Transport for NSW has dismissed concerns that the Richmond Bridge upgrade has overlooked critical heritage impacts, stating that the project can proceed. However, recent reviews of the Richmond Bridge Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and Statement of Heritage Impact (SoHI) have revealed that essential heritage evaluations were never conducted for the historic 1820 stock route road built by William Cox - an omission experts say could undermine the project's legitimacy.

Investigations show that heritage assessments were absent not only in earlier decision-making phases, including the options selection process, but also in the current REF and SoHI documentation. Of particular concern is the failure to identify or assess the Macquarie-era stock route road, despite explicit advice from Heritage NSW.

“The heritage impacts of this proposal have been misrepresented,” said Penny Sharpe, owner of the historic Durham Bowes home, one of the properties directly affected by the new widened road at Inalls Lane. “We have been asking for five years: Where are those assessments? We had advice from the Minister that the assessment would be part of the REF. It isn’t. Why is there no assessment of these significant heritage items? Why didn’t the consultants include it in the Statement of Impact?”

Sharpe also noted that the Environmental Defenders Office has previously warned that any decision or approval made without the requisite heritage assessments could be legally void. While this advice came from an unrelated proposal, she said it raises serious questions about the integrity of government-funded projects moving forward.

Community members argue that failing to conduct these assessments breaches obligations under Section 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) and contradicts guidance from Heritage NSW.

The Chair of the Australian Garden History Society told the Hawkesbury Post they had written to NSW Minister about the inadequate process of the Transport NSW review of environmental factors for the project and asked her to urgently consider the heritage significance of the cultural landscape of the neighbourhood not just the actual project site. They are still waiting for a reply.

Transport for NSW told the HP that the assessment in the REF has found stock routes could be historically significant. However, they concluded it is unlikely that archaeological remains of stock routes would be present in most of the project area, particularly around Inalls Lane and Southee Road, where the main stock routes historically ran.

“This is due to these routes being previously adapted to become vehicle thoroughfares, along with other uses over time,” Transport for NSW stated. “The assessment considers the proposed project would be unlikely to uncover remains as the project would be mostly built above existing ground levels.”

TfNSW said that Sections 8 and 9 of the SoHI identify potential impacts along with mitigation measures for relic management if anything is uncovered. Transport for NSW maintains that the project can proceed under the REF without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

However, Sharpe rejected this response, arguing that Transport for NSW has effectively dismissed the significance of the 1820 road built by William Cox. “This was part of the first stock route to the north and evidence of early expansion of the colony,” she said. “Its significance is greater than just archaeological remains and requires a proper assessment against the Heritage Council of NSW criteria to fully understand its level of significance. Transport is required to provide these assessments under its obligations in Section 5.1 of the EP&A Act.”

With heritage concerns remaining unresolved, the project’s approval process faces increasing scrutiny, as community members and heritage advocates demand a full and transparent assessment before construction proceeds.