Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham

Dear Planning NSW,

St Peters/Erskineville is a growing area which is currently serviced by a reliable and frequent train service.

The reports of these two stations being downgraded to a frequency level of half of what is currently there (down to every half hour in off peak) is absolutely ludicrous to say the least when there are thousands more residents moving in to the area every year.

I support the metro project and can see the benefit of another metro station in the St Peters/Erskineville area in addition to the train stations there currently as I know there is community support for public transport here.

The metro is a fantastic idea and it is something that Sydney needs, however, it should never come with a condition of downgrading the services to our suburbs, where residents like ourselves, who don't own a vehicle, have purposefully moved into an area where there is a frequent and reliable service.

Why can't St Peters and Erskineville become metro stations as well? Why would an area which is growing so rapidly with apartments with no car parking be downgraded?

I myself have a heart condition where if my defibrillator goes off, I can't drive for 6 months, public transport for people like me is REALLY important. Public transport for people who care about the environment enough to shun a private vehicle is also really important.

Residents in areas like St Peters and Erskineville have bought their properties on the understanding that a reliable and frequent public transport system goes through there, to have that downgraded not only has a hugely negative impact on their lives, it also makes their property less valuable.

We have had a freeway planned for our area which will destroy the feel of the area, no one wants it, no one here needs it. Please don't destroy the area even more with less trains.

We need more public transport, not less.

Thank you,

Regards,

John Andrew (Andy) Leonard

I urge you to approve additional stations at Alexandria and St Peters.

Please consider the following points.
- Current area transport is inadequate
- Urban Growth agenda projects massive population increases
Alexandria Metro provides for the DOUBLING of the area's population AND alleviates pressure on Erskineville station
overcrowding
- Metro Alexandria would reduce road network grid lock (60,000 cars added via Westconnex, 1,600 cars from ATP, new Alex High Super School, 2,200 students, Ashmore Estate 8,000 new residents etc etc)
- Metro St Peters would provide rail to bus interchange location to 'connect Metro systemically' to surface public transport

The addition of extra Metro stations will deliver lasting value, enabling an entirely reconfigured, future oriented and progressively improving district. It would deliver a mass-transit 'spine' integration all public transport with cross-town interconnectivity from distant residential areas to high job-growth areas (Green Square and the Global Economic Corridor).

I urge you to provide added Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters and integrate the inner-city suburbs into the Metro plan.

While supporting the overall project
I would strongly object to the spoil(dirt) & back filling from the hole for the cutter be taken out by Blues point road.
Blues point rd is the only road in and out of mcmahons pt.
it is congested particularly in peak hour. It is a local restaurant and shopping strip so has high pedestrian traffic.
Secondly it leads to north sydney (pacific hwy) which has a history the highest pedestrian accidents in NSW.
There are in the order of 8 schools and 4 preschools in the area plus childcare facilities.
There is also the noise factor of he trucks going uphill to north sydney.
The very purpose of the Sydney metro project is to reduce road traffic.
There is an alternative to road readily available being the wharf facilitiy at the end of Blues point rd.

Please provide an additional station to service the Alexandria area. The suburb is currently growing rapidly residentially and this process will continue. Current public transport is inadequate for current need. New residents will require additional transport. As the rail line currently tunnels under the Alexandria area, please add a station to the current plans for use of the local community.

I think this is an excellent project overall and I believe the decision to use single-deck metro trains in this area is the right one. However I believe the route from Central to Sydenham has been very poorly chosen.

For the section from Central to Sydenham, Waterloo was chosen over Sydney University. The proposed station at Waterloo is already within close walking distance to not one but two existing train stations (Redfern and Green Square), while Sydney Uni is much further away. Additionally the new station will be less than 200 m from the existing airport line tunnel. If a new station is so vital for Waterloo, why can't a new station be created at Waterloo along the existing airport line and instead route the new line to areas that do not currently have rail? As the need for a station at Waterloo is further into the future (Sydney Uni's need is immediate), this could be done once this metro project has been completed (and possibly convert the airport line to metro too).

Also I was surprised at how few stations there are between Central and Sydneyham (one). The existing heavy rail has three and metro systems can handle stations closer together. In such a high density area stations should be much closer together (say around 1 km) - I couldn't imagine any other city having such widely-space stations so close to the CBD. A better route between Central and Sydenham would be something like Central - Victoria Park (Sydney Uni East) - RPA (Sydney Uni West) - Newtown - Enmore Park - Sydenham.

I object to the building of the City and Southwest Metro on the following grounds:

- The metro is not about providing more passenger capacity across suburban rail network; it is just a facilitation of over development of Waterloo, Sydenham and around all the stations on the Bankstown line. The metro would destroy communities by displacing existing residents and creating high rise slums.

- At a cost of $12 billion, the City and Southwest Metro is a very expensive way of increasing track capacity through the CBD. Utilising existing infrastructure a heavy rail link for double deck trains could be built for less than $4 billion.

- The metro would not, as claimed increase capacity across the Sydney Rail Network.The purported 60% increase (stated in the "Have your say" brochure) relies on signalling improvements on existing lines. This is not part of the metro proposal and has evidently been included to mislead the public about the actual capacity increase claimed for the metro.

While I think another railway line through Waterloo is sorely needed in Sydney, and a high frequency service is fantastic, I am opposed to the Metro. Why not build another heavy rail line? That way, it is integrated with the rest of the network and people don't need a separate fare system. Also, transferring services is such a drag and time waster in a person's daily commute. If you're waiting approx 10min on average for your connecting train service (after you've hopped off the metro), that's 20min of your day wasted!

Also, given the length of the line, a single decker carriage is not suitable. My stomach sinks the idea of standing for 30min in a crowded carriage going to work and then returning home after a long hard day at work. In London and Paris, the metro is only used for the inner city rim.

I support the new Sydney Metro

However would like to see solutions to greater pedestrian integration , especially at the Pitt St Station

It has already need identified on page 457 of the full volume EIS that potential impacts of the increased number of pedestrians may have on the surrounding environment

Greater analysis of mitigating this pedestrian impact would be greatly appreciated, including having a station entrance and exit in the block of building between Park , Castlereagh, Bathurst and Pitt streets , thus minimising pedestrians on roads or extending a pedestrian tunnel underneath Pitt street to connect to the Galleries Victoria, allowing pedestrians to reach far to Kent street, King Street , York street Liverpool street whilst being protected against hazards of vehicular traffic

Yours sincerely

Jacky Chan

This objection relates to the EIS SSI 7400 (Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham)
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the project should provide additional Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters. The objection is based on the project's flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling as well as an inadequate public consultation process.
Further detail supporting this objection and the demand for immediate reconsideration and provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters follows.
1. Inadequate transport capacity modelling
The current Metro station selection process was undertaken before several recent infrastructure decisions and therefore requires immediate revision. These decisions significantly bear on the transport requirements of the inner-city. They include the ATP Commonwealth Bank project (11,000 workers, 1,600 cars), the Waterloo Public Housing redevelopment (20,000 residents), the Alexandria Super School (2,200 students), the Ashmore Estate development (6,000 additional residents) and Green Square as a high-job-growth area. Collectively these developments will swamp local road networks, limiting the ability of bus services to scale up to service growing transport needs.
2. Inadequate traffic modelling
The Metro EIS does not model any relationship between the Metro (Waterloo to Sydenham) and Westconnex traffic , despite the Metro line running under McEvoy / Euston Road and St Peters. The EIS has no modelling of additional Metro stations (Alexandria and St Peters) ability to reduce cross-town car use or offset the impact of Westconnex traffic spilling onto the inner-city road network.
3. Inadequate public consultation
Inadequate public consultation has been undertaken with residents of Alexandria, St Peters and Erskineville now that the Metro route from Central to Sydenham has been finalised.
The finalised Metro route (passing under Alexandria and St Peters), announced in February 2016, is still poorly understood by the communities being bypassed. Now that the route is finalised a further meaningful and substantial community consultation process should be undertaken to truly gauge the transport needs of these communities.
4. Additional (Alexandria and St Peters) Metro stations
In light of the flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling and inadequate public consultation process I urge an immediate reconsideration of the provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters. I petition that adding these Metro stations would provide a mass-transit inner-city transport system and cross-town interconnectivity to and from the high jobs growth corridor (Green Square / Airport). It provides mass-transit systems for the areas' doubled population, reduces chronic over-crowding on Erskineville station and reduces inner-city car congestion.

Declaration:
I have made no reportable political donations made in the previous two years.
Yours Faithfully, iain wallace

This objection relates to the EIS SSI 7400 (Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham)
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the project should provide additional Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters. The objection is based on the project's flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling as well as an inadequate public consultation process.
Further detail supporting this objection and the demand for immediate reconsideration and provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters follows.
1. Inadequate transport capacity modelling
The current Metro station selection process was undertaken before several recent infrastructure decisions and therefore requires immediate revision. These decisions significantly bear on the transport requirements of the inner-city. They include the ATP Commonwealth Bank project (11,000 workers, 1,600 cars), the Waterloo Public Housing redevelopment (20,000 residents), the Alexandria Super School (2,200 students), the Ashmore Estate development (6,000 additional residents) and Green Square as a high-job-growth area. Collectively these developments will swamp local road networks, limiting the ability of bus services to scale up to service growing transport needs.
2. Inadequate traffic modelling
The Metro EIS does not model any relationship between the Metro (Waterloo to Sydenham) and Westconnex traffic , despite the Metro line running under McEvoy / Euston Road and St Peters. The EIS has no modelling of additional Metro stations (Alexandria and St Peters) ability to reduce cross-town car use or offset the impact of Westconnex traffic spilling onto the inner-city road network.
3. Inadequate public consultation
Inadequate public consultation has been undertaken with residents of Alexandria, St Peters and Erskineville now that the Metro route from Central to Sydenham has been finalised.
The finalised Metro route (passing under Alexandria and St Peters), announced in February 2016, is still poorly understood by the communities being bypassed. Now that the route is finalised a further meaningful and substantial community consultation process should be undertaken to truly gauge the transport needs of these communities.
4. Additional (Alexandria and St Peters) Metro stations
In light of the flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling and inadequate public consultation process I urge an immediate reconsideration of the provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters. I petition that adding these Metro stations would provide a mass-transit inner-city transport system and cross-town interconnectivity to and from the high jobs growth corridor (Green Square / Airport). It provides mass-transit systems for the areas' doubled population, reduces chronic over-crowding on Erskineville station and reduces inner-city car congestion.


Declaration:
I have made no reportable political donations made in the previous two years.
Yours Faithfully, craig casey

This objection relates to the EIS SSI 7400 (Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham)
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the project should provide additional Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters. The objection is based on the project's flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling as well as an inadequate public consultation process.
Further detail supporting this objection and the demand for immediate reconsideration and provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters follows.
1. Inadequate transport capacity modelling
The current Metro station selection process was undertaken before several recent infrastructure decisions and therefore requires immediate revision. These decisions significantly bear on the transport requirements of the inner-city. They include the ATP Commonwealth Bank project (11,000 workers, 1,600 cars), the Waterloo Public Housing redevelopment (20,000 residents), the Alexandria Super School (2,200 students), the Ashmore Estate development (6,000 additional residents) and Green Square as a high-job-growth area. Collectively these developments will swamp local road networks, limiting the ability of bus services to scale up to service growing transport needs.
2. Inadequate traffic modelling
The Metro EIS does not model any relationship between the Metro (Waterloo to Sydenham) and Westconnex traffic , despite the Metro line running under McEvoy / Euston Road and St Peters. The EIS has no modelling of additional Metro stations (Alexandria and St Peters) ability to reduce cross-town car use or offset the impact of Westconnex traffic spilling onto the inner-city road network.
3. Inadequate public consultation
Inadequate public consultation has been undertaken with residents of Alexandria, St Peters and Erskineville now that the Metro route from Central to Sydenham has been finalised.
The finalised Metro route (passing under Alexandria and St Peters), announced in February 2016, is still poorly understood by the communities being bypassed. Now that the route is finalised a further meaningful and substantial community consultation process should be undertaken to truly gauge the transport needs of these communities.
4. Additional (Alexandria and St Peters) Metro stations
In light of the flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling and inadequate public consultation process I urge an immediate reconsideration of the provision of additional Metro stations for Alexandria and St Peters. I petition that adding these Metro stations would provide a mass-transit inner-city transport system and cross-town interconnectivity to and from the high jobs growth corridor (Green Square / Airport). It provides mass-transit systems for the areas' doubled population, reduces chronic over-crowding on Erskineville station and reduces inner-city car congestion.

Declaration:
I have made no reportable political donations made in the previous two years.
Yours Faithfully, alex walker

I oppose the Sydney Metro construction because it is destroying communities and will result in more and more high density housing along the route. This will result in more, NOT less congestion and be detrimental to quality of health and life in general. Sydney is already choking from such high density housing with it's consequent problems and destroying the character of lovely suburban communities. the privately run Metro will be of course run for profit, not even for commuter comfort and benefit, let alone that of the broader community. It is designed on short term profitability grounds and will only ever allow for single decker trains. The arguments put forward to ostensibly support the benefits of this are easily contoured with examples from overseas experience and current transport initiatives. Why is NSW so beholden to business interests against the interests of the people who actually live here and vote?? I object most absolutely!

I object to the current planning for the Chatswood to Sydenham Metro as it passes under Alexandria, with only One statiob at Waterloo on the 6 km Central-Sydenham section.


Alexandria is currently gridlocked with major developments planned which will add almost double the number of residents.
Adding stations at Alexandria and St Peters will provide needed mass transit. Alexandria Technology park will have 11,000 more residents, Asmore Estate 8,000 , Alexandria Park Super School 2,200. . An Alexandria station would relieve Erkskinville's over crowding and off set 60,000 West Connex cars.

More metro stations will provide mass transit train capacity for the growing population and take local cards off the alrerady saturated roads. Rail can conncet the city to the high-job growth corridor- Green Square to the airport, better than cars.

Further more some homes in Laurence Street and Belmont street, will be compulsory acquired witht the current planning at a depth of 45 metres. If stations were built at Alexandria and St Peters the tunneling would only be up to 25 meters and would create less pollution and.

I object to the EIS statement due to local resident not been given enough information regarding the project or be involved in the planning process. There is also a major lack of planning by not including additional stations at Alexandria and St Peters.

Yours sincerely

I object to Metro as it is not doing anything to remove people congestion in and around Alexandria.

Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham
Submission on EIS - Application Number: SS1 15_7400

I object to the building of the City & Southwest Metro on the following grounds

* At a cost of $12 billion, the City & Southwest Metro is a very expensive way of increasing track capacity through the CBD. There is no information on how this new Metro will affect other lines that already run through the CBD. I believe ripping up existing platforms - particularly platforms 13, 14 and 15 at Central - is particularly shortsighted.
* Why can't existing heavy rail infrastructure be used with increased double deck capacity? Ecotransit says this can be built for less than $4 billion. The proposed Metro is not good value for taxpayer dollars.
* I don't believe the Metro will increase capacity across the Sydney Rail Network, which appears to be the central tenet of this entire proposal. The alleged 60 per cent increase (which is consistently used in any brochures and other literature I have received) relies on improvements on existing lines. This is not part of the actual Metro proposal - certainly in none of the literature I received at the community consultation in Tempe - and I believe this is misleading. How is this 60 per cent figure derived?
* I would like clarified why double deck trains, particularly those with seating, and their capacity have not been used as a comparison, since most Sydney rail passengers would be familiar with these. The numbers are not stacking up. At 30 trains per hour (one every two minutes, and yes no timetable required) the Metro would carry only 36,000 passengers per hour, most of these crammed in Hong Kong sardine style. If the line were built and operated with double decker trains, the capacity would be 45,000 passengers per hour, based on the same frequency. Expecting passengers/customers to stand for 30 minutes, regardless of the frequency, is not mentioned at all.
* I believe the Metro will lead to greater overdevelopment of Waterloo, Sydenham and large tracts of all stations on the Bankstown line. The eyesore that is currently mushrooming at Canterbury station is just an unpleasant portent of what is to come. I believe the promotion of ``value capture'' has not been adequately explained to the public during these community consultations, and has not been addressed by the NSW Government during the recent submissions regarding the Sydenham-Bankstown stage of this line.
* I echo safety concerns raised by Eco Transit regarding proposed evacuation procedures with no on-board staff. Working with people with disability and older people, this is very concerning to me.
* What is happening to Erskineville and St Peters stations?, will the Waterfall/Hurstville line be expected to pick up these passengers, along with all the bussed in customers dumped at Sydenham once the Bankstown line is closed for construction? Already the Illawarra line is experiencing severe overcrowding - I catch the 7.27am service from Tempe -city and can no longer get a seat. The crowding on this service over the past 3 years has become quite pronounced. Will customers be consulted about timetable and service changes or will they simply be imposed upon train customers with no feedback?
* Where does Wynyard station fit into these plans, if it is no longer on the Bankstown line, on which line will it be?
* Has the community been consulted about the proposed changes at Unwins Bridge Road with a new right turn light from May Street into Bedwin Road? And the removal of on-street parking spaces on Edinburgh Road?
* I am very concerned the driverless Metro is being pitched as a solution, and the only way to provide a more frequent service at 3-minute intervals, when such frequency on double decker trains is already happening on the North Shore line in peak hour. To say only a Metro can provide increased capacity and service frequency is misleading, particularly when customers will be standing for long periods, and they risk losing the benefits of inner and outer west communities if Hong Kong-style high rise precincts are being planned without any local community consultation and input.

To Robin Beard or which councillor represents tenants regarding the above issue


My name is Dr. Karen Tilker and I am one of 4 directors of Ambient Psychology services housed at 35 Hume Street. We have been tenants there for 3 years. Two of our clinical rooms (with balconies) face Beaurepairs located on Clarke and Hume streets. I ,only by chance, heard from my dentist,( who has his office on Clarke Street )that he was concerned about the Crows Nest redevelopment project slated to begin next year inclusive of a train station and tunnel. His nderstanding was that the actual train station was to be housed on the corner of Hume and Clarke Street. I then called North Sydney Council and spoke to a representative from the Council (I believe her name was Robin Beard) who indicated that the Dept of Transport planned to acquire Bearepairs, and, should the plan go forward, demolition would start during the first quarter of 2017 at the Beaurepairs current site. It is my thought that we, as tenants, should have been informed by the owners of the discussions around this project as it will directly effect our business. The owners, neither past nor present, have notified us that this proposal was in train or that there were meetings at which we could have input. Several months ago we acqiured new owners and our lease is coming up for renewal at the conclusion of the year. Perhaps this fact may have something to do with this level of non disclosure.

We are a group of clinical psychologists which includes at least 7 people. We need a quiet environment from which to work as we conduct both assessments and therapy. The offices are occupied on a full time basis. Some of our interventions include hypnotherapy and mindfulness to say nothing of the need for ongoing quiet environment in which to discuss painful issues to these clients. Many of us work with clients that have post traumatic stress disorder, a symptom of which is reactivity to loud noise (particularly DVA clients who may associate loud noise with being deployed to war zones).

Given that your proposed plan is new information to us, we would like to understand the enviornmental impact that this demolition and construction will have upon us and those we support. The noise level may not be nmanageable and will affect the desireability of the site to clinicians that are casual renters.

I had a discussion with Robin last thursday and she indicated that we needed to write a letter by 27June. I would like some representative from the Council to come to our rooms and describe the construction project, impact and stages, and how the noise level will be managed. I would also like to understand if there is a mandate for landlords requiring tenants to be informed of an action which will directly affect our business.

I can be reached on my mobile 0404074041. It is sometimes turned off but please leave a message and I will return the call.

Sincerely,

Karen Tilker

To Robin Beard or which councillor represents tenants regarding the above issue


My name is Dr. Karen Tilker and I am one of 4 directors of Ambient Psychology services housed at 35 Hume Street. We have been tenants there for 3 years. Two of our clinical rooms (with balconies) face Beaurepairs located on Clarke and Hume streets. I ,only by chance, heard from my dentist,( who has his office on Clarke Street )that he was concerned about the Crows Nest redevelopment project slated to begin next year inclusive of a train station and tunnel. His nderstanding was that the actual train station was to be housed on the corner of Hume and Clarke Street. I then called North Sydney Council and spoke to a representative from the Council (I believe her name was Robin Beard) who indicated that the Dept of Transport planned to acquire Bearepairs, and, should the plan go forward, demolition would start during the first quarter of 2017 at the Beaurepairs current site. It is my thought that we, as tenants, should have been informed by the owners of the discussions around this project as it will directly effect our business. The owners, neither past nor present, have notified us that this proposal was in train or that there were meetings at which we could have input. Several months ago we acqiured new owners and our lease is coming up for renewal at the conclusion of the year. Perhaps this fact may have something to do with this level of non disclosure.

We are a group of clinical psychologists which includes at least 7 people. We need a quiet environment from which to work as we conduct both assessments and therapy. The offices are occupied on a full time basis. Some of our interventions include hypnotherapy and mindfulness to say nothing of the need for ongoing quiet environment in which to discuss painful issues to these clients. Many of us work with clients that have post traumatic stress disorder, a symptom of which is reactivity to loud noise (particularly DVA clients who may associate loud noise with being deployed to war zones).

Given that your proposed plan is new information to us, we would like to understand the enviornmental impact that this demolition and construction will have upon us and those we support. The noise level may not be nmanageable and will affect the desireability of the site to clinicians that are casual renters.

I had a discussion with Robin last thursday and she indicated that we needed to write a letter by 27June. I would like some representative from the Council to come to our rooms and describe the construction project, impact and stages, and how the noise level will be managed. I would also like to understand if there is a mandate for landlords requiring tenants to be informed of an action which will directly affect our business.

I can be reached on my mobile 0404074041. It is sometimes turned off but please leave a message and I will return the call.

Sincerely,

Karen Tilker

I cannot believe that this 'Metro Line' project is even being considered, as it will serve to downgrade our existing double deck train system - a transport system that much of the rest of the world are trying to adopt!

To plan for such a deterioration in passenger comfort and capacity is astounding and takes no account of the fact that most people have to work on their long commuting journeys. To make the majority of passengers stand in future will further exacerbate the stress of the already hard commute that many people have to face.

It is not correct to say that only a Metro can provide increased capacity and service frequency. The existing Sydney double deck trains can,and do, run at 2-3 minute intervals through the CBD in peak hour.

Once again, you are selling NSW to property developers, this time in the form of MTR Hong Kong. We have no wish to emulate Hong Kong ,so do not destroy our city in your quest for profit and power.

I support improving public transport in Sydney. I do not want high rise towers built as part of the project in Crows Nest. It is important to maintain the village character of Crows Nest. High buildings should be clustered around the commercial centres of St Leonards and North Sydney. Crows Nest is a local centre, not a regional centre. The scale of the building of the metro station should fit with the suburban local centre. Any future developments associated with the metro station or in the precinct should be not be high rise.

I oppose the design and construction of the Sydney Metro Chatswood to Sydenham section in its current form because:

1. The design involves demolition of a number of places of local heritage significance. This demolition cannot be readily mitigated. Archival photographic recording is a poor substitute for the preservation of authentic historic places that contribute to the character and identity of our local communities.

2. I particularly object to the demolition of two above-ground buildings within my local community for what is essentially an underground station: the former Jeweller's Shop and Tower Square on Miller Street in North Sydney. These two buildings are some of the few low rise buildings to remain within the North Sydney commercial area, and make an important contribution to the social and visual character of the Miller Street district. Tower Square has particularly high amenity value, as an area of high quality, defacto public open space within the business district, and which also has a very interesting historic architectural character. I note that Tower Square is not addressed in the heritage assessment for the project because it is not a listed heritage item. I believe that this is negligent, and that the report should also include places of potential heritage value for the local community. It is unclear whether the project has considered ways to construct Victoria Cross Station without the need to demolish buildings with high heritage and amenity value to the local community. It is also unclear why buildings on the opposite side of Miller Street with no heritage value could not instead be demolished to facilitate this project.

3. I am disappointed that the EIS provides little or no information on the types of buildings that would be raised above Victoria Cross Station, in the place of the Jeweller's Shop and Tower Square on Miller Street, or how any new buildings could/would mitigate the loss of social and aesthetic amenity in this area. I object to the fact that is not possible to understand or appreciate how any new buildings on this site would visually impact on other important heritage items in the immediate vicinity, including the neighbouring MLC building to the south and the Rag and Famish Hotel to the north.

4. I object to the demolition of the block of flats designed by Emil Sodersten and Marion Best on Elizabeth Street in the Sydney CBD, a rare and important example of modernist residential design to remain in the CBD. The loss of this building cannot be mitigated.

5. I object to the construction methodology at Central Station, which would involve the removal of platforms 13 to 15 and irreversible damage to the historic canopy structures across this major station precinct. The regular patterns of the trusses supporting the canopies are a particularly important aesthetic feature of the station. It is unacceptable that rare elements of historic railway infrastructure with important aesthetic value would be irreversibly damaged and degraded for construction of a temporary footbridge structure.

6. Most of all, I object to the construction of an elevated access bridge into the Sydney Yards, which would obstruct significant views to the former Mortuary Station from passing trains. I believe that the heritage and visual assessments for this project underplay the loss of heritage value that would result from constructed of the elevated bridge. I understand that Mortuary Station has been flagged as a place of potential national heritage significance. The removal of Mortuary's sister station from Rookwood Cemetery in 1958 (before current heritage legislation was in place) was a severe loss to the historic heritage of NSW. It is unacceptable that the visual setting of the remaining Mortuary Station would be so egregiously compromised by construction of an elevated bridge in this location. Most people appreciate the station as a visual landmark on their entry to Central Station by train. If new access to the Sydney Yards is required, why are they not designing a tunnel rather than an elevated bridge in order to preserve the heritage value of this historic station site?