We're continuing to document this issue and will be seeking independent review of the decision-making process.

If you believe major infrastructure decisions should be transparent and evidence-based, please share this thread.

15/15

This isn't just about noise walls.

It's about administrative transparency.

If government changes a commitment affecting public health, shouldn't the evidence supporting that decision be available for public scrutiny?

14/15

@mon4kooyong.bsky.social

This matters beyond one neighbourhood.

Every Victorian affected by a major infrastructure project should expect:
• genuine consultation
• transparent decision-making
• equal application of health protections
• access to the evidence supporting decisions.
@sophietorney.bsky.social
13/15

Residents participated in the 2025 consultation process believing their feedback could influence the outcome.

But if no allowance for planned freeway closures had been made to allow for noise wall construction, the question arises:

How open was that consultation process?

12/15

Available evidence suggests a possible explanation.

Replacing the walls would require additional freeway closures that were not planned within the current construction program.

If so, that has major implications for understanding how this decision was made.

11/15

This raises yet more questions.

If new noise walls are technically feasible, why are the old noise walls being retained?

And why is this community being wedged by an impossible choice between protection of tress and new efficient noise walls?

10/15

Residents were also told that new walls could only be constructed from the residential side, resulting in unacceptable tree loss. We were told to choose: trees or noise walls.

But this is not the only option: the existing walls were originally built from the freeway side.

9/15

The community submitted this evidence to the Victorian Government.

To date, residents have not received a substantive response addressing the technical issues they raised.

8/15

Without access to the Govt's assessment, the community conducted its own research.

The evidence they found suggested the existing plywood walls:

• are beyond their design life
• do not meet sustainability & performance standards
• will require increasing maintenance over time

7/15

Residents asked the Govt straightforward question:

What engineering assessments support this decision?

They requested the reports & data determining that 30-year-old plywood walls could continue performing for decades into the future.

This material has not been released.

6/15

Then everything changed.

In 2025 the Victorian Government announced the old plywood walls would instead be retained.

The community was told these walls would be repaired, painted and expected to continue providing protection for another 30 years.

5/15

In 2019 the Victorian Government advised these walls would be replaced as part of the Eastern Freeway Upgrade.

This was shown in the Environmental Effects Statement and associated alignment plans.

Residents therefore expected replacement with modern noise barriers.

4/15

Background.

In the early 1990s these plywood noise walls were installed after community advocacy.

They met the standards of their day.

Today they are more than 30 years old and at the end of their intended design life.

3/15

This is about an 800-metre section of ageing plywood noise walls beside the Eastern Freeway protecting a neighbourhood of around 500 homes.

The question is simple:

Why are these 30-year-old walls being retained while other communities receive new walls built to current standards?

2/15

Know & name the #AtlasNetwork enemy, fight tooth & nail to shut down fossil fuel & its finance at home and globally. Solar sovereignty, solar democracy, solar independence: or subordination to the dying, corrupt Anglo-American oil empire.

Solar, wind, batteries, EVs are machines that kill fascism

“The human right to shelter has been made dependent, in Australia today, on the whims of an investor class for whom housing is primarily a commodity rather than something designed to meet basic human needs.” redflag.org.au/article/weve...

I would add, if they were smart they would recognise the Greens voter preferences that contributed to their win, and respond accordingly; they can’t benefit from these votes and then ignore them.

👍 I scrutineered in a polling booth where the primaries were (if I recall correctly) Greens: 611. ALP: 532. Lib: 253. The AEC called for a 2CP count (ALP/Lib) and the ALP received the vast majority of the Greens preferences. The seat went to the ALP, but those Greens votes count!