Sydney Metro West - Concept and Stage 1 (major civil construction between Westmead and The Bays)

Herewith my concerns:

Overshadowing and loss of views - Fred Kelly Reserve.
Your artist’s impression of the Five Dock Station shows high rise levels of building:

(a) Will it remain as 3 levels.

(b) Will it overshadow sunlight over Fred Kelly Reserve.

Loss of car parking at Second Avenue.
Your plan shows that there will be no replacement of the existing car spaces. Is it possible to create (underground) car spaces between the ground and tunnel levels.

Noise and vibrations - compensation at Second Avenue.
Already I’ve had notice from one of my tenants that he will not continue to occupy my property if the noise and vibrations during the day and night affect his business.

Views and aesthetics.
In the spaces marked “shaft” material areas, workshops and site offices what will there be after the metro works are completed? Will there be any buildings and if so, can you indicate their purpose, size and height.

Access to Waterview Street Car Park (behind the pub).
Council indicated in the past that they wanted a lane way to go from Second Avenue through to the Waterview Street carpark. This would:

(a) Take some traffic off Waterview Street,

(b) Enable future developments to have car access from the back lane. Is it still going ahead?

Access from Waterview Street to Metro Station.
Council owns a house/property adjacent to the Post Office reserve, is this going to be demolished and provide an access way from Waterview Street through to the Metro Station?
Will there be a workshop meeting to discuss this project in Five Dock?
--
Regards
Pompeo (Paul) Egisto

This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you receive this email in error please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Transport for NSW takes all care to ensure that attachments are free from viruses or other defects. Transport for NSW assume no liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using an attachment.

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless really necessary.

4 Attachments

My submission is attached

Please refer to the attached submission dated 25 June 2020.

Please see attached submission in relation to the proposed Metro West. Chamber is supportive but has questions and suggestions which require consideration

My submission is attached. All relevant comments are within the submission.
My submission focuses on the Sydney Metro West station in Westmead (“Westmead Metro Station”) and the Sydney Metro West alignment in Westmead, addressing in particular the fact that the EIS failed to consider a Westmead Central station location (immediately to the north of Westmead Railway Station), which is by almost all criteria superior to the Westmead South option preferred in the EIS. The submission considers interchanges at Westmead between Sydney Metro West trains and other public and private transport modes, including Parramatta Light Rail trams and buses.
Note that there are two files attached - one is the main submission, and the other is an appendix to the main submission.

We are supportive of the project but further strengthening of controls and place making aspects in creating a blue green grid are required to achieve an improved environment for the community and realise the vision for a Central River City and a swimmable Parramatta River.

Based on the proposed alignment of the Metro West tunnels the alignment shows that they partly intersect underneath our home and property. We as a family have concerns that the specific alignment of the tunnel orientation passes below the house and property. Our concern is to do with the ongoing issues of subsidence of the surrounding ground and geology in the area. If the tunnels were more evenly placed under the property we would feel less concerned but due to only have of the dwelling being exposed to the tunnel alignment we are concerned that there will be cracking and structural damages to the property because of this. We are aware that the depth of the tunnels are at approx. 28m below the surface level but the issue still remains. We would like to know following: What measure are going to be taken to ensure sufficient reporting (i.e. dilapidation) reports for all properties that are directly affected below the tunnels and those which are within 100m from each of the tunnels prior to construction commencing? Will Metro West and the NSW perform inspections on all of these affected properties along the alignment and provide this reporting to property owners? If there is damage caused by subsidence and settling of the surrounding geology and sub soils that Metro West and the NSW government will correct and rectify these damages that were no present before construction? In the tunnels structural design has this been tailored and adjusted to each geology type along the alignment and if so can you provide more details specific to how properties that are only partially over the tunnel have been considered? Can the NSW Government and or Metro West please provide further details and examples where properties only partially impacted by subterranean tunnels have not have had any damage to the dwelling.
Overall we are excited of the prospect of this transport initiative and project to come to the much needed Five Dock area. But we not enthusiastic that the alignment as appeared under our property in this manner.

Overall, I support this project but note the following:

There should be another station between Parramatta and SOP

After Camellia was dumped as a station and only Rydalmere mooted as an alternative (With the extensive dogleg was this ever really a serious consideration?) it would appear that nobody went back to look at the feasibility of a station at Silverwater.

If you look at the interactive map provided on the Sydney Metro West website you will see that a station at Silverwater Rd is only one block into the industrial estate and is surrounded by residential at North Auburn and the south area of Newington. There’s even a bridge link into the Carter St Precinct (John Ian Wing Pde) from the south area of Newington. A new Urban Renewal Precinct (URP) at Silverwater Rd using up to 6-8 blocks could create a new town centre to service these residential areas as well as cater for the remaining industrial workforce. Eventually the whole LGA part of North Auburn on the northern side of the M4 Motorway could be rezoned to medium-high density housing. A station here could also take pressure off the current Auburn Station which is in the top 10 for patronage outside of the Sydney CBD (One of the key reasons justifying the need for the West Metro project).

West mead Station

Seamless, quick, efficient transfer is required at Westmead Station. This could potentially make or break this project. For it to be effective you need an underground link from the existing platforms to the underground concourse of the metro platforms. For example transferring from Sydney Trains to Metro should only require going down one set of escalators to a tunnel that links to the metro concourse and then down another set of escalators to get to the platform.

If you have to travel up to an aerial walkway to transfer, then back down to street level, then down to the metro concourse, then down to the platform (Up/down x4 times as opposed to up/ down x2 times) a transfer becomes not seamless, quick or efficient. Most commuters will just stay on the Sydney Trains train.

Parramatta Station

Surely there will need to be more than one station entrance/ exit. Another entrance/exit from Church St would be ideal.

SOP Station

Unlike the current SOP station this station will also be significantly used by non-event day commuters. As a result and so that the efficiency of this station can be maintained there should be double sided platforms (Like the current SOP Station) so there is one sided boarding and one sided disembarking on event days. On non-event days the system could work with single sided boarding and disembarking.

To whom it may concern,

We live on Queen St, Concord West, less than 500m from the proposed North Strathfield station site. Our property is not currently over the tunnel corridor but is only about 60m away at its closest point, so obviously we have an interest in this project.

We have been looking at the diagrams in the EIS Summary document showing the proposed tunnel and station depths along the route. The closest locations to us are numbers 28 and 29 at North Strathfield (on page 84) which are at depths of 26m and 18m respectively, significantly shallower than at many other locations shown. Is there any particular reason why the tunnels will not be deeper near our property and other properties around North Strathfield? We are disappointed as we are very concerned about potential damage caused by tunnelling works nearby (or underneath if the route is altered) and would have preferred the tunnels to be much deeper to avoid this.

Please note that we do see the benefits of the project overall to both our local neighbourhood and residents along the route. It will provide easier public transport access to places such as Sydney Olympic Park and Parramatta and hopefully also take some passengers off the existing heavy rail which is already at capacity during peak hours.

Regards,
Anthony and Bronwyn Langsworth

Please see attached City of Sydney submission.

Please see attachment.

Please refer to attached Submission and Drawings attached.

On behalf of the University of Sydney, please refer attached submission.

I wish to submit that the EIS has failed to address the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements in relation to property rights.
My concern relates to economic losses to individual property owners of adjacent impacted residential properties. There is no framework for engagement or resolution of loss of livelihood for impacted landowners who suffer financial loss due to loss or reduction of rental income as a result of being located in the immediate proximity of a construction site.
I am the owner of 11 East Street Five Dock. This is a more than 100 year old, single fronted house, on approximately 200 square metres of land, zoned R2 low density residential and it is situated directly across East Street from the Five Dock Station western construction site. It is less than 20 metres from this construction site and less than 20m from the proposed 15m high surrounding shed. I have owned this property since 1985 and it has been rented throughout this time. I am a retired senior, and the rental income from this property is my sole source of income.
The EIS identifies this property as a “highly noise affected receiver” (Fig 11-29) and a “visually sensitive receiver” (Tech Paper 6, 15.12.1). Due to its extremely close proximity to the station construction site it will be adversely impacted during the construction processes. The EIS notes that It will be adversely impacted by daytime and night time air-borne construction noise (Tech Paper 2 Figs 65, 66, 67 & 68) and ground-borne construction noise (Fig 11-30, 11-31) and exceedance of human comfort criteria (Fig 11-3).
It will also be adversely impacted by the other associated construction issues noted in the EIS, including visual amenity, traffic, parking limitations, reduced local amenity, possible power and utility interruptions and reduced air quality. Also of concern is the potential for groundwater contamination which poses a potential major problem for the many local home vegetable growers in the Five Dock area and indeed the need for us to advise our tenants of this risk. The other extremely worrying concern is the likelihood for cosmetic and or structural damage to the property both from vibration and especially from soil movement around the foundations due to changes to the water table as a result of the works. I note here that from my experience with previous fencing work on this property the water table is well within 600mm of the surface and not the 2m (Table 18-3) stated in the EIS for this area. The EIS refers to settlement impacts on St Albans Anglican Church as potentially 30mm settlement (Table 12-3) and this heritage building is a similar distance from the actual excavation site to my property. My house is older than the church and also set on higher ground than the church so would potentially be more adversely impacted both cosmetically and structurally by changes to the water table. Any repairs and or rebuilding/underpinning will take time and cause further loss of rental.
After reading the EIS I have become extremely worried as I believe that it is inevitable that the rental of this property, and indeed others in similar positions, will be adversely impacted. Despite the best attempts at mitigation, it seems to me that it will be impossible to achieve anywhere near usual market rental in this situation once the project begins. This situation could continue for many years. The ordinary person would not choose to rent a house with such major issues pertinent to lifestyle and unhealthy disruptive environment at all hours of the day and night.
The Five Dock Station site severity is rated as “High” for the social factors of both “ way of life” and “surroundings” and also for Personal and Property rights the Sensitivity is rated as “High” for Personal and Property Rights (Table 58 Scoping Table, Tech Paper 6). No other station has such high ratings. The Five Dock station western construction site is extremely close to residential properties compared to other stations, therefore the issue of adverse impacts on residences is exacerbated.
Table 38 in Tech Paper 6, Social Factors, Personal and Property Rights states that even with mitigation it is” likely” that personal and property rights will be negatively impacted, with social risk rating “high” and “moderate” consequence. The only mitigation suggested is close communication and personal support mechanisms (Tech Paper 6, p 141) however further reference to this is not included in the body of the EIS. It is also not explained what this would entail but it appears to relate to personal rights rather than property rights.
Table 17-5 in the EIS identifies potential impacts due to property acquisitions and construction processes, however there is only further reference to acquisitions and no further mention of construction processes impacts.
Section 17.3.2 identifies Economic livelihoods as a social factor to be addressed in social assessment guidelines, however neither 17.5 nor 17.6.2 addresses this. Further, 17.14.2 states no other property rights identified for the Five Dock site. Tech Paper 6, Table 50, also does not cover this. Therefore the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements in Table 17-1 3.3 and further in 17.3.2 have not been addressed in Section 17-5 to 17-16 as claimed. On this basis the EIS should be amended to address specifically impacts to property rights. This is not a minor matter as it impacts an individual’s economic livelihood.
Chapter 16 refers to impacts on businesses. Chapter 27, p 27-14, B11 and also Tech Paper 6 p137 (“Livelihoods”) notes that there will be small business owner engagement to assist adversely impacted by construction. Again the Environmental Assessment Requirements Table 16-1, 3 refers to this chapter addressing “Social and Economic (including property, land use and businesses)” and 3.1 “affected properties, businesses, recreational users and land and water users, including property acquisitions/adjustments, access, amenity and relevant statutory rights”. However there is only further reference throughout this chapter on businesses and nothing at all on affected properties or land use as required by the Secretary. On this basis the EIS should again be amended to address specifically impacts to property and land use i.e. residential property rental.
I believe that a similar procedure to that promised for businesses should be in place for owners of residential tenanted properties similarly affected, as the economic and social impacts are similar if not worse.
Therefore in good faith I contacted the local Personal Manager for Five Dock as the impending loss of income is extremely worrying and causing great concern. I raised the issue of potential rental losses hoping to see what could be done to address the situation. She suggested I could make a submission. She provided some helpful information, however also stated, in a follow-up email, that whilst Sydney Metro West appreciated my concern “..Sydney Metro does not pay financial compensation as it relates to construction impacts..” This response does not reflect an intention by Sydney Metro to “engage” as is promised in the EIS for businesses. It is a dismissal rather than an engagement and is a denial of what is reasonable and just, which is causing me ongoing stress and anguish.
I submit that individuals who cannot rent their residential property at their previous and fair market rental due to the adverse impacts from construction of the Sydney West Metro should receive reasonable reimbursement for the said loss on an ongoing basis, in particular when this relates to their sole income or livelihood. If such loss occurs as a result of the project, there must be in place a process to allow for engagement and negotiation with individuals, similar to the statement in Section 16.16.2, Table 16-32 B11 for businesses, to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome. As noted above, the EIS should be amended to include same in accordance with the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements.

Please find attached the City of Canada Bay Council's Submission to the Sydney Metro West Concept and Stage 1 Environmental Impact Statement. Endorsed by Council on 23 June 2020.

See attached letter.

Please find attached GPT's submission relating to the planned station precinct at Sydney Olympic Park.

I write as the Managing Agent for the Five Dock Square BMC DP 1062325 property address 4-12 Garfield Street, Five Dock.
I am pleased to provide the included submission on behalf of the members for your perusal and records.
Any questions arising please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best Regards
Kate Maclachlan

Lendlease support the project and wish to offer a number of recommendations related to specific stations and construction methodology as per attached list.

To whom it may concern,

As the owner of the White Bay Power Station (WBPS), INSW is an affected land owner of the Sydney Metro West project in The Bays Area. I note we are also in discussions with the Sydney Metro West Project Team for a construction licence over part of our site.

Please see the attached advice from our Heritage Architect following their review of the relevant documentation on exhibition. In addition is advice from our Structural Engineer following their review.

Please note that the WBPS site is currently being vesting between INSW and DPIE. Ownership will transfer on 1 July 2020 as executed by the NSW Premier to Place Management NSW. Please direct all information on this matter in moving forward to Marco Pellegatti of Place Management NSW whose details are as follows: M: 0450 092 570. E: [email protected].

I wish you well with your project.

Kind regards,

Michael Abood
Director, Asset Strategy and Management