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: 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

I wish to express my objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal as per attached.