State Significant Infrastructure
Determination
North West Rail Link - Civil Works
Blacktown
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
North West Rail Link - Civil Works
Modifications
Determination
Archive
Application (5)
DGRs (1)
EA (29)
Agency Submissions (13)
Response to Submissions (7)
Determination (2)
Approved Documents
There are no post approval documents available
Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
There are no inspections for this project.
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Showing 41 - 60 of 346 submissions
Withheld Withheld
Object
Withheld Withheld
Object
Bella Vista
,
New South Wales
Message
Myself and wife are both opposed to this proposal in its current form. It will be a huge inconvenience during the construction phase, when, as per the information received at information sessions, trucks and other building vehicles will access the site via Celebration Drive. As anyone that lives in the area knows this is an already congested road during peak hour, that will be made that much worse by additional construction traffic.
Aside from this, I am opposed to the proposal in that the station is not completely underground. This will create noise pollution that could be avoided entirely if the station was completely underground.
Finally, I doubt residents were consulted in regards to the proposal. Personally, I would be unable to use the train as I am a tradesperson and my wife also requires her car for work. Neither of us were surveyed about the proposal and none of our neighbours were consulted about the proposal prior to its inception either. You would think that a project of this size should have the input of residents and business within 150 meters of it in order to create a more ideal proposal.
Aside from this, I am opposed to the proposal in that the station is not completely underground. This will create noise pollution that could be avoided entirely if the station was completely underground.
Finally, I doubt residents were consulted in regards to the proposal. Personally, I would be unable to use the train as I am a tradesperson and my wife also requires her car for work. Neither of us were surveyed about the proposal and none of our neighbours were consulted about the proposal prior to its inception either. You would think that a project of this size should have the input of residents and business within 150 meters of it in order to create a more ideal proposal.
Stephen Webster
Comment
Stephen Webster
Comment
Baulkham Hills
,
New South Wales
Message
Being the closest commerical building to the Norwest Station we are concerned about the amount of noise, dust and traffic congestion during construction.
We note a three metre noise barrier is to be constructed along our common boundary. As the elevation rises we wonder if this is sufficient to provide a comfortable and productive environment for those who work adjacent to the construction site.
We are concerned with possible noise and vibration during office working hours and dust and debris blowing onto our windows, building and into our storm water guttering.
Thank you.
We note a three metre noise barrier is to be constructed along our common boundary. As the elevation rises we wonder if this is sufficient to provide a comfortable and productive environment for those who work adjacent to the construction site.
We are concerned with possible noise and vibration during office working hours and dust and debris blowing onto our windows, building and into our storm water guttering.
Thank you.
Roger Hooper
Object
Roger Hooper
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposed Cheltenham Intermediate Services Facility is an environmental disaster as it and its access roads will destroy a significant part of the small remnant of native bushland adjacent to the Cheltenham Oval. Another solution should be found, possibly in a different location and perhaps with access off the M2 rather than local roads in a way which does not destroy our small amount of remnant bushland. This is the part of the North West Rail LInk that I am opposed to. Otherwise the project appears to have merit as it improves public transport.
Withheld Withheld
Object
Withheld Withheld
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
We wish to register our strongest objection to the proposal to construct a two lane paved road through our bushland in Castle Howard Conservation Reserve to Kirkham Street, Beecroft to allow heavey construction vehicle access for the North West Rail Link.
This is a sensitive area of bushland and is incredibly valuable to the community because of the Blackbutt Gully Forest, for its biodiversity and value as green space.
Our objection is based on a number of factors:
1 The narrow and winding suburban streets involved are clearly not suitable for large construction vehicles Local residents have already had massive inconvenience with the widening of the Murray Farm Road bridge over the M2 and should not have to bear further disruption.
2 Surely in the event of an emergency the quickest way to access the train tunnel would be from the M2 motorway, via an on/off ramp, where access for emergency vehicles will be much more effective, speedy and safe than from small back streets. Time would be essential under emergency circumstances and lives would be put at risk where access is more difficult.
3 We feel the devestation of bushland is unnecessary when there is already a motorway for access.
4 The sports field and netball courts are heavily patronised by the local community and loss of these resources will have an impact on the community. This destruction of facilities in the area is unthinkable, when the population is increasing and the need for exercise and recreation is very important.
5 Bushland is very important to the community for the remnant forest and for biodiversity. Do not make a wasteland of our suburb.
A sensible decision would be to utilise the M2 roadway which is already constructed, is wider, safer and less disruptive for residents.
We object to the use and destruction of this bushland.
This is a sensitive area of bushland and is incredibly valuable to the community because of the Blackbutt Gully Forest, for its biodiversity and value as green space.
Our objection is based on a number of factors:
1 The narrow and winding suburban streets involved are clearly not suitable for large construction vehicles Local residents have already had massive inconvenience with the widening of the Murray Farm Road bridge over the M2 and should not have to bear further disruption.
2 Surely in the event of an emergency the quickest way to access the train tunnel would be from the M2 motorway, via an on/off ramp, where access for emergency vehicles will be much more effective, speedy and safe than from small back streets. Time would be essential under emergency circumstances and lives would be put at risk where access is more difficult.
3 We feel the devestation of bushland is unnecessary when there is already a motorway for access.
4 The sports field and netball courts are heavily patronised by the local community and loss of these resources will have an impact on the community. This destruction of facilities in the area is unthinkable, when the population is increasing and the need for exercise and recreation is very important.
5 Bushland is very important to the community for the remnant forest and for biodiversity. Do not make a wasteland of our suburb.
A sensible decision would be to utilise the M2 roadway which is already constructed, is wider, safer and less disruptive for residents.
We object to the use and destruction of this bushland.
Withheld Withheld
Object
Withheld Withheld
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Director, Infrastructure projects,
I object to the proposal to to the proposed access route to the NWRL via the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve in Beecroft. This proposal will result in the loss of Blackbutt Gully forest which has been a gazetted reserve for over 100 years as well as the loss of recreational facilties and local Netball courts.
The Blackbutt gulley forest area has been identified as an area of great biodiversity and is the native habitat to a number of rare plant species.
In additional the local roads are unsuitable for the heavy vehicles that will be required to access the area requiring further upgrade and modification unsuitable for a residential area.
The noise generated by heavy vehicles access the area will have a major negative impact on the quality of life of the surrounding residents.
I would like to support the alternative plan comprising an access ramp off the M2 motorway. This alternative not only provides suitable access during the construction phase but will also allow access by emergency services if required once construction is completed
I object to the proposal to to the proposed access route to the NWRL via the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve in Beecroft. This proposal will result in the loss of Blackbutt Gully forest which has been a gazetted reserve for over 100 years as well as the loss of recreational facilties and local Netball courts.
The Blackbutt gulley forest area has been identified as an area of great biodiversity and is the native habitat to a number of rare plant species.
In additional the local roads are unsuitable for the heavy vehicles that will be required to access the area requiring further upgrade and modification unsuitable for a residential area.
The noise generated by heavy vehicles access the area will have a major negative impact on the quality of life of the surrounding residents.
I would like to support the alternative plan comprising an access ramp off the M2 motorway. This alternative not only provides suitable access during the construction phase but will also allow access by emergency services if required once construction is completed
Wei Jay Xu
Object
Wei Jay Xu
Object
Carlingford
,
New South Wales
Message
Why did not build Parramatta to Epping Rail Link when you could have $2.1 Billion fund from Federal ? But in stead you insist on building North west link when you have 2 empty hands?
ONLY reason is just you-- NSW state government put politics before the NSW people!
ONLY reason is just you-- NSW state government put politics before the NSW people!
Michael Liang
Object
Michael Liang
Object
Parramatta
,
New South Wales
Message
Why not build Parramatta to Epping rail link with the fund from Faderal government?
You don't like west people ?
You are more interested in votes than people 's interests.
You don't like west people ?
You are more interested in votes than people 's interests.
DINESH THAMOTHARAM
Comment
DINESH THAMOTHARAM
Comment
CHERRYBROOK
,
New South Wales
Message
The carpark for the proposed Cherrybrook station is to be built right behind my property. My submission with regards to this during and after the construction period are as follows:
1. The proposed 6m wall fencing planned to be erected to prevent noise to the residents during construction should not be more than 4m as I believe this will reduce sunlight and ventilation to the properties bordering the wall fencing.
2. The wall fencing should be constructed leaving at least a 5m buffer zone from the boundry of the properties in Kayla Way. I suggest that trees be planted in this buffer zone after constrution is completed so that the residents of Kayla Way are not affected by any noice that could emanate when the car park becomes functional
3. As stated in the EIS 1 , the material used to build the wall should strictly be accoustic proof.
4. A better trafffic management plan to be in palce to avoid any traffic congestion along Franklin Road and Castle Hill Road during construction and subsequent operation of the station.
5. A clear structural analysis to be done to the properties in Kayla Way before, during and after the construction and the owners should be compensated for damages (if any).
1. The proposed 6m wall fencing planned to be erected to prevent noise to the residents during construction should not be more than 4m as I believe this will reduce sunlight and ventilation to the properties bordering the wall fencing.
2. The wall fencing should be constructed leaving at least a 5m buffer zone from the boundry of the properties in Kayla Way. I suggest that trees be planted in this buffer zone after constrution is completed so that the residents of Kayla Way are not affected by any noice that could emanate when the car park becomes functional
3. As stated in the EIS 1 , the material used to build the wall should strictly be accoustic proof.
4. A better trafffic management plan to be in palce to avoid any traffic congestion along Franklin Road and Castle Hill Road during construction and subsequent operation of the station.
5. A clear structural analysis to be done to the properties in Kayla Way before, during and after the construction and the owners should be compensated for damages (if any).
Margaret Savell
Support
Margaret Savell
Support
Castle Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir,
I congratulation the State Liberal Government on their decision to commence the North West Rail Link. In particular, the decision announced by Barry O'Farrell at the Castle Hill Show, to implement the southern option at the Hills Centre Station is very gratifying.
Having lived in Castle Hill for the past 45 years, I have seen many changes in our lovely garden shire, some better than others. But I would have to say that our Showground holds a very special place in the hearts of the residents of this area and its heritage must be protected at all costs, so our grandchildren and those that follow can enjoy its benefits, as we have.
Today I took my grandchildren to the "Relay for Life" and to the Castle Hill Dog Show, both held in our lovely Showground.
In closing I would like to say that the North West Rail Link With the southern option at the Hills Centre station has my full support.
Yours sincerely
Margaret Savell
32 Belvedere Ave
Castle Hill. 2154
I congratulation the State Liberal Government on their decision to commence the North West Rail Link. In particular, the decision announced by Barry O'Farrell at the Castle Hill Show, to implement the southern option at the Hills Centre Station is very gratifying.
Having lived in Castle Hill for the past 45 years, I have seen many changes in our lovely garden shire, some better than others. But I would have to say that our Showground holds a very special place in the hearts of the residents of this area and its heritage must be protected at all costs, so our grandchildren and those that follow can enjoy its benefits, as we have.
Today I took my grandchildren to the "Relay for Life" and to the Castle Hill Dog Show, both held in our lovely Showground.
In closing I would like to say that the North West Rail Link With the southern option at the Hills Centre station has my full support.
Yours sincerely
Margaret Savell
32 Belvedere Ave
Castle Hill. 2154
Carolyn Mallam
Comment
Carolyn Mallam
Comment
Not provided
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning staff of NWRL,
I am writing with great concern about the possible proposal to build an access road for trucks to access the NWRL along Castle Howard Road Cheltenham. If this roadway were to go ahead it would spoilt the beautiful bush land area which has been recently regenerated, and which was previously adversely affected by the initial construction of the M2.
This area is a very quiet tree-lined space which includes Cheltenham Oval used by many sporting groups and children. An area therefore totally unsuited to heavy trucks.
In your EIS please consider the local residents who have chosen to live in this area because it is quiet, with narrow streets, low speed limits and safeguards the needs of children, the elderly and those who wish to walk to and from delightful bush land.
Yours sincerely,
Carolyn Mallam
I am writing with great concern about the possible proposal to build an access road for trucks to access the NWRL along Castle Howard Road Cheltenham. If this roadway were to go ahead it would spoilt the beautiful bush land area which has been recently regenerated, and which was previously adversely affected by the initial construction of the M2.
This area is a very quiet tree-lined space which includes Cheltenham Oval used by many sporting groups and children. An area therefore totally unsuited to heavy trucks.
In your EIS please consider the local residents who have chosen to live in this area because it is quiet, with narrow streets, low speed limits and safeguards the needs of children, the elderly and those who wish to walk to and from delightful bush land.
Yours sincerely,
Carolyn Mallam
Alan Lim
Comment
Alan Lim
Comment
Cherrybrook
,
New South Wales
Message
To Director, Infrastructure Projects
Alan Lim
51 Robert Rd, Cherrybrook, NSW 2126.
Position: Qualified support for construction - when concerns are
adequately addressed
I have been a resident of Robert Rd, Cherrybrook for more than 10
years and have seen the area around this road changed over the years,
with many houses and development added but still the same road
carrying the additional traffic volume.
Reading the EIS1 statement and attending the Robert Rd Group meeting
with representatives of NWRL on 5 May, 2012, I do have the following
concerns:
1) The proposed construction site at Cherrybrook being a major
construction area for excavation, storage and subsequent disposal of
excavated rocks and earth etc that is planned to work round the clock.
This would be disastrous for residents of Robert Rd as it has now
being added as an Addition Construction Zone.
2) Residents have seen an increase of traffic in Robert Rd, which is
designed to carry only low volume traffic for local traffic. With
the presence of a proposed major construction site, what assurance do
residents have from NWRL that traffic would not worsen, and what
measures would be taken to prevent foreseeable accidents and traffic
congestion that would inevitably follow with construction?
3) The issue of noise, pollution would severely affect residents
unless strong noise barriers and aesthetic measures are implemented
prior to any decision to proceed with construction.
4) Quality of life for residents along Robert Rd and the immediate
area would suffer with round the clock construction activity. What
assurance does NWRL provide to me and other residents that our quality
of life would not be adversely affected?
5) With a major construction site adjoining Robert Rd, there is bound
to be vehicles from builders, sub-contractors etc parking along an
already congested Robert Rd. This would make traffic in and out of
Robert Rd very dangerous and difficult. What assurance does NWRL
provide to residents that the traffic situation along Robert Rd would
be well managed, and that it would be deteriorate from its current
situation?
6) With a construction site expected to operate up to 8 years, and
expected to work round the clock, one can only expect the property
values in Robert Rd would be adversely affected. What compensation
could be expected from NWRL for any decrease in property values?
7) The advice by NWRL representative on 5 May, 2012 that the
Cherrybrook station would now be an above ground station means that
there would be more noise and people around the proposed station.
What noise reduction barriers would be installed during and after
construction, and when the trains start to operate subsequently?
8) The suggestion by NWRL that post construction of the station,
Robert Rd could be used as a feeder road to the station shows a
complete lack of knowledge of the current traffic situation and the
dangers it already posed to road users in its current capacity.
Robert Rd is not designed for additional traffic. Such a suggestion,
if implemented, would risks lives and adversely impact on the quality
of life of residents. What assurance do residents have from NWRL
that Robert Rd would not be a feeder road to the proposed station?
9) EIS1 statement indicated that there would be a total of 420 truck
movements daily from the construction site round the clock. What
assurance do residents have from NWRL that we could continue to have
to have a peace and quiet surrounding to live?
10) Are there other option to recover and transport excavated rocks
and earth, rather than bringing the bulk out from Cherrybrook
construction site? This would lessen the impact for Robert Rd
residents as truck movements would be lower, working hours shorter and
noise and other pollution reduced etc
When the abovementioned have been adequately addressed, safety and
quality of life of residents can be assured, and property values not
affected, the siting of a major construction site at Cherrybrook
could then be supported.
Regards,
Alan Lim
Alan Lim
51 Robert Rd, Cherrybrook, NSW 2126.
Position: Qualified support for construction - when concerns are
adequately addressed
I have been a resident of Robert Rd, Cherrybrook for more than 10
years and have seen the area around this road changed over the years,
with many houses and development added but still the same road
carrying the additional traffic volume.
Reading the EIS1 statement and attending the Robert Rd Group meeting
with representatives of NWRL on 5 May, 2012, I do have the following
concerns:
1) The proposed construction site at Cherrybrook being a major
construction area for excavation, storage and subsequent disposal of
excavated rocks and earth etc that is planned to work round the clock.
This would be disastrous for residents of Robert Rd as it has now
being added as an Addition Construction Zone.
2) Residents have seen an increase of traffic in Robert Rd, which is
designed to carry only low volume traffic for local traffic. With
the presence of a proposed major construction site, what assurance do
residents have from NWRL that traffic would not worsen, and what
measures would be taken to prevent foreseeable accidents and traffic
congestion that would inevitably follow with construction?
3) The issue of noise, pollution would severely affect residents
unless strong noise barriers and aesthetic measures are implemented
prior to any decision to proceed with construction.
4) Quality of life for residents along Robert Rd and the immediate
area would suffer with round the clock construction activity. What
assurance does NWRL provide to me and other residents that our quality
of life would not be adversely affected?
5) With a major construction site adjoining Robert Rd, there is bound
to be vehicles from builders, sub-contractors etc parking along an
already congested Robert Rd. This would make traffic in and out of
Robert Rd very dangerous and difficult. What assurance does NWRL
provide to residents that the traffic situation along Robert Rd would
be well managed, and that it would be deteriorate from its current
situation?
6) With a construction site expected to operate up to 8 years, and
expected to work round the clock, one can only expect the property
values in Robert Rd would be adversely affected. What compensation
could be expected from NWRL for any decrease in property values?
7) The advice by NWRL representative on 5 May, 2012 that the
Cherrybrook station would now be an above ground station means that
there would be more noise and people around the proposed station.
What noise reduction barriers would be installed during and after
construction, and when the trains start to operate subsequently?
8) The suggestion by NWRL that post construction of the station,
Robert Rd could be used as a feeder road to the station shows a
complete lack of knowledge of the current traffic situation and the
dangers it already posed to road users in its current capacity.
Robert Rd is not designed for additional traffic. Such a suggestion,
if implemented, would risks lives and adversely impact on the quality
of life of residents. What assurance do residents have from NWRL
that Robert Rd would not be a feeder road to the proposed station?
9) EIS1 statement indicated that there would be a total of 420 truck
movements daily from the construction site round the clock. What
assurance do residents have from NWRL that we could continue to have
to have a peace and quiet surrounding to live?
10) Are there other option to recover and transport excavated rocks
and earth, rather than bringing the bulk out from Cherrybrook
construction site? This would lessen the impact for Robert Rd
residents as truck movements would be lower, working hours shorter and
noise and other pollution reduced etc
When the abovementioned have been adequately addressed, safety and
quality of life of residents can be assured, and property values not
affected, the siting of a major construction site at Cherrybrook
could then be supported.
Regards,
Alan Lim
Stuart Unsworth
Object
Stuart Unsworth
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
I refer to the options for the access of heavy vehicles to the proposed site near Cheltenham Oval.
Whilst I believe the NWRL is a critical missing link to service the expanding population of Sydney's north-west, I believe that the Beecroft-Cheltenham area has already given up its `fair share' of bushland to service the north-west when the M2 was put through and more so since its widening.
I strongly object to the option of destroying the remaining, pristine bushland of the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve for access by heavy vehicles during and following the construction of the NWRL.
As a resident of Murray Farm Rd, which directly connects to Kirkham St, and with parents in Murray Rd (off Kirkham St) the this EIS option will significantly impact our access with each other, create additional noise (of which we've already had to deal with the widening of the M2 for the last 2 years) and remove bushland that we walk through and value.
Please do not rape the environment of this area any more by the unnecessary destruction of key bushland when a roadway onto/off the M2 is a viable alternative. The M2 option must be chosen.
Yours Sincerely,
Stuart Unsworth
Whilst I believe the NWRL is a critical missing link to service the expanding population of Sydney's north-west, I believe that the Beecroft-Cheltenham area has already given up its `fair share' of bushland to service the north-west when the M2 was put through and more so since its widening.
I strongly object to the option of destroying the remaining, pristine bushland of the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve for access by heavy vehicles during and following the construction of the NWRL.
As a resident of Murray Farm Rd, which directly connects to Kirkham St, and with parents in Murray Rd (off Kirkham St) the this EIS option will significantly impact our access with each other, create additional noise (of which we've already had to deal with the widening of the M2 for the last 2 years) and remove bushland that we walk through and value.
Please do not rape the environment of this area any more by the unnecessary destruction of key bushland when a roadway onto/off the M2 is a viable alternative. The M2 option must be chosen.
Yours Sincerely,
Stuart Unsworth
Roslyn Schubert
Object
Roslyn Schubert
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure
Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Submission re: Proposed NWRL - Access for heavy construction vehicles and emergency vehicles to proposed rail tunnel between Epping and Franklin Rd.
I grew up in Epping, attended Epping Heights & Cheltenham Girls schools, and now live in Beecroft. I have always loved living so near to actual bushland.
A walk along the path along the creek and `through the bush' to Cheltenham Oval & the Netball courts has been a delight for generations and should remain so.
The bushland in this area is of extremely high quality despite some of the reserve being taken for the building of the M2.
The M2 itself adds adds convenience to our local residents by taking some through traffic away from our suburban streets, and providing access for local residents to travel more easily towards North Ryde or the city.
I was appalled to read in a community bulletin of the possibility of a NWRL access road being built through the quiet Castle Howard Rd Conservation Reserve to Kirkham St in nearby Cheltenham. This new road option will do nothing to add amenity to our local community, and actually will detract from it.
I stongly object to any planned new road access for the NWRL construction firstly taking over and destroying more bushland, and secondly, adding more heavy & noisy trucks to our already burdened local roads.
Thirdly, the safety of neighbourhood children would be threatened by the altered traffic conditions, and would take away an area that is used by many families on weekends for sport & recreational activities.
Fourthly, the biodiversity of flora & fauna that exists in metropolitan bushland pockets would also be further eroded.
The alternative of building & using ramps to join the M2 means less devastation to our area, and allows more practical access both during construction and later for emergency vehicles. It is probably cheaper to utilise this option also. Therefore, it is my firm opinion that this latter is the option that should proceed. I trust that common sense will prevail.
Yours Sincerely
Dr Roslyn Schubert
60A Hannah St, Beecroft
Attn: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Submission re: Proposed NWRL - Access for heavy construction vehicles and emergency vehicles to proposed rail tunnel between Epping and Franklin Rd.
I grew up in Epping, attended Epping Heights & Cheltenham Girls schools, and now live in Beecroft. I have always loved living so near to actual bushland.
A walk along the path along the creek and `through the bush' to Cheltenham Oval & the Netball courts has been a delight for generations and should remain so.
The bushland in this area is of extremely high quality despite some of the reserve being taken for the building of the M2.
The M2 itself adds adds convenience to our local residents by taking some through traffic away from our suburban streets, and providing access for local residents to travel more easily towards North Ryde or the city.
I was appalled to read in a community bulletin of the possibility of a NWRL access road being built through the quiet Castle Howard Rd Conservation Reserve to Kirkham St in nearby Cheltenham. This new road option will do nothing to add amenity to our local community, and actually will detract from it.
I stongly object to any planned new road access for the NWRL construction firstly taking over and destroying more bushland, and secondly, adding more heavy & noisy trucks to our already burdened local roads.
Thirdly, the safety of neighbourhood children would be threatened by the altered traffic conditions, and would take away an area that is used by many families on weekends for sport & recreational activities.
Fourthly, the biodiversity of flora & fauna that exists in metropolitan bushland pockets would also be further eroded.
The alternative of building & using ramps to join the M2 means less devastation to our area, and allows more practical access both during construction and later for emergency vehicles. It is probably cheaper to utilise this option also. Therefore, it is my firm opinion that this latter is the option that should proceed. I trust that common sense will prevail.
Yours Sincerely
Dr Roslyn Schubert
60A Hannah St, Beecroft
Craig Austin
Object
Craig Austin
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir,
I strongly object to the proposal to build an access road from Kirkham St. through the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve. This is a small area of valuable remnant bushland and is greatly appreciated buy local residents. I understand alternative access is possible from the M2 freeway.
Regards,
Craig Austin
159 Copeland Rd
Beecroft NSW 2119
I strongly object to the proposal to build an access road from Kirkham St. through the Castle Howard Conservation Reserve. This is a small area of valuable remnant bushland and is greatly appreciated buy local residents. I understand alternative access is possible from the M2 freeway.
Regards,
Craig Austin
159 Copeland Rd
Beecroft NSW 2119
Yin Kok
Comment
Yin Kok
Comment
Cherrybrook
,
New South Wales
Message
Attention: Director, Infrastructure Projects
Re: Application Number SSI-5100 - Proposed Construction Site and Works at Robert Road
Having read the Environmental Impact Statement 1 for the North West Rail Link and attended the Robert Road Group meeting with the NWRL on 5 May 12, I do have the following concerns:
1. With the proposed major construction site adjoining Robert Road, there will be significant increase in the volume traffic and parking along Robert Road from sub contractors, builders etc and this poses risks and and danger to residents of Robert Road. Going in and out of Robert Road would be very difficult and dangerous. As it is now, I have observed that the number of cars travelling and parked along this road has increased over the years as more houses have been built. What measures would the NWRL be taking to assure the residents that the safety and traffic situation will be managed well and would not be worse off than the current situation?
2. Noise and pollution would also affect us severely as the work is planned for 24 hours daily over the construction period. EIS1 indicated that there would a total of 420 truck movements daily. This would disturbed the safely, peace and quietness around this area. Would actions would NWRL be taking to address this?
3. Property value along Robert Road during the construction period would be adversely affected as the area would not appeal to prospective buyers. What compensation could be expected from NWRL for any decrease in property values?
4. EIS1 indicated that the Robert road could be used a feeder road to the station. Robert Road is designed to carry low volume traffic and for local traffic. It is not designed for additional traffic. With this proposal as feeder road it would poses increased risks and more traffic turning into Robert Road from John Road and Castle Hill Road. Currently, when there are cars parked along both sides of the road, it is impossible for cars in both direction to pass through at the same time as the road is narrow and on an incline (coming from John Road) and has a kinked / bent next to Robert Park. What assurance do residents from NWRL that Robert Road will not be a feeder road to the proposed station?
When the above mentioned have been adequately addressed with due consideration to the risks, safety, quality of life of Robert Road residents as well as the assurance that our property values are not adversely affected, I could then support the siting of the proposed major construction site at Cherrybrook.
With regards
Yin W Kok
Re: Application Number SSI-5100 - Proposed Construction Site and Works at Robert Road
Having read the Environmental Impact Statement 1 for the North West Rail Link and attended the Robert Road Group meeting with the NWRL on 5 May 12, I do have the following concerns:
1. With the proposed major construction site adjoining Robert Road, there will be significant increase in the volume traffic and parking along Robert Road from sub contractors, builders etc and this poses risks and and danger to residents of Robert Road. Going in and out of Robert Road would be very difficult and dangerous. As it is now, I have observed that the number of cars travelling and parked along this road has increased over the years as more houses have been built. What measures would the NWRL be taking to assure the residents that the safety and traffic situation will be managed well and would not be worse off than the current situation?
2. Noise and pollution would also affect us severely as the work is planned for 24 hours daily over the construction period. EIS1 indicated that there would a total of 420 truck movements daily. This would disturbed the safely, peace and quietness around this area. Would actions would NWRL be taking to address this?
3. Property value along Robert Road during the construction period would be adversely affected as the area would not appeal to prospective buyers. What compensation could be expected from NWRL for any decrease in property values?
4. EIS1 indicated that the Robert road could be used a feeder road to the station. Robert Road is designed to carry low volume traffic and for local traffic. It is not designed for additional traffic. With this proposal as feeder road it would poses increased risks and more traffic turning into Robert Road from John Road and Castle Hill Road. Currently, when there are cars parked along both sides of the road, it is impossible for cars in both direction to pass through at the same time as the road is narrow and on an incline (coming from John Road) and has a kinked / bent next to Robert Park. What assurance do residents from NWRL that Robert Road will not be a feeder road to the proposed station?
When the above mentioned have been adequately addressed with due consideration to the risks, safety, quality of life of Robert Road residents as well as the assurance that our property values are not adversely affected, I could then support the siting of the proposed major construction site at Cherrybrook.
With regards
Yin W Kok
Withheld Withheld
Object
Withheld Withheld
Object
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
Attention: Director, Infrasructure Projects
Re: Construction by NWRL of an Emergency access facility and 2 lane paved road through Castle Howard Conservation Reserve.
I would like to register my objection to this developement through Castle Howard Conservation Reserve due to it's impact to pristine bushland; especially given that there is a viable alternative option available by widening the M2 breakdown lane.
Every effort should be made to save this Reserve which is used by the local community. In this age of high environmental awareness and potential impact to climate of reductions in vegetation, it should be in everyone's best interest to identify and use an alternative.
Re: Construction by NWRL of an Emergency access facility and 2 lane paved road through Castle Howard Conservation Reserve.
I would like to register my objection to this developement through Castle Howard Conservation Reserve due to it's impact to pristine bushland; especially given that there is a viable alternative option available by widening the M2 breakdown lane.
Every effort should be made to save this Reserve which is used by the local community. In this age of high environmental awareness and potential impact to climate of reductions in vegetation, it should be in everyone's best interest to identify and use an alternative.
Withheld Withheld
Comment
Withheld Withheld
Comment
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
Beecroft Rd/Carlingford Rd intersection - the signals operate in coordination with the Rawson Street signals. While SIDRA allows for some coordination benefits, it does not fully model the effects of signal coordination. The results for "existing" at this intersection show X-value of 1.00. This is nonsense: the demand exceeds the capacity during both morning and evening peak hours, i.e. actual X-value is greater than 1.00. While details are not provided, the calculated X-value appears to be based on the number of vehicles passing through the intersection in the peak hour, and disregards the actual demand, evidenced by the lengthy queues which form. The future X-value is also 1.00, which is again nonsense. Even excluding the excess demand not considered in the existing situation, the addition of construction traffic would increase demand, and without any increase in capacity, the X-value would increase.
Kirkham St/Beecroft Rd intersection - the discussion does not recognise that this intersection currently operates poorly for turning traffic during peak hours. Evening peak queues are consistently lengthy on Kirkham Street, with by far the majority of vehicles turning left into Beecroft Road. The report states that "Restricting truck movements to left in / left out is the best means of mitigating traffic impacts at this intersection" which may well be true, but does not acknowledge that construction trucks would need to turn using both lanes of Beecroft Road, requiring longer gaps than light vehicles, thus further increasing delays as they wait for a suitable gap. The absence of modelling hides the existing poor performance, and the impacts of heavy vehicles at the intersection.
Note also that pedestrians already struggle to cross Kirkham Street at Beecroft Road, the addition of heavy vehicles would exacerbate that situation. The addition of heavy vehicles turning LEFT from Beecroft Road into Kirkham Street is hardly going to be a comfort to those parents and children walking to Beecroft Public School along this route after the recent accident at Beecroft Road/Hannah Street involving a mother from that school.
The report gives no indication about routes would be used by trucks beyond the immediate area. If trucks are approaching from the north or departing to the south, what route would they use?
Cherrybrook Station heavy vehicle routes - The truck routes for the Cherrybrook Station site are shown only in the immediate vicinity, however it would appear that trucks would use Castle Hill Road to Pennant Hills Road (and vice versa). Will there be an increase in heavy vehicles turning right from Pennant Hills Road into Castle Hill Road, and left out of Castle Hill Road into Pennant Hills Road? Note that ongoing existing pedestrian safety issues have been raised with RMS and Pedestrian Council over many years at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Castle Hill Road. ANY increase in heavy vehicles on those movements will further exacerbate the pedestrian safety problems here. Note the heavy vehicle accident on 24 September 2009 in which a truck carrying chlorine and turning right into Castle Hill Road tipped over onto the pedestrian island at the pedestrian call button post during morning peak - there is NO pedestrian protection at this intersection, and many out of control vehicles have mounted the footpaths. Children cross at this intersection walking to and from West Pennant Hills Public School - those crossing Castle Hill Road are provided with an overbridge, while those crossing Pennant Hills Road take their lives in their hands every day.
I support the construction and operation of the NWRL, however feel that local issues should not be overlooked, nor should local impacts be ignored as minor fallout resulting from a big project.
Kirkham St/Beecroft Rd intersection - the discussion does not recognise that this intersection currently operates poorly for turning traffic during peak hours. Evening peak queues are consistently lengthy on Kirkham Street, with by far the majority of vehicles turning left into Beecroft Road. The report states that "Restricting truck movements to left in / left out is the best means of mitigating traffic impacts at this intersection" which may well be true, but does not acknowledge that construction trucks would need to turn using both lanes of Beecroft Road, requiring longer gaps than light vehicles, thus further increasing delays as they wait for a suitable gap. The absence of modelling hides the existing poor performance, and the impacts of heavy vehicles at the intersection.
Note also that pedestrians already struggle to cross Kirkham Street at Beecroft Road, the addition of heavy vehicles would exacerbate that situation. The addition of heavy vehicles turning LEFT from Beecroft Road into Kirkham Street is hardly going to be a comfort to those parents and children walking to Beecroft Public School along this route after the recent accident at Beecroft Road/Hannah Street involving a mother from that school.
The report gives no indication about routes would be used by trucks beyond the immediate area. If trucks are approaching from the north or departing to the south, what route would they use?
Cherrybrook Station heavy vehicle routes - The truck routes for the Cherrybrook Station site are shown only in the immediate vicinity, however it would appear that trucks would use Castle Hill Road to Pennant Hills Road (and vice versa). Will there be an increase in heavy vehicles turning right from Pennant Hills Road into Castle Hill Road, and left out of Castle Hill Road into Pennant Hills Road? Note that ongoing existing pedestrian safety issues have been raised with RMS and Pedestrian Council over many years at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Castle Hill Road. ANY increase in heavy vehicles on those movements will further exacerbate the pedestrian safety problems here. Note the heavy vehicle accident on 24 September 2009 in which a truck carrying chlorine and turning right into Castle Hill Road tipped over onto the pedestrian island at the pedestrian call button post during morning peak - there is NO pedestrian protection at this intersection, and many out of control vehicles have mounted the footpaths. Children cross at this intersection walking to and from West Pennant Hills Public School - those crossing Castle Hill Road are provided with an overbridge, while those crossing Pennant Hills Road take their lives in their hands every day.
I support the construction and operation of the NWRL, however feel that local issues should not be overlooked, nor should local impacts be ignored as minor fallout resulting from a big project.
Withheld Withheld
Comment
Withheld Withheld
Comment
Beecroft
,
New South Wales
Message
I am very concerned about the impact on the local population of Beecroft and Epping of the proposed deveopment of an emergency access facility in the place of the netball courts, play equipment and cricket nets at Cheltenham Oval on Castle Howard Rd. These facilities are used regularly by many local families. The courts are not only used for netball but also for children learning to ride bicycles and would be a great loss to the community.
Further, the proposal to build an access road through the bush to the site for spoil removal would destroy another large part of the local bush which has already been reduced by the M2 widening. This bush is used extensively for walking, mountain biking and dog walking by many local residents. If this continues, we will no longer be living in the "Bushland Shire". An on and off ramp to the M2 would seem by far the most sensible solution and would avoid heavy vehicles entering a winding local road, which seems pretty dangerous to me.
Further, the proposal to build an access road through the bush to the site for spoil removal would destroy another large part of the local bush which has already been reduced by the M2 widening. This bush is used extensively for walking, mountain biking and dog walking by many local residents. If this continues, we will no longer be living in the "Bushland Shire". An on and off ramp to the M2 would seem by far the most sensible solution and would avoid heavy vehicles entering a winding local road, which seems pretty dangerous to me.
Barbara Davis
Comment
Barbara Davis
Comment
Cheltenham
,
New South Wales
Message
As someone who uses the Castle Howard Conservation Area, for walking and relaxing in nature I am distressed about a proposed two lane road/ reduction in size of this already tiny bit of nature.
Especially in these days of climate change we should be conserving our forests.
we need areas of original bushland. It is irreplaceable.
I find it heartbreaking we can't leave even this small piece of nature alone.
Especially in these days of climate change we should be conserving our forests.
we need areas of original bushland. It is irreplaceable.
I find it heartbreaking we can't leave even this small piece of nature alone.
Adrian Pearse
Object
Adrian Pearse
Object
Bella Vista
,
New South Wales
Message
Firstly we will start with the fact that we are in favour of the North West Rail Link in general and believe it should proceed. It is a vital piece of infrastructure that is long overdue and will be the only way to reduce the stress on our roads and the high costs associated with people having to drive.
What we are not in favour of is the proposed Bella Vista Station. We did not put a submission in response to the Project Overview - July 2011 because we were totally in favour of the scheme at that time (as there was no mention of the Bella Vista Station). We are concerned about the impact on the local community near the station (which we are part of).
The community adjacent to the station is actually Bella Vista Waters (estate). When this exclusive estate was established and the people started paying top dollar to live in such an area there was no such impact from the rail. Even when the rail was first put on display, as late as last year's scheme (July-Sept 2011), it did not have this station. As such we did not have an issue with the scheme, even with the tunnelling around this area. Our concern is the long term impact of the station.
Now, we understand there is meant to be 30,000 people working in the area but that is for the Norwest Business Park which spreads down Northwest Boulevard (with people in that section being able to use the Norwest Station). So, yes we understand that the area is not at capacity yet and that it is busy (with bad traffic currently) but this does not necessarily impact on our estate. We see the station bringing more traffic, with more parking occurring in our streets, something the residents in an exclusive suburb this far from the city should not have to be faced with.
At our local information session I asked why the parking could not go at Norwest Station. I was advised that you do not put (free) parking at a business centre because it will attract people to drive because they will have somewhere to park. Isn't this what you will be doing by putting parking at the Bella Vista Station near the business park?
The Norwest station is in a far better position for Bella Vista residents to use. Why could a deal not be put together with Coles to build multiple levels in their carpark area? There's a first time for everything!
Your indicative photo of the Bella Vista Station infers that you will be providing service for Bella Vista people with this station. The photo actually shows Glenwood. In fact this station is servicing Glenwood and beyond not Bella Vista. Again this is a concern as it impacts on expensive land to serve beyond the area. If people are travelling to the station from Glenwood and beyond, and in fact the people from the wider Bella Vista will have to drive or get a bus anyway, then this station could be more towards Balmoral Road or even Memorial Avenue where it will tie on better with the Transit way hub (and there is more land/space).
The Old Windsor Road / Celebration Drive / Lexington Drive intersections are terrible now with high volumes of traffic and delays. I understand you would be trying to relieve the streets with people using the trains however putting a parking station there will just bring in more cars.
Looking through your environmental assessment documents there is no evidence of any submissions where people (residents or business owners) have said they wanted the Bella Vista Station. We cannot understand how the Bella Vista Station was raised (and when it was raised).
The project overview Submission Report indicates 184 submissions. This is not a very positive response to change your proposed scheme. It would be considered a positive response to support the overall scheme as it stood. There is no mention how the Station was discussed in any session with residents or businesses. Even the "key issue discussion and responses" does not provide any evidence of the Station being raised by anyone in the community. The issue on page 9 "Station Locations" does not mention it (only the response). Your document states that Appendix A includes "a comprehensive list of submissions received......" yet it lacks any detail of what content was from each group.
There is no evidence in the submission for support for Bella Vista Station. The "Keeping you informed" brochure (with Katherine Martin on the front) states "Following extensive community feedback, we are now planning for the Bella Vista Station". Where is this extensive feedback? We would like to understand where the support for this station originated and where such details are captured.
Lastly, we want to know the expected noise levels (contours) from the station operation. We understand this will be in the next round of assessment documents (EIS 2)?. Can we expect full traffic modelling in this phase of the assessment as well?
We require the follow actions as a priority:
1. Evidence provided of the submissions that supported the Bella Vista Station. We do know that any such documents are discoverable through process.
2. Explanation of the noise contours for Bella Vista Station (or confirmation that it will be addressed in EIS 2).
3. A presentation of the traffic modelling around the Bella Vista Station.
We require the following actions for the final solution:
4. Move station towards Balmoral Road with main wider traffic flows using Balmoral Road instead of Celebration Drive. If station stays were proposed then a more sophisticated traffic arrangement (maybe elevated), giving local traffic priority. Or take it to Memorial drive intersection.
5. Local streets would need no standing with resident passes available.
6. Traffic initiatives will be required to give local traffic precedence.
Regards
Adrian and Angela Pearse
What we are not in favour of is the proposed Bella Vista Station. We did not put a submission in response to the Project Overview - July 2011 because we were totally in favour of the scheme at that time (as there was no mention of the Bella Vista Station). We are concerned about the impact on the local community near the station (which we are part of).
The community adjacent to the station is actually Bella Vista Waters (estate). When this exclusive estate was established and the people started paying top dollar to live in such an area there was no such impact from the rail. Even when the rail was first put on display, as late as last year's scheme (July-Sept 2011), it did not have this station. As such we did not have an issue with the scheme, even with the tunnelling around this area. Our concern is the long term impact of the station.
Now, we understand there is meant to be 30,000 people working in the area but that is for the Norwest Business Park which spreads down Northwest Boulevard (with people in that section being able to use the Norwest Station). So, yes we understand that the area is not at capacity yet and that it is busy (with bad traffic currently) but this does not necessarily impact on our estate. We see the station bringing more traffic, with more parking occurring in our streets, something the residents in an exclusive suburb this far from the city should not have to be faced with.
At our local information session I asked why the parking could not go at Norwest Station. I was advised that you do not put (free) parking at a business centre because it will attract people to drive because they will have somewhere to park. Isn't this what you will be doing by putting parking at the Bella Vista Station near the business park?
The Norwest station is in a far better position for Bella Vista residents to use. Why could a deal not be put together with Coles to build multiple levels in their carpark area? There's a first time for everything!
Your indicative photo of the Bella Vista Station infers that you will be providing service for Bella Vista people with this station. The photo actually shows Glenwood. In fact this station is servicing Glenwood and beyond not Bella Vista. Again this is a concern as it impacts on expensive land to serve beyond the area. If people are travelling to the station from Glenwood and beyond, and in fact the people from the wider Bella Vista will have to drive or get a bus anyway, then this station could be more towards Balmoral Road or even Memorial Avenue where it will tie on better with the Transit way hub (and there is more land/space).
The Old Windsor Road / Celebration Drive / Lexington Drive intersections are terrible now with high volumes of traffic and delays. I understand you would be trying to relieve the streets with people using the trains however putting a parking station there will just bring in more cars.
Looking through your environmental assessment documents there is no evidence of any submissions where people (residents or business owners) have said they wanted the Bella Vista Station. We cannot understand how the Bella Vista Station was raised (and when it was raised).
The project overview Submission Report indicates 184 submissions. This is not a very positive response to change your proposed scheme. It would be considered a positive response to support the overall scheme as it stood. There is no mention how the Station was discussed in any session with residents or businesses. Even the "key issue discussion and responses" does not provide any evidence of the Station being raised by anyone in the community. The issue on page 9 "Station Locations" does not mention it (only the response). Your document states that Appendix A includes "a comprehensive list of submissions received......" yet it lacks any detail of what content was from each group.
There is no evidence in the submission for support for Bella Vista Station. The "Keeping you informed" brochure (with Katherine Martin on the front) states "Following extensive community feedback, we are now planning for the Bella Vista Station". Where is this extensive feedback? We would like to understand where the support for this station originated and where such details are captured.
Lastly, we want to know the expected noise levels (contours) from the station operation. We understand this will be in the next round of assessment documents (EIS 2)?. Can we expect full traffic modelling in this phase of the assessment as well?
We require the follow actions as a priority:
1. Evidence provided of the submissions that supported the Bella Vista Station. We do know that any such documents are discoverable through process.
2. Explanation of the noise contours for Bella Vista Station (or confirmation that it will be addressed in EIS 2).
3. A presentation of the traffic modelling around the Bella Vista Station.
We require the following actions for the final solution:
4. Move station towards Balmoral Road with main wider traffic flows using Balmoral Road instead of Celebration Drive. If station stays were proposed then a more sophisticated traffic arrangement (maybe elevated), giving local traffic priority. Or take it to Memorial drive intersection.
5. Local streets would need no standing with resident passes available.
6. Traffic initiatives will be required to give local traffic precedence.
Regards
Adrian and Angela Pearse
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
SSI-5100
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Blacktown
Contact Planner
Name
Belinda
Scott
Related Projects
SSI-5100-MOD-1
Determination
SSI Modifications
Mod 1
Multiple Locations New South Wales Australia