Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Canterbury-Bankstown, 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

Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Consolidated Approval

Consolidated Approval

Modifications

Archive

Application (1)

Sydney Metro Sydenham to Bankstown upgrade_SSIAR_Fin...

SEARs (1)

Sydney Metro City and Southwest_ Sydenham to Bankstown SSI

EIS (82)

EIS - Volume 1A - Table Of Contents, Exec Summary, Chapters 1 to 9.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Ch 10 to 20, App. A and B.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendices C to I.pdf
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access Assessment
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration Assessment
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 3 - Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 4 - Aboriginal Heritage Assessment
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 5 - Social Impact Assessment
EIS - Volume 5 - Tech Paper 6 - Business Impact Assessment
EIS - Volume 5 - Tech Paper 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality Assessment
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 9 - Biodiversity Assessment Report
EIS - Volume 1A - Table of Contents.pdf
EIS - Volume 1A - Executive Summary.pdf
EIS - Volume 1A - Chapters 1 to 4.pdf
EIS - Volume 1A - Chapters 5 to 7.pdf
EIS - Volume 1A - Chapters 8 to 9.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 10 to 11.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 12 to 13.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 14 to 15.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 16 to 19.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 20 to 23.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 24 to 27.pdf
EIS - Volume 1B - Chapters 28 to 29, App. A and B
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix C - Sydenham to Bankstown Design Guidelines.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix D - Construction Environmental Management Framework.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix E - Construction Noise and Vibration Strategy.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix F - Sustainability Strategy.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix G - Temporary Transport Strategy.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix H - Urban Design and Place Making Paper - Part 1.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix H - Urban Design and Place Making Paper - Part 2.pdf
EIS - Volume 1C - Appendix I - Utilities Management Framework.pdf
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Part 1
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Part 2
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Part 3
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Part 4
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Part 5
EIS - Volume 2 - Tech Paper 1 - Traffic, Transport and Access - Appendices A to I
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Part 1
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix A
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix B
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix C
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix D
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix E
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix F
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix G
EIS - Volume 3 - Tech Paper 2 - Noise and Vibration - Appendix H
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 3 - Non-aboriginal Heritage - Part 1
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 3 - Non-aboriginal Heritage - Part 2
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 3 - Non-aboriginal Heritage - Part 3
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 3 - Non-aboriginal Heritage - Part 4
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 4 - Aboriginal Heritage
EIS - Volume 4 - Tech Paper 5 - Social Impact
EIS - Volume 5 - Tech Paper 6 - Business Impact
EIS - Volume 5 - Tech Paper 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact - Part 1
EIS - Volume 5 - Tech Paper 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact - Part 2
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality - Part 1
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality - Part 2
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality - Part 3
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality - Part 4
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 8 - Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality - Appendices A to C
EIS - Volume 6 - Tech Paper 9 - Biodiversity Assessment Report
Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report (SPIR) - Volume 1 - Main Report
SPIR - Volume 2 - Appendices A to F
SPIR - Volume 3 - Appendices G to J
SPIR - Table Of Contents, Executive Summary and Part A - Introduction and overview.pdf
SPIR - Part B - Submissions Report.pdf
SPIR - Part C - Preferred Infrastructure Report - Part 1
SPIR - Part C - Preferred Infrastructure Report - Part 2
SPIR - Part D - Conclusion.pdf
SPIR - Appendix A - Issue Categories.pdf
SPIR - Appendix B - Project Description.pdf
SPIR - Appendix C - Applicability of SEARs.pdf
SPIR - Appendix D - Traffic, Transport and Access.pdf
SPIR - Appendix E - Noise and Vibration.pdf
SPIR - Appendix F - Non-Aboriginal Heritage.pdf
SPIR - Appendix G - Landcape and Visual Impact.pdf
SPIR - Appendix H - Utilities Management Framework.pdf
SPIR - Appendix I - Archaeological Assessment and Research Design Report.pdf
SPIR - Appendix J - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report - Part 1.pdf
SPIR - Appendix J - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report - Part 2.pdf
SPIR - Appendix J - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report - Part 3.pdf

Submissions (7)

S2B Political Donation Jim Morris.docx.pdf
Sydney Metro EIS_Batch 6_Submissions 501-600.pdf
Sydney Metro EIS_Batch 2_Submissions 101-200.pdf
Sydney Metro EIS_Batch 3_Submissions 201-300.pdf
Submitter List.xlsx
Sydney Metro EIS_Batch 4_Submissions 301-400.pdf
Sydney Metro EIS_Batch 5_Submissions 401-500.pdf

Agency Submissions (8)

Heritage Council.pdf
Inner West Council.pdf
OEH.pdf
EPA.pdf
Sydney Water.pdf
Canterbury Bankstown Council.pdf
NSW Health.pdf
DPI.pdf

Response to Submissions (3)

2018-09-12 Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions Report_...
2018-09-12 Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions Report_...
2018-09-12 Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions Report.pdf

Determination (3)

Sydney Metro_Sydenham to Bankstown_Notice of Decisio...
Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown - Signed Instru...
Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown - Signed Report...

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (120)

Tree Report Punchbowl Sth Terrace Approval Letter
Westfield Street Ancillary Facility - Approval Letter
Tree Report Punchbowl South Terrace
HBW UMS
Package 5 CEMP and sub plans - Approval Letter 11/03/21
DPIE letter acknowledgment tree reg v7
CMR Package 5 & 6 Nov 2021 - April 2022
Corridor & Bankstown Early Works CMR Sep 21-Feb 22
HBW UMS Approval Letter
Package 4 CMR Sep 21 – Feb 22
Punchbowl Additional Works Tree Report Approval
Other_14052020_090930
S2B 8256 Campsie Tree Report Approval Letter
Tree Report Rev 11 Approval Letter
RLF Permit (METRO)
LineWide CMR Sept 21 – Feb 22
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_10062022_012103
Tree Report Package 5 & 6 Rev 12 Approval Letter
DCP UMS Approval Letter
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_21062022_072915
Tree Report Package 5 & 6 Rev 12
SMC - Tree Impact Assessment Report Rev11
Punchbowl Additional Works Tree Report
MCL VAMP
Lakemba Ancillary Facility Update
Tree Report Package 5&6 Rev 11 Approval Letter
Tree Report Package 5&6 Rev 11
Punchbowl SDPP
TTMP Mid Year Shutdown 2022 Approval Letter
HBW UMS
DCP UMS
TTMP Mid Year Shutdown 2022
Ancillary Facility Assessment 6 Broughton street
MCL CEMP Approval Letter
Wiley Park SDPP
Utility Management Strategy rev B
DCP UMS
Belmore SDPP
MCL CEMP
Hurlstone Park SDPP
Package 6 CEMP Approval Letter 03/03/21
Package 6 CEMP Rev 02
CSSI 8256 Ancillary Facility Proposal_Rev 00
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_26022021_033042
Corridor Works CEMP Approval Letter
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_26022021_034517
Corridor Works CEMP
SWM Corridor CSWMP rev4
CHMP rev 5
Package 5 DCP CEMP Rev 2
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_16022021_054726
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_16022021_055144
Package 6 HMP Rev3 Dated 29/01/21
Package 5 DCP HMP Rev 3
Package 5 DCP NVMP Rev 2
Package 5 DCP SWMP Rev 3
Updated SWMP R02 S2B MCL ER endorsementRev02
Updated NVMP R02 S2B MCL ER endorsementRev01
MCL CHMP Rev3 Dated 25/01/21 - Approval Letter 16/02/21
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_26022021_024656
MCL Station Upgrades HMP Rev3
MCL Station Upgrades NVMP
MCL Station Upgrades SWMP
Package 6 NVMP Rev 2_08/02/21
SWM Corridor CNVMP rev 3
Campsie SDPP Approval Letter
Campsie SDPP - Final_20210119
Corridor Works BEW - DPIE Approval
Canterbury Site Compound Tree Report - DPIE Letter
Punchbowl Tree Report Rev.B
SMEW - Const Monitoring Report Febr - July 2021
Tree report E5
CMR - March to August 2021_Rev D_Signed
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_04062021_030405
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_02072021_034420
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_28072021_041914
Tree Report - Campsie - DPIE Letter
Acknowledgement of E5 Tree Impact Assessment Report Revision 7
DPIE Approval Corridor Works Tree Assessment
Dulwich Hill Tree Report - DPIE Letter
DPIE Acknowledgement letter E5 Update Tree Report Rev E
Canterbury Station Tree Report - DPIE Letter
DPIE approval Tree report Marrickville v5
Corridor Works Tree Report - DPIE Letter
Lakemba Station Tree Report - DPIE Letter
DPIE acknowledgment TTMP E48
SMC Tree Impact Report Rev09
SMC Tree Impact Assessment Report Rev 10 - Clean
Package 5 and 6 Tree Report - Revision 10
CMR_SM Package 5 & 6 Construction Monitoring Rep
Lakemba Station Tree Protection Plan Acknowledgement Letter
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_16062021_122840
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_22062021_101346
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_30062021_040931
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_01072021_085918
Canterbury Station Tree Report - DPIE Letter
E5 Tree Impact Assessment Report Revision 7
Canterbury TSS Tree Report - Rev.E
DPIE Approval Westfield ancil facility extension
Bankstown CTMP - DPIE Letter
Appendix B Tree Impacts Arboricultural Report
Charles St Compound AF - DPIE Approval
DPIE Approval of Staging Report
E5 Updated Campsie TSS tree report Rev E
MCL UMS Approval Letter
MCL CTMP Acknowledgement Letter
Corridor Works CTMP Acknowledgement Letter
HBW & DCP VAMP Acknowledgement Letter
Corridor Work UMS Approval Letter
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_18062021_120009
Approval_letter_Bankstown SDPP
MCL UMS
MCL CTMP
HBW & DCP VAMP
Corridor Work UMS
DPIE approval a17 ancil facility broughton
MCL VAMP Acknowledgement Letter
HBWP SDPP Acknowledgement Letter
Corridor Works CTMP
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_25052021_043400

Reports (8)

SMC Construction Monitoring Report Mar to Aug 2021
SMCSWSSJ-JHL-WEC-EM-REP-006113.B.RVW.B.01
HBW & DCP Tree Report
SM Corridor Work Tree Report
SMEW Monitoring Report #3 - Aug 2020 to Jan 2021
Packages 5 and 6 Tree Report - DPIE Letter
SMEW Monitoring Report #2 - Feb 2020 to Jul 2020
SMEW Monitoring Report #1 - Aug 2019 to Jan 2020

Other Documents (13)

Sydney Metro S2B Low Impact Works memo
Lakemba SDPP
Canterbury SDPP
Other_21052021_113419
HSE-AF-001 Lakemba Compound_R6 clean copy
Other_28042020_032613
Canterbury (Site Compound) v3 tree report
Lakemba Arborist Report (Revision B)
Low Impact DPIE Investigation Works
Letter_SMC UMS - DPIE Approval_
MCL SDPP's Acknowledgement Letter
SMC Utilities Management Strategy Rev02
Marrickville SDPP

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

There are no inspections for this project.

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 405 submissions
Eugene Stek
Object
Bankstown , New South Wales
Message
The NSW Government (Govt.) has given little thought to the needs of the
local community at Bankstown. In respect to the new Bankstown Metro
Statiin proposed by the Govt., Canterbury Bankstown Council have
submitted a thorough and detailed submission that meets and exceeds
the needs of the local community and they should be commended for
their attention to detail. The Govt. must take note of Council's
submission, and also listen to this growing community who are finding
their voice and heavily rely on public transport in their day to day
lives. Much can be gained by adopting Councils underground proposal as
this will certainly open up thte CBD and make efficient use of the
proposed metro station area. Adopting Council's submission would lead
to an increase patronage. Council's submission caters to the future of
the Bankstown metro station functionality and asthetics. The area is
planning a Uni very close by in the CBD which will see a dramatic
increase in public transport usage in the area and Council have
forecasted this in their submission. This needs to be adopted by Govt.
as it makes no sense to do otherwise.
Daniel Katz
Support
Glebe , New South Wales
Message
I strongly support this application. We must keep improving our mass
transport, especially as our population grows. Our roads are clogged,
and motor cars pollute the air.

It is common sense to provide as facile and efficient a mass transport
system as possible. This project proposes to improve a key transport
link. It is also important that housing is close to RR stations.

A modern city must have as many efficient mass transport links as
possible, as accessible to as many people as possible.
Mary Lois Katz
Support
Glebe , New South Wales
Message
I think that this project would be of great benefit for the public using
the Metro Service to travel in the inner west. It's good to see that
people are trying to be proactive and get something in place to
service the demands of the present and future transport needs of our
community.
Taicheng Jin
Support
Canterbury , New South Wales
Message
I am a student, and i usually travel via trian
YingHua Li
Support
Canterbury , New South Wales
Message
As an employee, i frequently travel via train
Yulin Li
Support
Canterbury , New South Wales
Message
I support it!
Sungok Lee
Support
Canterbury , New South Wales
Message
I support it
Jo Blackman
Object
Dulwich Hill , New South Wales
Message
I am opposed to the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro. We already have an
excellent train network. A network which has capacity for extra
services which will match the passenger capacity of the new metro. A
service which allows most of the passengers to sit unlike the metro.
Allows passengers travelling to Lidcombe to join up with the major
Western line to do so without changing trains. Which allows me to
travel to circular Quay without having to change. To travel to St
Peters and Erskineville without having to change.

I would like this money to be spent on a metro to Matraville which has
no train service or to fast track the Sydney West Metro or the train
to the new airport.

I am concerned that at the information cession I was told the current
service is every 30 minutes outside peak hour. This is incorrect - it
is every 15minutes. I am concerned that the time savings on the
information boards is inconsistent (4 min saving at Canterbury and 5
minutes at stations either side).
Hans Han
Support
Riverwood , New South Wales
Message
Sydenham to bankstown line desperately need goverment funding to renew
the line and surrounds area. bring more new residents and make it
vibrant.

wish metro replacing more lines after this and future westline.
reliable and rapid transportation benefit all resident in Sydney.
Danny Duong
Support
Lakemba , New South Wales
Message
I am in full support of the upgrade of the Bankstown to Metro standards.
This will bring much needed investment and development along the
Bankstown line and bring it in line with other areas in Sydney.

However, I oppose the retention of the existing train station
buildings in lieu of constructing new stations such as at Wiley Park
and Punchbowl stations. This opportunity to modernise the train
stations, to bring it in line with contemporary standards, does not
come often. Considering the funding and effort spent at this point in
time, it is worthwhile to upgrade the stations to provide full modern
amenity to the ever growing population.
Zac Kardiasmenos
Support
Wiley Park , New South Wales
Message
All sounds great! Can't wait
Michael Katz
Support
Darlinghurs , New South Wales
Message
This is a great initiative and outcome.

I live in an apartment in the city and because I am near transport it
works. We need more of this in the second ring of Sydney.

Thank you also for listening to the people and improving the process
and project.
CRK Properties
Support
Double Bay , New South Wales
Message
We are land owners in Canterbury and Belmore, having purchased there on
the back of the Metro Southwest commitment.


We believe strongly in the vision and what is will do for the area, in
regards to transport and urban renewal.

Thank you for listening to community feedback and please proceed with
the vision!
Name Withheld
Support
Haymarket , New South Wales
Message
I fully support the submission. This infrastructure investment is long
overdue and will provide a significant benefit to residents.
Kathryn Harwood
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
Thank-you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred project.
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and political agendas relating to
privatisation and property development.. The justifications have been
contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future 2012
("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver few
benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits( Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the a
major strategic contexts - the "30 minute city" of the Greater Sydney
Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An an
increased number of services must be seen in the context of this
government incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb
since 2013 and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim
of better connections to "key employment and service centres" is
arguable, as current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a"catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" Business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment , Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ....the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. The gas leak in the city on
7th July 2018 due to metro construction work is a concern; issues with
cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not
instil public confidence. The predicted exceedences of operational
noise criteria due to increase in train speeds are are significant
concern. In Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in
the form of denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. I remain concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. ( Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways
I am sure other parts of Sydney without an existing railway would be
only to happy to have the metro system
Anna Yeatman
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)
July 2018

Thank-you for the opportunity to give feedback on the preferred
project. I am a member of the Hurlstone Park Association. I have
adapted a submission that has been prepared by the HPA because I agree
with it.

I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to metro.

I am pleased that the preferred project, as described so far, has
addressed the widespread concerns about congestion and construction
impacts, the planned destruction of railway heritage items and removal
of vegetation. Unfortunately, the response to submissions, and
preferred project, falls short of community expectations. My
submission follows:

The main concerns I have about the metro, the report on submissions
and the preferred project are:

1. The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need, especially in the context of poor transparency
regarding business cases, and ideological political agendas relating
to privatisation and property development. The justifications have
been contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future
2012 ("In the Sydney context an independent metro system would deliver
few benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network". P24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012). Alternatives must be addressed to improve
the heavy rail network's capacity (such as tunnelling options if the
City Circle and Sydenham sites are problematic, and improvements in
signalling and timetabling, now). Metro trains are designed for short
distances with frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most
people standing which in my view is absolutely unacceptable.
2. The response has failed to acknowledge community concerns about the
supposed benefits (Part B, Submissions Report p30-35):
-more direct access will not occur - the popular stops of St Peters,
Erskineville, Redfern and City Circle will be lost. Commuters west of
Bankstown will be worse off with many facing longer commuting times
and less direct connections (Part B, Submissions Report p74 and 108).
This is not an acceptable outcome and is contrary to one of the "30
minute city" of the Greater Sydney Commission.
-opal ticketing is not a benefit - we already have it.
- the response to submissions fails to explain why a metro is needed
for accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report
p29); many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time; there
remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network, such as improved acoustics of announcements for the
visually impaired. In addition, metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
with an ageing population, mothers who travel with small children, and
tired workers.
-the response addresses specific benefits for Hurlstone Park (Part B,
Submissions Report p 36) The preservation of our railway heritage is
welcome, but the pressure for high-rise development triggered by a
metro would be unwelcome in this heritage -rich suburb. An increased
number of services must be seen in the context of this government
incrementally reducing the number of services to the suburb since 2013
and metro trains having significantly less seats. The claim of better
connections to "key employment and service centres" is arguable, as
current popular stops will be lost.
3. The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a "catalyst" for
growth; the strategic context of the metro and its relationship to
Future Transport 2056 (which supports the concept of property
value-capture), the Greater Sydney Commission (seeking to integrate
land use and transport planning),and the Sydenham-Bankstown Urban
Renewal Strategy (widely condemned by communities for its
indiscriminate up-zoning plans; the invitations to Stakeholders such
as the Australian Turf Club and the NSW property Council and the
awarding of metro operations in northern Sydney to MTR Honk Kong with
its "rail plus property" business model. The project will promote
growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the planning process
and poor-quality development without benefits such as affordability,
green space and amenity.
4. The response to some of the negative consequence of the metro has
been welcome:
-the decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important. Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate. At Hurlstone Park Station,
the use of traditional hand rails for the stairs would be welcome.
Hurlstone Park Station was recommended for state heritage listing in
2016. The community supports this and hopes that works for the metro
would not impede such a listing. In the report's Non-Aboriginal
Heritage Assessment, Appendix F, it is admitted that some "items or
fabric (are) proposed for removal and ... the historic character of
the line...would be altered by the contemporary metro". (p93). This is
of some concern and requires clarification.
-the decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.
The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

5. Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. Issues with cost blow-outs
and legal proceedings for the light rail project do not instill public
confidence. The predicted exceed-ences of operational noise criteria
due to increase in train speeds are of significant concern. In
Hurlstone Park, locals would welcome noise attenuation in the form of
denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic attenuation measures.

6. The franchising to a private operator is not supported. This has
not been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here.
In particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage -rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor
7. The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away
one of the few benefits of the project.
8. The response to concerns about community consultation is inadequate
and inappropriate. Justifying the many techniques used, and measuring
success by the number of encounters, does not address the lack of
engagement with, and failure to prioritise the input of, the
communities along the line and beyond Bankstown, who are opposed to
the project. In addition, the continued use of biased glossy
brochures, which have replaced transparency and meaning, reveals
little hope for meaningful consultation in the future.
9. The HPA is concerned about the loss of mature trees and tree canopy
during construction, for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and
Punchbowl stations. There will be significant loss of vegetation from
council-owned land along the corridor. (Appendix G 'landscape and
visual' section).

In summary, this project should not be approved because it threatens a
radical transformation of the built and natural environment along a
major urban corridor, it lacks bipartisan and community support, and
it is the product of a secretive political and technocratic set of
processes that have been undemocratic, un-transparent, and un-grounded
in what actual communities need and want.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, keeping it public and without a private
operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-way.
Name Withheld
Object
Hurlstone Park , New South Wales
Message
The preservation of our railway heritage is welcome, but the pressure for
high-rise development triggered by a metro would be unwelcome in this
heritage -rich suburb. An increased number of services must be seen in
the context of this government incrementally reducing the number of
services to the suburb since 2013 and metro trains having
significantly less seats. The claim of better connections to "key
employment and service centres" is arguable, as current popular stops
will be lost.

The decision to abandon the inappropriate design plans for station
precincts is also welcome. It is disappointing that community input
into station precinct and open space planning is given such a low
priority, especially in the context of multiple submissions critical
of the consultation process to date (Part B, Submissions Report p
51-53 and p 58-70). "Place-making" should begin with the people who
live in and know in the places.

The Hurlstone Park Association should be one of the stakeholders
consulted in the development of the "integrated urban and place making
outcome" for Hurlstone Park Station.

The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be:

- retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator

- investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown

- upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections

- retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets

- prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways.

I strongly believe that to replace one almost perfectly functioning
railway system with another less functional one is
a waste of our taxes. In particular the huge reduction in seating is a
major issue for me. No one should have to stand for long periods of
time on public transport (i.e. more than 10 minutes). Our current
system should be upgraded where needed, especially with provision to
lifts at EVERY station, and then other parts of Sydney more in need of
new transport systems should be prioritised.
Name Withheld
Object
Berala , New South Wales
Message
My family and I oppose the proposed Sydney Metro line from Sydenham to
Bankstown because it results in stations west of Bankstown having no
direct train to the City.

We don't believe that there will be any time savings for most
residents on a non-Metro T3 line station when travelling to the City.
There's an increase of 3 minutes on average during the peak and 6
minutes in the off peak even with the Bankstown Metro interchange!

It's also very unfair on the area from Berala-Carrmar-Yagoona to have
further train cuts given that the Inner West Line (City to
Liverpool/Bankstown via Regents Park) was cut in 2013 forcing
additional interchanges at Lidcombe and Birrong.

The question has to be asked, why are train services continually being
cut and downgraded in our local area. There was a time when Berala to
City was a 22minute direct train through Lidcombe and Strathfield (it
was a Bankstown loop train). Sinice 2013, we don't have a direct train
from Berala to City via Strathfield and soon we will not even have the
via Bankstown/Sydenham train that we were told would be the "better"
alternative to going via Strathfield (Inner West Line).

OPPOSE THE T3 METRO and restore the Inner West Line to
Liverpool/Bankstown via Regents Park!
Anne Nolan
Object
Belmore , New South Wales
Message
Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report
(Application No SSI 17_8256) July 2018
I am opposed to the conversion of the Sydenham-Bankstown heavy rail
line to Metro. My main concerns about the Metro, the report on
submissions and the preferred project are as follows.
The response to concerns about the justifications for the project
(Part B, Submissions Report p 14-15) does nothing to convince the
community of its need. How is destroying an existing heavy rail line
and converting it to Metro improve the networking of required public
transport? Why doesn't it travel from Sydenham down the traffic grid
locked Ramsgate peninsular and over the Georges River in the vicinity
of Taren Point Bridge, thus servicing an area in great need of
improved public transport? The justifications for this new system have
been contradicted by independent rail experts and Sydney's Rail Future
2012. "In the Sydney context an independent Metro system would deliver
few benefits in terms of service enhancement, capacity improvements or
better operating efficiency on the existing rail network"(p24,
Sydney's Rail Future 2012).
Why is the Metro going from Sydenham to Waterloo, four kilometres away
without stopping, through some very densely built suburbs with very
poor public transport options? Metros are supposed to be short
journeys with plenty of stops and yet this plan eliminates stations
between Sydenham and Central for commuters, including Redfern a
critical stop for students and medical staff. This certainly will not
deliver "better access to education with fast, more frequent and
direct connections". The opposite is the case! A direct link to the
city, with usually a seat to sit on will be severed. Currently each 8
carriage Waratah train has 896 seats while a Metro will only have 378
seats per 8 carriage train. That is less than half the seats currently
available!
There has been no business case which demonstrates the benefit of a
stop at Waterloo for existing customers, particularly those commuting
from west of Bankstown who now face two changes of trains and systems
to access stops they presently travel to directly, and less chance of
getting a seat on the journey home. For commuters beyond Bankstown the
journey will also be longer. Conversion of the Sydenham to Bankstown
section of the T3 Line significantly fractures the cohesive rail
network which exists now. Approximately 19,000 commuters will be
forced to change trains because of the disconnection of this nexus. It
makes a mockery of the 30 minute city.
There has been poor transparency regarding business cases and
political agendas relating to privatisation and property development.
Alternatives must be addressed to improve the heavy rail network's
capacity, such as tunnelling options if the City Circle and Sydenham
sites are problematic, as well as improvements in signalling and
timetabling. Metro trains are designed for short distances with
frequent stops; the capacity argument is based on most people
standing.
The Executive Summary claims the Metro project will address one of
Sydney's biggest rail bottlenecks but former Rail Corp and State Rail
executives, Dick Day, John Brew, Ron Christie and Bob O'Loughlin wrote
to the government in 2015 saying the conversion of the Bankstown line
to Metro would remove "the relief valve for the network and will
result in the network having no escape route". They believe it is
wasteful as Metros should supplement heavy rail not replace it.
The response to submissions fails to explain why a Metro is needed for
accessibility upgrades at stations (Part B, Submissions Report p29).
Many heavy rail stations have had such upgrades over time, however
there remains plenty of room for improvement for accessibility in the
existing network. In addition, Metro trains will have significantly
reduced seating capacity, which is inappropriate for a 66km railway
servicing an ageing population.
The consultation process had limited impact. I attended consultations
at both Marrickville Town Hall and Canterbury Bankstown Leagues Club
and at both there was lucky to be five participants at a time. There
was no consultation venues west of Belmore and yet the impact on those
commuters will be great. The affected area is very multicultural but
there was limited multilingual communication and you should have
realised that publicity in local papers is useless because they are
rarely delivered to households. A Belmore public meeting about the
impact of the Metro attracted over 300 residents a few weeks before,
and Sydenham to Bankstown Alliance meetings have attracted over 200
people. Why was your response so poor? Also there were no consultants
acknowledging the huge difficulties with this major redevelopment,
except with vague concerns or lack of knowledge, when difficult
questions were asked. The response to concerns about community
consultation is inadequate and inappropriate. Justifying the many
techniques used, and measuring success by the number of encounters,
does not address the lack of engagement with, and failure to
prioritise the input of, the communities along the line and beyond
Bankstown, who are opposed to the project. In addition, the continued
use of biased glossy brochures, which have replaced transparency and
meaning, reveals little hope for meaningful consultation in the
future.
The response to concerns about development is dismissive (Part B,
Submissions Report p36-39). The link to development has been made
repeatedly, with the exhibited project acting as a "catalyst" for
growth. The Sydenham-Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy is widely
condemned by communities for its indiscriminate up-zoning plans which
will promote growth in a climate of lack of community trust in the
planning process and poor quality development without benefits such as
affordability, green space and amenity. The Canterbury Bankstown City
Council wrote a strong submission with strong arguments about why the
line needs to be underground from Punchbowl to Bankstown. This has
been totally ignored, indeed the latest glossy document lauds a line
Sydenham to Punchbowl with none of the suggestions for Bankstown being
integrated. It doesn't even appear the development has been future
proofed as promised by the Minister. This response to going
underground contrasts with the development of the north section of the
line.
The decision to preserve, restore and re-use our significant rail
heritage along the line is important (Part B, Submissions Report
p48-49). The exhibited project demonstrated a reckless approach to
heritage, and the use of heritage architects for the preferred
project, should it proceed, is appropriate and the decision to abandon
the inappropriate design plans for station precincts is also welcome.
It is disappointing that community input into station precinct and
open space planning is given such a low priority, especially in the
context of multiple submissions critical of the consultation process
to date (Part B, Submissions Report p 51-53 and p 58-70).
Although construction impacts have been lessened, which is
appropriate, the impacts will still be significant and temporary
transport issues have not been detailed. Six traffic volume locations
were used to determine traffic volume trends and not one was in the
Metro project area. Closing up to three stations concurrently will be
disruptive for commuters and worse disruption than in the original EIS
plan. TTS monitoring is to be undertaken during possession and then
refined. Surely this refinement should take place before closures. The
gas leak in the city on 7th July 2018 due to Metro construction work
is a concern. Issues with cost blow-outs and legal proceedings for the
light rail project do not instil public confidence. There is a lack of
clarity about station closures and alternative transport arrangements
during construction and there has been no adequate explanation as to
why 23 bridges and underpasses no longer need to be demolished or
renovated. Is there a safety issue now ignored? There has been no
explanation. There has been no traffic condition data available for
standard weekend possessions but the report claims they occur "without
significant disruption" How can this be claimed if no data is
available? My experience on those buses is a much longer and
uncomfortable stop start journey on busier roads. No consideration has
been made for the increase in population or increased construction
traffic from both within and outside the possession zones. Your data
shows the worse level congestion in bottlenecks already exists.
I do not support the franchising to a private operator. This has not
been good for Melbourne or Newcastle, and we do not want it here. In
particular, the Hong-Kong model of development, utilised by MTR
Corporation, is totally inappropriate for many of the heritage rich
and garden suburbs in this corridor. The awarding of Metro operations
in northern Sydney to MTR Hong Kong with its "rail plus property"
business model is already strongly condemned by the public. The MTR
will obviously be the carriage from Sydenham to Bankstown because a
direct train can't change ownership half way. I am angry that this
decision was done secretly. The involvement of MTR was not
acknowledged by your consultants.
The loss of the previously planned active green strip takes away one
of the few benefits of the project. I remain concerned about the loss
of approximately 500 mature trees and tree canopy during construction,
for example around Lakemba, Wiley Park and Punchbowl stations. There
will be significant loss of vegetation from council-owned land along
the corridor ( Appendix G 'landscape and visual' section). Why does
the removal of trees have to extend beyond the rail construction zone?
Increases in noise due to increase in train speeds and the
introduction of Rail System Facilities such as substations, intruder
detection systems and security fencing are a significant concern which
can be ameliorated by denser vegetation or other heritage sympathetic
measures. Nowhere are hours of operation addressed.
In summary, this project should not be approved because it lacks
bipartisan and community support, and is the product of a process that
has lacked democracy and good governance.
The preferred project, to best benefit communities, and Sydney, should
be :
-retaining the heavy rail, without a private operator
-investing now in time-tables and signalling, and connections for
commuters beyond Bankstown
-upgrading all stations for accessibility, safety, landscaping and
active transport connections
-retaining and restoring railway heritage to enable railway-related
use including rest-rooms and toilets
-prioritising investment in new rail and rapid bus systems across
Sydney instead of converting existing lines/ building more toll-ways.
Jane Le
Object
Sefton , New South Wales
Message
A lot of people catch the T3 train to commute on a daily basis. There is
a growing push urging people to use public transport as opposed to
driving. There have been lots of changes to the public transport,
especially train system, yet it seems the changes cause nothing but
disruptions to work and travel. I'm talking about regular people going
to work every day. Not only did you cut the Sefton/Regents Park line,
but now you want to make more changes going to the city. All trains
should go to the city. The city is obviously a central commonplace for
workers and travellers alike. The changes, if enforced, will cause
more problems and increased travel time where people need to change.
As someone who has been travelling by public transport since arriving
in Australia in 1989, I am very disappointed, annoyed with the public
transport system. The changes you wish to propose are completely
unjustifiable and ridiculous and will only make people more angry. If
the proposed changes go through, I have no faith in public transport.
Waste of time, waste of tax payers money and completely unnecessary.
Please reconsider the position of the public transport commuter.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-8256
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-8256-Mod-1
Last Modified On
22/10/2020

Contact Planner

Name
Naomi Moss