Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Consolidated Approval

SSI 7400 MOD 9 - Consolidated Approval

Archive

Application (1)

SEARS (2)

EIS (82)

Submissions (10)

Response to Submissions (47)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (139)

Reports (21)

Other Documents (17)

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 Complaint

Enforcements

Official Caution issued to AW Edwards Pty Limited (SSI-7400) North Sydney LGA

On 21 September 2022, the department issued an Official Caution to AW Edwards Pty Limited (AWE) for failing to comply with approved construction hours at the Sydney Metro Crows Nest station site. AWE has an extended work hours approval which allows concrete works until 10pm Saturdays. Once commenced, a concrete pour cannot be stopped without affecting the structural integrity of the concrete. On Saturday 26 March 2022, AWE commenced a concrete pour at 7am and due to quality issues with the concrete being supplied, the works were not completed until 2am on Sunday 27 March 2022. AWE has introduced additional quality control measures with its concrete supplier and pouring subcontractor to prevent concrete works from extending beyond the approved construction hours. Compliance with approved construction hours helps to minimise the impact on surrounding residents and protect the amenity of the area.

Inspections

20/05/2021

10/12/2021

23/02/2022

05/04/2022

12/05/2022

25/05/2022

14/07/2022

21/09/2022

17/01/2023

21/02/2023

14/06/2023

3/08/2023

11/10/2023

29/10/2023

21/11/2023

22/11/2023

06/12/2023

 

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 81 - 100 of 319 submissions
Graham Strauss
Support
Cheltenham , New South Wales
Message
I support and encourage the provision of as much secure enclosed bicycle parking as can be accommodated up to the maximum likely customer demand in the foreseeable future.

The type of parking I refer to is the sort I've seen announced lately at Blacktown station for example, and have also seen on the ground floor level of car parking stains adjacent and to the north of Parramatta station. The ones at Parramatta were dingy afterthoughts but had adjacent 'end of journey' change and easy up rooms including lockers I think. They didn't seem to be well used which I put down to poor location an an uninviting presence. It occurs to me that any retro fitted facility of this sort will suffer from being in a sub optimum location less than perfect support 'end of journey' arrangements.

I began a discussion on this topic with Sydney Metro staff at Tempe during the stage 2 EIS presentation there and was encouraged by what I heard, not so much on specific arrangements for nominated stations but about the factors that go into choosing the right stations for what sort of parking facility, and how to make them convenient, attractive and secure.Proximity to facilities for coffee breaks and snacks, up to light meals were alluded to as a way of giving the cycle / train interchange more appeal.

The discussion was brief but I have been thinking about it since, and the possibility that provision of such parking from the start for the stage 1 Skytrain section might be a missed opportunity, but if not, all to the good..

Stage 2 might not offer a lot of opportunity either given that so many of the stations are city based, where people will arrive to work rather than live. Perhaps Barangaroo might be a place where people pedal to from accommodation in the vicinity for a commute to, say, the North Ryde or Norwest. Sydenham also for parking the cycle and heading to Redfern or into the city. Dara available to Sydney Metro will help make sound decisions where I am only guessing.

Strage 3 presents another opportunity with existing stations to be remodelled and made Metro, at least on one set of tracks.

I sense there is plenty of capability in Sydney Metro for assessing and planning the provision of these things. It may even be that a broad general plan is already underway, or perhaps just a few pilots.

Whatever the situation I encourage the most adventurous approach possible, to not just get people onto Metro and trains, but out of cars and onto bikes wherever possible for getting to a station.

Good luck with the whole thing, and with as expansive an approach as is possible to making the cycle to the train option attractive.
Bec Bowring
Comment
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
There seems to be a huge distance between stations and a complete lack of stops in the soon to be very busy Alexandria area (especially near the Ashmore estate development). This seems to be a complete waste of an opportunity and extra stops should be established now rather than retrofitted later
Name Withheld
Object
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
Whilst I support the extension of the Sydney Metro along this route, I feel there is a missed opportunity to add a much-needed station at Alexandria - especially given the expected growth in this area over the next 5-10 years. The development at the Ashmore precinct would be a perfect opportunity to add a station and leaving it out seems short-sighted.
Name Withheld
Object
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
This objection relates to the EIS SSI 7400 (Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham)

I object to the proposed tunnel going under homes on Lawrence and Belmont streets and Sydney Park Village.

As a shift worker in a safety critical field it is very important that I am able to sleep during the day. Given the EIS states that noise levels will be above the nominated acceptable level, I have serious concerns about the amount of noise and vibration that my house will be subjected to both during construction and on an ongoing basis once the project is operational.

I am concerned about damage to properties surrounding the tunnel, including those some within heritage conservation areas.

I am object to a degradation in air quality associated with exhaust stacks from the tunnel.

I also object to the project due to its admitted potential to increase local flooding, which is already a significant factor in Alexandria.
Name Withheld
Object
Chatswood , New South Wales
Message
I wish to lodge my objection to the current plans for the Chatswood dive-site for the Sydney Metro Sydney & Southwest "Chatswood to Sydenham" project.
I understand progress must occur due to our enlarging population, however it should not be at the expense of local affected residents who were not initially consulted or even given the opportunity to offer alternate suggestions.
The Environmental Impact Statement Summary shows that this project has been in the pipeline for some time and, even though residents are now being given the opportunity to voice their concerns (for all they are worth), it is obviously too late. The State Government appears to have decided this project will be proceeding no matter what!
My main concerns and objections are as follows:-

- why weren't local residents, who will be directly affected by the project, not consulted at the start when this project was in it's initial stages? Am certain many of the objections could have been sorted and alternatives proposed; and concerns could have been alleviated by working through the various ideas and solutions.

- objection to the removal of the rail bridge at Nelson St
Traffic through Chatswood is already very congested (especially in peak hour and on the weekends) and this will only exacerbate the problem as local residents - in particular those from surrounding streets of Ellis St, Pacific Hwy, Gordon Ave & Nelson St - will now be required to drive south down the Pacific Hwy and turn left into Mowbray Road and then either left again at Orchard Rd or proceed further down Mowbray Rd to Archer St to drive to the shopping centre. eg. This will add a minimum of 15-30 minutes extra for residents in the local vicinity just to get around the corner and then to return home, the extra time will be even longer due to the current congestion along Albert Avenue daily! The removal of the Nelson Road bridge will also force more local traffic onto roads that are already clogged, congested and unable to cope with current traffic numbers. No alternative traffic routes have been proposed for when the Nelson Street bridge is removed. Why not?
NB. Also, the removal of the railway bridge was never noted as an option in searches when properties were purchased over past years. When purchasing previous property in another suburb the initial property search there resulted in being advised of the possibility of the Government widening a major road. The value of all properties (especially those nearest the project) will be adversely affected by the removal of the bridge. Will the Government be compensating Residents???

SOLUTION: Build a new bridge for local resident use only.

SEMI-SOLUTION: Install a set of traffic lights at Nelson St/Pacific Hwy/Moriarty Rd.
This solution will also be favourable for truck traffic during construction of the tunnel and when the site will be redeveloped at a later stage. Traffic should be able to turn either right or left from Nelson St or go straight ahead to Moriarty Rd (and vice verse). Understand there would be no option for a right-hand lane into Nelson St travelling north on Pacific Hwy as this would be detrimental to traffic flow and there would be no extra room to build a lane. NB. Up until a few years ago, cars were able to turn right from Nelson St or drive directly across to/from Moriarty Rd.

- objection to the modification of the Mowbray Rd/Pacific Hwy intersection by widening of the Pacific Hwy to add a right turn lane travelling southbound
How will the residents of Nelson St (current and future) be able to drive across to get to their required lane on the Pacific Hwy? It is currently difficult enough to enter the Pacific Hwy to get into the far left lane to travel south, trying to get across 3 lanes will be impossible.

SOLUTION: Recommend that "keep clear" signs be enforced on Pacific Hwy at Nelson St to allow Nelson St residents and visitors onto Pacific Hwy as this is usually blocked

- objection to new traffic lights at Hampden Rd & Mowbray Rd
This will mean there are 3 sets of lights in a space of less than half a kilometre. Traffic will not be able to flow freely, no matter how synchronised the lights will be, which means residents from the north who will now be required to use Pacific Hwy & Mowbray Rd, will be caught up in even more traffic.
The removal of the Nelson Road bridge will force more local traffic onto roads that are already clogged and unable to cope with current traffic numbers. No alternative traffic routes have been proposed once the Nelson Street bridge is removed. I also note that the route chosen for the trucks accessing the dive site has allowed for a right hand exit onto Mowbray Road with the installation of traffic lights at Hampden Road so as to allow the trucks to travel north up the Pacific Highway without having to travel along Orchard Road and Albert Avenue.

SEMI-SOLUTION: A one-way road/lane from Nelson St to Mowbray Road for both Residents and Metro truck use.

- concerns regarding future noise and vibrations and ability to minimise impact
There is mention of noise barriers & hoarding (?) and an acoustic shed, however am doubtful this will be enough to stop the vibrations and noise reverberating underground to neighbouring properties in the vicinity.

- concerns regarding adequate Public Transport alternatives of `train replacement services" during adjustments to the T1 North Shore line
What are the `train replacement services'? Am guessing buses?? How will the surrounding roads be able to cope with the amount of buses required to transport the many thousands of passengers travelling south along the North Shore Line every morning. Trains are already filled to capacity in peak hour and it is very very doubtful that buses would be able to handle the capacity in a timely manner. Passengers will be coming from the North from as far as Newcastle/Central Coast and also from Epping (even though some of them will be able to travel via the Northern line). Has a proper study been conducted as to the extra amount of time this will now add to our already lengthening commute times and what were the solutions?

Other Various concerns are:-

- Northbound T1 track, adjacent to sp65120, will be about 2m higher than it is at present and current Noise-wall will be higher by similar amount.

- Maximum height of rail-bridge (for northbound track) will be between Nelson St & Gordon Ave but some other Metro reps said the 60m rail-bridge will be located over the Ausgrid site!

- apparently the Metro & North Shore tracks cannot be realigned at/before Chatswood Station as this would slow down the speed of trains. Why was this not considered at time of ECRL before 2007?

- as the Metro tracks will be concrete slabs (EIS Ch.6, p135) will dampers be used to mitigate noise?

- will the Noise study being revised?

- recommendations for a "Resident Only Parking Scheme" in Nelson St & Gordon Ave requested to be favourably considered.
Name Withheld
Object
Chatswood , New South Wales
Message
the mind buggles why gore hill has not gotten a train station included in the new metro link proposal from chatswood to sydenham. yet crows nest and north sydney will get one. it would make sense to have one at gore hill with all the offices from st leonards moving here plus to get a supermarket like woolies or coles to open up here to service artarmon,greenwich, and st leonards which only has a small coles express.

such inclusion would also direct the tunneling away from residential area of artarmon and under industrial zone
Fiona Rimes
Object
Marrickville , New South Wales
Message
I object to the size and design of the proposed Martin Place Station because of the visual impact.
It appears to take up a large amount of open space in Martin Place which has a negative environmental impact.

From the drawings, it appears to propose a building not in keeping with the architectural period of other buildings in Martin Place. It appears to be a modern design mostly of glass which has a negative environmental impact. The visual impact in such a key open space in the City must be kept to a minimum as are the current entrances to the railway.
Ray Laverack
Comment
Epping , New South Wales
Message
Provision should be made at the site of the Barangaroo Station to include additional platforms, preferably to allow for cross platform interchange, for a future Sydney Trains City Relief Line from Eveleigh or alternatively the West Metro to Parramatta.

It is not clear if there will be a direct pedestrian underground connection between the proposed Pitt St Station and the existing Town Hall Station. This should be an essential prerequisite similar to the Martin Place interconnection between the new metro line and the existing Sydney Trains station.
Name Withheld
Object
Waterloo , New South Wales
Message
My comments are in relation to the Waterloo Station development.

Noise and Vibration
My home is only a short distance from the proposed station entrance and the EIS shows that the railway line will be built directly underneath my home at a depth of 25 metres. My major concern is not the noise and vibration from building works that will inevitably occur, but the noise and vibration that may occur once the station is operational and trains are passing directly underneath my home. I am aware of other locations along the airport line (the Alexandria Hotel and buildings in Mascot) where the vibration of the train passing underneath can be felt inside the buildings at ground level. On page 20 of the EIS, it is stated with respect to operational noise and vibration that..."Noise and vibration in the tunnels will generally be mitigated by using the appropriate type of coupling used to connect train carriages together, and by installing a layer of rubber between the rail and the tunnel floor". If this system was used on the airport line, it didn't work. Further, the statement that this measure will "generally" mitigate the noise and vibration leaves me with no confidence that there is any definite evidence that quiet enjoyment of my home and those around me will preserved. I am deeply concerned about my ability to live peacefully and sleep at night with trains running constantly underneath me based on my experience as stated above.

Impact on property generally
While I see that page 20 also refers to a property condition survey, I am very concerned that the tunnelling underneath my home will have an adverse impact on the foundations of the building. Not enough information about this has been provided and I object to the project proceeding until all home owners have been consulted and informed with respect to what is actually going to be done and what the real impact will be on individual dwellings.

Traffic impacts
The corner of Cope and Raglan streets is already a bottleneck during peak periods. In my opinion, the proposed positioning of the station entry point is ill informed and does not take account of the roundabout on the corner of Cope and Raglan streets, which already suffers from substantial queuing on weekday mornings and afternoons. It is submitted that the EIS fails to take into account specific traffic concerns that are current and will only be exacerbated by the construction work and the removal of already limited parking places.

Demolition of 18 buildings
Assuming that these buildings are all on the block between Raglan and Wellington streets, I do not think that it is necessary to demolish these buildings, especially as it is clearly possible to retain the Waterloo Congregational Church. Some of these buildings have been in existence for many decades and the destruction of these will be another degradation of the character of the area. I am strongly opposed to the demolition of the buildings on this block, which includes a very popular doctors surgery and pharmacist. These professionals are important and popular members of the community and the demolition of their premises cannot be supported.

Location of the Waterloo Station
The location of the Waterloo Station itself is questionable. The most developed part of Waterloo, in the Danks and Lachlan street areas, are also traffic gridlocks and do not have enough transport infrastructure to support the number of people who live there. Surely, the station would have been better positioned close to that end of Waterloo. The current position is quite close to Redfern, which also brings the rationale for the position into question.

Public housing redevelopment
It is my understanding that the redevelopment of public housing in Cope Street will coincide with the construction of the railway station. The EIS condiders the metro project in isolation without considering the impact of all of the proposed development in the area, which seems to have been planned simultaneously. There has been very little community consultation with respect to the redevelopment of the public housing sites and this must occur before any further steps are taken with respect to the Sydney metro project as residents should be informed of everything that is planned and the real impact upon their homes and their personal lives.

Ben Aveling
Object
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
This is neither a Metro, nor is it regular heavy rail - it is the worst of both worlds.

A normal metro spends about 25% of its time loading and unloading passengers, so having 3 doors instead of 2 is a significant saving. But a normal metro has stops between 400m and 800m apart. This so-called metro will have 2km between stops, and often more. It will spend perhaps 12% of its time waiting for passengers to load and unload. The time saving from the extra doors is therefore only a small percentage of the travel time, and it comes as the cost of capacity.

This matters, because normal metros run short distances. It is no great inconvenience to stand for a short period of time, and there are enough seats for those that can't. This so-called metro will have people standing for up to 40 minutes, after which they will have to change trains, and on a typical day, keep standing all the way in to the city. Many people won't, or indeed, physically cannot do that.

Double decker trains carry more people, in more comfort. The extra capacity is worth more than the marginal increase in dwell time.

While Metros can run with less headway than heavy rail, this so-called metro will not. It will run with a headway of 4 minutes. Several of Sydney's heavy rail lines already have headway less than that, and others could, with upgraded signaling and power.

The tunnels are planned to be just slightly too small for other Sydney trains. There is no justification for this. For not much extra cost, the tunnels could be just a bit bigger, giving the option to run regular trains, or perhaps to run larger metro trains, if that turns out to be the way of the future. This would avoid the need for passengers to interchange between lines, and would make the whole network more flexible.

There could have been and should have been an extra stop or two in Alexandria - 5km with no stops does not make sense for a metro. Further, the current stop location lacks logic. It is too far from Redfern station and Green Square station to serve as an interchange. But it is close so to both that a large part of its catchment area is already covered by Redfern or Green Square. The station should either have been close enough to Redfern that it could serve as an interchange, or it should have been in an area not already well covered, such as Dank St, or other more southern parts of Alexandria, or as proposed earlier, Sydney University.

Adding a new station to the Airport line would not be cheap, but this Metro (so called) will not be cheap either, and it is an inferior solution, as designed. A better investment would to add a new station to the Airport line, upgrade signaling and power supply to allow more trains to run on the existing lines, and perhaps add extra tracks out to Erskineville and beyond - there is land reserved, though there are apparently OH&S issues if that land is used for tracks.
Name Withheld
Object
Darlington , New South Wales
Message
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the project should provide additional Metro stations at Alexandria and St Peters. The objection is based on the project's flawed and inadequate traffic and transport capacity modelling viz.

1. Inadequate transport capacity modelling
The current Metro station selection process does not take into account recent infrastructure decisions such as the ATP Commonwealth Bank project (11,000 workers, 1,600 cars), the Waterloo Public Housing redevelopment (20,000 residents), the Alexandria Super School (2,200 students), the Ashmore Estate development (6,000 additional residents) and Green Square as a high-job-growth area. Collectively these developments will swamp local road networks, limiting the ability of bus services to scale up to service growing transport needs.

2. Inadequate traffic modelling
The Metro EIS does not model any relationship between the Metro (Waterloo to Sydenham) and Westconnex traffic , despite the Metro line running under McEvoy / Euston Road and St Peters. The EIS has no modelling of additional Metro stations (Alexandria and St Peters) ability to reduce cross-town car use or offset the impact of Westconnex traffic spilling onto the inner-city road network.

3. Additional (Alexandria and St Peters) Metro stations.
These additional Metro stations would provide a mass-transit inner-city transport system and cross-town interconnectivity to and from the high jobs growth corridor (Green Square / Airport), providing mass-transit systems for the areas' doubled population, reducing chronic over-crowding on Erskineville station and reducing inner-city car congestion.
Roger Hadgraft
Support
Erskineville , New South Wales
Message
I wish to urge the construction of further stations between Redfern and Sydenham, e.g. at Alexandria (to cater for the rapidly growing population in that area) and St Peters (to provide better linkages with the existing train network). I believe that budget restrictions have reduced the number of stations, which will be long regretted in the future. As a compromise, shell stations could be built and completed at a later date as further funding becomes available.
Catherine Kennedy
Object
Erskineville , New South Wales
Message


Dear Planners,
I am objecting to the new Metro plans on several grounds:
1. Using single storey carriages instead of double storey not only reduces capacity but minimises stock for heavy rail and increases costs for the life of the project.
2. Double storey carriages would discourage passengers with prams, wheelchairs etc from using the Metro.
3. There should be more stops in Central Sydney such as Sydney University, Alexandria/ Erskineville where populations are increasing. The metro should not be just a means to get travellers in and out of The CBD but to move around the inner city more efficiently.
4. The Public has yet to be convinced of the wisdom of the Metro and the Planning of future high rise in the transport corridors which is far too dense and looks to be slums of the future.
5. There are too many simultaneous projects proposed by the State Government and perceived sweetheart deals between them and favoured developers.
6. In the light of economic aftershocks after Brexit, NSW should me thinking carefully and spending cautiously instead of squandering our money, resources and heritage.
Regards
Catherine Kennedy
Eagle Partners
Support
Drummoyne , New South Wales
Message
EAGLE PARTNERS
TRANSPORT CONSULTANTS
21 ST. GEORGES CRESCENT, DRUMMOYNE, NSW, 2047

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, SYDNEY, NSW, 2001.

Attention: Director - Transport Assessments,

Dear Sir,

SUBMISSION, RE -

SYDNEY METRO CITY & SOUTHWEST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - CHATSWOOD TO SYDENHAM

APPLICATION NO SSI 15_7400

On 12 May 2016, the Department of Planning and Environment placed advertisements in the Sydney press inviting public submissions in response to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and operation of the Chatswood to Sydenham section of the Sydney Metro.

This submission is in response to that EIS. It is primarily concerned about how the finished project might improve the lives of public transport passengers. They, presumably, are intended to be among the primary beneficiaries. We support the project, with reservations.

The project, as planned, fails to integrate with Sydney's existing train network to the extent required to maximise public convenience and benefit. In fact, it goes out of its way to disassociate itself from the current operator - Sydney Trains. This is epitomised by the use of the branding logo - a capital "M", instead of Sydney Trains' "T", but unfortunately the deliberate differences go much deeper than that. It took decades to rid Sydney of the confusion and inconveniences for public transport passengers resulting from separate ownership by private companies and the public agencies. The design of Metro seems determined to again cause passenger confusion for no worthwhile purpose. Persistence with the "Metro" branding will complicate train departure information boards and way-finding signage, and may cause passenger confusion at interchange stations, where the smooth flow of passengers between platforms is of essence. Train service information, on websites and in printed form, will also necessarily be more complex and difficult to understand than it need be.

A recent government decision sensibly renamed this project from "rapid transit" to "Metro". If the current government's mantra of "the customer is at the centre of everything we do" has any worth, a similar decision will be made to abandon the "Metro" brand, and incorporate the new line as a simple expansion of Sydney's train network. Millions of future train passengers would benefit from such simplification.

The EIS provides much information about the project's impacts during construction. It also assesses various impacts caused by the operation of the Metro, but only insofar as the operation of the Metro impacts on the current external environment. It does not adequately forecast its impacts on any predicted future external environment. The precincts surrounding the stations will be vastly different in the future to what they are now. There are also glaring omissions, making it difficult to draw informed conclusions about the project's impacts.

1 - INFERIOR "FUTURE-PROOFING"

The project fails to make adequate provision for the future development of Sydney. None of the new stations is designed to provide time-saving cross-platform interchange with an inevitable second, separate, Metro line, or other rail-based mode. This could have been arranged at negligible additional cost.

2 - INCONVENIENT STATIONS.

Most of the new stations appear to have poorly located entrances, resulting in excessive walk-up times for passengers. Station access locations should be reviewed, to minimise walking distances and thus overall travel times for existing passengers, and to encourage new patronage.

The EIS only assesses the impact of the Metro users on current external pedestrian movements and densities, finding it acceptable.

The CENTRAL Metro platforms need improved access at the southern end, and in particular, to Railway Square. Presumably the Metro north-south concourse will connect at its southern end to the existing below-platform passageways. (We note that the southern ends of the Metro platforms are almost directly below the Devonshire Street Pedestrian Tunnel). But a more direct connection to Railway Square is, we believe, warranted. There are already three universities to the south, with their existing high public transport patronage, let alone the patronage growth which will occur around Central Station as a result of future developments.
For simplicity, and passenger convenience, the Metro platforms should be numbered 14 and 15, even if that means re-numbering the existing platforms 1 to 15.
There is no explanation for the "Spanish" (double-sided) platforms shown serving the track through the existing Platform 16.

WATERLOO station is to be built adjacent to Botany Road, a highly trafficked arterial road. The station should be provided with an entrance connecting directly with the Botany Road bus stops, including a pedestrian underpass under Botany Road, to minimise walk-up times for passengers, and hence their total travel times.

PITT STREET station should be designed with underground connections to the future pedestrian passages and retail outlets below City Council's planned George / Park / Pitt plaza.

TRACK DESIGN.

We acknowledge that the design of Sydenham Station does not fall within this EIS, but the design of the Marrickville Dive should be such that the "Up" Metro track can be placed at a low level through Sydenham Station. This, combined with a lowering of the Up Illawarra Local line, would provide cross-platform interchange between Metro and Sydney Trains in both directions by enabling Up passengers to pass below the Down Metro track and platform. "Down" passengers would then also have cross-platform interchange, between Platforms 2 and 4.

Kevin Eadie
Partner
Eagle Partners.
[email protected]
f - MetroSubChatsSydham1.doc
27 June 2016.
Name Withheld
Comment
NBewtown , New South Wales
Message
Given that the houses and amenities, such as water and sewage pipes, are extremely old I have concerns about the impact of drilling. I would like assurances that our houses will be subject to rigorous inspection prior to drilling and that any damage to houses and amenities will be compensated.
alan sandow
Comment
marrickville , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/ Madam
I attended the Sydney Metro project information session in Tempe .
I would like to submit my comments based on being a resident of the Marrickville area.

Traffic ; the route chosen for trucks from the Sydenham works area will have a major effect on traffic in
already clogged arteries around this site. The major shopping centre of Marrickville Metro will lose custom .
The bridge over existing railway line which forms part of the truck route is very old and in need of work .
The roads in general are pot holed and subsiding due to the weight of traffic currently using this route.
The Westconnex porthole will impact on this area possibly creating traffic issues for years.
Improvements to roads & bridges prior to and after may alleviate fears of being left with damaged road infrastructure.

General comments ; I hope for the sake of the people of NSW that all procurement of goods required
will be sourced from businesses within the State .( I did notice that railway lines have been sourced from Spain.)
I would like to see all staff that are involved in this project are sourced from within NSW including contractors.
That all these employees have all the industrial rights that the current NSW Government employees have.
The Work Health & Safety of all people whether directly as employees or indirectly such local residents is
a number one priority.
Appreciate the opportunity to comment of this massive project.
Regards
Alan Sandow
28 Roseby Street
Marrickville
Director - Advocacy
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
27 June 2016
Major Project Assessments
NSW Planning & Environment
23-33 Bridge St
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Major Projects Assessment,
State Significant Infrastructure - Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham
The National Trust of Australia (NSW) lodges its strong objections to the proposal within the Sydney Metro City & Southwest - Chatswood to Sydenham State Significant Infrastructure Project to demolish the building at 7 Elizabeth Street, Sydney for the construction of the proposed Martin Place Station.

The Apartment Building at 7 Elizabeth Street, Sydney was listed on the National Trust Register in February, 2004 for its historic significance as the only residential flat building constructed in the City of Sydney during the 1930s to have survived, still fulfilling its function as a residential building.

The building is aesthetically significant because of its associations with two prominent and influential designers, architect Emil Sodersten and interior designer Marion Hall Best. Emil Sodersten was one of the most important architects to have practiced in New South Wales during the 1920s and 1930s. Famous for the residential flat buildings that were designed in his office, this is the only one known to have been constructed in the City of Sydney and shows the influence of modernist European architecture on his work. Its interiors were an early and well publicized example of the work of Marion Hall Best, who went on to exercise a great influence on interior design in this state during the three decades after World War II.

Although it has had some modifications the building has retained a relatively large amount of original building fabric. Original furniture is also known to exist within the building and it is also understood that some of the furnishing fabrics still survive.

In the Trust's view, this building should be retained for its heritage significance to the City of Sydney.

Yours sincerely

Graham Quint
Director, Advocacy
Name Withheld
Support
10 Drake Street, Artarmon , New South Wales
Message
I live a short distance from the dive site. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that (1) a coordinator be appointment who has excellent cross-cultural communications skills to provide information etc about progress. This person should be contactable either in person, phone or by email; and (2) all contract staff should be made aware that the Artarmon area is essentially residential and they should respect this. Also, every effort should be made to employ staff with good communication skills.
Greg Smith
Object
Alexandria , New South Wales
Message
I submit that at least one additional Metro station should be provided between Waterloo and Sydenham. Growth in that 'in between' area is forecast to be dramatic in the next 10 years. Erskineville Station and St Peters Station are unable to cope with current demand. When they are bypassed by the Metro and services are correspondingly reduced, the area will develop chronic shortage of public transport, just at the same time that its residential and working populations are increasing dramatically. Retrofitting of subway stations is apparently not a viable economic option. So, the time is now. Please do not make the strategic mistake of not including at least one extra Metro station between Waterloo and Sydenham. Thank you.
William O'Byrne
Support
Crows Nest , New South Wales
Message
I do support the proposal and submit the following comments.
Our apartment block is adjacent to planned station in Crows Nest.
It also appears that we are the only resident occupied apartment building which will be impacted significantly with construction works.
We would then ask that prior to any work commencing that our building is insulated to reduce noise and vibration impact. Also that we have continual monitoring of noise and vibration to ensure we retain existing comfortable living conditions.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-7400
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-7400-Mod-9
Last Modified On
30/06/2022

Contact Planner

Name
Lisa Mitchell