MOD 8 - Blues Point access site

Submission for: SydneyMetro Project Modification Request MOD 8

I object to this modification (Mod 8) request. I also wish to register my and other community member’s concern that it appears that the 'consultation' process is merely ‘ticking the boxes’, the decision having apparently already been approved, according to comments by the project managers and a letter I received from our local member Felicity Wilson who wrote on the 6th July, 2020, (I quote) "I share your disappointment that the site will not be returned to our community when initially advised and apologise on behalf of the project."

We sincerely trust this is not the case.

The residents of Blues Point rightly feel that extending the impact of this project and particularly the Acoustic ‘Shed’ (really a building as it is larger than many apartment buildings) on our lives for an additional 16-18 months is placing an excessive burden on a group of people, when other, better options must be available. The decision runs 'rough-shod' over our right to 'quiet enjoyment' of our homes and locality and has serious safety, financial and health and wellbeing impacts. Furthermore, the reasons given for this change make little sense. To also feel that the decision has been made before any level of consultation makes us question whether this Modification Report and ‘consultation’ is just window dressing and if so, that we, the residents and voters who are most affected, are being treated very poorly.
The argument that the project will have a significant positive impact for the people of Sydney is understood by the vast majority of residents but that should not in any way give a green light to decisions and actions that will have a serious negative impact on the local people and environment, particularly as the stated need to use Blues Point appears unnecessary anyway.

Blues Point residents have on the whole been supportive of this project. However, that something is 'good' for the whole, doesn't give it the automatic right to take decisions that are very bad for other people without proper scrutiny and due process.

The impact to Blues Point of this project will be for five years minimum! That is a significant length of time to subject residents and businesses to the impacts on their lives this project and its ‘shed’ brings. One young family whose unit's outlook is completely obliterated by the acoustic (shed) have a child who will have learnt to talk and be in primary school before the child sees the view from their living room! The impact of this very long period needs to be taken into account.

The planned access point of Barangaroo (under which this project was originally approved in January 2017) is a much better site in almost every way. That world class project managers and companies involved in this project suddenly realised they can't use Barangaroo doesn't ring true to anybody; especially those who have experience in large construction projects. We feel strongly this is a decision of expedience to be able to complete the project more quickly, with the resultant benefits for the constructors, building owners, government and incidentally, the public, but clearly not for the residents of Blues Point. We feel that there is little truth in the reasons given to us. That the decision was suddenly announced also makes no sense. Projects of this size do not leave such matters to the last moment. It is more likely this was decided some time ago; perhaps from the start and the decision to tell us was left till the last minute to limit community opposition. If this is the case, and it certainly looks that way, it makes a mockery of the legislated process and shows a cavalier attitude and disregard of the community and voters of NSW, which we are sure the NSW government would not condone.


Impact on the amenity and value of properties and stated additional time

When the Blues Point Retrieval site was approved, it was for a specific time frame. Residents arranged their lives and plans on that basis and on the whole have been very supportive of the Metro work, despite it being constant for years.

Even just weeks before the announcement that this extension was being sought, residents were being told that the Acoustic ‘Shed’ was being dismantled shortly. Many made plans, including my wife and I. At least one owner in our building has delayed putting their property on the market from last year till September, at some expense, because of the regularly communicated timeline residents have been given.

This change will result in the Acoustic ‘Shed’ building blocking views and amenity for close to another 18 months, not 12 months as the modification document states repeatedly. It may be that the original approval was until late this calendar year, but the ‘shed’ has been scheduled to come down in June/July this year for a long time. Well over a year, perhaps two years. The modification proposes that it stays up until just before Christmas 2021. That is 16 months from when the shed was to be removed according to the projects own communicated timeline.


That the modification is required to keep the project on schedule.
This doesn't ring true.

The Project is running six months ahead of schedule according to the project people associated with Blues Point. This is because by utilising the Acoustic ‘Shed’, the work has proceeded 24 hours a day. Again, with resident support, despite impacts on sleep and normal life.

The idea that contracts to build out the stations and therefore restrict access to complete the tunnels were let without realising the impact on access is ludicrous. Similarly, that archaeological finds made years ago have suddenly caused this problem are also ludicrous. No significant project would find itself unexpectedly in such a position. We feel that this is a decision that was taken some time ago, and the residents who will be most affected have been kept in the dark. What else can we think? This decision is wrong for many reasons and has a serious negative impact on the health and wellbeing of the Blues Point community.


Environmental Impact Statement
The modification report comments on the original EIS and seeks to minimise the impact on local residents and businesses of the work at Blues Point. The modification report claims either 'insignificant' or 'no' affect from the work and truck movements across multiple areas of concern. They are too numerous to list. But this is simply untrue.

The Acoustic ‘Shed’ does dominate the environment totally. It is a building with a size equivalent to a 3 to 4 story apartment building, but unlike a normal building, it is a blank dark colour. It completely takes the outlook and view from many homes, and dominates the view from others. How this impact can be trivialised is beyond me.

The reserve that was acquired for this project was used constantly by tourists, weddings, families enjoying a picnic, dog walkers and the like. Photographs taken from tourist spots on the east side of the bridge looking back at the bridge will have this enormous brown building dominating the foreshore of Blues Point. There is nothing insignificant about that.

Cement trucks have been arriving at times at 3 minute intervals, along with other supply trucks. The report may state that this is of little impact to residents, but clearly the authors aren't living here and this proposition is so wrong it causes residents’ anger and angst.

The truck noise does disturb and wake residents, along with the fumes and ancillary noise including reversing beepers. Blues Point Road has a significant grade and trucks make noise as they climb the hill. The planned delivery of concrete around the clock is not acceptable for this reason. Further the constant stream of trucks through the cafe village does nothing for their businesses and creates an unnecessary risk to pedestrians and car drivers. This impact is not ‘Nil’ or ‘insignificant’. It is major and this modification request expects it to be around the clock for a year!

Minimising truck movements was important enough for the project to build and operate a jetty and barge to move spoil (and tunneling equipment) instead of trucking it through Blues Point. Now, it is deemed as having a minor inconvenience factor which is ridiculous.


The statements to the effect that all options are closed except Blues Point ca not be correct

If all other options are closed it can only be because the project managers made the decision to allow this to happen. As stated earlier, no professional project or construction management would allow such a situation to suddenly occur. If other options are closed it is because they decided some time ago to do so and they will have only done so knowing their alternative plan of using Blues Point would be approved, or had been approved. This could not be the case because, apart from being dishonest, unfair and unconscionable, it would make a mockery of the legislated processes put in place to protect the interests of citizens of NSW. Therefore, other options must still be available including Barangaroo, which was always the project plan.

Whilst it may be expedient, this modification request is unnecessary and I urge it be refused.

This Modification request is:
• Unnecessary - Barangaroo should be used and the project is ahead of schedule, and
• Has serious negative financial, health and wellbeing impacts on a community

The maintenance of the Acoustic Building and associated vehicle movements will have a significant impact on the day to day lives of many residents and visitors to Blues Point. There is a 'human cost' to this one year and four to six month delay which need not occur.

I request that this Modification request be refused and that the project is completed, as per its original approval, utilising the Barangaroo and Crows Nest sites for access.

Thank you.

Regards the Modification Report that I received on the 22nd July 2020 from Sydney Metro please see my comments immediately below:

I have read the Modification Report and in my view it does not seriously consider inputs from the community. And it certainly does not incorporate any creative engineering solution(s) that should be considered at the Barangaroo site which the prevailing approved project decided was the preferred site.
What for example would the solution be if the Blues Point Road dive-site was not available?.... Good Engineers and Planners would always find an acceptable solution in such a project.
I am a retired Engineer and I am aghast at the "simplicity" and "generalisation" of some of the statements made in the Modification Report: Modified Report extracts are listed below along with my response:

EXTRACT 1: During original construction planning, Barangaroo was proposed as the main access point for under-harbour tunnel fit out works between Victoria Cross and Barangaroo. Due to unforeseen circumstances including engineering and design challenges during excavation works, a significant heritage find in 2018 of a 180-year old timber boat, and the ongoing construction work required within Barangaroo Station, the use of Barangaroo as the main access point for these works is no longer viable. Due to the development within the surrounding area at Barangaroo there are no other opportunities to access the tunnels via an alternative shaft.
RESPONSE: What a pathetic statement: Every major project presents unforeseen challenges, good project managers/engineers just get over them within the approved scope, that is a key role of competent lateral thinking project managers/engineers. I believe the 2018 find of a 180 year old timber boat is just a play on emotions! The Blues Point Road excavation works uncovered an historic cottage with many relics.... this was effectively accommodated without deciding to move the location of the dive site to another suburb. Just taking the easy way out of a problem often gets one into bigger problems!

EXTRACT 2: As such, the use of Blues Point temporary site is the only viable option to complete tunnel fit out works between Victoria Cross and Barangaroo to ensure the overall construction timeframe of the project is maintained.
RESPONSE: I say TRY HARDER....where is the real Project Leadership and engineering challenge on this project?

EXTRACT 3: Due to multiple developments in the Barangaroo area, there is no availability to expand the project footprint to enable an alternative tunnel access point.
RESPONSE: What a simplistic general statement.

EXTRACT 4: The proposed modification would not result in any additional cumulative impacts at the Blues Point temporary site from those identified for the approved project. An additional assessment of potential changes to cumulative impacts associated with the proposed modification is not considered necessary.
RESPONSE: This is an incorrect statement. The heavy vehicle movement of one per hour in the Environmental Impact Statement increase 100% to two heavy vehicle movements per hour.

EXTRACT 5: One heavy vehicle per hour out of standard hours (6pm to 7am) was assessed in the Environmental Impact Statement for TBM retrieval (see Figure 7-1). The proposed heavy vehicle movements outside of standard hours would be similar to the traffic profile assessed within the Environmental Impact Statement for TBM retrieval with one to two heavy vehicle movements per hour (up to a limit of eight heavy vehicle movements per night in total) required for the proposed modification. A requirement for an increase of one heavy vehicle movement per hour out of standard hours, compared with the Environmental Impact Statement, would be a negligible traffic impact.
RESPONSE: This is an incorrect conclusion. The doubling of heavy vehicle movements per hour from one to two requires the submission of a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Safety of other road users and pedestrians is a primary driver requiring the submission of a new EIS.

EXTRACT 6: Overall, the impacts to the community would be consistent with the impact as assessed within the Environmental Impact Statement and Modification Report for the Blues Point acoustic shed (MOD 5) however over a longer duration.
RESPONSE: This is an incorrect statement. The significant increase in the amount of heavy vehicle and other associated construction crew small vehicle movements is a major impact on the community for another year. The amount of construction related vehicles will be massively more than that what was actually experienced during the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) retrieval works.

The safety issues are enormous having such a volume of construction traffic hurling up and down Blues Point Road,with small side street intersections, for a whole twelve months. The Modified Report just simply casts aside concern for the local community whilst the proper and original preferred site should be Barangaroo which is a massive construction site with all the safety infrastructure well established and in-place.

The least we need is a new Environmental Impact Statement that will enable a quality detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed modifications, not just simplistic assumptions, conclusions and incorrect statements contained within the Modification Report

Thank you and regards,

I am concerned by the proposal to extend the usage of the Blues Point temporary site. This proposal seems to have been rushed through without due preparation and thought to the consequences and seems to have resulted due to bad planning on the part of the NSW Government and/or the contractor for Sydney Metro.
When the site was originally established it was recognised that Blues Point Road was unsuitable for large trucks and hence the pontoon was built to enable the removal of spoil. Blues Point Road is still unsuitable for large trucks and yet the proposal is for up to six concrete truck movements per hour to for at least 12 months. This is completely unacceptable and is not only a safety risk to the Community in the shopping precinct of McMahons Point but also a health risk due to pollution. There is no mention of any provision to monitor either the speed of the trucks or the damage they will do to the road surface.
I am strongly against this ill advised and badly planned proposal.

Over the past 12 months the use of Blues Pt Rd as an access point for trucks to the site has been unsafe.
The trucks are traveling above the speed limit down the hill and are too noisy and too big for a residential street. We are woken up at 430am with truck noise and it continues until after 1030pm. I cannot sit on my front porch and have a conversation for the noise of grinding gears and engines.

The size of the trucks especially the Mac trucks and cement mixers are so large that you cannot pass them with cars parked on both sides of the road. We have to stop and pull over to let them through.

The parking at the site at the bottom of Blues Pt Rd is fully parked out at 6am and this goes on all day, it stops residents from the ability to park our cars and enjoy the park. I meet with cancer Survivors for exercise and it’s extremely difficult to get parking close to Blues point Reserve when all the car parks are taken up with workers for the site and car spaces are reserved for trucks Crains etc.

The windows of my 1870’s cottage shakes when the trucks go past. The tables shake at the restaurants.

It’s totally unacceptable that a submission is being made to continue this for another 12 months.

I would like to object to the continuance of the ‘temporary’ acoustic shed at the Blue Point access site.
This shed has been in place for 2 years and the plan is now for it to continue for a further 18 months from July 2020 (not 12 months as noted in your document).
I object on the following grounds
• Continuing impact on visual amenity
• Construction materials being delivered by road only
o Truck speeds in a residential area
o Danger to pedestrians and bicycle riders
o Narrow streets of residential area
o Noise
• Possibility of works continuing 24/ 7
• The current probable work hours of 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am – 1pm Saturday being already too long
• Noise and vibration from works

Jane Mussared
11 / 1 Spains Wharf Road
Kurraba Point NSW 2089

31 July 2020

The result of what appears to be a combination of the discovery of an artefact during excavation work and changes in planning by Sydney Metro have affected the program to such an extent that unless the proposal is supported and approved, the whole City & Southwest program will be delayed (by up to 12 months). It is not clear to me why the changes at Baranagaroo were made and just how significant they are in the amount of time needed to recover the program. There is clearly no point in objecting because a 12 month delay would be an embarrassment for the proponent and for the government. Hence it is a foregone outcome that the proposal will be approved. So why bother asking? Just tell us and it is going to happen no matter what we may say.

Loss of Parkland and Community Amenity – Objection
I object because this is a breach of promise. Residents, community, visitors, gave up the park for two years, now you are seeking a further year. This parkland area is a major viewing spot and part of the Opera House curtilage. It is much used and enjoyed. Many residents live in apartments and need this green community space. Some have the view completed blocked. I still do not understand why this work is not taking place in North Sydney proper or Barangaroo work site. No satisfactory answer has been provided other than an apology.


Traffic - Objection
I object because BPR is very much a residential ‘no through road’ area full of small coffee shops, post office etc with a pedestrian crossing. This new proposal means an increase in heavy vehicles from the previous EIS by 141% with construction-related vehicles every five to seven minutes, excluding construction staff and light vehicles and effectively means heavy truck movements that are 2.4 times those experienced during excavation. Simply too much! Please find alternatives, like barging.

You may also be unaware our mayor Jilly Gibson, has taken the imitative to make this “The Year of the Pedestrian” to encourage local residents to walk, rather than use cars. Given that many of these deliveries will be effected by contractors, who will police this and how will they be forced to reduce speed and be aware of this environment. I note a ‘driver induction’ course was mentioned in the webinar however in my experience, the drivers would change regularly due to the contractor status.

Light Spill - Objection
Light spill – although I do not live on BPR, I have spoken to some residents in BP Tower and they mentioned this was a major problem for them. How then will night work be managed to avoid lightening up residents’ bedrooms as these lights are very bright? I object to night lighting as it will mean a loss of amenity for residents.

Compensation - Request
Compensation for landlords. Being a landlord myself, I feel for any owners in 1 Warung and 30 BPR. Given the changed nature of the project and the seeking of an extension, surely compensation should be offered? This would not necessarily set a precedent as this is an extension to aid the project, rather than the original agreed project. Most likely this benefits the contractor, but it certainly disadvantages owners and residents. I would ask that this be reconsidered. It may be possible to ‘acquire’ some of these properties during the project on a standard lease agreement and could be used by the project, subject to approval by the Strata.
Compensation for owners. This should also be considered should noise/light spill/lack of amenity etc reach a certain threshold.

Rubbish – Request
During the webinar, I posed a question for facilities for smoking on site, rubbish etc, which was taken on notice. You may or may not be aware the NS CBD is now a completely ‘non-smoking’ area, however I constantly find workers on building sites in Miller and Mount Sts smoking. We do not want cigarette buts, coffees cup tops etc falling into the harbour. Please ensure proper smoking and rubbish facilities are provided.

Dear Review Panel,
My strong oppositions to this modification proposal (MOD 8-Blues Point access site) is based on the following salient points:
1. A proper consultation on the proposed modification has not been held. The Information Sessions which were held although advised as consultations, were in fact an occasion to inform those attending the webinar of what was going to happen. It was presented as a fait accompli.
2. Communications about the proposed modification have been abysmal to the point of being non-existent and deceitful. (Sydney Metro communications have become less frequent and instead of weekly communications are monthly). Many residents, and certainly all the businesses, in McMahon’s Point were not told about the proposal. It cannot be emphasised enough that only a few residents living adjacent to the site were advised of the proposal and certainly not one business was invited to the information sessions. A notice in the Mosman Daily, with its limited COVID distribution, was insufficient to fully advise residents and businesses and to seek comment.
3. The period to comment on the proposal, following the report, is not relative to the ongoing impact the continued use of the site will have. The two-week period to comment is not sufficient to enable the wider community to become apprised of the proposal or to comment on the report.
4. The lack of a separate environmental impact statement needs to be made to thoroughly assess the impact of continued use of the site; to invite comments and to provide an opportunity for a proper consultation with the local community.
5. The original proposal indicated that the tunnelling fit-out would be from both Barangaroo and Victoria Cross sites. There has been no valid reason given to change this, other than what seems to be for convenience of either the contractors and, or Sydney Metro.
6. The level of increased heavy traffic projected for this next phase of the works will create major disruption, noise and disturbance to those in McMahons Point. Using Sydney Metro’s figures there will average a heavy vehicle movement every 5 minutes. This represents a major increase on the levels of traffic experienced when barging was in place to transport loads to and from the site.
7. A summary compared to the Construction Traffic Managemnt Plan (which reflected barging) is:
Heavy vehicle arrivals
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Total

Mod-8 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 448
CTMP 34 34 34 34 34 16 - 186

increase 30 30 30 30 30 48 64 262
88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 300% large 141%
8. Additional to heavy vehicle movements will be those of vans, utes and other vehicles associated with contractors and on-site workers making the traffic area congested to the point of being unmanageable.
9. Accompanying noise levels will be exacerbated from heavy vehicle movements occurring during the day and night. Heavy vehicles already idle in after hour periods outside residential flats and homes causing residents to experience interrupted sleep for extended periods.
10. Light pollution from the movement of heavy vehicles at night will add to the sleep disruption from noise for residents.
11. The proposal breaks the firm undertaking made, to residents and the public, to restore the park to public use for New Year’s Eve 2020/21. The proposal intends to alienate the parkland for a further two years until 2022.
12. The proposed modification is a staggering breach of trust established by Sydney Metro with the community, who until this time have tolerated daily and nightly disruption and inconvenience.
Thank you for giving this your due consideration and addressing the issues I, and others, might raise.
Kind regards,
Di Collins
1/1 Warung Street,
McMahon's Point

I am an owner and resident in the apartment block closest to the site. Not only do I now have two tunnels under my feet but I am now asked to endure more torture. I have had to put up with this intrusion for over 3 years. The first year was one of exploration and drilling. The police had to be called because the "cyclone fencing" blew across the road and totally blocked it.

The last 2 years have been hell. I haven't had the luxury of being able to go away. I am retired and hence home most of the time. The promises about noise, pollution, truck movements etc are all rubbish. If I can't hear my TV when the volume is on maximum, I would consider that noise exceeding acceptable limits. Concrete cutters under my balcony for weeks at a time weren't fun. Forget trying to make phone call.

When we complained about dust, we were told that it came from around the corner. I've never seen dust travel against the wind and travel around corners. A free carwash? Forget it.

Whilst sleeping in bed, I was awoken by a loud thud. It was midnight in late January 2019. The power pole outside the shed had collapsed . It blacked out us and surrounding residences. Live wires blocked the road. We are still waiting for an explanation and an apology. Ausgrid told me that we aren't entitled to know the reason. Metro said that someone left a tap on! Who knows how many people may have been injured if this had happened in daylight.

Worst case vehicle movement Table 7-2. This is a joke. I have hundreds of photographs of heavy vehicles. Some include more than 5 vehicles lining up to get access to the site. We were told that we would get the occasional concrete delivery. The concrete trucks were coming every 15 minutes from 6am-11pm and later, 6 days a week. At times they were 2 minutes apart. I could identify them by their whining noise as they came down the hill. At night we got the flashing lights lighting up the surrounds as an extra.

Semi-trailers would regularly park illegally, especially at the bus stop on the corner of Warung St. At night they would idle for lengthy intervals. Their flashing lights would light up my bedroom. During the day they would block our vision when trying to exit Warung St.

Just in the last few weeks I reported a monster semi-trailer trying to turn around at Warung St. After 20 minutes the driver gave up and drove straight down anyway. However, he managed to side-swipe a local resident's car. Another day another semi-trailer came down the hill without slowing down and managed to wipe out the pedestrian refuge. As if this wasn't enough. After a few hours he unhitched his trailer and then drove his truck up the road. He was so confident that he drove up the hill while steering with one hand and talking on his mobile with the other.

Ask the owners of businesses along Blues Pt Rd if there hasn't been an increase in heavy vehicle movements. They too are fed up with the constant noise and dust. Maybe you won't get their submissions. None of the owners that I had spoken to had even been notified about this application for extension. They were horrified. Blues Pt Rd is very narrow in the restaurant area (near Princes St). I have nearly been hit head on by some of the Metro trucks. Sometimes they don't even try to move over to let other vehicles pass.

I am offended by the EIS comment that the visual impact of the shed is zero because it is only temporary. Please move the shed to this person's backyard and let him enjoy the zero impact. The green paint makes it invisible! All of us in our building have lost most of our views. Some more than others. Owners have lost rental income. Tenants were signed up with the assumption that the shed would come down this year. Properties were bought on the same assumption.

Blues Pt Reserve is a place where people come for picnics, weddings and viewing the heritage listed Harbour Bridge and Opera House. The Sydney Metro activities around the shed make it a dangerous environment for visitors. Buses from retirement villages and institutions for the disabled still try and drop off their passengers. This is one of the few areas where there is wheelchair access for people to view the main harbour. They sit and enjoy a sandwich. I have seen many near misses between trucks and pedestrians even with traffic marshalls present. People often come long distances to enjoy the park. Parking is almost impossible. Contrary to what we were told, many Metro workers use their own vehicles. Sometimes they park so badly that they hit vehicles around them and have wheels on the footpath as they attempt to squeeze in. Yet others take up 2 spaces because they don't consider others.

The NYE fireworks at Blues Pt have been totally ruined. Ever since the Metro presence visitors have to pay and prebook. This has made it difficult for tourists. The "invisible" shed totally ruins the view.

I have submitted countless complaints. Many of them have been resolved. However, the major impacts of noise, dust, trucks and visual pollution aren't going to be resolved. We are asked to put up with this until the end of 2021. Maybe there'll be yet another application for extension? Why does the government sign documents with strict conditions if they aren't going to be followed? The shed must come down this year. Nothing has changed. Hugh Lawson finally admitted that it is simply more convenient to continue with this site. The mumbled answers during the webinar suggested that access at Barangaroo was difficult. Shale was mentioned. Historic boat find was mentioned. This was known when approval was given for the shed to be built and hence can't be used in the argument.

Metro, you have betrayed the residents. When we complain, the complaints invariably are redirected to Metro. Metro says that they are following all of the guidelines.

I ask all of you who are involved with this project, how long could you put up with a construction site located next to your residence and under your residence and it is allowed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years?

We are not entitled to even any basic compensation. We just want to be able to hear our TV, use our phone, go to bed without truck noise and lights and get our view back. Is that too much to ask?

I know that that major projects have to be built and that most of the people working on these are hard working and follow the rules. However, this community has sacrificed 3 years and has done it's bit towards this project. I don't care where your alternate access site is but we have contributed enough and deserve some peace. There is always a plan B.

Contrary to what your recent information says, I was told that Covid has impacted upon the finishing time here. There are restrictions on the numbers of workers in the tunnels. If the light rail can be years late I don't care when the Metro line is completed, as long as we can have our park and beach back this year. To those of you who might be eligible for early completion bonuses, think of the residents lives that you have ruined to achieve this. This location may be convenient for you, Hugh Lawson, but it isn't for us.

Regards

Dace

I am a resident and owner in McMahons Point. My bedroom, lounge and modest garden face Blues Point Road. My house is approximately 250 metres from the Blues Point temporary site.

I make this submission:

The Blues Point tunnel fit out access modification report (Report) is misleading and incomplete. It does not provide a reliable basis to guide consideration of the issue of consideration of approval to continue using the site for an additional 12 months. The approving authority should refuse approval.

Reasons:

1. Justification is flawed logic.

Section 2.2.1 of the Report concludes by claiming that the use of the Blues Point temporary site (Site) is the only viable option to complete tunnel fit out works between Victoria Cross and Barangaroo to ensure the overall construction timeframe of the project is maintained. Thus the rationale for the need is conditioned upon a program justification. Sydney Metro has failed to ensure the works have maintained progress in accordance with program. The report fails to consider options to accelerate other works to permit program recovery, thereby avoiding the need to seek the current approval.

2. Alternatives have not been considered

The report fails to address access from the Chatswood and Marrickville sites - the sites identified in the EES.
The report fails to address delivery of pre-cast track slab, as an alternative to in-situ concrete pours.
The report fails to address, or adequately address why alternative access at Barangaroo was not required as a condition for its approval of the engineering design at Barangaroo. This is a very serious default. The only reason offered is the discovery of the historic boat and that is not adequately explained.
The report fails to adequately address why development at Barangaroo was permitted to such an extent as to render alternative access shafts at Barangaroo unavailable.

3. Sydney Metro is the author of its own problems

Sydney Metro has had the opportunity to control and has elected to not act so as to control other access points .

A. Sydney Metro has allowed design changes at Barangaroo which have rendered Barangaroo no longer viable,
B. Development has been allowed at Barangaroo, which otherwise would have allowed an alternative shaft for access.

The Report describes the need for concrete deliveries by road, however the report fails to address options for delivery of other materials by other means. In the full knowledge of the current application, Sydney Metro permitted the removal of the jetty and barging facility in June 2020, thereby creating the scenario that all materials needed to be delivered via road.

4. Community Consultation as described in the report has not occurred and is a sham.

The Report claims that Sydney Metro continues to proactively engage with community and stakeholders.
I have not received any correspondence in relation to the proposal. If there has been a letter, or even a pamphlet with a "project update", I did not receive it at my address. The first notice I received of the proposal was seeing a notice in the Mosman daily on 30 July 2020. The Report claims that a letter was written to targeted stakeholders. That might be correct, but Sydney Metro ought to have considered that all residents of Blues Point Road, being directly impacted by truck movements, would be interested to learn of the proposed application and given an opportunity to object. I have spoken with a number of neighbours who were similarly unaware.

Contrary to the purport of the notice, the Community Information line person informed me that she had no information on the notice or the proposal. She informed me that a knowledgeable person from Sydney Metro would contact me during business hours on the day. No such contact occurred and I am still waiting.

5. Sydney Metro's Response to Feedback has been inadequate.

Sydney Metro refers to Section 2.2.1 of the report in answer to the comment around why the project did not know earlier that the Site would be required for Line-Wide access. Section 2.2.1 does not address adequately this comment.

6. Conclusion - why I am making this submission:

A. The concrete trucks - noise, safety, damage to roads - all to last for another 12 months or so.

B. The unnecessary visual impact - for another 12 months.

C. That Sydney Metro has created the need for this application.

D. That Sydney Metro has not been candid.

I know very well that Sydney Metro is Sydney's most important infrastructure project. I know that my submission is probably too late to be of any consequence. This is the first time I have made a submission like this. However, I have felt obliged to make this submission because I do not consider that the way this application has come about has been disclosed with transparency and honesty, nor has Sydney Metro looked hard enough at the alternatives.

I object to the continuation of trucks using Blues Point Road to access the Sydney Metro site.
I object to any increase in the number of trucks using Blues Point Road during the daytime.
I object to trucks using Blues Point Road at night.
I object to trucks using Blues Point Road on the weekends.

Please see attached objection.

Please see attached

Please see the attached