Western Sydney Stadium Concept Proposal & Stage 1

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to object to the proposal by Venues NSW to redevelop Pirtek Stadium and demolition of the Parramatta Memorial Pool.
Firstly, the EIS has neglected to consult the community during the preparation of the EIS and according to the SEARs Report this would make this application invalid. It would be appropriate to pull this report from exhibition and allow extra time to consult with the community.
The stadium at Moore Park is going to be renovated rather than detonated and for a mere seven thousand extra seats at Pirtek Stadium, this could be a suitable option. The fact that asbestos has been buried within the precinct would further make the renovation option more viable.
The size of the development is inappropriate. A stadium 42.5m high would impact on this sensitive historic heritage area. The World Heritage Listed Old Government House is close by and would have its vistas interrupted by a white elephant.
The Parramatta Council already has the Olympic Park precinct within its boundaries, how many more huge stadiums do we need?
The application states that "20,000 sqm of future use Ancillary development". This is not good enough. A detailed application is mandatory especially when it desires to develop Crown Land.
The Parramatta Memorial Pool is on Crown Land currently leased from Parramatta Park. The EIS neglected to address this and has not provided the relevant statutory notification as per the Crown Land Act.
Many schools in the area have utilized the Parramatta Memorial Pool for swimming lessons and carnivals. My father Mr Alex Perry being the first Professional coach and a life member teaching many thousands of children over the years. He took schools weekly during the school term and many schools continue to utilize it to learn this important skill. The migrant mix and large number of unit development in the area make this especially necessary and demolishing the pool would mean this would be detrimental both from a learn to swim aspect and recreational space. It is in one of the nicest settings around and having a huge stadium overshadowing it at 42.5m would be ugly.
I urge you to allow the community to have a say when it comes to the destruction of this important space.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Perry

Parramatta Leagues Club and the Parramatta eels Football Club support this development.
The Leagues Club is adjacent to the development site and requests ongoing consultation on development progress with a view to providing input as a major tenant and being aware of activities as a close neighbour.

As a financial member of the Western Sydney Wanderers Football Club I look forward to an upgrade of Pirtek Stadium not however at the cost of losing the Parramatta Memorial Swimming Pool or the potential impact upon the Fleet Street heritage precinct in North Parramatta.

I do not understand why a design can not be created that satisfies the overwhelming community need to retain the War Memorial pool in its current location and provide a state of the art stadium. To add insult to injury there are no firm commitments at this point to the funding and construction of a replacement. Why spend millions to build a replacement pool when the existing pool meets the community needs as is?

I am very concerned about a current trend of selling off crown land to developers to build multi storied blocks thrusting ever upwards and towering above everything. The only winners are the developers.

Further, I am concerned about the following points:


1. The SEARs Report issued by Department of Planning states under Consultation that "During the preparation of the EIS, you must consult with the relevant local, State or Commonwealth Government authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners" The Consultation Report lodged by Venues NSW reports under Community Consultation "Two Fan Forums were held on 18 January and 9 February 2016. The forums included representatives from the NRL teams - Bulldogs, West Tigers and Parramatta Eels, the Western Sydney Wanderers and from Football Federation Australia" Does this comply with the Department of Planning SEARs report by consulting with community groups during the preparation of the EIS. The EIS is premature and should be pulled from exhibition and meaningful consultation with community groups be carried out and a new consultation report submitted again with a new EIS submission.

2. The Parramatta War Memorial Pool currently leases land from the Parramatta Park Trust; this is Crown Land that was not identified in the EIS. Further the proposed change of use of Crown Land or land that is vested as part of the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001- did not go through the statutory notification process as per the Crown Land Act.

3. World Heritage Listed Old Government House and its Vistas will be compromised by a stadium height of 42.5 metres. This size of development is inappropriate for surrounding historically sensitive area.


In summary, I object to this submission.

I am strongly opposed to the current plans for the new stadium. There are several reasons I object to this proposal.
There was not adequate consultation with the community and affected groups. People who use both facilities were not given sufficient notice of events where feedback could be given. It is my opinion that the government is not interested in how this will effect the local community and are happy not to have their voices heard.
I also am appalled that the government can take public land and sell it off for private use. The public pool is used almost every day of the year and is there to benefit the whole community. The stadium will be owned by a private operator and run for profit and used for only a few days of the year by a specific group. Public land should stay in public hands.
The effect of the new stadiums height and dominance has not been considered in respect to the heritage listed government house. The vista from government house is one of the most beautiful views and a main reason heritage listing was given. The current stadium proposal would ruin this view.
Finally I have lived in the area my entire life and have used both the pool and the stadium for recreational use. I believe that the stadium can be redeveloped and have the pool still remain. The current plan for the stadium is extremely close to O'Connell Street, which is extremely busy when there is no event on. When there is an event, the amount of fans would be at risk due to the proximity road.
The plans should be reconsidered and a wholistic community proposal should be put in place.

Sport NSW is the peak body for sport in the state and represents state sporting organisations, state sporting organisations with a disability, clubs, volunteers and participants.

Sport NSW strongly supports the proposed demolition of Pirtek Stadium and re-build of the Western Sydney Stadium.

The new stadium will provide a level of customer experience far superior to the current venue, which in turn will attract more people to the sporting events held there. Participation in sport is so often stimulated by witnessing the elite level first hand. Providing this opportunity to more people, in better conditions, will go a long way towards increasing participation levels in community level sport.

The stadium will also cater for female participation (both players and officials) in a way the existing stadium currently does not. This will result in an increased level of women's sport being played at the new stadium (compared to existing) which will again flow through to encouraging higher levels of participation among women and girls.

The stadium will be able to host significant events on the local sporting calendar, such as finals, representative games and carnivals. Another incentive to participate is the lure of playing at the best stadiums available. Making a world class facility available to local and community sporting groups for significant events will lift the profile, prestige and appeal of those events, which is yet another driver of participation.

Sport NSW is also of the view that the enhanced surrounds of the stadium will add to the atmosphere, perceived accessibility and enjoyment of attending sporting events. This is critical to driving repeat visits to the stadium.

Whilst the enhanced surroundings will result in the demolition of the existing aquatic centre, Sport NSW understands that plans are in place for the aquatic centre to be re-located within a reasonably short distance. This is seen as vital by Sport NSW to enable those users of the aquatic centre to continue to participate in their sport or recreation activity of choice.

Ultimately, the re-building of both the stadium and aquatic centre provides outstanding outcomes for sport and for increasing participation in sport. Accordingly Sport NSW strongly supports the development as planned.

I would like to express my concern and dismay about the concept design for a new stadium and DA for the demolition of the existing stadium and the Parramatta War Memorial Pool and the process to date.

1.There was insufficient community consultation as stated in the SEARS Report "During the preparation of the EIS, you must consult with the relevant local, State or Commonwealth Government authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners" - giving only sports fans an opportunity to have their say is not enough!!

Venues NSW must initiate more consultation and submit a new report that reflects true community opinion. The current EIS needs to be retracted and resubmitted with new consultation findings.

2.The proposal states that there will be only another 7000 seats added to the stadium.
The 20,000sqm of land not used by the proposed new stadium is said to be for `future use ancillary development" - what does that mean?? More Units? More shopping centres? This must be clarified.

3.I am very concerned about the impact of the height of the proposed stadium on Old Government House and the effect it might have on a potential world heritage listing for the site. The heritage precinct is important not only to the people of Parramatta and surrounding suburbs but to everyone in Australia in regard to its colonial historical significance.

I have several points to raise over the above submission:
- Contrary to the SEARs request the Community Consultation is flawed as there was no sampling of pool users during peak times. The EIS contains a graph of peak periods but as the EIS did not commence until well after this period it failed to consult users of the pool about the social impacts of demoloshing the pool will have. The President of the Swimming Club is not a representative sample of casual swimmers.
- Part of the reason and a further objection is that no where in the EIS title:Western Sydney Stadium (Concept & Stage 1 Demolition) does the word 'demolition of the Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Centre' appear. I believe this is quite deliberate so as not to raise awareness to otherwise uninterested parties that they are about to lose their pool. The Short Title of the EIS needs to state what planning approval it is being assessed. The EIS fails this test.
- Community groups in the area were also excluded from the Community Consultation process. NPRAG is recognized by the NSW State Government and Venues NSW as a representative group within the PArramatta LGA but were not interviewed DURING THE EIS DEVELOPMENT PERIOD. Therefore the EIS failed to comply with a request within the Sears and is therefore not compliant. The EIS fails on this point.
- Mant schools were canvassed privately regarding the potential poss of the pool and 3 months ago no school within the Parramatta LGA that NPRAG members contacted were aware of this fact. Again the EIS fails in not contacting the schools most likely affected by the loss of the pool.
- I challenge the use of the term 'ancillary' to describe a blankjet planning approval for 20,000 sqm which amount ot almost four football fields; not an insignificant amount of land. If at this stage the Proponent does not know what they want to build there then why not exclude it from this EIS (it is a demolition EIS after all) and either release it back to the public, or at least exclude it from this Approval. The tern 'ancillary' has been challenged and there is a precedent against its blanket usage such as 'backstop' or 'weasel words' some some non descript development later on. Its use here again suggests that the EIS has been rushed and in so doing has fallen short of it intended purpose in law and is not compliant with the 'spirit' of the 'EP&A Act NSW'.
- The EIS states that there are plans for a new swimming centre within the old golf course but at a recent meeting withe Parramatta Administrator she was not prepared to say that this was so. There have been no Council minutes regarding this and therefore the EIS is falsifying documents that doesn't exist and misquoting non-existent government members as no names or titles are attributed to comments. The EIS not only fails on this point but its authors should be made to produce these documents or else fall on their swords for false statements and publish a very clear retraction.

I totally object to Premier Baird's (and the Department of Planning's) decision to close the Parramatta Swimming Pool, at the expense of a new stadium.
The original plan should be adhered to ie increase seating in the existing stadium and look at various refurbishments. We only have limited resources and they should not be squandered by having to relocate and excavate a whole new pool - at a cost of $300 million.
But if you want knock down the stadium, move the new one just a few metres - as articles have indicated can happen, without the need for a whole new stadium elsewhere.
Premier Baird and NSW Planning have become increasingly autocratic and undemocratic. You are not listening at all to the community objections. And you will not get my vote anymore.
You simply want to cram more and more people into our Centres, with complete disregard for the community and residents. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
And I'm surprised you can sleep at night with such biased and ill-thought out plans. And that you made the Western Sydney Stadium a state significant site, which means it is exempt from the state's planning instruments, reflects your arrogance and complete lack of care for residents and the community. And with the debacle of the Eels Board, the Leagues Club doesn't even deserve or warrant a new stadium. The Board's behaviour is incomprehensible and shouldn't be rewarded. (And don't tell me players weren't aware of the extra perks they were receiving, above their cap).
And what was the point of the recent open day - 6/8/16?
The Government is simply powering on with its plans, no matter what feedback you receive.
Shameful - and disgusting.
I look forward to your feedback and happy to discuss any matter I've raised - but I know you won't contact me - and will just ignore what all objectors say.
So, tell me, why is the matter even on exhibition, seeking community input?

Dear Department of Environment and Planning,

Below are major concerns that indicate that the process of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for the demolition of the Parramatta Stadium and demolition of the Parramatta Swimming Pool was not conducted in accordance with legal requirements. Thus it should not be accepted as adequate or approved.

1. There was no consultation with community in preparatory period of the EIS of those live close to stadium in any direction nor did I see any consultation with schools or other community groups who use and value the current swimming pool represented. While fans visit temporarily on `event days' and businesses/clubs near the stadium that reap income from these visitors are one class of stakeholders - meetings with these vested interests do not represent the interests of community who in a continuing way seek to sustain the amenity of the place and contribute via rates etc to the actual infrastructure of the district. And I will declare, I have been an Eels fan for over a decade and keen to support the Wanderers.

2. During the exhibition period, it is legally too late to solicit responses from the ongoing community members or organisations. And to-date it clearly was too difficult for people to visualise the increase in height or expansion of footprint of the proposed new stadium in a way that allows people to actually feel the impacts of the height of a proposed stadium on the surrounding area, including the heritage listed environs of Old Government House and other first settlement sites in the vicinity.

3. On close inspection of the plans, that there is such a high proportion of unspecified development or use of ground in the plans (i.e 20,000 sqm of ancillary development) also means that any community members consulted can have no realistic idea of the impact of the stadium development in such a sensitive area. So cannot be considered to have been consulted on the actual nature of the plans when so much is not spelled out. Those consulted focused on games-related use of the site held from whatever point of view (fan, merchandiser, teams, concessions) can't be expected to keep an eye on this dimension of the plans. I.e. that public or government could be approving of almost any kind of development.

4. That in the plans the fact that Crown Land would be dug up was not notified to appropriate authorities prior to the request for an EIS, nor acknowledged in the EIS proposal also calls the process into question. This lack of acknowledgement or notification appears not to conform to legal requirements. This notification procedure is part of the safeguards to protect Parramatta Park. It might be the case that those employed by the Park were ignorant or ignored the Crown Land status in this case. Which of these that it is is not clear.

5. Various events scheduled in Old Government House have already had to be shifted or abandoned because of excessive noise from the stadium due its proximity. The necessary actions of these users of the Old Government House prove how vulnerable this first settlement heritage precinct is to changes to the stadium. The value and amenity of the heritage sites adjacent is poised to be reduced by the increased height, footprint and traffic on current appearances. The immanent World Heritage listing is relevant and no approval or action should be taken on this development until this is determined. Old Government House has been there for 200 years. Football will still be present once this determination is clear. And then harmonious planning can take place that will not have all kinds of people - visitors, customers, weddings and events organisers, park users, tourism promoters, fans and community residents for example regretting unintended consequences of the current stadium proposal. If the Heritage views are undermined, that is destroyed, there is NO viable heritage tourist precinct to be promoted in the future. Simple assertions of belief, by those seeking to take over greater amounts of public space for recreation, that undermining of the heritage value will not take place does not change this potentially immanent reality. Such damage cannot be reversed. The greater the risk, the greater the need for close attention.

6. The scale of the stadium development raises the question - what provision has been made to protect the future residents of the apartments immediately across the road on O'Connell St from the major hazards of the increased use, height and bi-weekly light and noise pollution from the proposed Stadium Development. Being less than 30 metres away there is no doubt it will effect them. Has the developer of these apartments been informed of the impacts? It will bring their value down and require added building specifications for these units to remain liveable.

7. A single day/evenings' observation (ie. June 8th, 2016) of visible bats is inadequate to assess the impact of the cumulative density of development of buildings (heights & construction types), human traffic across all the hectares earmarked for development on the western side of O'Connell St from the Gaol to the golf course on: flyways, roosting and other environmental impacts on fauna. It is a valid professional question whether the buffer zone borrowed from other plans and marked around known colonies of endangered/vulnerable species accurately predicts ANY degree of protection for the species living in Parramatta and adjacent places at all. Also, the proposed plans for pool demolition and stadium development can not be accurately weighed up in isolation from all other changes to the natural environment in Parramatta - i.e apartment developments, new club buildings and stadiums with accompanying increase in human-environment interaction. So much human energy has been invested over time to rebuild the natural environment of the precinct - green space that contributes to liveability and attractiveness of Parramatta - real environmental protection requires sound research plus a total vision - not small patch by small patch.

I strongly oppose the proposal due to:
- unacceptable demolition of a war memorial
- change of public land to profit-making private recreation and use of the land only for elite recreation not public recreation (not encouraging the public to be active)
- lack of proper consideration, including:
- no Arboricultural Impact Assessment and inaccurate representation of trees to be removed and retained (has only shown trees removed within footprint of stadium, not all the surrounding development and regrading which will most likely necessitate tree removal)
- extreme under provision of parking will make event days a traffic nightmare
- surrounding residents and passive recreation suffer from noise and light pollution already from the existing stadium, the new increased size will increase this
- future of existing carpark not disclosed, nor is location of training field
- lack of proper consultation - people only got to comment if they were sports fans - this will effect the whole community not just the end users of the land taken from the public for private profit
- inappropriate scale for the setting adjacent heritage Parramatta Park

The Western Sydney Wanderers Football Club submits their strong support of the proposed development of Western Sydney Stadium.

As a fully engaged member of the consultation process from the outset, we feel that the managing body tasked with this project has been authentic to the premise of the new development and the footprint it will create in Parramatta. We await the approval for first stage demolition of the site so that the stadium can continue its momentum to its expected 2019 completion date.

The impact this venue will have on the region when complete will be substantial and allow our club to continue to service its members and fans in Western Sydney in a state-of-the-art sports entertainment precinct.

Following review of the EIS and the work involved in the community consultation process the Western Sydney Wanderers Football Club is fully supportive of the proposed development of Western Sydney Stadium.

I object to the proposed demolition of Parramatta Pool to make way for a bigger sports stadium.

As a former resident of Parramatta & Westmead for more than 28 years, I understand the importance of Parramatta Pool to the local community, in particular to families with young children. In the hot days of summer, in particular, when access to Sydney's cooling & restorative beaches is difficult, going to the pool is a welcome & manageable outing & a great relief from the heat.

Parramatta residents have a right to have affordable, accessible & health-promoting recreational facilities that support their wellbeing & enjoyment of life. Parramatta Pool has been one such facility & must be maintained to support the quality of life in the area.

Build a bigger stadium if you must, but not by selling off & sacrificing this valued community resource.

I object to the proposed demolition of Parramatta Pool to make way for a bigger sports stadium.

As a former resident of Parramatta & Westmead for more than 28 years, I understand the importance of Parramatta Pool to the local community, in particular to families with young children. In the hot days of summer, in particular, when access to Sydney's cooling & restorative beaches is difficult, going to the pool is a welcome & manageable outing & a great relief from the heat.

Parramatta residents have a right to have affordable, accessible & health-promoting recreational facilities that support their wellbeing & enjoyment of life. Parramatta Pool has been one such facility & must be maintained to support the quality of life in the area.

Build a bigger stadium if you must, but not by selling off & sacrificing this valued community resource.

To Whom It May Concern,

Thankyou for the opportunity to make a submission with respect to Environmental Impact Statement on Exhibition for the staged development application for concept proposal for Western Sydney Stadium.

I am not satisfied that genuine and robust community consultation has been conducted, and request that the proponent be made responsible for further engagement with community organisations from a broader cross section of the local community before being considered to have satisfied the SEARs. The proponent's EIS - Appendix D - Consultation - refers to the consultation process engaging the community to `inform the design of the Western Sydney stadium', and to `engage...local communities early in the planning process' and `ensure the views of the community and stakeholders are considered and addressed during the preparation of the EIS.' It follows then that the proponent would engage in extensive, comprehensive and early consultation with the community. However the proponent's own detail of community consultation in this Appendix D refers only to two fan forums focused on NRL supporters, FFA and Western Sydney Wanderers. Clearly the input of these key users is important, however considering that this represents significant, even sufficient consultation with the community of users of this site, or the community of interest around this site, is false. Community consultation in the design of the Western Sydney Stadium and the preparation of this EIS is insufficient for a project of this scale and of impacts as significant as proposed. It is incumbent upon the Department of Planning and Environment to insist upon further community consultation before this application is accepted.

Strictly speaking, the SEARs report issued by Department of Planning states under Consultation that "During the preparation of the EIS, you must consult with the relevant local, State or Commonwealth Government authorities, service providers, community groups and affected landowners". The EIS Appendix D Consultation reports under Community Consultation "Two Fan Forums were held on 18 January and 9 February 2016. The forums included representatives from the NRL teams - Bulldogs, West Tigers and Parramatta Eels, the Western Sydney Wanderers and from Football Federation Australia". This would indicate that the proponent did not engage in these community consultations during the preparation of the EIS, as these consultations were completed by February 2016, two months prior to issue of the SEARs. Respectfully, this community consultation can only have garnered the feedback of a specific section of the community with direct links to the sporting codes represented in these Fan Forums and this is not a sufficient representation of the breadth of the community effected by the proposal, and I request again that the proponent be made responsible for further engagement with community organisations from a broader cross section of the local community before being considered to have satisfied the SEARs.

With respect to SEARs, the EIS is not, as the SEARs requires
accompanied by a report from a qualified quantity surveyor providing:
· an estimate of jobs that will be created during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development;
Rather CIV is provided in the Quantity Surveyor's Report Appendix Q, with no estimates of job creation. A very brief narrative is provided at section 3.2.7 Future operation of Western Sydney Stadium. However, this appears to be another instance where the EIS does not meet the requirements of the SEARs. I apologise in advance if I have misread this information, but I could not find that the EIS provided this information in the format required by SEARs.

Further, whilst addressing a desire to meet strategic objectives such as those in A Plan for Growing Sydney such as `increasing the city's capacity to attract big ticket events to NSW', no communications material nor the EIS evidence a market demand for big ticket events or any assessment of the sustainability of this strategy. Given the significant ask of the local community's support and faith in this project, providing a strong evidence base that this strategy of building infrastructure to support big ticket events has a prospect of success, is prudent.

Section 17.4.2 - Economic - refers to potential economic benefits to local businesses through anticipated pedestrian activity in Parramatta CBD. However this assessment has not demonstrated any consultation with these Parramatta CBD businesses who presumably have a degree of expertise in the viability and validity of this prediction. In addition, existing business operators who have operated through existing event days at Pirtek Stadium would be able to provide anecdotal perhaps even quantitative evidence of whether there is even an existing economic benefit to local business through existing pedestrian activity on existing stadium event days. Surely this is a valuable contribution given the lack of any other solid modelling demonstrated in this EIS.

The Parramatta War Memorial Pool currently leases land from the Parramatta Park Trust; this is Crown Land that was not identified in the EIS. Further the proposed change of use of Crown Land or land that is vested as part of the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001- did not go through the statutory notification process as per the Crown Land Act.

I object to this proposal on the basis that the World Heritage Listed Old Government House and its vistas will be compromised by a stadium height of 42.5 metres. This size of development is inappropriate for surrounding historically sensitive area. I do appreciate the need for progress and infrastructure but by no means should this compromise World Heritage Listing of the Old Government House site, the loss of which would be irreversible and of much greater loss than any potential gains afforded by the Western Sydney Stadium.

Regards,

Please see attached.

Please see attached.

Please see attached.

Please find attached my comments and objection

See attachment

My submissions are in the attachment called "Pool Attachment: Response to EIS on the Western Sydney Stadium from Tim Chate dated 16 August 2016"