landscaped setback of about 10 m is identified along the north side of Carter Street (Refer

to Figure 1.1.9 in Section 2.2 of PP No. 1), which is consistent with the setback specified in

the 2016 DCP [Ref. 2]. This is an appropriate setback based on the risk results presented in

Section 3.3 (Particularly Section 3.3.1).

• Parking will be above ground, with parking levels in the podium levels screened by

apartments (Refer to Section 3.4 of PP No. 1). Above ground parking reduces the need for

excavation and will limit underground areas where gas / liquid / vapour could accumulate

(Refer to Recommendation No. 9 in Section 6.2). Inclusion of parking levels in the podium

levels, rather than other permanently occupied uses, will potentially reduce the likelihood

of exposure from an incident involving the pipelines and is therefore consistent with the

DP&E’s qualitative risk criteria (Refer to Section 3.2.5). The likelihood of exposure could be

further reduced if the car parking levels were not screened by apartments along the side of

the building facing Carter Street.

• Communal open spaces are shown on the top of the podium levels (Refer to Section 3.4 of

PP No. 1). These are an appropriate land use based on the risk results presented in Section

3.3.

5.3 AYMCI’s Submission to DPE / Master Plan Review

AYMCI are the largest land-owner in the Precinct, as shown on Figure 13.

Figure 13 Site of AYMCI’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 1]




• A landscaped setback of about 10 m is identified along the north side of Carter Street (Refer

to Section 1.5 of PP No. 2), which is consistent with the setback specified in the 2016 DCP

[Ref. 2]. This is an appropriate setback based on the risk results presented in Section 3.3

(Particularly Section 3.3.1).

• The RMS proposed widening of Hill Road is described in PP No. 2 (Refer to Section 2.1 of

PP#2). This does not appear to impact upon the findings of the LUSS; however, it is noted

that the road widening may extend over the existing pipeline easements in the open space

at the corner of Hill Road and Carter Street (Refer to figure on page 22 of PP No. 2). This

would be a trigger for review of the pipeline Safety Management Plans (Refer to

Recommendation 6 in Section 6.2).

• The two locations for the proposed school included in PP No. 2 are no longer applicable

since the school has been relocated in the indicative masterplan (Refer to Figure 5). Option

1 in PP#2, which locates the school on Carter Street (Refer to Section 2.5 in PP No. 2), is not

an appropriate location based on the extent of the 0.5 x 10-6 per year cumulative individual

fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9). The proposed location on the indicative masterplan

is preferred as this complies with the DP&E’s cumulative fatality risk criterion.

5.4 SLA’s Urban Design Analysis and Masterplan Concept for 12-14 Birnie Avenue

SLA’s PP relates to 12-14 Birnie Avenue at the corner of Birnie Avenue and Edwin Flack Avenue

(Refer to Figure 14). The site has a total area of approximately 3.15 hectares.

Figure 14 Site of SLA’s Planning Proposal [Ref. 9]




• As with PP No. 1, a landscaped setback area is shown along the south side of Carter Street

(Refer to Figure 2.2.1 in Section 2.2 of PP No. 3) appears to align with the easements for the

Viva Jet Fuel pipeline, Caltex SMP, Jemena Natural Gas pipelines and Qenos Ethylene

pipeline (Refer to Figure 6); however, this area is currently used for car parking for the

commercial facilities to the south of Carter Street. It is not clear how this area would be

converted into a landscaped area (unless the commercial facilities were relocated – see

below); however, this would not be an inappropriate land use based on the risk results

presented in Section 3.3.

• It is reported in Section 2.3 of PP No. 3 that there “may be an opportunity in the long-term

future to rezone commercial uses adjacent to the Western Motorway” and the “future

rezoning of this commercial zone area into mixed-use or residential uses may provide the

opportunity for the provision of a secondary green spine within the Carter Street frontage

setback”. This may be credible based on the extent of the 1.0 x 10-6 per year cumulative

fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9); however, the societal risk could exceed the DP&E’s

indicative societal risk criteria if significant population intensification occurs (Refer to Figure

10).

• It is reported in Section 2.4 of PP No. 3 that a “significant portion of the site comprises

easements with multiple ownerships. These restricted areas have been taken into account

and have helped to form the parameters for the Urban Design and masterplanning process”.

These easements are shown as dotted lines on Figure 14. It is not clear how these restricted

areas have been taken into account other than by locating open space areas above the

easements (i.e. not locating buildings on the easements).

• Two options are presented in Section 4.1 of PP No. 3:

o Option 1 retains the existing commercial uses at the southern end of the site (as per

current B6 Enterprise Corridor zoning), with high density residential at the northern

end (as per current R4 High Density Residential zoning). The existing easement area

is open space.

o Option 2 proposes rezoning the southern portion of the site from B6 Enterprise

Corridor to R4 High Density Residential. The proposed open space for the existing

easements would remain as in Option 1.

Both options are credible based on the extent of the 1.0 x 10-6 per year cumulative fatality

risk contour (Refer to Figure 9); however, the societal risk could exceed the DP&E’s

indicative societal risk criteria if significant population intensification occurs under option 2

(Refer to Figure 10) and sensitive uses would not be appropriate for either option based on

the extent of the 0.5 x 10-6 per year cumulative fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9).

It is also noted that Option 2 would result in multiple easements on two sides of the

residential buildings on the southern portion of the site. This would place these residential

buildings closer to more potentially hazardous pipelines than any other residential building

in the precinct. This may not comply with the DP&E’s qualitative risk criteria, particularly as

Option 2 would require rezoning.

Other uses that are already permissible for the B6 Enterprise Corridor (e.g. hotel / motel

accommodation) may be more appropriate than residential developments; however, this

would still be contingent on demonstrating compliance with the DP&E’s indicative societal

risk criteria (also refer to Area D in Section 4).





6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Findings

6.1.1 Risk Assessment

Most of the proposed land uses in the current indicative masterplan, LEP and DCP comply with the

DP&E’s individual risk criteria for land use safety planning. However, future sensitive use

development should not be permitted within the extent of the 0.5 x 10-6 per year cumulative

individual fatality risk contour and future residential development should not be permitted within

the extent of the 1 x 10-6 per year cumulative individual fatality risk contour (Refer to Figure 9).

There are no existing sensitive use developments within the 0.5 x 10-6 per year fatality risk contour

other than an approved, and yet to be occupied, child care centre near the intersection of Carter

Street and Birnie Road (Refer to Figure 9). The consent authority should resolve this existing land

use safety conflict by adopting the principles outlined in Section 4.2.4 of HIPAP No. 10. This might,

for example, include relocating the child care centre further away from the pipelines and/or

implementing other risk mitigation measures (e.g. safe refuge facilities) to protect the occupants.

There are no existing residential developments within the 1.0 x 10-6 per year fatality risk contour;

however, construction of an approved high-rise residential building has commenced at the

intersection of Carter Street and Birnie Road.

The cumulative individual fatality risk marginally exceeds the relevant DP&E criterion for residential

land uses at the proposed residential lot boundaries along the southern edge of Area E (Refer to

Figure 9 and Figure 11). However, the cumulative fatality risk is less than the relevant DP&E criterion

for most of the lot areas, particularly where residences are likely to be located. In accordance with

Section 2.1.4 of HIPAP No. 4, the residential developments along the southern edge of Area E are

considered acceptable.

The societal risk from the pipelines in the study area is tolerable as the cumulative FN curve does

not extend beyond the ALARP region (Also refer to Section 3.2.4). However, it is relatively close to

the upper ‘intolerable’ criterion line and further population intensification may not be appropriate.

Population intensification beyond that considered in the QRA & LUSS (Refer to Section 2.3) should

only be permitted if the proponent can demonstrate that the societal risk complies with the DP&E’s

criteria (Note: A societal risk analysis is only required with the Development Application if the

proposed development would potentially increase the total population for the applicable lot above

the level assumed in this QRA & LUSS). This potentially applies for the entire precinct; however, it

is particularly relevant for areas A-E on Figure 11.

6.1.2 Planning Proposals

The three planning proposals (refer to Section 5) are generally consistent with the indicative

masterplan and outline land uses that are generally appropriate based on the DP&E’s risk criteria

for land use safety planning.

The planning proposals include some measures that may reduce risk exposure, such as the 10 metre

setback along the north side of Carter Street (which is consistent with the setback specified in the

2016 DCP [Ref. 2]) and locating car parks above ground in the podium levels (Refer to Section 5.2).

The proposed location of the school on the indicative masterplan is preferred as this complies with

the DP&E’s cumulative fatality risk criterion.



Widening of Hill Road (as described in PP No. 2) may extend over the existing pipeline easements in

the open space at the corner of Hill Road and Carter Street (Refer to figure on page 22 of PP No. 2).

This would be a trigger for review of the pipeline Safety Management Plans (Refer to

Recommendation 6 in Section 6.2).

6.1.3 Risk-Based Development Controls

Within the Study Area, there are several areas where the combination of land use zoning and risk

warrants specific risk-based planning controls (Refer to Figure 11).

The risk-based development controls proposed in Section 4 are based on the magnitude of the

cumulative individual fatality risk and societal risk relative to the DP&E’s quantitative risk criteria for

land use safety planning (Refer to Section 3.3), as well as other relevant risk considerations (e.g.

locations of pipeline easements).

6.2 Recommendations

Recommendations for each relevant stakeholder are listed below.

Planning Authority

1. The planning authority should implement the proposed risk-based planning controls, as

outlined in Section 4, as soon as practicable. Exactly how this is achieved will need to be

determined by the planning authority as some of the proposed controls will only apply to

some parts of the Study Area and should not be applied to all other similarly zoned areas

defined within the current LEP and DCP.

In particular, population intensification beyond that considered in the QRA & LUSS (Refer

to Section 2.3) should only be permitted if the proponent can demonstrate that the

societal risk complies with the DP&E’s criteria published in HIPAP No. 10. Development

applications and planning proposals for rezoning should only be permitted if the risks

comply with the relevant risk criteria for strategic land use safety planning published in

HIPAP No. 10 (including, but not limited to, the DP&E’s qualitative risk and societal risk

criteria).

2. The locations of the pipeline easements (including above and below ground pipework) in

the Study Area should be surveyed and marked on an appropriate plan (and/or electronic

GIS system) for inclusion in the next revision of the LEP and DCP.

Consent Authority

3. The consent authority should implement the amended LEP and DCP incorporating the

proposed risk-based planning controls, as outlined in Recommendation No. 1, as soon as

practicable.

4. The consent authority should ensure that the information required to be submitted by

Proponents in the Study Area (as per Recommendations 7 to 10) is received and assessed

accordingly.



5. An approved, and yet to be occupied, child care centre is located near the intersection of

Carter Street and Birnie Road. The cumulative fatality risk at this location is greater than

the DP&E’s criterion for new sensitive use developments (Refer to Figure 9) and the

consent authority should resolve this land use safety conflict by adopting the principles

outlined in Section 4.2.4 of HIPAP No. 10. This might, for example, include relocating the

child care centre further away from the pipelines (e.g. to the northern side of the lot)

and/or implementing other risk mitigation measures (e.g. safe refuge facilities) to protect

the occupants.

Pipeline Operators

6. Each pipeline operator should progressively review and update the Safety Management

Study and Emergency Response Plan for each pipeline in the Study Area (as per Section 11

of AS 2885.3:2012). This should be undertaken as redevelopment progressively occurs

throughout the Study Area (Particularly in Areas A-E – Refer to Figure 11). The reviews

should consider all safety aspects for these pipelines (e.g. including prevention and

mitigation of escalation to adjacent pipelines; detection and isolation measures if a leak

occurs; how to prevent damage to the pipelines during the future construction activities,

etc.).

Proponents for Future Development

7. Proponents should demonstrate that appropriate consultation has occurred with the

pipeline operators. Consultation should occur as soon as is practicable, with the primary

aim to ensure that the potential impacts of the development on the existing potentially

hazardous pipelines (and vice-versa) are clearly understood and will be appropriately

managed (also refer to Recommendations 8 to 10).

8. It should be ensured that construction activities in the Study Area (Particularly in Areas A-

E – Refer to Figure 11) do not impact upon the existing potentially hazardous pipelines.

The proponent should demonstrate how this will be achieved.

9. New, or modified, occupied buildings in Areas A-E (Refer to Figure 11) should be

constructed with due regard of the fire and explosion hazards posed by the pipelines. The

proponent should demonstrate how protection of the building occupants has been

incorporated into the building design (e.g. through use of appropriate non-combustible

materials (cladding etc.), fire-rated walls, sizing and location of windows and balconies,

measures to minimise smoke ingress, use of impermeable barriers to prevent ingress of

gas / liquid / vapour into underground basements / car parks, etc.).

10. Emergency refuge and/or egress arrangements should be provided for all new, or

modified, buildings in Areas A-E (Refer to Figure 11). This is to ensure the safety of building

occupants in the event of an incident involving a pipeline. The proponent should

demonstrate how this has been incorporated into the building design (e.g. through the

use of fire rated emergency egress stairwells, egress to a safe location on the far side of

the building away from the pipelines, shelter-in-place facilities, etc.) and should prepare

appropriate emergency response plan/s for use by the building occupants.



7 REFERENCES

1. Architectus, 23 January 2017, Submission to DPE / master plan review.

2. Department of Planning and Environment, 13 January 2016, Carter Street Precinct,

Development Control Plan 2016.

3. Department of Planning and Environment, August 2017, Carter Street Precinct, Preparation

of Hazards and Risks Assessment, Consultancy Scope of Works, PROC-2000651.

4. Department of Planning and Infrastructure, January 2011, HIPAP 4: Risk Criteria for Land

Use Safety Planning.

5. Department of Planning and Infrastructure, January 2011, HIPAP 10: Land Use Safety

Planning.

6. e8urban, May 2018, Indicative Masterplan.

7. NSW Government, Auburn Local Environmental Plan 2010.

8. SJB Architects, 19 July 2017, Urban Design Report for 1-13 Carter Street and 23 Uhrig Road.

9. SJB Architects, 19 May 2017, Urban Design Analysis and Masterplan Concept for 12-14 Birnie

Avenue.

10. Standards Australia, AS 2885.1—2012, Pipelines—Gas and liquid petroleum, Part 1: Design

and construction.

11. Standards Australia, AS 2885.3—2012, Pipelines—Gas and liquid petroleum, Part 3:

Operation and maintenance.



Appendices



Appendix A Land Use Zones from Auburn LEP

A.1 Zone B2 Local Centre

1 Objectives of zone

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the

needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

• To encourage high density residential development.

• To encourage appropriate businesses that contribute to economic growth.

• To achieve an accessible, attractive and safe public domain.

2 Permitted without consent

Nil

3 Permitted with consent

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities;

Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes; Information

and education facilities; Medical centres; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities

(indoor); Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises;

Roads; Self-storage units; Service stations; Serviced apartments; Shop top housing; Tourist and

visitor accommodation; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in

item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and

repair facilities; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism

boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity

generating works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive

industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage

establishments; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets;

Industrial training facilities; Industries; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Open cut mining; Port

facilities; Recreation facilities (major); Research stations; Residential accommodation; Rural

industries; Sewerage systems; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Transport depots; Waste or

resource management facilities; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wharf or

boating facilities; Wholesale supplies

A.2 Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor


• To promote businesses along main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses.

• To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial

uses).

• To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity.




Nil


Building identification signs; Bulky goods premises; Business identification signs; Business premises;

Community facilities; Food and drink premises; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies;

Hotel or motel accommodation; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Markets;

Neighbourhood shops; Passenger transport facilities; Plant nurseries; Roads; Timber yards; Vehicle

sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in

item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and

repair facilities; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism

boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating

works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm

buildings; Forestry; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Highway service centres; Home

occupations (sex services); Industrial training facilities; Industries; Marinas; Mooring pens;

Moorings; Open cut mining; Port facilities; Recreation facilities (major); Research stations;

Residential accommodation; Restricted premises; Retail premises; Rural industries; Sewerage

systems; Sex services premises; Signage; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Waste or resource

management facilities; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wharf or boating

facilities

A.3 Zone R4 High Density Residential


• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential

environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of

residents.

• To encourage high density residential development in close proximity to bus service nodes

and railway stations.


Nil


Attached dwellings; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Hostels; Hotel or motel accommodation; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Roads; Semi-detached dwellings; Shop top housing; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4 Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Amusement centres; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Commercial premises; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Electricity generating works; Entertainment



facilities; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Function centres; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Information and education facilities; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Passenger transport facilities; Port facilities; Recreation facilities (major); Registered clubs; Research stations; Residential accommodation; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Service stations; Sewerage systems; Sex services premises; Signage; Storage premises; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Vehicle repair stations; Veterinary hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste or resource management facilities; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wharf or boating facilities; Wholesale supplies

A.4 Zone RE1 Public Recreation


• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• To protect open space at riparian and foreshore locations.


Nil


Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Depots; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Markets; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Water recreation structures

4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

A.5 Zone SP2 Infrastructure


• To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

• To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision

of infrastructure.


Nil


The purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map, including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to development for that purpose; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Car parks; Community facilities; Depots; Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Freight transport facilities; Funeral homes; Kiosks; Markets; Mortuaries; Passenger transport facilities; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Roads



4 Prohibited

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3

Documents

Land Use Safety Study - planning.nsw.gov.au