Member for Lyndhurst, Martin Pakula, has today used Parliament to urge the Napthine Government to think about the amenity of Lyndhurst residents before charging ahead with its plans for the Port of Hastings.

In the 2013-14 Victorian Budget, the Napthine Government has committed $110 million to the development of the Port of Hastings. 

Mr Pakula said the Napthine Government’s search for a second container port for Victoria has thus far only considered the Port of Hastings and given no serious thought to other options. In 2011, the now Premier was advised that the Bay West option had a number of
advantages and was an option that warranted further investigation. 

The same Departmental brief outlined downsides with regard to Hastings, including how many containers it could accommodate, and issues with the road rail corridor. 

“How much consideration does the new Minister for Ports give to Bay West? He describes it as a “dot on the map” “a concept” and says it does not stack up.”

“This Government is going to send hundreds of extra trucks and freight trains through this electorate every day without properly considering departmental advice and clearly without thinking about the amenity  of the communities of Lyndhurst, Lynbrook, Hampton Park and Dandenong South “, said Mr Pakula.

In recent Public and Accounts Estimates Committee (PAEC) hearings, the Minister for Ports, produced a map detailing the likely road rail corridor. It shows the road / rail corridor running right through the heart of the suburbs of Hampton Park, Lyndhurst and
Lynbrook, through Dandenong South, on the way to the Dandenong line and the M1. 

Mr Pakula said, “The map will make residents in my electorate of Lyndhurst shudder. It will mean hundreds of extra truck and freight train movements every day and an enormous increase in pressure on the Dandenong rail corridor.” 

“In the interests of the quality of life of residents in my electorate –I am urging the Minister for Ports and the Premier to consider the Bay West option properly and release the comparative cost study, the modelling assumptions and the site selection report that have so far been suppressed by his Department.”