Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Sydney Gateway Road Project

Bayside, City of Sydney, Inner West

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

A new direct high capacity road connection linking the Sydney motorway network at the St Peters interchange with Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport.

Attachments & Resources

Application (2)

Sydney Gateway SSI Application Cover Letter
Scoping Report

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs

EIS (52)

EIS Part A Chapters 1-8 large
EIS Part B Chapters 9-26 large
EIS Part C Chapters 27-29 & Appendices A-G large
TWP 1 Transport, Traffic and Access
TWP 2 Noise and Vibration
TWP 3 Airport Operations
TWP 4 Air Quality
TWP 5 Contamination and Soils
TWP 6 Flooding
TWP 6 Flooding Annexures Part 1
TWP 6 Flooding Annexures Part 2
TWP 7 Groundwater
TWP 8 Surface Water
TWP 9 Statement of Heritage Impact
TWP 10 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment
TWP 11 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment
TWP 12 Business Impact Assessment
TWP 13 Urban Design and LCVIA
TWP 14 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report
TWP 15 Human Health
TWP 16 Former Tempe Landfill Assessment
TWP 17 Odour Assessment
Table of contents, Certification
Executive summary
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
Chapter 1 Introduction & 2 Location and setting
Chapter 3 Statutory context, approval requirements
Chapter 4 Consultation
Chapter 5 Strategic context and project need
Chapter 6 Project alternatives and options
Chapter 7 Project description
Chapter 8 Construction
Chapter 9 Traffic, transport and access
Chapter 10 Noise and vibration
Chapter 11 Airport operations
Chapter 12 Air quality
Chapter 13 Contamination and soils
Chapter 14 Flooding
Chapter 15 Groundwater
Chapter 16 Surface water
Chapter 17 Non-Aboriginal & 18 Aboriginal heritage
Chapter 19 Land use and property
Chapter 20 Socio-economic impacts
Chapter 21 Landscape character and visual amenity
Chapter 22 Biodiversity
Chapter 23 Health, safety and hazards
Chapter 24 Waste management
Chapter 25 Sustainability & 26 Climate change, GHG
Chapter 27 Approach to env. mgmt and mitigation
Chapter 28 Project justification and conclusion
Chapter 29 References
Appendices A to G

Response to Submissions (2)

Request RTS_07012020_024209
Sydney Gateway Road Project Response to Submissions Report

Determination (4)

Assessment Report - Sydney Gateway Project
Assessment Report Appendix E - Traffic and Transport
Sydney Gateway Signed Instrument of Approval
Sydney Gateway Notice Of Decision

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (25)

Place, Design and Landscape Plan (PDLP) Revision H, dated 12 April 2022
Out of Hours Works Protocol E18 rev F, dated 26 Apr 2021
C9 Contaminated Aquatic Sediments in Alexandra Canal Management Sub-plan (CASACMP) v1 - DPE Approval Letter - 08042022
C9 Contaminated Aquatic Sediments in Alexandra Canal Management Sub-plan (CASACMP) v1 - 08042022
CNAHMP Construction Non-Aboriginal Heritage Management Sub-plan Rev F 21 Jun 2021
TTAMP Construction Traffic and Transport Management Sub-Plan Rev F 29 Jun 2021
CGWMP Construction Groundwater Management Sub-plan Rev G 30 Jun 2021
CASACMP Construction Contaminated Aquatic Sediments in Alexandra Canal Management Sub-plan Rev H 10 Ju 2021
NVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Sub-plan Rev F 29 Jun 2021
SWMP Construction Soil and Water Management Sub-Plan Rev F 29 Jun 2021
FFMP Construction Flora and Fauna Management Sub-Plan Rev F 04 May 2021
LLOGMP Construction Landfill Leachate, Gas and Odour Management Sub-plan Rev H. 3 Aug 2021
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan Rev 2 28 Mar 2021
B1-B6 Communication Strategy (v1 Jan 2021) - DPE approval 05 Feb 2021
E52 Local Roads request- DPE Approval 13 Apr 2021
Sydney Gateway Communication Strategy_V1 Jan2021
A15 Site Establishment Management Plan (Rev 2. 08 Apr 2021) - DPE approval 16 Apr 2021
Site Establishment Management Plan Rev 2. 08 April 2021
E18 Out of hour works protocol (rev F 26 Apr 2021) - DPE Approval 28 Apr 2021
E51 Sustainability Management Plan Rev E 16.04.2021
CEMP (rev 2 28 Mar 2021) and sub-plans - DPE Approval 06 Aug 2021
E31 Operational Noise and Vibration Review Report (ONVR rev F, 22 Apr 2022) - DPE approval 6 May 2022
Operational Noise and Vibration Review Report ONVR rev F, 22 Apr 2022
E78 Place, Design and Landscape Plan (PDLP) (Rev H, 12 Apr 2022) - DPE Approval 20 Apr 2022
E46 Remediation Action Plan – Former Tempe Landfill rev 7. 24 Sep 2021 - DPE letter 8 Sept 2021

Community Consultative Committees and Panels (2)

E67 Nomination of Independent and Qualified Practitioners - DPE Approval 16 Jul 2021
Request for Approval of PDLP Practitioners

Reports (7)

ER Monthly Report May 2021 Acknowledgment Letter
ER Monthly Report Mar 2021 Acknowledgment Letter
LLGO Monitoring Results September 2021
DPE letter - LLGO Monitoring Report - Dec2021
LLGO Construction Monitoring Report-December 2021
C24 Monthly Construction Monitoring Reports for Landfill Leachate, Gas and Odour – October 2021 - DPE letter 18 Feb 2022
LLGO Construction Monitoring Report November 2021 Acknowledgement Letter

Independent Reviews and Audits (1)

Appointment of Experts_14102022_045706

Notifications (3)

A27 Notice of Commencement. Letter dated 2 June 2021
A31 Agreement to Independent Auditors - DPE approval 30 May 2022
A37 Report on Commencement - 19 Mar 2021

Other Documents (3)

Extension Requests Operational Noise Mitigation Measures - DPE Letter 18 Feb 2022
E37 TfNSW letter to DPIE dated 8 Sept 2021
A21 Nomination of Environmental Representatives - DPE approval 24 Nov 2020

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

26/05/2022

15/12/2021

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 91 submissions
Graeme Turner
Comment
SOUTH COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
I regularly use the bike path along Alexandria Canal from Mascot to Tempe Reserve.
The project needs to ensure that this easy straight forward link for bicycles around the Airport will continue during and after the project
Name Withheld
Comment
EASTGARDENS , New South Wales
Message
While this project will go some way alleviate motor vheicle congestion in an othwerise ill-suited surface road environmented, it does little to suport local resident to access their largest employer and no.1 destination in any way other than a car.
The Sydney Gateway urgently needs to include infrastructure to support (non-vehicular) community access from the east - particularly active transport paths and corridors alongside Joyce, or Rposs Smith Drive.
Despite recent roads access upgrades - Wentworth Avenue and the Airport East continue to be extremely unsafe for bicycles and pedestrian - providing close to zero amenity for active transport in what is a major local and regioanl destination within close walking and cycling reach. In 2019 where cities around the world (and Australia) ensure high-quality active transport facilities are built alongside major road projects, the lack of foresight to include an airport active transport 'orbital' in this NSW Government project is concerning.
I ask please, could the project team seek to ensure high-quality airport access is achieved for active transport especially from the east - either through a Joyce Drive or Ross Smith Drive active transport 'orbital' corridor.
Name Withheld
Comment
EASTGARDENS , New South Wales
Message
- Please ensure bus and active transport infrastructure is included to enable safe access to the domestic terminal.

It is well known that access into Sydney's Domestic Airport is currently very poorly serviced for anyone other than motor vehicles. This project only solidifies the NSW Government's position on its preference to provide motor vehicle (and motorway) infrastructure at the cost of other - more sustainable and well-proven cost-effective modes of transport. It is clear that The Gateway does not service the transport needs of the local community, rather enabling motorway access for users from destination a great further afield in Sydney.

Sydney Airport is in the enviable position of being extremely close to its global city's CBD. It is surrounding by dense residential communites that would otherwise should have efficient access to this major global hub by both bus transit, and active transport. There should, and needs to be safe, separated bicycle paths (preferred over shared paths) leading from Alexandria Canal, the CBD and from the East directly linking those precincts to the domestic terminal and otherwise enabling an east-west (across the airport) community access link. Kudos to the Airport for their effort with the pedestrian and bicyle bridge at T1, however access to that bridge is still somewhat limited from a number of directions. This project can rectify some of those unsfae and poor community access needs.

If safe and efficient active transport infrastructure can be included in this project (it really is a must), the local community and many of the 30,000 airport workers will see the immediate benefits that just a simple plath can provide. There is just enormous demand for it. With high quality active transport options, workers and visitor alike will be drawn to amend their journey to work to a more efficent, cheaper, healthier and interesting mode of transpot to the Airport. Such simple infrastructure are considered 'quick wins' for projects of this scale, and mandating high-quality active transport provisions will ensure this project leaves a legacy - that would otherwise not be able to be achieved in the area for at least another generation. The time to include these provisions is now.

The local community will be indebted to you if you can see deliver public and active transport infrastructure as part of this project.
Name Withheld
Comment
MATCHAM , New South Wales
Message
Can you confirm where the access along Link Road connects to. At the intersection it doesn't seem to connect to any other paths - how is it meant to be accessed?
Name Withheld
Support
MASCOT , New South Wales
Message
To provide access ramps from Canal Road Mascot 2020 to the Sydney Gateway Project.
Because b doubles and semi trailer vehicles have no access to the Sydney Gateway from there yards i.e. NSW Ports Yard to service Port Botany but to travel along local roads through out the day and night.
Once at Port Botany the Sydney Gateway and West Connex are available to these vehicles to leave for there destination and to return to Port Botany.
Name Withheld
Support
MASCOT , New South Wales
Message
Adding to my last submission, as the rail network is only able to move about 20% of freight from Port Botany and the remaining with semi trailers, should not the holding yards for the semi trailers and containers be near or next to the Port Botany freight terminals as at this time the holding yards are at several different locations one being at NSW Ports on Canal Road St Peters that have no access to either West Connex or Sydney Gateway, which then the semi trailers that service Port Botany have no option but to travel through local roads 24/7. If a yard for semi trailers and containers is located at the Port Botany site they would have direct access to all major road links and better service the future increase of freight movement.
Ivan Fransen
Comment
KYLE BAY , New South Wales
Message
Viewing the plans it is noticeable that the cycle way has been extended and worse they are 4 x 90 degree corners. The road bridge is on an angle so the corners are smooth. Can the cycle bridge be designed to accommodate corners more suitable for cycling.
Name Withheld
Object
TEMPE , New South Wales
Message
I live in Tempe in a property that only has parkland between my home and the Gateway link into the International terminal.
AIR QUALITY: I am extremely concerned that the project will increase the level of air pollution in an area that is already reported to be impacted by air pollution levels in excess of the NSW criterion of 50 micrograms per cubic metre. Instead of adding to unsafe air quality levels the Government should be focused on reducing the existing breaches of the limits set by the NSW Government.
NOISE: I am concerned that the noise impact on my home, which has nothing but park until the roadside, will experience considerably more of a reduction in amenity than the present reports propose. There is no road in the present location so given where I live it is inappropriate to simply compare to background noise in the broader region because the Princes Highway noise does not impact my home but the Gateway will. The removal of the shipping containers will also allow noise to travel towards my home that was previously disrupted by the many containers permanently in place.
NOISE, POLUTION and TRAFFIC FLOW: I am dismayed that there will be 6 lanes of traffic heading from the International Terminal towards the Domestic Terminal that will be regularly interrupted by a set of traffic lights. The RMS gave me reasons that were entirely in the interests of the airport and the cost to the RMS to build. A solution that allows the trucks to leave the airport without causing 6 lanes to stop every few minutes must be properly considered.
PARKLANDS and COMMUNITY RESOURCES: I strongly urge RMS to consult closely with the Inner West Council about adopting the measures included in the Tempe Reserve Plan of Management (available Council website). The TW16 Former Tempe Landfill Assessment includes only a small proportion of the parkland and community resources proposed in the Tempe Reserve Plan of Management. These public spaces are used by many people from across the Inner West and South Sydney so all the investment will be heavily used and appreciated.
PRE-INSPECTION REPORTS: RMS should confirm with Tempe residents which homes will be provided pre-inspection reports.
DAMAGE CLAIMS: the RMS must ensure that the process for lodging damage claims is not unfairly opaque and delayed. I am still waiting for RMS to make the effort to attend my property to make any assessment of the damage the New M5 WestConnex tunnel caused and I've been in the independent RMS panel list for many months.
City of Sydney
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission
Attachments
Bicycle NSW
Comment
Sydney Olympic P , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Comment
BONDI BEACH , New South Wales
Message
I endorse the submissions made by Bicycle NSW.

In particular, while retention of the share path along Alexandra Canal is welcomed (albeit it involves a longer, less-direct route than currently exists), there is an urgent need for Major Projects such as this to pay proper attention to building active transport infrastructure at the same time. The failure to do so is short-sighted, and retro-fitting cycling infrastructure is significantly more expensive.

In particular, the difficulty of accessing the domestic terminal at Sydney Airport by bike is absurd given the large volume of workers, passengers and visitors that would benefit from such links. The current arrangements are unsafe and unattractive to even confident, experienced riders, and unfathomable to the less experienced. That has been exacerbated by the abrupt closure of footpaths on O'Riordan street during current construction with no warning or alternative routes indicated.

It is untenable for TfNSW to continue to pay lip-service to increasing active transport modal share (with all the attendant economic, health and environmental benefits including from reduced traffic congestion) while it fails to deliver safe cycling infrastructure as part of major projects.

It is imperative that this project delivers safe, separated cycling infrastructure to all Sydney Airport terminals and connections to surrounding suburbs.
Australian Logistics Council
Comment
BARTON , Australian Capital Territory
Message
Please see attached submission.
Attachments
Fiona Campbell
Object
Sydney South , New South Wales
Message
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Sydney Gateway EIS.
I object to the project in its current form. It should not be approved until it meets its stated benefit for Sydney, “to make it easier, faster and safer to get to the airport” for ALL customers, because in its current form it does not comply with NSW Government policies and plans, as detailed in the attached submission.
Attachments
Michael Clement
Comment
TEMPE , New South Wales
Message
Currently you can walk or cycle to the domestic terming from the south along airport drive. The new plan does not have a connection to the domestic airport . Please include walking and cycling to the domestic airport along the existing airport drive connecting to the new cycling/walking route that will run along alexandria canal
Department of Primary Industries
Support
,
Message
The Department of Primary Industries has reviewed this project and has no comment.
Bike Marrickviile
Object
NEWTOWN , New South Wales
Message
The Gateway Project increases access to the Airport for motor vehicle traffic using a roadway which excludes people riding bicycles. The project as proposed promotes the highest per person greenhouse emission transport mode while excluding one of the lowest. This major roadworks project is a rare opportunity to provide a separated cycle path into the domestic terminal yet it fails to do so. Once completed, it will be a long time before there will be another opportunity. The NSW Government on page 18 of their 2013 Policy "Sydney's Cycling Future" identified a cycleway from the Alex Canal to the airport as a Strategic Bicycle Corridor and promised
"
We will complete missing links in bike routes from surrounding areas in St George, the Eastern Suburbs, Inner Sydney and the
Inner West. "
Therefore I call on the NSW government to reject the current proposal and to work with SACL to include separated cycleways to the domestic terminal from the Alexandra Canal Cycleway and also connecting to the Eastern Suburbs.
Eleri Morgan-Thomas
Comment
ERSKINEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
It's great that you are diverting the existing bike path to maintain connectivity and the proposed route is fine with me. I use it regularly. However, there is a missed opportunity to fix up connectivity to the airport and particularly the Domestic Terminal. It's all very well giving great access for cars, but the more cars there are, the greater the congestion likely. I often ride to the airport, particularly for day trips. It's not an easy trip by public transport but a short ride to the airport by bicycle. But the section where Bourke Road crosses Coward Street and intersects with O'Riordan into the airport is terrible by bicycle. It would be great if Coward Street joined up with the Airport easily and safely. It's a small investment in infrastructure that will improve access. Lots of people ask me about cycling to the airport but are deterred by that section. I suggest referring to the Future Transport Plan 2050 particularly
Outcome 3
Walking or cycling is the most convenient option for short trips around centres and local areas, supported by a safe road environment and suitable pathways
The greenhouse one is always relevant for cycling as well
Outcome 12
A resilient transport system that contributes to the NSW Government's objective of net-zero emissions by 2050
There is also scope to improve the cycling access on the Marsh Street Bridge. It's hard to know why that pathway can't be widened on the International side and dedicated to cyclists.
Stephen Laws
Comment
TEMPE , New South Wales
Message
The Sydney Gateway Road Project would be greatly improved and would cause almost no impact on nearby resident if the road was put underground from as soon as the road crosses the Alexandra canal Tempe to Swamp Road. I believe this would add minimal cost and save money on building a sound diversion wall.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Comment
CRONULLA , New South Wales
Message
My comments relate to the poor cycling infrastructure the Sydney Gateway rd Project has planned.
For more than 5 years I have commuted to the domestic terminal at Sydney airport where I work. Most of the journey from Cronulla to the Eve st cycle way is either marked cycling routes on back streets and a few cycle/shared paths.
I used to be able to ride along the south side of the Giovanni Brunetti bridge and then loop underneath the flyover at the eastern end and join up with the Alexandria canal path parallel with Qantas drive. To get to the domestic terminal it requires quite a bit of luck and mental strength to ride along Qantas drive where the path ends to get to the terminal, or ride up Coward st to O'Riordan st and along to the terminal. Both routes fraught with danger, but the NSW government doesn't realise that quite a few people do this to get to work as there is no alternative cycle safe way to do it.

When the roadworks at the international terminal were recently completed, the loop path under the flyover to the terminal was closed, no consultation and the alternative requires you to cross 2 busy intersections and ride 2km further through Tempe park. Yeah thanks for that.

Now with the Gateway project you wanted to close the Alexandria canal path with no real alternative. This is a highly utilised cycling route. Not everyone in Sydney wants to sit in a car to get to work but the NSW would prefer that we do so that we can pay tolls to private toll companies.

With the traffic around the airport always busy it would make sense to build a fit for purpose path to bot terminals and have secure end of trip facilities so that air travelers who may only be doing a day trip have an alternative way to get to the airport and lock up their bikes, and with more and more new migrants working at Sydney airport, a lot of these people depend on a bike as their soles means of transport, having a safer way for these people to commute would make the roads safer as well. I have seen many migrant workers battle the busy Sydney roads oblivious to the dangers that they are facing, not wanting to ride on a footpath for the fear that they will cop a fine for doing so.

Now is the time to do something and do it correctly. Instead of the way the NSW government normally does things, and that is build it then rebuild it in 5 years time to get it right.
WalkSydney
Comment
GLEBE , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached. Thank you
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-9737
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Road transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Bayside, City of Sydney, Inner West
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Belinda Scott