Glenn Stevens
Comment
Glenn Stevens
Comment
ST PETERS
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission
Glenn Stevens
0420 827 406
Glenn Stevens
0420 827 406
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Bardwell Park
,
New South Wales
Message
21 January 2015
The Hon. R. G. Stokes MP
Minister for Planning
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
c/c:
Gay Duncan, Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight
Penny Sharpe, Shadow Minister for Planning
Jody McKay, Shadow Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight
Nickolas Varvaris MP, Federal Member for Barton
Stephen Kamper MP, State Member for Rockdale
Christopher Minns MP, State Member for Kogarah
Bill Saravinovski, Mayor of Rockdale City Council
Dear Hon. Stokes,
We have only recently been informed by our neighbour, in the process of selling his property, that our home will be affected by the newly proposed WestConnex Stage 2 tunnel, funded by the NSW Government.
Our concerns are outlined as follows:
1. We believe that your Department, representing the NSW Government, has not shown meaningful, transparent and open consultation with residents affected by the proposed New M5. As residents affected by this project, having lived in Bardwell Valley for 20 years, we were not consulted nor advised by the government or the private construction company that our home would be directly impacted. Instead we found out by chance through a neighbour. As a result, we attended your Community Information Sessions noticing that they were presented to the community as `counselling sessions' for resident rather than having the purpose of being consultative. This gives us the impression that the decision regarding this suggested project has already been made by the NSW Government.
We attended the first session at 5:30pm on Tuesday 15 December 2015 at the Mascot Town Hall where the main front metal door was halfway closed, with nobody present to welcome people inside the venue. From the outset, this gave us the impression that the NSW Government was not truly inviting comment from the community. Inside the room there were no more than 2 other people affected by the proposal. We introduced ourselves and were briefed about the project. We were shown details for a tunnel affecting the Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area. The WestConnex information officers were unable to clarify why the proposed New M5 corridor was more beneficial than the strategic alignment of multi-criteria analysis, options which were preferred by an independent review as well as challenge team, and were identified from 2009 to 2013 as possible alignment options and carried forward for the 2013 business case. They thereby advised us to attend the following session with the presence of Engineers and NSW Department of Planning specialists.
As such, we attended the session at the Bexley RSL at 10am on Saturday 16 January 2016. Paul Anthony, Engineer Project Manager acknowledged that he was not aware of why the new planned M5 tunnel was preferred. He left us momentarily to obtain material which could provide him with more detail. He came back to us soon after, simply and briefly saying that the current project of the New M5 tunnel was more beneficial for the potential future extension towards the south and future harbour crossing. He recognised, however, that the current design is longer and more expensive, when compared to the previously identified options. Mr Anthony also referred us to the specialist from your Department present on the day, Mr Michael Young. Mr Young was extremely dismissive and referred all our questions to the Department of Roads, Maritime and Freight: "because they are responsible for the project as well as the organisation of this event". We were astounded. We were also left dumbfounded by the fact that Mr Young was unable to answer why no representative of the Department of Roads, Maritime and Freight was attending the Community Information Sessions.
On Monday 18 January 2016, we attended the following session in St Peters. We, once again, inquired why the originally preferred options of strategic alignment were not considered against the current New M5 development. In particular, we showed our concern regarding the section of the tunnel that is planned in Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area. Gemma Harntoun, Planning and Environment Manager on the New M5, explained to us that the tender process after 2013 had different EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) contractors. "Accordingly, based on the best outcome in relation to the impact of the New M5 a different solution was found inline within the boundaries identified." We reiterated that since 2009 - when the proposal was made by the NSW Government to extend the current M5 corridor, there were 4 years of analysis, assessments, research, submissions and consultation. Swiftly, since 2014, the shorter options identified in relation to the tunnel underneath Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe were not considered. In relation to our question of asking `how could it be possible that, in less than 12 months, a totally new proposal was accepted all of a sudden without informing and consulting with the affected residents, and, perhaps more alarmingly, without comparative analysis being made available to justify such a decision', Gemma's response was less than satisfactory. In replying to us that "no one knows of this information for privacy reasons" and adding that it is kept secret, she showed a clear lack of public-government transparency, something which is critical in any project as large as WestConnex is. At the same time, she recognised that the issue constitutes an argument which must be raised formally in a written submission to the government. By this stage, we were extremely disappointed and disillusioned by the unclear intentions of the current NSW Government, in removing any process of open and accessible transparency to its tax-paying residents.
2. The creation of the new planned underground tunnel for the New M5 could permanently damage the foundations, structure and stability of several properties in our vicinity, thereby creating irreparable structural damages. Using the example of our property, which is elevated from the ground, held by brick pillars supporting the base of the house, the extent of potential damage which the creation of the New M5 corridor could create was made clearer at the Community Information Session in Bexley. In fact, Paul Anthony, Engineer Project Manager explained that during underground excavation/blasting for the proposed New M5, every house's foundations will drop down to adjust to the new earth floor line. He stated that such adjustment could very well create impact to properties, where repairs may be necessary. Being elevated on bricks pillars, damage to our house could permanently put our personal properties and wellbeing in grave danger in event of a collapse.
3. It appears an unreasonable, dangerous waste of public tax-payers' money to prefer a longer tunnelling option between Bexley North and Arncliffe, in comparison to an adjacent route tunnel parallel with or beneath the existing M5 tunnel. The current length of the M5 tunnel from its entry on Bexley Road to its exit at Princes Highway is approximately 3.6 kilometres. When calculating the tunnel section from Bexley North (Bexley Road) to Arncliffe (Princes Highway) in the New M5, instead, the corridor is approximately 4.4 kilometres in length. This makes the New M5 corridor approximately 800 metres longer than an adjacent route tunnel. Considering, only in relation to the tunnel section from Bexley North to Arncliffe, that the short listed strategic southern alignment option could be re-connected with the existing tunnel and the proposed New M5 tunnel from Princes Highway to St Peters already provides a lower cost solution, even without the need for an expert in the field. This shows a concerning, inherent lack of consideration and care taken in researching and attempting to choose the most cost-effective, efficient route from both the NSW Government and the contracted engineering companies during the tender process. The aforementioned option inline within the boundaries identified also presents the included benefit of allowing for a future southern extension which could connect the existing road network and potential future motorways, thereby maximising the Kogarah Golf course precinct and reducing traffic around the Airport / Mascot Precinct.
Furthermore, according to our humble analysis and using the materials available to the public, in similar recent European and north American tunnel projects, governments have demonstrated cost efficiency and more efficient implementation by creating multilevel underground motorways or railway tunnels (below the pre-existing primary tunnel). This option was not even considered by the commissioned company or formally requested by your Department, demonstrating lack of insight by the WestConnex project as a whole and a failure of government to demonstrate leadership and embrace genuine community consultation for effective solutions. A successful example of implementation of this model in Australia is the Eastern Distributor. A tendering process such as WestConnex should have explored the existing tunnel entry/exit points and the advantage of a shorter and most cost effective alternative, even if it would not have been used. Thus, there doesn't appear to be a reasonable need to have a 20 per cent longer, more expensive tunnel, with heavier resident impact under the Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area as per the current new tunnel design of the M5.
We request that multi-level tunnels and the shorter route (as outlined above) be investigated and reasons provided as to why they had not been considered and why the longer more expensive route is preferred in light of this information.
4. Vibrations and noise pollution derived from the current proposed design of the New M5 tunnel would affect the current noiselessness present in the proposed area, both during and after the completion of the project. During the discussions we had regarding the above concern with Michael Allan, WestConnex's noise specialist present during the Community Information Sessions, he reassured us t
The Hon. R. G. Stokes MP
Minister for Planning
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
c/c:
Gay Duncan, Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight
Penny Sharpe, Shadow Minister for Planning
Jody McKay, Shadow Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight
Nickolas Varvaris MP, Federal Member for Barton
Stephen Kamper MP, State Member for Rockdale
Christopher Minns MP, State Member for Kogarah
Bill Saravinovski, Mayor of Rockdale City Council
Dear Hon. Stokes,
We have only recently been informed by our neighbour, in the process of selling his property, that our home will be affected by the newly proposed WestConnex Stage 2 tunnel, funded by the NSW Government.
Our concerns are outlined as follows:
1. We believe that your Department, representing the NSW Government, has not shown meaningful, transparent and open consultation with residents affected by the proposed New M5. As residents affected by this project, having lived in Bardwell Valley for 20 years, we were not consulted nor advised by the government or the private construction company that our home would be directly impacted. Instead we found out by chance through a neighbour. As a result, we attended your Community Information Sessions noticing that they were presented to the community as `counselling sessions' for resident rather than having the purpose of being consultative. This gives us the impression that the decision regarding this suggested project has already been made by the NSW Government.
We attended the first session at 5:30pm on Tuesday 15 December 2015 at the Mascot Town Hall where the main front metal door was halfway closed, with nobody present to welcome people inside the venue. From the outset, this gave us the impression that the NSW Government was not truly inviting comment from the community. Inside the room there were no more than 2 other people affected by the proposal. We introduced ourselves and were briefed about the project. We were shown details for a tunnel affecting the Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area. The WestConnex information officers were unable to clarify why the proposed New M5 corridor was more beneficial than the strategic alignment of multi-criteria analysis, options which were preferred by an independent review as well as challenge team, and were identified from 2009 to 2013 as possible alignment options and carried forward for the 2013 business case. They thereby advised us to attend the following session with the presence of Engineers and NSW Department of Planning specialists.
As such, we attended the session at the Bexley RSL at 10am on Saturday 16 January 2016. Paul Anthony, Engineer Project Manager acknowledged that he was not aware of why the new planned M5 tunnel was preferred. He left us momentarily to obtain material which could provide him with more detail. He came back to us soon after, simply and briefly saying that the current project of the New M5 tunnel was more beneficial for the potential future extension towards the south and future harbour crossing. He recognised, however, that the current design is longer and more expensive, when compared to the previously identified options. Mr Anthony also referred us to the specialist from your Department present on the day, Mr Michael Young. Mr Young was extremely dismissive and referred all our questions to the Department of Roads, Maritime and Freight: "because they are responsible for the project as well as the organisation of this event". We were astounded. We were also left dumbfounded by the fact that Mr Young was unable to answer why no representative of the Department of Roads, Maritime and Freight was attending the Community Information Sessions.
On Monday 18 January 2016, we attended the following session in St Peters. We, once again, inquired why the originally preferred options of strategic alignment were not considered against the current New M5 development. In particular, we showed our concern regarding the section of the tunnel that is planned in Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area. Gemma Harntoun, Planning and Environment Manager on the New M5, explained to us that the tender process after 2013 had different EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) contractors. "Accordingly, based on the best outcome in relation to the impact of the New M5 a different solution was found inline within the boundaries identified." We reiterated that since 2009 - when the proposal was made by the NSW Government to extend the current M5 corridor, there were 4 years of analysis, assessments, research, submissions and consultation. Swiftly, since 2014, the shorter options identified in relation to the tunnel underneath Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe were not considered. In relation to our question of asking `how could it be possible that, in less than 12 months, a totally new proposal was accepted all of a sudden without informing and consulting with the affected residents, and, perhaps more alarmingly, without comparative analysis being made available to justify such a decision', Gemma's response was less than satisfactory. In replying to us that "no one knows of this information for privacy reasons" and adding that it is kept secret, she showed a clear lack of public-government transparency, something which is critical in any project as large as WestConnex is. At the same time, she recognised that the issue constitutes an argument which must be raised formally in a written submission to the government. By this stage, we were extremely disappointed and disillusioned by the unclear intentions of the current NSW Government, in removing any process of open and accessible transparency to its tax-paying residents.
2. The creation of the new planned underground tunnel for the New M5 could permanently damage the foundations, structure and stability of several properties in our vicinity, thereby creating irreparable structural damages. Using the example of our property, which is elevated from the ground, held by brick pillars supporting the base of the house, the extent of potential damage which the creation of the New M5 corridor could create was made clearer at the Community Information Session in Bexley. In fact, Paul Anthony, Engineer Project Manager explained that during underground excavation/blasting for the proposed New M5, every house's foundations will drop down to adjust to the new earth floor line. He stated that such adjustment could very well create impact to properties, where repairs may be necessary. Being elevated on bricks pillars, damage to our house could permanently put our personal properties and wellbeing in grave danger in event of a collapse.
3. It appears an unreasonable, dangerous waste of public tax-payers' money to prefer a longer tunnelling option between Bexley North and Arncliffe, in comparison to an adjacent route tunnel parallel with or beneath the existing M5 tunnel. The current length of the M5 tunnel from its entry on Bexley Road to its exit at Princes Highway is approximately 3.6 kilometres. When calculating the tunnel section from Bexley North (Bexley Road) to Arncliffe (Princes Highway) in the New M5, instead, the corridor is approximately 4.4 kilometres in length. This makes the New M5 corridor approximately 800 metres longer than an adjacent route tunnel. Considering, only in relation to the tunnel section from Bexley North to Arncliffe, that the short listed strategic southern alignment option could be re-connected with the existing tunnel and the proposed New M5 tunnel from Princes Highway to St Peters already provides a lower cost solution, even without the need for an expert in the field. This shows a concerning, inherent lack of consideration and care taken in researching and attempting to choose the most cost-effective, efficient route from both the NSW Government and the contracted engineering companies during the tender process. The aforementioned option inline within the boundaries identified also presents the included benefit of allowing for a future southern extension which could connect the existing road network and potential future motorways, thereby maximising the Kogarah Golf course precinct and reducing traffic around the Airport / Mascot Precinct.
Furthermore, according to our humble analysis and using the materials available to the public, in similar recent European and north American tunnel projects, governments have demonstrated cost efficiency and more efficient implementation by creating multilevel underground motorways or railway tunnels (below the pre-existing primary tunnel). This option was not even considered by the commissioned company or formally requested by your Department, demonstrating lack of insight by the WestConnex project as a whole and a failure of government to demonstrate leadership and embrace genuine community consultation for effective solutions. A successful example of implementation of this model in Australia is the Eastern Distributor. A tendering process such as WestConnex should have explored the existing tunnel entry/exit points and the advantage of a shorter and most cost effective alternative, even if it would not have been used. Thus, there doesn't appear to be a reasonable need to have a 20 per cent longer, more expensive tunnel, with heavier resident impact under the Bardwell Valley / Arncliffe area as per the current new tunnel design of the M5.
We request that multi-level tunnels and the shorter route (as outlined above) be investigated and reasons provided as to why they had not been considered and why the longer more expensive route is preferred in light of this information.
4. Vibrations and noise pollution derived from the current proposed design of the New M5 tunnel would affect the current noiselessness present in the proposed area, both during and after the completion of the project. During the discussions we had regarding the above concern with Michael Allan, WestConnex's noise specialist present during the Community Information Sessions, he reassured us t
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
Alexandria
,
New South Wales
Message
New M5 Environmental Impact Statement Technical Working Paper: Noise and Vibration Nov 2015 Appendix J Section 2.2.1 table 9 Construction Hours; Table 9: temporary construction noise attenuation structures. page number 29 Sentence: Construction compound (C14) Sydney Park - no temporary noise attenuation proposed.
My comment: Residents in the immediate area of construction will be greatly effected by 24hr construction works. Noise and vibration will be a constant source of irritation and annoyance. It is requested that noise attenuation/block out measures be proposed from the mobilisation phase of the works and revised as the course of the project continues; should proposed measures prove to be ineffective. refer to sheet Noise_1 for locations at which noise measures are requested to be implemented.
My comment: Residents in the immediate area of construction will be greatly effected by 24hr construction works. Noise and vibration will be a constant source of irritation and annoyance. It is requested that noise attenuation/block out measures be proposed from the mobilisation phase of the works and revised as the course of the project continues; should proposed measures prove to be ineffective. refer to sheet Noise_1 for locations at which noise measures are requested to be implemented.
Andrew Sims
Object
Andrew Sims
Object
Alexandria
,
New South Wales
Message
As attached