Rejected objections
Objections relating to the need for the Zuidasdok project, or concerning the road design, air quality, water management and the impact on local flora and fauna were declared to be unfounded by the Council of State. The same applies to objections based primarily on people’s anxiety that the construction work will result in severe nuisance.
Objection to noise nuisance
The Council of State finds that there is insufficient clarity concerning the impact of noise on a home and a houseboat located near the Amstelbruggen bridges. In response to the question of how the reflection of sound between the bridges is calculated, better supporting evidence is needed.
Road safety and environmental safety
The Council of State has doubts about the type of crash barrier selected for use at two specific locations. One of these sites is the fly-over at the De Zuidcirkel building, the other is situated close to an objector’s houseboat near the Amstelbruggen bridges. A further investigation will be conducted to assess the risk of a heavy truck smashing through the crash barrier and to determine what type of barrier is needed to prevent this. Based on the results of this investigation, the Minister will, if necessary, make a further comprehensive assessment of the impact of the Routing Decision on these two objectors.
Doing our homework
‘We have attempted to provide as much supporting evidence as possible concerning all of the project’s impacts’, says Project Director Hans Versteegen, of the Zuidasdok project office. ‘With regard to these three points, we’ll just have to do our homework even more thoroughly. We are now putting every effort into this.’
Martijn Overmulder (Zuidasdok Area Manager) points out that contacts with people in the surrounding area go further than this legal procedure. ‘We have to work together over the next ten years, and that will only be possible if there are ongoing, frank and open discussions and constructive cooperation. We will continue to actively involve people in the surrounding area, i.e. everyone who has lodged an appeal. We will also endeavour to minimize any construction nuisance – and to alleviate any associated concerns – wherever possible. If, in the process, we should inadvertently overlook something or someone, we would, of course, like to hear about it.’
What now?
The Council of State has given us 16 weeks to deal with these ‘shortcomings’ in the Routing Decision. The remaining objectors will then have four weeks in which to submit their formal responses. Once that has happened, the Council of State will provide details of the subsequent procedure.
Formal responses and appeals
The designs for the Routing Decision and the Zoning Plan were made available for inspection in 2015. At that time, 176 formal responses were submitted. This prompted the project organization to initiate discussions with many of those who had submitted responses. As a result, the plans were subsequently fine-tuned. The Amsterdam city council and the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment subsequently adopted the plans in 2016. Anyone who disagreed with these decisions was free to lodge an appeal with the Council of State. In the end, appeals from 16 objectors were dealt with.
Further details
Read the full statement by the Council of State. If you need more information, please get in touch with us. You can do so by adding a comment at the end of this article, by calling us at +31-(0)800 5065 or by emailing us at contact@zuidas.nl.
Give your opinion