Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1

Dear Sir/Madam,
I own the property under my BAR Superfund Pty Ltd at 583-585 Church St North Parramatta.
I own the adjacent properties 587-591 Church St Nth Parramatta under my own name.
Total land holding is approximately 3500 sqm.
I have read the EIS for the proposed light rail.
I have looked at the proposed changes to the traffic flow surrounding the mentioned properties and wish to put on notice it is our intention to initiate a substantial redevelopment of the site in accordance with the zoning on the site and the possible increased FSR and height allowances.
With this in mind I ask you to consider the best egress to and from the site in your vehicular planning.
There is only going to be 3 owners of the land holding in this approximately 16000 sqm block as well as Urbangrowth and a whole of block solution may be worth consideration.

PARRAMATTA LIGHT RAIL.
The Commuter Council disagrees with the proposal to replace the Carlingford Train Line with the LightRail from Carlingford to Parramatta instead of to Clyde or Granvillle Stations. At present passengers on the Carlingford Line travel into the City by changing trains at Clyde Station. In the proposal there is no Rail connection until arrival at Westmead Station. The LightRail operates via Macquarire St Parramatta which at it's closes point is approx. 200 metres from Parramatta Station. The Light Rail at the very least should operate via Parramatta Station . Passengers residing at Carlingford can take the M54 bus to Parramatta which is quicker than the Light Rail. I believe Carlingford Commuters will travel to Epping Station rather than using the LightRail when it opens. We have a CC member who lives in Northmead and relatives in Carlingford who agrees with me. However when stage 2 opens to Olympic Park Station or a connection to Eastwood or Epping Stns there may be some value in it

I'm a local resident in Rosehill NSW. I heard that Rosehill train station will be discontinued once the project is constructed and in operation. I found that this is unfair and inconvenient.

It is unfair because all other train stations along the existing T6 Carlingford line are kept except Rosehill. There are a lot of high density residential apartments and a few major hotels around Rosehill station, let alone public places for major events, like Rosehill Racecourse and Sydney Speedway. Taking it away will make it difficult for commuters travelling to Sydney CBD relying on existing train service, which is very helpful at the moment.

I believe that the majority of residents living in the high density apartments alongside James Ruse Drive and those in the medium density row terraces nearby would heavily rely on train service travelling to the east, Sydney CBD in particular.

I urge the authorities to keep Rosehill Stain Station

I am apposed to the demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel on Church street.

Please don't demolish this lovely old building. My sons frequent this establishment and very much enjoy the time they spend there. Surely, there is something that can be done to protect it?

Several issues are of concern:
1/ Vehicle access to the property from Church Street must be maintained
2/ Car parking at the front of the property on Church Street.
3 Protection from noise of construction in Church Street
4 Safety and security issues resulting from non resident pedestrians using the 504 Church Street property as a thoroughfare to gain access to the light rail stop in Church Street from Castle Street

I am also apposed to the demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel, an icon in North Parramatta for 200 years.

We have been residents of Carlingford for 30 years. Changes to the rail transport link to Carlingford have been in the news one way or another for more than half of that time.

Parramatta Light Rail will provide transport options for us into Parramatta and Westmead. However, these are not currently destinations that are attractive for us. We work in Epping and Chatswood. For entertainment we head to the city and we usually use the train to get there.

Personal safety is an issue for us in Parramatta at night. We are much more comfortable to be walking in Epping after a night out than we have been on the few occasions we have ventured into Parramatta.

Living in the Kingsdene Estate, walking to/from Carlingford Station is not an option for us at night, neither is the bus on Pennant Hills Road. We use the car to get to the station when we head out for the evening.

The cost and convenience of parking in Parramatta is also an issue for us. We can park for free in Epping and walk confidently between the car and station. We cannot do this in Parramatta.

We note in Section 15.3.1.3 that most of the people catching the bus from Carlingford precinct into Parramatta are "most likely connecting to trains". This would indicate that Parramatta is not a destination for them either - they are also going somewhere else, just passing through Parramatta.

For us, Parramatta Light Rail is half of a good idea. The other half of that good idea is the link from Carlingford to Epping. This would provide a public transport link between the Westmead and Parramatta area up to the northern reaches of suburban Sydney, instead of having to loop all the way through the city.

Completing this link up to Epping would address the following points:

Transport links to the northern districts of Sydney are important now, and will become even more so as the number of people living here grows.

We note the demographic data cited in section 15.9.1.1 has come from 2011 ands 2012. Since then there has been a lot of development in the Carlingford precinct, and we can see there is a lot more to come. The population of the Carlingford Precinct has grown significantly in recent years and will grow significantly more in the next 10 years. It is reasonable to assume that the cultural mix moving into the Carlingford Precinct will continue to reflect the cultural mix that has been moving in over the past 5 years.

Epping and Chatswood have strong attractions to the Asian community with lots of social and cultural activities focussed in these areas. For this reason a regular, easy, direct transport link would have a significant positive social impact on the people living in Carlingford.

A regular, easy, direct transport link would be very valuable for people living in the northern suburbs who want to travel to Parramatta, Westmead and points further west, whether for work or other reasons. Bringing Parramatta within easier reach of those living towards Hornsby and up to the Central Coast, as well as areas such as Macquarie Park, will help Parramatta reach its goal of becoming a much larger area of employment.

There will be significant population growth along the Parramatta Light Rail line in the next 20 years. The City of Parramatta Draft Social Infrastructure Strategy for High Growth Areas shows it is expected that about 18,400 new dwellings will be built along the route up to 2036, and delivering strong transport links to the northern districts of suburban Sydney, for the employment, education and leisure of these new residents, will be just as important as the transport links into Parramatta.

We are happy to see the Parramatta Light Rail project proceed, but vigorously encourage all involved to extend the link up to Epping - the other half of this good idea !

The issues that I would like addressed are:

-Maintain property access
-Maintain of car parking fronting Church Street
-Protection from noise: operational and construction
-Pedestrian thoroughfare: safety, security and privacy

I am opposed to the demolition of one of Australia's oldest buildings, the Royal Oak Hotel on Church Street.

I would like clarification on the impact regarding the property access and existing car parking fronting 504 Church Street and the noise impact to units fronting Church Street which was not in the EIS.
I would also like to know what other options were discussed regarding placement of a light rail stop near the corner of Church Street and Victoria Road, besides demolishing the Royal Oak Hotel, which I think is an important historical building in Parramatta and Sydney's history .

The issues that I would like to address are:
*Maintaining property access
*Maintaining car parking front on church street
*Protection from noise: operational and construction
*Pedestrian thoroughfare-safety, security and privacy

Potential noise and environmental impacts on residents of 504 Church Street during construction and operation.
Potential health concerns regarding dust created during construction and operation.
Impacts to vehicular access for the above address.
Potential unwanted public access. Risk of the private property of 504 Church Street being used as a thoroughfare to access light rail stop from parking areas at the rear of said property.
Issues of privacy and security resulting from unwanted access.
Issues regarding lack of parking in surrounding streets.
I object to local iconic heritage building (royal oak hotel) being demolished.The significance of this buildings age has been undervalued.
Solutions for retaining it need to be explored.
I object in part to this development. If the items listed are addressed I support it.

Potential noise and environmental impacts on residents of 504 Church Street during construction and operation.
Potential health concerns regarding dust created during construction and operation.
Impacts to vehicular access for the above address.
Potential unwanted public access. Risk of the private property of 504 Church Street being used as a thoroughfare to access light rail stop from parking areas at the rear of said property.
Issues of privacy and security resulting from unwanted access.
Issues regarding lack of parking in surrounding streets.
I object to local iconic heritage building (royal oak hotel) being demolished.The significance of this buildings age has been undervalued.
Solutions for retaining it need to be explored.
I object in part to this development. If the items listed are addressed I support it.

Potential noise and environmental impacts on residents of 504 Church Street during construction and operation.
Potential health concerns regarding dust created during construction and operation.
Impacts to vehicular access for the above address.
Potential unwanted public access. Risk of the private property of 504 Church Street being used as a thoroughfare to access light rail stop from parking areas at the rear of said property.
Issues of privacy and security resulting from unwanted access.
Issues regarding lack of parking in surrounding streets.
I object to local iconic heritage building (royal oak hotel) being demolished.The significance of this buildings age has been undervalued.
Solutions for retaining it need to be explored.
I object in part to this development. If the items listed are addressed I support it.

The LEP refers to the possibility of chromium 6 groundwater contamination over the entire Camellia peninsula. In fact atleast two State Rail owned and or recently acquired sites are currently listed as requiring remediation as regards the known carcinogenic chromium 6 and other potentially carcinogenic pollutants strangely these current requirements are listed against former owners on the EPA website.

The properties 6, 12, 14, 37, 39 Grant Street and Durham Street Camellia are noted on the EPA website as having CURRENT Chromium 6 contamination. There is a strong possibility that via groundwater disbursement further sites have been contaminated. As the light proposal encompasses the entire Camellia peninsular with the view to creating both residential and new workplaces it would appear that there is an urgency to address the possible risks to human health. It is simplistic in the extreme to assume that groundwater stays in the ground without risk to human health if covered with various depths of concrete. For example in the case of 39 Grand Street the current EPA land investigation statement notes

"Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) has been detected in water seeping into the Parramatta River from the site at concentrations exceeding the high reliability guideline trigger values in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) for the protection of marine ecosystems (95% protection).

Bright yellow seeps (indicative of Cr(VI) contamination) were observed along the Parramatta River foreshore adjacent to the site in May-August 2005

A study undertaken by NSW EPA in 2002-03 found Cr(VI) to be significantly impacting on the marine ecosystems of Parramatta River in the vicinity of 37 Grand Ave (just west of the site).

There is some potential for human exposure to Cr(VI) contaminated water: although very difficult, it is possible for members of the public to access the Parramatta River foreshore area workers undertaking excavation works on the site or in adjacent service trenches".

The major concerns about the impact of chromium on human health and the environment require an evaluation of the potential risk of chromium entering the groundwater flow system and being transported beyond compliance boundaries. At other sites where such potential exists, active remedial measures such as excavation or pump-and-treat have been undertaken. However experience at sites where pump-and-treat remediation of chromium-contaminated groundwater is currently underway suggests that, although it is feasible to remove high levels of chromium from the subsurface, as concentrations decrease it becomes more difficult to remove the remaining chromium (Wittbrodt and Palmer, 1992).

At what point will State government inform the public as to what measures will be taken in conjunction with both EPA guidelines and world recognised concerns of Chromium 6 pollution in groundwater (most notably at Hinkley made famous by the work of Erin Brockovich and more recently in Sacramento from the nearby site of the former McClellan Air Force Base) to ensure the safety of future workers and residents on the Camellia peninsula? Will remediation of the entire peninsula occur if not what section will or will not be remediated and what steps will be taken to ensure the safety of future residents and workers? If no remediation is to occur what comprehensive geophysical studies will be undertaken to ensure proposed construction does exacerbate the chromium 6 groundwater pollution transporting it beyond any any established or known boundaries? And what if any regime of ongoing monitoring of the Chromium 6 contaminated groundwater will be undertaken on the Camellia peninsula? The EPA website further notes that 1 Grand Street Camellia is the property of Sydney water. What studies have been or will be undertaken to examine the potential for wide scale spread of the Chromium 6 contamination into Sydney water supplies should geophysical changes precipitated by construction cause changes to the know areas of Chromium 6 polluted groundwater.

While several environmental implications refer to the chemical changes of groundwater available to plants and discharging into rivers, springs, lakes and wetlands, and even to the coast (Portnoy at al., 1998). This is a delayed effect, which may appear after years or tens of years, depending on aquifer system size and characteristics, and with a variable pattern due to modification of contaminants in the ground by ion exchange, absorption and redox processes. Often there is not a sharp front of pollutant arrival but a slow increase, and the effects may last long after the cause ceases. Will we ignore the possibility of cancer clusters and possible future deaths of workers, residents and recreational users because these results will occur at some future date?

I own a business in North Parramatta within 2 minutes walk to the proposed Fennell Street Light Rail station. My children attend a school within 2 minutes walk to Beecroft train station. My children will most likely attend a high school within 2 minutes walk to Epping station. I currently live in Castle Hill within 5 minutes walk to the Castle Hill train station (near Castle towers).

My family attends a church within a short walk of the new Showground rd train station.

I think that the light rail project for Parramatta is an excellent initiative.

As proposed, I can not see myself reducing the number of vehicles owned, or car trips at all despite the significant investment to bring a train station near my house, near my office, near my church and having my children's school being near existing train infrastructure. I doubt I will ever commute using this light rail as currently planned, although I am sure a number of our employees, clients and local residents will use it.

For a network to work at maximum efficiency, you have to connect all of the relevant points. By failing to extend the Carlingford line to Epping, you are cutting off half of Sydney from being able to benefit from this infrastructure in a time efficient way. The time by train from Westmead to Epping is likely to be too long to make this an efficient practical commute.

This project, if extended to connect to Epping could cause our household to consider reducing the number of cars we have from 2, to either 1 or 0. But, as it stands, while it will have a positive impact on many I anticipate it will not have any impact on our family and I can not see us using it.

While the cost of connecting Carlingford to Epping will be very significant, I feel that this is an essential element to the Parramatta light rail link. For our family Carlingford to Epping is the difference between never using the light rail and potentially using it on a daily basis. The difference between two cars and potentially having optional car ownership.

Why build a rail link that connects half of Sydney to the greater Parramatta are when we have the potential to build a rail link that connects all of Sydney to this same area?

RE: POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARRAMATTA LIGHT RAIL ON SPEEDWAY SERVICE STATION.

I am writing to express concerns that I have about the effects of the construction of the Parramatta light rail on my business and offer suggestions that will mitigate negative effects of the works.

Business: Speedway Service Station
Address: 127A Alfred St, Parramatta, NSW 2150

To begin with, from the communication I have had with the rail project planners, I understand that there is a proposed pedestrian crossing signal pole near/around my Pump no 4 which is parallel to Alfred street and the proposed signal pole. The placement of these traffic light near pump 4 of the service station is both a risk to the safety of pedestrians and an obstruction to vehicles trying to access and exit the station. Directing pedestrian traffic to and around this location puts them in close proximity to oversized vehicles such as trucks and fuel tankers as they are the dominant users of this space. Additionally, the obstruction caused by the pole will interfere with fuel deliveries, and discourage trucks from refueling at the station, which make up the large portion of fuel sales.

A potential alternative location would be the speed hump near the Café (Eatery 33) and Tyreright Parramatta. The suggested position for the traffic light is close enough to the light rail to serve the purpose efficiently and at an adequate distance from the service station for oversized vehicles to enter and exit without risking harm to pedestrians or other users.

The construction of the light rail will have negative effects on the sales of the business in both the short term and the long term in the following ways.

* The process of construction will require traffic conditions to change. These changes will either make it inconvenient for cars to enter the station or close off major entry points such as George street and river road west all together. My business relies heavily on convenience and therefore, the aforementioned changes will lead to a steep decline in sales.

* The changes to the traffic conditions will also limit the exit routes from the station. This will make it especially challenging for small cars using the middle bays thus discouraging repeat business.

* The proposed S junction on the Alfred Street intersection once constructed in conjunction with the placement of the Traffic Light will create a tight space between the tram turning and the back ends of oversized vehicles. This creates a risk of significant damage to both parties.

* Currently, individuals visiting the area park their cars at the parking lot on George street and due to the convenience of the store visit it frequently. The removal of the parking lot on George Street will likely discourage customers from shopping at the station as they will have to travel long distances or would use another shop on their way home.

Overall, I support this project and believe that it will help the community greatly, however, I cannot ignore the great effect it will have on my livelihood. I understand that the side effects of construction are very difficult to avoid and that is why I offer my concerns so that the council and the community can come up with solutions that will moderate the blow of construction without inconveniencing the light rail project heavily.

I am the owner of the property on 127a Alfred Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150 and I have a few points of interest that I would like to highlight for the NSW rail Planning Team & council's consideration.

The proposed works on the junction of Alfred Street and George Street will have a significant impact on the value of my property and my rental income for the following reasons:

* The overall process is going to have an impact on the service station; therefore the value on the lease is going to be affected and I will be forced to either take on costly renovations or reduce rent.

* The proposed traffic signal next to the service station exit is going to make the general flow of traffic in and out of the property challenging. This will make it incredibly difficult to find a tenant in the future.

* My property also encompasses a mechanical workshop. Making the remainder of George Street one way will affect the traffic flow to the workshop. Hence, the rental value of the mechanical shop will also reduce.

* Changes in parking conditions on George Street will congest parking on the remaining end of George Street. This leaves limited parking for the workshop and service station customers, making my tenants struggle and further reduces the property rental value.

To mitigate these impacts to my property I suggest changes to the proposed location of the traffic lights as well as the introduction of an alternative parking space.

I understand the need for these construction works and the fact that, once complete, they may positively affect the value of my property. However, the costs during construction will likely negate any gains made later. I appreciate your understanding regarding this matter and look forward to working with you to achieve a solution that works mutually.

I am the owner of the mechanical workshop located on the property: 127a Alfred Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150. I have recently been informed of proposed works regarding the Parramatta Light Rail project and upon further investigation, have found that the construction will have a major effect on my business. Hence, I would like to outline some key issues that I may face so that we can come up with a solution that would be favourable to both the council and my business.

* It has been indicated that the parking lot on George Street opposite my business is being removed. This will likely congest the street in front of my garage and the difficulty of finding a parking spot will discourage my clients from reusing my services.

* Moreover, I have also been informed that George Street will be made into a one way. This will further inconvenience my customers, again discouraging them from reemploying my services.

* The construction will take place right in front of the property and I imagine that this will reduce the number of cars using the petrol station. The customers using the service station tend to also use my business due to the exposure I receive from my placement. A drop in cars using the station will definitely lead to a drop in my new customer base.

I hope the planning teaml will consider my point of view and offer suggestions to help make the construction process smooth.

I have been notified by my franchisee of the Parramatta Light Rail project and believe that the construction will have a large impact on the speedway service station on 127A, Alfred Street, Parramatta, NSW, 2150. I have invested heavily to build this business and to recover my money I rely on the commission from fuel and shop sales.

I am mainly concerned about the proposed traffic light near pump 4 of the station. This will make it extremely difficult for vehicles to manoeuvre though the station. Speed is important for customers when refuelling therefore any inconvenience in exiting or entering station will discourage repeat business.

Furthermore, the traffic light will form a tight space for oversized vehicles which not only make up a large percentage of fuel sales but also deliver fuel to the station.

I would suggest the pedestrian light be moved about 2 meters ahead towards the café near the speed hump. This will avoid the problems stated above and improve the safety of pedestrians all while serving its purpose effectively.

I hope council considers the above recommendations and look forward to working closely to ensure that the construction process runs efficiently.

Cycling provision must be central to the design, with high quality separated cycleways provided throughout the project area. The incremental cost of doing so now provides a much better return on investment given the benefits of active travel than having to retrofit compromise solutions later in the future. I support the proposals of Bicycle NSW.

I have serious concerns that there has not been sufficient consideration of the new development at the old Macquarie Boys/Metro Residences where approx 2500 apartments with be constructed as detailed here http://leptracking.planning.nsw.gov.au/PublicDetails.aspx?Id=4961
It is expected that many of these residents will utilise the light rail but the integration of that location with the station at Rydalmere is poor and there is little detail as to how this will be improved with the new station to be built.
Consideration needs to be given as to how to move the many thousands (up to 5000 new residents) to and from the station and across Victoria Rd safely and without impacting traffic.
Currently to walk from that location involves crossing Anderson Ave access road which can be hazardous. Then walking down and around and over the railway line.
Consideration needs to be given to ensure disabled and prams have safe and easy access to the light rail and also to integrate with buses on Victoria Road.
The bus stop on the north side of Victoria road is already inadequate for the amount of traffic from the university let alone from such a large development.

I also don't see any details for commuter parking at Rydalmere station to be retained.