Kangy Angy is a problematic choice

Flood prone land under water at Kangy AngyFlood prone land under water at Kangy Angy

[Forum] I am an aesthete, and I regularly view the site of the proposed rail facility at Kangy Angy when commuting via the railway there.

Following on from previous articles in the Chronicle, I wish to state that the subject of stormwater detention will need to be conformed with under the usual best practice seen in most level government areas, and be open to public scrutiny. The arithmetic for stormwater detention calculations will have to be determined on the whole of the site. Volumes for extreme rainfall events will have to be calculated. Our Council has expertise in this area and will have to be the consent authority for transport for NSW’s stormwater detention plans.

This is a fair call, our NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, would agree. The order of the day will be a massive bund (wall) surrounding the site and/ or very huge detention pits, combined with many multiples of 100,000 litre water tanks to take roof water. Suitability for enviro cycle or septic tanks would also need to be assessed. By way of comparison, a duplex site in a Sydney suburb of 750m2, requires detention capability of some 40,000 litres in addition to rainwater tanks. There can be no doubt then that as stated by Kevin Armstrong in the Forum of the WRC edition 138, that there will be “significant engineering challenges” which could be well to the order of mega-litres. As an aesthete, I am opposed to the Kangy Angy rail facility proposals.

Letter, Apr 24 Graham Hansen, Wyong

Previous article on Kangy Angy Rail Maintenance 

Similar stories