Greater Parramatta, Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to raise concerns regarding the proposed wastewater pipeline alignment associated with the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle Management Project, particularly the proposed routing through the suburb of Newington.
While I acknowledge the importance of planning water infrastructure to support population growth across the Greater Parramatta corridor, the current proposal raises significant strategic, environmental and community concerns that warrant reconsideration of the alignment.

A primary concern is the apparent inconsistency between the proposal and the existing decentralised water recycling system already operating within the Sydney Olympic Park precinct. Sydney Olympic Park was designed as a model for integrated water cycle management, with infrastructure that captures, treats and reuses water locally through a recycled water network supplying homes, parks and public facilities.

Given the presence of this established system, it is unclear why the project proposes the construction of new regional wastewater pipelines through residential areas rather than exploring options to expand or integrate with the existing Sydney Olympic Park recycled water scheme. The proposal appears to move away from the decentralised water recycling approach that was originally implemented as part of the Olympic Park environmental legacy. Consideration should be given to whether upgrading or expanding the existing infrastructure could achieve the project’s objectives while avoiding unnecessary duplication of major infrastructure and minimising community disruption.

In addition, the proposed alignment through Newington raises important questions regarding route selection. Newington is a fully developed residential suburb with established homes, community spaces and environmentally sensitive wetlands. Major utility infrastructure would normally be expected to follow existing industrial or utility corridors where impacts on residential communities can be minimised.

Industrial and redevelopment areas exist in close proximity to the proposed corridor, including the Camellia industrial area and the Carter Street Precinct. These areas may present more appropriate routes for major infrastructure of this nature and should be carefully assessed as potential alternatives to a residential alignment through Newington.

In this context, it is important that the project clearly demonstrate that the proposed alignment represents the least impact corridor available. Large infrastructure projects are generally expected to prioritise routes that minimise impacts on established residential areas, public open space and environmentally sensitive locations. It is therefore important that the Environmental Impact Statement clearly explain how alternative alignments were assessed and why corridors through existing industrial or redevelopment land were not selected.

Similarly, the proposal should demonstrate that existing utility or infrastructure corridors were prioritised during route selection wherever possible. Routing new major infrastructure through established residential neighbourhoods should only occur where no feasible alternative corridors exist. The project documentation should clearly outline the process used to identify and evaluate these options.

The proposal also raises concerns regarding the potential temporary loss and disruption of Pierre De Coubertin Park. This park functions as a critical piece of social infrastructure within Newington and is used daily by residents, families and dog owners. It acts as a central gathering space that supports social connection and community wellbeing. Extended construction impacts affecting this space would significantly affect the daily life of the local community.

Environmental impacts must also be carefully considered. The wetlands and waterways surrounding Newington and the Sydney Olympic Park precinct support a diverse ecosystem including green and golden bell frogs, long-necked turtles, native fish, blue-tongue lizards and a wide variety of waterbirds. These wetlands were carefully restored as part of the Olympic Park environmental rehabilitation and form part of a sensitive ecological system connected to the Parramatta River catchment.

In addition to ecological considerations, it is important that the Environmental Impact Statement thoroughly assess potential impacts to groundwater and wetland hydrology. The wetlands and waterways surrounding Newington and the Sydney Olympic Park precinct are hydrologically connected to Haslams Creek and the broader Parramatta River catchment. Subsurface tunnelling and associated ground disturbance have the potential to alter groundwater movement or soil permeability, which may in turn influence wetland water levels and ecological stability.

For this reason, the project should clearly demonstrate through hydrological and geotechnical modelling that tunnelling activities will not alter groundwater flow, wetland hydrology or soil stability within the surrounding wetland systems. Given the environmental significance of these wetlands and the species they support, a precautionary approach should be adopted.

Another important consideration relates to the historic land uses within the Newington and Sydney Olympic Park precinct. Large parts of this area were historically used for industrial activity, waste disposal and landfill prior to the remediation works undertaken before the Sydney Olympic Games. Although remediation and containment measures were implemented as part of the Olympic Park redevelopment, many areas remain subject to ongoing environmental management and controlled ground conditions.

Disturbance of subsurface soils during tunnelling, shaft construction or trenching has the potential to intersect previously remediated or capped contaminated land. The Environmental Impact Statement should clearly demonstrate that the contamination history of the Newington and Olympic Park precinct has been fully considered in the design and construction methodology. This should include identification of any potentially contaminated soils along the proposed alignment and mitigation strategies to prevent exposure of nearby residents to contaminated dust or materials during construction.

In addition, large tunnelling projects typically require construction shafts at intervals along the alignment to allow for tunnel boring machine access, ventilation, spoil removal and maintenance. These shafts often require substantial surface work areas and are frequently located in parks, road reserves or other open spaces. It is therefore important that the project clearly identify the proposed locations of any construction or maintenance shafts associated with the pipeline.

If such infrastructure were to be located within Pierre De Coubertin Park or other community spaces within Newington, this could result in significant and extended disruption to public open space and recreational areas. The Environmental Impact Statement should clearly outline whether any tunnel shafts or major construction compounds are proposed within the Newington area and assess the resulting impacts on local community infrastructure.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Sydney Water reconsider the proposed alignment through Newington and undertake a thorough assessment of alternative routes that prioritise existing industrial or redevelopment corridors such as Camellia or the Carter Street Precinct. Consideration should also be given to whether the existing Sydney Olympic Park water recycling infrastructure could be expanded or integrated into the broader regional water management strategy.

Infrastructure planning of this scale must balance future water needs with the protection of established communities, public open space and sensitive environmental systems.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

As a resident of Newington, I am NOT in fact opposed to the actual project however am against the proposed location that has been put forward for review.

In addition, the residents of Newington were only advised of this project some two weeks ago and the submissions end in a few days.

This is not an acceptable practice and understand that a submission for an extension has been put forward by our local member Donna Davis.

The precinct of Newington is a small and friendly suburb with only 3 roads providing entry and exit to the entire suburb, it needs to be understood that the roundabout on the corner of Avenue of Oceana and Newington Boulevarde is the MAIN thoroughfare to our Precinct 3 (No other way in or out), is the most convenient road into precincts P2, P1 North, the community shopping centre and a rat run through to Silverwater Road.

It also provides access to the public school located a few hundred yards along the road that already restricts the road am and pm.

A reduction in traffic using this roundabout while construction is in progress would have a profound effect on the lives of many Newington residents and visitors.

For whatever reason you have chosen to direct the pipeline along Comaneci Avenue (one of the narrowest streets in Newington) is difficult to comprehend as allowing for say a 3 metre wide trench down the centre of the road , its edges would be within 5 metres of the walls of houses located each side of the street . My understanding is that 10 metres is considered acceptable and residents (many elderly) would have limited access to their homes as well as major concerns with regard to structural damage to their homes.

To make matters worse, it is proposed that a trench be excavated through Pierre De Coubertin Park (including the dog park that is a hive of activity) will be a huge inconvenience, unsightly as well as having an adverse effect on house prices.

My understanding is that when boring a hole underground you are limited by distance (perhaps 800 metres in total), therefore I propose that alternate routes be investigated nearby that will not have such a major impact on our community.

There is ample room dig or bore a hole along Holker Street, Silverwater Goal, The Armoury, Sydney Olympic Park land plus others. Perhaps Pierre De Corbertin Park could be where the bore is located rather that a trench.

It is not acceptable that we are given 3 weeks notice and expect a reasonable response.

A meeting was held in Pierre De Coubertin Park on Friday 6th March by Sydney Water and was attended by 30+ vocal residents and our local member Donna Davis.

Whilst Sydney Water representatives were able to answer some questions, they were quick to pass on the responsibility to the residents that it was up to us to MAKE A SUBMISSION, this was their standard response to questions.

It was noteworthy that there were NO representatives from YOUR department and you are the ones responsible to make the RIGH DECISION based on timely feedback from all parties.

My expectations are that...
1. An extension of 3 to 4 weeks be given for submissions
2. A representative from YOUR department be present at any future scheduled meetings with residents in order to answer questions as well as hopefully WALK the proposed direction of pipeline and see first hand that whilst it may be at present your most cost effective direction it is not your only option.
3. Listen to our residents concerns as many are unable to make their own written submissions for numerous reasons.
4. Give the residents of Newington the RESPECT THEY DESERVE, no more or less than you would ask for yourselves and not try to push a half baked plan through without appropriate consultation from those it will have the greatest impact on.

Hoping to receive a positive response in the coming days.

Regards,

Chris

Subject: Opposition to Use of Memorial Park, Meadowbank for the Greater Parramatta & Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) Water Cycle Project

I am writing to formally express concern and opposition to the proposed use of Memorial Park in Meadowbank as part of the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) Water Cycle initiative. While improving regional water management is an important objective, Memorial Park is not an appropriate location for infrastructure or operational activities associated with this project.

1. Loss of Community Green Space
Memorial Park is a critical recreational area for residents of Meadowbank and surrounding suburbs. The park is heavily used by families, local sports groups, schools, and individuals for exercise, relaxation, and community gatherings. Using the park for construction, storage, or infrastructure related to the GPOP Water Cycle would reduce access to one of the few large open green spaces available to the community.



2. Impact on Local Amenity and Quality of Life
The park provides an important buffer of greenery in an increasingly dense urban area. Construction activities, temporary facilities, vehicle movements, and ongoing operational elements could introduce noise, disruption, and visual impacts that diminish the amenity of the park and surrounding residential areas.



3. Environmental and Ecological Concerns
Memorial Park contains established trees, grassed areas, and local habitats that contribute to biodiversity and urban cooling. Construction works risk soil compaction, tree loss, damage to root systems, and disturbance to local wildlife. Nearby mangrove ecosystems along the Parramatta River are also environmentally sensitive and play an important role in stabilising riverbanks, supporting marine life, and improving water quality. Any works that disturb these habitats should be carefully reconsidered.



4. Heritage and Community Significance
As its name suggests, Memorial Park holds historical and community significance. Parks that function as memorial spaces carry cultural value beyond recreation. Repurposing such a space for infrastructure risks undermining its symbolic and historical importance.



5. Increased Traffic and Safety Risks
Infrastructure projects typically require heavy vehicles, equipment deliveries, and increased worker traffic. Memorial Park is surrounded by residential streets and used frequently by children and pedestrians. Introducing construction traffic in the vicinity may raise safety concerns for local residents.



6. Availability of Alternative Locations and Alignments
There appear to be several alternative engineering options that could significantly reduce or eliminate the need to use Memorial Park:
- Direct alignment from Wentworth Point to Rhodes: Instead of routing infrastructure toward Meadowbank, consideration could be given to directing the pipeline from Wentworth Point straight to Rhodes, which may reduce impacts on residential parkland.
- Avoid crossing from Meadowbank Park to Memorial Park: Rather than bringing infrastructure through Meadowbank Park and into Memorial Park, the alignment could instead extend directly out into the river from Meadowbank Park while maintaining protection of the mangrove areas.
- River-based pipeline alignment: A pipeline could potentially be routed past sensitive mangrove zones and extend directly into the river channel, reducing disturbance to parkland while still achieving the project’s discharge objectives.
- Direct discharge from Wentworth Point: If treated water is already reaching the Parramatta River at Wentworth Point, it may be more efficient to locate the discharge point there rather than crossing the river to Meadowbank only to return the water back into the river. A direct release point could reduce unnecessary river crossings, construction complexity, and impacts on both banks of the river.
These alternatives should be thoroughly investigated and transparently presented to the community before any decision is made to use valued public parkland.

7. Long-Term Urban Planning Considerations
With Meadowbank and surrounding suburbs undergoing rapid population growth and increased residential density, the protection of open green space is becoming more critical. Memorial Park plays an important role in community wellbeing, recreation, and environmental resilience. Reducing access to this park would conflict with broader planning objectives aimed at maintaining livable, healthy neighbourhoods.

While the objectives of the GPOP Water Cycle initiative are recognised, Memorial Park should remain protected as a vital community and environmental asset. Council should advocate strongly for alternative alignments and engineering solutions that avoid the use of public parkland and minimise environmental disturbance.

I respectfully request that Sydney Water reconsider the use of Memorial Park for this project and require further investigation into alternative routes and discharge locations that protect both community open space and the Parramatta River environment.

DO NOT DESTROY THE MAIN PARK AREA FOR OUR ENTIRE SUBURB. DO NOT CREATE FURTHER PUBLIC TRANSPORT DIFFICULTY FOR AN ALREADY HIGHLY UNDERSERVICED AREA. PLEASE DO YOU CIVIC DUTY AND SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL RESIDENTS.
I am horrified by this proposed destruction of the primary park area in the middle of a residential area teeming with children. The dust pollution, loss of essential park facilities for children and adults to exercise, and noise disturbance are highly detrimental to the health of the residents who live very close to this proposed major development site. Especially given the known toxicity of underlying soil, you are endangering countless children by ripping it up and excavating it, as dust and soil debris from the deeper deposits containing toxic chemicals will inevitably find its way into the homes of the families such as mine, whose doorsteps you are ripping out. What are you thinking?? If you choose to go ahead with this, you will terribly affect the lives of all the young families who depend on this green space, and I hope that you get sued.
Our parks are not open prey for unbridled and inefficient construction; they are a cornerstone of our local infrastructure. In the same way that you wouldn’t block and destroy an arterial road, you ought not to destroy our park.
Newington is a suburb largely made up of apartments and smaller residential lots. Because of this, shared public spaces such as the local park are extremely important to the community. The park is heavily used by children, elderly residents, families, and pet owners as a place for recreation, exercise, and social interaction. For many residents, it is the primary outdoor space available to them. Any disruption or loss of access to this park during the project would significantly affect the community and may negatively impact residents’ physical and mental well-being.
The park pathway is also an important pedestrian route used by many children and residents to travel safely to nearby schools, shops, and public transport. Introducing industrial machinery, construction works, and heavy vehicle movement in this area could create safety risks for pedestrians who rely on this pathway every day.
In addition, the proposed relocation of the existing bus stop raises serious concerns. Moving the stop further away would create inconvenience for many commuters, particularly elderly residents, families with children, and those who rely on public transport for daily travel. Relocating the bus stop closer to residential properties may also affect residents’ privacy and introduce additional noise and disruption.
The current bus stop location has been functioning effectively for approximately 26 years. Its placement was originally planned and approved through proper assessment by NSW planning authorities. It is positioned in a location that is accessible for residents while avoiding direct impact on nearby homes. Given its long-standing success and balanced location, there appears to be little justification for changing it.
Overall, the proposed changes risk negatively affecting community safety, accessibility, and quality of life in Newington. I respectfully ask that these concerns be carefully considered and that alternative solutions be explored that minimise disruption to residents and preserve the functionality of existing community infrastructure.
Thank you for considering this submission

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to lodge a formal submission regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Water Resource Recovery Facility and associated pipeline works through Newington.

I am a resident of Newington and a parent of two school-aged children, one attending high school and the other attending Newington Public School. My family, like many others in the area, relies heavily on Pierre De Coubertin Park as an essential community asset.

1. Occupation of Pierre De Coubertin Park
Pierre De Coubertin Park is the largest and most significant public open space in Newington. It includes the main playground, dog park, open sports fields, and community gathering areas. It is not merely a park. It represents the identity of Newington and functions as a vital social and recreational hub.

My younger child regularly plays soccer and AFL in the park, and both of my children use the space for informal recreation, cycling, and socializing. Families gather there daily in a safe and inclusive environment. The proposal to occupy the entire park, including the playground and dog park, during the construction phase would:

• Remove the primary recreational space for hundreds of families.
• Disrupt children’s physical activity and outdoor development.
• Displace organized and informal sporting activities.
• Undermine community cohesion and wellbeing.
• Remove a safe and supervised outdoor space for children.

This is particularly concerning given the duration of construction and the scale of the works.

2. Construction Impacts in a Residential Area
Newington is a highly walkable and bike-friendly suburb. Children regularly cycle independently to school, to Wentworth Point, and to Rhodes using the established cycle network. Introducing heavy construction activity, construction compounds, and associated vehicle movements through a residential area poses:

• Safety risks to children and pedestrians.
• Increased noise and air pollution.
• Traffic disruption and reduced local amenity.

Our community is already experiencing significant disruption from the ongoing Hill Road works, which have resulted in noise, dust, and traffic congestion. Adding another major construction site within the heart of Newington would compound cumulative impacts on residents.

3. Proposed Pipeline Route
I respectfully request that serious consideration be given to an alternative pipeline alignment, such as via Holker Street, which may reduce direct impacts on residential streets and community open space.

Routing major infrastructure works through the centre of a residential neighborhood, particularly through its primary parkland, does not appear to represent the least-impact option.

4. Bus Stop Relocation
The proposed relocation of bus stops from Pierre De Coubertin Park toward Wenden Avenue raises concerns regarding:

• Safe pedestrian access for school children
• Increased walking distances.
• Potential congestion in narrower residential streets.
• Reduced passive surveillance and safety compared to current locations adjacent to the park.

These changes require further justification and a clear demonstration that child and pedestrian safety will not be compromised.

While I acknowledge the importance of water recycling infrastructure and sustainable water management for Greater Sydney, infrastructure delivery must carefully balance broader strategic objectives with local community wellbeing.

Pierre De Coubertin Park provides:

• A safe space for children to grow independently and healthily.
• A vital gathering place for families and neighbors.
• A defining element of Newington’s character.

Its full occupation for construction is not an appropriate or proportionate solution without clear evidence that no reasonable alternative exists.

I respectfully request that:

• The pipeline route be reconsidered to avoid Pierre De Coubertin Park.
• Construction compounds and heavy vehicle access be relocated away from core residential areas.
• Cumulative impacts (including Hill Road works) be properly assessed.

Child safety, active transport networks, and community wellbeing be given greater weight in the assessment process.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours faithfully,
Eman
Newington Resident

I have reviewed the project documentation and understand totally the rationale and need for this new infrastructure. However there seems to be no valid reason after running the discharge pipeline along the southern side of the river for several kms from the treatment station, to then extend the pipeline across the river to discharge the outfall on the northern side of the river via public greenspace, with the loss of significant trees. To extend the pipeline instead of placing the outfall on the Wentworth Point/Rhodes side of the river is an unnecessary additional misuse of project funds and impacts on construction time and public amenity.

I object to the project on the basis that there has been insufficient community engagement and consultation. Specifically, I would like to see the average citizen of Meadowbank have greater insight into:
- Why is the destruction of our green spaces the preferred route over, direct release from the river at Wentworth Point?
- What impact will construction have on our quality of life and property values?
- What is the clear benefit to the Meadowbank community?
- Have all alternative routes been properly considered?
- Has community consultation genuinely occurred — or has engagement been rushed and superficial?

I very strongly object to the proposal to dig up a huge portion of the lovely suburb of Newington. This is a tight knit community with many children that use the playground on Avenue of Oceania, not to mention Pierre de Coubertin Park and the much used, fenced dog park. We cannot have heavy industrial vehicles and equipment creating a lot of noise, dust and pollution in this lovely area, not to mention the safety issue. Surely this work could be redirected to the Hill Road area, which is also to be used for the Light Rail project and already subject to the inconvenience of ongoing construction.
Please do not carry out the water works in our suburb.

Our family would like to express concern regarding the proposal by Sydney Water to construct a wastewater treatment facility in Camellia and discharge treated wastewater into the Parramatta River near Meadowbank as part of the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle Management Project.

The Parramatta River is a tidal and relatively slow-moving waterway. In sections such as Meadowbank, natural dilution may be limited during dry weather and low-flow conditions. Continuous discharge of treated wastewater therefore raises concerns about potential long-term impacts on water quality, including nutrient accumulation, salinity, and broader ecosystem health. These issues deserve careful evaluation, particularly given the cumulative impacts that may occur over time.

We also note that the Parramatta River has been the focus of significant environmental restoration efforts in recent years. Programs aimed at improving river health and restoring safe recreational use have been widely supported by the community. Any new discharge into the river should be assessed with great caution to ensure that it does not undermine these ongoing improvements.

Our family values the Parramatta River as an important natural space for the local community. Many residents use the river and surrounding parks for walking, kayaking, rowing, and other recreational activities. Even if treated wastewater meets regulatory standards, there remains concern about operational failures, maintenance bypass events, or extreme weather conditions that could affect water quality and public confidence in the river’s safety.

For these reasons, we believe the proposal requires particularly strong environmental safeguards. Clear information should be provided on modelling of dilution capacity under worst-case scenarios, as well as strict discharge limits and transparent long-term monitoring of water quality. Public access to monitoring data and clear contingency plans in the event of system failure would also be important in maintaining community trust.

Infrastructure upgrades are necessary to support Sydney’s growing population. However, proposals that involve continuous discharge into a sensitive tidal river system must be approached cautiously and supported by robust evidence and strong environmental protections.

We respectfully request that these concerns be carefully considered and that rigorous environmental safeguards and independent monitoring be required before the project proceeds.

Kind regards,
Rebecca

Here are several strong, evidence-based reasons to oppose the Greater Parramatta Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle project (specifically the proposed new Water Resource Recovery Facility in Rosehill/Camellia, wastewater diversion, pipelines, and discharge of up to 70 ML/day of advanced treated water into the Parramatta River). These arguments can form the basis of a submission or public statement.
Reasons to Oppose the Greater Parramatta Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle Project
The proposed Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) and associated infrastructure represent a flawed and risky approach to managing wastewater and growth in the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) area. While presented as sustainable infrastructure, the project carries unacceptable environmental, community, and long-term water security risks. Key objections include:

Direct discharge of treated wastewater into the already stressed Parramatta River threatens river health and the goal of a swimmable river
The project plans to release up to 70 megalitres per day of advanced treated water (even with reverse osmosis and other treatment) near Meadowbank Park. The Parramatta River is one of the most urbanised and polluted waterways in Australia, suffering from ongoing nutrient loads, heavy metals, microplastics, and low dissolved oxygen. Adding a major new point-source discharge—even if “advanced”—risks further degrading water quality, increasing algal bloom potential, harming aquatic ecosystems (including fish, birds, and the recovering foreshore habitats), and undermining years of community and government efforts to make the river swimmable again. Ocean outfalls, while not ideal, disperse effluent far from population centres and sensitive estuaries; shifting the load upstream concentrates risk in a confined tidal river system.
Construction and operational impacts on local communities are severe and poorly justified
The WRRF site in the Camellia-Rosehill industrial precinct, pipeline routes (including wastewater transfer, brine, and discharge lines), and pumping station upgrades will cause years of construction disruption—noise, dust, heavy traffic, road closures, and vibration—particularly affecting nearby residential suburbs such as Newington, Meadowbank, and surrounding areas. Community feedback already highlights serious concerns about using public spaces (e.g., Newington dog park as a dive site, Pierre de Coubertin Park as a works site), potential odour emissions from the facility, and long-term amenity loss. Placing major wastewater infrastructure in or near growing residential zones contradicts liveability goals for one of Sydney’s densest future urban corridors.
Energy-intensive advanced treatment contradicts genuine sustainability and climate goals
The proposed facility relies on energy-heavy processes (including reverse osmosis for advanced treatment), significantly increasing electricity demand and greenhouse gas emissions at a time when NSW is trying to decarbonise. This is especially problematic when more passive, nature-based alternatives (enhanced wetland treatment, larger-scale stormwater harvesting, aggressive demand reduction, or decentralised sewer mining) could achieve similar or better water outcomes with lower carbon footprints. The project locks in high operational costs and emissions for decades instead of prioritising genuine circular economy solutions.
Opportunity cost: Funds should go to more effective and less controversial water security measures
Sydney’s water supply is already supported by the desalination plant (now running continuously as baseload) and major dams. Rather than investing heavily in a new centralised WRRF and river discharge, equivalent funds would deliver greater public benefit through:
City-wide water efficiency programs and smart metering
Large-scale stormwater capture and aquifer recharge
Expanding existing decentralised recycled water schemes (e.g., Rosehill and Sydney Olympic Park schemes) for non-potable uses like irrigation of parks, sports fields, and industry
Protecting and restoring upstream catchments to reduce inflow pollution
These alternatives avoid new river discharge risks while providing comparable resilience for GPOP’s projected growth.

Inadequate long-term vision for true water recycling and circularity
Despite the “water cycle management” branding, the core proposal is essentially relocating treatment and discharging effluent into the river rather than maximising reuse. While future expansion for purified recycled water is vaguely mentioned, the current EIS focuses on diversion and river release—not committed, large-scale potable or non-potable reuse. This represents a missed opportunity to build genuine climate-resilient, drought-proof supply for GPOP’s expected additional 250,000+ residents, instead perpetuating a linear “treat-and-discharge” model.

In summary, this project prioritises short-term engineering convenience over genuine environmental protection, community well-being, and forward-thinking water stewardship. Approving it would lock Sydney into an outdated approach at the expense of the Parramatta River’s recovery, local liveability, and more sustainable alternatives. I urge decision-makers to reject the current proposal and require Sydney Water to explore lower-impact, higher-reuse options that truly align with a swimmable, resilient, and liveable Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula.

Thank you for your work. I understand that infrastructure needs to be updated. My objection is the planned route through Newington. Below are the reasons.
1 Long disruption to Ave of Oceania, Newington Boulevade, Comaneci Ave and Fariola Ave will make it extremely difficult to get in and out of Newington. And that's not when an event at Sydney Olympic Park is taking place when hundreds of additional cars are parked through our suburb.
2 Newington is a planned suburb like no other with residents paying a community association to keep the gardens, parks, nature strips in good order. The planned route of the pipeline will destroy a lot of the open community space along Ave of Oceania.
3 Access to Newington Village will be disrupted for long periods of time, where community members rely on local facilities.
4 Access into Northern Streets of Monterey, Sandpiper, Blaxland, Manton, Curlew, Evans, Davies, Falcon, Latham Terrace will be limited. It will be impossible for residents to evacuate in an emergency.
5 The Street area of Comaneci Ave is very narrow. With a 3 metre dig area for the pipeline, there will be no access for residents in this area. And residents are concerned about their homes being compromised with earth movement.
6 Access to bus routes will be limited. Currently Newington Boulevard is the main bus route to 526 Strathfield, Rhodes and 525 to Parramatta.
7 Access for us living in Nurmi Ave, going west, we go down Newington Boulevard, past the Village and down Fariola. The pipeline route will not allow this to occur, restricting access for all residents in and out of the suburb.
8 The tree lined streets will be destroyed. It has taken 25 years to get the trees to the size they are now. They don't grow back over night. Even trees that are not removed, are likely to have their roots damaged by the digging resulting in their death often resulting in trees falling onto homes.
9 Project time is 6 - 12 months, and we all know that is likely to be more than this. A huge inconvenience to community when there are alternative routes the pipeline can take that won't impact homes, nature or people.
10 Obviously the route that has been proposed is deemed to be the easiest and most cost effective, but to be such a destructive project to 6000 people living in the suburb, I am sure with your expertise you can find a better solution that does not impact our beautiful Newington.

As a local family, we are concerned about the proposal by Sydney Water to build a wastewater facility in Camellia and discharge treated water into the Parramatta River near Meadowbank under the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle Management Project.

Our family values the Parramatta River as an important local environment and recreation area. Because this part of the river is tidal and slow-flowing, we are concerned that continuous discharge could affect water quality, ecosystem health, and community use of the river.

We encourage careful assessment of dilution capacity, strict environmental protections, and transparent long-term monitoring before the project proceeds.

Kind regards,
Jack

To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed pipeline route and construction footprint within the Newington residential area, specifically regarding the total occupation of Pierre De Coubertin Park.
While I support the long-term goal of improving water security for the GPOP region, the current proposal places an unreasonable and dangerous burden on the Newington community. My objections are based on the following critical grounds:

1. Loss of Newington’s Primary Community Space
Pierre De Coubertin Park is the largest and most significant park in our local area. Unlike smaller pocket parks, this is the central hub for our suburb’s recreational life. Proposing to occupy the entire park—including the playground and dog park—strips the community of its only high-capacity green space for an extended period. For a high-density suburb where many residents do not have large backyards, this loss is devastating to our physical and mental wellbeing.

2. Inappropriate Use of Residential Streets for Heavy Construction
The current route brings heavy machinery and significant truck movements through narrow residential streets, fundamentally changing the nature of our suburb. This introduces:
-Safety Risks: We will see a massive increase in heavy vehicle traffic in areas with high pedestrian activity. This is particularly dangerous for the large volume of Newington Public School students who play at this park after school and use this specific route to commute to and from home by themselves. Introducing industrial machinery into their primary commute route creates an unacceptable safety risk and an unsafe community environment.
-Acoustic Amenity: Newington is a quiet residential village. The noise and vibration from drilling, trenching, and constant construction traffic will significantly degrade the living conditions for residents and families along the proposed route, including those visiting the nearby Newington Marketplace.

3. Availability of a Viable Alternate Route (Holker Street)
I urge the Department to mandate an alternate route via Holker Street. Holker Street is a wide, industrial-standard arterial road designed for heavy vehicle use. Utilizing Holker Street would achieve the project's engineering goals without compromising the safety of children, the integrity of our largest park, or the peace of a residential neighborhood.

4. Impact on Public Transport Accessibility
The proposed relocation of bus stops at Pierre De Coubertin Park toward Wenden Ave adds unnecessary distance for commuters and creates confusion. Public transport access should be maintained in its current, central location to serve the community effectively.

Conclusion
The current proposal creates an unsafe community environment for our most vulnerable residents—our children. I request that the Department reject the residential alignment and require Sydney Water to:
-Relocate the pipeline and construction compound to Holker Street or other non-residential/industrial land.
-Guarantee the total protection of Pierre De Coubertin Park, ensuring it remains open and safe for school children and families.

I look forward to your response regarding how you intend to protect the safety and amenity of Newington residents.

Newington is a vibrant community. The dog park and child’s park provide community and recreation. Both areas are surrounded by apartments with children. This space is essential for the social and recreational needs of this community. You cannot take it over!!! You are concealing this project from residents, a better plan is to use Holker Road. This will not affect the residents. In addition the apartments in Nurmi, and sandpiper have had significant issue and putting construction through this small residential area will cause significant distress to the residents.
I was at the park yesterday and counting 100 people. This park is essential for the residents, it provides a meeting space for children, parents and yesterday it was the meeting space for Gunnees Soccer club. 30 kids came to the grass area to play soccer in front of Mockridge Ave apartments.
Do not take away our community space and replace with a sewerage pipe!!!!
The residents do not support this!!

The proposed pipeline alignment through Newington represents a poor planning outcome that concentrates avoidable environmental, social, and residential impacts on an established community when less harmful alternatives appear available. The proposal fails the fundamental planning test of selecting the alignment that minimises harm.

The project would impose prolonged construction disruption in a suburb with constrained access and narrow residential streets not designed for heavy infrastructure works. Open trench construction in streets such as Comaneci Avenue presents unacceptable risks to residential amenity, access, property integrity and emergency vehicle movement. The scale of construction traffic and road occupation would severely disrupt local circulation, access to schools, shops, public transport routes and essential services.

The proposal also involves the prolonged occupation and degradation of Pierre de Coubertin Park, a critical piece of community open space in a high-density suburb with limited recreational land. The removal of this space during construction would significantly undermine community amenity and social infrastructure and cannot be justified without clear evidence that all park-avoidance alternatives have been exhausted.

There are also serious unresolved environmental concerns. The alignment passes through or near sensitive wetlands supporting protected species including the green and golden bell frog. The Environmental Impact Statement has not convincingly demonstrated that tunnelling, vibration, hydrological disturbance and construction impacts will not damage these habitats.

Newington’s industrial history also raises legitimate contamination risks. Excavation through residential streets may expose contaminated soils and generate airborne dust within metres of homes. The project documentation does not provide adequate transparency regarding contaminant identification, air quality modelling or independent peer review of contamination management plans.

Finally, the proponent has not demonstrated that this route represents the least-impact alignment. There is insufficient evidence that industrial corridors, transport corridors or other lower-impact routes were rigorously assessed. The apparent lack of meaningful consultation with affected residents and community associations further undermines confidence in the planning process.

Regional infrastructure may be necessary, but avoidable harm to an established residential community is not acceptable. Approval should not be granted unless it is clearly demonstrated that no lower-impact alignment exists and that environmental, health and community risks have been independently verified and minimised.

I think that the project is commendable, and I’m glad that the Government is anticipating future need to expand the sewerage and waste water systems, and is seeking to improve environmental values as well. Waste water will be treated to advanced level, will improve the river water quality, and allow later for recycled water systems to be added.

The consultation process, has, however, been shockingly bad in relation to Newington, and has resulted in considerable upset amongst the community which could have been avoided with a more carefully executed communication strategy.

In addition, the proposals as they relate to the Newington part of the river release pipeline seem, on the face of it, to be hugely disruptive to the community and in some respect, unworkable. I’m not an engineer, and am therefore not qualified to assess the other options, and I can only assume that cutting a hole through Newington was the option which presented the least disruption overall. However, there are serious problems with the proposal as it stands, and these would need to be explained and resolved with the local community or things will not go well.

1. Failure to adequately explain impact on Pierre de Coubertin Park

Despite having read the entire Scoping Report, EIS and appendices, it is really hard to understand how much of, and in what ways, Pierre De Coubertin Park will be affected. It’s as if the project team did not understand that this is an important parkland – referred by residents in their outrage about the proposed works as “the heart of Newington”.

The scoping report details the recreational facility at URBNSURF, but does not note the specific recreational facilities on Pierre de Coubertin park – namely a heavily used children’s playground and dog park. (Scoping Report, p42).

From the EIS

• It seems that the entire north section of the park may be taken up with a satellite compound – but the EIS does not address what will happen with the heavily used children’s playground or the memorial plaques for 2020 Olympians, both in that part of the park.
• The entire south end of the park seems it will be taken up with open trenching coming out of Newington Boulevard, and a launch pit where the pipeline heads underground to Hill Road. However, the EIS does not address what will happen to the heavily used dog park, installed by Parramatta Council at considerable expense a few years ago.

At P91 of the EIS, there is an indicative plan of the layout of the pipeline, trenching and storage and equipment at Meadowbank Park. (Figure 3-25: Construction layout at Meadowbank Park). In order to understand the impact on Comaneci Ave and Pierre de Coubertin Park, residents need a similar diagram, showing the location and size of open trenching, storage and the launch pit in relation to the existing park, dog park and children’s playground.

2. Unrealistic assessments of impact of open trenching through Comaneci Ave and Newington Boulevard.

As a factor affecting access and amenity, the SIA does not adequately take account of the traffic and parking challenges in this part of the suburb, although it notes on p37 in relation to Wentworth Point that Sydney Olympic Park (SOP) holds large-scale events, this can affect local traffic movements at certain times.

In fact, due to the suburb’s proximity to Sydney Olympic Park venues and regular inundation with traffic associated with events at those venues, Parking in Newington is a huge issue. With imperfect public transport options, and as families mature, the number of cars per household means street parking is almost always full. Visitors to SOP events regularly seek free parking in Newington streets. The problem is chronic, and Newington can’t cope with even further limitation of street parking – if access is blocked to residents, there is very little facility for alternative street parking in Newington. –In particular, any construction timetable which intersects with the Royal Easter Show would provide particular challenges as excess parking areas are dedicated to the Show.

In relation to the impact around the area of Pierre de Coubertin park, p 429 of the EIS states that “Comaneci Avenue and the northbound lanes on Newington Boulevard would be temporarily closed during construction works. Commuters would be advised to make detours at Newington Boulevard, Nurmi Avenue, Kosmala Close and Wenden Avenue to continue travelling northbound and southbound.” This seems ridiculous to anyone actually living in the area. Nurmi, Kosmala and Wendon are narrow streets with parking on both sides of the street. The result is that two-way traffic is impossible, and traffic travelling in opposite directions will regularly have to give way to traffic coming the other way. Recent issues with parking during major events at SOP have already resulted in concerns that emergency vehicles would not necessarily be able to access these streets.

The EIS also outlines that around John Ian Wing Parade/ Newington Boulevard/ Comaneci Avenue the peak daily vehicle movements: will be 5 light vehicles, 20 heavy vehicles, presumable additional to existing traffic. This would be an unworkable burden given the park, the Newington Public School, the main bus route through Newington, the roundabout on Ave of Oceania, and the difficulty at times getting out of Ave of Oceania onto Hill Road (at peak times can be 10 cars deep on Ave of Oceania turning into Hill Road.

3. Woeful consultation process in developing the EIS

There also seems to have been little effort to explain the project to the various non-english speaking communities in the area. The Website contains flyers in Korean and Chinese, but apart from that, there seems to have been little attempt to reach non-English speaking residents affected by the proposal. This is despite the Social Impact Assessment in 2024 stating that “Many households in the local and sub-regional area do not speak English at home” [9.2 Appendix B – Social Impact Scoping Report, p40].

Under Local Communities, residents are mentioned, but the EIS (p190) does not list Community Associations (Precincts) or community level representative organisations (such as those representing various cultural and language groups) which might be in a position to speak for communities or assist identification of and communication with affected residents.

In particular, four Precinct/Community Associations in Newington oversee land covered by Community Title, which means that some areas which would normally be covered by local government are the responsibility of those Associations. My inquiries of the Strata Managers for Precinct 3 in Newington indicate that they had no knowledge of this proposal, and anecdotal evidence from members of some of the other Precinct Associations is that they also had no knowledge of the project before alerted to the EIS exhibition. The Precinct Associations are a key way to consult with the Newington Community.

Likewise, my inquiries suggest that the local State MP, donna Davis, and my local Ward Councillors were not aware of the detail of the project. The engagement activities listed in the EIS (Table 5-4) list that project briefings, workshops and meetings were offered to councils, impacted businesses and landowners, community interest groups and government agencies. However, this does not appear to have resulted in adequate understanding in our Councillors or State Representatives of the implications of the project for Newington.

In the EIS, there is significant community and stakeholder engagement activities detailed. However, on 6/3/26 many households in Watt St, Newington, when doorknocked, did not know of the planned path of the river release pipeline via an open trench at the end of their street in Comaneci Ave, Newington.

The Letterbox drops from Sydney Water about the project (of which I am aware of two), speak only in general terms about the project. The newsletter of September 2024 does not mention Newington at all, providing a general outline and rationale for the project. The January 2025 newsletter states simply that “We'll occupy part of Pierre De Coubertin Park for around 3-6months to allow for the underground drilling (HDD)”. This would not have been enough to alert people to the impact of the park becoming a construction zone for 18 months, streets completely blocked off for periods due to open trenching, and other streets severely impacted by traffic diversions.

The EIS outlines that Door knocking was conducted along Newington Pipeline Alignment on 1 April 2025, with 20 interactions. I’ve spoken to one resident of Nurmi Ave recently, who told me she was one of the people interviewed, and at that time did not think the project would affect her at all, since she lives a few streets away from Pierre De Coubertin park. She would, however be affected by traffic diversions. How can this kind of consultation be effective in assessing community awareness and informing them of project design if the residents, when interviewed, have no idea how it is actually proposed to affect their street?

P500 of the EIS (17.5 Visual impact assessment) addresses the impact of works on Comaneci Avenue for construction of the river release pipeline, rating the construction impact as High. However, the next page 501 skips Newington Boulevard and Pierre de Coubertin Park and lists URBN suirf. The EIS fails to address the construction impact to Pierre de Coubertin park or Newington Boulevard.

Each of the affected communities should have received communications and newsletters which outlined IN DETAIL how the project is proposed to affect their streets, without having to wade through 700 odd pages of EIS and additional appendices.

I am a resident of the Meadowbank/Ryde area and write to formally object to the proposed infrastructure, specifically the discharge pipeline outlet releasing treated wastewater into the Parramatta River near Meadowbank Park.
Risk of Failures and Untreated Sewage Overflows
The proposal relies on a 7.6km pipeline and complex advanced treatment process to ensure only treated water reaches the river. The EIS does not adequately address the risk of equipment failures, power outages, or extreme weather events resulting in partially treated or untreated wastewater being discharged into the Parramatta River adjacent to a residential area and public park.
The facility is designed to continue releasing water into the river even during extreme weather events — meaning the outlet will be active precisely when system stress and the risk of treatment failure are highest. The community deserves a binding, independently audited overflow management plan before any approval is granted.
I request the Department require Sydney Water to provide:
A full failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for the treatment and pipeline system
Clear public disclosure protocols if a failure or overflow event occurs
An independent real-time water quality monitoring regime with publicly accessible data at the Meadowbank discharge point
Impact on Residential Amenity and Property Values
Meadowbank is a growing residential area. Many residents have invested here in part because of the improving amenity of the Parramatta River foreshore and Meadowbank Park. The introduction of a permanent wastewater outlet at this location — regardless of claims about treated water quality — will negatively affect the perception and desirability of the area.
The EIS does not include any independent assessment of the impact on residential property values near the proposed outlet. Residents should not bear a financial cost in order to subsidise infrastructure serving development elsewhere in the GPOP corridor. I request the Department require an independent property impact assessment for the Meadowbank foreshore precinct.
Inadequate Justification for the Meadowbank Location
The EIS should demonstrate that this location was selected through genuine alternatives analysis and minimises impact on residents. Discharging up to 70 megalitres per day into the river at a residential foreshore rather than a less densely populated point requires clear justification. The exhibited documents do not sufficiently demonstrate this.
Conclusion
I do not object to improving wastewater infrastructure for Greater Parramatta's growing population. However, I strongly object to this proposal as it places an unacceptable risk and amenity burden on Meadowbank residents without adequate safeguards, independent oversight, or recognition of the community impact. I urge the Department to require Sydney Water to address these issues before any determination is made.

FORMAL OBJECTION — GPOP WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT
Application No. SSI-74258485 | State Significant Infrastructure | Exhibition closes 18 March 2026

Submitted by Isabelle D'Amico
Address 20 Mockridge Avenue, Newington NSW 2127 (corner of Comaneci St, Watt St & Mockridge Ave)
Residency 21 years
Property 4-bedroom, 2-garage home — directly within the works impact zone
Date 17 March 2026

1. Introduction
I am a long-term resident at 20 Mockridge Avenue, Newington — a 4-bedroom, 2-garage home at the corner of Comaneci Street, Watt Street, and Mockridge Avenue. My family has lived here for 25 years. Our property sits directly within the proposed construction impact zone of the GPOP Water Cycle Management Project.
I formally and strongly object to this project as proposed. My objection is based on severe, foreseeable, and wholly unmitigated impacts on my household, my street, the local environment, heritage, and the broader Newington community — with no benefit whatsoever returned to residents who bear the full construction burden. Critically, we were never consulted during the planning phase.
2. Direct Impacts to My Property and Household
2.1 Comaneci Street Width — A Physical Impossibility
Comaneci Street is only 4.5 metres wide. The proposed trench is 3 metres wide, leaving a 1.5-metre clearance. This makes it physically impossible for residents to access their driveways and garages while works are underway, and eliminates safe pedestrian movement and emergency vehicle access. This fundamental constraint has not been addressed in the EIS and must be resolved before any works proceed.
2.2 Property Damage and Structural Integrity
Deep excavation and drilling immediately adjacent to our home poses a direct risk to our foundations. Ground vibrations from heavy plant can cause settlement and structural cracking. An independent geotechnical assessment of all neighbouring properties is required, with a binding commitment to remediate any damage at the proponent's cost.
2.3 Noise, Dust, Light Pollution and Amenity
Sustained drilling, trenching, and plant operations will generate severe noise, dust, and artificial light directly impacting our home 24/7. This will harm the health, sleep, and wellbeing of my family. Night works in a residential area of this density and street width are wholly inappropriate.
2.4 Utilities, Disruption and Loss of Income
Power, gas, and NBN infrastructure are all underground in our street. Excavation risks damaging these utilities, causing outages. I work from home — any interruption to power or internet results in direct financial loss. Garbage trucks will also be unable to access Comaneci Street, eliminating domestic waste collection for the duration of works.
2.5 Gas Mains Risk, Property Value and Safety
Road degradation at site entry and exit points may compromise underground gas mains — a serious safety risk. The presence of construction works will materially reduce our property's market value during this period, with no compensation proposed. Entering and exiting our property — on foot or by vehicle — will be a daily safety hazard for our family throughout construction.
2.6 No Consultation
We received zero notification or consultation during the planning phase. This is a fundamental failure of procedural fairness. Residents on Comaneci Street and Mockridge Avenue should have been engaged before the EIS was finalised. This must be rectified before any determination is made.
3. Environment, Wildlife and Heritage
The project raises serious unresolved concerns across environment and heritage:
• Aboriginal cultural heritage: The project footprint contains locations of known significance. Full compliance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 and free, prior and informed consent from relevant Aboriginal communities is required.
• Non-Aboriginal heritage: The grave of Eliner MaGee and Child (Parramatta LEP 2023, Item I7) lies within the area of archaeological potential. A Heritage Impact Statement and approved management plan must be prepared before any ground disturbance occurs nearby.
• Threatened species and waterways: The area supports endangered fauna including the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), freshwater turtles, and other aquatic species. The Parramatta River release pipeline risks water quality and aquatic habitat. Full assessment under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, Fisheries Management Act 1994, and EPBC Act 1999 is required.
• Brush Turkeys: The privately-owned parkland adjacent to my home supports a resident population of protected Brush Turkeys. Construction noise, dust, and disturbance will disrupt nesting and habitat.
• Street trees: Trenching will destroy root systems of established street trees. Individual assessment and a compensatory replanting plan are required.
4. Infrastructure, Transport and Cumulative Impacts
The proposed works will generate compounding disruption to public infrastructure and community life:
• Cumulative impact — Metro West and PLR Stage 2: This project must be assessed together with Sydney Metro West and Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2. The combined impact of multiple simultaneous major projects on the same community has not been adequately assessed.
• Roads and pedestrian safety: Heavy construction traffic will congest local roads, cause road surface deterioration, and create detours. Pedestrian safety throughout the corridor — including for children and elderly residents — is a serious and unresolved concern.
• Sydney Olympic Park and events: Construction activities risk disrupting major sporting events, concerts, and community events at Sydney Olympic Park, impacting the wider region.
• Ferry services: Works and the river release pipeline may adversely impact Parramatta River ferry services. Disruption to public transport must be assessed and alternatives provided.
• Duck River Nature Trail and Newington dog park: These community assets must be protected or equivalent alternatives provided at the proponent's cost.
• Open space and recreation: Access to Memorial Park, Meadowbank Park, Pierre de Coubertin Park, and Parramatta River recreation will be reduced or eliminated. Disruption to sporting and recreational activities must be assessed and mitigated.
• Businesses and residents: Road closures, detours, and parking restrictions will reduce access to businesses and residences, causing economic harm for which no compensation is proposed.
5. Inequity — No Benefit to Newington Residents
Newington residents bear the full burden of construction impacts yet receive none of the project's stated benefits. Water cycle improvements serve the growing GPOP population; Newington gains nothing. This is fundamentally unjust. If the project proceeds, I call for:
• A formal Community Benefit Agreement with Newington residents, including access to recycled water services upon completion;
• A compensation fund for property damage, loss of access, and reduction in property value during construction;
• An independent property damage assessment regime with binding remediation obligations; and
• A dedicated community liaison officer and grievance resolution process throughout the project.
6. Formal Requests
I request the Department of Planning and Environment:
• Refuse the application as currently proposed, as it fails to adequately assess and mitigate residential impacts on the Newington community;
• Require genuine community consultation, including a dedicated information session and door-to-door notification for all properties within 200 metres of works;
• Commission an independent feasibility assessment for works in Comaneci Street (4.5m wide), with a demonstrated solution for maintaining resident garage and driveway access;
• Require an independent geotechnical assessment of all structures within the impact zone, with binding remediation commitments;
• Require a full Heritage Impact Statement for the grave of Eliner MaGee and Child (I7) and an Aboriginal cultural heritage management plan;
• Require a cumulative impact assessment for this project combined with Metro West, PLR Stage 2, and other concurrent major works;
• Impose strict construction hours (7am–6pm Mon–Fri, 8am–1pm Sat, no works Sundays or public holidays) with independent noise monitoring;
• Require a Community Benefit Agreement for Newington residents; and
• Ensure no works commence until a satisfactory, publicly exhibited Construction Management Plan is approved.
7. Conclusion
I have lived at this address for 25 years, raised my family here, and invested in this community. We were never consulted. This project places an inequitable, severe, and prolonged burden on Newington residents — particularly those on Comaneci Street and Mockridge Avenue — with no protection, no compensation, and no benefit in return.
I urge the Department to give full and serious weight to this submission, require the proponent to address all matters raised, and refuse approval until the rights, safety, and wellbeing of Newington residents are adequately protected.
Yours sincerely,
Isabelle D'Amico
20 Mockridge Avenue, Newington NSW 2127
17 March 2026

I am deeply disappointed at the amount of disturbance and destruction that is going to be occurring in our green spaces and recreational areas. The construction of the pipeline along Meadow Crescent is directly outside my residence and I am very concerned about the noise, dust and the damage that will highly likely be caused to the building due to drilling into rock. I understand that this needs to be done to service the rapidly growing area, however this seems like seriously invasive construction that will affect resident's livelihoods and diversions should be considered to mitigate the amount of disruption.

I acknowledge the need for long‑term investment in wastewater infrastructure to support population growth and water resilience across Sydney. My submission is not opposition to infrastructure in principle.

However, I have serious concerns that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as exhibited, does not adequately assess or transparently communicate the project’s impacts on the Ryde community, and does not reflect informed community feedback.

Key concerns:

1. Recreational and sporting impacts not adequately assessed

The Meadowbank foreshore and surrounding parks are heavily used for organised sport, informal recreation, walking and community gathering. The project involves prolonged open‑trench works through public parkland and extended disruption to recreational areas and sporting facilities.

The EIS refers generally to impacts on recreational spaces but does not clearly disclose the location‑specific scale, duration or cumulative loss of access for Meadowbank and West Ryde residents. There is insufficient clarity about how long key areas will be unavailable and what realistic alternatives will be available to displaced users.

2. Loss of amenity, peace and access to public open space

Public parks and foreshore areas provide quiet enjoyment, wellbeing benefits and access to open space in an increasingly dense urban area. Extended construction activity and physical barriers will materially affect amenity, access and everyday use of these spaces.

The EIS does not adequately address the cumulative impact on community wellbeing arising from prolonged loss of peaceful, accessible open space.

3. Memorial Park – heritage, cultural and spiritual significance

Memorial Park is not simply recreational land; it has heritage value and serves as a place of remembrance, reflection and quiet contemplation. Major infrastructure and prolonged construction within or adjacent to Memorial Park risks undermining its commemorative, cultural and spiritual function. The EIS does not sufficiently assess or respond to these values beyond generic mitigation statements.

4. Foreshore impacts and future use of the river

The Parramatta River foreshore at Meadowbank has long‑term potential for improved access, passive recreation and future swimming. Physical infrastructure, exclusion zones and construction barriers risk fragmenting the foreshore and limiting future community use of the river.

The EIS does not convincingly demonstrate that long‑term foreshore connectivity and future recreational use have been fully considered.

5. Misleading engagement undermines informed community feedback

The EIS overview brochure distributed to residents prominently features imagery of kayaking, river recreation and continued amenity.

This creates a reasonable impression that disruption will be short‑term and environmentally sensitive, while the brochure does not clearly disclose the full extent of open‑trench works, prolonged loss of access to parks or the scale of above‑ground infrastructure in sensitive locations.

Although construction methods are described in technical terms, the visual presentation and narrative are likely to lead non‑technical readers to underestimate the severity and duration of impacts.
For most residents, the brochure is the primary source of information; very few will read the full EIS.

As a result, community feedback is likely to have been provided on the basis of incomplete information, undermining the reliability of the social and recreational impact assessment.

6. Insufficient consideration of reasonable alternatives

I am not convinced the EIS demonstrates that all reasonable alternatives have been genuinely and transparently considered.
In particular, alternatives that may avoid or reduce impacts on high‑value public open space, Memorial Park and the foreshore do not appear to have been pursued through to completion.

While alternatives may involve additional cost or complexity, the EIS does not adequately justify why options with fewer long‑term social, recreational and cultural impacts were not prioritised. For infrastructure with permanent consequences for the Ryde community, cost alone should not be determinative.

Requested outcome:
Given the above, I submit that the EIS does not provide a reliable basis for informed community input or decision‑making.
I respectfully request that the Department require Sydney Water to:

* provide clearer, location‑specific disclosure of impacts on parks, sporting facilities and foreshore access;
* revisit and transparently document reasonable alternatives that reduce harm to public open space and community amenity; and
* undertake further targeted engagement with affected communities based on accurate and complete information.

Only then can the project be properly assessed in a way that balances essential infrastructure delivery with the long‑term wellbeing of the Ryde community.