MOD 2 - The Crescent overpass and active transport links

I write regarding the proposed modification to M4-M5 Link, Mod 2 The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area. I request RMS work with the community to explore alternate design options to the proposed new car overpass design and the changed pedestrian and cyclist links. I am seeking the reinstatement of the safe, direct access from the approved EIS GreenLink to create a continuous green open space connection from the Rozelle Rail yards and Annandale to the foreshore. The GreenLink was more than just a walk way - it put people central to the design, maximising safety, and providing much needed accessible open space for the community now and into the future Bays Precinct design.

The proposed modifications differ so greatly from the original proposal it is hard to maintain any trust that the project has any regard for the citizens directly impacted by the works. I am not opposed to major infrastructure projects, and understand that the project benefits communities outside of my own. What I cannot understand is how consideration can be made for local residents, and the discarded during later stages.

My key objections and requests are documented in my attached letter.

It seems that they promise one thing and then change it. So many people are so over this whole thing and have complained so many times that now they feel useless and not any more point making any more complaints. It is definitely not the feeling around the wider Rozelle area. We are all worried about the pollution around the schools during construction and the unfiltered vents after its finished. There was a little bit of relief, that we would have a lovely public grassy area with more playing fields and facilities at the end of the horrible process and now they are saying they want to put an eyesore above ground road in!!!! I thought we were meant to be getting the cars out of the city. Where do they think all these cars are going to go when they exit the tunnel??? Surely not little Rozelle.

The variations to this section of the Crescent overpass (WestConnex) is unacceptable for several reasons.
The end of Johnson St. flows down to the water and gives unimpeded access to the parklands and water views. There is a lovely sense of space in a crowded city. Brief respites such as these cannot be lost forever at the whim of the contractors.
It may be more expensive to put the road underground or in another location altogether but they (the contractors) should have considered that earlier. If the government's inclination is towards free enterprise then the contractors should surely accept the losses incurred due to bad planning.
The image that comes to mind is the Cahill Expressway which brutally cuts the CBD off from the harbour. It is proposed that when we travel down Johnson St. we will look at a similar wall of concrete.
This city has to be about people not about cars. If transport dollars were spent on public transport then the need for such inappropriate structures could be reduced or eliminated altogether.

Please find my formal objection to this project modification attached.

As a property owner in the area, I object to the alternate design of the M4-M5 Link Mod 2 The Cresent Overpass. It was promised to be a pedestrian friendly Greenlink, in line with the bays precinct design to link Lilyfield/Rozelle with the Glebe and Balmain foreshore. This was promised to the community as giving back green spaces when the Stage 3 WestConnex was proposed. Now it is being taken away form the community and replaced with more above ground motorway which means no easy pedestrian connection between Rozelle and Glebe foreshore, more pollution, less aesthetic, less direct cycling and walking access to city/Glebe, and essentially more domination of cars over people. Please uphold your promise to the Rozelle/Glebe/Balmain/Lilyfield communities of creating green spaces and easy access to the bays precinct, via the green link pedestrian overpass.

The designated project is an insult to the residents of the affected adjoining areas and to Sydneysiders in general.
In 2017 a plan arrived at with some community consultation was agreed. Effectively the plan took everything underground and delivered greenspace and a green link.
This current plan, dumped on an unknowing community, has abandoned the above agreed outcome and seeks to introduce:
1. A Cahill Expressway-like overpass that destroys visual amenity, social cohesion, and solves no known or understood transport issue(s) - in a residential suburb of all places!! (Note:The Cahill Expressway is universally regarded as one of the major infrastructure travesties inflicted on Sydney as part of the ever expanding "uglification of Sydney").
2. Cannibalises greenspace to achieve its objectives, effectively discarding previously consulted and agreed outcomes
3. Turns Johnston Street and associated side streets into de facto freeways - accelerating risk to all users as well as residents; alienating access to nearby heavily used parkland; creating intractable obstacles and community isolation for elderly residents, children, and families & pet owners, all of whom are heavy users of the adjacent parklands
4. A transport solution that categorically fails to solve whatever problem its was designed to address - the feeder system of roads into this 150 metre stretch of road is unalterable and the outputs in the new design do absolutely nothing to alleviate the already heavy peak usage time congestion which is now a daily feature. Absolutely nothing changes with this proposal other than the feeder network of roads and side streets, designed for residential use and activity, will now become major thoroughfares for which they are poorly adapted and present higher and higher risk to local users (schoolchildren, the elderly and infirm, recreational actors, residents, emergency services etc).
5. The plan has actually nothing to do with the resolution of a transport issue. There is no satisfaction to be derived from the secretive transport modelling (almost always erratic and often misleading - note the consistent transport modelling failures of govt built tunnels & motorways under the so-called BOOT model ). These figures are merely designed to support the outcome. Irrespective of this "too hard to prove" statement, the outcome here is still beholden to some sort of magical resolution of the feeder system into this 150 metre tract of land. The illogicality of the proposal beggars belief.
6.There has been a major breach of community trust. The issue here is not in the detail it's in the concept - once agreed (2017) now trashed (2019).
7. There is a confusion of proxies associated with this project - RMS morphs with SMC who morph with the contract holder
all of whom claim some sort of subservience to the Transport & Planning Ministries. There is no "ownership". It's the "mushroom" theory of community consultation - keep them in dark corner and feed them on BS. Who knows....at the end of the day, these agents of government are probably just shuffling accountability and costs between themselves - the City of Sydney is the loser.
8. Clearly there is already a contract holder for this project - what are their obligations, expectations and benefits? How is it possible to award a contract when the project is allegedly being consulted? Again, logic defying behaviour by the authorising government agency whoever that may actually be.
9. The in-law test. If you can't explain the details of a project and convince your father/mother-in-law of its efficacy, it's doomed to failure. MIL & FIL across the city and certainly in the affected locations are bewildered by the proposal and the so-called justification of the proposal.

At its basest, the proposal fails the credibility and creativity test. It's a stale enervating and thoughtless early 20th century resolution to a 21st century concern. Add to that the failure to deliver "trust and confidence" in either the proposal, the so-called justification for the revised proposal, and the associated consultation process - all the ingredients for another massive planning failure.

I'm also deeply concerned re the fundamentally underdone environmental issues that are at play. Firstly, the significant diminution of promised and agreed green space, the clumsy and reactive design (ugly and unimaginative) of the so-called Green Link, and the large-scale cutting down of trees (already underway). Secondly, the air pollution, now and into the future, victimises the affected communities by concentrating emissions at higher levels with no relief or alleviating technology inputs. Add to that, the completely unpredictable outcomes on the resident flora and fauna of accelerated levels of pollution on their lives, their metabolisms, their breeding cycles, their feeding grounds. It has taken local communities the best part of the last 50 years to restore some ecological integrity back into the green space of the inner west. This proposal defies any knowledge or understanding of the community effort and investment that has been achieved in the adjoining public open spaces.

Finally, the link will almost certainly be tolled and handed over to a private business to run. Why isn't this in the proposal, as it projects forward?

It may not be directly tolled but its costs will be amortised and built into current and future tolls associated with this "road and tunnel" infrastructure. As such, we all get "victimised" a second time by punishing us with costs associated with an unwanted and unneeded piece of illiterate infrastructure planning.

Dear Director Transport Assessments Planning Services,

Regarding the proposed modification to M4-M5 Link, Mod 2 The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore area.

I request RMS work with the community to explore alternate design options to the proposed new car overpass design and the changed pedestrian and cyclist links. I am seeking the reinstatement of the safe, direct access from the approved EIS GreenLink to create a continuous green open space connection from the Rozelle Rail yards and Annandale to the foreshore.

The GreenLink was more than just a walk way - it put people central to the design, maximising safety, and providing much needed accessible open space for the community now
and into the future Bays Precinct design.

I am requesting RMS put people back into the plan — we want you to reinstate your own vision as laid out in Transport for NSW Future Strategy 2056. Work with uS to
design a feasible option that brings the best elements from the approved EIS design into the modification.

My key concerns with the M4-M5 Modification are:

* The significantly reduced safety and increased risk for pedestrians and cyclists with removed access over The Crescent to Bicentennial Park and the increased traffic along
Johnson Street.
* Being required to cross five sets of pedestrian lights at The Crescent as my option to reach the foreshore from Annandale or from Rozelle Bay light rail stop.
* Removal of direct active links to the foreshore, cutting the community off from the area and the proposed revitalisation of the entire Bays Precinct, including linking the Light Rail and Bus stops to a Ferry wharf and Metro station.
* Urban and landscape design that is being built before a finalised Masterplan for the area.
* Traffic changes that limit movements around the suburb and create further congestion in the local streets of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, Lilyfield and Rozelle with no planning to deal with these.

Alongside these issues my other concerns include:

* the lack of radical planning efforts to dramatically offset the concentration of vehicular air pollution from the exhaust stacks
* incorporating compact air pollution units near local schools and parks that can help offset the added concentration of particulate matter from vehicles via the installation of super dense, natural filtration units like the Air Tree (equivalent to 250 trees in a very compact 3m x 2m small form factor) for $25k each. A mdoest $1m investment could install them at all parks int he community and a number of them at the local primary and high schools and be the equivalent of 10,000 trees to compliment the conservative green area already planned in the development

I hope the conners of the proactive, volunteer based organizations like the Rozelle Annandale Foreshore Community are considered.

This is a David & Goliath relationship so in calculating the weighted average of responses, far more weight needs to be placed in community feedback than the accountants driving this change.

This is a 30-50 year impact and beyond. Please act now and make the change.

Thank you.

I am concerned that the proposed design of the vehicle overpass will result in reduced access to pedestrians, commuters, school students and cyclists between the Rozelle and Annandale sides of the area around the intersection.

The planned park in the former Rozelle rail yards and other nearby proposed greenspaces will attract many people who will walk and cycle between the various parklands and sporting areas. The adjacent Bays Precinct also holds promise of bringing more pedestrians and cyclists into the area to enjoy the improved living, retail and foreshore facilities.

The originally approved walking and cycle paths across the intersection provided direct routes enabling people to safely explore the area. The overpass modification does away with these originally excellently designed pathways for foot and cycle traffic, instead replacing them with indirect, time consuming and less safe connections.

I recognise the need for improving the vehicular access at this busy intersection but I ask for a redesign of the proposed overpass which prioritises safe and direct access for pedestrians, commuters, school students, and cyclists and other users.

Please revert to plans of the original EIS and reinstate green link .
Very poor notification of M4-M5 Modification to residents of Glebe/Forest Lodge & Annandale.
Very difficult to address and assess diagrams for the Crescent Interchange when we have not seen the concepts for Rozelle Interchange and Western Harbour Tunnel

Jan Wilson Glebe

Please see attached letter of objection.

I oppose to the modification of the Rozelle Interchange Overpass.
The change in proposal is outrageous to pedestrians, residents and the environment. The original proposal with the tunnel, was in tune with the fine grain of the area, but this modification represents a butchering of the suburbs and the quality of life.
As an urban designer, I can assure that It goes against all good urban design principals. We need to be favouring pedestrian links and greenery to provide a healthy quality of life, reducing concrete and impermeable areas.
Points of Justification:
This modification completely ignores the conditions of consent given for this project and
threatens to impose unacceptable negative consequences on the landscape and liveability
of our local area.
The proposed overpass is totally out of step with local development in Annandale and will
obstruct a local heritage mural and destroy Buruwan Park. Sufficient consideration hasn’t
been given to obvious alternatives such as an underground tunnel running under Whites
Creek.

Visual impact and obstruction of ‘people’s mural’:
This modification will impose hugely on the local landscape in the inner west. A new
elevated overpass is completely at odds with local development standards and will have a
significant negative visual impact on Annandale and its surrounds.
The overpass will also obstruct Rodney Monk’s heritage mural which decorates the northern
side of the light rail viaduct along The Crescent. That mural was commissioned by the
Leichhardt Council in 1980 and inspired by political and social movements in the inner west.
It is a dearly loved and historically important local artefact that should be protected. This proposal could be replaced with a slot cut and cover trench running under Whites Creek to push traffic underground instead of overground and avoid the massive imposition of an
overpass and destruction of the ‘people’s mural’.

Pedestrian access to Bicentennial Park and Jubilee Park:
This modification prioritises the needs of motorists, trashing the experience of local
pedestrian traffic and making harder for residents to access the public waterfront.
Pedestrians walking from the Western side of Johnston Street will have to use an
astonishing four pedestrian crossings in order to reach Bicentennial Park (see diagram
below).
This pedestrian arrangement should be modified to allow pedestrians to cross direct from
Johnston Street to the Park via The Crescent.

Destruction of mature fig trees at Buruwan Park:
This design proposes to rip up Buruwan Park and all the vegetation at that site including over
70 trees and several beautiful mature fig trees.
Removing this vegetation will impact on the liveability of our suburb by removing shade,
making our local area warmer and destroying the green barrier it provides between the City
West Link and residences. Even if these trees are replaced with saplings, it could take up to a
decade for tree cover to return to this site.
Any modification to this proposal should make every possible effort to save these trees and
vegetation. At a bare minimum, these trees should not be removed until a full Urban Design
and Landscape Plan has been completed.
Relocation of the green link:
This modification would abandon one of the centrepieces of the original design: a
pedestrian and cycling green link to connect the Rozelle Goods Yard to Bicentennial Park.
Relocating that green link to the west of the intersection of The Crescent and City West Link
ignores the original conditions of consent given for this project and puts the needs of
motorists ahead of pedestrians and cyclists.
The proposed pedestrian bridge further north up the City West Link creates an unnecessarily
long walk for pedestrians and an unnecessarily high climb of 5+ metres.
RMS and the contractors should reconsider other design options for a continuous green link
from Rozelle Goods Yard, across the City West Link into Jubilee Park, including a link to
Annandale and the Rozelle Bay light rail stop.

Increased local traffic in Annandale:
This modification would remove the option to turn right out of Johnston Street into the
Crescent which will increase traffic through local streets including Piper Street and Booth
Street.
These changed conditions will mean increased noise and emissions for residents in
Annandale.

Westprotects vehemently OBJECTS to all aspects of Modification 2 of the Stage 3B Rozelle Interchange approved EIS.
This is a proposed modification to an existing approved EIS for the sole benefit of an unapproved project known as the Western Harbour Tunnel (WHT), at the expense of:
1. the integrity of the approved Westconnex Rozelle Interchange’s Greenlink which was to provide a direct safe passage link for pedestrians and cyclists from the completed Rozelle Rail Yards (RRY) to Bicentennial Park – (see Appendix A)
2. the local community’s amenity, due to the proposed Crescent Overpass (see Appendix B):
3. the integrity and founding principles of the Rozelle interchange of minimising its built impact on the surrounding communities and environment with the introduction of a Crescent overpass and Shared User Path Bridge. These structures are out of proportion and scale, akin to the Cahill Expressways impact over Circular Quay, which clearly has definitely not stood the test of time. The Shared User Path Bridge looks like a last-minute tack on solution for something in the design process that was forgotten about and not addressed at the appropriate time.
The Modification misleads and deceives the Inner West community, the greater Sydney traveller, and the Department of Planning due to:
1. the standard of the consultation process denoted in section 5.4.2 (see Appendix C),
2. stating that the modification was due to feedback from the Stage 3B contractor, when in fact the overpass had already been identified as a proposed modification prior to the appointment of that contractor and as detailed and published by the RMS, August 2018, and
3. leading the community “down the garden path” with an approved EIS which the community believed showed some respect and understanding of the suffering and sacrifice they would be making for this project.
We are deeply concerned at and distressed by the failure to doorknock or letterbox Rozelle residents in relation to the Modification and the lack of appreciation of the significant, deleterious impact on our community this has. The period of exhibition was extremely tight and many residents who are impacted have only become aware in the past week as a result of the lack of proactive consultation by RMS. This is a complex document that needs time to understand and respond to
The modification brings no benefit and offers only further negative impacts on the Inner West Community. It should not proceed.
Should it proceed, we endorse Council’s call that the Inner West Council be represented on the Stage 3 Design Review Panel formed according to Condition of Approval E129 – we have no confidence based on this Modification proposal that without Council’s involvement that our community will 1) have a voice and 2) be heard.

To who it may concern and to those who care at the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Re : The new design impacts The Crescent in Annandale between Johnston Street and City West link which was envisaged as a green link between Rozelle/ Lilyfield and Annandale/Glebe.
Everyday impact on children navigating four road crossings an the Crescent is not acceptable.
The modification removes many of the favourable urban design features of the original proposal .
We already have enough air pollution in the area and do not require any more and after 4 years of having to put up with this project the community is looking forward to n improved urban design .

The modification ignores the condition of consent given for this project and threatens to impose negative consequences on the landscape and liveability of our local area.

The proposed overpass is out of line with local development in Annandale and surroundings and will obstruct local heritage mural and further destroy Buruwan Park .

Sufficient consideration hasn’t been given to obvious alternatives such as underground tunnel running under Whites creek . Alternatives design options should be explored.

Direct access from Lilyfield /Rozelle to the Glebe foreshore is lost , people oriented design principles from the approved Urban design and Landscape plan are being ignored ,connectivity between the light rail, cycleways ,future Metro West and ferry wharf is compromised.

and Johnson street is not acceptable .

Older citizen and disabled citizen have to manage a very long walk over the concrete footbridge. Please consider the disabled and members of the aging population . WE will be dependent on accessing public transport .


I appreciate your consideration

Many thanks in advance

I have numerous objections to the proposed change at Annandale/Rozelle – which will change an unobtrusive underground tunnel to an unnecessary and visually offensive flyover that will have enormous visual impact.
1. It is unnecessary - the proposed and approved underpass has none of the drawbacks of the newly proposed overpass.
2. It will be extremely visually offensive. The Cahill Expressway, all over again.
3. The additional traffic noise will have significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding area - especially on people using the local parks for passive recreation.
4. It has also been shown that additional urban background noise such as that produced by high volumes of traffic has a detrimental affect on many species of wildlife.
5. It will introduce more light into the area and studies have shown that artificial lights have a detrimental effect on many nocturnal species of wildlife (especially microbats) - interfering with natural behaviour patterns including hunting and mating and increasing predation leading to a drop in (or disappearance of) the local population.
6. The removal of the Buruwan Park trees (70 in total) - especially the mature figs, will have a significant impact on wildlife, removing habitat and food sources – already scarce in the city.
7. The age of the trees being removed is also significant. There is no 'short cut' to old trees and planting several young trees to replace an old tree is not 'like for like'. There is no 'like for like' when an old tree is removed. Over 300 native species require tree hollows at some or all stages of their life cycle and it is only old trees that have the hollows and/or splits in their bark that provide shelter for powerful owls, possums, microbats and many other species. Removal of hollows is listed as a key threatening process for many of the listed threatened species that are found in Sydney.
7. It will cause difficulties for pedestrian access to Jubilee Park - especially for people with physical disabilities.
8. It will remove a segment of the green corridor linking local parks and green spaces - again impacting numerous species of wildlife.
9. The removal of public green space and increasing background noise goes against two of the basic concepts of creating liveable cities.
10. The proposed flyover is in direct contravention of many Objectives identified by Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) required to meet their Ten Key Directions. It is contradictory that while one agency is adopting objectives to assist planning decisions across greater Sydney to make it more liveable, productive and sustainable, that another key government agency would allow design changes on a major project that directly contravene those objectives.

In fact, adopting this design change would be in direct contravention of GSC Objective 39 which identifies a collaborative approach to planning as the only way implementation of this vision for Sydney can occur.

The following key directions, indicators and objectives (in blue text) are stated as desirable by the Greater Sydney Commission and the proposed modification is in direct contravention of those objectives.

Key Directions of the Greater Sydney Commission -
Key Direction 8 - Valuing green space and landscape - indicated by increasing the urban tree canopy and expanding the Greater Sydney Green Grid. Removing parkland and trees is obviously decreasing the urban tree canopy, not increasing it. Similarly, removing this particular parkland would result in a fragmentation of the Green Grid, rather than an expansion.
Objective 27
Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhanced. This proposed design change will harm biodiversity and destroy a vital section or urban bushland.
Objective 28
Scenic landscapes are protected. This proposed flyover will destroy the scenic amenity of the area.
Objective 30
Urban tree canopy cover is increased - This proposal will decrease the urban tree canopy.
Objective 31
Public open space is accessible, protected and enhanced - This proposal will make public open space less accessible and destroy it, not protect or enhance it.
Objective 32
The Green Grid links parks, open spaces, bushland and walking and cycling paths - This proposal removes a link in an existing green corridor.

Key Direction 10 - A resilient city – Adapting to a changing world
Objective 38 - Heatwaves and extreme heat are managed. The reduction of green space and the removal of tree canopy, especially mature trees that provide deep shade increases the effect of heatwaves and extreme heat.

Implementation of the Key Directions.
Objective 39 - A collaborative approach to city planning. This proposed design change is in conflict with so many of the stated objectives of the GSC that it cannot be said to be a collaborative approach to planning.

In summary, the new proposal should not be approved. There are too many serious impacts that will result if the newly proposed flyover is constructed and it is inconsistent with accepted planning directives and objectives. The original proposed underground connection will have none of these negative impacts and is infinitely superior and should be retained.

Thank you.

Director
Transport Assessments Planning Services
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Dear Director

Re M4-M5 link MOD2 – application SS17485

It is with sadness that I have learned of the proposed modification of plan in relation to The Crescent overpass and changes to pedestrian infrastructure in North Annandale, Rozelle and Rozelle Bay Foreshore Area. The building of a concrete overpass blocking the view to the water in lieu of a planned tunnel is not acceptable.

This modification has a dramatic effect on pedestrians, cyclists and those wishing to enjoy the foreshore and the Greenlink. The fabulous Greenlink was a marvellous idea and is working very well for the community members, giving them positive benefits. The changes will deny all of the following: (i) safe, direct cycling/pedestrian access from Annandale to the foreshore above the intersection (ii) direct access from Rozelle and Lilyfield to the foreshore via the Greenlink (iii) the ability to turn right from Johnston Street into the Crescent (iv) the shared user pathways connecting into the Bays Precinct Master Plan (v) connectivity between the light rail, cycleways, future Metro West and ferry wharf (vi) people oriented design principles that were included in the approved Urban Design and Landscape Plan.

The everyday impacts of the modification are (a) navigation of the four road crossings at The Crescent and Johnston Street, (b) difficulties in managing the long, indirect walk over the concrete footbridge from Rozelle to the water (c) difficulties and danger for cyclists who will need to cross a 120m intersection in front of a three lane Tunnell to reach Glebe foreshore.

Whilst it is important that infrastructure be put in place to deal with the traffic issues it is also of equal importance that such infrastructure consider all users of access roads and the areas through which they pass. It is vitally important for the health and wellbeing of the community that as many trees and as much green space as possible is included in the design and that traffic moves underground when the geography will enable same. The approved plan was satisfied that a tunnel could be constructed. Is it now a question of over-run of costing for this infrastructure?

Please maintain the beauty of the area and permit all users (other than those taking the benefit of the tunnel) to be able to see the water and the green spaces and not blot the landscape with a car overpass which will deprive the public of the view and be most unattractive.

I submit that the original plan be adhered to.

Yours faithfully

My views are that the elevated roadway poses unacceptable impacts to heritage including three adjacent Heritage Items, and the neighbouring Annandale Heritage Conservation Area. Pedestrian amenity and bike user amenity will be drastically reduced through inconvenient access pathways to foreshore parks. The project's increased traffic, noise and pollution, prioritising car use instead of public transport use, is not sustainable for the locality. It negatively impacts current and future enjoyment for many people who use the area. Saving some of the trees in Buruwan Park would be desirable.

To the Director Transport Assessments Planning Services,
Please find attached my supporting document regarding the modifications to the Crescent overpass as part of the Westconnex proposal.
In summary, the proposal which has been put in place as part of the Rozelle Interchange cuts out the Greenlink which was originally proposed as part of the developments. I am seeking the reinstatement of the safe, direct access from the approved EIS Greenlink to create a continuous green open space connection from Rozelle to Annandale.
Many people, including myself, live in the Annandale and Glebe area specifically to safely access the Blackwattle Bay area. I recently moved there specifically to be closer to that area. There is already a significant amount of cars that drive through the region, and the new modifications that favour cars over people will place the area at further risk of public safety when in the foreshore area.
There needs to be further engagement with the community on significant changes such as this. The inner west region is predominantly in favour of environmental sustainability and public transport options - not plans which place more cars on our roads. The Blackwattle bay area is incredible and removing the safety and ease of access for residents is unacceptable.

I strongly object to the modification to the approved design of the M4-M5 link MOD 2.

I am against losing direct access to the glebe harbour foreshore from Annandale. The inner west has very few direct foreshore access points compared to the lower north shore and eastern suburbs. This access point is currently very well used by the local community and as a local with a child at an Annandale school I don't want it lost.