WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Attention Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

All comments in this submission pertain to the Concord Road interchange and the associated construction sites and their effect on 74 concord road unless otherwise noted.
RE: Local Residences - Demolition Works
During site perpetration works there are dozens of homes to be demolished and sites cleared. Are these workers controlled under the same EIS and construction site guidelines? If these workers are subcontractors as they most likely are, what controls are in place to ensure that all subcontractors are aware and compliant with agreed policies and controls in place for the project?
A number of residences to be demolished are very old and may contain any number of different contaminants (e.g. lead paints and asbestos). What control actions are in place for the proactive identification of hazardous substances, especially asbestos, and their subsequent safe removal?
I would it also noted that properties of similar age have often found toxic products buried on site.
I request that these details be made available for public comment prior to the approval of any site works.
Reference articles indicating that exiting policies may be inadequate:
Sydney Morning herald: "Clean-up of asbestos on WestConnex site in St Peters under scrutiny"
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cleanup-of-asbestos-on-westconnex-site-in-st-peters-under-scrutiny-20150925-gjuvbw.html
Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "Residents living near expansion of WestConnex not warned of asbestos piles".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/residents-not-warned-of-asbestos-next-to-westconnex-site/6769660
Yours Sincerely
David Manning
74 Concord Road North Strathfield

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning


RE: Submission: WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 6307)


I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I object to this proposal as it will have destructive impacts on heritage registered sites and buildings. Inclusive are buildings registered at: Local, State and National levels.

In particular I object to the demolition, destruction or relocation of any Heritage registered items or buildings either in part or whole across the entire Westconnex project, starting with the M4 part of this Westconnex project.

Those items and buildings that have been identified and are registered as Heritage listed items at any level of government (whether it be Local, State or National) should and must be preserved in their entirety in their current state on their current sites.

The fact that these buildings have been identified and registered as being significant should be enough justification of their importance to our community; our history; and our culture and must be preserved.

Workaround solutions for these items and buildings should in my opinion be mandated and be a key focus area across all the Westconnex project stages. There is no excuse as to why this should not be mandated as part of detailed design phase of all Westconnex project stages and strictly adhered to.

According to the New M5 SSI Application Report found on your website (page ii and 13):

"..consistent with the Westconnex program of works, ... an objective to protect natural and cultural resources and enhance the environment through the following key approaches:
....Minimise impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage"


Respectfully, "minimise" is not good enough. Total preservation of any heritage listed item or building in its entirety on the present site it occupies is the only acceptable outcome.


Thank you for considering this submission.

Pam Markellos

Attention Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

All comments in this submission pertain to the Concord Road interchange and the associated construction sites and their effect on 74 concord road unless otherwise noted.
RE: Site Monitoring
What procedures are in place for air quality, noise and vibration and subsidence monitoring during and around the construction sites?
I can see in the EIS that there is a single permanent air quality monitoring station on the east site of the proposed Concord Road Acoustic Shed for the whole Concord Road interchange site, but what additional monitoring is going to be in place (if any) around the construction site. I note that this is on the east side of the proposed acoustic shed which is on the opposite side of the shed to the construction sites. This will obviously produce a more conservative reading set. I would like to see an additional semi-permanent monitoring station positioned in a more central location t the construction sites as a better measure of the effect on residents that are close to the sites. I also note that the residents that are most likely to be effected by the constructions site are on the Sydney street section due to the nature (open air stock pile), proximity, and lack of a shed barrier to the sites, and would therefore be a more accurate representation of the sites effect on residents.
Have (or will) additional high risk areas be identified and additional, high frequency, monitoring be put in place to ensure compliance?
Generally, regarding monitoring to ensure compliance with agree limits for air quality, noise, vibration, and pollution. What monitoring will be in place to ensure that the limits as detailed are complied with (Air quality, noise, vibration)?
Is the monitoring Â`liveÂ' to a central control? So that if limits re breached the site is informed and actions taken to prevent any additional breach and minimise the impact of the existing one.
If the monitoring is not Â`liveÂ', then what is the monitoring schedule? An extended monitoring period may not identify high levels of exceedance for a prolonged period, potentially causing irreversible effects. Does this monitoring schedule allow adequate response time if/when an exceedance occurs? I is of little to no help to the community if exceedances are not reported in a timely manner to allow rectification of the cause. Where retained historical data may provide evidence that an exceedance has occurred and be useful for analysis after the event, it does nothing to protect the local community from short term exposure to potentially extremely high exceedance levels. I request that Â"liveÂ" monitoring be utilised on site, if not generally, in areas that are high risk areas fo the community to minimise the effect of any exceedance and to better identify potential causes of an exceedance to make mitigation measures more accurate and effective.
What level of ground movement monitoring are to be conducted and on what schedule? If operations cause ground movement what time period could be reasonable expected to pass before it is identified, so that rectification/mitigation measures can be put in place. Are individual buildings going to be surveyed to identify a base line for ground movement measurement? What level of survey is to be conducted (a few key points, cloud scanning, etc.)?
I request that no approval is given to this project until there is adequate review of the monitoring effectiveness, relevance to the effect that the construction works will have on local communities and that the results from the review and the associated plan are made public for comment and information.
Yours Sincerely
David Manning
74 Concord Road North Strathfield

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning


RE: Submission: WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 6307)


I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I object to this proposal as it will have destructive impacts on heritage registered sites and buildings. Inclusive are buildings registered at: Local, State and National levels.

In particular I object to the demolition, destruction or relocation of any Heritage registered items or buildings either in part or whole across the entire Westconnex project, starting with the M4 part of this Westconnex project.

Those items and buildings that have been identified and are registered as Heritage listed items at any level of government (whether it be Local, State or National) should and must be preserved in their entirety in their current state on their current sites.

The fact that these buildings have been identified and registered as being significant should be enough justification of their importance to our community; our history; and our culture and must be preserved.

Workaround solutions for these items and buildings should in my opinion be mandated and be a key focus area across all the Westconnex project stages. There is no excuse as to why this should not be mandated as part of detailed design phase of all Westconnex project stages and strictly adhered to.

According to the New M5 SSI Application Report found on your website (page ii and 13):

"..consistent with the Westconnex program of works, ... an objective to protect natural and cultural resources and enhance the environment through the following key approaches:
....Minimise impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage"


Respectfully, "minimise" is not good enough. Total preservation of any heritage listed item or building in its entirety on the present site it occupies is the only acceptable outcome.


Thank you for considering this submission.

Pam Markellos

Attention Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

All comments in this submission pertain to the Concord Road interchange and the associated construction sites and their effect on 74 concord road unless otherwise noted.
RE: Future Development
The future development of the concord interchange sites shows parklands in the EIS. As a resident that shares a boundary with the project (74 Concord road) it is of high importance to the value of my property what will be constructed after WestConnex is completed. The three houses next time mine are planned to be demolished to facilitate the access roads cut and cover section. WestConnex have not been able to indicate what will replace the existing residences (72 to 68 Concord road) when the project is completed, siting that that it will be returned to RMS.
I believe residences have right to know what the proposed plan is for the blocks that are being demolished as these plan greatly affect the liveability and value of neighbouring properties. With specific regards to the cut and cover section, this must be designed to a specific load capacity, which would limit the options for future development.
I request information to be made publically available on the possible future development potential and RMS plans for redevelopment of the site. I would also request that the public be allowed to be involved in the design and development of any public spaces that are proposed to remain after the project.
Yours Sincerely
David Manning
74 Concord Road North Strathfield

My submission is in attachement 1 uploaded PDF file

Please find uploaded:
1) A copy of Leichhardt Council's Submission Letter regarding the M4 East EIS
2) A copy of the Council Report, outlining the submission and the reasons behind it - as presented to Council on 27 October 2015

Attention Director
Infrastructure Projects, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

All comments in this submission pertain to the Concord Road interchange and the associated construction sites and their effect on 74 concord road unless otherwise noted.
RE: General EIS Comments
The EIS is s significant document totalling (at last count) 4377 pages. While this is great to have as a PDF, so that it can be searched and commented, the PDF is lacking in professional construction concepts. Content pages are not hyperlinks to the relevant section and landscape pages are not rotated independently for online viewing. The over use of acronyms and abbreviations, not all of which are listing in the references tables, make the document even harder to read and ensures that the reader must develop a detailed understanding of the area being discussed in order to gain any understanding at all.
Meanwhile providing this document in only digital form disadvantages many affected members of the community that are not familiar with reviewing digital documents and may not even have access to a computer. While I appreciate that it is available for review at various locations, but I have also found the advisors at some public locations to not be familiar with the document enough to be able to adequately assist. Where bulk printing and offering to at a minimal cost to particularly interested people would overcome this, where an individual would be forced to spend in excess of $280 to print it privately.
The review period for a document this large is extremely restrictive, is not in alignment with other industries review periods and it does not provide a reasonable amount of time for the community to review the EIS, keeping in mind that these are member of the community who need to do this as well as all other commitments of day to day life, like work. I also find that the EIS is not very well formatted for a community consultation document. Many figures and tables are not fully explained or lack detail.
In summary I believe the EIS has not been produced in a manner appropriate for the intended purpose of informing the community and allowing the community to comment on the project. It assumes a high level of comprehension of technical detail and jargon, access to a computer and the ability to adequately read a digital document. The EIS review period is too short for the size and complexity of the project, a quick calculation (pages x 1 page per minute) would require 73 hours to read the whole document, but does not allow for comprehension or proper analysis of the information provided. I request that no approval is given to the project until an appropriate considered public communication is facilitated.
Yours Sincerely
David Manning
74 Concord Road North Strathfield

Please find our submission on the attached pdf document

To whom it may concern,
I am making the following submission to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) exhibition for the WestConnex M4 East Tunnel Project (SSI 6307).

I am concerned about the health and safety of residents and children especially students at local school with 500m of 2 portals and tunnel stack. Included is a submission stating these major issues.

Refer to PDF attachment

My submission to the EIS for the WestConnex M4 East project is attached as a PDF File

Noise mitigation requirement:
* Requesting noise and vibration and air quality monitoring throughout the project duration.
* Provide for additional monitors in the residential area (requires access agreements for these properties)
* Improve reporting and availability of monitoring data.
* Haulage route for heavy vehicles are too close to Taylor Street residents backyard considering amount of traffic movement outlined in your document (14 heavy + 14 light vehicles per hour over 300 days) accumulative noise will be unbearable during the evening.
* Requesting to relocate both entry and exit haulage route next to the canal
* 4.5 m high hoarding in the east of Cintra Park is not enough for the noise level during 24/7 tunnelling operation and heavy volume of traffic s predicted in your document. In addition requesting to provide acoustic measures to houses in Taylor street such as triple glazed to windows facing west (East of Cintra park construction compound) to shield noise from continuous heavy and light vehicle noises (especially after midnight). Please note Residents leaving in the area are with various age profiles (e.g. children under 5 years, Teen age school kids and retired people over 80 years of age)

Cintra Park Permanent tunnel support facilitates
As a Taylor Street resident we like to request relocate sedimentation pond and treatment plant facilities. We believe moving next to the canal closer to the concord oval is more desirable and suitable from aesthetic and safety point of view. . The current location is too close the boundary of Taylor street residents and would cause safety issues in future and will also cause noise issues from the treatment plant for residents.
We also like to request 2 hour maximum parking (24 hour) parking restriction for non-residents at the Taylor Street during whole construction period. We also request you to erect a signboard at the intersections of Taylor Street, Parramatta Road and Queens Road outlining `no heavy vehicle entry".

Please see attached.

1. Request for the abolition of the planned Concord interchange, suggesting that the better alternative for access from Concord Road to the M4 West involves improving the current route via a dedicated left turn east from Concord Road into Parramatta Road and a dedicated left turn from Parramatta Road North onto the M4 Westbound. There is no good reason commercial or otherwise not to compulsorarily acquire the commercial property on the corner of Parramatta Road and Concord Road sufficient to permit the dedicated left lane access to the M4 West. Doing so would alleviate the significant visual and noise impairment for the local residents associated with the proposed West Bound on ramp bridge / flyover to a height of 8 metres which cannot be justified. Please also see the attached PDF submission for more detail and additional comments.
2. Concord Road is not an appropriate road for a 'light horse' style interchange bridge. Current traffic movement north on Concord Road to Ryde is significantly impaired by the intersection at Homebush Bay Drive. It is of significant concern that the proposed interchange will further exacerbate traffic blockages to the North on Concord Road as well as to the South adding traffic congestion to the noise and visual impairment that will be associated with this monster proposed flyover construction. See attached PDF submission for more detailed comments.
3. Remove Concord Road / Sydney Street from being the site of a Construction centre. The streets aligning Concord Road to the East and Patterson and Gipps Streets to the South already have restricted egress for residents and the current traffic in those residential streets is both busy and dangerous as a result of the traffic congestion on Gipps / Patterson Streets and Concord Road during peak hours. It is a significant concern to residents that the traffic congestion in our residential streets will be made untenable particularly during the significant 3 year construction phase of the project unless construction vehicular access and eggress as currently proposed as a result of the location of the Construction site can be removed from the area. In addition the area may require assisted road restrictions to through traffic via these residential streets during the construction phase for the reasonable convenience and safety of residents. In addition see further comments and detail provided in the attached PDF.
4. Request for the Tunnel route to follow Parramatta Road. Please see the attached PDF submission.

Document attached

Please find attached my submission to this proposed project

See attached file.

I am uploading my submission. You have my permission to publish my name but NOT my address. Thankyou.