WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Noise Mitigation - (98 Chandos st NCAS21)

As outline in Volume 2C page 192, the block of units at 98 Chandos has been recommended for architectural noise mitigation.

The architectural mitigation should include a combination of double glazing/sealing of all windows on all 6 Floors and should be completed BEFORE construction begins. Expecting residents to suffer the burden of 6 days a week for 3+ years of construction noise is unreasonable and goes against the projects commitment to minimize impacts on the community.

It has also come to my attention that only ground and first floors will be eligible for architectural mitigation, is this correct?
This is obviously outdated and will need to be adjusted as 98 Chandos St is 6 stories high and you and I know that noise/sound does not simply stop when it gets to level 2!

As Sydney expands and more medium density building are required this rule needs to be updated to suite the many multi story buildings which will form the Sydney skyline.

After all the EIS states that noise will raise enough to recommend noise mitigation and we expect all floors to be mitigated. Practicality will not be a problem as installing double glazing on ground and first floors balcony windows will be the same process as for levels 2 and above.

Regards

See attached.

14 October 2015

Project Manager
Major Projects Assessments
NSW Planning & Environment
22-33 Bridge Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Attention: Mr Brent Devine

Dear Sir,

Environmental Impact Statement - WestConnex M4 East

The National Trust of Australia (NSW) makes the following comments on the publicly exhibited Environmental Impact Statement for the WestConnex Motorway Project M4 East.
Initially, the Trust must reiterate a number of points that it made in its February, 2014 submission to the WestConnex Delivery Authority on the public display of the WestConnex Stage One - M4 East Motorway Concept Design: -

* It concerns the Trust that, at the Environmental Impact Statement assessment stage of this massive project, contracts may already have been signed and commitments made to commence construction when the full impacts of the development may only be coming to the public attention.

* Over the past fifteen years the Trust has continued to express concern at the heritage impacts of inner urban motorway proposals and has supported mass transport options such as light and heavy rail in preference to inner urban motorways.

* While acknowledging that the increased mobility and affluence of our society and an expanding population require much improved transport facilities, the National Trust opposes further motorways being brought into the inner suburbs and central business district if they threaten areas of historical, architectural, scenic and social importance.

* The National Trust believes that the provisions of public/private partnership agreements for urban motorways should be made public and that such agreements must not contain penalty provisions for compensation payments to a motorway operator if a public transport system competes effectively with the motorway.

* The National Trust would oppose public/private agreements that disadvantage the public who do not choose to use the toll roads constructed under those agreements and believes that massive expenditure on motorway development will divert much needed public and private investment away from public transport development which can move large numbers of people more effectively and with much less adverse heritage impact.

* The constant daily movement of large transport trucks severely degrades the urban environment and the National Trust urges that rail transport should be the preferred means for transporting container goods related to Port Botany and Sydney Airport. The Trust would oppose motorway proposals which promote increased large truck movements through urban precincts, particularly those with heritage significance.

* The National Trust acknowledges that inner city motorway development will be inextricably linked to residential/commercial redevelopment of higher densities in the zones adjoining the
motorway and consequently, would oppose such development, or elements of that redevelopment when it: -

- Impacts upon, or degrades the values of adjoining, Heritage Conservation Areas,
- involves the demolition of Listed Heritage Items,
- involves the demolition of places which have been removed from Heritage Lists on non heritage-based grounds,
- involves the demolition of places which, in the Trust's view are of indisputable heritage significance, but which have been denied statutory heritage recognition.

The National Trust has had a long history and involvement in campaigning with the community to protect inner urban heritage.

In 1972 the National Trust opposed the North-Western and Western Expressways which would have cut a swathe through Glebe, demolishing 800 homes and the property "Lyndhurst", to the steps of the Sydney Town Hall.

On 26 February, 2014 the Board of the National Trust of Australia adopted a Policy on the Heritage Impacts of Urban Motorways. This Policy built on and reiterated earlier positions and policy statements including:

* National Trust: Policy Statement on Urban Freeways (1976)
* National Trust Policy on Urban Freeways (1981)
* National Trust Discussion Paper: Towards a Transport Policy for the National Trust (1989)
* National Trust Policy Paper: Transport - The Heritage Implications (1995)
* Trust Alert: Motorway proposals threaten inner city Urban Conservation Areas (2005)

National Trust Policy on the Heritage Impacts of Urban Motorways (2014)

1. While acknowledging that the increased mobility and affluence of our society and an increasing population require much improved transport facilities, the National Trust will oppose further motorways being brought into the inner suburbs and central business district if they threaten areas of great historical, architectural, scenic and social importance.

2. The National Trust will oppose the loss of public parklands for inner urban motorway construction, including both permanent loss involved with a motorway route/connection ramps or shorter term alienation during the construction phase.

3. The National Trust believes that the provisions of public/private partnership agreements for urban motorways should be made public and that such agreements must not contain penalty provisions for compensation payments to a motorway operator if a public transport system competes effectively with the motorway.

4. The National Trust would oppose public/private agreements that disadvantage the public who do not choose to use the toll roads constructed under those agreements.

5. The National Trust believes that massive expenditure on motorway development will divert much needed public and private investment away from public transport development which can move large numbers of people more effectively and with much less adverse heritage impact.

6. The National Trust believes that the constant daily movement of large transport trucks severely degrades the urban environment and will urge that rail transport should be the preferred means for transporting container goods related to Port Botany and Sydney Airport. The Trust would oppose motorway proposals which promote increased large truck movements through urban precincts, particularly those with heritage significance.

7. The National Trust acknowledges that inner city motorway development will be inextricably linked to residential/commercial redevelopment of higher densities in the zones adjoining the motorway and consequently would oppose such development or elements of that redevelopment when it;

* Impacts upon or degrades the values of adjoining Heritage Conservation Areas,
* involves the demolition of Listed Heritage Items,
* involves the demolition of places which have been removed from Heritage Lists on non heritage-based grounds,
* involves the demolition of places which, in the Trust's view are of indisputable heritage significance but which have been denied statutory heritage recognition.

Having regard to this Policy, the Trust has examined the Environmental Impact Statement's documented impacts on heritage and notes the following:

Listed Heritage Items to be demolished

* 11 and 23 Sydney Street, Concord, Rare examples of Victorian houses in Canada Bay
* 64 Concord Road, Concord, example of transitional Victorian/Federation house
* 9 Wattle Street, Haberfield, an example of John Spencer-Stansfield's Design No 1
* 19 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 21 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 23-25 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 35 Wattle Street Haberfield
* 37-39 Wattle Street Haberfield
* 41-43 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 51 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 53 Wattle Street, Haberfield
* 46 Martin Street, Haberfield
* 164 Ramsey Street Haberfield.
* 92-94 Chandos Street, Haberfield
* 96 Chandos Street Haberfield

Potential Heritage Items to be demolished

* 2 Short Street East, Homebush - a fine example of interwar bungalow with Arts and Crafts style details
* 15 Young Street, Concord - an example of a Federation Arts and Crafts style house with unusual decorative pressed metal oriel window apron
* 54C Sydney Street, Concord - an unusual example of an interwar bungalow with Arts and Crafts influences
* 56 Sydney Street, Concord - an example of a Federation bungalow
* 71 Concord Road, Concord - an example of a good intact transitional Federation/interwar bungalow

Properties proposed for demolition within the Haberfield Conservation Area

* 53 houses
* 29 of these contributory to the values of the Conservation Area
* 2 intact tree lined streets - Sydney & Edwards Streets
* Opening the back fences of other houses to the public domain
 
Properties proposed for demolition within the Powells Estate Conservation Area

* 11 dwellings
* 10 of these are contributory to the values of the Conservation Area
* 2 are individually listed Heritage Items

Partial demolition with major consequences
* Wesley Uniting Church, 81 Concord Road

Conclusions
The National Trust notes that this M4 East is only one section of the WestConnex Motorway and that there will be additional heritage impacts relating to the St Peters Interchange and the future link between Haberfield and St Peters.

In the Trust's view the heritage impacts of the WestConnex Motorway are severe. The Trust must question whether the financial commitment for the total project in today's dollars of $15 billion (inevitably set to rise) would be much better allocated to public transport.

Public transport in all its forms (heavy rail, light rail and buses) has much greater potential to remove motor vehicles from roadways, reducing traffic congestion.

The Sydney Trains Website explaining "why is rail travel a better choice for the environment?" puts the following case -

Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre for rail transport is up to five times less than that of car transport.

The Australian Rail Association has documented that only 2.6% of Australia's transport greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to rail. This 2.6% includes both passenger and freight rail so, in fact passenger rail contributes even less.

A train line can move 50,000 people an hour. Compare this with a freeway lane which can move 2500 people an hour.

Moving 1,000 people requires either 1 eight carriage train or 15 buses or anywhere from 250 to 1,000 cars. This quantity of car travel would then require 1.37 hectares of parking space in the Sydney Central Business District.

Urban rail transport is seven times safer than road per passenger kilometre.

The external costs of rail in terms of noise, air pollution, accidents, infrastructure deterioration and congestion are much lower than using your private vehicle.

The National Trust lodges its objection to the WestConnex M4 East proposal because of its severe impact on Listed Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas and because, in the Trust's view, it diverts much needed public and private investment away from public transport development which can move large numbers of people more effectively and with much less adverse heritage impact.

Yours sincerely

Graham Quint
Director, Advocacy

Please see attached letter for my comments.

Please publish my 12 page submission 'WestConnex Project' together with Attachments 1 & 2 on Department of Planning & Environment website.

You may publish my name (Andrew Fraser) and the suburb (Kirribilli) where I reside

See attached.

17 October 2015


The Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Service
Department of Planning and Environment
Application Number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


To The Director,
We are the residence of 154 Ramsay Road, Haberfield and would like to bring to your attention the following concerns that have caused unnecessary stress to our family since the announcement of the current proposal of Westconnex.
1. Air Quality: We are at odds to understand that the current proposal states "that ventilation outlets would be better off unfiltered". How is it possible that unfiltered air be better for any resident in this area or any area for that matter? Current car emotions a spread along all the roads with each resident sharing the air quality, however, with this proposal you will be funnelling all the fumes to the one outlet. We were also advised that this is not only planned for this project but also for the future upgrades on the M5/airport connection.
Our request would be to install filtration systems on the ventilation outlets.

2. Increased Noise: This current proposal will move Wattle Street within 30 meters to our house, once the current dwellings will be demolished. This will significantly increase the traffic noise as the current intersection is more than 100 meters from our property with the currently dwellings still there.
Our request would be for some Architectural treatment to reduce the noise such as double glazing on all our windows and doors, surrounding the entire house.

3. Driveway Access: By moving the Wattle Street intersection within 30 meters of our driveway, it will make it virtually impossible to reverse out of our own driveway. Currently traffic already commences the queuing up of cars at the intersection with just taking up to 9 cars before access is blocked. The new intersection would only require for 3 cars before restrictions commences on trying to reverse out of our driveway. With two 70 year old driving residents currently living in this dwelling, reversing out of the drive way to travel to Haberfield for the essential would no longer be an option.
Our request would be for a property adjustment by installing a turning bay which would enable us to drive out of our driveway rather than reversing out.
4. Increase of Traffic: By installing a right hand turn from Wattle Street into Ramsay Street, you will not only increase the traffic congestion into Ramsay Street, but also giving an alternate route for cars to avoid traveling on the new Westconnex and avoid paying the tolls and bypassing the City West Link.
Our request would not to have the right hand turn into Ramsay Street approved. Cars would still be able to access Haberfield via Parramatta Road and Dalhousie Street if required.

We are more than happy to discuss these concerns with you and would much appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Kind regards



Pasquale and Rosa Calautti
Home Owners/Resident's

See PDF attached.

Refer to uploaded document attached

Please see attached.

Submission attached as pdf.

refer to attachment:

Submision is attached as scanned PDF

I am writing to indicate my strong opposition to the WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SS1 6307).
Global experience of major toll road construction has shown that these projects are counter productive, with poorly designed cost benefit analysis that has found to be flawed in ever major road development in NSW following operation (ie Cross City Tunnel). AECOM has recently been found deficient in their documentation for the Queensland toll road and are out of pocket for their negligence.
I object to this proposal because it will:
a. Encourage more cars instead of public transport and fails to provide any real relief to car users that must use the M4 (truck drivers and tradesmen);
b. Will make our air dirtier rather than improving air quality. Appendix H: Air quality impacts uses comparison data based on the existing PM10 standard (50ug/m3) when this standard will be reduced to 30-40ug/m3 in the near future. Particle pollution levels near the motorway already exceed the current PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Construction and operation of WestConnex will increase pollution concentrations and adverse health impacts.
c. I am not a air quality expert but it is not clear to me how increasing traffic will reduce emissions. (Appendix H, Figure 5.2, page 50). I am a chemist and understand that the law of conservation of matter.
d.The consultation information presented is biased. Ashfield council did not understand the extent of the development when offering positive comments to the project in 2012-13. There was no human to human contact with the business community or social community before release of the EIS.

See attached

Submission: WestConnex M4 East EIS (SSI 6307)
I wish to express my "strong objection" to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal. If built it will generate additional traffic, funnelling it into heavily congested inner city roads and there will be an UNFILTERED smoke stack 50 metres from my home spewing filth and poisoning my child. It will require the demolition of hundreds of homes to distribute the traffic from the motorway into tiny backstreets and rat runs..


I also wish to register my objection to the government awarding tenders for the project before a full business case has been publicly released and before the EIS had been published and the public has exercised its right of participation.
The EIS process is supposed to allow for genuine public input and to result, potentially, in approval, non-approval, or approval with modifications, of the project. Smells of corruption!!

The present procedure makes a mockery of that right as Duncan Gay has now created a corporation (of which he is a board member and will possibly make financial gain from it). Smells of corruption!!

Government funding for this proposal - as part of the whole WestConnex proposal - will claim an extraordinary proportion of the state transport budget for years to come. This being the case, I am outraged that the EIS has failed to honestly and fully discuss its social, environmental, and economic impacts or to explain why it is preferable to other, alternative public- and active transport solutions.


In particular I draw attention to the EIS's failure to:


* Adequately adhere to the rules governing the safe removal of Asbestos which is currently illegally being moved to a new dump across Sydney owned by a "Major Liberal Party Donator". Smells of corruption!!


* Factor into the traffic modelling the very large increase in apartment construction - and therefore of population - that has been promoted by the WestConnex Delivery Authority and other agencies as a major rationalisation for the proposal.

* Honestly discuss public transport and freight rail alternatives.

* Publish a robust business case to justify expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' funds.

* Properly describe the long term impacts of air pollution generated by the increased traffic volumes the project is designed to facilitate.

* Consider more sustainable public and active transport options that will produce a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions.

Please see attached submission

See Attachment

See attached