Sean English
Object
Sean English
Object
Scott Rudd
Comment
Scott Rudd
Comment
Haberfield
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission on the Environmental Impact Statement
Scott Rudd: Mobile Phone 0418 261 248
Jane Robinson: Mobile Phone 0402 114 288
Attention Director Infrastructure Projects,
Planning Services Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
To whom it may concern,
We live at 1 Cove Street, Haberfield.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in relation to the M4 East disclosed the proposed location of the tunnel sites.
We have the following concerns in relation to the proximity of our home, and other homes in the heritage conservation area on Wolseley and Cove Streets, to the proposed M4 East `Northcote Street tunnel site'.
1. Misleading original information
We would like to register our extreme distress with the misleading/incorrect original information released by the Westconnex Development Authority (WDA).
We made a decision to remain in our home on the basis that we would not be directly diagonally opposite the proposed construction site. We now understand that an additional home in the heritage conservation area has been acquired, 3 Wolseley Street, and our home will be completely exposed. The EIS aerial photographs are not as per the original aerial photographs. We have a copy of the original aerial photographs.
2. Noise
As stated, the EIS aerial photographs show that our home is directly diagonally opposite the proposed construction site.
The EIS states that the `tunnelling works are proposed to be carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week' (section 6.7.2). We are very concerned about the impact of the construction project noise.
Does our home qualify for on-site noise reduction or `at-property acoustic treatment'? We have reviewed the EIS and figure 10.7, and have been unable to establish whether our home qualifies for on-site noise reduction measures or other `at-property treatment'.
What measures will be employed in on-site noise reduction?
* We request double glazing of exposed windows, and reinforcement of the stain glass in our front door and side windows.
* We request the installation of ducted air-conditioning.
* We request a payment subsidy in relation to the air-conditioning. If not for construction, we would open the front door and windows of our home and rely on the cross breeze to cool our home.
What are the forecasted mean and peak noise levels during the hours of 6.30pm - 6.30am during (1) demolition of existing site, (2) construction of working site and (3) ongoing operation of site? We have struggled to understand Table 10.4 in the EIS.
Please confirm that the increase in noise due to work of Subakette/Ausgrid on Wolseley Street during October and November 2015, will be excised from the determination of `ambient' noise. The home at 5 Wolseley Street currently has a microphone installed in the front garden that we understand will be used to assess ambient noise. We are concerned that the noise related to the cable laying by Subakette/Ausgrid, involving daily use of heavy equipment and a generator to pull the cable through, will impact what will be considered as usual `ambient' noise. In addition, the concrete box in which the cables currently sit is not level with the road and causes a thumping sound when driven over by a car.
We have read section 10.3.1 of the EIS, and while difficult to understand, we believe the ambient or `background noise levels', form the basis of the acceptable noise management level.
How will noise be measured and monitored during the project?
What variation will be considered acceptable?
How will an unacceptable variation be addressed?
Who will be the contact person for local residents at the construction site?
3. Vibration
Our home is less than 200 metres from the Northcote tunnel site. We are concerned that vibrations will damage the foundations of our home.
What is the forecasted vibrations resulting from the tunnel excavator? We have struggled to understand section 10.3.2 of the EIS, and the 'Vibration damage goals'.
When are the vibrations expected to be the worst?
What measures will be taken to protect our heritage conservation area home from this damage? The EIS observes that `BS 7385 states that "a building of historical value should not (unless it is structurally unsound) be assumed to be more sensitive"' (section 10-12).
Our home is over 100 years old. We have spent a considerable amount of time and money maintaining our home, and well appreciate the issues of age. We are astounded that such a statement could be made regarding the impact of vibrations.
Who will be the contact person for local residents at the construction site?
4. Traffic
Our home is on the corner of Wolseley and Cove Streets - quiet residential streets.
We are concerned that, on top of construction noise, our streets will be subject to the noise of additional traffic due to:
* the closing of Northcote Street;
* people `rat running' to avoid turning from Parramatta Road onto Wattle Street - a practice which may also be driven by the additional truck traffic from the construction site;
* workers heading to and from the construction site.
We have reviewed the EIS but have not been able to identify where this is taken into account.
What is the forecasted increase in traffic on Wolseley and Cove Streets during (1) demolition of existing site, (2) construction of working site and (3) ongoing operation of site?
How will this be monitored for the duration of the project? How will any issues be addressed? We note the EIS disclosure that our home, and other homes in these streets, will already be subject to (among) the highest levels of noise and other disruption during construction.
We note the proposed route for construction trucks connected to the project: entering on Parramatta Road and exiting onto Wattle Street. The EIS states that `construction traffic is not predicted to significantly increase traffic noise.' We request written confirmation that construction trucks connected to the project will NOT be using Wolseley or Cove Streets, for the duration of the project stages.
5. Parking
The EIS discloses that the shift peak construction workforce numbers at the Northcote tunnel site will vary between approximately 75 and 135 per day (table 6.21).
The EIS states that the `majority of the construction sites would have parking for the construction workforce based at those sites' (6.6.5). However, we had understood from an Ashfield community meeting that the workforce for the Northcote tunnel site would be brought in by bus.
If parking is on-site, where will the construction workforce park?
Wolseley and Cove Streets currently struggle to cope with the demands of taxi change-over parking, and will not cope with the additional demands of the construction workforce.
How will parking and associated issues be monitored?
6. Local council rates
We request subsidised local council rates for the duration of the construction project in recognition of, and to compensate us for, the location of the `Northcote Street tunnel site'. The proximity of our home to the construction site, means that we will be subject to (among) the highest levels of noise, disruption and inconvenience to our lives and livelihoods, during construction.
7. Post project use of CA Wolseley Street
The EIS states that `future use of the Northcote Street tunnel site would be subject to separate assessment and planning approval' (Section 6.5.8).
We understand that the `Northcote Street tunnel site' has been transferred to the WDA. Following construction the site is proposed to be transferred back to the RMS. We understand that the RMS then propose to sell the site to the highest bidder.
We request confirmation that the purchaser will be required to comply with local council planning laws. We are concerned that the NSW Department of Planning, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) provide the NSW State government with the authority to over-rule the local council, which at this point in time is Ashfield Council.
We request written confirmation from the NSW State government that the NSW State government will not override the local government planning policy post completion of the project which restricts high rise development. We understand that the land is currently zoned light industrial, with an 11.5m height restriction.
8. NSW stamp duty
We paid an enormous amount of money, including stamp duty to the NSW State government, for a home in a heritage conservation area in Haberfield. We have observed the heritage conservation rules at our expense during our 5 years in Haberfield.
With activation of the `significant infrastructure' clause on 5 December 2014, the heritage conservation status of certain homes in our streets was effectively no longer recognised, and the homes have been acquired and will be demolished. This will most certainly change the character and nature of the area in which we bought. Our valuable home has been devalued. Simply put, we would not have invested our hard earned money in this area, had the proposed planning been disclosed. While there is little we can do about this now, we request recognition of the impact of poor planning on our lives and livlihoods with the refund of stamp duty paid on our home in 2010, and a waiver of stamp duty on the next home we purchase in NSW - with such a purchase motivated by the desire not to live in the vicinity of the smoke stack and the construction site.
Scott Rudd: Mobile Phone 0418 261 248
Jane Robinson: Mobile Phone 0402 114 288
Attention Director Infrastructure Projects,
Planning Services Department of Planning and Environment
Application number SSI 6307
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001
To whom it may concern,
We live at 1 Cove Street, Haberfield.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in relation to the M4 East disclosed the proposed location of the tunnel sites.
We have the following concerns in relation to the proximity of our home, and other homes in the heritage conservation area on Wolseley and Cove Streets, to the proposed M4 East `Northcote Street tunnel site'.
1. Misleading original information
We would like to register our extreme distress with the misleading/incorrect original information released by the Westconnex Development Authority (WDA).
We made a decision to remain in our home on the basis that we would not be directly diagonally opposite the proposed construction site. We now understand that an additional home in the heritage conservation area has been acquired, 3 Wolseley Street, and our home will be completely exposed. The EIS aerial photographs are not as per the original aerial photographs. We have a copy of the original aerial photographs.
2. Noise
As stated, the EIS aerial photographs show that our home is directly diagonally opposite the proposed construction site.
The EIS states that the `tunnelling works are proposed to be carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week' (section 6.7.2). We are very concerned about the impact of the construction project noise.
Does our home qualify for on-site noise reduction or `at-property acoustic treatment'? We have reviewed the EIS and figure 10.7, and have been unable to establish whether our home qualifies for on-site noise reduction measures or other `at-property treatment'.
What measures will be employed in on-site noise reduction?
* We request double glazing of exposed windows, and reinforcement of the stain glass in our front door and side windows.
* We request the installation of ducted air-conditioning.
* We request a payment subsidy in relation to the air-conditioning. If not for construction, we would open the front door and windows of our home and rely on the cross breeze to cool our home.
What are the forecasted mean and peak noise levels during the hours of 6.30pm - 6.30am during (1) demolition of existing site, (2) construction of working site and (3) ongoing operation of site? We have struggled to understand Table 10.4 in the EIS.
Please confirm that the increase in noise due to work of Subakette/Ausgrid on Wolseley Street during October and November 2015, will be excised from the determination of `ambient' noise. The home at 5 Wolseley Street currently has a microphone installed in the front garden that we understand will be used to assess ambient noise. We are concerned that the noise related to the cable laying by Subakette/Ausgrid, involving daily use of heavy equipment and a generator to pull the cable through, will impact what will be considered as usual `ambient' noise. In addition, the concrete box in which the cables currently sit is not level with the road and causes a thumping sound when driven over by a car.
We have read section 10.3.1 of the EIS, and while difficult to understand, we believe the ambient or `background noise levels', form the basis of the acceptable noise management level.
How will noise be measured and monitored during the project?
What variation will be considered acceptable?
How will an unacceptable variation be addressed?
Who will be the contact person for local residents at the construction site?
3. Vibration
Our home is less than 200 metres from the Northcote tunnel site. We are concerned that vibrations will damage the foundations of our home.
What is the forecasted vibrations resulting from the tunnel excavator? We have struggled to understand section 10.3.2 of the EIS, and the 'Vibration damage goals'.
When are the vibrations expected to be the worst?
What measures will be taken to protect our heritage conservation area home from this damage? The EIS observes that `BS 7385 states that "a building of historical value should not (unless it is structurally unsound) be assumed to be more sensitive"' (section 10-12).
Our home is over 100 years old. We have spent a considerable amount of time and money maintaining our home, and well appreciate the issues of age. We are astounded that such a statement could be made regarding the impact of vibrations.
Who will be the contact person for local residents at the construction site?
4. Traffic
Our home is on the corner of Wolseley and Cove Streets - quiet residential streets.
We are concerned that, on top of construction noise, our streets will be subject to the noise of additional traffic due to:
* the closing of Northcote Street;
* people `rat running' to avoid turning from Parramatta Road onto Wattle Street - a practice which may also be driven by the additional truck traffic from the construction site;
* workers heading to and from the construction site.
We have reviewed the EIS but have not been able to identify where this is taken into account.
What is the forecasted increase in traffic on Wolseley and Cove Streets during (1) demolition of existing site, (2) construction of working site and (3) ongoing operation of site?
How will this be monitored for the duration of the project? How will any issues be addressed? We note the EIS disclosure that our home, and other homes in these streets, will already be subject to (among) the highest levels of noise and other disruption during construction.
We note the proposed route for construction trucks connected to the project: entering on Parramatta Road and exiting onto Wattle Street. The EIS states that `construction traffic is not predicted to significantly increase traffic noise.' We request written confirmation that construction trucks connected to the project will NOT be using Wolseley or Cove Streets, for the duration of the project stages.
5. Parking
The EIS discloses that the shift peak construction workforce numbers at the Northcote tunnel site will vary between approximately 75 and 135 per day (table 6.21).
The EIS states that the `majority of the construction sites would have parking for the construction workforce based at those sites' (6.6.5). However, we had understood from an Ashfield community meeting that the workforce for the Northcote tunnel site would be brought in by bus.
If parking is on-site, where will the construction workforce park?
Wolseley and Cove Streets currently struggle to cope with the demands of taxi change-over parking, and will not cope with the additional demands of the construction workforce.
How will parking and associated issues be monitored?
6. Local council rates
We request subsidised local council rates for the duration of the construction project in recognition of, and to compensate us for, the location of the `Northcote Street tunnel site'. The proximity of our home to the construction site, means that we will be subject to (among) the highest levels of noise, disruption and inconvenience to our lives and livelihoods, during construction.
7. Post project use of CA Wolseley Street
The EIS states that `future use of the Northcote Street tunnel site would be subject to separate assessment and planning approval' (Section 6.5.8).
We understand that the `Northcote Street tunnel site' has been transferred to the WDA. Following construction the site is proposed to be transferred back to the RMS. We understand that the RMS then propose to sell the site to the highest bidder.
We request confirmation that the purchaser will be required to comply with local council planning laws. We are concerned that the NSW Department of Planning, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) provide the NSW State government with the authority to over-rule the local council, which at this point in time is Ashfield Council.
We request written confirmation from the NSW State government that the NSW State government will not override the local government planning policy post completion of the project which restricts high rise development. We understand that the land is currently zoned light industrial, with an 11.5m height restriction.
8. NSW stamp duty
We paid an enormous amount of money, including stamp duty to the NSW State government, for a home in a heritage conservation area in Haberfield. We have observed the heritage conservation rules at our expense during our 5 years in Haberfield.
With activation of the `significant infrastructure' clause on 5 December 2014, the heritage conservation status of certain homes in our streets was effectively no longer recognised, and the homes have been acquired and will be demolished. This will most certainly change the character and nature of the area in which we bought. Our valuable home has been devalued. Simply put, we would not have invested our hard earned money in this area, had the proposed planning been disclosed. While there is little we can do about this now, we request recognition of the impact of poor planning on our lives and livlihoods with the refund of stamp duty paid on our home in 2010, and a waiver of stamp duty on the next home we purchase in NSW - with such a purchase motivated by the desire not to live in the vicinity of the smoke stack and the construction site.
Attachments
Jo Alley
Object
Jo Alley
Object
Ashfield
,
New South Wales
Message
My submission relating to 142 Alt St Haberfield - heritage concerns is attached
Attachments
Jo Alley
Object
Jo Alley
Object
Ashfield
,
New South Wales
Message
My submission relating to 142 Alt St Haberfield - heritage concerns is attached
Attachments
Jo Alley
Object
Jo Alley
Object
Ashfield
,
New South Wales
Message
My submission relating to 142 Alt St Haberfield - heritage concerns is attached