Sydney Metro - Sydenham to Bankstown

Personal submission to the Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and
Preferred Infrastructure Report (Application No SSI 17_8256)

July 2018

To Whom it May Concern

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.

However, I and my neeighbours still have concerns in regard to a
number of issues, in particular:
- A large number of Dulwich Hill residents will still suffer from
night-time noise impacts and we do not believe the proposed mitigation
measures go far enough
- The failure to explain proposed alternative transport arrangements
during the final six-month shutdown in 2024
- The decision to remove the proposed southern entrance to the station
- The lack of support to Inner West Council to manage parking impacts
during construction.

In addition, we continue to be concerned that the Metro is being used
as an excuse by the NSW Government to force brutal and unwanted
overdevelopment on our historic suburb. Until the government rips up
its urban renewal corridor strategy, and returns planning powers to
Inner West Council, we will find it very difficult to support the
Metro line.



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.

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 man
y 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

Sincerely
Angel Ioannou

Canterbury City Community Centre is a not-for-profit community
organisation based in Lakemba and serves the diverse communities in
the Canterbury-Bankstown and Inner West local government areas. Our
motto is Community Building Community and we work closely with local
communities to develop and deliver programs which meet local needs and
foster inclusion, harmony and an improved quality of life.
In consultation with Centre users in particular our
environment@lakemba group and Lakemba Ladies Lounge, a number of
concerns have been raised regarding the proposal for the Sydenham
Bankstown Metro Line and Urban Renewal corridor. The prime concern is
in relation to the proposed Metro line is the expected growth in the
number of dwellngs in the already densely populated areas of Lakemba
and Wiley Park, that already have a lack of community and recreational
facilities and open space.
The current plans identify the creation of a Linear Park as a means of
creating more green space, however, many concerns were raised given
its limited width and the fact that no seating or general `park
facilities" would be available, but more importantly due to the fact
it is wedged between a train-line and major road. Women said they
would not feel safe taking their children to this space, or giving
permission for children to go there on their own, given its location
and safety issues so close to a busy main street.
Other major concerns with the Metro line include the fact that it will
now require users to change trains if they need to go on the current
City Circle line. The current rail map also highlights walking
distances of between 400 and 800ms for people to access Circular Quay
and other locations. This was seen as a major barrier and
inconvenience for many users, particularly families with young
children and would be virtually impossible for older people, or people
with additional needs to access. In addition smaller trains with less
seating will require more people to stand, which is again difficult
for parents travelling with young children and older people.
The driver-less trains were also seen as a safety issue by many people
in the community. With lots of people from the local area using the
train to travel late at night/early mornings for shift work and with
lots of young people commuting to local high schools, many parents
said they would not like their children travelling on the train with
no guard present. Currently people feel safe catching the trains as
they can travel in the carriage where the guard is located.
Another major issue was the two terminals at Bankstown with a 400
metre walk between them. Many older people and again people with young
children felt this distance was too far to be able to access safely
and easily.
The disruption caused to rail users while the Metro is built was also
mentioned as a major concern. With many people in Lakemba and
surrounds not owning a car or only having one car per household, there
is an enormous reliance on the current train line. People were greatly
concerned how they would travel to work, school, etc while the metro
line is being constructed.

Concerns are as follows.

Noise, Dust and potential damage due to vibration during works. The
suburbs along this rail corridor are very old and many homes are in
close proximity to the tracks. There is no detail as to the measures
that will be taking place to protect the residents from noise, dust
and potential damage to homes during construction.

Privatisation
Essential services must remain in public hands. There is also greater
powers for the metro operator to compulsorily acquire residences in
the vicinity these stations at a later date and transform our suburbs
to high rise, unaffordable and unhealthy suburbs as we see in Hong
Kong. Giving the right to developers to compulsorily acquire
properties for their profit to the detriment of homeowners is
extremely undemocratic.

Reduced seating.
As an older citizen, and as we have an ageing population in Australia,
you cannot remove additional seating from trains. I would not use the
train to travel into the city if I had to stand all the way.

Removal of parking spaces at Duntroon St West of station.
No additional kerbside facilities are required. We already have 3
accessible parking spaces in the town centre. The properties on this
side of Duntroon St are all zoned residential and do not have off
street parking. Removing these parking spaces is not justified.

Your decision to install lifts and retain the heritage stations Is a
great idea. Maybe let people use the restrooms and waiting rooms of
the platform buildings as they were originally intended to be used.
Install security fencing above the rock face at Hurlstone Park station
to stop vandals from accessing the wall of this building and defacing
it with graffiti.

There really is no justification for removing our current trains and
replacing them with trains that have much less seating. Worse still,
is that the Metro will be privatised which will give the corporations
running the Metro unpreecedented rights over communities. Look at what
privatising the electricity grid has done to affordability.

These plans are much improved but but cannot be supported due to the
lack of detail and regarding conversion works and the long term
implications to communities along the rail corridor.

Please ensure that a resident parking scheme is put in place in
surrounding streets (at least within an 800m radius of station) prior
to construction starting at Hurlstone Park station. Many local
residents do not have off street parking and are likely to be
negatively impacted both during construction and once the metro line
is operational.

Please ensure traffic calming (such as speed humps) and pedestrian
safety measures (such as pedestrian refuge islands near bus stops) are
in place in Crinan St Hurlstone Park prior to heavy vehicle and extra
bus movements starting as part of constructions works. This is needed
anyway, but the need will be greater with more traffic, especially
multiple daily heavy vehicle / extra bus movements.

The Sydenham to Bankstown corridor has a perfectly good rail line (t3
line) and if this was to convert to a Metro line it would create major
chaos for commuters and for the community and remove direct access to
the City Circle.

During the construction phase the line would intermittently be closed,
leaving commuters without a reliable mode of transport to the City,
they would be forced to catch buses or make their way to the already
overcrowded East Hills line or the Western line.

Once the Metro is operational, commuters west of Bankstown will be
forced to disembark and walk 500 meters to the Metro Train and change
once again at Sydenham for a City Circle service.

The Government has failed to address many of the issues raised by
residents and businesses including:

-The extent of any inconvenience and delay and cost caused to
commuters during the construction period as they are forced to use
alternative transport.

-The nature and extent of any loss of trade for business adversely
affected during the construction period.

- The number of residents likely to be affected by any construction
through noise, dislocation, altered traffic and pedestrian
arrangements and any other negative effects.

- What compensation, if any, is available and should be paid to
residents and businesses for the disruption and losses they may suffer
during construction.

-Whether any Council land is likely to be used or acquired either
during construction or permanently as a result of the Metro.

-The costs and effect on Council and/or residents of any land required
to be used in the construction of the Metro.

-The economic and social impact of removing permanently direct city
access for thousands of commuters including additional travel times
required both during and after construction.

Coupled with the removal of the inner West Train line in 2013, our
commuters are worse off under this Government.

I object to a Metro conversion of the current Sydenham to Bankstown heavy
rail line for the following reasons:
a. The construction impacts, noise, lights, dust etc will make it
difficult for me to sleep and study as I live close to the rail
corridor.
b. There are fewer seats on Metro trains and most passengers will need
to stand. Unfortunately, society has become less concerned and
respectful to the needs of the elderly.
c. More serious injury in the case of any accidents because people are
standing.
d. The privatisation of the metro will most definitely change our
suburbs because of the power the new Metro Bill recently passed in
Parliament will give the private operators. Despite statements from
the various departments that there will be no over station
development, communities do not have any faith in the current
government. The Metro private operators will be given powers to
compulsorily acquire buildings/ family homes for development, further
changing communities along the Sydenham to Bankstown corridor. Our
communities have been destroyed by overdevelopment due to corruption
actions of the past Canterbury Council which also included a state MP
(refer to ICAC Operation Dasha transcripts). We have no faith in this
government. Its actions to date prove that they are pro developers and
not communities.

Please just update the stations with lift access, restore the
buildings to their former glory (and remove the fluorescent orange
station signs which are really disgusting). If we need more trains,
update signaling and keep the existing double-decker trains. If there
are areas that do not have railway stations and those communities want
railway access then possibly offer them the Metro.

Thank you

The Bankstown train line has provided a very good, reliable service for
many years, and to convert this line to Metro defies all logic.


A Metro service is only suitable for short distances with frequent
stops, and will not be suitable to replace the existing line, forcing
many commuters to stand for extended periods of time.


The Metro would also have an adverse impact on the residents who rely
on a direct City service from Yagoona.
These residents will lose direct access to the City Circle and will
need to change services at Bankstown and again at Sydenham, increasing
their travel times.

The Metro would not provide any real benefits to the residents of
Bankstown and surrounding areas, and would cause massive disruptions
during construction.

The increased densities around Metro stations would also change the
fabric of of local communities and lead to increased traffic
congestion and put additional strain on existing infrastructure.

I am also concerned that future Metro plans foreshadow an extention
from Bankstown through Georges Hall to Moorebank.

We support the Metro Southwest given the significant benefits it will
bring to the entire area, including linking the precinct to the
broader city and attracting much needed new business and investment.

We also note and support the changes made reflecting the previous
community consultation, such as reduced closures and maintaining the
character of the stations.

Haydev Pty Ltd is the owner of 9-15 Robert street, Canterbury, NSW.

We refer to the exhibition of the Preferred Infrastructure Report
(PIR) for the project. Haydev Pty Ltd fully supports the PIR as
exhibited and welcomes the amendments made to the PIR. We look forward
to the timely commencement of works for the project.

We support the Metro Southwest given the significant benefits it will
bring to the entire area, including linking the precinct to the
broader city and attracting much needed new business and investment.

We also note and support the changes made reflecting the previous
community consultation, such as reduced closures and maintaining the
character of the stations.

This revised proposal shows how ridiculous the original one was. It is
scaled back, but fundamental flaws remain.

Disruptions
There are still extensive so-called temporary closures which will be
incredibly disruptive. I simply do not believe that, given the state
government's record in regard to the eastern suburbs light rail and in
George Street, that this project will be completed in an efficient
manner. There are so many chaotic aspects to the existing projects,
yet we are expected to believe this one will be different!

Seating
The substitution of a set of trains that will halve the number of
seats is intolerable, especially given the proposed development around
the stations. There is here a terrible loss of amenity. and what for?
The only benefit will go to developers. The off-peak trains are be
increased from 4 to 6, but the number of seats on each will be reduced
by half. That's less seating over all since the trains are nearly full
at off-peak. Clearly older people like myself will be standing over
long distances. This system is nothing like the London or Paris
metros, where people are getting on and off at the stations all the
time. This line is just basically the old line revamped, so it is
still a spoke in the wheel leading to the centre of the city, only
with far fewer seats to carry most passengers over that long journey,
and the PROMISE of more trains, a promise that is, in the context of
Sydney's infrastructure, unbelievable.


Vegetation damage
The destruction of hundreds of mature trees along the construction
route is typical of this government, and deplorable.

Capacity constraints on the network
The revised version does not address adequately the technical
questions raised publicly by experts with long experience in rail
transport that the removal of the heavy rail on this route will not
free up capacity on the route, but foul it up. State Rail executives
Ron Christie, Dick Day, Bob O'Loughlin and John Brew wrote to the
government in 2015 stating that conversion of the Bankstown line to
the Metro would remove "the relief valve for the network and will
result in the network having no escape route." That issue isn't solved
by the revised plan. This project is a white elephant and the current
government will be forever remembered for mistakenly pushing it
through.

Access to Sydney University
Patrons of this service will still have access difficulties to Sydney
University and the city.

Costs
The commercial in confidence procedures of this government preclude
democratic and effective scrutiny of the cost benefit analysis of the
project. Put this proposal to the people at the next state election,
and see what they really think about the transport infrastructure.

While I note that some revisions to the Sydenham-Bankstown upgrade have
been made, they do nothing to address the most fundamental issues.

1. Extensive closures of the existing rail network. Though the time
period for closures has been reduced this does not preclude enormous
inconvenience to residents of the area. Given the government's record
in other areas with light rail, it is also likely that this disruption
will far exceed the indicated periods.
2. The economic and social absurdity of tearing up a functioning rail
line when there are significant areas of Sydney with NO railway at
all.
3. Rail experts also note that the existing Sydenham/Bankstown line
functions as a safety valve for the larger rail system. The proposed
changes will therefore likely degrade rather than enhance the capacity
and efficiency of Sydney's overall rail system.
4. Underscoring this degradation in rail services is the significant
reduction in seating on the proposed replacement light rail. This will
especially disadvantage the city's aging population and thus serve as
a major disincentive for public transport use by important sections of
the community.
5. The failure to seriously explore changes to the existing rail
system is thus to be utterly condemned and underscores the essentially
faux nature of the consultative process. There are concessions but not
to the most fundamental and thus controversial aspects of the new rail
service.
6. It is thus difficult to resist the conclusion that the entire
initiative is designed not to improve Sydney's public transport but to
facilitate foreign-backed real estate developments. On this issue,
above all, there is and has been no genuine consultation with the
community.

18 July 2017

The Director
Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY, NSW 2001
Attention: Planner - Naomi Moss
Dear Director,
Sydney Metro City & Southwest T3 Bankstown Line - Sydenham to
Bankstown Upgrade - SSI 17_8256

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) welcomes this opportunity to
comment on the revised plans for the "Sydney Metro City & Southwest
Sydenham to Bankstown Upgrade" Preferred Infrastructure Report
exhibition. Although the Trust is relieved that the Preferred
Infrastructure Report considerably reduces likely heritage impacts on
the historic built fabric of affected railway stations, the Trust
continues to object to the proposed rezoning of large tracts of
historic suburbia along this corridor.
Firstly, the National Trust welcomes the statement in the Sydenham to
Bankstown Preferred Infrastructure Report Overview (June 2018) that
"all heritage buildings along the Bankstown Line will be retained".
This was an important expectation given that all ten stations are
heritage listed. Three stations are listed on the State Heritage
Register (SHR) - Marrickville (SHR 1186) Canterbury (SHR 1109) and
Belmore (SHR 1081) - all listed as Railway Station Groups. However
this statement appears to relate only to the stations themselves, not
the heritage buildings within the National Trust identified
Conservation Areas along the route of the Metro.
In 2017 an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed replacement
of the publicly-owned, heavy rail line between Sydenham and Bankstown
with a privately owned Metro line, was exhibited for public comment.
Over 500 submissions were received, most expressing objections to the
plans. A revised plan has been developed in response to the many
issues raised during this public consultation process and is currently
on exhibition as the "Preferred Infrastructure Report". The Trust's
submission responds to this exhibited Report.
The section of the Preferred Infrastructure Report which addresses
built heritage issues most directly is the "Memo . . . [on]
Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment," Appendix F (the Memo). The Memo
is 102 pages in length and consists of heritage impact analyses of the
Preferred Infrastructure Report as it affects statutory heritage
listed places between and including the ten railway stations between
Bankstown and Sydenham, which are all listed on statutory heritage
registers. It includes consideration of five SHR items, 32 local
listed items, and two heritage conservation areas. The information is
grouped in ten sections, each focused around a railway station.
The emphasis of the Memo is on design changes made in response to
public submissions made during the exhibition of the Environmental
Impact Statement in 2017, as they affect built heritage. Each major
element of each heritage place is discussed comparing the original,
Environmental Impact Statement proposal and the revised, preferred
project proposal. The Memo also notes prominently in its introduction
that the preferred project excludes the use of "rock-breakers" and
thus effectively removes all the vibration problems for heritage
places associated with them. It proposes instead to make limited use
of "ballast tamper" equipment which is already in use along the line
without ill effects (page 2). The Memo's conclusion summarises the
likely heritage impacts of the Preferred Infrastructure Report:
* Would not result in "major direct or visual impacts to any stations"
although there would be "moderate direct and visual impacts to ten
stations."
* Nonetheless all stations would retain enough significance to keep
their current levels of heritage listing, be it state or local.
* Many of the historic buildings would be adaptively re-used and all
would contribute to the functioning of the Metro.
* New additions would be built but would be distinguishable from
historic fabric.
* It is admitted that some "items or fabric [are] proposed for removal
. . . More generally, the historic character of the line, a late
nineteenth-century to early twentieth century railway line with layers
of inter-war development, would be altered by the contemporary Metro
infrastructure" (p93).
* There is a table detailing mitigation measures to help conserve
heritage significance of the line and its elements (pp93-97). For
example, Each SHR listed station (Marrickville, Canterbury and
Belmore) would have a conservation management plan (CMP) commissioned
while the others would have a (smaller, briefer) conservation
management strategy (CMS) (pp87-88).
A major problem with the Memo is that it does not address all the core
heritage issues. It discusses only places which are listed on
statutory heritage lists: the State Heritage Register and Local
Environmental Plans, and some Section 170 listings. It does not
discuss places not yet heritage listed, nor does it note or mention
the existence of non-statutory lists such as the National Trust
Register or the former Register of the National Estate. It does not
mention or note draft heritage listings such as the heritage
conservation areas (HCAs) proposed for Hurlstone Park. A better
heritage analysis would recognise all these community-backed heritage
listings and insist on undertaking an independent heritage assessment
of the entire affected property on the (unquestionable) assumption
that these statutory heritage registers are not complete.
Furthermore, the Memo does not mention nor attempt to analyse the
heritage impacts of the proposed rezoning of a large swathe of land
around the rail corridor whose sale and redevelopment is said to be
essential to fund the project. This would involve demolition of a huge
quantity of historic suburban fabric. This huge, negative heritage
impact is ignored.
On 7 November, 2017 the National Trust made a submission on the Sydney
Metro City & Southwest Sydenham to Bankstown upgrade Environmental
Impact Statement which had been exhibited for public comment.
In that submission, the Trust expressed its deep concern that the
environmental assessment requirements of the Secretary of the
Department of Planning and Environment ("The Secretary's environmental
assessment requirements") had not been addressed with regards to
"environmental heritage" in the preparation of theEnvironmental Impact
Statement and associated Technical Paper 3 - Non-Aboriginal Heritage
Impact Assessment.
The T3 Bankstown Line - Sydenham to Bankstown Upgrade Environmental
Impact Statement and Heritage Impact Statement had only addressed
"heritage-listed" items not "environmental heritage" as defined under
the Heritage Act, 1977 (the Secretary's requirement).
While the National Trust notes the rationale for this proposal it is
vital that impact on the "environmental heritage" is minimised and
this can only occur if the "environmental heritage" is correctly
identified.
In its comments on the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor
the National Trust made the following comments and re-iterates them as
they have relevance for the Metro proposal: -
The corridor traverses three former local government areas -
Marrickville, Canterbury and Bankstown. There appear to be major
differences in the way that these Councils recognised and protected
their heritage.

The Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 has 36 Heritage
Conservation Areas listed on Schedule 5 - (Environmental Heritage), of
its Plan. By contrast, the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012
Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) has only one Heritage Conservation
Area and the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 has no Heritage
Conservation Areas listed on its Environmental Heritage Schedule.

Deep community concern has been expressed to the Trust on the impacts
of proposed rezonings on the heritage in some of these Station
Precincts. The Trust is also aware that many residents of these areas
are unaware of the likely impact of the rezonings on their heritage
and their locality's sense of place and of the very limited time to
now comment and influence this process.

The Trust notes that, for the Dulwich Hill and Hurlstone Park Station
Precincts, there appears to have been recognition of the significance
of the Heritage Conservation Areas, with a corresponding reduction in
the density and height of new development proposed. However, with some
other Station Precincts there appear to be major impacts on a number
of Urban Conservation Areas which had been identified and listed on
the National Trust Register in 1998/1999.

These listings in 1998 were the consequence of a major study "Housing
in NSW - Between the Wars - A Study of Housing and Housing Estates
constructed and developed in NSW between World War I and World War
II".

This study was prepared in February 1996 for the National Trust of
Australia (NSW) by Robertson & Hindmarsh Pty Ltd, Architects. The
study was funded in two stages under the National Estates Grants
program, at that time administered in NSW by the Heritage Branch of
the NSW Department of Environment & Planning. The study examined
interwar period housing in twenty Sydney local councils and two NSW
country local government areas. The two Sydney local government areas
with the highest number of identified precincts were Ku-ring-gai (23
precincts) and Canterbury (24 precincts).

Eighteen Urban Conservation Areas in the Canterbury Local Government
Area were listed on the National Trust Register in 1998 and 1999. The
three precincts identified in the 1996 Housing Study in the former
Bankstown Local Government Area were also listed on the National Trust
Register in 1998 and 1999.

The Trust raises its concerns in regards to the impacts of the
proposed rezonings in the following Station Precincts where National
Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas are sited : -

Belmore Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Belmore Station Precinct there are
three National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 15 - Paxton Avenue,
Belmore

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 16 - Redman Parade,
Belmore

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 17 - Belmore

Precinct 15 (Paxton Avenue, Belmore) is proposed for low rise housing.
It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and
consequently is under threat of major redevelopment without regard for
its heritage values.

Precinct 16 (Redman Parade, Belmore) is proposed to be zoned to its
east as low rise housing and to the west of Cecilia Street as medium
rise housing. No Heritage Conservation Area has been designated to
protect the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

Precinct 17 (Belmore) is proposed for rezoning for a combination of
`Main Street Shop Top Housing' and High Rise and/or Mixed Use. No
Heritage Conservation Area has been designated to protect the heritage
values identified by the National Trust.

Bankstown Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Bankstown Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Bankstown Urban Conservation Area Precinct 2 - Bankstown

Precinct 2 (Bankstown) is largely proposed for rezoning for medium /
high rise housing. No Heritage Conservation Area has been designated
to protect the heritage values identified by the National Trust. This
is particularly disappointing given that almost the entire inner
circle area has been proposed for high rise and mixed use development.

Punchbowl Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Punchbowl Station Precinct, there are
two National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Areas: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 27 - Punchbowl

Bankstown Urban Conservation Area Precinct 1 - Mt Lewis

Precinct 27 (Punchbowl) is proposed for low rise housing. It has not
been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and consequently
remains under threat of major redevelopment without regard for its
heritage values.

Precinct 1 (Mt Lewis) has a large area with proposed zoning for Main
Street Shop Top Housing, medium high-rise housing, medium rise
housing, low-rise housing and single dwelling areas. No Heritage
Conservation Area has been designated and Precinct 1 (Mt Lewis)
remains under threat of major redevelopment without regard for its
heritage values.

Wiley Park Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Wiley Park Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 26 - Defoe Street,
Punchbowl

Precinct 26 (Defoe Street, Punchbowl) is proposed for low rise
housing. It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area
and consequently remains under threat of major redevelopment without
regard for the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

Lakemba Station Precinct
Within the circled areas for the Lakemba Station Precinct, there is
the National Trust Register listed Urban Conservation Area: -

Canterbury Urban Conservation Area Precinct 19 - Dennis Street,
Lakemba

Precinct 19 (Dennis Street, Lakemba) is proposed for low rise housing.
It has not been designated as a Heritage Conservation Area and
consequently remains under threat of major redevelopment without
regard for the heritage values identified by the National Trust.

The National Trust indicated that it would be pleased to provide
detailed information on the 1998 Study - "Housing in NSW Between the
Wars - A Study of Housing and Housing Estates constructed and
developed in NSW between World War I and World War II" and copies of
the National Trust Register Listings referenced above to the planners
dealing with the Urban Renewal Corridor Strategy.

In its response to the concerns expressed by the National Trust, the
Report argued that Transport for NSW is not proposing any rezonings or
residential developments as part of the project.

However, it is clear that funding for the Metro Project is predicated
on the proposed rezonings and residential redevelopment.

The National Trust is deeply concerned that the former Canterbury and
Bankstown Councils did not follow the lead of Ku-ring-gai Council and
act on the National Trust's 1988 Study and list the recommended
Heritage Conservation Areas.

Ku-ring-gai Council has listed 31 Heritage Conservation Areas
protecting most of its historic interwar housing from unsympathetic
over-development.
Bankstown Council had listed no Heritage Conservation Areas and
Canterbury Council had listed only one Heritage Conservation Area.
This is despite the National Trust's 1998 Study identifying 24
precincts in Canterbury Local Government Area worthy of heritage
listing and three precincts in Bankstown Local Government Area.
The National Trust is aware that the Independent Commission against
Corruption is investigating claims of improper conduct against two
former Canterbury City Councillors and a current member of State
Parliament in relation to property development dealings in Canterbury
Local Government Area. In the light of this investigation, the
National Trust is concerned to see that the issue of Heritage
Conservation Area listing in Canterbury Local Government Area is given
fair consideration.
The National Trust will again be calling on Canterbury Bankstown
Council to address the issue of listing the Heritage Conservation
Areas on its Local Environmental Plan and urges that these proposed
listings be given due consideration in the planning and development
assessment process for the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro.
Yours sincerely

Graham Quint
Director, Conservation

Metro Bill.
The Metro Bill gives powers to the private operator to compulsorily
acquire property should they see fit. Where does this leave
communities and residents who don't want to leave their homes and
suburbs? No one should have the right to take your home, particularly
a private company that will likely turn the areas around and over the
stations into the high rise towers we see in Hong Kong. Privatisation
will also increase fares for commuters.

Reduced seating
We have an aging population in Australia and reducing seating on
transport is a silly idea. I will not be using the trains if I need to
stand up for up for more than 10 minutes.

Loss of more parking in Hurlstone Park.
We already have 3 disabled parking spots in Hurlstone Park which are
in the vicinity of the shops and station - perfect for less mobile
community members. Many people from other suburbs drive to Hurlstone
Park to park close to the station as there are no time restrictions on
parking. The kerbside facilities in Duntroon Street are outside
properties that have residential zoning and no off street parking.
Parking outside the homes on Duntroon Street should not be removed.
Rather, parking should be timed with exceptions made for residents. If
residents in Duntroon, Floss or Crinan Streets move their vehicles
from 0700 onwards they generally need to park their car at least 2
blocks away and only after 1800 pm is there a chance of finding
parking outside/close to their homes.

Dust/air quality/health effects during construction.
What measures will be taken to protect the community from excessive
dust from construction and the pollution caused by diesel machinery
and any excavating? There may be asbestos risks posted to the
community with any work undertaken.
Noise during construction and operation of the Metro.
We have not been provided any details of noise mitigation measures
that will be adopted for the homes adjoining the corridor. There are
some serious issues here as many of the homes are in close proximity
to the rail line and as they were built in the early 1900s do not have
noise mitigating features such as double glazing. Most of the work
will take place during school holidays and evenings when families are
generally at home which will make life unbearable for these residents.
The noise impacts that will be adopted need to be made available to
the community so they can make an informed decision.

Also more detail needs to be given regarding the noise impacts of the
Metro one in operation should it be approved. The new trains, security
screens, intruder alarms etc will no doubt be very noisy and cause
problems for the residents along the corridor, particularly in the
evenings when most vandals are about. More information needs to be
given to the community.

Damage to buildings due to vibration.
What mitigation measures will be in place to protect the homes along
the corridor that were built in the early 1900s (some older) from
vibration impacts? Again we need appropriate information to make
informed decisions. Will any damage be rectified?

Station Improvements
At Hurlstone Park station fencing needs to be installed on the
heritage rock face on the platform to stop vandals accessing the wall
of the building on the rock face where they leave graffiti. This will
also allow the owners of the building to safely maintain the building
and plant some pretty flowers in this area (as they did in the past)
which currently is full of unsightly dry weeds therefore improving the
amenity for community and commuters at large.

Please restore the heritage railway buildings and select colour
schemes that are appropriate to the era of the buildings. The bright
orange "Hurlstone Park" Signs recently erected are revolting and
should be removed. Adding lifts is important however the design must
be such that it does not create glare from the sun, maintains privacy
to surrounding homes and somehow fit in to the proposed heritage
conservation areas around the station rather than stand out. The
original stair case railings should be kept and reused.

Having lived in the area since the 1960s I remember a time when the
restrooms and waiting rooms were used by commuters. Rather than
allowing these to decay restore them and allow people to use them, at
least during peak hour and especially in winter.

I don't think replacing the heavy rail with a metro system for
Sydenham to Bankstown is the right decision. We should be creating
additional train lines where there are none to make more areas
accessible. I do not agree with privatising any rail lines and any new
trains should have increased seating capacity, not decreased seating
capacity.

Most of the changes made have been positive, but there is not enough
detail for people to make informed choices. For this reason I object
to the plan in its current form.

The Canterbury Racecourse Action Group is made up of a number of
concerned local residents who came together primarily to work to help
save the Canterbury racecourse open parkland from possible future
ill-considered or large scale development which will remove this
wonderful open space from the public. Please accept our submission in
relation to the South West Metro project.


Reading the proposal, we see that the Metro construction phase could
last over 12 months resulting in closure of the Bankstown train line
this entire time. As a result, we believe that this will mean a big
increase in the number of cars used to bring race goers to Race
meetings at the Canterbury Racecourse. Surrounding suburbs like
Ashbury already suffer in that residents are parked out of their homes
during race meetings, especially when overflow parking reaches full
capacity, this now happens most meetings. We believe the closure of
the rail line will greatly exacerbate this problem for local residents
in Canterbury and Ashbury. In addition, we understand a number of
current train stations will not be retained with the Metro line, which
will again exacerbate the problem of extra cars at race meetings, this
does not seem like an improved solution for us.

It is also perceived that Metro project funding relies on the
successful implementation of the State Planning's Sydenham to
Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy which will allow rezoning for high
density housing, all areas up to 800m radius of Metro line stations in
the corridor. We note that most of Canterbury Racecourse falls within
800m of Canterbury Station, so we believe the Strategy and the Metro
project will put immense pressure on the open land to accommodate the
High Density housing earmarked in these plans. If not that, then the
value uplift of the Racecourse land after implementation will make it
prohibitively expensive for any reasonable amount to be reserved or
considered for purchase back by the the Federal, State government or
local council as greatly needed public recreation space. Ironically
public recreation space will be in even greater demand and much more
necessary after implementation when the new high density housing
precincts come into being. For this reason we believe the Metro
project will again negatively impact the Canterbury Park Racecourse
Precinct.

We also understand the cost of construction of the Sydenham to
Bankstown Metro will top $8 Billion dollars as a conservative
estimate. As local residents we know and use the existing rail line
and believe it works well, albeit could accommodate more services than
is the case currently. We question the justification to spend this
extraordinary amount of money to replace what is already in place and
working fine when simply adding more services will achieve much the
same thing at negligible extra cost. We believe that these funds could
be better used to provide much needed services and open space for
residents to offset the coming increasing populations planned for the
corridor in the future. That said, $8 Billion would be more than
enough to purchase back the Canterbury Racecourse many times over if
and when the Turf Club decide they no longer need it for their racing
operations. This we regard, is a much better use of those funds than
replacement of an existing and fully functional commuter rail-line.

In summary, we believe the negative impacts presented above to far
outweigh the positives of the Metro South West strategy for our local
communities around the Canterbury Racecourse.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity of making a submission on the
Sydenham to Bankstown Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report.

I question the report and oppose this project because the present
functioning Sydenham to Bankstown line is, unnecessarily, being
replaced by the metro line to be franchised by a private operator. The
better option would be to retain the present line and outlay
expenditure on up-grading and improving existing stations and
facilities. I am concerned that the business case is flawed and the
project lacks transparency.

I am also concerned that the the exorbitant costs of the project will
escalate (as with Westconnex and other major projects) and that it
will not return value for taxpayers' dollars.

The report does not acknowledge that the project lacks community and
bipartisan support or highlight community concerns about its supposed
benefits. (Part B, pp30-35). Negative consequences are ignored or
dismissed. These will include overcrowding, reduced seating and
commuters having to change trains to get to certain destinations
because of fewer direct connections and stops, e.g. Redfern and the
City Circle, and having to face longer commuting times.

I am especially concerned about the lack of meaningful community
consultation. It is obvious from the meetings I have attended that
this project is extremely unpopular. While some construction and
congestion concessions have been mentioned in the report, the major
issues of concern have been ignored. The report fails to register the
community's negative reaction to this major project.

No amount of glossy literature will change the fact that people want
an updated existing line and that overdevelopment around stations
linked to the project is unacceptable as it will impact negatively on
the quality of life of residents in already over-crowded suburbs such
as Marrickville and Bankstown.

People are generally disenchanted with the whole consultative system,
reasoning that they are not being listened to. In this way, the
process of community consultation has become a farce where big
decisions have already been made and set in stone before the
consultation begins and all that can be hoped for with major projects
are a few concessions. This strikes at the heart of the democratic
process.

Urban development around metro stations will mean the loss of green
space and amenities, congestion and an urgent need for additional
infrastructure with the increase in population density along the line.
The loss of green space in areas such as Marrickville, where there is
already a shortage, is of great concern. There is world-wide
acknowledgement that green space is important for the physical and
mental health of communities.

In conclusion, this project should not be approved. It is concerned
with the replacement of the functioning Sydenham to Bankstown rail
line with a line. Its benefits, detailed in the report, have to be
seriously questioned. Its social, economic and environmental costs are
unacceptable.

I support the PIR and the amendments made to the project,
including the proposed possession periods and station closures.

I am against the heavy Rail between Sydenham and Bankstown being replaced
with a driverless metro line.

The minimal number of seats is inappropriate for such a long trip, my
elderly parents have enough difficulties now without the reduction of
seats this change will cause.

Duntroon and Floss st Are very narrow and busy with Buses and constant
traffic, to have an extra disabled carpark on the southern side of the
line is dangerous and the 3 on the northern side are sufficient. We do
not want to lose anymore street car parks, and the kiss and drop zone
at that corner has not been seriously considered as it will be very
dangerous.

The whole plan should be shelved and further consideration given to
upgrading the signalling and keeping the far superior line we already
have.

Station Improvements and Heritage Considerations
Please restore the heritage railway buildings and select colour
schemes that are appropriate to the era of the buildings. The bright
orange "Hurlstone Park" Signs recently erected are revolting and
should be removed. Adding lifts is important however the design must
be such that it does not create glare from the sun, maintains privacy
to surrounding homes and somehow "fit in" to the proposed heritage
conservation areas around the station rather than stand out. The
original stair railings should be kept.

The restrooms and waiting rooms should be accessible to commuters.
Rather than allowing these to decay restore them and allow people to
use them, at least during peak hour and especially in winter. Access
may possibly be granted via an opal card therefore identifying the
user should any issues regarding vandalism arise. There are many a
time when people have trespassed into the homes surrounding the
station to relieve themselves, because they could not access the
station toilets.

At Hurlstone Park station fencing needs to be installed on the
heritage rock face on platform 2 to stop vandals accessing the wall of
the building on that rock face where the vandals leave unsightly and
sometimes offensive graffiti. This will stop vandals accessing the
wall, allow the owners of the building to safely maintain the building
and possibly plant some attractive vegetation in this area which
currently is full of unsightly dry weeds. This will improve the
amenity for commuters and the community at large.


Loss of more parking spaces in Duntroon Street.
We already have 3 accessible parking spots in Hurlstone Park which are
in the vicinity of the shops and station - perfect for less mobile
community members that need to do their shopping or catch public
transport.

I understand after speaking with the Metro staff that the kerbside
facilities and accessible parking space on drawings for Duntroon
Street (to the west of the station) are no longer part of the
preferred project and this has now been scrapped. Residents in this
street do not have off street parking - all properties on this side of
the street are zoned residential (including the old shopfront adjacent
to the station). No parking should be removed.

Metro Bill.
The Metro Bill gives powers to the private operator to compulsorily
acquire property should they see fit. Where does this leave
communities and residents that don't want to leave their homes and
suburbs? No one should have the right to take your home, particularly
a private company that will likely turn the areas around and over the
stations into the high rise towers we see in Hong Kong. Our suburbs
have already been destroyed by high rise concrete monstrosities due to
the greed of developers, public officials and their "mates" (see ICAC
Dahsa investigation). We do not need any further destruction of
heritage and loss of sunlight, green areas and amenity in these areas.
High rise is not the way to go. Communities want appropriate
development and looking at the MTR model -high-rise is their preferred
form of development over and adjacent to stations.

Privatization will additionally lead to increased transport prices for
commuters. Look at what has happened with the privatization of the
electricity grid. We are now paying huge electricity bills after being
told that privatization would increase competition and decrease
prices.

Reduced seating
We have an aging population in Australia and reducing seating on
transport is a silly ideas. Unfortunately, morals in society have
degraded and there is very little respect for the elderly. Many times
I have seen children and adults sit in the seats specifically for the
elderly on current trains while elderly passengers are made to stand.
We need trains that increase the number of seats available, not
decrease them.

Noise/Dust/air quality/health effects during construction and
operation of the Metro.
We have not been provided any details of noise, dust, etc mitigation
measures that will be adopted for the homes adjoining the corridor.
There are some serious issues here as many of the homes are in close
proximity to the rail line and as they were built in the early 1900s
do not have noise mitigating features such as double glazing. Most of
the work will take place during school holidays and evenings when
families are generally at home which will make life unbearable for
these residents. The noise and dust impacts that will be adopted need
to be made available to the community so they can make an informed
decision.
What measures will be taken to protect the community from excessive
dust from construction and the pollution caused by diesel machinery
and any excavating? There may be asbestos risks posted to the
community with any work undertaken. Mesothelioma occurs decades after
exposure to asbestos which I understand may have been used on train
brakes.

Additionally, more detail needs to be given regarding the noise
impacts of the Metro once in operation, should it be approved. The new
trains, security screens, intruder alarms etc will no doubt be very
noisy and cause problems for the residents along the corridor,
particularly in the evenings when most vandals are about. Will the
noise emanating from these keep residents along the corridor awake at
night? More information needs to be given to the community.

Damage to buildings due to vibration.
What mitigation measures will be in place to protect the homes along
the corridor that were built in the early 1900s (some older) from
vibration impacts? Again we need appropriate information to make
informed decisions. Will any damage be rectified?

In summary, I do not agree that replacing the heavy rail with a metro
system from Sydenham to Bankstown is the way to go. A more cost
effective approach would be to update our signaling and add additional
Waratah trains during peak hour.

We should be creating additional train lines where there are none to
make more suburbs accessible by train. I am totally opposed to
privatization of our public transport.

The preferred infrastructure report is a huge improvement on the
original plans, but the community needs more detailed information
regarding the details of the project in order to make an informed
decision and I therefore cannot support it until this information is
made available.

Submission on Preferred Infrastructure Plan, Metro Southwest< Sydenham
to Bankstown
Application No: SSI 17_8256

This is intended as a joint submission on behalf of myself and my wife
Jennifer Hillier (also of 52 Starkey St, Hurlstone Park). We can't see
a way on the exhibition portal to lodge this submission under both
names, but we would like it to be recorded as a joint submission.

We strongly support the Sydney Metro Southwest Project - in particular
the section of the project involved in converting the existing heavy
train corridor from Sydenham to Bankstown to be part of the Sydney
Metro system. However, we also share the concerns of many residents
that the extension of the Metro here may be used to justify a
poorly-planned - and excessively high-rise - avalanche of
"overdevelopment", which could swamp the long-established urban
villages along this corridor.

We have made submissions to earlier stages of the public consultation
on both the Metro and associated rezoning proposals. We are also
members of the Hurlstone Park Association (HPA) which has actively
opposed Metro Southwest, both on its own and as part of the Sydenham
to Bankstown Alliance (SBA). We have made our position on the Metro
clear within the HPA and made a number of posts in favour of the Metro
on the SBA website, but our sense is that our position is a minority
one among active members of both organizations.

We have some specific responses to the changes made in the Preferred
Infrastructure Plan - in particular a serious concern with the
apparent shelving of the commitment to the creation of an "active
transport corridor" as part of the refurbishment of the rail corridor,
but we would like to start with some general observations on the
political climate of the local debate on the Metro.

* An over-riding impression from the local debate on the Metro project
is that most people are not taking the potential advantages of the
Metro seriously, because the Metro is not being considered seriously
in its own right. It is regarded as inextricably linked with
unacceptable levels of "overdevelopment" and its opponents have
settled on a simple formula: block the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro and
you will get rid of the main overdevelopment threat. We think this is
very simplistic. But the idea of a very close link between the Metro
and overdevelopment is a direct product of the way the state
government has touted its plans for "urban renewal" in the Sydenham to
Bankstown corridor - and the sweeping draft rezoning proposals
published in connection with this. Given this link, it is very
unfortunate that there has been little systematic connection between
the consultation on the Metro and the consultation on the rezoning
proposals, and that there is much less firm evidence at this stage of
serious concessions to community concerns on the rezoning than there
is on the Metro.

* The Metro documentation on the Preferred Infrastructure Plan claims
that it involves major changes to the original proposals in response
to community concerns expressed in the consultation process. We think
there have indeed been genuine and substantial concessions,
particularly in the abandonment of plans for major station
realignments. Assuming that the proposed mechanical alternatives to
station realignments are reliable - and don't provide a regular
touchstone for complaints about the Metro when it is operational -
this change of plan is probably desirable on a number of counts.

* However, we are very concerned that any detail on the promised cycle
path and "active transport corridor" has been quietly dropped from the
precinct maps in the Preferred Infrastructure Plan - and though no
proper rationale is provided for this in the documents, it seems
likely that this initiative has become a casualty of the overall
decision to minimize the engineering changes to the existing rail
corridor. This has very bad echoes of the way in which an "active
transport"/Greenway corridor was promised as part of the Lilyfield to
Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension and then dropped in the final stages
of the process. It is part of a general pattern in which the interests
of pedestrians and cyclists are marginalized in major infrastructure
projects, and it encourages cynicism among the very groups who ought
also to be natural supporters of major public transport projects as
opportunities to break the stranglehold of the car in Sydney urban
planning.

* Finally - as an extension of the last point - we think that planning
for the Metro should incorporate serious attempts to shift the balance
more in favour of pedestrians in planning decisions about pedestrian
crossings, etc around train stations and associated shopping strips in
this corridor. As things stand, such decisions seem clearly to be
dominated by a systematic road planners' bias in favour of motorists,
even in a relatively quiet urban neighbourhood like Hurlstone Park
which is well away from "main roads". The published precinct maps seem
to indicate that Metro authorities view their precinct planning
"orbit" around the stations in quite restricted terms. But an
infrastructure project as important as the Metro - a project which if
successful should substantially increase the general flow of
pedestrian activity - ought to provide a platform to promote the
interests of pedestrians across these urban villages in the Sydenham
to Bankstown corridor, not just in the immediate vicinity of stations.