EASTERN SUBURBS RAIL LINE EXTENSION / COMPLETION

It's an important and necessary step toward models for major and even intermediate station development associated with Sydney Metro.

Anything else that comes out of the submissions process that goes toward making it work better and for more commuters would be welcome.

My though, although possibly not for immediate adoption would be to extend the Eastern Suburbs Line to wherever it was supposed to go originally, or eastward via some other route and then north or south along the coast for some distance through areas where there's population that can make good use of it.

A station like the proposal for Pitt Street deserves to be used. It will attract and needs and will be a much better place with a full complement of users that achieves: -

'1.2 Macquarie Project Objectives

The Planning Proposal forms part of a broader planning process being pursued by Macquarie in order to realise shared vision and objectives for the Precinct. The overall project objectives for the Precinct, including those of the NSW Government, are to:

 Create a fully functional and compliant railway station for the Sydney Metro that delivers a world class public transport experience for its customers.

 Maximise the opportunity to integrate the new Metro Station with the existing public transport and pedestrian routes in and around Martin Place to further enhance the customer experience and improve City connectivity.

 Build on the Council's 2030 Strategy and other policies to enhance Martin Place as Sydney's premier civic space and create a lively, activated city destination.

 Celebrate 50 Martin Place as one of Sydney's most significant heritage buildings with an ongoing relevance as Macquarie's global headquarters.

 Use the above ground development to create the next generation workplace environment that realises the opportunities that are emerging in future work practice, wellbeing and sustainability, communication and digital technologies, security and mixed use development.'

at page 5 of the Planning Proposal

'Sydney Metro Martin Place Station Precinct
Amendments to the Sydney LEP 2012'

(JBA) Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd

My concern is related to lift access on station platforms.

At the moment on most rail platforms there is only one lift per platform. This means that if I get off the train with my mobility scooter and the lift is not working, the only solution offered by rail staff is to get back on the next train, travel to the next station, use the lift there to go to another platform, and catch a train back, and use the lift on that platform to get to the concourse. An example of this at Wynyard, which I have had to do, is to get back on the train from platform 3 upstairs, go to Town Hall, use the lift there to go to a lower floor, catch that train back to Wynyard Platform 5 or 6, and then use that lift to get to the Wynyard Concourse. This normally adds about 20-30 mins to the trip.

Is there some way that this station, (and others I hope) could have two lifts per platform, so that there is some redundancy for when a lift breaks down?

Please see attached.

Please see response attached

In response to the opportunity to participate in the Submission and PSMP process as a land holder of properties subject to subsidence i.e. The totality of subsidence effects, subsidence impacts and environmental consequences of subsidence impacts within the footprints of my privately owned land.

I believe the modification is focused on the impacts associated with the extension of longwall panel 24 and the addition of a new longwall panel 24A and the Extraction Plan process. I also wish to refer to information provided to me in relation to the recently received PSMP in May 2017 for longwalls 22 to 23.

* Agriculture: Flood concerns. There is further expansion of agricultural use of the land. I believe it is important for future use that there is no further increase to flooding. Agricultural use includes: Livestock, Oranges and Truffles with a vision of expanding into other diverse varieties. I have investigated the option of obtaining Organic Certification.
* PSMP Longwalls 22 to 23 Property Reference No 218 3.2 Consultation : Table 3 Landowner issues No test of lining boards of dwelling to determine product. Test not yet completed. I believe the house is located in longwall 24A.
* SSD-5144 Modification 5 Statement of Environmental Effects Submission process Appendix 2- Records of Consultation with Affected Landowners. Table 2.6, 3 of March 2017. As part of" Centennials Project" Centennials Project requires works to be performed by Transgrid to stanchion 45 of which is proposed to be affected by subsidence from LW 24 and 24A. A draft compensation agreement was issued for review, further information on the scope of works was necessary. I own four properties within Centennials mining footprint that will be within the submission processes, two of which are partly in the footprint of LW24 and LW24A. There is acknowledged inconvenience of the works and the undertaking of works by Transgrid for Centennials project, it has been stated there is no legal requirement for compensation for the land owner. The works by Transgrid commenced in May. Through consultation with Transgrid my property will have an open trench surrounding the concrete cruciform footing which I believe now protrudes more than a metre out of the ground and of which has created a significant visual impact on my privately owned land now and into the future. Photos can be forwarded. Through previous discussion the trench will remain open. Due to the potential hazard of the open trench surrounding the crusafix formation to livestock, horses, tenants, agistee's etc a chain mesh fence will be erected around the sight for safety, from last inspection this fence has not yet been erected. I removed livestock from the property before the works commenced. I believe Transgrid are aiming to complete the construction works for the Project in August 2017. Through correspondence, I believe the sight will remain as an active sight as part of the project for two years, and through correspondence for necessary monitoring. Further correspondence with Centennial is necessary to establish, all scope of works on my privately owned land in the duration of the two year period at this sight, and who will be performing the works. I believe Transgrid will be returning to rehabilitate the sight after this timeframe.

I believe my property is implicated by Centennials necessary works due from proposed subsidence of my land at the location of, and to stanchion 45 and land also in the vicinity. I believe there are impacts and effects from the project to my land, and as the owner of the land at the sight of stanchion 45. I believe Transgrid is engaged to provide the necessary works for the Project and the necessary works would not be performed if there was no subsidence. I believe my privately owned land has subsidence impacts and effects that are already occurring due to the proposed Extraction Plan for longwall 24 and 24A. I believe my private amenity is impacted for a proposed period of two years by the works to stanchion 45. Am I already impacted by the proposed subsidence? Yes, this is an inconvenience for me! In my view I believe the compensation may be supported by information supplied below. I believe Compensation being for impacts to my privately owned land arising from required works for Centennials project undertaken by Transgrid, occurring due to proposed subsidence that may affect the stanchions integrity but already has subsidence related impacts in preparation for proposed subsidence.

* Potential supporting reference points Development Consent SSD-5144
Definitions
* Subsidence(Totality)...
* Built features...
* Privately - owned land ...
* Subsidence Schedule 4 Extraction Plan 6 (g) dot point 3...all predicted impacts on potentially affected built features... In my view there is a significant additional visual impact to my amenity at the sight of the stanchion due to the substantial concrete footing on the Built Feature and other works necessary at the location for the project.
* 6(h) with particular reference to dot point 3.
There may be other relevant information.

I have taken the opportunity to participate in the PSMP process and the submission process for longwall 24 and 24A . I have incorporated the information to the best of my ability and knowledge to interpret the information supplied to me in relation to the project. I make no claim that the information in my submission is true and correct. Correct interpretation and information would need to be reviewed by the Department.

Dear Sir/Madame,
I am writing this as a personal submission to ensure that Mandalong mine reference SSD-5144 regarding an extension of an existing longwall panel (LW 24) and the addition of a new longwall panel (LW 24A) within the current SSD-5144 consent boundary is approved.
This will ensure the mine has provided economic benefits to the NSW state government and a future for myself and family now and into the next 20 years of the mine's life:
Points that I will raise are as follows:
* Mandalong has an existing workforce of over 300 and this Project will continue that employment until 2035.
* Mandalong has a good track record of extracting coal under the Mandalong valley with minimal impacts to the people that live there or to the water resources or to the ecology of the area.
* The proposed mine plan is designed to minimise the environmental impacts to levels similar to the existing Mandalong Mine.
* Mandalong Mine plays a big part in supplying coal for local electricity generation to keep the lights on in NSW.
* Mandalong support the local sporting and community groups.
* Mandalong supports a very large support industry, from local small contractors to large manufacturing companies.
I fully support an extension of an existing longwall panel (LW 24) and the addition of a new longwall panel (LW 24A) within the current SSD-5144 consent boundary project.
Yours Faithfully,
Peter Davidson

As attached

As attached