Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Sydney Metro - Western Sydney Airport

Liverpool City, Penrith

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

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

A new metro line to service Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, the Western Sydney Aerotropolis and interchanging with the T1 Western Line at St Marys

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_21102020_063020

Application (1)

Sydney Metro - Western Sydney Airport_Scoping

SEARs (1)

SEARs Metro - WSA

EIS (58)

Certification, Executive Summary, ToC
Chapter 1- Introduction
Chapter 2- Strategic need and justification
Chapter 3- Project location and setting
Chapter 4- Planning and assessment process
Chapter 5- Stakeholder and community engagement
Chapter 6- Project development and alternatives
Chapter 7- Project description - operation
Chapter 8- Project description - construction
Chapter 9- Transport
Chapter 10- Noise and vibration
Chapter 11- Biodiversity
Chapter 12- Non-Aboriginal heritage
Chapter 13- Aboriginal heritage
Chapter 14- Flooding, hydrology & water quality
Chapter 15- Groundwater and geology
Chapter 16- Soils and contamination
Chapter 17- Sustainability, climate change & GHG
Chapter 18- Resource management
Chapter 19- Land use and property
Chapter 20- Landscape and visual
Chapter 21- Social and economic
Chapter 22- Air quality
Chapter 23- Hazard and risk
Chapter 24- Cumulative impacts
Chapter 25- Environmental management & mitigation
Chapter 26- Environmental risk analysis
Chapter 27- Synthesis
Chapter 28- Conclusion
Chapter 29- References and terminology
Appendix A- Environmental assessment requirements
Appendix B- Statutory approvals framework
Appendix C- OCCS
Appendix D- Stakeholder and community engagement
Appendix E- Design Guidelines
Appendix F- CEMF
Appendix G- CTMF
Appendix H- CNVS
Appendix I- Environmental risk analysis results
Appendix J- EPBC on-airport assessment
Appendix K- EPBC off-airport assessment
Tech Paper 1- Transport
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 1)
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 2)
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 3)
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 4)
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 5)
Tech Paper 2- Noise and vibration (Part 6)
Tech Paper 3- BDAR
Tech Paper 4- Non-Aboriginal heritage
Tech Paper 5- Aboriginal heritage
Tech Paper 6-Flooding, hydrology & water quality_1
Tech Paper 6-Flooding, hydrology & water quality_2
Tech Paper 6-Flooding, hydrology & water quality_3
Tech Paper 7- Groundwater
Tech Paper 8- Contamination
Tech Paper 9- Landscape and visual
Tech Paper 10- Social and economic

Response to Submissions (13)

Request RTS_10122020_120633
SMWSA Submissions Report
Appendix A Where to find responses to issues
Appendix B Revised Project Description
Appendix C Overarching Community Comms Strategy
Appendix D Design Guidelines
Appendix E Construction Env. Management Framework
Appendix F Construction Noise & Vibration Standard
Appendix G Revised BDAR
Appendix H Revised ACHAR
Appendix I ACHMP
Appendix J Aboriginal Archaeological Report
Appendix K Archaeological Research Design

Additional Information (1)

RFI Request for Additional Information_01062020_044406

Determination (3)

Notice of Decision - SSI-10051
Assessment Report - SSI-10051
Instrument of Approval SSI-10051

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (52)

DPE letter acknowledgement CTMP AEW
Acknowledgement Letter - Credit Retirement
Acknowledgement Letter - SMWSA E3
WSA Staging Report - DPIE Letter
SM-WSA AEW Roads Elizabeth Drive CTMP
WSA OCCS Acknowledgement Letter
SMWSA Evidence of retirement of Credits
WSA DRP Terms of Reference - DPIE Letter
WSA OCTMP - DPE Letter
Approval of CTMP Lift and Stair Relocation
SMWSA-Overarching-Community-Communications-Strategy
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_25022022_042917
ER Approval of POWER CEMP minor update
A30 Alternate ER Approval March 2022 DPE Approval
Acknowledgment Letter - OOHW Respite Consultation
SCAW CTMP Patons Lane
SMWSA Staging Report v4.0
DPIE acknowledgment letter St Marys CTMP
Approval of St Marys HVLR
AEW Power CEMP Patons Lane
Acknowledgement of WSA Staging Report Ver 7
Approval of Staging Report v6
CTMP - Lift Shaft and Stairs Relocation
WSA ACHMP - DPIE Letter
Acknowledgement Letter OCTMP_SSI-10051-PA-121
WSA AEW OCTMP
WSA Sustainability Plan - DPE Letter
DPE approval of heritage unexpected procedure
WSA Staging Report Ver 7
St Marys Traffic Management Plan R4
Approval of Elizabeth Drive CEMP
Approval of SBT NVMP & Monitor Programs (NV & GW)
Excavation Director St Mary's Approval Letter
SM-WSA SCAW - Overarching CTMP
SBT SWMP Final Rev 1 (incl GW Monitor Program)
Excavation Director Nomination - St Mary's Station
Updated ACHMP_CSSI_clean_redacted
Exhumation Management Procedure_May 2021_Final 3.1
SBT NVMP Final Rev 1
Approval of SBT CEMP and FFMP
Unexpected Heritage Finds Procedure Final
SBT Flora & Fauna Sub-plan Rev 1
SBT CEMP Rev 2
Approval of SCAW CNVMP Rev E
Approval Letter - WSA SCAW FFMP
Approval of SCAW SWMP
SCAW CNVMP Rev E
SM WSA OOHWP - DPIE Approval
SMWSA SCAW FFMP
DPIE approval letter AEW HVLR
SMWSA SCAW SWMP
AEW Power Heavy Vehicles Local Roads (HVLR) Rev1.0

Independent Reviews and Audits (1)

Independent auditor approval

Notifications (4)

SMWSA_E4 E5 E7 Evidence of retirement of Credits
SSI10051 A35 Notification-PSBT-120422sai-signed
SMWSA_E4 E5 E7 Evidence retire Credits_SBT
SM-WSA 10051 E57 - OOHW - AEW Lift and Stair DPE Updated

Other Documents (4)

Extension Requests_13012022_041847
Appointment of Experts_17082021_124447
Approval of St Marys HVLR
HVLR - TFT - St Marys - Rev 02 15072022

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

2/03/2022

6/04/2022

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 40 submissions
Name Withheld
Comment
ERSKINE PARK , New South Wales
Message
I do support a second airport in Sydney, so long as the flight paths do not cut directly over residential areas and suburbs as this will cause noise pollution issues for residents.
Name Withheld
Support
TURRAMURRA , New South Wales
Message
In relation to Chapter 7, further provision must be given to the ease of interchange, including potential cross-platform connections at Aerotropolis, Airport Business Park and Airport Terminal. This will provide a better user experience when other lines are extended to meet this Metro rather than requiring completely independent developments.
John Gore
Comment
Doreen , Victoria
Message
Congratulations on your vision. I never thought that any Australian government would be so bold. There is no doubt that the bar has been raised concerning design and construction of projects in Sydney.

Now for my comment. I noticed from the Western Sydney Airport Metro EIS Fig 7:31 Airport Terminal Station, that there is a covered walkway from the Station to the Terminal. Can I urge you to make that an enclosed walkway or an underground passage. A covered walkway will not keep you dry if it is raining and there is a strong wind blowing. One doesn't want to carry an umbrella or raincoat to keep dry if one is boarding an airplane to fly interstate or overseas.

The concept of a covered walkway is typical of the old "cheap and nasty" compromise design that was used in Sydney to keep the cost down and is inconsistent with the new "raised bar" approach of this present government.
Name Withheld
Object
ST CLAIR , New South Wales
Message
This should not be 24 hours. It is a domestic airport. There are many homes nearby and the flight patterns will affect all homes.
Name Withheld
Comment
ST MARYS , New South Wales
Message
Personal details
*Note: please delete and withhold personal info from general public*

I support the project and the proposed metro station at St Marys, however I don’t support the proposed metro track positions that are showing to run underneath my property on Camira Street St Marys.

Below are a list of my concerns:

1/ the proposed metro lines indicate the tracks will run directly underneath my property within Camira Street St Marys. This is extremely concerning given that the proposed station depth at St Marys will be positioned quiet shallow, below the grounds surface. All existing homes within this street, including mine are older style homes, concerns for their foundations and the structural integrity of the dwellings may be comprised with such major works being carried out directly underneath.

If I understand correctly in Sydney’s Metro information package (environment impact statement) under heading “vibration tunnelling works” are expected to receive exceeded maximum vibration level targets. If correct, this is directly confirming my concerns, given the age of my home, excessive vibrations from this project could cause irreversible structural damage.

2/ such decisions could have a severe impact in the valuation of the property, dwelling and possible future developments and or rezoning decisions made by local council for properties within Camira Street. The location of this government asset will may greatly impact me financially both in the short and long term if it proceeds.

3/ concerns from ongoing noise and vibration once construction is completed. Given that we have a rail line nearby I’m concerned of the added noise and vibrations we may constantly experience from the new metro.

4/ I’m concerned there doesn’t appear to be sufficient parking in and around the metro station on the south side. Without adequate parking I’m concerned that long term customers of the metro will park in off street parking within Camira Street, and leave their vehicles there for an extended time. Also given Camira street is quiet narrow, if vehicles permanently park on either side of the road, it’s not possible for traffic to flow in either direction.

During construction there will also be a lot of contractors that require parking which could also add congestion in and around Camira Street, this too should be considered.

In conclusion I would like to see the following occur:

- the proposed metro line be repositioned so that it runs below Camira Street (away from private properties and dwellings.) Closer towards the existing railway line. Or alternatively under the railway line itself, keeping all services, utilities and assets confined within the same corridor.
- more parking options closer to the metro, possibly make one side of Camira Street - no parking to assist with traffic flow.

I’m a supporter of your project and look forward to the end result, however I just don’t agree that running the metro tracks below dwellings in Camira Street is the best option.
Ian Walker
Support
LEONAY , New South Wales
Message
I'm very disappointed that line doe snot include a station at the Western Sydney University.
Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc
Object
LEURA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission and supporting documents.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Comment
BIRRONG , New South Wales
Message
We live in Birrong and before Covid we traveled extensively. Should we have to depart from the New Airport, we would have to catch a Train at Birrong and alight at Lidcombe. Then elevators up and down to the Platform to St Mary's, alight and transfer to the Metro. Pulling luggage at our age will be horrific. Why can't there be a direct Link from Bankstown through to the New Airport? It seems a long way round to get to the Airport. Even Mascot is being made more difficult with the Metro for us. Change at Bankstown, walk some distance to the Metro, change at Central, walk to another Platform taking us to Mascot. For us living in Birrong, the New Rail System has inconvenienced us no end. Maybe the majority will gain something, but we have lost considerably.
Name Withheld
Comment
TREGEAR , New South Wales
Message
Hi,
I urge you to connect with the Western Sydney University. It would be a major failure not to connect students that benefit most from public transport with their future. Metro is a culture shift in Sydney that start with our youth. Considering the costs > this is a destination and the whole reason you started spending money on this major project. Considering the added time to get to Aerotropolis > what's the difference between 1hr20 or 1hr23 to get to Sydney City?

Secondly, I understand Orchard Hills has some growth potential but it only justifies urban sprawl. Penrith Council should know better then to further expand into the paddocks. They have wanted to densify their city centre for a long time. Remove this senseless stop.

Lastly, please provide me with an update on the timing of the delivery of the missing link Metro from Tallawong to St Marys? Are we all forever going to drive into St Marys and then suppose to grab the Metro? I assure you that most people working in the new airport will not go by Metro if there's no stop on walking distance. There's a major amount of people in the Tregear/Emerton area that will work that way. The extension in the Blacktown LGA will also provide this Metro line with a great amount of established public domain and public facilities as well as linking it with the South Creek/Parramatta to Blue Mountains walking network. If this missing link is not part of the delivery it will be like the Olympic Park spur line all over again. Surely State Government has executive infrastructure powers over the Blacktown LGA.
Peter Mills
Comment
WARRAWEE , New South Wales
Message
The need for rail-to-rail interchange, at St Marys initially and at Aerotropolis at a later date, is an important feature of the Western Sydney Airport Metro. In line with the expectation that high standards for station design would be applied, some further consideration is suggested.

At St Marys, a more convenient location for this interchange would be by means of a north-south paid area concourse below the existing surface rail tracks and above the Metro platforms. The suggested location would reduce the vertical travel distance while interchanging between the two rail systems, and would mimic the well considered Central Walk arrangements that are currently being implemented at Central station. The vertical distance requirements for Heavy Rail/Metro-bus interchange would be similar to the EIS. An unpaid parallel subway beneath the surface tracks would also be needed to allow the present overhead structures to be demolished.

For Aerotropolis, there is no information in the EIS on how a future Heavy Rail-Metro interchange for the planned Leppington extension would be implemented. Given the potential for an impact on the Metro station design, it is suggested that the interchange arrangement here should also be addressed at this time.
DPI Fisheries
Comment
ORANGE , New South Wales
Message
Please see attachment.
Attachments
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached comment from Heritage NSW
Attachments
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
,
Message
EES response attached 18 Nov 2020
Attachments
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached
Attachments
WaterNSW
Support
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached WaterNSW's comments.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Comment
EARLWOOD , New South Wales
Message
As attached, thanks.
Attachments
Water Group
Comment
,
Message
Attached.
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to the supporting documentation provided on behalf of Sydney Water for comments in relation to the proposed Sydney Metro railway line at the future Western Sydney Airport.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Support
ST MARYS , New South Wales
Message
I support the project, but strongly advocate the extension of the Western Sydney Airport metro to link with the existing Norwest Metro at Tallawong (via Ropes Crossing and Marsden Park population centers) within the scope of the initial project rather than delayed to a later project. We are at a once-in-a-generation period of opportunity for infrastructure spend with the cost of borrowing at record lows; and history informs that future proposals of this nature often do not often come to fruition (F6 freeway extension, completion of the Bondi Junction rail loop, and so on).
Further, the Norwest Metro currently connects only parts of Western Sydney to significant and growing economic and technology centers to the north of the Parramatta River, such as Macquarie Park and Chatswood; failing to extend the proposed Airport Metro to join with the Norwest Metro will hamper the realization of the full benefit of an interconnected city, and the full benefit of the Western Sydney Airport. Linking them will open greater access between the Southwest, West, and Northwest regional centers and significantly reduce transport times between these areas, while simultaneously easing congestion along important road corridors.
It will further boost the strategic growth area around St Marys, and provide greater public transport accessibility to the areas around Ropes Crossing and Marsden Park by connecting them to both the Norwest Metro, the Western Sydney Airport Metro, and the existing T1 North Shore/Western/Richmond line; completing a North-West public transport loop which has long been lacking within a city as significant as Sydney.
JEFFREY BURTON
Object
ST MARYS , New South Wales
Message
Firstly let me say that I don't specifically object to the project, but I do object to the project in its current form. My area of concern is flood mitigation and the effect on the current inhabitants of the South St Marys ( South Creek/Byrnes Creek ) area. My wife and I have lived here for 34 years on Dec 6 2020 and love the area, it is a great community with great people, plenty of things to do and the town centre within walking distance. If it has one downside it is the proximity to South Creek and the water flows that have changed over the years with contruction of the suburb of St Clair, industrial expansion and infrastructure improvements with zero change to the waterways and drainage systems. This is my reason for concern.In your Environmental impact Statement page 14-8 it says"the main South Creek channel has the highest hazard vulnerability classification and should be avoided during a flood event.Large ares of the South Creek floodplain are also unsafe for vehicles and people and all building types are vulnerable to structural damage." We were flooded from South Creek in 1988, complete devastation, not covered by insurance as it was caused by the Great Western Highway upgrade ( according to the NRMA ) and unless we had the money to fight the RTA we had to fix it ourselves. Now every time there is a decent downpoor the area is inundated again, even as of February 2020 there were dwellings underwater. If it rains for more than a day, then the locals are out watching the water rise and praying for the rain to cease. So issue number 1 is Please will the hydrologist and engineers consider putting upgraded drainage systems in place to protect the people and the homes in this area?
In the EIS you state "Changes to the flooding regime as a result of construction activities have the potential to impact properties by increasing flood levels, also you say safety risks associated with high velocities and/or deep water constitue a hazard to workers and personnel.
If you already acknowledge that increase flood levels could cause major damage and potentially death, shouldn't that be addressed prior to work commencing. It must be considered a major issue as the EIS says FLOOD PROOFING will be provided at construction sites but nothing for the residents.
It also states that the stabling and marshalling facility will be raised to prevent flooding, yet the residents in the same area get no assistance when, in effect, the raising of the ground will increase the volume and velocity of the water running towards dwellings ?
It is also noted that "water captured within the St Marys to Orchard Hills tunnel would be pumped to St Marys Station for treatment and discharge", this is what we have wanted to happen to South Creek all along, pump the water via pipeline to an area that has the capability to handle the volume. And you will need the biggest pump you can find because in February 2020 when the Great Western Highway was closed due to flooding the major impact was exactly where the tunnel is going to be, unless they are planning on running submarines then the tunnels during a heavy downpour will all be completely underwater.
We hope that whatever contingency plan they have in place to eleviate this will also divert the water from the South St Marys area and we can live in peace.
It does surprise me to read "no change to peak flood levels, unless otherwise agreed with the affected property owner", speaking to residents in the Sth St Marys area no one has been contacted so are we to assume that you can guarantee no more flood issues ?
Please consider the residents from the kids to the retirees who live in this area, we all are aware that we will be affected by aircraft noise, increased traffic and increased human traffic once this project is finished, please don't make us walk the floor all night every time it rains wondering when we will go under!
I do have photographic evidence to add but it could not be uploaded.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-10051
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Liverpool City, Penrith
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Daniel Gorgioski