Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham

Submission attached

Submission is attached as PDF.

uploaded submission

Please see attached pdf with my concerns about this project.

Please see attached pdf with my concerns about this project.

Kindly refer to the attachment below.

Objection attached

I have attached a statement regarding the Nelson St closure. I am recommending an additional set of lights be provided at Eddy Ave to assist Chatswood West residents who wish to access the Pacific Hwy south bound. These residents presently use Nelson St via Mowbray Road. The closure of Nelson st will remove this vital access.

See attachment

Submission is attached. The HPA objects to the replacement of the heavy rail with a metro system between Sydenham and Bankstown.

File is uploaded!

The Secretary
NSW Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001


Dear Secretary

Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham
Application Number SSI 15_7400
Sydney Yard access Bridge and Excavation Shaft

We act for the owners of 54 Regent Street, Chippendale. This comprises all the owners of the 16 units and commercial premises in the Strata Plan SP8112 at 54 Regent Street, Chippendale. Due to the time constraints involved they have asked us to write directly. Our clients together demolished and rebuilt the building some years ago and manage the rental of the 16 units. As you are aware the units are part of the redevelopment of the Co-Masonic heritage listed building.
All of the units face directly onto the proposed Sydney Yard Access Bridge. The block immediately adjoins the resumed terraces which front Regent Street. That site will provide the primary vehicular access to the construction site in the area between the railway lines to the immediate south of Central Station.
All of the units have windows which provide for the units' outlook and natural light. The amenity impacts from the proposal will be severe, to say the least. This will be during construction and into the future.
We are writing on behalf of our clients to express their strongest objection to proposal number SSI 15_7400.
They believe that the allowance of 10 days from the public meeting for them to muster professional advice and put on a well reasoned objection to such a large scale proposal that so significantly affects their rights and the amenity of their building is totally inadequate.
This letter sets out a preliminary outline of their objection and their concern with the current 'assessment' of the impacts on them. They may need expert noise advice, though time has not yet allowed this. It also seeks to set out some options to try and seek a practical framework for investigating a 'resolution'.
Physical impacts
Details on exactly what is proposed immediately adjoining the Regent Street frontage of their heritage listed building following the demolition of the terraces presently adjoining are, to say the least, scant. Meaningful assessment of the short and long term impacts of the use of this area is simply unavailable on the information provided.
The attached photographs marked "A" clearly show an adverse impact on the building's Regent Street heritage context in the short term and the long term is simply unknown.
The bridge however seems to be broadly identified in plan form and with a montage type image (see annexure "B"). It appears that there will be a ramp up from the Regent Street site though it is unclear where this starts and how steep it will be. This ramp continues across the whole of the eastern window frontage of our clients' building and into the excavation shaft and development site. Physical details of its construction however again are unclear.
Environmental impacts
To the extent it can be gleaned from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and details so far published, as well as provided at the public meeting on 16 June 2016 at South Sydney, they indicate that the amenity impacts on our clients' property would be extreme should the proposal go ahead.
The EIS shows no, or at best limited, consideration of the impact of trucks using the Sydney Yard Access Bridge on the adjacent residential property. The impact is serious and must be properly modelled and analysed. Trucks will be using the access way at all hours of the day, and the gradients of the approach to the bridge and the bridge itself and the large trucks involved require compression braking and engine revving. The height of the bridge means a direct line of sight to the various levels of the residential property even over any sound barrier which might be attempted.
In the time available, detailed expert assessment has not been able to be achieved, though a town planning review has been undertaken. Clearly the following areas are of significant concern in relation to the impacts:
1. Noise.
Our clients' two and three bedroom units are occupied by a number of different tenants with varying noise sensitivities. For example, there are a number of student tenants that need to study.
Sleep disturbance is highly likely from the over 200 daily truck movements 24 hours a day from demolition, excavation, construction, fit-out during excavation plus other light vehicles. This will very likely be in breach of the State government's industrial noise requirements. With a 24 hour use sleep disturbance criteria will be infringed.
In addition, the vehicles entering from Regent Street onto the site adjoining, going up a ramp, crossing in front of the building, loading excavation material then returning down the ramp immediately adjoining the building, will provide an untenable noise environment for occupants. This heavy vehicle traffic noise including air brakes, gear changing etc is suggested to be occurring for seven years.
Beyond this construction period the impact of State Rail and State transit vehicles is completely unknown. Originally the bridge was suggested to only be for the project's construction, it now seems to be a permanent fixture.
In our client's view, the noise assessment in the EIS is wholly inadequate. It seems to our clients that according to the EIS:
(a) There has been no assessment of the noise impact of the bridge traffic being used. However, it is intended for the bridge to be used for maintenance access indefinitely. This is a significant omission.
(b) Under part 10.4.10 of the EIS, it is not entirely clear where receivers were placed. Figure 10.24 only appears to indicate two locations, neither near Regent Street, but Figure 10.25 then purports to have predicted airborne noise exceedances specific to different sites.
(c) The EIS claims to have significant exceedances of more than 20 db in first 2 periods of construction (see figure 10.25).
(d) Night-time truck noise is expected to exceed sleep disturbance screening levels by up to 10 dB during excavation, with no practical options to address this.
(e) With regard to Construction Traffic Noise: "The predicted noise level increase associated with construction traffic complies with the 2 dB allowance. Whilst there is an exceedance of the sleep disturbance screening criterion (of up to 18 dB) and external sleep disturbance NML of 65 dBA (by up to 13 dB), the LAmax levels would be similar to other heavy vehicles using Regent Street and Chalmers Street. Therefore sensitive receivers are not likely to notice an increase in the average road traffic noise levels during construction." The suggestion that our clients' residents will not notice this is, with respect, fanciful. The existing night time noise environment in accordance with our instructions, does not have such other 'heavy vehicles'.
The noise impacts are totally unacceptable. The assessment in the EIS is completely inadequate.
2. Dust.
The shaft and the trucks with excavated material are within the immediate environment of 54 Regent Street. The prevailing north-easterly summer breeze will exacerbate the issue of dust on our clients' property. Adverse amenity impacts are likely.
3. Vibration.
The vibration from use of the bridge will significantly and adversely affect the amenity of our clients.
4. Fumes.
Diesel exhaust fumes will be experienced by our clients' tenants from the use of the bridge given the prevailing summer north-easterly breezes when windows are likely to be opened.


5. Visual outlook.
To the extent that the visual impact of the bridge can be assessed from the material provided (which is limited) it will be at a level and of a size that dominates the building's outlook. The present outlook though onto the railway lines on the lower vision line then moves to a very pleasant distant outlook towards the city, the park etc. The blot will be significant and permanent on this outlook.
6. Traffic.
Traffic impacts will be significant and adverse for vehicles entering and exiting the area immediately adjoining our clients' site.
7. Parking.
There seems to have been no assessment of parking for employees brought in from other areas. To the extent parking is displaced in the area this will adversely affect our clients' tenants amenities.
8. Heritage.
The captions from the photographs attached and marked "A" clearly identify significant adverse impacts on our clients' heritage façade and context. The visual presentation of it within the existing streetscape will be significantly depleted.
Financial impacts
Our clients have rented all apartments for the last 10 years. They achieved very strong rents - on average $600 for the two-bedroom apartments and $720 for the three-bedroom apartments. This, along with the commercial rent, produces some $630,000 per annum in rent.
Since the announcement of the proposal three tenants have already left. Four other tenants have given notice. The reasons for vacation are clear. This proposal. For example a long term female tenant when asked as to why she was leaving stated:
'I am very sad to leave, it has been great living here. I am just very concerned about the level of noise pollution and dust pollution that the Sydney Metro City and South-west Rail Project will create. I have been informed they will be pulling down the buildings right next to us, and that there will be hundreds of trucks going in and out all day which will be far too much noise for us to endure, as will the dust and other pollution that it will create.'
The financial impact on their property will be huge. It will arise from what is presently a single focused and insufficiently documented project. The impacts of the proposal are feared by the tenants who are openly 'responding with their feet' or risk facing significant hardship if they stay and the proposal goes ahead.
The EIS
In the short time available to review the EIS, it seems to be inadequate in relation to the assessment of the impacts on our clients' property. Significant and very important environmental issues concerning the residents of 54 Regent Street appear to have been simply ignored.
It may be the reason for this is that the project's impact on our clients' property can simply not comply with what would be seen as reasonable and acceptable environmental impacts. Clearly unless some other option can be found, on the material currently before us or likely to be produced, the project cannot be described as having acceptable environmental impacts on our clients' building and tenants and they must review all options to have their concerns addressed.
Options
Our clients strongly oppose the proposal however they appreciate the 'David and Goliath' nature of their position and the importance of the project for the State. Accordingly they are prepared to sit down and try to negotiate a practical and fair 'solution'. They will be pragmatic in attempting to achieve this in considering all parties' interests. Notwithstanding, their concerns cannot be ignored and if the development is pursued with the current level of assessment and impacts it would simply be a flawed process.
Options for discussion include:
1. This part of the project - Sydney Yard Access Bridge be abandoned.
2. Some lip service to conditions may be able to be achieved. In circumstances however where acceptable impacts cannot be ensured, this approach seems impractical and could provide major adverse practical ramifications for the project with associated actions - the unviable option for enforcement.
3. Purchase the whole building. Our clients recognise however that the building cannot be demolished being a heritage item or at least not demolished as easily as the other terraces. In addition, our clients' site consists of 16 units which would result in a $14-$15 million acquisition; and 3 commercial suites with a value of $1.8- $2 million acquisition.
4. Leasing the whole property to the government for the seven years for use by it and its contractors as part of the project as it sees fit.
5. That some appropriate, transparent and adequate form of compensation is provided to our clients to deal with the medium term (seven years), and long term impacts.
Our clients believe the proposal both in its current form and foreshadowed amended form cannot produce an environmentally acceptable result for their building. Accordingly they are vehemently objecting to the proposal, though have sought our advice as to whether a mutually acceptable comprise can be found.
We are grateful for your consideration of our clients' submission. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact John Cole.
Yours faithfully




John Cole
Partner
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

+61 2 9334 8676
[email protected]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing on behalf of the Blues Point Tower Executive Committee representing the owners of Blues Point Tower to express our objection to the proposed Blues Point Temporary Retrieval site at Blues Point Reserve.

We object to the establishment of a temporary site at Blues Point Reserve for the retrieval of the cutting heads for the tunnel boring machines on the basis that this will have a devastating impact on Blues Point Reserve which is a heritage listed site, and will significantly impact on the residents living conditions in the local area, particularly those residing in Blues Point Tower, which is located just 72 metres from the proposed construction site.

We object to the removal of the Blues Point Reserve and park area from public access for a period of two years and the accompanying construction noise, traffic and transport impacts on residents over this prolonged period of time that will occur as a result of the excavation activity and the removal of the waste material from the site.

The construction site will have a prolonged noise and vibration impact on the residents during the first 12 month excavation work period to establish the shaft to the tunnel. Many of the residents in Blues Point Tower are elderly and occupy their units during business hours, when the works are proposed to take place and they will be particularly impacted by the ongoing noise from the construction work.

The construction site will also remove residents parking for a period of two years and result in the relocation of the current bus stop located on Henry Lawson Drive, which is regularly used by residents, particularly the elderly and those with young children to transport them to the train station.

The proposed construction site will also result in the removal of public access to the Blues Point Reserve and park areas which are frequently used and enjoyed not only by local residents but by tourists and others visiting the area.

We object to the proposed removal of waste material from the excavation site and delivery of concrete using heavy trucks along Blues Point Road, which will result in frequent and persistent heavy truck movement 11 hours per day during this period. We also express our concern about the impact of the heavy truck traffic on pedestrian safety, especially for children and the elderly in the community.

We believe that there has not been adequate consideration of alternative sites to retrieve the boring machine heads and no analysis in the EIS of the possibility of the tunnel boring machine cutters being removed at Barangaroo or Victoria Cross station.

There also has not been any analysis on the use of barges to remove the waste from the harbour site instead of trucks.

Regards,
Faiza Ahmad

Dear Sir/ Madam

Please find attached our submission. Detail submission will follow in due course.

Council report can be found at the following link:

http://lccweb.lanecove.nsw.gov.au/bps/Open/2016/CNL_20062016_AGN_WEB.HTM

Regards, Abdullah

attachment has details

The apartment I own is in the Towns Place building at 25A Hickson Road, MillerPoint.I understand the CHATSWOOD-SYDENHAM METRO: SS15 7400 will travel under the building and its adjacent car parking areas.
I have a number of objections to the implementation of the Proposal, the most serious relating to noise and vibration issues adversely impacting residents and businesses, and to the due process available to objectors which impacts on the nature and detail of those objections.

I have not made any political donations in the last two years.

Substantive Objections
Position of Tunnels
1 It appears from the current plans/ diagrams that the eastern tunnel may pass beneath, or very close to, the north western corner of the Dalgety Road building of the Owners Corporation at a (stated) depth of 35 metres. Given that the EIS Summary notes that the current plans / diagrams are indicative only (as well as containing a 30 metre tolerance for the tunnels' final position), this objection is based on the assumption that it is intended that the tunnel is in fact due to be located in the position described.
2 The tunnel described continues south below Dalgety Road and continues to the new proposed metro station at Barangaroo. The tunnel also passes below Dalgety Road and, in part, passes beneath terraces on Dalgety Road. Those terraces sit on a sandstone cliff situated approximately 10 metres above the Dalgety Road surface. That adds an additional 10 metres to the (claimed) 35 metre buffer between the tunnel and the surface for those properties. In contrast, the Towns Place residential tower not only lacks this 10 metre buffer, but also has a private and public car park down to a depth of approximately 20 metres below ground level, significantly reducing the buffer shown on the plan, and exacerbating noise and vibrations.
3 I understand the technicians present at the explanatory meeting in respect of this part of the tunnel on 25 May 2016 were not aware that the Owners Corporation building had a 6 level carpark below ground to a depth of approximately 20 metres and that, if the tunnel depths were maintained at 35 metres, as indicated on the current plans / diagrams, the buffer between the eastern tunnel and the bottom level of the carpark would, at most, be only about 10 metres.
4 If, as appears to be the case, the actual depth of the top of the tunnel is less than the publicly disclosed 35 metres (due to rail gradient limits coming up to the Barangaroo metro station), then the buffer under Towns Place will be materially less than 10 metres.
5 This issue could simply be resolved by relocating the eastern side of the tunnel approximately 10 metres to the west of Dalgety Road so that no part of it runs close to or below the Towns Place building on Dalgety Road.
6 Moving the tunnel west is clearly within the 30 metre tolerance allowed for in the Proposal and places the tunnel below a much higher cliff face where noise and vibration will not impact on any surface building.
7 This solution / amendment to the Proposal would move the western tunnel slightly to the west. However, this would in no way adversely impact on the Dalgety Road terraces, as they have an existing tunnel below them and they sit on an additional 10 metres of sandstone above the 35 metre deep tunnel.
Noise / vibration abatement measures
8 Attenuation is proposed for other parts of the line but not between the harbour and Barangaroo metro station. All of this track should have high quality attenuation measures installed. Particularly that part from the harbour to Barangaroo metro station.
Removal of spoil
9 The Proposal indicates a suggested intention of removing spoil from the tunnel to a temporary site under the overhead bridges on Hickson Road, and then for re-removal to a final unidentified site elsewhere. The indicated timing of construction (and removal) is on a 24/7 basis, which seems unreasonable. The spoil should just simply be removed from the area directly to its final destination, and this should not occur at night.
10 The EIS represented at the explanatory meeting on 25 May 2016 that the spoil may be removed from the area by barge. If that was to happen, it must only do so from the harbour side of the central Barangaroo site. To do so from any other local harbour location would again involve double handling, unwarranted and unreasonable noise and increase the number of truck movements in the area.
Due Process Objections
11 Objections to the Proposal were invited on 11 May 2016. We understand that there has been only limited public advertisement of the Proposal and only one 'information' public meeting for Barangaroo in relation to it. Given the complexity of the Proposal and the vast detail of it, it is unreasonable to allow such a short objection period1. The time period allowed for objections is simply not feasible for objectors such as Owners Corporations who need considerable time to consider the implications of the Proposal, obtain legal and expert advice, and subsequently time to call meetings to consider that advice and the impacts of the Proposal. That cannot reasonably be achieved within 6 weeks.
12 Although the proposal is detailed in part, it is imprecise and simply inaccurate in crucial areas (for example, the exact position of the tunnels). A number of the plans and diagrams contained in the Proposal are internally inconsistent. Consequently, this impacts on the nature and precision of objections.
13 The Owners Corporation reserves its rights in respect of the lack of due process afforded to the Owners Corporation in implementing the Proposal. It also reserves its rights to supplement this submission with expert(s)' report(s) as received.
Conclusion
14 The Owners Corporation has made practical and reasonable suggestions to the implementation of the Proposal in the hope that their adoption will lead to the Proposal satisfying Sydney's transport needs without adversely impacting on those who live and work near the proposed metro line.

Yours faithfully
John Brown
CEO | Design Director

APA submission attached.

Please see our support document attached, which is to be read in conjunction with our full submission, lodged on 27/6/16 on our behalf by Urbis Town Planning.

See attached submission