Parramatta Light Rail

February 2018

Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia

Submissions Report (incorporating Preferred Infrastructure Report)

Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia Submissions Report, incorporating Preferred Infrastructure Report

Prepared For Transport for NSW

Prepared By

WSP Australia Pty Limited Level 27, 680 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd Level 7, 177 Pacific Highway North Sydney NSW 2060

REV DATE DETAILS Final 15/02/2018 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta

CBD and Camellia – Submissions Report, incorporating Preferred Infrastructure Report

NAME DATE SIGNATURE Prepared by: Jarryd Barton

Oliver Edgson

Chris Serrano

15/02/2018

Reviewed by: Caitlin Bennett

Glyn Diwell

15/02/2018

Approved by: Alex McDonald 15/02/2018


i

Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xi

Executive summary .................................................................................................................. xvii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background and purpose of this Submissions Report ............................................................ 1-1 1.2 Overview of the project ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2.1 Key features of the project ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.2 Project need and benefits ............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3 Key findings of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-6 1.3.1 Key impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................ 1-6 1.3.2 Conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................... 1-8 1.4 Announcement of Stage 2 of the Parramatta Light Rail ........................................................ 1-9 1.5 Structure of this Submissions Report ......................................................................................... 1-9

2 Consultation ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Pre-Environmental Impact Statement exhibition consultation ............................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Consultation and engagement activities prior to preparation of the

Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Consultation during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement ......................... 2-1 2.2 Consultation during public exhibition of the Environmental Impact

Statement .................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement display locations ................................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Promotion of the public exhibition ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.3 Community contact and information points .............................................................................. 2-4 2.2.4 Key stakeholder briefings ................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.5 Community information sessions ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.6 Community Pop-Up Events............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.7 EIS Project Brochure ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.8 EIS Project Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.2.9 EIS Website Navigator ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.10 Other consultation activities .......................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3 Ongoing and future communications with the community .................................................. 2-7 2.3.1 Consultation during construction .................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2 Operation stage ............................................................................................................................... 2-8

3 Overview of submissions ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Analysis process ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Receipt of submissions ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Handling of submissions .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Response to submissions ................................................................................................................. 3-2

Table of Contents

ii Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia

Submissions Report, incorporating Preferred Infrastructure Report

CONTENTS (Continued) 3.2 Summary of issues ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Government agency and key stakeholder submissions .......................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Community submissions .................................................................................................................. 3-3

4 Government agency and key stakeholder submissions ....................................... 4-1

5 Response to community submissions ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Planning and statutory requirements ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Accuracy of EIS documentation ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Detail provided in EIS documentation ......................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 EIS process and documentation ................................................................................................... 5-3 5.1.4 Planning approval process ............................................................................................................ 5-3 5.2 Community and stakeholder consultation .............................................................................. 5-4 5.2.1 Project team’s engagement with the community .................................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Level of consultation about the Parramatta Light Rail project ............................................... 5-5 5.2.3 Community and stakeholder consultation during construction ............................................. 5-6 5.2.4 Request for further consultation .................................................................................................... 5-7 5.3 Project need and justification ................................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.1 Ability to meet project objectives ................................................................................................. 5-8 5.3.2 Adequacy of the existing public transport system .................................................................... 5-9 5.3.3 Benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project ............................................................................ 5-10 5.3.4 Other general comments ............................................................................................................. 5-11 5.3.5 Economic assessment and value for money ............................................................................ 5-12 5.3.6 Patronage ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13 5.4 Project alternatives ................................................................................................................... 5-14 5.4.1 Alignment alternatives – General ............................................................................................... 5-14 5.4.2 Alignment alternatives – Westmead .......................................................................................... 5-14 5.4.3 Alignment alternatives – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area ............................ 5-15 5.4.4 Alignment alternatives – O'Connell Street ................................................................................ 5-16 5.4.5 Alignment alternatives – Parramatta CBD ................................................................................ 5-17 5.4.6 Alignment alternatives – Rosehill and Camellia ....................................................................... 5-18 5.4.7 Alternative or additional stop locations .................................................................................... 5-20 5.4.8 Mode alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 5-22 5.4.9 Stabling and maintenance facility locations ........................................................................... 5-24 5.4.10 Substations ....................................................................................................................................... 5-26 5.4.11 Additional active transport options ............................................................................................ 5-27 5.4.12 Adequacy of the alternatives assessment ................................................................................ 5-28 5.4.13 Other issues ...................................................................................................................................... 5-30 5.5 Project design and operations................................................................................................ 5-31 5.5.1 Landscaping and urban design .................................................................................................. 5-31 5.5.2 Closure of T6 Carlingford Line ...................................................................................................... 5-32 5.5.3 Light rail vehicles............................................................................................................................. 5-33 5.5.4 Mobility and accessibility .............................................................................................................. 5-34 5.5.5 Other structures/facilities .............................................................................................................. 5-35 5.5.6 Power supply, catenary and wire-free technology ................................................................ 5-37 5.5.7 Road network design .................................................................................................................... 5-38 5.5.8 Stop layout, design and treatment ............................................................................................ 5-40 5.5.9 Track and corridor design ............................................................................................................. 5-42 5.5.10 Services and trip duration ............................................................................................................. 5-43

Table of Contents


iii

CONTENTS (Continued) 5.5.11 Active transport link ....................................................................................................................... 5-44 5.5.12 Fares and ticketing ........................................................................................................................ 5-46 5.5.13 Integration with existing or future transport services ............................................................... 5-46 5.5.14 Light rail and pedestrian zones .................................................................................................... 5-47 5.6 Project construction ................................................................................................................. 5-48 5.6.1 Construction work hours ............................................................................................................... 5-48 5.6.2 Construction scheduling and staging ........................................................................................ 5-49 5.6.3 Work sites and construction compounds .................................................................................. 5-50 5.6.4 Concern about and/or mitigation of construction impacts ................................................. 5-51 5.6.5 Construction traffic and haulage ............................................................................................... 5-51 5.7 Traffic, transport and access ................................................................................................... 5-52 5.7.1 Construction impacts on property access ................................................................................ 5-52 5.7.2 Construction traffic impacts......................................................................................................... 5-53 5.7.3 Construction parking and loading impacts .............................................................................. 5-55 5.7.4 Construction pedestrian and cyclist impacts ........................................................................... 5-56 5.7.5 Operational impacts to property access .................................................................................. 5-58 5.7.6 Operational traffic impacts .......................................................................................................... 5-60 5.7.7 Operational parking and loading impacts ............................................................................... 5-63 5.7.8 Operational pedestrian and cyclist impacts ............................................................................ 5-65 5.7.9 Parramatta cycling network ........................................................................................................ 5-66 5.7.10 Direct impacts to existing bus services and routes during construction ............................. 5-67 5.7.11 Disruptions to access for emergency service vehicles ........................................................... 5-67 5.7.12 Traffic, transport and access impact assessment approach and scope ........................... 5-69 5.7.13 Public use of private property to access light rail .................................................................... 5-70 5.7.14 T6 Carlingford Line replacement strategy ................................................................................. 5-71 5.8 Land use and property ............................................................................................................ 5-72 5.8.1 Property acquisition and property impacts .............................................................................. 5-72 5.8.2 Impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve .............................................................................................. 5-74 5.8.3 General land use impacts ............................................................................................................ 5-75 5.8.4 Integration with Camellia Town Centre ..................................................................................... 5-76 5.8.5 Integration with Telopea Master Plan ........................................................................................ 5-76 5.9 Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................ 5-77 5.9.1 General biodiversity impacts ....................................................................................................... 5-77 5.9.2 Mitigation and management measures ................................................................................... 5-78 5.9.3 Impact assessment approach ..................................................................................................... 5-80 5.10 Aboriginal Heritage .................................................................................................................. 5-81 5.10.1 Aboriginal heritage impacts - construction .............................................................................. 5-81 5.11 Built and non-Aboriginal Heritage .......................................................................................... 5-81 5.11.1 General built and landscape heritage impacts – construction ........................................... 5-81 5.11.2 Impacts to Cumberland District Hospital Precinct................................................................... 5-83 5.11.3 Impacts to the Former Female Factory ..................................................................................... 5-85 5.11.4 Impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel .................................................................................................. 5-85 5.11.5 Impacts to Lennox Bridge ............................................................................................................. 5-91 5.12 Hydrology, drainage, flooding and groundwater ................................................................ 5-92 5.12.1 Flooding............................................................................................................................................ 5-92

Table of Contents

iv Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


CONTENTS (Continued) 5.13 Air quality .................................................................................................................................. 5-94 5.13.1 Air quality impacts during construction ..................................................................................... 5-94 5.13.2 Air quality impacts during operation .......................................................................................... 5-96 5.14 Utilities and services ................................................................................................................. 5-96 5.14.1 Utilities and services impacts during construction ................................................................... 5-96 5.15 Privacy ....................................................................................................................................... 5-97 5.15.1 Privacy .............................................................................................................................................. 5-97 5.16 Noise and vibration .................................................................................................................. 5-98 5.16.1 Construction noise and/or vibration impacts – General ........................................................ 5-98 5.16.2 Construction noise and vibration mitigation and management ....................................... 5-100 5.16.3 Noise and vibration impact assessment approach and scope ......................................... 5-102 5.16.4 Operation noise and/or vibration impacts – General .......................................................... 5-103 5.16.5 Operational noise impacts – Westmead ................................................................................. 5-104 5.16.6 Operational noise impacts – Rosehill and Camellia ............................................................. 5-105 5.16.7 Operational noise impacts – Carlingford ................................................................................ 5-106 5.16.8 Operation noise and vibration mitigation and management ............................................ 5-107 5.17 Trees ......................................................................................................................................... 5-108 5.17.1 Impacts to trees along the project alignment ....................................................................... 5-108 5.17.2 Tree replacement and mitigation and management measures ....................................... 5-109 5.18 Visual and landscape character ......................................................................................... 5-110 5.18.1 General visual amenity concern ............................................................................................... 5-110 5.18.2 Mitigation and management .................................................................................................... 5-111 5.18.3 Visual impacts during operation ............................................................................................... 5-112 5.18.4 Overshadowing ............................................................................................................................ 5-113 5.19 Socio-economic ..................................................................................................................... 5-113 5.19.1 Compensation for businesses .................................................................................................... 5-113 5.19.2 Impacts on local businesses during construction .................................................................. 5-114 5.19.3 Impacts on local businesses during operation ....................................................................... 5-116 5.19.4 Impact assessment approach ................................................................................................... 5-117 5.19.5 General economic impacts....................................................................................................... 5-118 5.19.6 General amenity and socio-economic impacts during construction ............................... 5-119 5.19.7 Mitigation and management .................................................................................................... 5-119 5.20 Hazards and risks .................................................................................................................... 5-120 5.20.1 Impacts from electromagnetic emissions during operation ............................................... 5-120 5.20.2 Collisions, conflicts and accidents ............................................................................................ 5-122 5.20.3 General hazards and risks during operation ........................................................................... 5-123 5.20.4 Other hazards ............................................................................................................................... 5-124 5.21 Waste, energy and resources ............................................................................................... 5-125 5.21.1 Waste, energy and resource impacts ...................................................................................... 5-125 5.22 Land stability, soils and contamination ............................................................................... 5-126 5.22.1 Contamination.............................................................................................................................. 5-126 5.23 Issues external to the project ................................................................................................ 5-127 5.23.1 Light rail network extension to Epping and Macquarie Park ............................................... 5-127 5.23.2 Light rail network extensions to Olympic Park and Strathfield ............................................. 5-128 5.23.3 Light rail network extensions to Eastwood ............................................................................... 5-128

Table of Contents


v

CONTENTS (Continued) 5.23.4 Light rail network extensions – Other alignments ................................................................... 5-129 5.23.5 Associated or external projects (not part of Parramatta Light Rail) .................................. 5-130 5.23.6 Other general comments ........................................................................................................... 5-131

6 Preferred Infrastructure Report .................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Assessment approach ............................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3 Road network changes ............................................................................................................. 6-4 6.3.1 Description in the Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................ 6-4 6.3.2 Description of the proposed design change ............................................................................. 6-5 6.3.3 Change in impact ............................................................................................................................ 6-8 6.3.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-17 6.4 Westmead piling works ............................................................................................................ 6-17 6.4.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-17 6.4.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-17 6.4.3 Changes to impacts ...................................................................................................................... 6-21 6.4.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-25 6.5 Parramatta North Urban Transformation building demolition ............................................. 6-25 6.5.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-25 6.5.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-27 6.5.3 Changes to impacts ...................................................................................................................... 6-27 6.5.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-35 6.6 Prince Alfred Square stop ........................................................................................................ 6-35 6.6.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-35 6.6.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-37 6.6.3 Changes to impacts ...................................................................................................................... 6-39 6.6.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-44 6.7 Queens Wharf Reserve underpass ......................................................................................... 6-44 6.7.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-44 6.7.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-44 6.7.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-46 6.7.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-49 6.8 Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity .................................................. 6-49 6.8.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-49 6.8.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-49 6.8.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-51 6.8.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-54 6.9 James Ruse Drive bridge ......................................................................................................... 6-54 6.9.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-54 6.9.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-54 6.9.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-55 6.9.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-57 6.10 Rosehill Gardens Racecourse pedestrian links .................................................................... 6-57 6.10.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-57 6.10.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-57

Table of Contents

vi Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


CONTENTS (Continued) 6.10.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-59 6.10.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-62 6.11 Dundas stop changes .............................................................................................................. 6-63 6.11.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-63 6.11.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-63 6.11.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-65 6.11.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-68 6.12 Active transport link changes ................................................................................................. 6-68 6.12.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-68 6.12.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-68 6.12.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-73 6.12.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-79 6.13 Carlingford rail line decommissioning ................................................................................... 6-80 6.13.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design ................................................ 6-80 6.13.2 Description of the proposed design change ........................................................................... 6-80 6.13.3 Change in impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-81 6.13.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures ........................................ 6-84

7 Additional investigations and clarification to the Environmental Impact Statement ...................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Urban design requirements ....................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Purpose of the document .............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Structure of the Urban Design Requirements document ......................................................... 7-2 7.1.3 Strategic objectives ......................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.4 Place making outcomes ................................................................................................................. 7-3 7.1.5 Alignment urban design and landscape principles .................................................................. 7-3 7.1.6 Precinct urban design and landscape principles ..................................................................... 7-5 7.1.7 Project design requirements ........................................................................................................ 7-10 7.2 Clarifications ............................................................................................................................. 7-14 7.2.1 Bus stop changes ........................................................................................................................... 7-14 7.2.2 Telopea traffic changes................................................................................................................ 7-15 7.2.3 Property impacts and acquisitions ............................................................................................. 7-15 7.2.4 Disturbance footprint refinement changes .............................................................................. 7-18 7.2.5 Impacts on trees ............................................................................................................................. 7-25 7.2.6 Errors and omissions ........................................................................................................................ 7-27

8 Revised environmental management measures .................................................... 8-1 8.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 General and precinct-specific mitigation and management measures ........................... 8-2 8.2.1 Detailed design ................................................................................................................................ 8-2 8.2.2 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 8-55 8.2.3 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 8-109

Table of Contents


vii

CONTENTS (Continued)

9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 9-2

10 References ............................................................................................................... 10-1

List of tables

Table 2.1 Community information and feedback sessions during public exhibition ................... 2-5 Table 3.1 Summary of key issues raised in community submissions ................................................. 3-3 Table 4.1 Summary of government agency and key stakeholder submissions ............................ 4-1 Table 6.1 Summary of environmental aspect potentially affected by the

proposed design changes ..................................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6.2 Church Street and Barney Street intersection operation ................................................. 6-9 Table 6.3 Road network changes – Changes in impact to built heritage ................................... 6-12 Table 6.4 Additional mitigation and management measure – Road network

changes ................................................................................................................................... 6-17 Table 6.5 Conservation Management Plan recommendations .................................................... 6-29 Table 6.6 Detailed heritage impact assessment for CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) ............................... 6-30 Table 6.7 Victoria Road and Church Street intersection operation .............................................. 6-39 Table 6.8 Prince Alfred stop – Changes in impact to built heritage .............................................. 6-41 Table 6.9 Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity - changes in

impact to built heritage ........................................................................................................ 6-52 Table 6.10 James Ruse Drive bridge – Changes in impact to built heritage ................................. 6-56 Table 6.11 Rosehill Station pedestrian links – changes in impact to built heritage ....................... 6-60 Table 6.12 Summary of airborne construction noise scenarios considered ................................... 6-61 Table 6.13 Construction Noise Predictions – Daytime ........................................................................ 6-61 Table 6.14 Dundas stop changes - changes in impact to built heritage ....................................... 6-66 Table 6.15 Active transport link changes - changes in impact to built heritage .......................... 6-76 Table 6.16 Summary of Airborne Construction Noise Scenarios Considered ................................ 6-82 Table 6.17 Construction Noise Predictions – Daytime ........................................................................ 6-82 Table 6.18 Carlingford rail line decommissioning - changes in impact to built

heritage .................................................................................................................................... 6-83 Table 7.1 Sewage Pumping Station 67 - changes in impact to built heritage ............................ 7-21 Table 7.2 Indicative range of trees requiring removal (EIS)............................................................. 7-26 Table 8.1 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (detailed design) ................... 8-3 Table 8.2 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (construction) ....................... 8-55 Table 8.3 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (operation) ......................... 8-109

Table of Contents

viii Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


List of figures

Figure 1.1 Planning and assessment process ........................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 1.2 Overview of the project as presented in the Environmental Impact

Statement .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1.3 Estimated travel times ............................................................................................................. 1-6 Figure 3.1 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with traffic, transport and access

issues raised ............................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.2 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with project design and operations

issues raised ............................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.3 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with project alternatives issues

raised .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.4 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with issues external to the project

issues raised ............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 5.1 Sites identified as potential locations for the Stabling and Maintenance

Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5.2 The existing dual lane road environment looking north ................................................. 5-88 Figure 5.3 Plans of the existing Church Street road corrido ............................................................. 5-88 Figure 5.4 Road alignment showing existing road corridor and Royal Oak Hotel

location .................................................................................................................................... 5-89 Figure 5.5 Road alignment looking south, showing existing road corridor and Royal

Oak Hotel location (beige building, centre of picture) ................................................. 5-90 Figure 5.6 Road alignment showing existing road corridor and Royal Oak Hotel

location (building, right of picture) ..................................................................................... 5-90 Figure 6.1 Proposed design changes ..................................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 6.2 Revised off-corridor road network changes (Parramatta North) ................................... 6-6 Figure 6.3 Proposed additional road network changes – Harris Street/Hassall Street

intersection ................................................................................................................................ 6-7 Figure 6.4 Revised property acquisition – Parramatta North ........................................................... 6-14 Figure 6.5 Revised tree impacts – Parramatta North ......................................................................... 6-16 Figure 6.6 Location of proposed NSW Health development and piling works along

Hawkesbury Road .................................................................................................................. 6-19 Figure 6.7 Section of the proposed piling works ................................................................................. 6-19 Figure 6.8 Highly noise affected (residential receivers) .................................................................... 6-22 Figure 6.9 Revised tree impacts – Westmead piling works ............................................................... 6-24 Figure 6.10 Parramatta North Urban Transformation area buildings proposed for

demolition ................................................................................................................................ 6-26 Figure 6.11 Highly noise affected (residential receivers) .................................................................... 6-32 Figure 6.12 Revised tree impacts – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area ....................... 6-34 Figure 6.13 Indicative plan – Prince Alfred Square stop (as shown in EIS) ....................................... 6-36 Figure 6.14 Indicative stop section – Prince Alfred Square stop (as shown in EIS) ......................... 6-37 Figure 6.15 Revised stop section – Prince Alfred Square stop ............................................................ 6-37 Figure 6.16 Revised stop plan – Prince Alfred Square stop ................................................................. 6-38 Figure 6.17 Queens Wharf Reserve underpass ...................................................................................... 6-45 Figure 6.18 Revised tree impacts – Queens Wharf Reserve ............................................................... 6-48

Table of Contents


ix

List of figures (continued)

Figure 6.19 Indicative alignment and stop arrangement of the revised Tramway Avenue platform arrangement ........................................................................................... 6-50

Figure 6.20 Proposed pedestrian path improvements between the Camellia Stop and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse ..................................................................................... 6-58

Figure 6.21 Indicative section of the platform arrangement for Dundas Station as described in the EIS ................................................................................................................ 6-63

Figure 6.22 Indicative plan – Revised layout for Dundas Station platform arrangement ........................................................................................................................... 6-64

Figure 6.23 Indicative section – Revised layout for Dundas Station platform arrangement ........................................................................................................................... 6-65

Figure 6.24 Active transport link improvements to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus ........................................................................................................... 6-70

Figure 6.25 Location and arrangement of new active transport link connection at Dundas ..................................................................................................................................... 6-71

Figure 6.26 Location of proposed active transport link extension between Carlingford stop and Boundary Street ............................................................................... 6-72

Figure 7.1 Proposed streets for the bus network with the project ................................................... 7-14 Figure 7.2 Proposed land acquisition – O’Connell Street and Victoria Road

intersection .............................................................................................................................. 7-16 Figure 7.3 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Marshall Road, Telopea ................... 7-17 Figure 7.4 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Parramatta North Urban

Transformation area .............................................................................................................. 7-19 Figure 7.5 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Sewage Pumping

Station 67 site .......................................................................................................................... 7-20 Figure 7.6 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Camellia ............................................. 7-23 Figure 7.7 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Carlingford ......................................... 7-24

List of appendices

Appendix A: Key issue and sub issue categories Appendix B: Table of issues per community submission Appendix C: Response to government agency and key stakeholder submissions

Abbreviations


xi

Abbreviations

active transport active transport includes non-motorised forms of transport involving physical activity, such as walking and cycling

AEI areas of environmental interest

AEP annual exceedance probability

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARI the average recurrence interval refers to the average or expected value of the periods between exceedances of a given rainfall total accumulated over a given duration

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

AS Australian Standard

ATC Australian Turf Club

BOS Bureau of Statistics

CBD central business district

CCLMP Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan

CCTV closed-circuit television

CEMP construction environmental management plan

CHAR Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

CPTED crime prevention through environmental design

CLM Act Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

CMP conservation management plan

CoPC contaminants or chemicals of potential concern

CSEP Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

CSTR combined services route

Abbreviations

xii Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


DBH diameter at breast height (around 1.5 metres above natural ground level)

DBYD dial before you dig

DCP Development Control Plan

DDA Disability Discrimination Act 1992

DEC the former NSW Department of Environment and Conservation; now the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

DECC the former NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change; now the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

DECCW the former NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water; now the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

DISPLAN (Parramatta Local) Disaster Plan

DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries

DSAPT Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002

dwell time the length of time that a train is stopped at a station or stop

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELF Extremely Low Frequency

EMC electromagnetic compatibility

EMF electromagnetic field

EMI electromagnetic interference

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

EP&A Act NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regulation NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPL environment protection licence

ESD ecologically sustainable development

FBA NSW Framework for Biodiversity Assessment

GHFF Grey-headed Flying-fox

GHG Greenhouse gas emissions

Abbreviations


xiii

GPOP Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula

HAMU heritage archaeological management unit

HNA highly noise affected

ICNG Interim Construction Noise Guideline (Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2009)

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites

INP Industrial Noise Policy (Environment Protection Authority, January 2000)

ISCA Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia

ISEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

LAHC Land and Housing Corporation

LEP local environmental plan

LGA local government area

LNG liquefied nitrogen gas

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

LRV light rail vehicle

MRI magnetic resonance imaging

NCA noise catchment area

NML noise management level

NPI the Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s National Pollutant Inventory

NSW New South Wales

NSW 2021 NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One (NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2011) is the NSW Government’s 10 year strategic business plan to rebuild the NSW economy, provide quality services, renovate infrastructure, restore government accountability, and strengthen local environment and communities

NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW, 2012c) is the NSW Government’s 20 year plan to improve the NSW transport system by delivering an integrated, modern transport system that puts the customer first

OEH (NSW) Office of Environment and Heritage

Abbreviations

xiv Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


OEMP operational environmental management plan

OHW overhead wiring

OPP organophosphorus pesticides

PAD potential archaeological deposit

PCT Plant Community Type

PFM planning focus meeting

PMA Property Manager Acquisitions

PMF probable maximum flood

PNHS Parramatta North Heritage Sites

PTPM Public Transport Project Model

POEO Act NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

(the) project refers to the Parramatta Light Rail project – Stage 1 (the subject of this Environmental Impact Statement)

RAP Remediation Action Plan

RBL rating background level

Rebuilding NSW Rebuilding NSW: State Infrastructure Strategy 2014 (NSW Government, 2014b) outlines the NSW Government’s plan to invest $20 billion in new productive infrastructure to sustain productivity growth in NSW’s major centres and regional communities, as well as to support forecasted population growth of almost six million people in Sydney and more than nine million people in NSW

REF review of environmental factors

RING Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (Environment Protection Authority, 2013)

RNP Road Noise Policy (Environment Protection Authority, 2011)

Roads Act NSW Roads Act 1993

ROL road occupancy licence

section 170 register Section 170 Register under the NSW Heritage Act 1977

SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SES State Emergency Services

Abbreviations


xv

SHR State Heritage Register

SSI State significant infrastructure

Sydney’s Rail Future Sydney’s Rail Future: Modernising Sydney’s Trains (Transport for NSW, 2012b) is the NSW Government’s long-term plan to increase the capacity of Sydney’s rail network though investment in new services and upgrading of existing infrastructure. Sydney’s Rail Future is being delivered in five stages. The project comprises Stage 4 of Sydney’s Rail Future, which would provide the largest increase in capacity to the Sydney rail network for 80 years

TAFE Technical and Further Education NSW

TCP Traffic Control Plan

TMP Traffic Management Plan

TPZ tree protection zone

TRH total recoverable hydrocarbons

TSC Act NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VPA Voluntary Planning Agreement

Western Sydney Light Rail Feasibility Study

Study released by City of Parramatta Council, which identified a number of strategy transport corridors around Parramatta, and recommended the first stage of the Western Sydney Light Rail.

WSU Western Sydney University

WSUD water sensitive urban design

Executive summary


xvii

Executive summary

Overview of the project Parramatta Light Rail is one of the NSW Government’s latest major infrastructure projects being delivered to serve a growing Sydney. Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 (‘the project’) is expected to open in 2023 and will connect Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta central business district (CBD) and Camellia with a two-way track spanning 12 kilometres.

The project alignment from Westmead to Carlingford and Camellia would consist of a mix of both on-street and dedicated corridor alignment. The project would generally be located along existing streets within Westmead, the Parramatta CBD and the suburbs of Rosehill and Camellia. Between Camellia and Carlingford, the project would be located within the existing T6 Carlingford Line rail corridor.

Key features of the project include:

» A new two-way light rail network approximately 12 kilometres long with 16 stops.

» The conversion of the existing T6 Carlingford Line heavy rail corridor and Sandown Line for use as dedicated light rail corridors.

» Interchanges with existing rail and/or bus facilities at Westmead, Parramatta CBD and Carlingford.

» A stabling and maintenance facility located in Camellia.

» Alterations to the road network to accommodate the project.

» Active transport infrastructure (for cycling and walking) will be provided along sections of the project alignment.

The project would link Parramatta’s CBD and Parramatta Station to the Westmead Health precinct, Parramatta North Urban Transformation, the new Western Sydney Stadium, the new Powerhouse and Riverside Theatres Cultural Hub, the private and social housing redevelopment at Telopea, Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and three Western Sydney University campuses.

Transport for NSW is the proponent for the project and will deliver the planning and concept design phases of the project. The early works (such as demolition of existing structures, utility works, implementation of road configurations etc.), detailed design, construction, maintenance and operation of the project would be delivered by the private sector under contracts with Transport for NSW.

Planning approvals process Transport for NSW is seeking for the project to be declared by the Minister for Planning as critical State significant infrastructure (SSI) under sections 115U(4) and 115V of the EP&A Act. As part of the declaration, it is anticipated that an amendment to Schedule 5 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 would be made. The project remains subject to assessment under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act and requires the approval of the Minister for Planning.

Executive summary

xviii Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was placed on public exhibition between 23 August and 23 October 2017. During this period, government agencies, interested stakeholders and the community were invited to make written submissions on the project to the Department of Planning and Environment.

Following the conclusion of the public exhibition period, Transport for NSW prepared a Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report (this document) for the project to address the issues raised in community and stakeholder submissions, and to document a number of proposed design changes and additional investigations undertaken since exhibition of the EIS.

The Minister for Planning will subsequently decide whether to grant approval, or to refuse the project, under Section 115ZB of the EP&A Act. Approval from the Minister for Planning is required before Transport for NSW can proceed with the project.

Purpose of this Submissions Report The Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report considers the issues raised in community and stakeholder submissions received during the public exhibition of the EIS, as well as Transport for NSW’s response to these issues. It also provides:

» An overview of the project and the key findings of the EIS.

» Consultation activities undertaken prior to, and during, the public exhibition of the EIS, as well as activities proposed during the pre-construction, construction and commissioning phases.

» A description and assessment of changes made to the project as presented in the EIS (the Preferred Infrastructure Report).

» Clarifications on the information provided in the EIS (in response to issues raised in submissions).

» Revised consolidated environmental mitigation and management measures for the project, adjusted in response to the submissions received, the Preferred Infrastructure Report and rationalisation of previously proposed mitigation and management measures to remove duplicate measures and ensure feasible implementation during construction and operation.

Overview of submissions Submissions from government agencies, key stakeholders, special interest groups, businesses and the community were received by Department of Planning and Environment. All submissions received were provided to Transport for NSW for consideration. A total of 156 submissions were received, comprising 15 submissions from government agencies and key stakeholders, and 141 community submissions (where ‘community’ includes businesses, special interest groups and community action groups).

Government agency and key stakeholder submissions received included submissions from:

» City of Parramatta Council (Council).

» Cumberland Council.

» NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

» NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division.

» National Trust of Australia.

» NSW Environment Protection Agency.

» NSW Department of Primary Industries.

Executive summary


xix

» Sydney Water.

» Parramatta Chamber of Commerce.

» NSW Fire and Rescue.

» UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation.

» Western Sydney University.

» Western Sydney Local Health District (NSW Health).

» NSW Health – Westmead Precinct Partners.

» Australian Turf Club.

Of the 141 community submissions, 15 submissions were received from special interest groups and community action groups, and 21 submissions were received from businesses.

Most community submissions were concerned with the following issues (refer to section 3.2 for a detailed breakdown of these issues):

» Traffic, transport and access impacts.

» The project’s design and operation.

» Project alternatives.

» Issues external to the project and future extensions of the project.

» Built and non-Aboriginal heritage impacts.

» Socio-economic impacts.

» Noise and vibration impacts.

» The project need and justification.

Each submission was assigned an individual number by Department of Planning and Environment. These numbers are referred to in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Submissions Report, as well as Appendix B.

Modifications to the project Since the exhibition of the EIS, 11 design changes have been made to the project in response to further design investigations, submissions received and/or other issues raised by stakeholders and the community during consultation. The proposed changes and their justifications are summarised in Table E.1 below. Further details, including an assessment of the potential impacts of the changes, are provided in the Preferred Infrastructure Report in Chapter 6.

Table ES.1 Summary of modifications to the project

PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGE/MODIFICATION JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

Road network changes – rationalisation of proposed road changes in North Parramatta and improvement to traffic flows within the Parramatta CBD.

The change has been made to improve traffic flow within the wider traffic network during the construction and operation of the project.

Westmead piling works – undertaking of additional piling works along Hawkesbury Road.

The change has been made following consultation with NSW Health and to minimise potential conflicts between the project and a planned NSW Health development on Hawkesbury Road.

Executive summary

xx Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGE/MODIFICATION JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

Parramatta North Urban Transformation area building demolition – seven buildings previously identified for demolition in the UrbanGrowth NSW plans within the Cumberland District Hospital site, would instead be demolished as part of the project.

The change has been made following consultation with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation and in response to submissions from the Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Division) and National Trust of Australia.

It had been anticipated in the EIS that this work would be completed by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation. Demolition work would now be completed by the project given the likely need to commence demolition early in the construction program.

Prince Alfred Square stop – relocation of the stop and relocation of the alignment further to the east to reduce potential impacts on Prince Alfred Square park.

The change was made in response to ongoing consultation with Council and to minimise overall impacts on Prince Alfred Square.

Queens Wharf Reserve underpass – removal of existing pavement from the existing slip road, minor earthworks and landscaping.

The change was made following consultation with Council to provide additional park area within Queens Wharf Reserve to offset the reduction of open space in Robin Thomas Reserve as a result of the project.

Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity – reconfiguration of the Tramway Avenue stop arrangement from an island platform to a side platform.

The change was made to provide additional safety for pedestrians accessing the Tramway Avenue stop, improve consistency with other stops, improve flood immunity, and maintain access to adjacent properties.

James Ruse Drive Bridge – minor amendment to the design of the James Ruse Drive bridge.

The change was made following further consultation with Roads and Maritime Services to reduce construction and operational traffic impacts to James Ruse Drive and to reduce property impacts on adjacent land owned by the Australian Turf Club.

Rosehill Gardens Racecourse pedestrian link – upgrade and extension of existing pedestrian links between Camellia stop and the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse.

The change was made to improve pedestrian access between the Camellia stop and the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse

Dundas stop – refinement of the design of the Dundas stop to allow for improved integration with existing heritage structures.

The change was made in response to advice received from a heritage architect (in accordance with mitigation and management measures HE-19) to allow for the adaptive re-use of original heritage infrastructure associated with the Dundas Station Group platforms and buildings.

Active transport link changes – minor changes to the proposed active transport link including provision of additional connections points and extension north of Carlingford stop.

The change was made in response to submissions received during the public exhibition period and to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity.

Carlingford rail line decommissioning – including removal of the existing overhead rail systems and a section of the tracks within the existing Carlingford Line corridor between the proposed Camellia stop and Parramatta Road. Following the completion of works within the corridor, this section of the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp) and considered in future transport planning.

The change was made following consultation with Sydney Trains to improve safety for construction workers during construction of the project.

A full assessment of the design changes is presented in Chapter 6 (Preferred Infrastructure Report). The impacts associated with the proposed design changes would be manageable through the

Executive summary


xxi

application of the environmental mitigation and management measures presented in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, which includes some new and revised measures. Overall, the benefits of the changes to the community and the environment, and the benefits for construction and operation of the project, are expected to outweigh the potential impacts of these changes.

Additional investigations and clarifications Since exhibition of the EIS, the Urban Design Requirements handbook has been further developed by Transport for NSW in collaboration with Council, relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders. The purpose of the Urban Design Requirements handbook is to balance engineering, traffic and project constraints during the design development. It may be further amended during the detailed design process (refer section 7.1 of this document for further details).

In addition, the following clarifications to the EIS have been identified:

» Adjustment to some of the proposed bus stop changes as a result of ongoing refinement of the project.

» A new road connection to cross the light rail at the Telopea stop had been identified in the EIS (Figure 3.23 of Technical Paper 3, Operational Traffic and Transport Assessment Report). This road crossing does not form part of the project and would be developed as part of the Telopea Master Plan by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation.

» A series of minor changes to direct property impacts and acquisition requirements to those identified in the EIS as a result of the ongoing refinement of the project. Changes involve a series of reductions and additions to previously identified partial and whole acquisitions.

» A number of minor changes to the disturbance footprint as a result of the ongoing refinement of the project.

» Corrections to editorial errors identified in the EIS.

Conclusions and next steps The Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report document and consider the issues raised in community and stakeholder submissions on the project, as well as Transport for NSW’s response to these issues. It is proposed that the project, as described in Chapters 5 and 6 of the EIS, and as amended by this Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report, should be submitted for determination by the Minister for Planning.

The Minister for Planning will subsequently decide whether to grant approval, or to refuse the project, under Section 115ZB of the EP&A Act. Should the project be approved by the Minister, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with community members, government agencies and other stakeholders during the pre-construction, construction and commissioning phases (refer Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report for further details).

Introduction


1-1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background and purpose of this Submissions

Report An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) (hereafter referred to as ‘the project’) was placed on public exhibition between 23 August and 23 October 2017. During this period, government agencies, interested stakeholders and the community were invited to make written submissions on the project to the Department of Planning and Environment.

The determination process for the project is summarised in Figure 1.1, which identifies the current status of the project.

This document comprises the Submissions Report and a Preferred Infrastructure Report for the project, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements for State significant infrastructure (SSI) under Part 5.1 and section 115Z(6) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Section 115Z(6) of the EP&A Act specifies that:

The Secretary may require the proponent to submit to the Secretary:

a) a response to the issues raised in those submissions, and

b) a preferred infrastructure report that outlines any proposed changes to the State significant infrastructure to minimise its environmental impact or to deal with any other issue raised during the assessment of the application concerned.

This Submissions Report provides:

» An overview of the project and the key findings of the EIS.

» A summary of consultation activities undertaken prior to, and during, the public exhibition of the EIS, as well as ongoing consultation during the pre-construction, construction and commissioning phases.

» An overview of the issues raised in community and stakeholder submissions that were received during the EIS exhibition period, and Transport for NSW’s response to these issues.

» A description and assessment of changes made to the project as presented in the EIS (the Preferred Infrastructure Report).

» Additional investigations that have been undertaken since exhibition of the EIS; as well as clarifications on the information provided in the EIS (in response to issues raised in submissions).

» The revised consolidated environmental mitigation and management measures for the project, adjusted in response to the submissions received and/or the preferred infrastructure report.

Introduction

1-2 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


Figure 1.1 Planning and assessment process

1.2 Overview of the project This section provides a summary overview of the project as described in the EIS. Changes proposed to that described in the EIS are provided in Chapter 6 of this document.

The project, as described in the EIS, comprises an approximate 12-kilometre alignment from Westmead to Carlingford and Camellia and would consist of a mix of both on-street and dedicated corridor alignment. The project would generally be located along existing streets in Westmead, the Parramatta central business district (CBD) and the suburbs of Rosehill and Camellia. Between Camellia and Carlingford, the proposed route would utilise the existing T6 Carlingford Line railway corridor. The proposed alignment, the stop locations and stabling and maintenance facility locations for the project as presented in the EIS are shown in Figure 1.2.

Introduction


1-3

Figure 1.2 Overview of the project as presented in the Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction



1.2.1 Key features of the project

The project would extend from Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia. The key project elements would include:

» A new light rail network of around 12 kilometres in length (including approximately seven kilometres within the existing road corridor separated from general traffic and approximately five kilometres utilising the existing heavy rail T6 Carlingford Line and Sandown Line for use as light rail corridors and replacing current heavy rail services).

» A total of 16 stops (subject to further design development). The stops would form a combination of side and island platforms depending on the final design of the project and existing constraints at each stop location. Platforms would be approximately 45 metres long.

» Interchanges with existing rail and/or bus facilities at Westmead, Parramatta CBD and Carlingford.

» Light rail vehicle (LRV) driver amenities at the light rail termini at Westmead and Carlingford and at the stabling and maintenance facility at Camellia.

» Alterations to the road network to accommodate the project.

» Active transport infrastructure (e.g. shared paths) and urban design features would be provided along sections of the project alignment.

» An integrated stabling and maintenance facility located in Camellia.

1.2.1.1 Constructing the project

Construction of the project is expected to commence in mid-2018 (subject to planning approval). The project would commence operations in 2023.

The main construction activities would include:

» Property acquisition and adjustment including boundary fencing and temporary hoardings (as required).

» Demolition of buildings and structures along the project alignment.

» Relocation of services and utilities.

» Modifications to the surrounding road network.

» Construction of tracks, overhead wiring (OHW) and associated infrastructure (track infrastructure).

» Construction of light rail stops.

» Construction of new, and modification of existing, bridges and culverts.

» Construction of the stabling and maintenance facility in Camellia.

» Construction of substations and associated electrical works.

» Establishment of construction compounds along the construction alignment for stockpiling and storage of materials.

» Demobilisation, rehabilitation and landscaping of impacted areas prior to the commissioning phase.

Introduction


1-5

A number of activities would be carried out before the start of the substantial construction works. These ‘enabling works’ would be required to make ready the key construction sites and include establishment of construction compounds, relocation of services and utilities, and road modification and reconfiguration.

A detailed description of the project (and construction) was provided in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 respectively of the EIS.

1.2.1.2 Project operation

When operational, a light rail service would have the capacity to carry up to 250-300 passengers (equivalent to about six buses). Services would operate on a 'turn-up-and-go' basis during peak periods. The project would operate from 5 am to 1 am seven days a week, with additional services during major events.

The ticketing system for the project would integrate with the Opal electronic ticketing system. Opal top-up machines would be provided at selected stops. Passenger information systems would be located at each stop and on the LRV providing up-to-date service information.

1.2.2 Project need and benefits

The project would provide a catalyst for urban renewal along its corridor, providing connections to areas that will be transformed through significant NSW Government and private investment. By providing a reliable, frequent and convenient new public transport product with connections to existing interchanges, the project would offer an attractive alternative to private vehicles, minimising car dependence for intermediate trips in the Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) priority growth area. The project would complement the existing transport network and other proposed network improvements to support growth and respond to the increasing travel demand within and beyond the GPOP priority growth area.

Existing and other transport network improvements include:

» Transformational projects such as WestConnex (under construction), Sydney Metro West (under development) and rapid bus routes along strategic corridors (under development).

» New walking and cycling networks, travel demand management, parking management solutions and road network changes to address regional car and freight movements that currently occur in and around the Parramatta CBD.

Other key strategic benefits of the project would include:

» City shaping benefits – including reduced urban sprawl, improved housing affordability and reduced socio-economic disadvantage.

» Place making benefits – such as improved amenity for customers and residents, improved cycling connections and pedestrian environments, and health benefits from increased active transport.

» Productivity benefits − this includes reduced transport and logistics costs for businesses, assisting in a transition to a knowledge economy and increased agglomeration benefits from knowledge transfer.

» Transport benefits – including travel-time savings, reduced crowding, reliability improvements and reduced future road congestion.

Introduction



The new light rail service would have an estimated travel time of around 38 minutes between the Carlingford and Westmead light rail stops (refer to Figure 1.3). This includes:

» Eighteen minutes between Carlingford and the Parramatta CBD stops, which is six minutes faster than bus and the equivalent of heavy rail services, excluding wait time when transferring.

» Six minutes between Cumberland Hospital and Westmead Hospital stops, which is 15 minutes faster than bus.

Figure 1.3 Estimated travel times

1.3 Key findings of the Environmental Impact Statement

1.3.1 Key impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Statement

Key regional and local impacts (positive and negative impacts) during operation and construction of the project were described in detail in Chapters 8 to 15 (Volumes 1A and 1B) of the EIS. The EIS splits the discussion of impacts into regional and whole-of-project impacts (Chapters 8–10 in Volume 1A) and local environmental impacts (Chapters 8–10 in Volume 1A) and local environmental impacts (Chapters 11 to 15 in Volume 1B).

In summary, the key impacts identified in the EIS include the following:

» Traffic and transport:

• Some temporary impacts to traffic performance on the surrounding road network due to construction vehicles, temporary road closures, loss of parking spaces and loading zones, bus route diversion, relocation of bus stops, and temporary closure or diversions of pedestrian and cyclist access.

• Closure of the T6 Carlingford Line during construction of the project. A replacement bus service would be provided with additional journey time increases of around one to seven minutes (depending on origin station) would be likely during construction for the AM peak.

• Significant improvements to the public transport network capacity and efficiency during operation of the project including new public transport interchange facilities at and around Westmead and Parramatta Railway stations. For the existing Carlingford line, it would provide

Introduction


1-7

customers with a door-to-door saving of up to 21 minutes between Carlingford and the Parramatta CBD.

• The light rail and pedestrian zones would significantly improve pedestrian crossing opportunities within the Parramatta CBD precinct. However, the removal of traffic from Church Street would increase traffic demand along the other alternative north-south connections within the CBD.

» Built and non-Aboriginal heritage:

• The project would have direct, visual and/or indirect impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Group (direct/visual – moderate, indirect – minor, with minor positive impacts from the re-instated views), Lennox Bridge (visual – major, direct – moderate, indirect – minor), the Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve) (visual/direct – moderate, indirect – minor), the Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former) (direct/visual/indirect – minor) and the Dundas Railway Station Group (direct/visual – moderate, indirect – low).

» Aboriginal heritage:

• Some impact would occur to Aboriginal archaeological sites located within the construction disturbance footprint. This includes impacts on the Parramatta Sand Body. Where impact on sites of moderate-high significance is proposed, the impacted portions represent a small fraction of the total site area.

» Noise and vibration:

• Given the nature and duration of works and the close proximity of receivers, airborne noise during construction is expected to exceed noise management levels (NMLs) along the alignment, and at some locations by more than 25 dB(A) over the NMLs.

• Based on the construction haulage routes and the forecast redistribution of general traffic during construction, noticeable increases in road traffic noise are predicted on less busy routes, including a number of local roads that link the construction areas to the main arterial routes.

• When operational, the project is anticipated to result in areas along the corridor where noise levels would exceed the noise trigger levels at residential and other sensitive receivers. The majority of these receivers were identified as being in Westmead, the Parramatta CBD and the Rosehill and Camellia precincts. At the stabling and maintenance facility, the operational noise criteria for adjacent commercial and distant residential receivers are not predicted to be exceeded for any of the modelled scenarios during the daytime, evening and night-time periods.

» Socio-economic:

• Negative impacts during construction would include direct impacts on businesses, accommodation providers or residents where properties are to be acquired, or where there would be altered property access and visibility of businesses. Areas of open space would also be lost during construction and operation.

• Indirect socio-economic impacts during construction would include temporary constraints or restrictions on service and delivery vehicle access, amenity issues such as increased traffic congestion, noise, vibration and dust, changes to customer access and parking. This would particularly be the case on ‘Eat Street’ in the Parramatta CBD where the existing alfresco dining areas could not be accommodated during construction. Measures would be implemented to minimise temporary impacts on businesses.

• The project would have a positive socio-economic impact during operation due to the provision of an alternative public transport service, reduced travel times and improved connectivity along the alignment. The creation of a shared light rail and pedestrian zone would provide a positive impact to street amenity, providing benefits to businesses along Church Street.

Introduction



• The project would help to provide a catalyst for urban renewal by focusing new housing and employment around safe, connected and diverse urban precincts. The provision of frequent light rail services would enhance liveability, promote activity, increase safety through passive surveillance and attract a range of retail opportunities within stop precincts.

» Property and land use:

• Around 35 total property acquisitions and around 90 partial property acquisitions would be required along the alignment including a mix of residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial and retail. Land in excess of operational requirements would be made available for uses consistent with land use planning controls.

» Visual and landscape:

• In general, the construction stage would result in minor to high adverse landscape impacts, and minor to high adverse visual impacts. Adverse impacts are anticipated during construction due to the partial road or footpath closures, the presence of construction activity, removal of street trees, building demolition and a general reduction in amenity.

• High adverse impacts during construction and operation would occur where the project is located within or adjacent to areas of landscape or visual sensitivity, such as heritage or natural landscapes (such as the Cumberland Hospital heritage precinct), open spaces (such as Prince Alfred Square and Robin Thomas Reserve) or key urban landscapes (such as Church Street).

» Trees:

• The construction of the project would require the removal of trees along the alignment or would have the potential to significantly impact the structural root zone of nearby trees, including those of moderate and high retention value.

• Hydrology, drainage, surface water quality and groundwater.

• During construction, potential flood impacts would be generally minor in nature and mitigated by managing specific detailed design aspects of the construction compound and site planning.

No substantial excavations would be required as part of the project that would result in dewatering or result in any water table drawdown of the existing aquifers. A more detailed summary of the key project impacts was provided in Table 17.1 of the EIS.

1.3.2 Conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement

As discussed in Chapter 19 of the EIS, there is a strong justification for the project in relation to its strategic transport need and its anticipated benefits, considering the objectives of the EP&A Act and matters of ecologically sustainable development. The EIS also concluded that provided that the measures and commitments specified in the EIS are effectively implemented during the design, construction and operational phases of the project, the identified environmental impacts are considered to be acceptable and manageable and would be in the public interest.

Introduction


1-9

1.4 Announcement of Stage 2 of the Parramatta Light Rail

In October 2017, the NSW Government announced the preferred route for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2, which will connect to Stage 1 and run north of the Parramatta River through the rapidly developing suburbs of Ermington, Melrose Park and Wentworth Point to Sydney Olympic Park, providing a new public transport option to this booming sport, entertainment and employment hub. An option for extending east through Camellia before crossing the Parramatta River to Rydalmere is being considered. Stage 2 would be further developed through consultation with the community and stakeholders. A Final Business Case for Stage 2 is expected to be completed in 2018, with an investment decision and details on the timing of construction to follow.

1.5 Structure of this Submissions Report The structure of this Submissions Report is as follows:

» Executive summary: Provides a summary of the information presented in this Submissions report.

» Chapter 1 — Introduction (this Chapter): Introduces the Submissions Report; an overview of the key features of the project; a summary of the key conclusions of the EIS; and the structure of this Submissions Report.

» Chapter 2 — Consultation: Provides an overview of consultation activities undertaken prior to, and during, the public exhibition of the EIS. This chapter also includes a summary of proposed ongoing consultations and communications (subject to project approval).

» Chapter 3 — Overview of submissions: Provides an overview of the process that was used to analyse the issues raised in submissions, as well as an overview of the key issues raised by the community government agencies and other key stakeholders.

» Chapter 4 —Government agency and key stakeholder submissions: Summarises the issues raised in government agency and other key stakeholder submissions. Due to the complexity of these submissions, Transport for NSW's response to these issues is provided in Appendix C.

» Chapter 5 — Response to community submissions: Details the key issues raised in community submissions and Transport for NSW's response to these issues.

» Chapter 6 — Preferred Infrastructure Report: Documents and assesses proposed changes that have been made to the project since the exhibition of the EIS, as well as any additional environmental mitigation and management measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to manage any newly identified adverse impacts as a result of these changes. An overall statement of the change in environmental and social impact of the project, relative to that documented in the EIS, is also provided.

» Chapter 7 — Additional investigations and clarifications to the Environmental Impact Statement: Documents the additional investigations that have been undertaken since the exhibition of the EIS. This chapter also provides a number of clarifications to the information presented in the EIS, in response to issues raised in submissions, or to correct minor errors in the EIS identified by the project team.

» Chapter 8 — Revised environmental management measures: Provides the revised set of environmental mitigation and management measures for the project, which have been amended in response to the proposed changes to the project, additional investigations undertaken since the public exhibition of the EIS, and issues raised in submissions received during the public exhibition period.

» Chapter 9 — Conclusion: Provides key conclusions for this Submissions Report.

Introduction



» Chapter 10 — References: Provides a list of the documents that have been cited in this Submissions Report.

» Appendix A — Key issue and sub-issue categories: Provides a consolidated list of key issues and sub-issues categories for issues raised in community submissions.

» Appendix B —Table of issues per community submission: Provides a table of key issues and sub-issues raised in each community submission and a cross-reference to where these are responded to in this Submissions Report.

» Appendix C — Responses to government and key stakeholder submissions: Provides detailed summaries of government agency and other key stakeholder submissions and responses.

Consultation


2-1

2 Consultation This chapter summarises the stakeholder and community consultation activities that Transport for NSW has undertaken prior to, and during, the exhibition of the EIS for the project.

2.1 Pre-Environmental Impact Statement exhibition consultation

A detailed overview of the consultation activities that Transport for NSW undertook for the project both before and during the preparation of the EIS was provided in Chapter 4 of the EIS. This included an overview of the key issues raised by stakeholders and the community and, where relevant, how these concerns have been addressed through the design of the project and/or the EIS process. A summary of the consultation activities undertaken with key project stakeholders and the community is provided below.

2.1.1 Consultation and engagement activities prior to preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement

Stakeholder and community consultation for the project has formed an integral part of informing and scoping investigations for the project.

In December 2015, the NSW government announced the preferred network for Parramatta Light Rail (of which this project forms a part). A comprehensive stakeholder engagement process commenced at this time, focusing on project objectives and consideration of alignment options. In August 2016, a community engagement process commenced, providing information about the project and seeking high level feedback on the project. Consultation activities which were carried out prior to preparation of the EIS included:

» Stakeholder engagement on Parramatta Transport Corridor Strategy from October 2014 to July 2015.

» Stakeholder engagement on Parramatta Light Rail (including options development), which commenced following the announcement of the preferred network in December 2015.

» Industry consultation commencing in March 2016.

» Ongoing community engagement from August 2016.

Key activities carried out in each of these phases are described in greater detail in section 4.2 of the EIS. Issues and comments raised during these processes were taken into consideration during the project concept design and EIS compilation and were addressed as part of this EIS (in section 4.4).

2.1.2 Consultation during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement

2.1.2.1 Government agency consultation

Transport for NSW’s government agency consultation during the preparation of the EIS focused on cross-agency integration and communication. Regular meetings were held with a variety of government stakeholders to ensure key issues are appropriately addressed.

Consultation



Key government agencies which were consulted during the preparation of the EIS included:


» Department of Education.

» NSW Environment Protection Authority.

» NSW Health (Health Infrastructure, Western Sydney Local Health District).


» NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

» NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

» NSW Land and Housing Corporation.

» Property NSW.

» Sydney Water.

» Emergency services committee (NSW Police, Fire & Rescue NSW, NSW Ambulance).

» State Emergency Services.

A summary of the feedback received during these consultation sessions was provided in section 4.4 of the EIS.

In addition, as part of the Department of Planning and Environment planning process, a planning focus meeting (PFM) with government stakeholders was held on 7 March 2017 to discuss the scope of the EIS and inform the development of the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the project. The PFM was also attended by a number of the government agencies identified above including NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Health, UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation and the Council.

Within the governance structure of the project team, internal Transport for NSW representatives were also engaged, including Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime), the Traffic Management Centre, the Sydney Coordination Office and Sydney Trains, and issues raised were addressed in the development of the project as described in the EIS.

2.1.2.2 Community consultation

Following the announcement of the preferred alignment for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1, Transport for NSW continued to carry out a range of consultation and engagement with the community and stakeholders throughout the development of the EIS.

As described in section 4.3 of the EIS, consultation with the community prior to the exhibition of the EIS included:

» Project website: The project website (www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au) provides a variety of project information, including information about community information sessions, the preferred alignment, precincts served and project status. The website also provides a suite of fact sheets about the project, an animation of the project, as well as an online survey and forum to allow members of the public to provide structured feedback.

» Place managers: Designated Place Managers commenced work on the project from November 2016. The Place Managers were identified as the direct point of contact for the community, businesses and other stakeholders on behalf of the project. Separate dedicated Place Managers were assigned for Westmead and Parramatta North, Parramatta CBD and Rosehill, Camellia and along the T6 Carlingford Line.

http://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/

Consultation


2-3

» Community update brochures: A project brochure was letterbox dropped to over 83,000 properties in February 2017 targeting residents and businesses. This brochure provided a project and planning update including the preferred alignment and project contact details. The first edition of the project quarterly newsletter was also distributed in April 2017 to 65,000 households and to 1500 email addresses. The second edition was distributed in July 2017.

» Project contact mechanisms: An information line (1800 684 490) and email address ([email protected]) were established to enable all stakeholders and the community to provide feedback on the project and ask questions of the project team. Feedback received prior to exhibition of the EIS was incorporated where relevant.

» Community information and feedback sessions: Following the formal announcement of the preferred alignment in February 2017, a number of community consultation activities, including 25 pop-up information sessions, were undertaken for the purpose of collecting feedback from stakeholders and to inform the investigations carried out for the project. This consultation was designed to facilitate stakeholder input into the EIS and design development process.

» Interactive online forums: Transport for NSW sought further feedback from stakeholders via an interactive online forum following the project announcement from 17 February to 28 April 2017. Stakeholders were encouraged to visit the online forum via posts on the project Facebook page and direct email to the project’s email subscription list. Around 174 community members participated in an online survey with the responses to the questions received considered in ongoing project development and preparation of the EIS.

» Property owner engagement: Transport for NSW commenced engagement with the owners and tenants of properties that would be directly impacted by the preferred alignment of the project. Property owners and tenants who would be subject to acquisition of property for the project were assigned a Property Manager Acquisitions (PMA) to work directly with them.

» Business survey: A business survey was conducted by HillPDA and Transport for NSW as part of the Business Impact Assessment for the EIS (refer Technical Paper 14 in Volume 7) in early 2017. The business survey was conducted to better understand the operational needs of businesses and the potential impacts on them from the project during construction and operation.

» Aboriginal stakeholder consultation: Consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders was undertaken in accordance with Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (OEH, 2010b). This included review of the assessment methodology, an Aboriginal Focus Group meeting on 29th July 2017 and a review of the completed draft Technical Paper 5 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Further detail is provided in Chapter 2 of Technical Paper 5 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment.

2.2 Consultation during public exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement

The EIS was exhibited between 23rd August and 23rd October 2017. During the exhibition period, government agencies, interest groups and organisations, stakeholders and the community were invited to make written submissions. A summary of the engagement activities and tools that were undertaken during the public exhibition period is outlined below.

2.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement display locations

The EIS was placed on public exhibition at a number of locations including:

» Department of Planning and Environment, Information Centre Level 22, 320 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000.

» City of Parramatta Council, 126 Church Street, Parramatta NSW 2150.

mailto:[email protected]

Consultation



» City of Parramatta Council Library, 1 – 3 Fitzwilliam Street, Parramatta NSW 2150.

» Dundas Valley Branch Library, 21 Sturt Street, Dundas Valley NSW 2117.

» Transport for NSW, Parramatta Light Rail Project Office, Level 10, 130 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150.

» Transport for NSW Transport Projects, Level 5, Tower A Zenith Centre, 821 Pacific Highway, Chatswood NSW 2067.

» Telopea (Master Plan Office), 6 Shortland Street, Telopea NSW 2117.

» Nature Conservation Council, 14/338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

During this time, display material and hard copies of the EIS were made available to the public in order to provide the community, stakeholders and agencies an outline of expected environmental and social impacts and proposed management measures.

2.2.2 Promotion of the public exhibition

To promote awareness of the EIS public exhibition period, a project brochure was distributed to 165,000 residential and commercial properties along the alignment, as well as government agencies and key stakeholders.

Advertisements were also placed in key suburban and metropolitan newspapers (including the Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, Parramatta Advertiser, Parramatta Holroyd Sun, Inner West Courier, the Northern District Times, Western Sydney Business Access, and community language newspapers El Telegraph (Arabic), Australia New Express Daily (Mandarin), Daily Chinese Herald (Cantonese), Top News Weekly (Korean) to announce the EIS display. The advertisements provided details of the exhibition and community information sessions, including dates, locations and opening hours, and invited community members to write submissions in response to the EIS. The relevant contact details for lodging a submission were also included in the advertisements.

2.2.3 Community contact and information points

The project contact points including the project information line (1800 684 490) and email address ([email protected]) which were available during the preparation of the EIS continued to operate throughout the public exhibition period. Community and stakeholders were encouraged to contact the project team to discuss the EIS and submissions process.

2.2.4 Key stakeholder briefings Throughout the public exhibition period, a number of meetings were held with key stakeholders. The objectives of these meetings included providing project updates, addressing project interfaces and identifying issues, identifying concerns or suggestions for improvement based on the project presented in the EIS. Stakeholder meetings during which the EIS was discussed were held with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, Council, Western Sydney Local Health District, Parramatta Park Trust, Westmead Children’s Hospital, Westmead Adult’s Hospital, Cumberland Hospital and cycling representative groups.

During the public exhibition period, meetings were also held to discuss the EIS with the Council’s affiliated groups including the Community and Business Advisory Group for the project and the Business Chamber.


Consultation


2-5

Transport for NSW established the Parramatta Light Rail Advisory Group in August 2017 comprising range of key Government and local stakeholders to the project. The aim of the group is to collaborate, provide advice and encourage the discussion of ideas for the project. The first of the quarterly meetings was held on Friday 25th August and included a discussion on the EIS process and exhibition details. This meeting was attended by 11 stakeholders.

Prior to the commencement of the public exhibition period, emails were sent to around 60 stakeholder groups including: disability representative groups, educational facilities, business organisations, community organisations, places of worship, clubs and major venues. The purpose of the email was to inform them of the public exhibition and provide details on how they could make a submission.

2.2.5 Community information sessions

A series of community information sessions were held during the public exhibition period. These sessions provided opportunities for members of the community and stakeholders to discuss the EIS with the project team and ask questions about the project. The sessions also provided the community with an opportunity to learn more about the submissions process. Over 270 community members attended the information sessions including 35 businesses at the dedicated business EIS information session.

Details of the community information sessions held during the public exhibition are provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Community information and feedback sessions during public exhibition

LOCATION VENUE ADDRESS DATE TIME

Parramatta CBD

PARKROYAL Parramatta

30 Phillip Street, Parramatta

Thursday 31 August 2017 4 pm–8 pm

Dundas Dundas Sports and Recreation Club

9 Elder Road, Dundas Saturday 2 September 2017

10 am–2 pm

Westmead One Hotels and Apartment

175 Hawkesbury Road, Westmead

Wednesday 13 September 2017

4 pm–8 pm

Carlingford Carlingford Bowling Club

334 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford

Saturday 16 September 2017

10 am–2 pm

Camellia and Rosehill

Rosehill Bowling Club James Ruse Drive and Hassall Street, Rosehill

Thursday 21 September 2017

4 pm–8 pm

North Parramatta

Novotel Sydney Parramatta

350 Church Street, Parramatta

Saturday 23 September 2017

10 am–2 pm

North Parramatta

(Dedicated Business Information Session)

Novotel Sydney Parramatta

350 Church Street, Parramatta

Thursday 12 October 2017 7 am–12 pm

Consultation



2.2.6 Community Pop-Up Events

Four community pop-up displays were carried out at the following events:

» Kidtopia Festival.

» Deepavali Festival.

» Ride & Stride Westmead Children’s Hospital and Westmead Adult’s Hospital.

Over 740 community members engaged with staff at the pop-up displays for information. Kidtopia and Deepavali had a combined attendance of over 35,000 people. Around 120 community members were also engaged with at Westmead Health Ride & Stride activities.

2.2.7 EIS Project Brochure

A four-page EIS project brochure was produced which was made available at community information sessions, community events, online and distributed by letter box drop. This was also translated into the top four languages spoken in the project area including Korean, Arabic, Mandarin and Cantonese. This was distributed to 165,000 households and businesses in the GPOP catchment via a letterbox drop. In addition, over 3,000 of the brochures were distributed to the community and stakeholders at EIS information sessions, pop-up events and static displays.

2.2.8 EIS Project Overview

A 48-page EIS overview document was produced which was available at stakeholder locations, community events and online. Over 1,500 copies of the EIS overview were distributed to the community and stakeholders.

2.2.9 EIS Website Navigator

The EIS Website Navigator is an interactive online tool that provides users with a visual representation of the scope and key features of the project, construction methodology, benefits of the project and the positive and negative environmental impacts. The purpose of the EIS Website Navigator is to provide an easy to access summary alternative to the EIS for stakeholders and community members.

The EIS Website Navigator was made available to the public via the Parramatta Light Rail website on 23 August to coincide with the EIS being placed on public exhibition. During this period, the EIS Website Navigator was viewed 2,885 times.

2.2.10 Other consultation activities

A number of other consultation activities were undertaken during the exhibition of the EIS including:

» Factsheets for each precinct.

» Quarterly project newsletter.

» Media activity.

» Advertising.

» Email distribution.

» Project website updates.

» Social media posts.

Consultation


2-7

2.3 Ongoing and future communications with the community

Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing community and stakeholder engagement for the project including throughout the detailed design, construction and commissioning phases. Transport for NSW will work closely with the nominated construction contractor(s) for the project to ensure the consistent delivery of accurate information on the project to the community, businesses and stakeholders throughout the life of the project (subject to planning approval).

2.3.1 Consultation during construction

2.3.1.1 Community and stakeholders

During construction, a plan would be prepared to ensure:

» The community and stakeholders have a high level of awareness of all processes and activities associated with the project.

» Accurate information is made available in an effective and timely manner.

» A timely response is given to issues and concerns raised by stakeholders and the community.

Transport for NSW’s project information line and email address would continue to be available during the detailed design and construction phases of the project and targeted communication activities, such as letters, brochures, emails and website updates, would continue as the project progresses. Stakeholders would continue to be proactively engaged through ongoing stakeholder meetings and other forums.

Subject to planning approval, Transport for NSW (and the construction contractor) would continue to engage with the community and key stakeholders prior to and during construction. Community engagement would focus on preparing the public for the realities of construction impacts and working with directly impacted stakeholders to mitigate and reduce those impacts where possible. The approach, methodology and tools proposed for this engagement phase would be included in subsequent updates to the Community Engagement Plan. Contractors will produce their own Community Engagement Plans which will contribute to the implementation of the overarching plan in accordance with the Construction Stakeholder and Community Consultation Framework (as presented in Appendix D of the EIS). In general, this consultation would include:

» Notification (including targeted letterbox drops) of works that may affect existing transport (such as road closures, changes to pedestrian routes and bus stops).

» 24-hour toll-free community project information phone line.

» Regular updates to the project website (http://parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au).

» Ongoing use of interactive web-based activities.

» Regular newsletters, information brochures and fact sheets.

» Regular construction updates.

» Clear signage at construction sites.

» Ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, local councils and other government agencies.

» Development / implementation of a community complaints and response management system.

» Media releases / regular project development advertisements in local and metropolitan papers.

http://parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/

Consultation



» Ongoing role of Place Managers to act as single point of contact for the community.

» Ongoing role of Property Manager Acquisition to act as point of contact for property owners impacted by acquisition.

» Translation and interpreter services.

» Satisfaction surveys and feedback form.

Complaints during construction would be managed in accordance with Transport for NSW’s Community Engagement Policy. A construction response line (1800 775 465) is available for all Transport for NSW projects and would be a 24-hour contact point for complaints regarding construction works for the project.

2.3.1.2 Business consultation

Engagement with retailers and property owners along the project alignment would also be ongoing throughout the detailed design and construction stages of the project. Support to businesses potentially impacted by the project would be identified through the development of a Business Consultation and Activation Plan (refer to revised mitigation and management measure SE-2). This plan would be prepared in conjunction with stakeholders including the Sydney Coordination Office team and the Council, and would be finalised in consultation with business representatives and impacted business owners. Further discussion regarding this plan was provided in section 17.4.2 of the EIS.

2.3.2 Operation stage

Limited consultation activities would be required during operation of the project, however, as identified in mitigation and management measure HR-7 (Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures)), targeted safety campaigns to raise awareness around the operation of LRVs would be used in the lead up to the opening of the project and during operation to promote the safe operation of the project. This would focus on raising awareness and promoting safe behaviours around the project.

Overview of submissions


3-1

3 Overview of submissions This chapter provides an overview of the process that was used to analyse the issues raised in submissions received on the project during the public exhibition of the EIS. This chapter also analyses the key issues raised in community, government agency and other key stakeholder submissions. A summary of responses to the issues raised in government agency and other key stakeholder submissions is provided in Chapter 4, while a response to issues raised in community submissions is provided in Chapter 5.

3.1 Analysis process 3.1.1 Receipt of submissions

Submissions from government agencies, key stakeholders, special interest groups, businesses and the community were received by the Department of Planning and Environment. All submissions received were provided to Transport for NSW for consideration. A total of 156 submissions were received, comprising 15 submissions from government and agencies and key stakeholders, and 141 submissions ‘community’ submissions (where ‘community’ includes businesses, special interest groups and community action groups).

Government agency and key stakeholder submissions received included submissions from:


» Cumberland Council.

» Office of Environment and Heritage.

» Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division.

» National Trust of Australia.

» NSW Environment Protection Agency.

» NSW Department of Primary Industries.

» Sydney Water.

» Parramatta Chamber of Commerce.

» NSW Fire and Rescue.


» Western Sydney University.

» Western Sydney Local Health District (NSW Health).

» NSW Health – Westmead Precinct Partners.

» Australian Turf Club.

Of the 141 community submissions, 15 submissions were received from special interest groups and community action groups and included 21 submissions from affected businesses.

Each submission was assigned an individual number by Department of Planning and Environment. These numbers are referred to in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Submissions Report, as well as Appendices B and C.




3.1.2 Handling of submissions

3.1.2.1 Government agency and project partner submissions

A number of government agency and key stakeholders have been involved in the development of the project throughout the feasibility and concept design phases of the project. This has included discussions relating to design and operation to address specific requirements, whilst still meeting the overall objectives of the project.

Key stakeholder submissions were addressed individually alongside the government agency submissions (rather than with community submissions) as their issues are specific to their assets (such as the Westmead Hospital and Children’s Hospital at Westmead with respect to NSW Health Infrastructure) or interests (such as the Cumberland Hospital Site for UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation). The content of government agency and key stakeholder submissions was reviewed and a summary of each key issue raised provided in this Submissions Report. Issues raised by government agencies and key stakeholders were not categorised as the issues raised were largely dependent on each stakeholder’s technical discipline area and/or assets.

A summary of the key issues raised in government agency and key stakeholder submissions is provided in Chapter 4.

3.1.2.2 Community submissions

Community submissions, including special interest groups, community action groups and submissions from businesses, were considered separately to government agency and key stakeholder submissions.

The content of each community submission was reviewed and categorised according to the key issues (e.g. noise and vibration) and sub-issues (e.g. construction noise) raised. A full list of the key issue and sub-issue categories used to categorise the issues raised in submissions is provided in Appendix A.

A summary of the key issues raised in community submissions is provided in section 3.2.2 of this Submissions Report, while a summary of the types of issues raised by each community submission is provided in Appendix B.

3.1.3 Response to submissions

3.1.3.1 Government agency and project partner submissions

As described above, responses to issues raised by government agencies and key stakeholders were provided to each individual submission are presented in full in Appendix C of this Submissions Report.

3.1.3.2 Community submissions

Due to the number of issues raised in community submissions, issues were grouped together based on their assigned key and sub-issue categories with responses provided to these grouped issues. Each issue is presented as a summary of the specific issues raised by individual submissions, meaning that, while the exact wording of a particular submission may not be presented in the summary of the issue, the intent of each individual issue raised has been captured. A tailored response has been provided to each grouped issue summary. Issues and responses are located in Chapter 5 of this Submissions Report.



3-3

3.2 Summary of issues 3.2.1 Government agency and key stakeholder submissions

A summary of the key issues raised by each government agency and the key stakeholder is provided in Chapter 4. A complete list of issues raised in government agency and key stakeholder submissions and Transport for NSW’s response to these issues is provided in Appendix C of this Submissions Report.

3.2.2 Community submissions

The key issues raised in community submissions are summarised in Table 3.1. A breakdown of the top four frequently raised key issues in community submissions (traffic transport and access, project design and operations, project alternatives and issues external to the project) by sub-issue is provided in Figures 3.1 to Figure 3.4.

Table 3.1 Summary of key issues raised in community submissions

KEY ISSUE NO. SUBMISSIONS RAISING KEY ISSUE

% OF SUBMISSIONS RAISING KEY ISSUE

Traffic transport and access 61 40%

Project design and operations 60 39%

Project alternatives 51 33%

Issues external to the project 43 28%

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage 34 22%

Socio-economic 25 16%

Noise and vibration 23 15%

Project need and justification 20 13%

Visual and landscape character 13 8%

Hazards and risks 11 7%

Project construction 10 6%

Land use and property 9 6%

Planning and statutory requirements 9 6%

Trees 8 5%

Community and stakeholder consultation 8 5%

Hydrology, drainage, flooding and groundwater 5 3%

Air quality 4 3%

Biodiversity 2 1%

Waste energy and resources 2 1%

Land stability, soils and contamination 1 1%




KEY ISSUE NO. SUBMISSIONS RAISING KEY ISSUE

% OF SUBMISSIONS RAISING KEY ISSUE

Aboriginal heritage 1 1%

Utilities and services 1 1%

3.2.2.1 Analysis of community submissions

Support or opposition for the project

Of all the submissions received, 21 submissions (or 13 per cent) indicated support for the project, 48 submissions (or 31 per cent) indicated opposition to the project, with the remaining 87 submissions (56 per cent) not clearly stating support or opposition to the project.

Analysis of issues

Around 900 individual issues were raised in the 141 community submissions received. Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.4 shows a breakdown of sub issues for the top four frequently raised key issues in community submissions.

Figure 3.1 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with traffic, transport and access issues raised



3-5

Figure 3.2 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with project design and operations issues raised

Figure 3.3 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with project alternatives issues raised




Figure 3.4 Breakdown of sub-issues associated with issues external to the project issues raised

A complete breakdown of all key issues into sub-issue categories, and Transport for NSW’s response to these issues, is provided in Chapter 5 of this Submissions Report.

Government agency and key stakeholder submissions


4-1

4 Government agency and key stakeholder submissions

Chapter 4 includes a high-level summary of the submissions received from government agencies and key stakeholders for the project. Due to the length and complexity of several of these submissions, the full summaries and responses to issues raised are included in Appendix C.

Table 4.1 Summary of government agency and key stakeholder submissions

AGENCY KEY ISSUES RAISED (FOR FULL SUMMARY AND RESPONSES REFER TO APPENDIX C)

City of Parramatta Council

» Overall acknowledgement of support for the project.

» Concern in relation to the level of design detail for the project presented in the EIS.

» The need for consideration of alternative alignments for sections of the project and alternative stop locations.

» Concern regarding potential impacts associated with the removal and/or relocation of on-street parking, especially for people with mobility parking requirements. Council noted support for the preparation of a Parking Offset and Management Strategy

» Concern regarding the level of impact on trees along the project alignment.

» The need for the project to minimise risk and maximise safety during flooding events.

» Impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve and the need for Council to prepare a revised master plan in collaboration with Transport for NSW and the community.

» Concern about the impact of the project on heritage parks, trees, items and both Aboriginal and historic archaeology.

» Urban design impacts and integration with Council’s urban design vision.

» Integration with known and future priority precincts and urban renewal areas.

» Traffic, transport and access impacts along the project alignment.

» Social and economic impacts of the project, in particular impacts to business along key areas such as ‘Eat Street’.

» Property and land use impacts, including acquisitions and impacts to businesses such as outdoor dining along Church Street.

» Need for ongoing community consultation.

» Sustainability impacts, such as waste and resource management, and impacts associated with ‘urban heat’.

» Flooding and water quality impacts associated with the project.





Cumberland Council

» Concern that the project boundary did not extend to the Cumberland local government area (LGA).

» Westmead Terminus Location and opportunity to integrate the suburb of Westmead.

» Access to and from the Westmead Station.

» Disruption to traffic and access during construction.

» Integration with the Westmead Priority Precinct.

» Extension of the light rail and future stages.

Office of Environment and Heritage

» Potential impacts on the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

» Biodiversity Offset Strategy measures.

» Climate change impacts.

» Adoption of design event levels for flood protection and flood immunity for operation of the project.

» North Parramatta Bridge and Vineyard Creek Bridge impacts (flooding).

Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Division)

» Concern in relation to the level of design detail for the project presented in the EIS with respect to potential impacts on heritage items.

» Concern regarding methodologies undertaken to conduct assessments.

» Concern regarding impacts to key heritage items including:

• Cumberland District Hospital Group. • Old Government and Domain. • St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. • The Royal Oaks Hotel and potential archaeological site. • Prince Alfred Square and Potential Archaeological Site. • Lennox Bridge. • Barrack Lane/Parramatta Convict Lumberyard. • Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape/Robin Thomas Reserve. • Sewage Pumping Station 67. • Camellia Underbridge Abutments. • Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. • Dundas Railway Station. • Carlingford Railway Station.



4-3


National Trust of Australia

» Concern in relation to the level of design detail for the project presented in the EIS with respect to potential impacts on heritage items.

» Concern regarding impacts to key heritage items including:

• Lennox Bridge. • St Patrick's Roman Catholic Cemetery. • Parramatta North. • Arthur Philip High School, Macquarie Street - Convict Lumberyard and

Convict Barracks. • Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape - Robin Thomas Reserve. • Grave of Elinor Magee and Child. • Sewage Pumping Station 67. • Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments. • Female Orphan School Precinct, Rydalmere.

NSW Environment Protection Authority

» Disturbance of contaminated land and management strategies.

» Justification for noise impacts associated with out of hours works.

» Water quality impacts associated with stormwater discharge.

» Bridge construction and modification, and mitigation and management measures for in-channel sediment disturbance.

» Clarification of proposed works at the stabling and maintenance site.

NSW Department of Primary Industries

» Clarification regarding potential impacts to groundwater.

» Consultation with Department of Industry (Crown Lands and Water) regarding the development of an appropriate groundwater monitoring strategy.

» Assessment of impacts to mangroves.

» Design of bridge crossings and any associated construction plans for works within or adjacent to the waterway.

Sydney Water » Potential impacts to, and management of, Sydney Water assets affected by the project.

» Connections to Sydney Water’s water and wastewater system.

Parramatta Chamber of Commerce

» Concern regarding the potential loss of up to 800 on-street parking spaces.

» Concern regarding the overall impacts of the project on businesses and the potential that some businesses will be displaced from Parramatta.

» Use and design of construction elements such as hoardings, signage, etc. during construction in order to maintain and promote businesses.

» Compensation for businesses.

» Alternative alignment options to Church Street.

NSW Fire and Rescue

» Access for emergency vehicles during construction and operation.

» Potential for the project to impede existing building fire systems or the need to position fire appliances in the immediate vicinity of fire booster connection points.





UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation

» Inter-dependency and coordination between the project and the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area.

» Request for inclusion of some additional works enabling/early works as part of the light rail project.

» Urban design integration with the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area.

Western Sydney University

» Rydalmere stop location options.

» Travel times and patronage.

» Potential vegetation impacts.

» Integration of current design with Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2.

» Access, site works and construction compound impacts to the Western Sydney University campus at Rydalmere.

» Changed traffic conditions within the vicinity of the Western Sydney University campus within the Parramatta CBD.

Western Sydney Local Health District (NSW Health).

» Integration of the project with the local health precinct.

» Air quality impact including dust generation during construction impacting on health services and patients.

» Noise impacts during construction and operation impacting on health services and patients.

NSW Health – Westmead Precinct Partners

» Need for ongoing consultation and collaboration with local business and impacted health services.

» Approach to exploring further options and requirements for design of the project within the Westmead health precinct.

» Vehicle access and traffic impacts within the Westmead health precinct during construction and operation.

» Potential impact of noise, vibration and electromagnetic fields on sensitive health, research and education receptors.

» Future proofing to support the development of the precinct in the context of the Westmead Research Zone Master Plan.

Australian Turf Club

» Decommissioning of the heavy rail corridor.

» Request for further consultation regarding the intended future use of the current heavy rail corridor.

» Programme for the decommissioning of the corridor.

» Remediation of contaminated material identified within the current rail alignment.

» Continuity of public transport to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse.

Response to community submissions


5-1

5 Response to community submissions This chapter details the issues raised in community submissions received during the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, and Transport for NSW’s response to these issues.

The order of the issues in this chapter is designed to reflect the order of the Environmental Impact Statement (where relevant), and does not reflect the number of times a particular issue was raised. For each issue (or sub-issue) raised, a summary of the issue is presented, followed by a list of the relevant submission numbers, and then Transport for NSW’s response. Where specific issues were raised that required a specific response, the individual issues and responses are presented in a tabular format.

5.1 Planning and statutory requirements 5.1.1 Accuracy of EIS documentation

Two submissions raised issues regarding the accuracy of the EIS, technical papers and associated documentation.

5.1.1.1 Summary of issues raised

In summary, the submissions raised the following issues:

» Comment that a figure in Technical Paper 1 (Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions) did not accurately reflect the current arrangement of George Street between Purchase Street and Alfred Street, Parramatta.

» Comment that the EIS incorrectly states there is ‘no school zone’ in Westmead.

5.1.1.2 Submission numbers

115, 140

5.1.1.3 Response

Prior to public exhibition, Department of Planning and Environment completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition.

Whilst all efforts were made during the preparation of the EIS to provide accurate and consistent information throughout the EIS and technical papers, some inconsistencies have been raised throughout the submissions process. The inconsistencies and errors are considered to be minor in nature. Transport for NSW does not consider that they impede the ability to assess the impacts of the project.

The school zone on Hawkesbury Road commences to the south of Alexandra Parade and is not within the relevant area described in Table 11.1 of the EIS (Key road network characteristics – Westmead precinct).




5.1.2 Detail provided in EIS documentation

Four submissions raised issues regarding the level of detail provided in the EIS, technical papers and associated documentation.



» Comment that the cross-section figures in Chapter 5 show scale only and do not provide the actual dimensions.

» Comment that the scope of the works and boundary is too broad to be approved.

» Request more detail on the proposed bridge over James Ruse Drive and Clay Cliff Creek to assist in site planning for an adjoining development proposal.

» Comment that the EIS does not provide sufficient detail on the proposed design for the Westmead terminus.


95, 127, 135, 138

5.1.2.3 Response

Chapter 5 of the EIS describes the concept design for the project, and provides indicative cross-sections of proposed stops (refer to Figure 5.8 of the EIS for the Westmead terminus). Chapter 5 also describes other key features proposed as part of the project including the proposed bridge of James Ruse Drive and Clay Cliff Creek (refer to section 5.9.1.3). Specific dimensions or detailed plans are not known at this early design stage.

These details will be further developed and understood should the project receive planning approval and when a contractor is on board to develop a detailed design. However, it is considered that the EIS provides a sufficient indicative description of the project to understand the environmental impacts and requirements of the SEARS.

As detailed in Chapter 5 of the EIS (Project Description – Infrastructure and operation), the final form and location of key features would be determined during the detailed design of the project and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Detailed design would consider potential impacts and avoid these where feasible.

Transport for NSW is committed to community and stakeholder engagement beyond the planning phase and would continue consultation throughout the detailed design, construction and commissioning phases of the project. This would include providing relevant information on elements such as the James Ruse Drive Bridge as the design progresses.



5-3

5.1.3 EIS process and documentation

Two submissions raised issues regarding the EIS process and documentation.



» Comment that the EIS did not adequately address the SEARs, with particular reference to:

• Consultation.

• Place-making and urban design.

• Heritage.

• Socio-economic, land use and property.

• Assessment of key issues.


129, 155

5.1.3.3 Response

A range of technical studies were undertaken as part of the assessment of the proposal. These were contained in Volumes 2 to 7 of the EIS. Each of these technical papers provided a detailed scope and impact assessment of the project on issues such as traffic and transport, heritage, socio-economic, air quality and greenhouse gases, visual and landscape, and noise and vibration. Studies used current information (as current and available at the time of preparation) and included an assessment of the practical implications of the project on the existing environment.

Furthermore, prior to public exhibition, Department of Planning and Environment completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition.

5.1.4 Planning approval process

Two submissions raised issues regarding the planning approval process.



» Concern that the approval of the project is a foregone conclusion given that the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line has already been advertised to occur at Christmas 2017.

» The large investment in the project to date means the project is guaranteed approval.


14, 155




5.1.4.3 Response

The T6 Carlingford Line would remain operational until cessation of passenger services is required to allow construction of the project (subject to project approval). Standard track work and weekend possessions scheduled for maintenance by Sydney Trains for the T6 Carlingford line may continue up to end of heavy rail services.

The EIS and associated process has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. The assessment carried out complies with the requirements of the SEARs.

Transport for NSW is seeking approval from the Minister for Planning for the project. The Minister, when making his decision, will consider the recommendations of the Department of Planning and Environment, including any recommended conditions of approval. The Department of Planning and Environment will consider all submissions in making a recommendation.

5.2 Community and stakeholder consultation 5.2.1 Project team’s engagement with the community

Two submissions raised issues regarding the project team’s general engagement with the community.



» Concern with the adequacy of community consultation.

» Community consultation regarding the proposed route should have been undertaken prior to the design of the project.


4, 21

5.2.1.3 Response

As outlined in Chapter 4 of the EIS, stakeholder and community engagement around the project commenced in 2014 during the initial inception and options phase, and has continued throughout the development phase. Prior to EIS exhibition, consultation activities included:

» Stakeholder engagement on Parramatta Transport Corridor Strategy from October 2014 to July 2015, outlined in section 4.2.1 of the EIS.

» Stakeholder engagement on the project (including options development), which commenced following the announcement of the preferred network in December 2015, outlined in section 4.2.2 of the EIS.

» Industry consultation commencing in March 2016, outlined in section 4.2.3 of the EIS.

» Community engagement (Phase 1) between August to November 2016, outlined in section 4.2.4 of the EIS.



5-5

» Community engagement (Phase 2) between February to May 2017, outlined in section 4.3 of the EIS, including 27 information sessions, doorknocking of businesses along the alignment and distribution of a project information brochure to 83,000 households.

As discussed in section 2.2.5 of this Submissions Report, the project team, including representatives from various technical disciplines (e.g. design, EIS and technical specialists), attended each of the community information sessions held during the exhibition of the EIS to clarify the information presented in the EIS, and listen to and consider any suggestions or concerns that members of the community had in relation to the project. Details of these sessions were communicated within the project brochure (distributed to 165,000 residents), newspaper advertisements and via the project website. Community members who attended the sessions were encouraged to make a formal submission on the project via the Department of Planning and Environment’s website.

Transport for NSW is committed to community and stakeholder engagement beyond the planning phase and will continue consultation through detailed design, construction and operation of the project. Ongoing community consultation and engagement was outlined in section 17.6 of the EIS.

Transport for NSW is committed to continuous improvement and would welcome more specific feedback on how to improve its communication with the community. Feedback can be made via phone by calling 1800 684 490 or email [email protected].

5.2.2 Level of consultation about the Parramatta Light Rail project

Four submissions raised issues regarding the extent of consultation with the community about the project with respect to specific aspects of the project design.



» Passengers who use the Carlingford train have not been consulted.

» The proposed route has not been adequately considered and there has not been adequate consultation.

» Comment that consultation was not undertaken with business owners within the Westmead Arcade on Hawkesbury Road regarding proposed property acquisition.

» Comment that the community has not been informed about the services being lost due to the acquisition of the Westmead Arcade on Hawkesbury Road.

» Comment that the location of the Fennell Street stop has not been informed by consultation with BP as an affected landowner and business operator.


26, 39, 115, 129

5.2.2.3 Response

A detailed overview of the consultation activities that Transport for NSW undertook for the project both before and during the preparation of the EIS was provided in Chapter 4 of the EIS. As outlined in Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report, a comprehensive community consultation program was implemented for the project.





Early consultation with key stakeholders on light rail routes as part of Parramatta Transport Corridor Strategy was undertaken from October 2014 to July 2015, as outlined in section 4.2.1 of the EIS. From August to November 2016 information on the preferred network was made available on the project website, 9200 project brochures were distributed and 55 community information sessions were held including 13 sessions at locations along the Carlingford Line.

Following the announcement of the preferred route on 17 February 2017, Transport for NSW undertook another round of community engagement from February to May 2017 for the area covered by the project to seek feedback on the alignment and proposed stop locations and tell stakeholders and the community about the preparation of the EIS. This included 27 information sessions, with 11 sessions at locations along the Carlingford Line. Stakeholder and community consultation activities that Transport for NSW has undertaken prior to, and during, the exhibition of the EIS are outlined in Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report and included, but not limited to, the following:

» Project website.

» Project information line and email address.

» Print and social media.

» Community update brochures distributed to over 83,000 properties in February 2017 and at train stations along the alignment (including the T6 Carlingford Line) during morning weekday peak hours.

» Door knocking.

» Advertised pop-up information sessions.

» Business survey.

» Community information and feedback sessions.

As detailed in section 4.3.7 of the EIS, properties that would be directly impacted by the project were either doorknocked by Transport for NSW Place Managers or meetings requested with major landowners and tenants to ensure they were aware of the project, the extent of the works and were provided with information to help them make a submission on the project. Property owners and tenants who would be subject to acquisition of property for the project have also been assigned a Property Manager Acquisitions (PMA) to work directly with them. Since February 2017, PMAs have been allocated to owners and tenants of properties directly affected by acquisition along the preferred project alignment, to support and guide them through the process.

As outlined in Section 7.2.3, ongoing refinement of the project following public exhibition of the EIS has identified a series of changes to direct property impacts and acquisition requirements to those previously shown, including a series of reductions and additions to previously identified partial and whole acquisitions. These changes have been communicated to the affected residents by the relevant PMA.

5.2.3 Community and stakeholder consultation during construction

One submission raised an issue regarding the consultation during the construction of the project.


In summary, the submission raised the following issue:

» Request that information is provided on steps which are being taken to minimise impacts associated with noise and vibration and air pollution during construction.



5-7


106

5.2.3.3 Response

Subject to planning approval, Transport for NSW (and its construction contractor) would continue to engage with the community and key stakeholders prior to and during construction. Transport for NSW would lead a construction stakeholder and community engagement program, with support from contractors in accordance with the Community Consultation Framework detailed in Appendix D of the EIS. A range of communication methods would be used including construction notifications, doorknocks, emails, newsletters, advertisements, meetings and briefings to communicate the progress of works, impacts and mitigation and management measures to affected stakeholders.

Complaints during construction will be managed in accordance with Transport for NSW’s Community Engagement Policy. A construction response line (1800 775 465) is available for all Transport for NSW projects and would be a 24-hour contact point for complaints regarding construction works for the project.

5.2.4 Request for further consultation

One submission requested further consultation be undertaken.



» Request that further consultation be undertaken with Council and other stakeholders to ensure that the Civic Link is open between Parramatta Station and the Parramatta Square stop prior to the commencement of light rail operation.


148

5.2.4.3 Response

Transport for NSW is committed to community and stakeholder engagement beyond the planning phase through detailed design, construction and commissioning of the project. The detailed design of the Parramatta Square stop will continue in consultation with Council to ensure efficient integration with the surrounding development and connections via the future Civic Link and Parramatta Square.

The delivery of the Civic Link is not part of the project. Council undertook public consultation on the draft Civil Link Framework Plan in the first half of 2017. Please refer to their website for further information on this.




5.3 Project need and justification 5.3.1 Ability to meet project objectives

Two submissions raised issues regarding the ability of the project to meet its objectives.



» Concern the Parramatta Light Rail would not link the economic hubs, business parks and residential areas.

» Concern the Parramatta Light Rail would not be accessible or time efficient for residents of Carlingford, Telopea, Dundas or Rydalmere as there is no direct link with heavy rail.

» Concern that the project supports population growth and would contribute to increasing energy demand.


22, 96

5.3.1.3 Response

Substantial growth in jobs, dwellings and population within the GPOP priority growth area is expected to occur over the next 20 years. The population of the Parramatta local government area (LGA) will undergo extraordinary growth from 240,000 residents in 2016 to more than 415,000 by 2036. Employment opportunities in Greater Parramatta would also grow, increasing from around 96,000 jobs to around 160,000 jobs by 2036 (Greater Sydney Commission, 2016c). The alignment will link Parramatta’s central business district (CBD) and Parramatta Station to existing and future development in the Westmead Health Precinct, Parramatta North Urban Transformation area, the Western Sydney Stadium, the Powerhouse and Riverside Theatres Cultural Hub, the private and social housing redevelopment at Telopea, Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and three Western Sydney University campuses.

The project would provide a catalyst for urban renewal along its corridor, providing connections to areas that would be transformed through significant NSW government and private investment. By providing a reliable, frequent and convenient new public transport product with connections to existing interchanges, the project would offer an attractive alternative to private vehicles, assisting in minimising car dependence for intermediate trips in the Greater Parramatta and the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) priority growth area and reducing fossil fuel consumption.

Chapter 8 of the EIS compared the AM peak journey times from the T6 Carlingford Line stations to Wynyard Station in the AM peak hour based on existing train timetables and the indicative light rail running times. The comparison indicated that for residents on the T6 Carlingford Line catching the light rail would provide equal or better journey times due to the ability to access express trains at Parramatta Station. In addition, the light rail would provide more frequent services. The journey times to Parramatta and Westmead for T6 Carlingford Line users are reduced under the project scenario than using the existing heavy rail system.

Pedestrian links, with clear wayfinding, would be provided as part of the project where the new light rail stops integrate with the existing heavy rail network at Parramatta and Westmead stations.



5-9

5.3.2 Adequacy of the existing public transport system

Nine submissions raised issues regarding the adequacy of the existing public transport system.



» Comment that the Greater Parramatta area is already well served by public transport with:

• Heavy rail between Westmead and Parramatta.

• Pedestrian link between Westmead Station and the Westmead Health Precinct.

• Bus connections from Westmead to Parramatta.

» Comment that the existing train service on the T6 Carlingford Line is capable of running more frequently and thereby carrying more than twice as many passengers as the proposed Parramatta Light Rail.

» Comment that the existing transport modes (e.g. T-way bus services and train) from Westmead to Parramatta are much faster and more frequent than the Parramatta Light Rail. Westmead Hospital and the Children’s Hospital at Westmead are both accessible on foot.

» Comment that the bus (M54) from Carlingford to Parramatta is faster than the proposed light rail.

» Comment that the existing bus lanes are underutilised.

» Comment that Westmead Health Precinct is within walking distance from existing infrastructure.


20, 31, 32, 47, 50, 112, 115, 117, 139

5.3.2.3 Response

The GPOP priority growth area precincts are separated by geographical and human-made features such as the Parramatta River, Parramatta Road, M4 Motorway, large green spaces, heavy rail lines and the major arterial roads of James Ruse Drive, Victoria Road and Silverwater Road. These act as barriers to effectively connect and integrate the various precincts. Current public transport services are infrequent, inaccessible or indirect to destinations within the GPOP priority growth area, in particular:

» Parramatta North: This area is currently serviced by buses terminating at the Parramatta CBD, with no direct bus service to Westmead Hospital resulting in a 39-minute bus journey between Cumberland Hospital and Westmead Hospital that includes a transfer at Parramatta. This bus journey would take longer than walking, which would take 17 minutes at an average walking pace.

» Camellia: Grand Avenue via James Ruse Drive is the only road access point and the 2.5-kilometre bus journey to Parramatta CBD currently takes 28-minutes. Heavy rail services are infrequent, with two services per hour in the two-hour AM peak, and a transfer at Clyde resulting in an average 20 minute of wait time.

» Carlingford, Telopea, Rydalmere: Currently it takes around 36 minutes (M54 bus) to 46 minutes (train) for residents from Carlingford to reach Parramatta CBD by public transport. Buses are impacted by congestion and heavy rail services are infrequent and require a transfer at Clyde, resulting in up to 20 minutes of wait time.




The existing T6 Carlingford Line single track configuration limits opportunities to improve service frequencies. Existing return services from Carlingford to Clyde and back to Carlingford takes around 30 minutes meaning it is only possible to provide two services in each direction per hour. The project would provide a dual track capable of running frequent light rail services in both directions. The T6 Carlingford Line also has a level crossing over Parramatta Road that holds up traffic when the train travels across the road (four times per hour during the peak). The project would decommission this level crossing meaning traffic conditions on Parramatta Road would improve.

While it is recognised that existing transport links between Westmead Station and Parramatta Station are adequate, the project provides an opportunity to provide a direct link from Westmead Station to the Westmead Health Precinct, Cumberland Hospital, Parramatta North and Parramatta CBD. It is around 900 metres between Westmead Station and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead. The project would improve accessibility for both workers and patients noting walking is not always possible for mobility impaired or sick individuals and that no direct bus services currently operate between these areas. The project would also provide direct links to key assets and planned investments, including Westmead and Cumberland health areas, Western Sydney Stadium, Parramatta CBD, Western Sydney University campuses and the new Powerhouse and Riverside Theatres Cultural Hub.

Further detail on the mode selection process is discussed in section 5.4.8 of this Submissions Report and section 3.4. of the EIS.

5.3.3 Benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project

Two submissions raised issues regarding the benefits of the project.



» Comment that the project is not fully integrated with existing transport networks and is a branch line.

» Comment that providing more transport options would not result in a mode shift from private vehicles to public transport.


11, 88

5.3.3.3 Response

The project interchanges with the existing heavy rail and bus networks, including heavy rail interchanges at Parramatta and Westmead and a bus interchange at Carlingford.

The project comprises Stage 1 of a broader plan for to develop the Parramatta Light Rail network. Since the exhibition of the EIS, the NSW Government announced the preferred route for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2. This stage would connect to the project and run north of the Parramatta River through the rapidly developing suburbs of Ermington, Melrose Park and Wentworth Point to Sydney Olympic Park, providing a new public transport option to this sport, entertainment and employment hub.

The project also provides the opportunity to interchange with the potential future Sydney Metro West station at Parramatta that would provide services to Sydney Olympic Park, The Bays precinct



5-11

and Sydney CBD. A study is currently underway to assess the feasibility of extending the project to Epping to provide a northern link to Sydney Metro Northwest.

In 2016, more than 20 per cent of roads in the GPOP priority growth area were experiencing congestion in the two-hour morning peak. Accommodating planned growth in the GPOP priority growth area is forecast to generate significant additional traffic volumes, which would further increase congestion. By 2026, it is forecast that nearly 30 per cent of roads in the GPOP priority growth area would be congested, increasing to nearly 40 per cent by 2041. The project is forecast to remove around 25,000 cars off the road by 2041, resulting in up to 188,000 fewer car kilometres each day. This would result in benefits to road users by improving congestion, reduce car operating costs, and provide improved environmental outcomes.

The project would provide a reliable, frequent and convenient new public transport product with connections to existing interchanges. Light rail would offer an attractive alternative to private vehicles, helping to reduce car dependence for intermediate trips (those being five to 10 kilometres in length). The project would improve public transport accessibility, attracting people away from the use of cars and reduce congestion. This would lead to improved amenity and make the area a more attractive place to live. New direct connections between Carlingford and the Parramatta CBD (including accessing the new express train services between Parramatta Station and Central Station), and between the Westmead Health Precinct and the Cumberland Hospital would make light rail a more attractive service than heavy rail and bus services for these journeys.

5.3.4 Other general comments

One submission raised issues regarding other general comments on the project need and justification.


In summary, the submission commented that the light rail should act as branch lines for the new Sydney Metro West.


93

5.3.4.3 Response

The project has been designed on the basis that it can successfully operate with or without the development of Sydney Metro West. However, the provision of Sydney Metro West would provide additional connectivity between key destinations from Greater Parramatta to the Sydney CBD. Collectively the two projects would increase the travel choices of customers by enabling them to easily travel to more destinations. The design has also considered how Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) can effectively feed Sydney Metro West in the future.

The development of Sydney Metro West is expected to leverage and enhance the outcomes of the project by:

» Increasing the travel choices of patrons by enabling them to easily travel to key destinations outside GPOP such as The Bays precinct and the Sydney CBD.

» Enhance city-shaping outcomes by increasing the transit amenity in areas where both projects are present and by improving the transport outcome where one project increases the reach of the other.




5.3.5 Economic assessment and value for money

Ten submissions raised issues regarding the economic assessment and value for money of the project.



» Comment that the money allocated to Parramatta Light Rail could be better spent to convert the T6 Carlingford Line from a single rail line into a dual rail line along with additional services being provided. The savings could be used to fund an extension from Carlingford to Epping.

» Comment that the project would duplicate the already functional and existing heavy rail route from Clyde to Carlingford.

» Comment that the economic assessment only compares the Parramatta Light Rail against the base case. Request that the project be assessed against other transport options.

» Comment that the economic costs, construction time and disruptions are uneconomical unless accompanied by very strong passenger demand and strategic development rationale.

» Comment that the cost-benefit analysis for Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) is not favourable as a standalone project.

» Concern regarding potential financial viability of the project in the event of a financial crisis.

» Comment that there is little economic benefit of the route through Parramatta North other than to service the proposed urban development project.

» Comment that funds could be better spent on other projects such as hospitals.


9, 20, 23, 26, 47, 96, 109, 117, 139, 155

5.3.5.3 Response

NSW Government is committed to investing in the GPOP priority growth area to help assist in addressing inequalities in western Sydney, particularly in terms of providing better access to employment by building on Parramatta’s strengths in health, education and as an administrative centre. Substantial public and private investment in the GPOP priority growth area is planned over the next five to 10 years. The size of these investments provides a unique opportunity to realise the vision for the area and transform it.

These investments include:

» Westmead Health Precinct – This area is undergoing a major transformation with the potential for 30,000 to 50,000 additional jobs.

» Western Sydney University (Westmead campus) – Currently constructing a commercial tower to serve as a new campus for 10,000 additional students.

» The Powerhouse and Riverside Theatres Cultural Hub.

» Parramatta North Urban Transformation area providing an additional 4,500 new dwellings.

» Telopea Priority Precinct – The recently released Master Plan outlines the potential for an additional 4,500 new private, social and affordable homes.

» Development within Parramatta CBD such as Parramatta Square.



5-13

The project would support the vision for the GPOP priority growth area to attract additional people and jobs to the area. The project would provide the infrastructure to ensure that these areas are well connected to future employment opportunities in the Parramatta CBD and Westmead. The project would increase opportunities for disadvantaged groups by improving access to jobs, educational facilities, community activities, social support, events, recreational activities and services through improved travel times and service frequency.

The cost of the project is considered to be justified based on the need for the project, and the anticipated benefits as identified in Chapter 2 of the EIS. As described in section 3.2 of the EIS, during the initial project development a detailed transport mode selection process was undertaken which assessed the viability of different transport modes. During this process light rail was determined to be the preferred mode to achieve the strategic goals. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.4.7 of this Submissions Report.

The Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Business Case included an assessment of the economic benefits of the project. This assessment has not been publicly released as certain details are commercial-in-confidence. Relevant information from the business case was incorporated into section 8.4.2 of the EIS. This indicated that the economic benefits of the project would outweigh the costs within around thirty years. This assessment was conservative and took into consideration the current and potential future economic environments.

Further discussion regarding the alternatives considered for the project, such as improvement of existing services along existing sections of the alignment (including the T6 Carlingford Line) is provided in section 5.4 8 of this Submissions Report.

5.3.6 Patronage

Two submissions raised issues regarding light rail patronage.



» Request that strategic documents showing the predicted future population growth be made available to demonstrate the need for the project.

» Comment that converting the existing T6 Carlingford Line from heavy rail to light rail would not increase patronage.


80, 96

5.3.6.3 Response

Existing heavy rail services on the T6 Carlingford Line are limited due to single line running, impacts on traffic at the Parramatta Road level crossing and the transfer required at Clyde to the T1 Western Line, with only two services per hour in each direction in the peak periods. The project is an attractive public transport option providing direct connections to key destinations such as Westmead, Parramatta North and Parramatta CBD with services every 7.5 minutes in each direction during the day, between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. The project would also enable commuters traveling from the Carlingford Line to Sydney CBD to access the express train services from Parramatta to Central and the west. This improved service would increase patronage through a mode shift from car to light rail and is predicted to remove around 25,000 cars off the road by 2041




and would also support proposed future developments such as the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area and Camellia Town Centre.

The predicted future population growth for the Parramatta Local Government Area, as referenced in the EIS, is based on the population projections released by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in 2016. These are publicly available at the following website: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Research-and-Demography/Demography/Population-projections.

5.4 Project alternatives 5.4.1 Alignment alternatives – General

One submission suggested general alternative to the project alignment.



» Request that the project provides connections between Westmead and Parramatta CBD.

» Comment that the corridor between Telopea and Pennant Hills Road Bridge should be preserved for a potential future extension of the light rail.


33, 148

5.4.1.3 Response

The project would comprise an approximate 12-kilometre alignment from Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia. Stops would be provided at Westmead Station and at various locations within the Parramatta CBD.

The project would be located within the existing T6 Carlingford Line rail corridor between Camellia and Carlingford; including the section from Telopea and Pennant Hills Road Bridge. Stage 1 would include a light rail terminus at Carlingford, and the project design does not preclude a future extension of the light rail from Carlingford.

5.4.2 Alignment alternatives – Westmead

One submission raised issues with the alignment though Westmead.


In summary, the submission requested that the project alignment near Westmead Station be constructed on the northern side of Hawkesbury Road to avoid electromagnetic interference (EMI) impacts and to provide a 40-metre buffer from the radiology facility at 151 Hawkesbury Road.


156

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Research-and-Demography/Demography/Population-projections

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Research-and-Demography/Demography/Population-projections



5-15

5.4.2.3 Response

The proposed alignment along Hawkesbury Road near Westmead Station is determined by the location of the Westmead Terminus. As described in Table 3.10 of the EIS, four potential options were considered for the Westmead Terminus. The preferred option, as proposed as part of the project, was selected as it best integrates with Westmead Station without having a significant impact on traffic. Further, as outlined in Section 3.6.2 of the EIS, two options were considered for the general alignment along Hawkesbury Road:

» Option 1 – A centre running alignment within Hawkesbury Road.

» Option 2 – Side running alignment on the north-west side of Hawkesbury Road, within the Westmead Hospital precinct.

The alignment within Hawkesbury Road (Option 1) would have the following advantages over a side running alignment within the Westmead Hospital precinct (Option 2):

» A stop location within the centre of Hawkesbury Road would more equally serve customers from both the Westmead residential area, non-hospital users as well as passengers accessing the Westmead Hospital.

» Reduce modification to the existing signals at Darcy Road and avoids a new set of signals on Hawkesbury Road required to cross from the Westmead terminus stop.

» Reduced impact on sensitive receivers, in particular potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) and vibration impacts on sensitive equipment as a result of being closer to the hospital, which would be higher for the Option 2 alignment.

» Centre running would provide improved access to both sides of the road and would require fewer traffic signals than Option 2.

Overall, Option 1 (generally centre running along Hawkesbury Road with the exception of the section of track at the Westmead stop) was the preferred alignment option for the project along Hawkesbury Road. From Darcy Road, the track would run on the south-east side of Hawkesbury Road, and the location of the proposed Westmead stop on the southern side of Hawkesbury Road would improve the pedestrian connection with Westmead Station. Potential EMI impacts resulting from the proposed alignment are discussed further in section 5.20.1 of this Submissions Report.

Transport for NSW are currently undertaking a survey to identify facilities along the project alignment with EMI-sensitive electrical equipment. Once identified, Transport for NSW will consult with the owners of the sensitive equipment to determine the most appropriate way to manage any impacts, if applicable. This will include determining the level of sensitivity of the equipment/receiver.

5.4.3 Alignment alternatives – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area

Two submissions raised issues with the alignment though Parramatta North Urban Transformation area.



» Request that the proposed alignment through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area should be aligned further to the north away from the Former Female Factory site, with the alignment continuing along Dunlop Street instead of Factory Street.




» Request that the alignment travel along Fleet Street instead of Church Street.

» Request that the alignment at this location should be located underground within a ‘cut-and-cover’ style tunnel.


14, 47

5.4.3.3 Response

As outlined in section 3.6.4 of the EIS, the preferred alignment through the Parramatta North is the alignment along Factory Street and Church Street. This option would result in greater access to public transport in comparison to an alignment further north as this option would integrate better with the proposed Parramatta North Urban Transformation area and existing residential properties along Factory Street. An alignment along Dunlop Street would involve running light rail immediately adjacent to the heritage listed Parramatta Gaol wall, as well as adding additional distance to the route.

The preferred project alignment would skirt around and outside the north-east corner of the National Heritage listed curtilage for the Former Female Factory at the intersection of Greenup Drive and River Road. The impacts on the Former Female Factory have been minimised through the selection of the preferred alignment, which has avoided direct impacts on the built elements of the structure. However, as identified in the EIS, a minor impact would occur to the curtilage.

The option for the alignment to travel along Fleet Street was considered. Overall this option was not preferred as this option would impose a more significant impact on the Former Female Factory and would increase the distance to a key demand catchment near Factory Street.

The option to locate the light rail underground within a ‘cut-and-cover’ style tunnel through the Parramatta North Precinct was not considered in detail as it would not integrate with the proposed town centre associated with Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area. In addition, this option would have significant environmental impacts on Aboriginal heritage, built and non-Aboriginal heritage, archaeology, trees, waste, visual amenity and utilities and would not integrate with the proposed crossing over the Parramatta River. This option would also result in significant constructability issues and increase project and operation risks and costs.

5.4.4 Alignment alternatives – O'Connell Street

Ten submissions raised issues regarding the alignment along O’Connell Street instead of Church Street.


In summary, the submissions requested that the project alignment should follow O’Connell Street instead of Church Street, as it would:

» Assist in serving specific attractors such as Western Sydney Stadium, Parramatta Leagues Club and other residential areas.

» Allow for bus priority lanes to be retained along Church Street.

» Avoid heritage impacts to Lennox Bridge and The Royal Oak Hotel.

» Avoid impacts to ‘Eat Street’ and the al-fresco restaurants.



5-17


1, 4, 14, 22, 27, 41, 52, 99, 132, 133

5.4.4.3 Response

During the initial route assessment, options for the light rail route to travel along O’Connell Street were considered. This route had a number of disadvantages compared with the Church Street route:

» Traffic: O’Connell Street is a strategic freight and traffic corridor. O’Connell Street forms part of the inner ring road for the Parramatta CBD ensuring traffic can move around the Parramatta area, avoiding the CBD, as well as being a key connector to Westfield Parramatta. Establishing light rail along O’Connell Street would result in more significant traffic impacts to the wider network when compared to a Church Street alignment.

» Heritage: The alignment along O’Connell Street would be directly adjacent to the World Heritage listed Old Government House and Domain which would potentially have direct, indirect and visual impacts.

» Socio-economic benefits: A route along O’Connell Street would not allow direct light rail access to restaurants and cafes on ‘Eat Street’. It would also reduce the connectivity to Church Street and Macquarie Street, reducing potential growth in business exposure, passing trade and potential sales. The reduced accessibility would also potentially adversely affect the levels of safety, connectivity and productivity of the night time economy along Eat Street.

» Special events: A light rail system on O’Connell Street would be too close to the new Western Sydney Stadium to allow safe crowd dispersal, and operations would be significantly disrupted during events. During consultation Venues NSW recommended that any light rail stop serving Western Sydney Stadium be at least 450 metres from the stadium entrance to maintain a safe environment following sporting events to ensure effective light rail operations to support special events.

While it is acknowledged the route along Church Street would have impacts to heritage and would require property acquisition, Transport for NSW is currently working with businesses along Church Street to minimise impacts during construction of the project (refer to Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report). Bus services would be maintained on Church Street and the light rail has been designed with the opportunity for shared running of buses within the light rail alignment.

Impacts to The Royal Oak Hotel and Lennox Bridge are discussed in section 5.11.4 and 5.11.5 of this Submissions Report.

5.4.5 Alignment alternatives – Parramatta CBD

Seven submissions raised issues with the alignment though Parramatta CBD.



» Request consideration be given to alignments along the following streets within the Parramatta CBD:

• George Street.

• Along Philip Street and Charles Street (to integrate with Parramatta Ferry Wharf).

• Across Parramatta River along Marsden Street instead of Church Street.




• Darcy Street, through Parramatta Square (to integrate with Parramatta Station).


14, 22, 41, 56, 97, 119, 125, 140

5.4.5.3 Response

As outlined in section 3.4.2 of the EIS, detailed consideration was given as to whether to develop the light rail on George Street or Macquarie Street (or a split track with one track on each street). The assessment considered each option against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.8 in the EIS), comprising:

» Alignment with Government priorities.

» City building and place making outcomes.

» Transport outcomes.

» Deliverability and risk.

» Affordability.

» Stakeholder and community support.

» Economic appraisal.

Macquarie Street was identified as the preferred route option as it would provide better integrate with Parramatta Station and bus interchange would service a greater number of patrons compared to George Street.

While the preferred option has a greater impact on Robin Thomas Reserve compared to a George Street option, an alignment along Macquarie Street would provide better support for future urban renewal and better connect to the Parramatta CBD (including areas to the south of the T1 Western Line).

Construction of the light rail alignment on Marsden Street rather than Church Street was considered during the initial route assessment. It was not considered further as it does not provide the socio-economic benefits of a direct light rail connection with restaurants and cafes along ‘Eat Street’.

Construction of a light rail alignment along Darcy Street and through Parramatta Square was not considered feasible due to the congested nature of this corridor and the complex intersection of Smith and Station streets, and it would not be compatible with the urban renewal objectives of the Parramatta Square project.

5.4.6 Alignment alternatives – Rosehill and Camellia

Four submissions raised issues with the alignment though Rosehill and Camellia.



» Request consideration be given to alignments along the following streets within the Rosehill and Camellia precinct:

• Noller Parade instead of George Street (between Purchase Street and Alfred Street) as it would have improved intersection performance outcomes and would avoid impacts to an



5-19

Aboriginal heritage site. Query why George Street is assessed as having a better environmental outcome.

• Grand Avenue (instead of the Sandown Line) between Camellia stop and the stabling and maintenance facility. This option would:

− Provide an improved urban design solution.

− Reduce costs.

− Provide better integration with Rosehill Racecourse.

− Socio-economic benefits and additional affordable housing.

− A coordinated approach with the development of the future Camellia Town Centre for flood management and remediation activities.


119, 124, 125, 136

5.4.6.3 Response

As outlined in section 3.6.6 of the EIS, detailed consideration was given as to whether to develop the light rail alignment along Noller Parade or George Street. The assessment considered each option against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.22 of the EIS) and listed in Section 5.4.5.3 in this report. Both the George Street and Noller Parade options required residential property acquisitions. The George Street option was identified as the preferred option as this would:

» Remove the potential safety risk and conflict between private vehicles and LRVs utilising the shared running section along Noller Parade.

» Reduce the impact on Queen’s Wharf Reserve and associated landscape amenity impacts.

» Maintain LRV movements on main roads, leading to improved visibility and accessibility to the project.

» Provides better access to light rail from the large residential catchment of Rosehill and Harris Park.

» Reduce the potential impact from known flood zones along Noller Parade.

It is noted that the options are incorrectly labelled in Figure 3.21 of the EIS. Option 1 and Option 2 are to be swapped. All other references to Option 1 and 2 in the EIS are correct.

As outlined in section 3.4.2, detailed consideration was given as to whether to develop the light rail alignment along Grand Avenue or the Sandown Line. The assessment considered both options against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.10 of the EIS). The Sandown Line was considered the preferred route option as it would:

» Reduce conflict/risks associated with an existing hazardous goods and heavy vehicle route (Grand Avenue), and significant utilities (water and fuel pipelines).

» Have lower constructability and delivery risks, as it would follow a disused rail corridor, would avoid costly utility works (including gas, fuel pipelines and electricity mains), minimise property acquisition requirements and would minimise interactions between heavy vehicles and light rail vehicles (LRVs) along Grand Avenue.

» Offer greater future place making opportunities associated with the future Camellia Town Centre (currently being investigated).




» Align with the current design for the Camellia Master Plan, allowing for integration with a future transit-oriented town centre.

» Reduced costs due to the Grand Avenue route requiring significant utility and pipeline relocations and related property purchases.

» The stop of the baseline route is closer to the pedestrian destinations (grandstands and entries) within Rosehill Gardens than a stop located on Grand Avenue.

5.4.7 Alternative or additional stop locations

Ten submissions raised issues concerning alternative or additional stop locations along the alignment.



» Request the Westmead stop be placed on the northern side of Hawkesbury Road to minimise proposed impacts to the existing businesses at this location.

» Request the Westmead terminus be located within the Darcy Road T-way.

» Request that the Fennell Street stop be relocated immediately south of the intersection of Fennell Street and Church Street (rather than north as currently proposed).

» Concern that the Parramatta Light Rail does not directly service the new 30,000 seat Western Sydney Stadium which is currently under construction, with the nearest proposed stop around 500 metres away.

» Request a stop be placed along Phillip Street and Charles Street to provide improved connection with the existing Parramatta Ferry Wharf.

» Request that the Parramatta Square stop be located further west along Macquarie Street and adjacent to Centenary Square.

» Request the proposal does not preclude opportunities to construct additional stops near the Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus).

» Request that if a stop is built at Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus) then suggest the Rydalmere stop be moved north of Victoria Road.

» Request additional stops be constructed within the Carlingford precinct.

» Suggest that the Carlingford light rail stop be constructed south of Pennant Hills Road and near the K13 Submarine Memorial Park as it would be easier to extend the network to Carlingford.


14, 22, 23, 33, 129, 134, 138, 148, 149, 155

5.4.7.3 Response

The approach to selecting the location and configuration of stops for the project is described in section 3.6.8 of the EIS. A comprehensive assessment process was applied, which considered the nature and type of key land uses and functionality of stops to provide access to residential areas, transport interchanges, major trip generators (such as town centres, and education, medical and recreational facilities), and future planned major land uses (such as Parramatta North Urban Transformation area and Parramatta Square).



5-21

For precincts outside of the Parramatta CBD, stop locations were selected to meet the transport requirements of these areas, with distances proposed around one kilometre apart. Adding more stops in these areas would slow down the LRV services. While the provision of additional stops would be to the advantage of a relatively small number of local residents, it would delay a much larger number of passengers on board the light rail service. As such, any increase in travel time is likely to reduce overall patronage and the economic and environmental benefits of the project.

Within the Parramatta CBD, stops would be around 600 metres apart. These stops are a shorter distance apart to serve the more intense development and high number of destination trip generators. This ensures that the majority of the Parramatta CBD is within a five minute walk of the nearest stop, providing easy walking distance access to the project.

Potential locations were then assessed against a broad set of criteria which included:

» Potential role and function of the stop (origin, destination).

» Potential walk-up catchment of the stop – access needs each stop to also consider typical walk up catchments, recognised internationally as approximately 800 metres or a 10-minute walk.

» Access to modal interchange/transfers (such as to/from bus, heavy rail or ferry services).

» Compatibility and the potential for integration with the proposed light rail priority pedestrian zone along Church Street and Macquarie Street (for Parramatta CBD stops).

» Environmental constraints.

» Constructability (time to construct, potential cost, requirements for earthworks).

» Proximity to existing intersections (a major factor for a predominantly centre running system) and allowance for a good level of stop access utilising existing (or upgraded) pedestrian crossing facilities.

» Site constraints such as existing topography and access arrangements for compliance with relevant disability access requirements and guidelines.

» Stakeholder input.

» Potential patronage and integration with existing and projected population and employment localities (such as the existing urban renewal developments within the Parramatta North, the Parramatta CBD, Camellia and Telopea).

After applying these criteria, a short list of preferred stop locations was determined. Many of the stops locations had multiple potential configuration options. These were assessed in Table 3.10 of the EIS. A number of stop arrangements were considered for the Westmead stop, Fennell Street stop and the Parramatta Square stop, however the proposed stop locations were considered the preferred options as they best met the above criteria.

During the concept design process Transport for NSW consulted with Venues NSW regarding opportunities to integrate the project with the proposed new Western Sydney Stadium. Venues NSW recommended that any light rail stop serving Western Sydney Stadium be at least 450 metres from the stadium entrance to assist in facilitating crowd dispersal and maintain a safe environment following sporting events. The project team considered these recommendations in the design of the final route along Church Street and location of the stop at Prince Alfred Square.

Parramatta Ferry Wharf would be accessible from Prince Alfred Square and Harris Street stops. Harris Street stop would have the shortest walking distance (500 metres) to the ferry wharf, via Argus Lane, George Street and Charles Street. Prince Alfred Square stop may offer a shorter journey time for customers approaching the Parramatta CBD from the north/west. The Harris Street stop would also service the eastern and south eastern end of the Parramatta CBD as well as Robin Thomas Reserve and allow for interchanges with bus routes along Harris Street/MacArthur Street.




At Carlingford, two options were considered including locating the stop at the existing Carlingford Station site, or locating it on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road Bridge near the K13 Submarine Park. As part of determining the preferred location for the Carlingford stop, possible extensions from Carlingford towards Epping (as part of a possible future stage of the network) were considered to best future proof the Carlingford stop.

Based on an assessment of the two options, it was considered that for the purpose of future proofing an extension of the light rail network, it is unlikely that a stop location to the south of Pennant Hills Road would allow for an extension without having an impact on light rail services and the stop. As such, the preferred solution for the Carlingford stop was to utilise the existing station location with two platform faces. The additional benefits of this option include:

» Maintaining connectivity to the current substantial developments adjacent to the Carlingford stop site.

» Maintains the existing connections to buses along Pennant Hills Road.

» Maximises access for the community to the stop location.

The final design and location would be considered further as part of the detailed design development and in consultation with the Council and other relevant stakeholders. Each stop would be guided by the urban design principles for each precinct (as detailed in the sections 11.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2 and 15.2 of the EIS).

As part of the ongoing design development process, further evaluation of stop locations and alternative options is likely to occur in consultation with key stakeholders and the community however significant changes are not anticipated and additional stops are not proposed.

5.4.8 Mode alternatives

Six submissions raised issues concerning the use of light rail over other transport modes.



» Query regarding the cost benefit of light rail in comparison to electric buses along the same corridor.

» Query regarding the rationale behind adopting light rail over bus rapid transport. Comment that bus rapid transport is identified as the preferred transport mode over light rail in the State Infrastructure Strategy (Infrastructure NSW, 2012).

» Comment that proposed mode type was not informed by the community.

» Request that further transport mode assessment be undertaken to demonstrate that light rail is the most suitable transport mode.

» Concern that light rail is an inadequate transport mode to meet the forecasted demand due to the densification of the Carlingford/Epping areas.


19, 20, 29, 47, 88, 155



5-23

5.4.8.3 Response

The project was developed as part of a comprehensive mode selection process which resulted in light rail being selected as the preferred transport mode. The mode selection process comprised of three stages:

» Options identification and assessment.

» Development of short-listed options.

» Preferred option identification.

The option identification and assessment process is detailed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The information presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS provides a summary of the options assessment process and outcomes only and does not represent the full detailed assessment which was undertaken for the project. An outline of the assessment undertaken is provided below. No further mode assessment is proposed to be undertaken for the project.

The options identification and assessment process focused on identifying which transport modes would be best suited to improve city shaping, place making and transport needs within the GPOP priority growth area. This included consideration of which modes would:

» Reduce the dependency on private vehicles.

» Increase the use of public and active transport.

» Better manage increasing travel demand within the GPOP priority growth area.

» Initiate and promote urban development.

» The range of transport modes considered ranged from pedestrian or cycling options, private vehicles, different lengths of buses and light rail vehicles, suburban and metro trains, and ferries. Alternative technologies were also considered, such as personal rapid transit and monorail systems.

Following the options identification and assessment process, three potential options were identified as being able to meet the project objectives:

» Buses in shared streets or bus lanes.

» Buses in dedicated busway (bus rapid transit).

» Light rail operated in shared, separated and segregated operations.

» After further consideration, the use of buses in shared streets or bus lanes did not progress further for consideration as this would result in increasing congestion, noise and pollution for adjacent communities, and reduce safety and visual amenity for pedestrians and cyclists.

The remaining two options, light rail and bus rapid transit, were assessed against a range of criteria to identify a preferred transport mode (refer to Table 3.2 of the EIS). Based on the comparative assessment, light rail scored more highly against the criteria relating to city shaping, place making, transport system efficiency and the customer experience. As such, light rail was concluded to perform best against the project objectives.

It is acknowledged that a light rail mode does score lower on capital costs, and construction impacts and complexity. Nonetheless, the lower operating costs per passenger, higher system capacity and lower staff numbers result in whole of life costs for light rail being lower than systems providing similar passenger and other benefits.




While no formal consultation was undertaken with the community regarding the proposed transport mode assessment, light rail has consistently ranked favourably in customer transport preferences when compared to buses due to the reliability, ride comfort and legibility.

The project would provide sufficient carrying capacity to meet the proposed residential densification within the GPOP priority growth area. Based on vehicle capacity and feasible service frequencies, the project has a designed capacity to transport up to 5,000 passengers per hour, per direction.

5.4.9 Stabling and maintenance facility locations

Three submissions raised issues concerning the location of the stabling and maintenance facility.



» Concern regarding the site of the stabling and maintenance facility noting that the site is within an area proposed for urban development as part of the Camellia priority precinct.

» Comment that considering the majority of the route for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 is now on the northern side of Parramatta River; alternative sites should be investigated on the northern side of the river.

» Concern regarding the location and design of the stabling and maintenance facility. Suggest it be relocated to the existing freight stabling yards near Clyde. Comment that this land would be better incorporated into the Camellia Town Centre.


47, 93, 136

5.4.9.3 Response

As identified in Section 3.6 of the EIS, a detailed assessment was undertaken to determine a suitable location for a stabling and maintenance facility. A series of operational and functional requirements were identified to guide the development and assessment of potential sites for the stabling and maintenance facility. This included the ability of the site to cater for the estimated size of the light rail fleet and the potential future expansion of the network. As part of the development of the project, four locations were identified which would meet the operational and functional criteria for the stabling and maintenance facility site (refer to Figure 5.1).



5-25

Figure 5.1 Sites identified as potential locations for the Stabling and Maintenance Facility

In addition to meeting operational and functional requirements, the stabling and maintenance facilities were assessed against criteria to rank their suitability:

» Additional track alignment requirements.

» Current land use.

» Flooding.

The site of the proposed stabling and maintenance facility (option 2) was considered the preferred option as it best met the criteria above. This option is located outside of the area proposed for redevelopment and within an area proposed to remain as industrial uses, in accordance with the Camellia Master Plan. This location would also involve minimal additional track work, not be affected by flooding in the 1 in 100 year ARI, is consistent with existing land uses and would require minimal clearing of existing site facilities.

The potential use of the existing Clyde freight yard was not considered due to the extensive additional track work required to access the freight yard, the additional two kilometres of travel required to access the facility and the significant increase in the rail – road impacts and delays at the Parramatta Road level crossing. Further, this site is used as a stabling and maintenance facility for the heavy rail train network and would not have the additional capacity to support the light rail.

Potential sites for the stabling and maintenance facility on the northern side of Parramatta River were not considered as part of the options assessment process as the alignment for Stage 2 had not yet been finalised. As outlined above, the preferred stabling and maintenance facility on the southern side of Parramatta River is considered to be a suitable site. No further options for stabling and maintenance sites would be investigated.




5.4.10 Substations

Two submissions raised issues concerning the location of the substations.


In summary, two submissions raised objections to the location of the proposed substation at Westmead and requested that it be relocated to the vacant land on the northern side of Hawkesbury Road.


33, 115

5.4.10.3 Response

As outlined in section 3.6.10 of the EIS, the location of the eight proposed substations were determined in consideration of several factors including:

» Close proximity to the alignment.

» Appropriately spaced to provide adequate coverage for the system (typically spaced at 1.5 to two kilometre intervals).

» Within easy access of zone substation connection points to maintain the availability of reliable, high quality power supply.

» Located clear of existing civil infrastructure such as public access ways, cycle routes and utility locations (where services are known).

» Easily accessible for maintenance purposes.

» Located in areas which would have minimal environmental and social impacts including:

• Avoiding high archaeological or heritage significance locations.

• Open spaces which avoid areas of sensitive vegetation.

• Avoiding locations which would result in greater visual amenity impacts.

• Considering acoustic cladding to minimise noise impacts of substations (where feasible and reasonable).

Consideration was also given to locations where the sites were already identified for future development or land acquisition (as part of the project), where the existing rail corridor could accommodate the substation footprints (i.e. along Carlingford route) or where the site would allow for the re-purposing of existing infrastructure (such as the proposed location for the Barrack Lane substation site).

For the Westmead substation, two options were considered: the proposed location at Ashley Street and a location positioned within the existing parking spaces on the corner of Railway Parade and Park Avenue. The proposed option on Ashley Street is the preferred location as it is:

» Located closer to the project alignment.

» Located on land already being acquired to facilitate the construction of the project.

» Avoided impacts to commuter parking.

» Maximises the redevelopment and reuse opportunities of the wider site.



5-27

» Avoided impacts to the World Heritage Old Government House and Domain (Parramatta Park).

The suggested location on the northern side of Hawkesbury Road was not considered feasible as it would result in a poorer pedestrian connection to Westmead Station, greater visual amenity impacts and the site is currently subject to redevelopment by Western Sydney University. To minimise the impacts associated with the substation being located adjacent to a residential area, and in accordance with mitigation and management measure VL-3, the architectural treatment of the substation would be designed to minimise the visual impact and respect the local landscape character. This would include the consideration of the colour and materials used for the external façade.

The location of infrastructure within the Westmead substation site would consider the potential impacts to nearby receivers. For example, construction plant and equipment would be located and orientated to minimise noise impacts to adjacent receivers. Potential concerns regarding electromagnetic emissions from the operation of substations are discussed in Section 5.20.1 of this Submissions Report.

5.4.11 Additional active transport options

Seven submissions raised issues concerning the provision of additional active transport options.


In summary, the submission raised the following issues:

» Request that the new North Parramatta Bridge across Parramatta River include an active transport link.

» Request that an active transport link be constructed on the eastern side of Church Street between Factory Street and Pennant Hills Road.

» Request that the active transport link be extended west from Alfred Street to connect to the Parramatta River foreshore.

» Request that the active transport link provide a connection from the James Ruse Drive Bridge to Alfred Street stop and to Parramatta CBD.

» Request that alternative design options be investigated for the active transport link crossing the Parramatta River at Camellia.

» Request that the Sandown Line be used to create an active transport link.

» Request that the project provide an active transport link to the Telopea Town Centre.

» Request that the active transport link be extended and a linear park be created along the T6 Carlingford Line from Camellia to Clyde.


78, 102, 122, 123, 137, 143, 147

5.4.11.3 Response

As described in section 5.9.1.1 of the EIS, an active transport link would be provided on the new North Parramatta Bridge.

The section of Church Street between Factory Street and Pennant Hills Road does not currently accommodate an active transport link and construction of a link as part of the project would not




possible due to spatial constraints associated with the current design of the project. An active transport link at this location would require acquisition of residential apartments (to the west of Church Street) or the heritage listed St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery (to the east of Church Street. Castle Street, to the east of Church Street, would provide a potential alternative route for cyclists travelling in this area.

The active transport link proposed as part of the project is a new connection between Carlingford and Parramatta, generally following the alignment of the existing T6 Carlingford Line and utilising the James Ruse Drive Bridge. The new active transport link would connect each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line to the Parramatta Valley Cycleway and would provide a direct connection between the proposed future developments at Telopea and Camellia. At Camellia, the active transport link would, as described in the EIS, continue over the new James Ruse Drive Bridge to Alfred Street. There is an existing on road cycle route along Noller Parade between Alfred Street and the shared path in Queens Wharf Reserve, which connects to Parramatta Foreshore shared path providing access to the Parramatta CBD.

Alternate design options for the active transport link crossing over the Parramatta River were considered, however the currently preferred active transport link crossing adjacent to the light rail would result in a reduced impact footprint and provided improved connections between the Tramway Avenue and Carlingford stop. Notwithstanding, while the EIS proposed a 2.5 metre active transport link across the Parramatta River Bridge, the final placement and design of this bridge would be subject to outcomes of the future masterplan for this area being developed by the Department of Planning and Environment. The proposed Masterplan may incorporate future crossings of the Parramatta River, and therefore these connections may be consolidated as part of the masterplan. Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the most appropriate outcome for an active transport crossing at this location.

Extension of active transport in Camellia along the Sandown Line is not proposed by the project. Active transport requirements will be addressed by the Camellia Master Plan.

A pedestrian connection would be provided to the future Telopea Town Centre as part of the provision of the active transport link along the T6 Carlingford Line. Additional connections within the Telopea Town Centre would be subject to further detailed design of the current master plan.

Following the construction of the project and closure of the T6 Carlingford Line, land within the rail corridor south of Grand Avenue, would be returned to the land owner (Transport for NSW/RailCorp). The removal of some tracks and overhead wiring along the T6 Carlingford Line between Parramatta Road and Camellia is discussed in sections 6.10 and 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report). The extension of the active transport link from Camellia to Clyde is considered outside the scope of this project. The project would not preclude opportunities for future extensions.

5.4.12 Adequacy of the alternatives assessment

Five submissions raised issues concerning the provision of additional active transport options.



» Comment that the alignment assessment process outlined in the EIS is not adequate and does not provide sufficient evidence and justification for the preferred route. This EIS does not outline the methodology for assessing these options.



5-29

» Request justification as to why, in Figure 3.22 of the EIS, options were ranked as performing better than other options with regards to the various criteria.

» Concern regarding the adequacy of the patronage and travel data used to determine the project route.

» Comment that options which avoid the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line appear not to have been explored. Options which could be explored include the retention of whole T6 Carlingford Line (e.g. increasing the frequency of the service along the Carlingford Line by providing passing loops) or part of the loop (e.g. maintaining the rail services between Camellia and Clyde).


113, 117, 124, 127, 155

5.4.12.3 Response

As outlined in Section 3.6.1 of the EIS, an iterative process of design development and evaluation has been carried out to further refine the preferred project alignment. The definition of each element has evolved as a result of ongoing urban design, engineering, traffic, financial, economic and environmental consideration, as well as ongoing consultations with other NSW Government agencies, local councils, the community and other stakeholders.

Definition of the project has involved an extensive program of consultation and a series of workshops involving project team members, stakeholders and various interdisciplinary groups. This process identified a range of options for discrete sections of the project alignment, including route alignment options and detailed refinement to avoid potential impacts. A typical option assessment process adopted for the project included:

» Defining the issue – Clearly identifying the issue to be resolved through alternate option(s).

» Confirming assessment criteria – Listing the criteria that the options were to be assessed against.

» Identification and description of the options – Developing a suite of potential options depending on the design issue or project element and validating the options for feasibility to a level of detail to allow an assessment of the impacts of each option against the assessment criteria.

» Assessment of options and evaluate options including:

• The key benefits and disadvantages of each option.

• How the option(s) perform against the assessment criteria.

• Whether the alternate option(s) would result in other adverse impacts.

» Decision making – Identifying whether the alternate option(s) address the issue and meet the project objectives.

Each alignment refinement option was assessed and ranked against a range of criteria. These criteria and the specific issues reviewed for each criterion are described in Table 3.8 of the EIS.

As outlined in Section 5.4.8 of this Submissions Report, during the initial mode assessment process consideration was given to numerous transport options including suburban trains and continued use of the T6 Carlingford Line.

The existing T6 Carlingford Line single track configuration limits opportunities to improve existing suburban rail service frequencies. Existing services from Clyde to Carlingford take around 30 minutes, meaning it is only possible to provide two services per hour. The use of passing loops along the T6 Carlingford would provide opportunities to improve the frequency of services, however would still not be able to achieve the frequency proposed by the project.




The T6 Carlingford Line also has a level crossing over Parramatta Road that causes delays to traffic when the train travels across the road (four times per hour during the peak). The project would decommission this level crossing meaning traffic conditions on Parramatta Road would improve as well as improving the capacity of the T1 Western Line.

As part of the option refinement process, multiple modelling tools including the Sydney Travel Model (STM) and the Public Transport Project Model (PTPM), were used to determine the future patronage of different light rail routes. PTPM is an incremental, multi-modal model that looks at how travel demand and drivers change over time, both with and without the project.

Transport for NSW validated and calibrated the model observing planned growth and changes in land-use, population and employment patterns, among other assumptions. Current travel and land-use planning advice from Roads and Maritime, Transport for NSW, Department of Planning and Environment and the Project’s land-use advisors informed this process. This included origin and destination information from Opal card use.

5.4.13 Other issues

Three submissions raised issues concerning the provision of other alternatives.



» Comment that the intersection of Hassall Street and Grand Avenue is a major bottleneck limiting the performance of James Ruse Drive. Suggest that the light rail be constructed at-grade and James Ruse Drive to be built over the light rail network; thereby reducing the traffic impacts at this intersection.

» Request that an underground station and commuter car park be constructed at the site of Carlingford Station thereby reducing the grade of trains approaching Carlingford from Telopea.


103, 117, 155

5.4.13.3 Response

Construction of an at-grade light rail crossing and bridging James Ruse Drive over the light rail is not considered feasible as it would require James Ruse Drive to be closed for a significant period to construct the road bridge and the light rail alignment. During operation an at-grade crossing would cause delays for light rail services and/or traffic on James Ruse Drive. This would have significant traffic network impacts during construction and operation.

The grade between Telopea and Carlingford is acceptable for light rail operations. Construction of an underground station at Carlingford would result in significant environmental, cost impacts and limitations to future extensions and is therefore not proposed.



5-31

5.5 Project design and operations 5.5.1 Landscaping and urban design

Five submissions raised issues concerning landscaping and urban design.



» Request a glass roof structure be provided over Eat Street (Church Street between Lennox Bridge and George Street). Comment this would allow pedestrians and diners to access both sides of the street in inclement weather.

» Request that the managing contractor be required to achieve a minimum standard of urban design and visual amenity upon completion of the project.

» Concern regarding the level of urban design proposed for the stabling and maintenance facility due to its proximity to the future Camellia Town Centre. Comment that an active street frontage should be maintained.

» Request planter boxes be established along Eat Street with floral displays.

» Request mature trees be established along the alignment and grass tracks used where possible.


35, 80, 93, 97, 125

5.5.1.3 Response

Urban Design Requirements for the project are currently being prepared by Transport for NSW in consultation with City of Parramatta. This document will establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during detailed design. To achieve integration and good urban design outcomes for the project and adjacent proposed land uses, the Urban Design Requirements are being prepared in close collaboration with Council as well as relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders (such as NSW Health, UrbanGrowth NSW, Western Sydney University and NSW Land and Housing Corporation). This includes a Joint Urban Design Working Group with Council, established in March 2017. The project (and Urban Design Requirements) would also continue to be subject to the Transport for NSW Design and Sustainability Panel, chaired by the Government Architect, at key phases of project development.

Project-wide and precinct-based urban design objectives and principles are detailed in section 5.12 of the EIS and Chapters 11 to 15 of the EIS. This includes opportunities for revitalisation of existing public spaces and the public domain along the project alignment as well as opportunities to provide street tree planting and landscaping along Eat Street. In addition, the project would deliver high quality public domain integration with urban centres and enhance pedestrian permeability along the corridor including the proposed new Camellia Town Centre.

Urban design principles for the Rosehill and Camellia precinct are provided in section 14.2 of the EIS. Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment during detailed design to ensure integration of the project with future rezoning / Master Planning proposals for the Camellia Town Centre proposal.




Transport for NSW is considering opportunities for grass track treatments to mitigate visual impacts on certain sections of the alignment, such as Cumberland Hospital (east) and Robin Thomas Reserve. This would be confirmed during detailed design.

The project team is collaborating with the Council to identify opportunities to plant trees or carry out landscaping in the early stages of the project to proactively mitigate impacts of vegetation removal. Opportunities identified to date include:

» Planting street trees in the early stages of the project in areas away from project construction impacts, such as on approaches to project stops (e.g. side streets), and along off-corridor works areas.

» Incorporating landscaping and tree offsets to minimise the visual impact of construction and operation of project facilities such as the stabling and maintenance facility.

» Early engagement with nurseries to cultivate trees to the maturity required for street tree plantings.

Tree sizes would be determined in detailed design with consideration of the planting landscape, and advanced plantings in certain locations. Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in close consultation with the Council and in accordance with the Urban Design and Landscape Plan to be developed for the project.

Provision of a glass roof structure for approximately 300 metres between Lennox Bridge and George Street would add substantial cost to the project, as well as extending the program of works in Eat Street. This is beyond the scope of the project.

5.5.2 Closure of T6 Carlingford Line

Twelve submissions raised issues concerning the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line.



» Concern that the removal of the heavy rail line would preclude the opportunity to create a direct heavy rail connection from the T6 Carlingford Line to the T1 Western Line.

» Concern that the removal of the heavy rail line would prevent the opportunity to create a direct heavy rail line from Central Station to Parramatta via Epping.

» Query whether the existing tracks within the T6 Carlingford Line between Camellia Station and Clyde Station would be retained. Comment that these should be retained for use as a spur line for events at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse or recycled and used as part of the light rail.


9, 26, 39, 41, 49, 50, 55, 110, 112, 116, 127, 148

5.5.2.3 Response

The light rail alignment would utilise the heavy rail corridor between Carlingford and Camellia, converting the existing single track to a double-track light rail alignment. Further detail on the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line between Camellia (south of Grand Avenue North) and Parramatta Road is discussed in section 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). Opportunities to reuse materials from infrastructure removed from the T6



5-33

Carlingford Line would be considered as part of the Construction Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan, as identified in mitigation and management measure WM- 2 of the EIS.

The previously proposed heavy rail route from Epping to Parramatta (as part of the Parramatta Rail Link) would not be precluded by conversion of the T6 Carlingford Line to light rail. The project would increase the potential reach of the future Sydney Metro West train line, extending its proposed catchment along the project corridor. The conversion of the T6 Carlingford Line from heavy rail to light rail operation would also provide immediate benefits to commuters by providing a more frequent service, replacing the infrequent (two services an hour in peak) heavy rail service, which also requires an interchange to get to the Parramatta CBD and the Sydney CBD. Commuters traveling from the Carlingford Line to Sydney CBD would have access to the express train services from Parramatta to Central. Opportunities to extend the project to Epping are currently under investigation by Transport for NSW (refer to section 5.23.1 of this Submissions Report).

The T6 Carlingford Line between Grand Avenue and Clyde Station would be decommissioned including removal of the level crossing. The light rail project would only include the removal of tracks between Grand Avenue and the northern end of Rosehill Station. Further discussion regarding the proposed decommissioning of this section of the T6 Carlingford Line and removal of tracks (including closure of Rosehill Station) is provided in section 6.10 and section 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

As discussed in section 14.7.3.2 of the EIS, following the completion of works within the corridor, the residual rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP).

5.5.3 Light rail vehicles

Eight submissions raised issues concerning light rail vehicles.



» Comment that light rail vehicles are subject to gradient restrictions which could restrict the future extension of the light rail network.

» Request that during operation light rail vehicles permit travel with bicycles and provide adequate storage.

» Concern regarding the requirement for passengers to stand during commutes. Comment that light rail users would not be able to complete work or study during the commute.

» Concern that light rail vehicles used on the project would be incompatible with those used on other light rail networks within Sydney and thereby prevent a future connection.


47, 102, 116, 121, 122, 123, 127, 155

5.5.3.3 Response

Future extensions of the project would consider the grade limitations posed by the light rail vehicles.

Similar to Transport for NSW’s current policy on travelling with bicycles, customers would be able to take bicycles on LRVs free of charge, but staff may restrict the number of bicycles or refuse access




when carriages are crowded. Bicycles would not be allowed to block doors or passageways; nor would they be allowed to be ridden on LRVs or on stop platforms. Petrol motored scooters or bikes would not be permitted. End of trip facilities such as bicycle racks would also be provided at some stops, including interchange stops at Westmead Station and Carlingford.

Light rail is a rapid transit public transport system currently in use in major cities all over the world. Like metro, or rapid train services, LRVs are designed to carry a higher ratio of standing than seated passengers to provide the additional capacity per vehicle than buses. The higher number of standing passengers also facilitates the ability of the vehicles to ‘turn up and go’ as loading and unloading of passengers is generally quicker than for buses and heavy rail. Each LRV would provide seating and standing areas for about 250 to 300 passengers. The average travel time per passenger would be less than 20 minutes. Accessible priority seating for those with a disability, using a wheelchair, mobility device, the elderly, those travelling with a pram/luggage, etc. would also be incorporated into the final LRV design. Similar to buses and existing rail, the ability to work or study during the commute would be inhibited if standing.

The project is being designed to be as interoperable with other NSW Light projects as is practicable, and would consider the TfNSW Asset Standards Authority standards which cover design elements such as track gauge. Whilst the fundamentals of the vehicle dimensions (excepting length) are common between all light rail projects in NSW, the Parramatta Light Rail and Sydney Light Rail would not share the same systems such as traction and controls. Due to the location and distance between the project and Sydney Light Rail projects a future connection, or compatibility between systems would not be required.

5.5.4 Mobility and accessibility

One submission raised issues concerning the accessibility of light rail for mobility impaired.



» Concern regarding the accessibility of the Dundas stop for mobility impaired passengers travelling from Oatlands.

» Request a lift be constructed from Kissing Point Road to the light rail overbridge to improve pedestrian accessibility to Dundas stop.

» Concern regarding accessibility of the light rail for patients accessing medical facilities in Westmead and Parramatta.


46

5.5.4.3 Response

The design of light rail stops incorporates a number of features to provide accessibility for mobility impaired passengers, including the provision of level access and boarding from platforms, wide platforms and a ramp on each side of the stop platform.

LRVs would be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, including low floors and designated spaces for wheelchairs and seats for elderly or less mobile passengers. Stops would also be designed to cater for people with wheelchairs or disabilities. These design features would also facilitate easy access and travel for passengers with prams and strollers.



5-35

For passengers needing more assistance, all platforms would have information help points which would connect them to a Customer Service Officer, who will be able to alert the driver and/or other Customer Service Officers on the network that there is a passenger needing extra assistance and boarding time.

Manual wheelchairs and battery powered wheelchairs and scooters used by customers with a disability would be permitted on LRVs. Assistance or companion animals trained (or in training) to assist passengers with a disability, and police or security dogs would also be permitted on LRVs.

Dundas stop will have improved accessibility compared with the current heavy rail service, and will include the features described above. Accessibility between Dundas stop and Kissing Point Road would be improved by the installation of a new footpath connection north of Dundas Stop from the active transport link to the north-east end of Station Street. Due to topographical constraints, the existing connection from Station Street to Kissing Point Road is not DDA compliant. New access to Dundas along the active transport link from Leamington Road underpass via a bridge over Kissing Point Road will be provided. Further detail is provided in section 6.11 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). A lift to connect to Kissing Point Road is not proposed to be constructed as part of the project. A DDA compliant access would be provided to Station Street from the stop and from the shared path.

5.5.5 Other structures/facilities

Nine submissions raised issues concerning other structures and facilities associated with the project.



» Concern regarding the need to duplicate the existing Bridge Road Bridge in North Parramatta considering the small number of patients at Cumberland Hospital (east) and the short timeframe for which the Cumberland Hospital (east) would remain operational.

» Concern regarding the design of the James Ruse Drive Bridge. Comment that the light rail crossing at James Ruse Drive should be in tunnel as opposed to a bridge.

» Concern regarding a substructure fracture in the geology under Rydalmere Railway Bridge which was identified in Appendix G.

» Comment that the project does not allow for upgrades to the Adderton Road Bridge. Suggest that this needs to be upgraded to improve safety for road vehicles and allow for the dual tracks and active transport link to run beneath.

» Request that Pennant Hills Road bridge be replaced to allow dual tracks to run beneath and additional traffic lanes above. Comment that this would be required if the light rail is extended to Epping and would prevent future disruption of the light rail service.

» Comment that additional parking is required at the Carlingford stop for both commuters and commercial properties.

» Support for the provision of a Kiss and Ride facility at the Carlingford stop and within close proximity to Parramatta Station.


30, 45, 48, 93, 97, 106, 117, 151, 155




5.5.5.3 Response

During construction, continued emergency access is required between facilities in Cumberland Hospital (east and west). The existing bridge cannot structurally support the light rail and a new bridge is required (referred to as the North Parramatta Bridge in the EIS). The future of the Bridge Road Bridge access after Cumberland Hospital (east) is closed is not yet determined. During detailed design the project would consider whether there is an opportunity to construct a single bridge to provide access for light rail, hospital vehicles and active transport.

Near the light rail crossing at James Ruse Drive Bridge, flooding occurs in 0.2 EY and above. Tunnelling would not be a feasible solution in this area as it would increase the likelihood of flooding impacts to light rail operations and would result in a material increase to construction costs. The design for the James Ruse Drive Bridge shown in the EIS was indicative only and would be refined during detailed design. Further refinement of the James Ruse Drive Bridge design is included in section 6.9 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Concern regarding a substructure fracture in the geology under Rydalmere Railway Bridge is noted. The Rydalmere Railway Bridge would be demolished and replaced as part of the project. Further geotechnical investigations would be carried out during detailed design to allow for an appropriate design of the new structure.

Adderton Road Bridge alignment would not need to be modified to accommodate the light rail tracks as part of the project. The project would not change the road safety or operation of Adderton Road Bridge for road vehicles and other road safety upgrades are considered beyond the project scope. Due to space constraints, the active transport link would leave the rail corridor to the north of the Adderton Road Bridge and travel along existing roadways before re-entering the corridor about 100 metres south of Manson Street. An alternative connection via the light rail corridor is being further investigated.

A replacement of Pennant Hills Road Bridge is not considered necessary, as operational planning for the project indicates that this section of single track is sufficient in this discrete location to support the light rail timetable for the Stage 1 project. The construction of a new bridge would cause disruption to road users and would increase costs with minimal operational benefits. Should light rail be extended beyond Carlingford, the need for changes to Pennant Hills Road Bridge would be re-visited and if proposed would be subject to a separate planning process.

Commuter parking requirements for Carlingford are being considered by Transport for NSW as part of a broader transport planning review separate to this project. The project would improve access to the Carlingford stop compared to the existing access arrangements at Carlingford Station. This would be achieved by providing a Kiss and Ride facility, an active transport link and improved pedestrian access between buses and light rail.

The location and extent of Kiss and Ride facilities at each of the light rail stops would depend on the configuration of the local road network and the availability of space. Opportunities for designating kerbside spaces as peak-period No Parking (designated kiss and ride) zones would be considered.

A Kiss and Ride facility currently operates at Parramatta Station on Fitzwilliam Street.



5-37

5.5.6 Power supply, catenary and wire-free technology

Four submissions raised issues concerning power supply, catenary and use of wire-free technology.



» Comment that the construction of the Westmead substation would result in the need to acquire multiple businesses. Request alternative options are investigated.

» Query regarding the location of the proposed substation in Dundas.

» General concern over the use overhead wiring and potential visual impacts in sensitive areas such as Lennox Bridge. Request for wire-free technology to be adopted over Lennox Bridge.

» Request for a comparison of the costs for the overhead wired option and wire-free option.

» Support for a wire-free design.


12, 106, 109, 125

5.5.6.3 Response

The Westmead terminus location requires the substation and drivers’ facilities to be located in the immediate vicinity of the stop while maintaining effective road and pedestrian amenity. Due to the constrained nature of the land, property acquisition was required for the tracks and terminus, to minimise additional property impacts the substation has been located within the same affected property. Alternatives including partial acquisition of the property were considered, however insufficient space was available to accommodate the terminus assets, substation and drivers’ facilities while retaining pedestrian and maintenance access.

At Dundas, the substation location would be within the existing fenced depot site to the south of Dundas Station. The exact location of the substation would be confirmed during detailed design.

Overhead wires and supporting catenary structures are currently proposed along the length of the project alignment. While wire-free running eliminates the need for overhead wiring, there are a number of constraints including steep or sustained grades and the distance between stops. As such, wire-free technology for sections of the project are currently being investigated with the operators and constructors. During detailed design, opportunities would be further investigated for wire-free sections of the alignment such as through Cumberland Hospital (east), over Lennox Bridge, through the Parramatta CBD precinct and within the vicinity of Robin Thomas Reserve as identified in mitigation and management measures VL-8, VL-10, and HE-11 of the EIS. Further discussion regarding the potential visual and landscape impacts of the overhead wires versus wire-free options is provided in section 5.18.3 of this Submissions Report.

The costs of wire-free technology can include many variables including the type of charging and storage systems proposed. Transport for NSW is requesting feedback from the market on the ability and options to efficiently provide wire-free sections for the project. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a cost comparison to wire systems at this time.




5.5.7 Road network design

Nine submissions raised issues concerning the proposed road network modifications required to support the light rail network.



» Concern that the removal of the right hand turn onto Hawkesbury Road from Queen Street would impact traffic and limit access between the medical centre and Westmead Health Precinct.

» Query whether the right hand turn from Hawkesbury Road into Railway Parade would be retained.

» Query whether left hand turns from Queens Road onto Hawkesbury Road and right hand turn onto Darcy Road would be permitted.

» Comment that the proposed traffic arrangements are unclear, particularly the mix of one-way and two-way streets in Parramatta North.

» Request the project considers traffic movements and urban design at the Palmer Street and Sorrell Street intersection.

» Query whether George Street and Macquarie Street would be returned to two-way traffic streets.

» Comment that the changes to the configuration of George Street between Harris Street and Alfred Street should be considered a ‘key road configuration change’ in Section 5.8.1 of the EIS.

» Comment that vehicle access must be maintained to George Street and Purchase Street from Harris Street and Hassall Street during the operation of the project.

» Propose that a cul-de-sac be constructed at the Church Street end with a westbound only exit to Church Street instead of converting Factory Street (between Castle Street and Church Street) to one-way (westbound).

» Support for the road network design along the southern side of George Street.

» Query the proposed road network design for Lloyds Avenue, Coleman Avenue and Tiptree Avenue.

» Concern about the proposed street arrangements within the Telopea Priority Precinct.

» Request Victoria Road be upgraded and widened to provide additional lanes.


93, 95, 97, 113, 114, 125, 127, 128, 143

5.5.7.3 Response

Right hand turn access onto Hawkesbury Road will be provided from Caroline Street and Railway Parade. Removal of the right hand turn from Queen Street was necessary to enable the functioning of access to Westmead Hospital.

Right hand turns from Hawkesbury Road into Railway Parade would be retained. Similarly, left hand turns from Queens Road onto Hawkesbury Road and right hand turns onto Darcy Road would be permitted.



5-39

Proposed road network changes to be implemented in Parramatta North as part of the project were listed in section 5.8 of the EIS. Further to exhibition of the EIS, some of the proposed road network changes have been refined and are detailed in section 6.3 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). New one-way streets are being considered in North Parramatta during the ongoing design of the road network. These include:

» Fennell Street west of Church Street.

» Factory Street east of Church Street.

» Ross Street east of Church Street.

» Palmer Street.

» However, the decision regarding one-way or two-way road operation would be determined by Transport for NSW during detailed design as road network functionality is refined.

No changes are planned at the intersection of Palmer Street and Sorrell Street and it is beyond the project footprint. However, some local access changes may be required in Palmer Street.

As described in section 5.8 of the EIS, George Street would be made two-way between O’Connell Street and Harris Street. Macquarie Street would be one-way eastbound between O’Connell Street and Horwood Place and between Smith Street and Harris Street. Macquarie Street would be a pedestrian and light rail zone between Horwood Place and Smith Street.

The comment regarding the road configuration changes on George Street and that this should be considered as a ‘key road configuration change’ is noted. This inconsistency in description of the changes is considered to be minor in nature and Transport for NSW does not consider that it significantly impedes the ability to assess the impacts of the proposal.

In general, vehicle access would be maintained to George Street and Purchase Street from Harris Street and Hassall Street. Local Access Plans will also be developed identifying precinct accesses (refer to mitigation and management measure TT-18).

The final arrangement at this intersection on Church Street will be further refined during detailed design. Restriction of turning movements would be considered in this process.

Support for the road network design along the southern side of George Street is noted.

The functionality of the road network on Lloyds Avenue, Coleman Avenue and Tiptree Avenue remains unchanged.

The design and development of the Telopea Priority Precinct is beyond the scope of the project and would be subject to separate planning process associated with the Telopea Urban Renewal project.

An upgrade to Victoria Road is beyond the scope of the project. Works on Victoria Road are limited to intersections which interact with the project, specifically O’Connell Street and Church Street.




5.5.8 Stop layout, design and treatment

Seventeen submissions raised issues concerning the proposed stop layout, design and treatment.



» Request amenities be provided at light rail stops including shelters, seating, toilets, bicycle parking, information displays and water refill stations.

» Concern regarding the use of island platforms and the potential safety issues associated with overcrowding.

» Request additional intermediate light rail stops be provided along the T6 Carlingford Line beyond the existing train stations.

» Comment that the map provided in the Westmead Fact Sheet (August, 2017) doesn’t clearly show the impacts to properties and acquisitions required to construct the Westmead stop. Comment that there appears to be sufficient space for a five-lane road, light rail, footpath without impacting the medical centre at 151-155 Hawkesbury Road, Westmead.

» Request a Grand Avenue stop be provided to be integrated with the future Camellia Town Centre.

» Concern regarding the suitability of the location for the Rydalmere stop. It should be relocated to better integrate with Western Sydney University.

» Comment that the Rydalmere stop should be designed to provide accessibility for mobility impaired and wayfinding for connecting buses.

» Concern regarding urban design and pedestrian outcomes associated with the Parramatta Square stop including:

• Restrictions to pedestrian circulation space on Macquarie Street.

• Impacts to the connectivity of the future Civic Link.

• Obstruction of the proposed building at 3 Parramatta Square.

» Comment that the project does not directly integrate with Parramatta Transport Interchange or provide a weather protected, accessible pathway.

» Concern about the accessibility of light rail stops from major trip generators such as Parramatta Stadium.

» Opposition to the Price Alfred Square stop due to noise impacts on St Patricks Cathedral from pedestrians travelling to the new stadium.


23, 33, 34, 88, 98, 99, 102, 110, 116, 117, 119, 121, 133, 134, 145, 148, 155

5.5.8.3 Response

Each stop would provide a range of typical facilities including shelters, stop furniture/seating and wayfinding signage. Some stops, including interchange stops at Westmead Station and Carlingford, would include bicycle rack facilities and water stations.



5-41

Public safety has been, and will be, carefully considered in all stages of design. As identified in section 5.4 of the EIS, larger platforms may be provided at key transport interchanges (such as Westmead, Parramatta CBD and Carlingford) and at special event stops, where necessary. Special event stops in the vicinity of Parramatta Park, Western Sydney Stadium and Camellia would also be designed to facilitate crowd management before and after each event.

During operation, the operator would be responsible for the safety of customers and staff at all times, and the public where they interact with the light rail system. The operator would have safety management plans, processes and procedures identifying how customers would be made aware of the safety risks associated with being in the proximity of LRVs. These safety and operational plans would be developed in consultation with Transport for NSW and would form part of the operator’s accreditation process.

Stops along the T6 Carlingford Line would be provided typically at the same location as the heavy rail stations currently located along the existing rail corridor. The reason for not providing additional stops is discussed in section 5.4.7 of this Submissions Report. Future stops are not precluded should development sufficiently increase demand.

The graphic provided in the Westmead Fact Sheet was provided for visualisation purposes and does not accurately reflect the scale or final design of the Westmead stop.

The preferred route through Camellia would provide a direct link to the future Camellia Town Centre and aligns with the current design, allowing for integration with a future transit-oriented town centre.

The Rydalmere stop would primarily serve the adjoining Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus) to the west of the stop and provide access to the residential area immediately north of Victoria Road and the existing industrial precinct to the east of the existing rail corridor. In order to provide central access for the above areas and reduce potential vegetation impacts, including potential impacts on endangered ecological communities, the preferred Rydalmere stop location is the existing location of Rydalmere Station. The project alignment would also not preclude a future additional stop serving the Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus), to the southern edge of the campus in the future, should demand provide an opportunity for this. Access to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus) would be substantially improved by the project with the provision of the active transport link and an accessible path to the university campus as discussed in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). This would provide a direct connection from the stop to the campus.

The Parramatta Square stop would be located on Macquarie Street, between Horwood Place and Smith Street. The stop would allow for interchange with existing train services at Parramatta Station (via the proposed future Civic Link) and bus routes along Smith Street and Argyle Street.

Access to each of the stops would be designed to comply with (where feasibly possible) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002, the Australian Standards and National Construction Code (Part H2) (AS 1428) as well as the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

The Prince Alfred Square stop would be approximately 500 metres from Western Sydney Stadium. During consultation Venues NSW recommended that any light rail stop serving Western Sydney Stadium be at least 450 metres from the stadium entrance to maintain a safe environment following sporting events.

The noise impacts of special event services are considered acceptable in the context of the short duration of special event services, occurring typically on one or two occasions each week.




5.5.9 Track and corridor design

Eight submissions raised issues concerning the proposed track and corridor design.



» Suggest that the alignment should allow for shared running with buses to minimise traffic impacts.

» Concern about the number of sharp turns in the alignment reducing the speed of the service and resulting in wheel squeal.

» Query whether the project would remove the existing heavy rail line to construct the project.

» Query whether the project would require the removal of ballast and thereby result in changes to the track levels on the T6 Carlingford Line.

» Query the proximity of the light rail alignment to properties along the T6 Carlingford Line.

» Concern regarding the single-track section beneath Pennant Hills Road reducing the capacity of the network and any future extensions.


48, 80, 93, 106, 119, 125, 148, 155

5.5.9.3 Response

In general terms, a dedicated light rail alignment is proposed for the project as it provides a more reliable and efficient public transport service. This would avoid delays to light rail due to bus operations and maintain priority for bus services that do not originate from or service the light rail catchment. No sections of shared running with general traffic (except for a short section in Macquarie Street that is required for driveway access) are currently proposed along the project alignment. However, the design on Church Street between Factory Street and Victoria Road is intended to provide capacity for shared running with buses, which may be considered in special events or during road closures. This would be subject to operational planning.

Generally, LRVs would operate up to the posted road speeds of the adjacent road corridor. The airborne and ground-borne operational noise associated with wheel squeal results from the LRV wheel/rail interaction with the track. Feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures such as reducing wheel and rail roughness, minimising LRV noise emissions levels and use of more noise sensitive trackforms to minimise operational noise and vibration would be considered further in detailed design, as included in mitigation and management measure NV-9. Overarching environmental mitigation and management measures that would be adopted for the project to minimise noise and vibration impacts associated with the project are described in Chapter 17 of the EIS.

The light rail alignment would utilise the heavy rail corridor between Carlingford and Camellia, converting the existing single heavy rail track to a double-track light rail alignment. Rosehill Station would be decommissioned, and the section of the T6 Carlingford Line between Grand Avenue and Clyde Station would be removed along with the level crossing as discussed in section 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).



5-43

It is anticipated that ground levels along the existing T6 Carlingford Line would generally be consistent with the current levels, subject to detailed design. It is assumed that about 50 per cent of the ballast would be reused. New ballast would be delivered to replace the lost 50 per cent plus additional ballast as required for the track duplication.

The light rail alignment along the T6 Carlingford Line would generally be located in the same position as the current heavy rail alignment, as shown in Figure 5.2 of the EIS. The active transport link would be generally located parallel to the light rail alignment through the T6 Carlingford Line corridor.

Due to constraints associated with the width of the existing Pennant Hills Bridge at this location, it is proposed that the track arrangement to pass under the bridge would be reduced to a single bi-directional track. The single track arrangement would also allow for the provision of the active transport link to extend under Pennant Hills Road. Further discussion of the single-track section is provided in section 5.5.5 of this Submissions Report.

5.5.10 Services and trip duration

Eight submissions raised issues concerning the frequency of the light rail service and trip duration.



» Concern that light rail vehicles are an inefficient and a slower form of transport when operating outside of a dedicated lane.

» Concern that the trip duration for commuters travelling from Carlingford to Parramatta or Central by light rail is too long. Comment that Carlingford residents would be more likely to use the M54 bus to travel to Parramatta or catch the train from Epping to travel to Central.

» Concern that the extension of the project for Stage 2 would result in reduced frequency of vehicles along the Carlingford Line.

» Concern the replacement of the existing heavy service with light rail will would increase travel times for commuters travelling from Carlingford to Central Station. Comment that this will would affect increasingly more commuters with the new developments along the Carlingford Line.

» Concern that the proposed route from Central to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse would be slower and involve travelling to Parramatta Station and doubling back to Rosehill. Query if a shuttle service be provided to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse on race days?


22, 34, 47, 55, 57, 121, 130, 155

5.5.10.3 Response

The light rail service would operate in a designated corridor and light rail vehicles would generally not share lanes with cars. When the light rail arrives at an intersection, traffic signal phases would prioritise a light rail vehicle to travel through the intersection. Light rail would also avoid the major intersection at James Ruse Drive as a result of a new grade separated crossing of this arterial road.




A journey time comparison of the existing heavy rail service versus light rail was undertaken in the EIS (refer to section 8.2.5.6 of the EIS). The AM peak journey times from the T6 Carlingford Line stations to Wynyard Station in the AM peak hour were calculated on existing train timetables and the indicative light rail running times from the Carlingford stop, and included the cross-platform transfer of nine minutes for the 8:24 am arrival at Wynyard and a five-minute wait to transfer from light rail to a T1 Western Line train for the 8:33 am at Wynyard. For all stations along the T6 Carlingford Line, the travel times for the light rail and train journeys are the same or one to two minutes faster than the existing T6 Carlingford Line train, as shown in Table 8.4 of the EIS.

The decommissioning of Rosehill Station and the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line would impact an average of 200 passengers per day using Rosehill Station. Alternative public transport light rail options would be provided at the Tramway Avenue and Camellia light rail stops for customers that currently use the Rosehill Railway Station for special event access or commuting to and from the residential area west of James Ruse Drive.

Customers from Rosehill, west of James Ruse Drive could walk to the Tramway Avenue light rail stop via Arthur Street and across Hassall Street or to walk to the existing Route M92 bus stops in James Ruse Drive. Customers attending events at the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse could access the northern end of the racecourse and entertainment venue from the Camellia stop via the pedestrian crossing of Grand Avenue. Further detail for the potential to operate shuttle buses during special events is discussed in section 10.15 of Appendix C in this Submissions Report.

Stage 2 of Parramatta Light Rail is still under development. It is not expected that Stage 2 would decrease service frequency, as additional LRVs would be provided for Stage 2 operations.

5.5.11 Active transport link

Twenty-one submissions raised issues concerning the proposed active transport link.



» General support for the proposed active transport link.

» Comment that the proposed active transport link should connect to existing active transport links.

» Comment that the active transport link should be provided along the entire alignment.

» Comment that the active transport link needs frequent access points to improve permeability, safety and achieve maximum potential usage.

» Comment that the active transport link should be accessible to people with a disability.

» Request that separate paths are provided for pedestrians and cyclists.

» Request the gradient of the active transport link be equal to that of the light rail.

» Comment that the active transport link be designed in accordance with the Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (2017 Edition).

» Request that the active transport link over Parramatta River should be wider than the proposed 2.5 metres and ideally four metres.

» Comment that the active transport should be linked to the proposed Alfred Street bridge instead of the proposed cantilevered active transport link on the Parramatta River bridge.

» Comment that there is no direct connection between Rydalmere and Western Sydney University. Request a pedestrian crossing be provided over Vineyard Creek.



5-45

» Comment that the active transport link should be continuous and include a pedestrian underpass rather than the proposed road crossings at Adderton Road.

» Request that the active transport link be accessible from both sides of Kissing Point Road.

» Comment that there is no need for an active transport link beneath Pennant Hills Road and pedestrians and cyclists should be required to cross at the lights above.


78, 81, 84, 54, 86, 87, 102, 108, 110, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 137, 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150

5.5.11.3 Response

The project includes an active transport link between Carlingford and Alfred Street, Parramatta. Future links and extensions of the active transport link are outlined in Council’s Draft Parramatta Bike Plan 2017 – 2037 (City of Parramatta, 2017a).

The purpose of the new active transport link would be to connect each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line to the Parramatta Valley Cycleway. Provision of a consistent and dedicated active transport link is seen as a benefit for both safety and access for customers and recreational users.

Access points would be provided at light rail stops, and additional points where practicable. The locations for these access points would be finalised during detailed design, however a number are identified in Figures 5.2d-h of the EIS. The active transport links to the light rail stops would also be designed to be accessible for people with disabilities, enabling independent travel for all passengers accessing the light rail. Additional access points provided along the active transport link is discussed in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

The grade and dimensions to be used for the active transport link would be consistent with relevant standards for active transport links. The detailed design would be in accordance with Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (2017 Edition). The current design of the active transport link is based on a 3.6-metre-wide pathway which is considered to be adequate to support both cycling and pedestrian activity, consistent with existing shared paths. Opportunities to widen certain sections of the link (such as around stops or busier pedestrian areas such as the route to Western Sydney University campus is discussed in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Due to bridge constraints, the currently proposed pathway at the Parramatta River truss bridge would be about 2.5 metres wide (subject to ongoing detailed design). A wider active transport link on the bridge would require substantial strengthening works, increasing the construction program and costs. It is anticipated that many active transport link users would connect to the Parramatta Valley Cycleway rather than continuing across the Parramatta River at this point. The final placement and design of this bridge would however also be subject to outcomes of the future masterplan for this area being developed by the Department of Planning and Environment. The proposed Masterplan may incorporate future crossings of the Parramatta River, and therefore these connections may be consolidated as part of the masterplan. Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the most appropriate outcome for an active transport crossing at this location.

The current design of the Rydalmere stop would provide footpath connections along the western side of the rail corridor to Victoria Road and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus as part of the active transport link along this section of the project alignment. Additional access points provided via the active transport link is discussed in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).




The active transport link will generally be located within the existing rail corridor and will travel parallel to the light rail tracks, connecting each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line. The project team is undertaking further investigations on how a cost effective and safe continuous link under Adderton Road can be provided.

5.5.12 Fares and ticketing

One submission raised issues concerning fares and ticketing.



» Concern that cost from Carlingford to Central would be greater due to the additional transport mode.


112

5.5.12.3 Response

The NSW Government will be responsible for setting fares for Parramatta Light Rail and it will be integrated with the Sydney public transport network and its fare structure through the Opal card.

It is not possible at this stage to confirm what the fare levels and structure, including any impact on customers transferring from other services, will be for Parramatta Light Rail. Information on fares for Parramatta Light Rail will be made available prior to operation of the network.

5.5.13 Integration with existing or future transport services

Three submissions raised issues concerning the integration of the project with existing or future transport services.



» Comment that the project should integrate seamlessly with existing public transport particularly with Westmead Station, T-way buses and Parramatta Station.

» Comment that Transport for NSW failed to identify Rydalmere as a minor interchange stop in section 3.6.8.3 of the EIS. Comment that with high frequencies, passengers would be more inclined to interchange for buses on Victoria Road.

» Comment that the project should integrate with proposed public transport such as the Sydney Metro West.

» Comment that bus routes within Parramatta should use cross streets within Parramatta CBD.

» Comment that bus stops along George Street should remain in their existing location.


119, 148, 155



5-47

5.5.13.3 Response

The project would integrate with key public transport interchanges within the GPOP priority growth area, including the heavy rail interchanges at Westmead and the Parramatta CBD for commuters and businesses requiring travel to the Sydney CBD. Heavy rail services at these stations are frequent and suited to a turn-up-and-go light rail service for connection.

The project would interface with key bus interchanges in Westmead (T-way), the Parramatta CBD, Rydalmere and Carlingford, and ferry services in the Parramatta CBD. The project would also increase the potential reach of the future Sydney Metro West train line, extending its proposed catchment along the project corridor. The conversion of the T6 Carlingford Line from heavy rail to light rail operation would also provide immediate benefits to commuters by providing a more frequent service, replacing the infrequent (two services an hour in peak) heavy rail service, which also requires an interchange to get to the Parramatta CBD.

The improved connection of these areas is anticipated to increase overall economic productivity through reduced travel times between economic centres and bringing businesses closer to their employees by increasing the public transport catchment.

While Rydalmere is not listed as a minor interchange in section 3.6.8.3 of the EIS, it has been considered as an interchange in section 5.5 of the EIS. This inconsistency is considered to be minor in nature and Transport for NSW does not consider that it significantly impedes the ability to assess the impacts of the project.

Further work will be carried out by Transport for NSW to confirm the preferred approach for the bus network.

In addition, some minor changes to bus stop infrastructure and locations would be required to avoid proposed light rail infrastructure. The final design of these changes would be determined during detailed design.

5.5.14 Light rail and pedestrian zones

Seven submissions raised issues concerning the proposed light rail and pedestrian zones.



» Comment that cyclists should be legally permitted to travel through the pedestrian and light rail zones without dismounting.

» Request that a pair of unidirectional bicycle paths be constructed along Church Street as part of the project.

» Request cycling be allowed on all streets within the Parramatta CBD including the proposed light rail and pedestrian zone on Church Street.


85, 86, 87, 120, 122, 123, 143




5.5.14.3 Response

Cycling within a light rail alignment is illegal in NSW. This is due to the safety risks posed by bicycle wheels getting caught in the rail groove, causing falls and potential collisions.

Cycling on Church Street would be limited during operation of the project, subject to further consultation with key stakeholders. Council’s future plans for the CBD include a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit throughout the CBD and extending to Parramatta North to reduce vehicle speeds and encourage a cyclable CBD.

No bicycle paths are proposed to be provided on Church Street as part of the project. An alternative to the existing on-road cycling route in Church Street is proposed in the Council’s Draft Parramatta Bike Plan 2017 – 2037 (City of Parramatta, 2017a).

5.6 Project construction 5.6.1 Construction work hours

Two submissions raised issues regarding construction work hours.



» Request that construction works on ‘Eat Street’, between the Parramatta River and George Street, be limited to a 7 am to 12 pm schedule, unless critical works are required.

» Request that noisy construction works be undertaken outside of business hours.


47, 95

5.6.1.3 Response

The proposed construction working hours are provided in Section 6.16 of the EIS. Generally, construction works would be undertaken within standard day time construction hours of:

» 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday.

» 8 am to 1 pm Saturday.

» No work on Sunday or Public Holidays.

However, the nature of the project means evening and night work would also be required at times, particularly in areas around road intersections where construction work during the daytime would result in a significant impact on traffic congestion and safety.

These proposed hours aim to provide balance between minimising the intensity of impacts to the community, the duration of the construction period and the efficiency of the construction work.



5-49

Where possible, noisy works would be scheduled to minimise impacts to adjacent commercial and residential properties, such as avoiding undertaking noisy activities on Eat Street during lunch and dinner periods. As per revised mitigation and management measure SE-2 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report), a Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared prior to commencement of construction to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operations. This plan would include details on how Sydney Coordination Office, Council, Local Business Chambers and business representatives would contribute to development and implementation of strategies.

5.6.2 Construction scheduling and staging

Seven submissions raised issues regarding construction scheduling and staging to minimise impacts.



» Concern regarding the duration of construction and the risk for delays to the construction timeframes as outlined in the EIS.

» Comment that the time taken to remediate a contaminated site at the location of the proposed stabling and maintenance facility would have the potential to cause delays to the construction program.

» Comment that construction should be completed faster, and that contractors should be assessed by their ability to meet timeframes or incentivised to meet timeframes.

» Query when construction works within Parramatta CBD would commence and how long they would take to complete.

» Comment that works on Eat Street should be prioritised to minimise the duration of the construction period and disturbance to diners.

» Request for works in residential areas be staged to avoid the need for full road closures.

» Comment that construction works should be staged to avoid cumulative construction impacts with other projects such as Parramatta Stadium and Lennox Tower.


47, 92, 115, 121, 129, 142, 149

5.6.2.3 Response

Construction of the project would commence in mid-2018 (subject to planning approval). The project would commence operations in 2023.

The construction program aims to provide a balance between the efficient completion of construction and minimising impacts to adjacent receivers. Where possible, efforts would be made to expedite construction of the project.

Consultation with the community and businesses regarding the construction program would continue prior to and during the construction of the project. Further information regarding consultation prior to and during construction is provided in Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report.




Works will be scheduled along the alignment to minimise overall construction timeframes and would not impact any single area for the entire duration of construction. The nature of the project means that there may be more than one phase of construction works at any one location depending on the requirements identified during the detailed construction planning. This would be determined in construction planning after contractor(s) have been appointed.

Construction work would also be undertaken during and outside standard construction hours to minimise disruption to the transport network. These works are outlined in section 6.16 of the EIS.

Detailed construction programs would be developed by the selected construction contractor during detailed construction planning and would consider opportunities to stage construction works to further minimise impacts to residents, businesses and other sensitive receivers. Construction planning would consider cumulative impacts associated with other major external construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the project.

Issues regarding the construction program are commonly related to the duration of amenity impacts. Specific amenity impacts raised in the context of the construction program are addressed in the other sections of this Submissions Report, including:

» Construction traffic, transport and access in section 5.7.

» Air quality impacts in section 5.13.

» Construction noise and vibration in section 5.16.

» Construction visual amenity impacts in section 5.18.

» Business impacts in section 5.19.

Detailed investigation works would be undertaken as part of the detailed design process to identify any areas of contamination along the project alignment. Where required, remediation activities would be scheduled in the early stages of construction prior to the commencement of major construction activity to facilitate the overall construction program. Investigation of contaminated sites along the alignment has been undertaken to understand the key areas of concern.

5.6.3 Work sites and construction compounds

Four submissions raised issues regarding work sites and construction compounds.



» Comment that the Sydney Light Rail project has required additional compounds to those specified in the EIS and that this should be avoided on this project.

» Query on the location of the Kissing Point Road compound and whether it would restrict access along the pedestrian path ‘Molly’s Way’.


56, 95, 97, 106



5-51

5.6.3.3 Response

The current proposed locations of the construction sites and primary construction compounds are described in section 6.12 of the EIS. Although every endeavour has been made to identify all lands required for construction, the construction contractor(s) may require additional construction sites and/or compounds to those detailed in the EIS. Alternative or additional sites would be assessed against the performance criteria provided in section 6.12 of the EIS.

The Kissing Point Road compound would be located within Vineyard Creek Reserve located off Kissing Point Road near the rail overbridge. During construction, pedestrian access would be maintained along ‘Molly’s Way’ between Wyuna Place and Kissing Point Road.

5.6.4 Concern about and/or mitigation of construction impacts

One submission raised issues regarding the mitigation of construction impacts.


In summary, the submission requested a dilapidation assessment prior to the commencement and following completion of construction of the project.

5.6.4.2 Submission number

56

5.6.4.3 Response

Condition surveys would be completed for buildings that have the potential to be impacted by construction vibration (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-7). The surveys would be completed prior to the commencement of construction works, if applicable and/or requested, and following the completion of construction works to identify any damage due to the works.

Buildings that would be subject to condition surveys would be identified in site-specific construction noise and vibration management plans (CNVMPs). Any damage caused by the project would be rectified at no cost to the property owner.

5.6.5 Construction traffic and haulage

One submission raised issues regarding the proposed construction haulage routes.


In summary, the submission commented that the construction haulage routes are not identified and therefore the potential traffic impacts have not been assessed in the EIS.


95




5.6.5.3 Response

Construction haulage routes are identified in Chapter 6 and construction traffic impacts are considered in Chapter 8 of the EIS. Construction traffic impacts associated with the nominated haulage routes, particularly those in Westmead, are discussed in more detail in section 5.7 of this Submissions Report.

5.7 Traffic, transport and access 5.7.1 Construction impacts on property access

Seven submissions raised concern regarding construction impacts on property access.



» Concern about restrictions to property access during construction.

» Comment that access must be maintained at all times, particularly for emergency vehicles.

» Comment that the conditions of approval should ensure that property access is maintained throughout construction.

» Concern that the construction of the project would impact on access to 32 Tramway Avenue.


33, 74, 89, 95, 115, 125, 135

5.7.1.3 Response

During construction, property access would be maintained or alternative access provided to minimise the impact on residents and businesses, as per mitigation and management measure TT-27 (refer Section 8.2.1). However, during construction, traffic diversions would be required in some locations and these would result in some increased travel distances. The area most affected due to the closure of key corridors would be the Parramatta CBD (associated with the closure of Church Street and Macquarie Street).

Specific details of the impacts and controls for individual properties cannot be provided at this stage of the project. Once a construction contractor is appointed and detailed construction planning is underway, details of temporary traffic management changes would be provided in the site specific construction Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) and Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) (refer to revised mitigation and management measure TT-25). Consultation with affected property owners and occupants where access has been impacted by construction works would occur in finalising TMPs and TCPs for approval by Department of Planning and Environment and in consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office, as identified in mitigation and management measure RC-1.

Access for emergency vehicles would be maintained at all construction sites and emergency services would be advised of all planned changes to traffic arrangements prior to applying the changes. Advice would include information about upcoming traffic switches, anticipated delays to traffic, extended times of work, locations of road possession or any likely major disruptions.



5-53

During short periods when major construction and loading/unloading activities are underway, it may not be possible to allow emergency vehicles to traverse the full length of a block. Access to an emergency within the block would be maintained at an identified access point and diversion routes would be agreed with the emergency services prior to the commencing the major construction and loading/unloading activities.

In locations where access for residents, businesses or other organisations is permanently changed as a result of the project, a local access plan will be prepared, as described in mitigation and management measure TT-17 (refer Section 8.2.1). The local access plan will identify the traffic control or other measures to be implemented in the detailed design to provide alternative access. The local access plan will be communicated to the affected parties.

5.7.2 Construction traffic impacts

Six submissions raised issues regarding impacts on traffic during construction of the project.



» Concern that construction would impact on the performance of traffic in the surrounding road network.

» Query whether two-way traffic would be permitted at all times on Hawkesbury Road between Hainsworth Street and Railway Parade.

» Query whether access on Adderton Road would be restricted during construction.

» Request Traffic Management Plans require consultation with affected businesses.


15, 95, 106, 115, 138

5.7.2.3 Response

Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (Volume 2) assessed the potential traffic and transport impacts during construction of the project and outlines a framework for managing any potential adverse impacts.

Modelling of the construction traffic impacts was undertaken based on a worst-case scenario for each of the precincts, with the exception of Carlingford where the impacts are expected to be negligible. The modelling assessed the changes to the existing typical traffic conditions (i.e. the ‘base case’) as a result of the construction works. A summary of the outcomes of the traffic modelling is provided below:

» Westmead precinct: It is anticipated that there would be negligible impact on the network during the enabling works, when compared to the base case. During the main construction works, modelling shows a minor increase in travel speed, however, the increase in traffic volumes has caused the total delay to also increase. In particular, substantial increases in traffic flows would occur in Queens Road, Hainsworth Street and Park Avenue due to the diversion of traffic arising from reduced capacity along Hawkesbury Road.

» Parramatta North precinct: The enabling works are likely to have a negative impact on the traffic network as a result of the reduced capacity along O’Connell Street during construction. During the main construction works, impacts are expected to be negligible due to the




additional capacity provided by the enabling works, which improves the overall network performance within the Parramatta North precinct during construction.

» Parramatta CBD precinct: During enabling works, the PM peak scenario shows a slight increase in delays when compared to the base case. The average speed reduces significantly during the main construction works and there is a corresponding increase in delays.

» Rosehill and Camellia precinct: The enabling works would have a negligible impact on the traffic network and result in similar traffic conditions compared to the base case. During the main construction works, modelling shows a decrease in the average vehicle speeds, resulting in a slight delay to traffic.

The Parramatta CBD and Westmead precincts would be the most affected by the construction works. This would result in some temporary impacts to traffic performance on the surrounding road network due to construction vehicles, temporary road closures, loss of parking spaces and loading zones, bus route diversions, relocation of bus stops, and temporary closure or diversions of pedestrian and cyclist access. Mitigation and management measures to minimise these impacts are identified in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report.

Construction works along Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth Street would be staged to minimise impacts to traffic. Access would be maintained along Hawkesbury Road; however, some lanes would be closed throughout the construction period and traffic along Hawkesbury Road would where necessary be restricted to one-way northbound. Southbound traffic would be directed along Park Avenue and Queens Road. Two-way traffic movements would be maintained along Railway Parade.

The indicative traffic movements during the proposed construction stages for the Westmead precinct are shown in Figure 11.2 to Figure 11.4 of the EIS. The staging and associated movements would be reviewed and confirmed following detailed design and construction planning, and any changes incorporated in a detailed construction traffic management plan.

Construction works on Adderton Road would be relatively minor and generally involve line-marking and some kerb realignment. During construction, access would be maintained along Adderton Road, however temporary lane closures would be required at times. These works would be managed through the construction TMP and TCP.

Construction traffic management plans would be prepared in consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office, Roads and Maritime, Council, emergency services, NSW police and bus operators. Subject to planning approval, Transport for NSW (and its construction contractor(s)) would continue to engage with the community and key stakeholders prior to and during construction. Community engagement will focus on preparing the public for construction impacts and working with directly impacted stakeholders to mitigate and reduce those impacts where possible. This would include communication relating to any changes to traffic arrangements or property access.



5-55

5.7.3 Construction parking and loading impacts

Five submissions raised issues regarding construction impacts on parking and loading.



» Query how many accessible parking spaces would be retained during and after construction.

» Concern regarding the removal of 870 parking spaces during construction. Comment that surrounding streets are already at capacity and cannot accommodate the lost spaces.

» Concern regarding impacts to on-street parking near the intersection of Church Street and Factory Street, and general lack of parking in the surrounding area.


3, 4, 82, 83, 115

5.7.3.3 Response

On-street parking and loading zones along the project corridor would be impacted during construction as there is a need to provide sufficient space for the works and to maximise the number of traffic lanes available. These changes would apply from the commencement of construction in each area, and parking spaces and loading zones would be permanently removed in certain locations.

It is expected that there would be a progressive loss of parking spaces as construction advances, with around 870 spaces potentially affected during construction. Around 150 to 200 mobility spaces and loading zones would be permanently relocated.

A car parking survey was undertaken to assess on-street parking capacity along the project alignment and its surrounds to further understand the impacts of the removal of the parking spaces. The results indicated the following:

» Westmead: On-street parking demand in areas adjacent to the project alignment are operating at or near capacity, with the average demand exceeding 86 per cent occupancy. While some parking is available, these spaces are not as convenient and require longer walking distances.

» Parramatta North: The average on-street parking demand is at 53 per cent occupancy, indicating that there is parking capacity within the Parramatta North precinct.

» Parramatta CBD: There is on-street parking availability within the Parramatta CBD precinct (refer to Table 13.8 of the EIS). Some capacity exists with the surrounding short-term parking spaces (defined as one to four-hour time restricted spaces) to accommodate displaced parking demand.

» Rosehill and Camellia: In areas surrounding the project alignment, on-street parking is available to meet the displaced demand.

» Carlingford: Surveys of on-street parking and parking demand were not completed at the Carlingford precinct as the project alignment would be located within the existing T6 Carlingford Line rail corridor.




Along the project alignment, no on-street parking would be provided during operation of the project. Loading zones, accessible parking, taxi ranks and service vehicle zones impacted by the project would be relocated, where possible, to the permanent alternative location proposed for these users in adjacent side streets, as per mitigation and management measure TT-5 and the TMP. The remainder of the displaced parking would be absorbed in the surrounding parking provisions.

During construction, the on-street parking along Church Street in the vicinity of the Factory Street stop would be permanently removed. As outlined above, on-street parking within Parramatta North has been assessed as having an average demand of 53 per cent occupancy and it is considered that there would be adequate parking in the adjacent side streets to accommodate this loss of parking.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan will be prepared by Transport for NSW. The Greater Parramatta Access Plan considers the transport changes necessary to support the growth of the Greater Parramatta area over the next 10 years and facilitate efficient, reliable and safe journeys to, from and within the Parramatta CBD. It will outline the functions of a fully integrated transport network in Parramatta’s CBD. The plan will seek to ensure the right modes of transport are prioritised in different parts of the CBD, to optimise capacity and improve journey reliability. This will include consideration of the project, as well as other forms of public and private transport.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan is not part of the project but will provide a high-level framework, outlining changes to the integrated transport network to accommodate growth in the Greater Parramatta area over the next five to ten years. The plan will provide a description of the range of specific actions that are required to support each of the initiatives, including implementation, timeframes and identification of responsibilities for implementing these actions.

Transport for NSW will continue to work with the key stakeholders involved in the management of the road network and/or kerbside activity to implement a number of mitigation and management measures due to the temporary or permanent displacement of car parking as identified in section 17.2.2 and 17.5 of the EIS. The purpose of further consultation and design would be to ensure appropriate and satisfactory measures are implemented which promote better utilisation and efficiency of use for kerbside space, while considering the access requirements of local residents, businesses, sporting, health and education use and all other land uses along and in the vicinity of the corridors.

5.7.4 Construction pedestrian and cyclist impacts

Eleven submissions raised issues regarding impacts to pedestrians and cyclists during construction.



» Request that impacts to pedestrian and cycling links along the alignment be avoided and minimised where necessary during construction. Comment that any detours should be sign posted.

» Concern regarding amenity impacts to pedestrians and cyclists travelling past worksites.

» Request that during construction worksites provide regular intervals for pedestrians to cross the street.

» Concern that impacts to the footpath along Hawkesbury Road during construction would present a safety risk for pedestrians (particularly the mobility impaired) travelling to school and the Westmead Health Precinct.



5-57

» Concern regarding the relocation of the pedestrian crossing at Westmead Station and the diversion of pedestrians along Ashley Lane, as Ashley Lane has no footpath.

» Request that during construction access be maintained for pedestrians travelling from Harris Park across Robin Thomas Reserve to the pedestrian crossing on Harris Street near Macquarie Street.

» Query whether access would be restricted to Dundas Public School, Dundas Shops and local bus stops during construction.

» Query whether access would be restricted beneath the Kissing Point Road bridge during construction.

» Request level pedestrian crossings be established near replacement bus stops along the T6 Carlingford Line during construction.

» Request to ensure access pathways to replacement bus stops on the T6 Carlingford Line are in good condition to ensure accessibility for mobility impaired individuals.


56, 80, 81, 106, 109, 110, 115, 116, 142, 145, 148

5.7.4.3 Response

As outlined in section 6.14 of the EIS, the construction staging and methodology would be developed to minimise (where possible) impact on footpaths and crossing facilities to maintain existing pedestrian capacity, amenity and safety. For the majority of the construction works, existing pedestrian movements running parallel to the project alignment would be maintained along the footpaths. Pedestrian movements crossing the project alignment would generally be maintained at existing pedestrian crossing facilities, either at signals or controlled by traffic controllers.

Where the installation of overhead wiring foundations and service relocations encroach on footpaths, the footpaths would be temporarily narrowed past the work site. If necessary for pedestrian safety, pedestrians may need to be diverted to adjacent footpaths via safe crossing facilities with appropriate barriers and signs. Footpaths adjacent to work sites with high volumes of construction vehicle movements would require traffic controllers to manage the conflict between construction vehicles and pedestrians. Any such requirements would be detailed in the TMPs and TCPs.

Where work sites have an impact on footpaths, consideration would be given to the requirements of all pedestrians, and especially users with specific requirements (e.g. those with mobility limitations). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) requirements would be adopted (e.g. with drop kerbs, etc. provided at crossings) for temporary footpaths. Footpath widths would allow two-way pedestrian traffic, with sufficient space provided to accommodate prams and wheelchairs. Where high numbers of users with specific requirements utilise a footpath, special provision and design consideration would be carried out to minimise impacts to these pedestrians.

» Pedestrians travelling adjacent to project construction sites have the potential to be impacted by amenity issues. These issues are described in more detail in:

» Construction noise and vibration in section 5.16 of the EIS.

» Construction visual amenity impacts in section 5.18 of the EIS.

» Air quality impacts in section 5.13 of the EIS.




Where existing cycle routes or facilities are occupied by the construction work sites, alternate routes would be identified. Alternative major cycle route changes that are currently anticipated to be temporarily required during the construction of the project include:

» Hawkesbury Road cycle path (between Railway Parade and Queens Road).

» Harris Street cycle path (between Macquarie Street and George Street).

» James Ruse Drive cycle path.

Any proposed alternate cycle route would be reviewed by the relevant roads authority, prior to their establishment. Existing cycle paths located within the construction corridor, but not occupied by the required work site, would be maintained during construction unless temporary diversions are required during the works. Any temporary diversions would be signposted.

In response to specific concerns raised in submissions:

» The requirement for pedestrian diversions around Westmead Station would be determined during detailed construction planning, however would be unlikely to involve pedestrian diversions along Ashley Lane.

» During construction of the project, a portion of the western side of Robin Thomas Reserve would be used as a construction site. Regardless, the pedestrian crossing on Harris Street would still be accessible for pedestrians walking across Robin Thomas Reserve, south of the construction site.

» Construction of the project is not expected to impact access to Dundas Public School, Dundas Shops or local bus stops within proximity of Dundas Shops.

» Access would be maintained beneath the Kissing Point Road Bridge during construction.

» During the construction period, the T6 Carlingford Line would be an active construction site and the provision of any additional level pedestrian crossings beyond those that already exist would not be possible.

5.7.5 Operational impacts to property access

Twenty-one submissions raised issues regarding impacts to property access during the operation of the project.



» Concern that the Westmead stop and terminus would block access to properties accessible via Ashley Lane and that increased pedestrians would increase traffic congestion.

» Concern regarding the changes to traffic flow on Church Street, Barney Street and O’Connell Street impacting access to properties along Church Street, North Parramatta. Comment that this site is potentially subject to future development and the light rail design should consider the likely property access for the future development.

» Concern regarding whether property access would be maintained to the apartment complex on Church Street, North Parramatta during the operation of the project. Comment that the Factory Street stop appears to block the access.

» Concern regarding the Parramatta Square stop restricting access impacting the proposed Macquarie Street car park access to the Parramatta Square development.

» Request access from Harris Street be maintained for the St Ioannis Greek Orthodox Church.



5-59

» Concern that the reconfiguration of George Street as a one-way street and the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of George Street and Alfred Street would restrict access to the service station. Request location of the traffic lights at the corner of George Street and Alfred Street be reconsidered to avoid these impacts.

» Concern regarding impacts to the access of a property on Tramway Avenue by large vehicles.

» Concern regarding access impacts to residential properties on the north side of George Street near Alfred Street.

» Concern regarding access impact to industrial properties off Grand Avenue.

» Concern that the project would involve construction of a new road connecting to Adderton Road and that this would restrict access to properties.

» Comment that existing driveways onto Adderton Road is currently difficult due to parked vehicles.


15, 21, 33, 54, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 75, 77, 82, 89, 125, 134, 135, 136, 140

5.7.5.3 Response

Operational impacts on access are described on a precinct by precinct basis in sections 11.3.3, 12.3.3, 13.3.3, 14.3.3 and 15.3.3 of the EIS. Access to properties along the proposed light rail alignment would be maintained during operation, as identified in mitigation and management measure TT-17 (refer Section 8.2.1).

Within the Westmead precinct, alternative routes would be required due to the right turn restrictions imposed by the project for properties with access from Hawkesbury Road, Hainsworth Street, Queens Road, Jessie Street, Park Avenue (access routes via Queens Road and Jessie Street only are affected), Central Avenue and Alfred Street (access routes via Queens Road only is affected). The alternative access routes for properties at these locations would generally comprise a combination of Railway Parade, Park Avenue, Caroline Street and Hainsworth Street. Properties on Ashley Lane would still be accessible via Railway Parade.

Access to all properties along Church Street and its intersecting streets would be maintained, generally as a left in and left out arrangement. Property accesses located along Church Street and requiring alternative access routes due to the turn bans imposed by the project would generally be limited to those in the section between Factory Street and Pennant Hills Road. The alternative access routes for these properties would generally comprise a combination of the following:

» Factory Street, O’Connell Street and Albert Street for property access driveways located on the west side of Church Street.

» Pennant Hills Road, Castle Street and Factory Street for property access driveways located on the east side of Church Street.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, further refinement of the proposed road network in North Parramatta has identified an alternative arrangement that limits the loss of parking and increased traffic demand to Barney Street and O’Connell Street. This is discussed in section 6.3.2 of this Submissions Report.

The existing property access arrangements for the few driveways along Church Street between Pennant Hills Road and Victoria Road would generally be maintained as left in left out arrangements.




Access to the Parramatta Square development car park at 169 Macquarie Street would be maintained in some form during construction of the project. The Sydney Coordination Office would manage the cumulative effects of construction activities, including the traffic management interface between the Parramatta Square development and the project.

Access to St Ioannis Greek Orthodox Church would be maintained from Harris Street and east along George Street or via Purchase Street.

Access to all properties along the project corridor and within the broader Rosehill and Camellia precinct would be maintained, including for the Speedway Service Station and future development site at 32 Tramway Avenue. However, alternative local area access routes would be required throughout the precinct due to the proposed road network reconfiguration and intersection modifications, as well as new turning restrictions to property driveways.

As part of the works, the project will formalise an access on Alfred Street and on George Street to provide enduring access to the Speedway Service Station from both George Street and Alfred Street. Local Access Plans will also be developed identifying precinct accesses (refer to mitigation and management measure TT-18).

The project corridor along the disused Sandown Freight Line would interface with two existing properties within the Camellia priority precinct. Both sites currently have access to Grand Avenue (and the broader road network) via crossings of the Sandown Line through existing licence agreements with Transport for NSW / Sydney Trains. Access to these properties would likely be maintained through a new signalised intersection. This would be further considered during the detailed design and in consultation with the affected property owners.

Proposed modifications to the road network surrounding the Telopea stop, including additional connections to Adderton Road, are being undertaken as part of the development of the Telopea Priority Precinct. While the project would be designed to integrate with the new Telopea Town Centre, the associated road works would be undertaken separately by NSW Land and Housing Corporation and would not form part of the project. Similarly, the project would not impact on existing driveways or involve any permanent adjustments to property access along Adderton Road.

5.7.6 Operational traffic impacts

Eighteen submissions raised issues regarding impacts to traffic during operation of the project.



» Concern that the project would result in the loss of lane capacity.

» Comment that traffic signals should prioritise light rail vehicles.

» Concern that the project would result in increased congestion at some intersections and roads in the surrounding road network particularly:

• Adderton Road.

• Hawkesbury Road.

• Pennant Hills Road and the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Church Street.

• The intersection of Alfred Street and George Street.

• George Street (between Purchase Street and Alfred Street).

• Near Rosehill Racecourse on race days.



5-61

» Concern that additional traffic and the removal of parking from O’Connell Street, Barney Street and Board Street would impact on the existing character of those streets by turning them into main roads.

» Concern that the closure of Victoria Road (between Marist Place and O’Connell Street) would restrict vehicle access to St Patricks Cathedral.

» Concern regarding increased traffic congestion resulting from high density development within Westmead, North Parramatta and Parramatta.

» Concern that the proposed changes to access to the new basement car park at Parramatta Square would reduce the levels of service for numerous intersections within the Parramatta town centre and increase congestion within the Parramatta CBD.

» Concern about the loss of eastbound capacity on George Street (between Purchase Street and Alfred Street) and query how this will impact local residents.


4, 5, 15, 20, 21, 30, 47, 74, 76, 95, 99, 115, 121, 133, 134, 138, 140, 150

5.7.6.3 Response

The traffic assessment that was adopted for Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (Volume 2) of the EIS considered a worst-case scenario incorporating the growth in traffic volumes associated with the future growth areas in the study area. It assumes an unconstrained road network and assesses the future operation of intersections using forecast traffic volumes without considering pinch points within the broader road network. Realistically these pinch points would restrict a proportion of the assessed traffic demand from being able to reach the intersections that were assessed. As such, the modelling results identified significant vehicle queuing and delays at several intersections that would in reality be unlikely occur. Furthermore, it is anticipated that road network upgrades would be undertaken by other parties to service the increased demand associated with future growth areas, as required. The project proposes to upgrade the local road network to the extent required to offset the traffic impacts associated with the introduction of the light rail to the road network.

Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (Volume 2) also presented additional modelling results which demonstrated that with some additional localised road network modifications, and in conjunction with ongoing refinement of the traffic modelling and detailed design of the light rail, the surrounding road network could accommodate the light rail.

Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (Volume 2) identified the need for a change in travel behaviour to minimise the extent of congestion across the network, which would be required with or without the project. However, the project would assist in providing a non-car based travel alternative for the community.

Specific traffic impacts around the network are discussed in further detail below:

» Hawkesbury Road: The project would likely result in a minor reduction to traffic demand along Hawkesbury Road (when compared to the ‘without the project’ scenario) by providing an alternative public transport mode. Notwithstanding this, further consideration for Hawkesbury Road and the broader transport network surrounding the Westmead Health Precinct is required during detailed design, as indicated by the management measure TT-8.

» Pennant Hills Road and the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Church Street: The project would likely result in a minor reduction in traffic demand along Pennant Hills Road near Church Street (when compared to the ‘without the project’ scenario). A reduction to traffic demand




along Church Street would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Church Street would operate with similar levels of queuing and congestion with or without the project.

» Alfred Street and George Street intersection: Traffic demand at the intersection of Alfred Street and George Street is expected to increase by up to 10 per cent as a result of the project (when compared to the ‘without the project’ scenario).

» George Street between Purchase Street and Alfred Street: The project would likely result in a minor reduction to traffic demand along George Street between Purchase Street and Alfred Street (when compared to the ‘without the project’ scenario).

» Rosehill Racecourse (on race days): The project would provide an alternative, frequent and accessible transport service which would increase public transport usage and decrease reliance on private vehicles on race days at Rosehill Racecourse.

» Adderton Road: Adderton Road is expected to experience a minor increase in traffic during operation (when compared to the ‘without the project’ scenario) due to increased set-down/ pick-up activity at the Telopea stop. However, overall Adderton Road is not expected to experience significant additional congestion.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, further refinement of the proposed road network in North Parramatta has identified an alternative arrangement. This is discussed in section 6.3.2 of this Submissions Report. Barney Street and O’Connell Street (south of Barney Street) would have additional traffic lanes and parking loss compared to that assessed in the EIS. Board Street would have no substantial change from existing conditions, as would O’Connell Street north of Barney Street.

The road network strategy discussed in section 3.3.2 of Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (Volume 2) aims to maintain the existing lane capacity across the study area. This includes the provision of an additional lane in each direction in O’Connell Street to offset the loss of a lane in each direction in Church Street. In addition, westbound traffic lanes would be provided on George Street to offset the loss of westbound lanes in Macquarie Street.

The loss of one of the two existing eastbound traffic lanes along George Street between Purchase Street and Alfred Street is required to provide the westbound traffic lane needed to accommodate property access.

Overall, the proposed modifications to George Street and other local roads and intersections, would result in a redistribution of traffic volumes across the local road network and therefore the impact to residents would be limited to changed access routes.

The light rail service would operate in a designated corridor and light rail vehicles would generally not share lanes with cars. LRVs would be given priority, meaning that when the light rail arrives at an intersection, traffic signal phases would prioritise a light rail vehicle to travel through the intersection. Light rail would also avoid the major intersection at James Ruse Drive as a result of a bridge of this arterial road.

The project would not close Victoria Road, including between Marist Place and O’Connell Street. Vehicle access to St Patricks Cathedral would be as per the current arrangement, or similar.

The design of the Parramatta Square stop would ensure efficient integration with the surrounding development and connections via the future Civic Link and Parramatta Square.

Public transport improvements, such as the project, combined with an improved walking and cycling network are required to support the forecast growth and reduce the need for people to drive within the area. As the GPOP priority growth area expands, travel behaviour change in areas such as the Parramatta CBD would be required. To accommodate the forecast population and



5-63

employment growth in the greater Parramatta area, Transport for NSW, in consultation with Council, has prepared the draft Greater Parramatta Access Plan. This plan outlines a strategic framework to provide an integrated transport network, which accommodates for future population and employment growth throughout the region.

5.7.7 Operational parking and loading impacts

Twenty-three submissions raised issues regarding impacts to parking and loading zones during operation of the project.



» Query whether park-and-ride facilities would be provided at light rail stops.

» Concern regarding the lack of available parking on streets adjacent to the light rail alignment and potential increase in demand created by the light rail.

» Concern regarding whether the existing resident car parking adjacent to 504 Church Street, North Parramatta, would be maintained.

» Concern about traffic and parking restrictions preventing short term trips to Parramatta CBD

» Concern regarding the impacts to parking within Parramatta CBD and question whether any additional parking would be provided to mitigate the loss of on street parking.

» Request provision of alternate parking on the corner of George Street and Alfred Street.

» Concern that the removal of parking along Macquarie Street and George Street between Harris Street and Alfred Street coupled with strip acquisition may result in residents having neither on-street or off-street parking. Request specific details be provided on alternative parking arrangements.

» Comment that during operation of the project there would be no provision for resident parking on Adderton Road for the adjacent properties.

» Query whether parking, particularly accessible parking, would be provided at the Carlingford stop.


3, 13, 15, 23, 30, 44, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 89, 100, 113, 140, 155

5.7.7.3 Response

Access to the light rail stops follows a hierarchy that promotes and supports the most efficient and sustainable access modes, with priority focused on pedestrian and cyclist modes and the lowest importance to park and ride. Existing parking spaces at the light rail stops on the T6 Carlingford Line would be maintained during operation, except for those at the Carlingford terminus.

The project would provide additional public transport capacity within the GPOP priority precinct. However, around 863 on-street car parking spaces would potentially be affected to accommodate the project, or as an indirect impact of other works related to the project.

While car parking has a role within the transport system, the overarching aim of the project would be to optimise the use of available road space for access to adjacent land uses and to achieve efficient use of road space along the light rail alignment and the surrounding network. To achieve this, parking would need to be removed in a number of instances.




It is recognised that some parking types play an important role in servicing business and meeting the accessibility needs of the community and may therefore need to be replaced in the surrounding local roads. The accessible parking spaces, loading zones and taxi ranks directly impacted by the project would be replaced.

A draft car parking strategy has been released by the City of Parramatta in April 2017 for the Parramatta CBD area. This strategy updates and replaces the previous 2011 parking strategy. The strategy acknowledges the project would reduce demand for on-street parking within the CBD. The strategy is focussed on publicly accessible parking in Parramatta CBD. Actions identified in the draft strategy primarily guide the development and operation of Council owned car parking, both on and off-street including the following strategies:

» Prioritise local businesses through shifting emphasis to shorter term parking within the CBD.

» Shift long-term public parking to the outer core and align with timing of light rail and other mass transit.

» Seek to maintain sufficient supply of publicly available short term parking spaces near the CBD.

» Use pricing and enforcement to incentivise desired strategic outcomes.

» Use communications to make CBD parking experience understandable, convenient and pleasant for users.

» Be future-ready, smart and flexible to adapt to changes and disruption caused by technology.

The on-street parking adjacent to 504 Church Street would be permanently removed. On-street parking within Parramatta North has been assessed as having an average demand of 53 per cent occupancy and it is considered that there would be adequate parking in the adjacent side streets to accommodate this loss of parking.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would aim to reduce the extent of impacts to on-street parking within Parramatta CBD, particularly along George Street. Notwithstanding this, further assessment of the current utilisation of off-street car parks, as identified in the draft car parking strategy (City of Parramatta Council, 2017b), across the Parramatta CBD indicates that there is spare capacity in some off-street car parks to accommodate some of the displaced on-street parking across the Parramatta CBD, albeit not necessarily in the same location as the displaced on-street car parking.

On-street parking arrangements on Adderton Road would not be impacted by the project.

Additional accessible parking spaces would not be provided as part of the project. Where existing Sydney Trains commuter car parks are proposed to be maintained as part of the project, (Rydalmere, Dundas and Telopea), the provision of accessible car parking spaces as part of these facilities would need to meet the requirements of the National Construction Code and Australian Standard AS 2890.6.

Existing accessible parking spaces (compliant with Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)) and loading zones would be (where practicable) relocated to the adjacent side streets during construction and retained during operation. Accessible parking and loading zones are considered a high priority for replacement.

Replacement of accessible parking at the Carlingford stop would be provided. The specific location of this parking would be identified in detailed design.



5-65

5.7.8 Operational pedestrian and cyclist impacts

Seven submissions raised issues regarding impacts to pedestrians and cyclists during operation of the project.



» Comment that the project provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to establish a shared pathway for pedestrians and cyclists.

» Request existing cycling connections in and around Westmead be maintained including the new Queens Road cycleway to Darcy Road.

» Request for a wheelchair accessible pathway between the new Westmead stop and Westmead Station. Suggest that a pedestrian tunnel could be provided to avoid crossing Hawkesbury Road.

» Request that during operation access be maintained for pedestrians travelling from Harris Park across Robin Thomas Reserve to the pedestrian crossing on Harris Street near Macquarie Street.

» Request that the new road link between Sturt Street and Adderton Road make a four-way intersection with Robert Street rather than a T-intersection. Comment this would improve safety for pedestrians accessing the light rail stop.


17, 18, 21, 56, 58, 59

5.7.8.3 Response

The primary active transport link proposed as part of the project would be a new connection between Carlingford and Parramatta, generally following the alignment of the existing T6 Carlingford Line and utilising the James Ruse Drive Bridge. The new active transport link would connect each of the proposed light rail stops, along the converted T6 Carlingford Line and the Parramatta Valley Cycleway, and would provide a direct connection between the proposed future developments at Telopea and Camellia. At Camellia, a pedestrian connection would be provided at Rosehill Station to provide access to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. Further information is provided in section 6.10 of this Submissions Report. More broadly, footpath improvements would be provided along the alignment and, where possible, cyclist connections would be provided to link light rail stops with the surrounding (existing and proposed) cycling network.

Provision would be made for cyclists and pedestrians to cross Hawkesbury Road and to connect with existing facilities during the operation of the project. In particular, the connection from Parramatta Park to the Queens Road cycleway would be maintained. The specific design of this connection would be considered further during detailed design.

All light rail stops and the associated access pathways would be designed to meet the requirements of the DDA, Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (DSAPT), the Australian Standards and National Construction Code (Part H2) (AS 1428) as well as the relevant provisions of the National Construction Code. The design as proposed is considered to provide sufficient access to the Westmead stop. A pedestrian crossing would be provided on Hawkesbury Road at the light rail stop.




The existing signalised pedestrian crossing of Harris Street immediately south of Macquarie Street would be retained. Pedestrian access from Robin Thomas Reserve to Harris Street would be maintained during operation of the project.

Road changes related to the proposed Telopea Priority Precinct are beyond the scope of the project. Transport for NSW is collaborating with the Department of Planning and Environment and the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, who have prepared the Telopea Master Plan. This collaboration would continue throughout construction of the light rail (subject to planning approval). Any future connection between the proposed Telopea Priority Precinct and Adderton Road would be determined in detailed planning associated with the Telopea Master Plan, and would be subject to separate planning approval.

5.7.9 Parramatta cycling network

Three submissions raised issues concerning mitigation and management of traffic impacts.



» Request the project coordinates with the Council regarding cycling opportunities along Parramatta River.

» Request that the design take into consideration Council’s Parramatta Bike Plan 2017 – 2037 (City of Parramatta, 2017a).

» Request that pedestrian/cyclist traffic signals be installed at the intersection of Parramatta Road and Marsh Street to allow access to Clyde Station.

» Request all upgraded intersections to include a signalised bike crossing.


142, 143, 147

5.7.9.3 Response

As identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report and in accordance with revised mitigation and management measure TT-3, Transport for NSW would review opportunities during detailed design to maximise integration of the project with current and proposed bicycle corridors. Where possible, cyclist connections would be provided to link light rail stops with the surrounding (existing and proposed) bicycle network. This would be undertaken in consultation with Council and would take into consideration the Council’s Bike Plan.

In accordance with TT-2, road safety audits would be completed during detailed design. This would include a review of the design of uncontrolled crossings at light rail stops to consider suitable sight distances. If uncontrolled crossing cannot be safely provided, alternative designs would be incorporated into the project.

Regarding the request for traffic signals at the intersection of Parramatta Road and Marsh Street, it is noted that Clyde is outside the project area and this request is therefore beyond the scope of the project.

Transport for NSW will work with Roads and Maritime and Council to ensure that intersections impacted by the project are upgraded appropriately.



5-67

5.7.10 Direct impacts to existing bus services and routes during construction

One submission raised issues concerning the direct impact to existing bus services and routes during construction.


In summary, the submission raised concern that the removal of five bus stops along Hawkesbury Road would reduce access to health services, in particular, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.


115

5.7.10.3 Response

The bus stop at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be maintained during the construction period and would continue to provide the existing level of access.

While the four bus stops located on Hawkesbury Road near Westmead Hospital would be removed, the hospital would continue to be accessible via the Darcy Road T-way station which is located approximately 100 metres from the emergency room.

The project would also provide an alternative public transport mode for accessing health services, with stops at Westmead Station (providing access to heavy rail, the T-way and a number of smaller health services), Westmead Hospital and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

5.7.11 Disruptions to access for emergency service vehicles

Two submissions raised issues concerning the disruption of access for emergency service vehicles.



» Concern about general decreases to response time for emergency vehicles due to road closures, detours and congestion.

» Concern about the potential for delays to emergency vehicles travelling along Darcy Road as identified in the EIS.

» Comment the Emergency Management Plan does not consider emergency vehicles accessing the medical centre on Ashley Lane.


95, 115

5.7.11.3 Response

As outlined in section 6.14.8 of the EIS, access for emergency vehicles would be maintained at all construction sites and emergency services would be advised of all planned changes to traffic arrangements prior to applying the changes. Advice would include information about upcoming




traffic switches, anticipated delays to traffic, extended times of work, locations of road possession or any likely major disruptions.

Measures to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles through work sites would be outlined in site specific traffic management plans, prepared in consultation with emergency services (such as fire, police and ambulance). Emergency access would be considered in the suite of traffic, transport and access management strategies which would be prepared for project construction including traffic management plans. Access to individual properties, including medical centres, would be managed in detailed construction planning. Specifically, revised mitigation and management measures TT-8 and TT-9 identify that liaison would be undertaken with Council, NSW Health, hospitals and emergency services to ensure construction staging of the project maintains appropriate access and that emergency services are alerted when construction arrangements change.

Measures to maintain movement of emergency vehicles through work sites may include the establishment of clearways adjacent to work sites and/or the installation of road plates. Site specific traffic management plans would also consider specific emergency access requirements for any of the buildings adjacent to the project alignment, including to the medical centre on Ashley Lane.

During short periods when major construction and loading/unloading activities are underway, it may not be possible to allow emergency vehicles to traverse the full length of the block. Access to an emergency within the block would be maintained at an identified access point and diversion routes would be agreed with the emergency services prior to the commencement of the major construction and loading/unloading activities.

Access to Westmead Hospital and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be maintained at all stages of construction. The northbound lane approaching The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be open to traffic at all times.

Access within Cumberland Hospital, particularly access to the bridge over Parramatta River, would be maintained wherever possible during the construction of the project with a new Parramatta North Bridge to be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge on the south side. To achieve improved integration with the future Cumberland precinct Master Plan, the project may also seek, in consultation with the Western Sydney Local Health District, an alternate access solution across the Parramatta River during construction, which may include short-term closures of the existing Bridge Road access. This access would be further investigated during the detailed design and construction planning for the project.

Church Street (between Lennox Bridge and Macquarie Street) would be closed to all traffic, during construction works. Intersections crossing Church Street at Phillip Street, Victoria Road and George Street would generally be maintained, except during intersection construction works, during which appropriate traffic management controls and diversions would be implemented.



5-69

5.7.12 Traffic, transport and access impact assessment approach and scope

Seven submissions raised issues concerning the approach and scope to assessing impacts to traffic, transport and access.



» Comment that no analysis has been undertaken to determine the impacts of the displacement of traffic onto arterial roads.

» Request the curve radii be provided to allow for swept path analysis.

» Concern that a large portion of the assessment of operational traffic impacts has been deferred to future design work. Comment that this should be assessed as part of the EIS.

» Comment that Technical Paper 1 – Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions (Volume 2) does not clearly show the construction compound location on Railway Parade and therefore cannot have assessed the impacts.

» Comment that the EIS has not assessed impacts to specific intersections within the Rosehill and Camellia precinct. Concern regarding how impacts of the reconfiguration of George Street between Noller Parade and Alfred Street and the impacts on intersection performance in this area have been considered.

» Concern that the EIS has not considered the impact of additional traffic on Prince Alfred Square stop caused by the nearby development public school.

» Concern the EIS did not consider impacts to key transport interchanges including the ferry wharf at Camellia and Granville Station.


95, 96, 113, 115, 127, 140, 155

5.7.12.3 Response

Consideration of the broader transport network has been considered separately within the Greater Parramatta Access Plan in consultation with Transport for NSW, Roads and Maritime, and Council. As part of this plan, a network wide traffic model was developed to determine the broader road network impacts, including roads and intersections that weren’t assessed within the EIS.

The assessment carried out as part of the EIS complied with the Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements. Technical Paper 2 — Construction Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment (Volume 2) provides an assessment of the project. The assessment was based on the current understanding of the design, with further assessments to be undertaken once the construction contractor is confirmed and detailed construction and operational planning has been undertaken.

Swept path analysis has been undertaken by the project team throughout the concept design development, for both light rail vehicles and trucks using the road network. Swept path analysis would be ongoing throughout detailed design. The exact curve radii would be determined during detailed design.




The location of the Westmead Station compound is identified in section 5.2.1 of Technical Paper 1 - Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions (Volume 2) and is shown in Figure 5.1 of the EIS. The address of the compound was incorrectly identified in the report as being on the corner of Railway Parade and Hainsworth Street. This should have been on the corner of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road. However, the construction traffic impact associated with the use of the compound on the corner of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road, was correctly incorporated into the construction traffic model and was assessed.

As discussed in Chapter 4 of the Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report (Technical Paper 3), the proposed modifications to George Street between Noller Parade and Alfred Street, in combination with other local road network modifications, would result in a redistribution of traffic volumes across the local road network.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, further refinement of the Prince Alfred Square stop design has identified the need to modify Church Street between Victoria Road and Market Street. These refinements are discussed in further detail in section 6.6.3 of this Submissions Report. The proposed changes include conversion of Church Street to one-way northbound between Palmer Street and Church Street. Therefore, the potential school development nearby would be unlikely to negatively affect this section of George Street or its intersection with Victoria Road.

There is no existing ferry wharf at Camellia, nor is there any commitment to construct one. It is understood that a developer of the proposed Camellia Town Centre has requested a ferry wharf be built near the new development and an additional stop be included on the F3 Parramatta River ferry service. If this were progressed in the future, connections would be part of that planning approval. Further, Granville Station is outside of the study area and no bus or train services are affected or impacted by the project.

5.7.13 Public use of private property to access light rail

Eight submissions raised issues concerning the public use of private property to access the light rail.


In summary, the submissions raised concern regarding public use of private property as a thoroughfare to access the light rail infrastructure.


61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 82, 89

5.7.13.3 Response

The project is unlikely to alter the current pedestrian behaviour compared to what would presently be occurring as a result of the existing bus stops and train stations along a significant portion of the project alignment. However, there may be changes in pedestrian movements where stops are planned for areas which currently experience relatively low levels of pedestrian activity, including:

» Cumberland Hospital stop (within the current Cumberland Hospital site).

» Factory Street stop.

» Fennell Street stop.

» Harris Street stop.

» Tramway Avenue stop.



5-71

» New active transport link between Carlingford and Camellia.

Dedicated access points and wayfinding signage would be provided along the project alignment to minimise impacts on adjacent private properties. Additional measures to minimise impacts on private properties via crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles is provided in section 10.14.3 of the EIS and discussed in section 5.15 of this Submissions Report.

5.7.14 T6 Carlingford Line replacement strategy

Three submissions raised issues concerning the replacement strategy for the T6 Carlingford Line.



» Query how many existing users would be impacted by the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line and what alternatives would be provided.

» Query regarding the proposed frequency of services along the T6 Carlingford Line during peak, off-peak and evenings.

» Concern about the proposed route to Granville.

» Request that bus replacement services operate to Clyde Station (and Granville on weekends) instead of Parramatta Station.


130, 146, 148

5.7.14.3 Response

As discussed in section 8.2.5.6 of the EIS, about 3,760 passengers per day use the T6 Carlingford Line (including passengers using Clyde Station). Following closure of the T6 Carlingford Line, and during construction of the project, replacement bus services would operate every 10 minutes in peak periods and between peak periods on weekdays, and every 30 minutes in the off-peak and evenings. The 10 minute interpeak service is proposed instead of the existing hourly services to mitigate the loss of convenience to train customers. Additional buses would be added as required to meet peak loads.

Section 5.6.2 of Technical Paper 2 - Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report and section 15.3.2.4 of the EIS discusses the T6 Carlingford Line replacement strategy. It identifies the bus route as operating to/from Parramatta Station via Camellia, Rydalmere, Dundas, Telopea and Carlingford with a terminus stop in Valentine Avenue, Parramatta, on the southern side of the bus interchange. The shuttle bus route is indicatively shown in Figure 15.2 of the EIS.

Travel time comparisons between the T6 Carlingford Line stations and Wynyard Station (refer to Table 5.10 of Technical Paper 2 - Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Volume 2)) indicate a minor increase in travel time for shuttle buses, ranging between one minute and seven minutes (excluding access and egress times) when compared to current heavy rail travel. The additional travel times are offset by the provision of more frequent services, which allows for greater accessibility and flexibility for customers.




The shortest overall journey time during the construction period for customers travelling from Carlingford to Wynyard was estimated at 59 minutes. This assumed travel via bus Route M54 to Epping Station and heavy rail to Wynyard via Strathfield and Central Stations. Customers travelling to / from all of the other T6 Carlingford Line stations would have the shortest AM peak journey times to Wynyard Station via the shuttle bus to Parramatta Station, with connection to train services on the T1 Western Line. Section 5.6.2 of the Technical Paper 2 - Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Volume 2) discussed three bus replacement options that were assessed for the T6 Carlingford Line.

The three options that were assessed included:

» Option 1 – terminating at Clyde Station in Berry Street.

» Option 2 – terminating at Parramatta Interchange.

» Option 3 – terminating at Granville Station in Bridge Street.

Parramatta was identified as the preferred customer option over alternate shuttle bus routes to Clyde and Granville based on a range of factors as summarised as follows:

» With the introduction of the 2018 timetable, Parramatta Interchange has fast trains every three minutes in the peak direction to Strathfield, Redfern and Central Stations, during peak periods with a travel time of 26 minutes to Central Station and 32 minutes to Wynyard Station.

» Parramatta Interchange has comprehensive existing customer amenity and accessibility.

» Parramatta Interchange provides a large number of bus route options to connect to, including the Liverpool-Parramatta and North-West T-way services.

» The bus route to Parramatta provides convenient stops for Rosehill/Camellia customers in Hassall Street, nearer to residential areas west of James Ruse Drive; and avoids Parramatta Road traffic congestion.

» Special event buses would be run, when required, for Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and would replace event train services once Rosehill Station is closed.

5.8 Land use and property 5.8.1 Property acquisition and property impacts

Four submissions raised issues regarding the acquisition of properties or property impacts.



» Concern regarding the number properties being acquired and particularly the acquisition of the heritage listed Royal Oak Hotel.

» Request for alternative premises to be provided to offset the loss due to the acquisition of businesses.

» Objection to the location of the Fennell Street stop which would require the acquisition of a commercial property.

» Concern that outdoor dining areas along ‘Eat Street’ would be permanently reduced as a result of the project and query as to how businesses would be compensated for any such reduction.



5-73

» Concern that outdoor dining shades along ‘Eat Street’ would be impacted and queries if these would be reinstalled following completion of construction.


4, 12, 129, 142

5.8.1.3 Response

Transport for NSW would only lease or acquire properties necessary to facilitate construction or operation of the project. The proposed alignment has been selected to minimise property impacts and the need for acquisitions, while balancing impacts to traffic, the environment and the overall operability of the project. Impacts associated with the acquisition of the Royal Oak Hotel are addressed in more detail in section 5.11.4 of this Submissions Report.

As outlined in section 7.2.3 of this Submissions Report, since the exhibition of the EIS, the overall disturbance footprint has been updated, including changes to property impacts and acquisitions. The owners of all properties that are proposed to be acquired have been assigned a Transport for NSW acquisitions manager to guide them through the process. The disturbance footprint would continue to be refined during detailed design to identify areas where temporary or permanent impacts on property could be reduced.

All property acquisitions are managed in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. A Property Acquisition Information Guide has been developed by the NSW Government and has been made publicly available. The guide incorporates the land acquisition reforms announced in October 2016 including the legislative changes that commenced in March 2017, and provides information for affected property owners on the acquisitions process.

The outdoor dining spaces are managed through licences issued by Council. During construction of the project, all outdoor dining furniture along ‘Eat Street’ would be temporarily removed to allow for the upgrade of utility services. Transport for NSW would work with Council to lawfully terminate all on-street dining licences as required for construction and operation of the project. This may be staged so that only part of the street is affected at any one time. Place Managers would also work with businesses and with the construction contractor(s) on the procedures for removal of outdoor dining structures.

The configuration and design of the outdoor dining areas on Church Street, including Eat Street, is yet to be determined. During detailed design, further discussion would be undertaken with business owners and the Council to determine the most suitable way to manage changes to outdoor dining spaces and the provision of outdoor dining furniture, including shades. During operation, the project would provide a high quality urban environment for pedestrians and transport customers within the light rail and pedestrian zone on Eat Street. As outlined in Section 13.9 of the EIS, the project would improve the character and amenity of Eat Street as well as accessibility outcomes. A moderate improvement in the potential for passing trade and viability of businesses along the street is anticipated.

As per revised mitigation and management measure SE-23, a Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operation of the project. This would include consultation regarding the outdoor dining areas on ‘Eat Street’.

Transport for NSW recognises that there would be disruption for businesses during construction of the project and that this needs to be carefully managed. However, financial compensation and rent relief is not proposed to be provided to businesses impacted during construction of the project, with the exception of those that would be acquired.




5.8.2 Impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve

One submission raised issues regarding impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve.



» Comment that the project alignment should be amended to avoid impacts on Robin Thomas Reserve, with the alignment relocated to the western side of Harris Street on the property that is currently under development.

» Request the alignment avoid impacting fig trees on Harris Street adjacent to Robin Thomas Reserve by running along Charles Street and on to George Street.

» Comment that the temporary acquisition of part of Robin Thomas Reserve would impact the use of Field 1 and that the project would require the relocation of this field to ensure continued use of the field during construction and operation.

» Concern regarding the timing of the relocation of sports fields at Robin Thomas Reserve, with the suggestion that this should occur between late September and early February.


56

5.8.2.3 Response

As outlined in section 3.6.5 of the EIS, several options were investigated for the potential route between Macquarie Street and George Street including an alignment along the western side of Harris Street. This option was not selected as the preferred option as it would negatively impact:

» Traffic on George Street (west of Harris Street).

» The operation of the intersection of George / Harris / MacArthur Streets.

» The heritage listed Albion Hotel.

» The development site on the corner of Macquarie Street and Harris Street.

Another option considered was the construction of the light rail alignment along Charles Street and George Street. This option was not selected as the preferred option as it would negatively impact:

» Traffic on Charles Street, George Street (west of Harris Street) and Macquarie Street. This would limit east/west movements within the Parramatta CBD.

» Properties, resulting in acquisitions along Charles Street and Macquarie Street and at the intersections with Macquarie and George Streets.

The benefits of the preferred option compared with the other potential options are discussed in more detail in section 3.6.5.4 of the EIS.

Construction of the light rail alignment on Harris Street would require the permanent acquisition of a portion of Robin Thomas Reserve along the north-western section of the reserve. An additional area would also be temporarily required to support construction.

Further discussion regarding the potential impacts of the project on the fig trees along Harris Street is provided in section 5.17.1 of this Submissions Report.



5-75

This impact to Robin Thomas Reserve would also require the adjustment of the existing sports fields at Robin Thomas Reserve a few metres east. During the relocation works, there would be a period in which the sporting fields would be unavailable. To minimise disruption to users of the sporting fields, construction planning would aim to complete these works between late September and early February (where practical and feasible). The adjustment would occur prior to the commencement of construction at the reserve to enable the continued use of both fields (refer to mitigation and management measure LU-4).

Transport for NSW will continue to consult with the Council concerning the Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserve Master Plan which was recently placed on public exhibition through the Council’s website. During detailed design, Transport for NSW would develop the project so to be consistent with that plan. Urban design treatments would aim to integrate the light rail infrastructure within the surrounding environment and would consider potential improvements to the overall amenity and functionality of Robin Thomas Reserve in consultation with Council.

5.8.3 General land use impacts

Three submissions raised issues regarding land use impacts.



» Comment that the EIS states the project would be a catalyst for urban renewal and land use changes. Request that a clearer and more specific vision (be it achieving a greater density or expansion of existing commercial, mixed use or retail areas) be provided to the community.

» Comment that the project would result in the development of high density housing along its corridor. For example, the Telopea Priority Precinct.

» Comment that the priority growth areas along the alignment should be carefully developed to include a mix of residential, commercial and infrastructure. This should take into consideration lessons learnt from the development of areas with higher densities such as Carlingford.

» Comment that the Parramatta CBD lacks basic infrastructure to support its current zoning.


20, 80, 155

5.8.3.3 Response

The GPOP priority growth area was identified as a new priority growth corridor in the most recent metropolitan strategy A Plan for Growing Sydney (NSW government, 2014a). In 2016, the Greater Sydney Commission collaborated with key government agencies, the Council, institutions and businesses to develop the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula Vision (Greater Sydney Commission, 2016c). The document outlines a vision for the GPOP priority growth area to become the geographic and demographic centre of Greater Sydney.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, the NSW Department for Planning and Environment in collaboration with Greater Sydney Commission and Council has released the Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan. This document identifies how more jobs, homes and essential services would be accommodated in the GPOP priority growth area over the next 20 years. It includes a land use framework to guide future redevelopment of the priority growth area, identifies key actions for the short term, and allows the NSW Government to identify and plan for the infrastructure required to unlock its potential.




Whilst the interim Plan currently forecasts more than 72,000 additional dwellings within the priority growth area over the next 20 years, it is acknowledged that there will be further opportunities for renewal and more homes as planning investigations continue and additional infrastructure, such as Parramatta Light Rail, commences operation. Work currently being undertaken by the NSW Government estimates that the priority growth area has the capacity to accommodate more than 100,000 additional dwellings.

The project would support the NSW Government vision for the GPOP priority growth area to attract additional people and jobs to the area. The project would enable changes to current planning controls (by others) and increase the attractiveness of the GPOP priority growth area to households and businesses by improving public transport accessibility. The project would support increased urban densities on land near stops and along the corridor, reflected in more residential and commercial land being rezoned to allow for higher permissible floor space ratios. Residential and commercial uses are valued significantly higher than the former industrial uses, optimising the land use outcomes.

Decisions regarding the future development within GPOP are outside of the scope of this project and would be made by relevant authorities after further consultation with the community and other key stakeholders.

5.8.4 Integration with Camellia Town Centre

One submission raised issues regarding integration of the project with the proposed Camellia Town Centre.


In summary, the submission requested that the full extent of the Sandown Line be preserved for a possible extension of the project to the east and north.


98

5.8.4.3 Response

The eastern end of the Sandown Line, beyond the access point to the stabling and maintenance facility, would be decommissioned as part of the project (including removal of all overhead wiring, communications infrastructure and signalling equipment – refer to section 6.13 of this Submissions Report). There is no current plan to change the reservation of this area as a transport corridor.

The future use of the Sandown Line would be considered in conjunction with the development of the Camellia Master Plan and Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 2).

5.8.5 Integration with Telopea Master Plan

One submission raised issues regarding integration of the project with the Telopea Master Plan.


In summary, the submission raised concern that the project identified in the EIS is inconsistent with the Telopea Master Plan.



5-77


155

5.8.5.3 Response

A Master Plan report has been prepared by NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) in collaboration with Department of Planning and Environment and Council for the redevelopment of the Telopea Town Centre. Public exhibition of the Telopea Master Plan was undertaken between October 13 and November 24, 2018, including acceptance of community submissions. The Department of Planning and Environment are currently considering submissions.

The light rail project is identified in the Master Plan as being central to the growth of Telopea and a catalyst for future redevelopment. The LAHC plan includes a revitalised town centre at the future light rail stop, including a new arrival plaza and adjacent pedestrian precinct with cafes, shops, community facilities, tree lined streets and open space. Figures provided in the EIS showing the location of the proposed light rail stop at Telopea are indicative only and subject to further detailed design. The design of the project has been developed in close consultation with the LAHC and is generally consistent with the Telopea Master Plan. As described in section 7.2.2 of this Submissions Report, the EIS identified a new road link within Telopea (refer Figure 3.23 of Technical Paper 3). This road is not proposed to be constructed as part of the project, and would be developed as part of the Telopea Master Plan by the LAHC when specific requirements and timing needs are better understood. It was shown in Figure 3.23 of Technical Paper 3 solely for purposes that the project design had accommodated this future access road.

Transport for NSW will continue to liaise with LAHC, City of Parramatta and NSW Department of Planning and Environment to ensure the project is integrated with the Telopea Priority Precinct.

5.9 Biodiversity 5.9.1 General biodiversity impacts

Two submissions raised issues concerning general impacts to biodiversity.



» Concern regarding potential impacts to fauna species arising from the removal of trees along the alignment and particularly along the existing T6 Carlingford Line.

» Concern regarding potential impact to habitat in the Vineyard Creek system associated with the construction of new bridge crossings.

» Concern that the proposed bridge structures within Vineyard Creek would impact on stream flow, resulting in permanent flow reduction south of the new bridge and impacts to the existing habitats and species found in the southern portion of Vineyard Creek.


42, 151




5.9.1.3 Response

Mitigation and management measures have been identified to reduce impacts on vegetation and fauna species. In particular, mitigation and management measures BI-3 to BI-9 include construction mitigation and management measures to protect fauna during vegetation clearing.

Additional habitat fragmentation is not anticipated along the T6 Carlingford Line, as Section 10.2.3.2 of the EIS identified that impacts from the project would largely involve trimming the edges of vegetation patches adjacent to the existing rail corridor. The removal of native vegetation would be minimised through detailed design and construction planning as far as practicable. Where possible, landscaping works would be undertaken along the T6 Carlingford Line, with potential to result in a net improvement in the biodiversity value of vegetation along the corridor.

As discussed in Table 5.1 in Technical Paper 4 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (Volume 3), of the 20 threatened fauna species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 with potential to occur in the study area (eight of which had moderate potential for occurrence), none were recorded during habitat assessments and targeted surveys undertaken for the EIS. These field investigations identified that it is unlikely that these species would be present in the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat. As discussed in section 10.2 of the EIS and Technical Paper 4 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (Volume 3), no threatened species, populations or ecological communities listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are likely to be significantly impacted by the project.

As described in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report, since the exhibition of the EIS the proposed design has been modified to improve ease of access between the active transport link and the Western Sydney University by widening the pedestrian bridge over Vineyard Creek. As a result of this change, the project would now include a row of additional piers (compared to the EIS project) within Vineyard Creek. These additional piers would be in line with the existing piers currently supporting the rail bridge crossing. The additional piers would likely have a minor impact on stream flow south of the bridge and flooding behaviour north of the bridge however would generally be consistent with the existing condition. It is not expected that these additional structures would result in any significant impacts to ecology south of the crossing.

The construction of the bridge would require clearing of vegetation comprised mainly of weeds and exotic species along the creek banks, which have previously been disturbed by construction of the existing rail bridge. The bridge would be designed, and the site revegetated following the completion of construction, consistent with the requirements of the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (Department of Primary Industries, 2013) and the Guidelines for watercourse crossings on waterfront land (Department of Primary Industries, 2012). It is considered that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation and management measures the potential risks to aquatic environments would be negligible or low.

5.9.2 Mitigation and management measures

One submission raised an issue concerning measures to manage and mitigate impacts to biodiversity.



» Request that the removal and relocation of hollow bearing trees and construction of nesting boxes and other habitat support be undertaken with the involvement of The Royal Botanic Garden Sydney’s Hollows As Homes program.



5-79

» Request that resources be devoted to improving Vineyard Creek, particularly between Parramatta River and Victoria Road near the Parramatta River Bridge. Comment that this area has historically been neglected and could be greatly improved.

» Query about the habitat replacement plan for areas impacted by construction works. Specifically, weed removal.


42

5.9.2.3 Response

Transport for NSW is committed to retaining trees where possible and to biodiversity enhancement and conservation as part of the project. Where there are unavoidable impacts on native vegetation and trees, Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide and the Council’s Parramatta Ways: Implementing Sydney’s Green Grid would be used as a framework to develop a Vegetation Offset Strategy to maximise biodiversity outcomes across the Parramatta LGA and contribute to urban greening.

Consistent with Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide, the EIS identified the potential to work with the Council to implement a program of rehabilitation to a natural environment such as a forested reserve or waterway within the Parramatta LGA. Rehabilitation of Vineyard Creek will be considered during development of the Vegetation Offset Strategy.

Transport for NSW will investigate options for collaborating with organisations and stakeholders with specialist knowledge during detailed design.

Revised mitigation and management measures have been identified in relation to nesting boxes (BI-7) and weed management (BI-3) as below:

» To mitigate habitat loss as a result of the project, the following would be investigated and implemented:

• Consideration would be given to fitting roost boxes to the bridge over the Parramatta River at Cumberland Hospital to provide roost sites for the Large-footed Myotis and other species of microbats (e.g. Eastern Bentwing-bat) which may utilise such structures. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to disturbance.

• Nest boxes of a variety of designs would be installed including boxes suitable for roosting by microbats. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to disturbance in the area. The EIS identifies the need to prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which will include detailed measures for minimising the risk of introducing weeds and pathogens. The duration of the program would be detailed in the CEMP.




5.9.3 Impact assessment approach

One submission raised an issue concerning the approach taken to assess impacts to biodiversity.



» Concern that the ecological survey within the vicinity of Vineyard Creek was insufficient due to the limited time and frequency spent surveying at this location compared with the diverse range of habitats and species found within this ecosystem. As such, only a small portion of species were identified and assessed.

» Query whether any additional surveys are planned to be undertaken prior to construction.

» Comment that the description of Vineyard Creek within the EIS as an intermittently flowing creek system is inaccurate.


151

5.9.3.3 Response

As described in section 2.3 of Technical Paper 4 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (Volume 3), field surveys were conducted in accordance with the NSW Framework for Biodiversity Assessment methodology (Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014b), as required by the SEARs.

The proposed project would require relatively minor disturbance to vegetation and habitats along Vineyard Creek. Despite these relatively minor impacts to this area, areas along Vineyard Creek were subject to targeted threatened flora and fauna surveys, including anabat recording, snail searches, fauna habitat assessments, spotlighting and call playback at two locations, and five separate Biobanking Assessment Methodology floristic plots/transects. It is acknowledged that Vineyard Creek contains other areas of diverse native habitat and species, however these areas are outside of the study area for the project and would not be impacted by the project.

As detailed in section 10.2.4 of the EIS and included as mitigation and management measure BI-8, pre-clearance surveys would be undertaken prior to vegetation clearing to search for native wildlife, which would be captured and relocated.

While all efforts were made during the preparation of the EIS to provide accurate and consistent information throughout the report and technical papers, some inconsistencies have been raised throughout the submissions process. The error in the description of Vineyard Creek as an intermittently flowing creek is considered to be minor in nature and Transport for NSW does not consider that it impedes the ability to assess the impacts of the project.



5-81

5.10 Aboriginal Heritage 5.10.1 Aboriginal heritage impacts - construction

One submission raised an issue regarding the Aboriginal heritage impacts during construction of the project.

5.10.1.1 Summary of issue raised


» Comment that the Aboriginal heritage sensitivity in Parramatta should be downgraded in areas subject to high levels of disturbance.


125

5.10.1.3 Response

An assessment of potential impacts on Aboriginal heritage is included in section 10.3 of the EIS and Technical Paper 5 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (Volume 3).

Assessment of archaeological significance has been carried out for these sites based on the social/cultural, historic, scientific and aesthetic significance of Aboriginal heritage values as identified in The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS, 2013). The identification of significance has been developed in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders for the project. Significance assessment has focussed on the intactness, representativeness and research potential of these sites within the landscape.

5.11 Built and non-Aboriginal Heritage 5.11.1 General built and landscape heritage impacts – construction

Seven submissions raised issues regarding the general built and landscape heritage impacts during construction of the project.



» Concern the project would impact historic buildings.

» Concern impacts to heritage buildings associated with project would contribute to the cumulative loss of Parramatta’s heritage associated with urban development and expansion.

» Comment that there is potential for impacts to unmarked graves located outside of the western boundary of St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery and on Church Street, with no details provided on how the project would mitigate potential impacts on unmarked graves.

» Comment that Parramatta AMU 3037 confirms that European remains associated with the Purchase Nursery would have been destroyed as part of the past road works along George Street which was not considered in the EIS.




» Comment that the heritage listed Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments should be retained and incorporated into the project design.

» Suggests that the project considers regrading Adderton Road to its original levels (e.g. prior to the construction of the rail bridge) to minimise impacts to the adjacent State heritage listed ‘Redstone’ property.


14, 27, 58, 59, 125, 127, 155

5.11.1.3 Response

A built heritage impact assessment as well as a non-Aboriginal archaeological assessment was undertaken for the project. Each of these technical reports is provided as Technical Paper 10 - Built Heritage Impact Assessment and Technical Paper 11 - Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment in Volume 5. A summary of the built and non-Aboriginal heritage impacts of the project is provided in Chapters 11-15 of the EIS.

The project would have direct, visual and/or indirect impacts on several local, state and national heritage items. Opportunities to minimise these impacts have been considered in concept design and would be further considered during detailed design. In response to submissions, it has been determined that building demolition through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area (which would be directly impacted by the construction of the light rail) be carried out as part of the light rail project. Further discussion regarding the proposed works is provided in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

The potential cumulative heritage impacts across the project alignment have been considered in Chapter 9 of the EIS. The major developments identified to have potential cumulative heritage impacts with the project include:

» Westmead Hospital redevelopment.

» Parramatta North Urban Transformation area.

» Heritage building repairs (former Cumberland Hospital site).

» Parramatta Square.

» Arthur Phillip High School.

As discussed in section 12.5.2 of the EIS, the project alignment would directly impact on the north-western corner of the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery curtilage. A conservation management plan would be prepared to inform the design and construction methodology within proximity to the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. In addition, a heritage management plan and zone 1 mitigation and management measures, identified in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report, would apply. Zone 1 mitigation and management measures identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 8) includes:

» A heritage induction would be carried out for all contractors, to be developed as part of the heritage management plan.

» An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.



5-83

» An excavation director who meets the NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant archaeological investigations must manage the works.

» Impact or removal is generally unacceptable for State significant archaeology identified as being highly intact and if proposed should be justified appropriately by the excavation director.

» In situ retention of archaeological remains would be considered in accordance with the ARD as required.

» The NSW Heritage Division would be notified should intact State significant relics be unexpectedly identified.

» Public engagement, such as open days or media releases, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.

» Post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and relics conservation would be carried out if relics are identified.

As discussed in section 14.5.2 of the EIS, the Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments have no structural purpose and would need to be removed to facilitate the widening and strengthening works on the approach spans to support the dual track crossing and cantilevered active transport crossing. Options to retain the underbridge abutments were considered but ultimately were not feasible to allow for a dual track and active transport crossing. During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to appropriately reuse the Camellia underbridge abutments would be explored in consultation with a heritage architect.

The remains of Purchase Nursery extend into Robin Thomas Reserve. Monitoring within the footpath at the corner of George Street and Harris Street in 2013 for works completed by Endeavour Energy identified an intact brick wall associated with the nursery. While archaeological remains within the George Street roadway are likely to have been partially impacted, remains within the western portion of Robin Thomas Reserve (adjacent to Harris Street) are likely to be intact. Revised mitigation and management measures, as identified in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report, would apply.

The existing Adderton Road overbridge would be adequate for two light rail tracks to pass under Adderton Road and only minor modifications would be necessary to accommodate the project. As discussed in section 15.5.2 of the EIS, there would be no direct impact on Redstone with negligible visual and indirect impacts.

5.11.2 Impacts to Cumberland District Hospital Precinct

Nine submissions raised issues regarding the project’s impact on the heritage value of the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.



» General concern about the direct and indirect impacts of the project on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.

» Comment that the light rail would reduce the size of the Cumberland Hospital (east) campus sports oval by a third.

» Query about which buildings would be removed within the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.




» Concern that the construction of the project would require the removal of mature trees and impact heritage buildings associated with the Former Female Factory, Parramatta Lunatic Asylum or Wisteria Gardens.


4, 31, 32, 39, 50, 109, 117, 138, 139

5.11.2.3 Response

As discussed in Technical Paper 10 – Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Volume 5), the preferred alignment was selected to avoid impact on the most sensitive components of Cumberland District Hospital Precinct, specifically the Former Female Factory. The design has minimised impacts by adopting a five-metre buffer from heritage buildings (to be retained) during operation where possible. It has also been designed to facilitate a low speed environment to fit with the heritage character of the precinct. The impacts associated with the buildings to be removed within the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct are discussed further in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Cumberland District Hospital Group would continue to meet the threshold for State heritage significance. The mitigation and management measures in section 10 of Technical Paper 10 – Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Volume 5) and Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report would be implemented to further minimise impacts of the project on the heritage values of the site.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 of the EIS, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including:

» Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual impacts.

» Design of the Parramatta North Bridge to minimise visual impacts and retain significant views and vistas to the nineteenth century heritage landscape. A high-quality design would be prepared in consultation with an experience heritage architect.

» The light rail stop would be designed to minimise visual impacts. Appropriate tree plantings would be included in the design to soften the relationship of the light rail stop in the existing environment.

» Design of roadworks would seek to prioritise the retention and protection of significant kerbing.

» Impacts to significant trees and plantings would be avoided where possible.

» The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would be consulted during detailed design.

The impact from the removal of trees and relevant mitigation and management measures is included in section 5.17 of this Submissions Report.

The project would not impact the sports oval within the Cumberland Hospital (east) campus.

In response to submissions received, it has also been determined that building demolition through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area (which would be directly impacted by the construction of the light rail) be carried out as part of the light rail project. Further discussion regarding the proposed works is provided in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).



5-85

5.11.3 Impacts to the Former Female Factory

Six submissions raised issues regarding the project’s impact on the heritage value of the Former Female Factory.



» Concern that the construction and operation of the project would impact on the Former Female Factory and preclude it from achieving World Heritage Listing.


4, 14, 31, 32, 50, 139

5.11.3.3 Response

It is acknowledged that there is potential for a World Heritage listing of the Former Female Factory in the future as an addition to the Australian Convict Sites listing. The Australian Convict Sites includes a selection of 11 penal sites, among the thousands established by the British Empire in Australia during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The heritage values attributed to the Former Female Factory in the National Heritage listing are Criterion A (event, process), B (rarity) and C (research), all of which are stated to be expressed in the physical fabric and archaeological remains within the heritage listing curtilage. Visual and landscape values are not identified as contributing factors for its heritage significance.

It is likely any World Heritage listing would share the same core heritage values. As the project would not impact significant fabric or archaeological remains within the curtilage, it is unlikely that the heritage significance of the Former Female Factory would be impacted and unlikely to compromise a future World Heritage listing.

5.11.4 Impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel

Twenty-seven submissions raised issues regarding the project’s impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel.



» Objection to the demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel.

» Comment that the heritage listed Royal Oak Hotel is an irreplaceable piece of Australian history and should be retained.

» Comment that the EIS has not provided sufficient justification as to why the Royal Oak requires demolition.

» Comment that properties located opposite to the heritage item should be demolished or partially acquired instead to avoid impact to the Royal Oak Hotel.

» Query if options were assessed for the placement of a light rail stop on the corner of Church Street and Victoria Road in order to avoid impacts on the Royal Oak Hotel.




» Comment that the demolition of the hotel would destroy the link with the associated stables.

» Comment that suitable mitigation and management measures need to be established to ensure that there are no impacts to the stables during demolition or construction.


4, 14, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 50, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 100, 101, 109, 139

5.11.4.3 Response

As described in section 12.1 of the EIS, the Parramatta North precinct is characterised by a diverse mix of health infrastructure (such as the Cumberland Hospital (east)), residential neighbourhoods, recreational uses, mixed-use commercial areas and community facilities. The precinct has a strong character, a sense of place and a high level of amenity provided by its access to community facilities and open space, though it currently has limited access to public transport infrastructure.

Church Street is the major thoroughfare connecting the Parramatta CBD (including Eat Street) to the Parramatta North precinct, Parramatta North Urban Transformation project and the Westmead Innovation precinct.

The main residential area within the Parramatta North precinct is located east of Church Street, except for those properties surrounding Factory Street and west of Church Street. South of the intersection of Church Street and Pennant Hills Road, the properties on Church Street are typically mixed-use with commercial property frontings and residential towers above.

Light rail along Church Street would support the extension of the Parramatta CBD into North Parramatta through high quality public domain, improved pedestrian amenity and transport choice.

The urban design strategy for this area would be to build on and improve the existing character of Church Street North to provide a quality and amenity that is required of a future expanding CBD. Interchange with bus services would also ensure a smooth transition between modes. A key challenge for this section of the corridor is to balance the demands on traffic movements with the need to provide sufficient space for an improved streetscape.

Proposed tree plantings would connect the strong cultural landscapes of St Patrick’s Cemetery and Prince Alfred Square, improving pedestrian comfort and amenity.

The design principles for the North Parramatta Church Street north are:

» Reinforce Church Street as a gateway into the heart of the Parramatta CBD.

» Reinforce the connectivity between Prince Alfred Square and St Patricks Cemetery with tree planting along the street.

» Where possible, maintain canopy edge adjacent to St Patricks Cemetery.

» Enhance the public domain and pedestrian amenity along both sides of Church Street.

» Locate stops to create convenient interchange with buses and optimise pedestrian catchments.



5-87

Royal Oak Hotel – Church Street corridor

The design of the light rail corridor in Church Street aims to create an attractive street environment with wide footpaths, street trees and landscaping, while retaining the important traffic, freight and bus movements within Parramatta’s inner ring road system.

To achieve this, additional land is required along Church Street, and unfortunately, as the Royal Oak Hotel is on edge of the property boundary, impacts cannot be avoided.

Alternate options were investigated, including alternative routes, taking land from the other side of Church Street, or reducing traffic lanes, however, these options are not feasible.

Realigning the route along Church Street to avoid the Royal Oak Hotel would require approximately 200 metres of track alignment changes (north and south of the Hotel location), and potential impacts to, or the acquisition of, at least four properties on the eastern side of Church Street.

During the initial route assessment, options for the light rail route to travel along O’Connell Street and Marsden Street were considered. These route options had a number of disadvantages which are outlined in section 5.4.4 of this Submissions Report.

While it is acknowledged the route along Church Street would have impacts to heritage and would require property acquisition, Transport for NSW is currently working with businesses along Church Street to minimise construction impacts during construction of the project (refer to Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report). Bus services would be maintained on Church Street and the light rail has been designed with the opportunity for shared running of buses within the light rail alignment.

Stage 1 alignment: Church Street – Corridor required

The corridor width along Church Street in the vicinity of Ross Street where the Royal Oak Hotel is located requires:

» Two light rail tracks in the centre of Church Street.

» Two general traffic lane widths both northbound and southbound directions, wide enough for buses.

» A safe pedestrian and road environment with two adequate footpath widths to provide separation between heavy vehicles and pedestrians while accommodating light rail infrastructure and road signage.

» The ability to share bus operations with light rail vehicles during certain network operations (such as the closure of O’Connell Street during a major event at the Western Sydney Stadium).

» A safe precinct access for freight movements for vehicles entering and exiting Ross Street from Church Street including appropriate turning paths (e.g. trucks servicing Coles in Ross Street turning onto Church Street).

Figure 5.2 provides a view of the Royal Oak Hotel from Church Street.




Source: Google Street view Figure 5.2 The existing dual lane road environment looking north

Figure 5.3 to Figure 5.6 shows that in an approximately 28 metre road corridor, over a distance of around 430 metres from Palmer Street to Fennel Street, the Royal Oak Hotel and adjacent carpark corridor is the only property intruding into the road corridor; by around 13 metres (including awning).

Source: SixMaps (left) and Nearmap (right) Figure 5.3 Plans of the existing Church Street road corrido



5-89

Source: Nearmap Figure 5.4 Road alignment showing existing road corridor and Royal Oak Hotel location




Source: Google Street view Figure 5.5 Road alignment looking south, showing existing road corridor and Royal Oak Hotel location

(beige building, centre of picture)

Source: Google Street view Figure 5.6 Road alignment showing existing road corridor and Royal Oak Hotel location (building, right

of picture)

Acquisition of property

Along the 12-kilometre alignment of the Parramatta Light Rail light rail would run along existing roads, but it is unavoidable that some properties will need to be acquired for the project, including the Royal Oak Hotel. The process for property acquisition is outlined in section 5.8.1 of this Submissions Report.



5-91

Heritage impact and mitigation

The Royal Oak Hotel is a locally listed heritage item, and has a prominent façade on Church Street. Built in c.1831, the Hotel demonstrates the commercial role of Parramatta in the nineteenth century. The project requires the complete removal of the main building of the Royal Oak Hotel to allow for the road widening and alignment (detailed above). The former Cobb & Co stables are a component of the Royal Oak Hotel and Stables heritage listing, and the stables would be retained.

It is acknowledged that the demolition of The Royal Oak Hotel would remove important historical context for the associated stables. While the item would still meet the threshold for local significance under the criteria, revision of its heritage curtilage on the Parramatta LEP would be required.

The proposed works would have the potential to have a minor indirect impact on the retained rear stables due to vibration during construction works. This would be managed through applying mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, including HE-22 which states that the method for the construction (including the demolition of existing buildings and/or structures) would be developed to minimise direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items (including vibration related impacts identified in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan).

Noting the heritage impact on the Royal Oak Hotel and Stables, a number of mitigation measures would be applied including:

» Mitigation measures for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology (refer to HE-1 and HE-6).

» Appropriate heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and would include results of archaeological investigations (HE-9).

» Preparation of a moveable heritage item strategy (HE-13).

» Photographic archival recording and reporting would be carried out in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office’s How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items (1998), and Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006) (HE-14).

Residual Land

The future use of any residual land, including any residual land resulting from the acquisition of the Royal Oak Hotel, is yet to be determined and consultation would take place with the City of Parramatta and the community.

5.11.5 Impacts to Lennox Bridge

One submission raised issues regarding the project’s impacts to Lennox Bridge.



» Concern regarding impacts to Lennox Bridge during construction and operation of the project.


52




5.11.5.3 Response

An assessment of the direct and indirect impacts on Lennox Bridge is included in section 13.5.2 of the EIS and Technical Paper 10 – Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Volume 5). While the project would have temporary and permanent impacts on Lennox Bridge, the assessment concluded that the project would have:

» A moderate direct impact on Lennox Bridge during construction. The construction of the light rail tracks would be carried out in the non-significant bitumen deck, and would not impact on heritage fabric.

» A major visual impact as overhead wiring would interrupt significant views on the bridge. Visual impacts due to LRVs would be intermittent and temporary, resulting in a minor visual impact.

Overall, Lennox Bridge would continue to meet the threshold for State heritage significance. Further, strengthening works were recently carried out on Lennox Bridge (by others) and the structure has been assessed as being suitable to support the project.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including:

» Minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural engineer with heritage experience.

» Minimising impacts on the significant fabric of the bridge in consultation with a heritage architect.

» Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual impacts.

» Design responses to ensure adverse impacts to the bridge structure due to operational vibration are avoided.

» The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would also be consulted during detailed design.

Wire-free technology for Lennox Bridge is currently being investigated with the construction industry.

In addition, an appropriately qualified and experienced heritage engineer would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to Lennox Bridge to minimise the direct and visual impacts, as identified in revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).

5.12 Hydrology, drainage, flooding and groundwater 5.12.1 Flooding

Five submissions raised issues relating to flooding.


In summary, submissions raised the following issues:

» Concern with the project alignment traversing through a flood prone area and the consequences to light rail vehicles and broader light rail network during a flood event. Query what impacts this would have on the light rail operations, and what mitigation and management measures would be adopted. This includes areas along the T6 Carlingford Line.



5-93

» Request that the project considers flood mitigation approaches such as elevated light rail tracks on George St and/or additional stormwater infrastructure.

» Query how the raised platform of the Parramatta Square stop would impact on the Parramatta Square public domain overland flow paths within the Parramatta CBD.

» Concern about the additional flood impacts on properties adjacent to the construction of the James Ruse Drive Bridge and the impact to potential future development opportunities.

» Query whether the project during construction or operation would change flood impacts on businesses near Vineyard Creek that currently experience inundation during flood events.


125, 134, 135, 151, 155

5.12.1.3 Response

It is acknowledged that the proposed light rail alignment travels through a flood prone area and existing flooding along the alignment must be addressed to ensure reliable and safe operation of the project, and to prevent increased flood risk and hazard for property and infrastructure in the vicinity of the project.

The potential flood impacts of, and flood immunity of, the project are discussed in section 10.4 of the EIS and Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Impact Assessment (Volume 4). An iterative process of flood modelling and concept design of the project and associated stormwater drainage was undertaken to ensure the project could achieve a suitable level of flood immunity, and to identify any additional mitigation or mitigation and management measures to be considered in detailed design. In general, the proposed road regrading and drainage upgrades would result in either improvement (reduction) in flood levels or changes to flood behaviour in locations where overland flows currently affect urban areas adjacent to the project corridor.

As detailed in section 10.4.4.7 of the EIS, the performance criteria for drainage and flooding for the project are to ensure that:

» No aspect of the project would materially adversely affect the existing flood characteristics of the land.

» The project would not seek to improve flood immunity levels outside the project boundary, unless required to achieve project flood immunity levels or mitigate materially adverse impacts.

» Where reasonably practicable, existing drainage assets directly impacted by the project will be replaced in a manner compliant with current standards.

As discussed in section 10.4.4.6 of the EIS, flood modelling for the project has demonstrated that it is hydraulically feasible to operate the project along its entire length up to a 0.2 exceedance per year (EY) flood event. In the rare event that light rail operations would need to cease due to a flood event, the flood modelling completed for the EIS indicates that this would only be required for a short period of time. In addition, the progress of such an event would be such that the operator would be able to enact measures to enable an LRV to get to a safe location along the alignment to allow passengers to disembark from the LRV and allow flooding to reduce prior to resuming services. Ongoing refinement of the project is also investigating the potential for the project to achieving a 0.05 EY flood immunity along the full length of the project alignment without materially impacting on flooding of neighbouring land.




A concept strategy for the operational response during flooding is outlined in section 10.3.3.3 of Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Impact Assessment (Volume 4). Final operational procedures to manage the impact of flooding on the light rail operations and facilities would be detailed in a Flood Operational Management Plan, as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-11. This management plan will describe the project operational procedure for the network during flood events including identification of specific thresholds and equivalent responses to various flood events.

The flood impact assessment demonstrated that potential impacts of the project on adjacent land could be mitigated through detailed design for all events up to the one per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event, with the exception of some minor local impacts. Further work would be undertaken during detailed design of the project to further minimise or avoid these impacts (as discussed and as summarised in Table 17.5 of the EIS; see also mitigation and management measure HY-3. The final suite of mitigation and management measures would be documented in the Flood Management Strategy during detailed design as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-4.

As discussed in section 10.4.5 of the EIS, the Flood Management Strategy would also identify construction mitigation and management measures that would be implemented during construction, as described in mitigation and management measure HY-4.

Within the Parramatta CBD, a new stormwater pipe connection has been included in the concept design to address flood risk to the project or as a result of the project. This pipe would extend along Macquarie Street from Centenary Square to Smith Street (alongside the Parramatta Square Stop), and then out to Parramatta River (refer to Map 8.3 of Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Impact Assessment (Volume 4). The inclusion of the new connection ensures that the Parramatta Square stop (and track alignment) would be flood-free in the 0.2EY event. This also provided significant improvements in the five per cent AEP and one per cent AEP events compared with existing conditions. Ongoing development of stormwater drainage improvements through this area would be considered during detailed design following consultation with the relevant stakeholders, as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-3.

Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Impact Assessment (Volume 4) concluded that the project would not result in any significant impacts to flood behaviour due to the construction of the James Ruse Drive Bridge. The loss of flood storage due to the embankment on the western side of the new bridge would not substantially increase flood levels in the Clay Cliff Creek floodplain for all events up to the one per cent AEP.

The increased flow off the proposed alignment would likely result in an increase in flood levels further downstream of Homelands Avenue in Vineyard Creek of up to 120 millimetres. However, the detailed design of the Vineyard Creek Bridge would seek to mitigate these adverse impacts in all events up to the one per cent AEP. As such, no additional flooding impacts to businesses near Vineyard Creek are anticipated as a result of the project.

5.13 Air quality 5.13.1 Air quality impacts during construction

Four submissions raised issues regarding the project’s impact on air quality during construction.



5-95



» Concern regarding potential health impacts associated with dust generation during construction. Particularly for young children and pregnant women.

» Concern about fumes from the use of diesel plant and equipment such as generators.

» Comment that air quality impacts during construction should be considered a key issue even with the implementation of management measures.


66, 67, 70, 115

5.13.1.3 Response

An air quality impact assessment for the project is provided in Volume 4 of the EIS (refer to Technical Paper 9 – Air Quality Impact Assessment) and section 10.8 of the EIS. This assessment includes air quality impacts associated with the generation of dust and emissions from the operation of on-site machinery, excavation works, materials handling and material storage.

The EIS concludes that particulate emissions generated during the construction of the project are manageable through the application of standard management measures.

Gaseous emissions from plant and equipment along the works corridor would be intermittent and transient in nature. Given the anticipated duration of works at any given location, the likely number of emission sources, the staging of construction, and scheduling of activities (i.e. not all machinery would be operating in the same location simultaneously), gaseous emissions would be manageable through the implementation of standard management measures. All vehicles used on site, for transporting materials to or from site, or for any other activities associated with the project, would be maintained to avoid the emission of excessive air impurities in accordance with Part 5.8 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010.

While it is acknowledged that there would be a temporary increase in dust from earthworks and particulate emissions from the movement and use of on-site machinery and traffic during construction, these issues are typical of infrastructure projects and are anticipated to be successfully managed using standard environmental management measures. Measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to manage construction air quality impacts are listed in section 10.8.4 of the EIS.

These measures would be incorporated into a CEMP to be prepared for the construction phase of the project.

As discussed in section 4.5 of the EIS and Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report, Transport for NSW is committed to community and stakeholder engagement beyond the planning phase through detailed design, construction and commissioning of the project.




5.13.2 Air quality impacts during operation

Three submissions raised issues regarding the project’s impact on air quality during operation.


In summary, the submissions raised the following issue:

» Concern regarding potential health impacts associated with dust generation during operation of the light rail.


66, 67, 70

5.13.2.3 Response

An air quality impact assessment for the project is provided in Volume 4 of the EIS (refer to Technical Paper 9 – Air Quality Impact Assessment) and section 10.8 of the EIS. This assessment included a qualitative assessment of air quality impacts anticipated to be associated with the operational phase of the project, which included:

» Particulate emissions associated with train braking and wheel and rail wear, rail traction sanding works, fugitive dust and maintenance activities.

» Gaseous emissions from maintenance vehicles and equipment.

» Fugitive emissions from fuel and chemicals stored at the stabling and maintenance facility (e.g. liquid petroleum LPG, diesel, lubricant oils, cleaning chemicals).

The EIS concluded that particulate emissions from the project during the operational phase are expected to be relatively minor and would not significantly affect local air quality. LRVs use electric power and do not generate direct exhaust emissions. Gaseous emissions from maintenance vehicles and equipment would be intermittent and transient in nature, and would be manageable through the application of standard management measures. The EIS noted that the project would be expected to have a positive net benefit on local air quality due to the reduction in bus and car exhaust emissions in the GPOP priority growth area. Fugitive emissions, including those relating to potential traffic impacts as a result of the project, are anticipated to be minor and would be readily manageable through the application of standard management measures.

5.14 Utilities and services 5.14.1 Utilities and services impacts during construction

One submission raised an issue regarding the project’s impact on utilities and services during construction.



» Concern regarding loss of utilities and services to nearby properties and businesses during construction.



5-97


115

5.14.1.3 Response

Although complex, the interactions with existing and proposed services and utilities are expected to be manageable through the process of interface agreements between Transport for NSW and the relevant asset owners, and ongoing consultation with utility and service providers.

Any works to utilities and services would be managed to eliminate or minimise the duration of any interruption of supply to users. Where service interruptions are required, potentially affected users would be notified in advance.

5.15 Privacy 5.15.1 Privacy

Three submissions raised issues regarding the loss of privacy during the operation of the project.



» Concern that during operation of the project, local residents would experience a reduction in privacy as light rail vehicles, shared path users and light rail stops would overlook private property.

» Request that visual screening (such as plantings) be used to eliminate sightlines into private property.


16, 36, 51

5.15.1.3 Response

Discussion on the anticipated privacy impacts and proposed mitigation and management measures is provided in section 10.14 of the EIS. During detailed design, opportunities to minimise removal of existing vegetation where possible would be explored (refer to section 5.17 of this Submissions Report). Where the project corridor is located close to residential dwellings or other sensitive receivers, the detailed landscape design would consider how planting and other landscaping options can be used to create or maintain privacy. Where landscaping is not able to mitigate privacy impacts, additional urban design elements such as fencing or other screening features would be considered to mitigate a reduction in the privacy of existing sensitive receivers (i.e. private residences and businesses).




5.16 Noise and vibration 5.16.1 Construction noise and/or vibration impacts – General

Nine submissions raised issues concerning general noise and vibration impacts during construction of the project.



» Concern regarding potential noise impacts during construction.

» Concern about potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the Westmead substation, with a request for it to be relocated away from residential areas.

» Query the noise impact on apartments fronting onto Church Street during construction of the project.

» Comment that the EIS does not correctly identify a medical facility at Ashley Lane, Westmead as being highly noise affected and that noise impacts are predicted to be greater than 35 dBA above background levels.

» Concern that noise impacts during construction could lead to hearing loss.

» Query whether noise or amenity improvements would be provided to residents on O’Connell Street to mitigate the predicted increase in construction related road traffic noise.

» Concern that noise impacts and lack of sleep could affect impacted individuals’ ability to work and attend school as well as impacting health and wellbeing.


30, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 89, 95, 115

5.16.1.3 Response

The noise and vibration impacts of the project have been assessed in Chapters 11-15 of the EIS and Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6). Construction noise has been assessed in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG, DECC 2009). The ICNG requires project specific Noise Management Levels (NMLs) to be established for noise affected receivers (refer to Technical Paper 13 – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6)).

These levels are calculated based on the existing background noise levels plus an allowance defined in the ICNG depending on the time of day. In the event construction noise levels are predicted to be above the NMLs, feasible and reasonable work practices are required to be investigated to minimise noise emissions and suitable mitigation and management measures identified.

Additional construction noise impacts generated from the project are discussed in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report.

Following investigation of all feasible and reasonable work practices, if construction noise levels are still predicted to exceed the NMLs then the potential noise impacts would be managed via site specific construction noise management plans (CNMPs). CNMPs would be prepared prior to the commencement of construction and based on the final construction methodology.



5-99

As discussed in section 11.6.2 of the EIS, the construction and installation of the substation in Westmead would have a predicted exceedance of the noise management level between 1-10dB for six residential receivers, one education facility and one medical facility. One medical facility would also have a predicted exceedance between 11-20 dB during site establishment and one medical facility with a predicted exceedance of >20dB during construction and installation. Several alternative locations for the substation were considered, however it was concluded that the proposed location would provide the best outcomes based on the criteria for the location of the substation (refer to section 3.6.10 of the EIS) including minimised impacts and maximised future use opportunities for the site.

As described in section 13.6.2 of the EIS the most affected catchment is NCA09 (generally along Church Street and Macquarie Street) which would occur during the construction of the light rail alignment including embedded track installation and earthworks involving rock breakers/saws. In this location, seven residential receivers are predicted to be subject to noise levels of 75 dBA or greater during the night time. However, this would only occur when high noise generating works are being carried out immediately adjacent to nearby residential receivers. Overarching environmental mitigation and management measures that would be adopted to minimise noise and vibration impacts are described in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.

It is noted that Figure 11.12 (highly noise affected residential receivers – Westmead) only shows the location of highly noise affected residential receivers. As such non-residential receivers, like medical facilities, are not shown. However, these types of non-residential sensitive receivers are considered separately. In the case of the medical facility at Westmead, it is identified in text within section 11.6.2.1 of the EIS and in Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6).

The WorkCover Authority of NSW administers regulations that relate to occupational noise exposure in NSW. The Work Health and Safety Regulation and Code of Practice for Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work specify noise exposure levels above which a workplace is considered to be unsafe and a risk to health. As the risk of permanent hearing damage is related to both the loudness of the noise and the duration of noise exposure, it specifies two criteria, as follows:

» Exceed an 8-hour noise level equivalent (LAeq(8hour)) of 85 dBA, or

» Peak at more than 140 dBA.

A person conducting a business or undertaking (employer), and therefore the project contractors, must ensure that appropriate control measures are taken if a person is exposed to noise levels that exceed the above criteria.

The LAeq(8hour) criterion relates to the total amount of noise a person is exposed to during a typical 8-hour work shift (or equivalent). It specifies that a person should not be exposed to more sound than that produced by a constant noise level of 85dBA for eight hours.

In addition, the Australian Standard 1269: Occupational Noise Management, will also apply.

With reference to the above, members of the public, are considered unlikely to have access to, or remain near construction areas on the project for sufficient time to exceed the above levels. Consequently, the risk of hearing damage to members of the public during construction is considered low.

As described in section 12.6.2.4 of the EIS the existing and forecast traffic volumes in the project area were used to determine where potentially noticeable increases in road traffic noise (i.e. greater than two dB over existing noise levels) may be apparent due to construction related traffic movements and redistribution of traffic due to temporary road closures.




Based on the proposed construction traffic routes and the forecast redistribution of traffic during construction, a number of local roads that link the construction areas to the main arterial routes may experience additional road traffic noise (greater than 2dB over existing levels). As there is potential for relatively wide spread impacts across the project area, including some section of along O’Connell Street (refer to Figure 34 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6), opportunities to reduce road traffic noise during construction would be investigated. This would include restricting heavy vehicle movements to standard construction hours and/or to routes with fewer sensitive receivers, as identified in mitigation and management measure NV-6.

Based on the assessment in Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6), the sleep disturbance criterion is likely to be exceeded when night works are occurring adjacent to residential properties during main light rail construction including embedded track and earthworks (with rock breaker/rock saw). The use of a rock breaker/rock saw in this construction activity would likely only be required sporadically during the works and respite periods would be implemented as required. Additionally, rock breaker/saw activities would not be carried out for the entire construction duration. Out of hours works would be programmed to minimise the number of consecutive out of hour work periods impacting the same receptors.

As identified in mitigation and management measure NV-2, consultation would be carried out with local schools and other educational facilities prior to noise intensive works to ensure impacts are minimised during examination periods and/or other critical periods in the school calendar (where works are predicted to exceed the relevant construction noise management level for this receiver).

The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed during detailed design and would be included in the CEMP. A protocol for out of hours works would be prepared to provide guidance for determining the noise levels and potential impacts on amenity for any activity required to be carried out outside standard construction hours. The protocol would also detail the consultation requirements and approval process to be followed prior to carrying out those works. As detailed in section 17.7 of the EIS, Transport for NSW are committed to minimising noise levels with the aim of achieving the noise management levels where feasible and reasonable.

5.16.2 Construction noise and vibration mitigation and management

Five submissions raised issues concerning mitigation and management measures to minimise noise and vibration impacts during construction.



» Request that mitigation and management measures are provided for properties along Church Street impacted by noise during construction. Specific request for double glazed windows to be installed at an apartment building at Church Street, North Parramatta.

» Request strict limits be placed on the duration of excessive noise.

» Request noise monitoring be undertaken.

» Request management measures, similar to those applied to Westmead Hospital, be adopted at a medical facility at Ashley Lane.

» Comment that Transport for NSW should be required to comply with the noise management levels or adopt mitigation and management measures to meet that criteria.



5-101


59, 61, 63, 82, 95

5.16.2.3 Response

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure NV-1 (refer to section 8.2 of this Submissions Report), a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed during detailed design. The plan would inform detailed Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statements for specific construction sites or activities. The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would provide the framework and mechanisms for mitigation and management of potential noise and vibration impacts from the project. The plan would be consistent with Transport for NSW’s Construction Noise Strategy and the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2009).

Transport for NSW is committed to achieving environmental performance outcomes based on the outcomes of the assessment (Chapters 8-15 of the EIS) and the implementation of management measures. This includes construction noise and vibration performance outcomes which include:

» Noise levels would be minimised with the aim of achieving the noise management levels where feasible and reasonable.

» The project would avoid any damage to buildings or heritage items from vibration.

Overarching environmental mitigation and management measures that would be adopted to minimise noise and vibration impacts associated with the project are summarised in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report. Where there are predicted exceedances of noise goals, particularly during out-of-hours works, additional noise mitigation and management measures would be considered as outlined in mitigation and management measure NV-3. To limit the duration of noise impacts, out of hours works would be programmed to minimise the number of consecutive out of hour work periods impacting the same receptors.

Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6) identified medical receivers along the light rail alignment that contain equipment which may be particularly sensitive to vibration impacts. At this stage in the project, consultation with the potentially affected receivers is being undertaken to confirm the specific location of, and determine appropriate criteria for, vibration sensitive equipment. Site-specific CNVMPs would be developed during detailed construction planning when more information is available on the schedule for the works, the equipment to be used and the localised geotechnical conditions.

At this stage, consultation with the affected receivers would also be undertaken in relation to specific vibration criteria for any sensitive equipment located adjacent to the works. As vibration limits for sensitive equipment are highly dependent on the site installation, information relating to the vibration levels for the sensitive equipment is required from the user/owner at each location.




5.16.3 Noise and vibration impact assessment approach and scope

One submission raised an issue concerning the approach to assessing noise and vibration impacts.



» Comment that it is insufficient and unlawful to state that further consultation and assessment of the potential impacts would occur at a later stage of the project; thereby deferring the impact assessment to a later date.

» Comment that the noise and vibration impact assessment considers the premises as a commercial property rather than a sensitive medical facility.

» Comment that the noise assessment assesses the unmitigated measures but does not assess the likely reduction in noise impacts resulting from the implementation of management measures.


95

5.16.3.3 Response

Community consultation would continue throughout the detailed design and construction phases of the project. This is a necessary and appropriate component of managing environmental impacts on the community.

The assessment carried out as part of the EIS complied with the Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements. In addition, Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6) provides a high level of detail and impact assessment of the project. The impact assessment was based on the current understanding of the construction methodology, with further assessments to be undertaken once the construction contractor is confirmed and detailed construction planning has been undertaken.

As identified in section 13.6.2 of the EIS and Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6), the medical facility at Ashley Lane, Westmead has been correctly considered as a medical facility.

The noise and vibration impacts of the project have been assessed in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG, DECC 2009), Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING, EPA 2013) and NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP, EPA 2000) and with reference to the Construction Noise Strategy (CNS, Transport for NSW 2013) and the NSW Road Noise Policy (RNP, NSW EPA 2011).

The recommended ‘standard’ and ‘additional’ noise management for the project is discussed in Section 3.16 of Technical Paper 13 – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6). These measures include both management of the impacts (e.g. so unnecessary noise is not produced; suitable equipment selection), and control of the noise source and respite periods. Project specific management includes 2.4 metre hoarding for construction sites and scheduling of equipment to less sensitive periods where practicable, as identified in mitigation and management measure NV-2 of the EIS. The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (developed during detailed design) will confirm the feasible and reasonable mitigation based on the finalised construction plant and methodologies.



5-103

5.16.4 Operation noise and/or vibration impacts – General

Nine submissions raised issues concerning general noise and vibration impacts during operation of the light rail.



» Concern regarding potential noise impacts during operation.

» Query the noise impact on apartments fronting on to Church Street during operation of the project.

» Concern about the noise impacts associated with the public address system and warning bells on LRVs.

» Concern about vibration impacts on medical imaging due to the operation of the project.


59, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 89, 115, 156

5.16.4.3 Response

Noise from the operation of the light rail line has been assessed in accordance with the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) (EPA, 2013). To assess and manage potential noise from light rail, the guideline provides non-mandatory airborne noise triggers for residential and other sensitive receivers. Where rail noise levels are above the noise trigger levels, the noise assessment is required to identify feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures with the objective of reducing airborne noise to below the trigger levels. Receivers which have not been identified to exceed the trigger levels would not meet the requirement for mitigation under the RING.

Along sections of the alignment, the project (once operational) would generate noise levels that exceed the noise trigger levels at certain residential and other sensitive receivers.

Feasible and reasonable operational mitigation and management measures have been identified in the EIS, including consideration of at-source control measures. As a last resort, individual property treatments would also be considered in the event that these strategies are determined to be not feasible and reasonable. Mitigation strategies would be considered further during detailed design and in consultation with the affected receivers.

As discussed in Chapters 11-15 in the EIS and Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6), the RING does not require assessment of warning bells where the use is infrequent and only in emergency situations. There is a much lower requirement for horns or bells on a light rail system than on a heavy rail system. While the noise from warning bells is distinctive in character and is likely to be noticeable at receivers in locations immediately adjacent to where a bell sounds, the infrequent use of warning bells would most likely result in negligible noise impacts.

The short-term nature of the proposed public address (PA) system noise means that it is unlikely to contribute significantly to average (LAeq) noise levels at any location. The PA systems would include ambient noise sensing microphones to adjust the broadcast volume relative to the ambient noise level, preventing announcements at excessive volumes and reducing the volume at times when the background noise is low. Subjective noise impacts from PA systems are likely to be minor (and infrequent), as the noise from PAs would become part of the urban noise environment.




Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6) identified medical receivers in Westmead Research Zone that contain equipment which may be particularly sensitive to vibration impacts. During detailed design, consultation with the affected receivers would be undertaken in relation to specific vibration criteria for any sensitive equipment located adjacent to the works. As vibration limits for sensitive equipment are highly dependent on the site installation, information relating to the suitable design vibration levels is required from the user/owner of each sensitive location.

At this stage in the project, consultation with the potentially affected receivers is being undertaken and the specific location and appropriate criteria for vibration sensitive equipment is being determined. The potential impacts from vibration during the operation of the light rail are to be considered in the operational management strategy, to be implemented prior to operations and then validated once the project is complete (usually 12 months’ post opening).

5.16.5 Operational noise impacts – Westmead

Two submissions raised issues concerning noise impacts in Westmead precinct during the operation of the project.



» Concern regarding the noise and vibration impacts during the operation of the project on the respondent’s property located on Hawkesbury Road, Westmead.

» Concern regarding potential wheel squeal impacts at the intersection of Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth Street.


33, 138

5.16.5.3 Response

Operational noise and vibration impacts in Westmead are discussed in section 11.6.3 of the EIS and Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6).

The property located at Hawkesbury Road is not a residential premises and therefore the appropriate classification under the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline is ‘other sensitive receivers’. Predicted noise levels at ‘other sensitive receivers’ in the Westmead precinct during operation of the light rail are summarised in Table 11.36 in section 11.6.3.1 of the EIS. This table is intended to indicate worst-case noise levels at the outside wall of the most affected ‘other sensitive receivers’, which are typically the nearest to the alignment and/or between stops where speeds are highest. Based on the future operation scenario (10 years after opening), an exceedance of the noise trigger levels along Hawkesbury Road, Westmead is predicted.

Feasible and reasonable operational mitigation and management measures have been identified in the EIS, including consideration of at-source control measures. As a last resort, individual property treatments would also be considered in the event that these strategies are determined to be not feasible and reasonable.

As discussed in section 11.6.3.4 of the EIS, no exceedances of the human comfort vibration criteria were predicted for receivers adjacent to the project alignment.



5-105

As discussed in section 11.6.3 and shown in Figure 11.13 of the EIS, residential properties along Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth Street are considered to potentially exceed the criteria for operational noise. During detailed design, a more detailed analysis of airborne and ground-borne noise impacts and associated potential wheel squeal would be undertaken in consultation with these sensitive receivers. Feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures such as reducing wheel and rail roughness, minimising LRV noise emissions levels and use of more noise sensitive trackforms to minimise operational noise and vibration would be considered (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-9). These investigations would inform the required track form design in these locations and confirm the appropriateness of the proposed management measures.

5.16.6 Operational noise impacts – Rosehill and Camellia

One submission raised issues concerning noise impacts in the Rosehill and Camellia precinct during the operation of the project.



» Concern regarding the noise impacts from wheel squeal on residents at the intersection of George Street and Alfred Street. Query why the preferred option was selected given alternative options would have avoided this impact.


140

5.16.6.3 Response

As discussed in section 14.6.3 and shown in Figure 14.11a of the EIS, residential properties along George Street are considered to potentially exceed the criteria for operational noise. During detailed design, a more detailed analysis of airborne and ground-borne noise impacts and associated potential wheel squeal would be undertaken in consultation with these sensitive properties (including the measurement of existing internal and external noise and vibration levels). These investigations would inform the required track form design in these locations and confirm the appropriateness of the proposed management measures.

As outlined in section 3.6.6 of the EIS, an evaluation of alignment options to develop the light rail alignment along Noller Parade or George Street was undertaken.

The evaluation considered each option against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.22 of the EIS). The George Street option was identified as the preferred option as this would:

» Remove potential safety risk and conflict between private vehicles and LRVs utilising the shared running section along Noller Parade (as private vehicles would be required to maintain access along Noller Parade to access existing properties along this street).

» Reduce impact on Queen’s Wharf Reserve and associated amenity landscaping impacts.

» Maintains LRV movements on main roads, leading to improved visibility and accessibility to the project.

» Reduce potential impact from known flood zones along Noller Parade.

» Reduce potential property impacts.




Operational noise and vibration mitigation and management are discussed in section 5.16.8 of this Submissions Report and identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.

5.16.7 Operational noise impacts – Carlingford

One submission raised an issue concerning noise impacts in the Carlingford precinct during the operation of the project.



» Concern regarding noise impacts on residential receivers backing on to the existing T6 Carlingford Line. Comment that while the light rail would be quieter than the existing heavy rail service, it would be more frequent when compared to current heavy rail services.


16

5.16.7.3 Response

An assessment of operational airborne and ground-borne noise impacts is included within section 15.6.3 of the EIS and Technical Paper 13 — Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Volume 6). As noted, receivers along this section of the alignment are adjacent to the existing heavy rail line and are therefore already exposed to potential ground-borne and airborne rail noise impacts.

While light rail services would be more frequent than current heavy rail services, an increase in ground-borne noise levels from the project would only be expected in areas where the nearest track moves substantially closer to receivers or if new turnouts are introduced. As the track design progresses, anticipated operational noise impacts will be further refined (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-9). If modelling indicates that operational noise management is required, ground-borne noise impacts in particularly impacted locations could be reduced through the use of ballast mats or under sleeper pads where necessary.

On the T6 Carlingford Line, exceedances of the operational airborne noise trigger levels are limited to two residential receivers which are located in close proximity to the alignment (around 5 to 10 metres from the nearest track), and at three ‘other sensitive’ receivers which are adjacent to a high speed section of the alignment. Feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures to minimise operational noise and vibration will be considered further in detailed design, as identified in section 5.16.8 of this Submissions Report. Overarching environmental mitigation and management measures that would be adopted for the project to minimise noise and vibration impacts associated with the project are described in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.



5-107

5.16.8 Operation noise and vibration mitigation and management

Seven submissions raised issues concerning mitigation and management measures to minimise operational noise and vibration impacts.



» Request a noise/privacy wall be constructed between the existing T6 Carlingford Line and the adjacent residential receivers that back on to the rail corridor.

» Concern about adequacy of noise mitigation and management measures during the operation of the project.

» Request that noise mitigation and management measures be applied to nearby residential receivers along the alignment which have not been identified as being noise affected during the operation of the project.

» Request rubber barriers be installed on the light rail tracks to prevent wheel squeal and LRV speeds limited near the church located at George Street, Parramatta.

» Request noise management of the vacant lot on Tramway Avenue so to mitigate noise impacts on any future development.

» Query how Transport for NSW would ensure that the light rail would be maintained such that noise and vibration impacts do not worsen over time, noting that the EIS acknowledges that embedded rail systems can deteriorate over time if not properly maintained.


16, 63, 80, 106, 125, 135, 140

5.16.8.3 Response

Noise from the operation of the light rail line has been assessed in accordance with the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) (EPA, 2013). To assess and manage potential noise from light rail, the guideline provides non-mandatory airborne noise triggers for residential and other sensitive receivers. Where rail noise levels are above the noise trigger levels, the noise assessment is required to identify feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures with the objective of reducing airborne noise to below the trigger levels. Receivers which have not been identified to exceed the trigger levels would not meet the requirement for mitigation under the RING.

Exceedances of the operational airborne noise trigger levels along the T6 Carlingford Line are limited to two residential receivers which are located in close proximity to the alignment (around 5 to 10 metres from the nearest track), and at three ‘other sensitive’ receivers which are adjacent a high speed section of the alignment. Feasible and reasonable mitigation and management measures to minimise operational noise and vibration will be considered further in detailed design (examples outlined below). Overarching environmental mitigation and management measures that would be adopted for the project to minimise noise and vibration impacts associated with the project are described in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.




Section 8.2 of this Submissions Report outlines the mitigation and management measures to be implemented during operation of the project. An operational mitigation strategy would be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to the commencement of operation and validated once the project is operational (usually 12 months post opening). Feasible and reasonable mitigation would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including:

» Minimise LRV source noise levels via specifications.

» Vegetated trackforms.

» Speed restrictions.

» Minimise wheel and rail roughness.

» Absorptive paving.

» Property treatments.

The final operational mitigation strategy would be determined during detailed design in consultation with the affected receivers.

The operator would be responsible for the maintenance of the light rail. Maintenance activities which assist in managing performance of the system, including noise and vibration, would likely include:

» Regular activities such as track and OHW inspections and inspection and cleaning of the track drainage system.

» Preventative maintenance and repair and minor repairs to failed infrastructure components as required.

» Track grinding and periodic replacement of track and other light rail infrastructure.

5.17 Trees 5.17.1 Impacts to trees along the project alignment

Eight submissions raised issues regarding the impacts to trees along the project alignment.



» Concern regarding the impacts to trees, particularly:

• Mature native and introduced trees.

• Trees along the T6 Carlingford Line between Parramatta River and Carlingford.

• Fig trees on Harris Street adjacent to Robin Thomas Reserve.


4, 23, 31, 32, 42, 50, 56, 139



5-109

5.17.1.3 Response

The number of trees identified as being potentially subject to impact by the project was based on a conservative assessment. Further information is provided in section 7.2.5 of this report. Opportunities to reduce the identified level of impact on trees, in particular those of medium to high retention value, would be further considered during detailed design. This would include consideration of design modifications and construction techniques to reduce the level of impact on existing trees and increase the likelihood of retaining these trees.

As far as practical, the construction compounds would be configured so as to not directly impact on trees. Where trees which can be retained are located within construction boundaries, exclusion fencing would be erected to protect these trees from construction activities. Similarly, for road network modifications away from the main alignment, these works would be carried out, as far as practical, so as to minimise any further impact on trees as a result of the project.

Transport for NSW is committed to retaining trees where possible and to enhancing biodiversity outcomes as part of the project. Where impacts to native vegetation and trees along the project alignment are unavoidable, Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide and the City of Parramatta’s Parramatta Ways: Implementing Sydney’s Green Grid would be used as a framework to develop a Vegetation Offset Strategy.

The delivery of this strategy would include consideration of a range of options including:

» Planting trees or landscaping along the alignment.

» Planting trees or landscaping in a public space within the Parramatta LGA.

» Working with Council to implement a program of rehabilitation to a natural environment such as a forested reserve or waterway within the Parramatta LGA.

» Reservation of land for conservation or buying and retiring credits under the NSW Government BioBanking scheme.

» Rehabilitation and weeding

» Civil works such as walking tracks or erosion management

» Contributions towards biodiversity improvement actions by others or existing tree planting programs

» Ecological research and education (such as the provision of interpretive signage or publicly accessible online educational material).

5.17.2 Tree replacement and mitigation and management measures

One submission raised an issue regarding the impacts to trees along the project alignment.



» Request that replacement trees should be advanced due to the maturity of the trees being removed.


97




5.17.2.3 Response

The project team is collaborating with the Council to identify opportunities to plant trees or carry out landscaping works in the early stages of the project to proactively mitigate impact of vegetation removal. Opportunities identified to date include:

» Planting street trees in the early stages of the project in areas away from the project alignment, such as on approaches to project stops (e.g. side streets), and along off-corridor works areas.

» Incorporating landscaping and tree offsets to minimise the visual impact of construction and operation of project facilities such as the stabling and maintenance facility.

» Early engagement with nurseries to cultivate trees to the maturity proposed for street tree plantings.

Tree sizes would be determined as suitable for the planting landscape, and advanced plantings will be considered in certain locations. Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in consultation with Council and in accordance with the Urban Design and Landscape Plan to be developed for the project (VL-2).

5.18 Visual and landscape character 5.18.1 General visual amenity concern

Five submissions raised issues regarding impacts to visual amenity.



» General concern about the impacts of the project to existing landscape, streetscape and visual amenity. Concern the project would generate more cars, light rail vehicles and garbage on local roads.

» Concern the project would reduce the landscape character within the Parramatta North precinct.


23, 31, 32, 50, 139

5.18.1.3 Response

An assessment of the visual impacts of the project is presented in sections 11.4 (Westmead precinct), 12.4 (Parramatta North precinct), 13.4 (Parramatta CBD precinct), 14.4 (Rosehill and Camellia precinct) and 15.4 (Carlingford precinct) of the EIS.

Changes in streetscape as a result of the project are inevitable, given the introduction of new infrastructure. The project provides an opportunity for the revitalisation of public domain. The proposed improvements to Hawkesbury Road, Church Street, Macquarie Street and along the T6 Carlingford Line are notable aspects of the project which would lead to an improved streetscape. Adverse streetscape impacts would be addressed through landscape treatments and appropriate urban design treatment of specific elements such as stops, bridges and other structures.



5-111

As outlined in Section 12.4 of the EIS, during construction and operation of the project, high and moderate adverse landscape character impacts respectively, would occur within the Parramatta North precinct. Landscape and urban design treatments proposed as visual and landscape mitigation and management measures for the Parramatta North precinct are outlined in section 12.2 of the EIS. Within the Cumberland Hospital (east), the project will aim to respect, reinforce and integrate sensitively into the natural and built heritage. Tree planting and other landscaping options would be provided to address unavoidable impacts on open space tree plantings, as identified in mitigation and management measure PR-1 of the EIS. Along Church Street, the project would build on and improve the existing character and provide a quality and amenity that is required of a future expanding CBD. Vegetated trackforms is also being considered to reduce visual impacts in the Parramatta North precinct, as identified in mitigation and management measure VL-7 of the EIS.

5.18.2 Mitigation and management

Three submissions raised issues regarding mitigation and management measures to reduce visual impacts.



» Request that decorative hoarding and barriers be installed around construction sites and compounds instead of wire mesh fencing to reduce visual impacts during construction.

» Request ongoing consultation with local businesses regarding design of decorative hoarding and any opportunities for community events during the construction period.

» Query on what visual amenity mitigation would be applied to residents along O’Connell Street.


30, 97, 142

5.18.2.3 Response

Safety barriers and hoardings would be used to delineate the construction sites and to minimise the visual impact of the worksites on adjacent businesses, pedestrians and other sensitive receivers. This may affect the visibility of some adjacent businesses from some viewing locations. This impact would be managed during construction through minimising the duration of construction (and hence the need for barriers/hoardings) at any particular location where feasible and reasonable to do so; and the careful placement of hoardings and diversions to minimise impacts to surrounding businesses (whilst also not compromising the safety of pedestrians or construction workers).

Consultation with businesses regarding the detailed requirements for hoardings and the potential addition of directional or business signage would be undertaken as part of the Business Consultation and Activation Plan implemented throughout the construction of the project as identified in section 5.19.7 of this Submissions Report. In accordance with mitigation and management measure VL-1, hoarding including graphics, artwork or project information would be established around construction sites in suitable locations. During detailed construction planning, opportunities for incorporation of graphics, project information and public art into treatment of the site hoardings and enclosures would be considered in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.




As outlined in Section 12.4 of the EIS, works along O’Connell Street would generally involve modifications to the existing road, trenching for the relocation of services, and removal of trees (where necessary). These impacts are anticipated to have a moderate visual impact. The EIS identified in mitigation and management measure VL-6 that specifies opportunities would be investigated during detailed design to retain vegetation where feasible in order to screen and visually integrate the project with the surrounding area. Where required and feasible, additional tree planting and landscaping would be provided to screen views in order to soften the visual impact of the project. Further, since the exhibition of the EIS, design refinements have been undertaken to reduce the extent of the off-corridor road works on O’Connell Street. As described in section 6.3, construction works would no longer be required north of the intersection of Barney Street, thereby eliminate visual impacts in this section of O’Connell Street.

5.18.3 Visual impacts during operation

Two submissions raised issues regarding visual impacts during operation.



» Concern that the proposed alignment along Church Street would result in an adverse visual impact to the adjacent businesses.

» Concern that the LRVs and overhead wiring would detract from the visual amenity of Church Street and Lennox Bridge.


39, 155

5.18.3.3 Response

The impact of the project on the Church Street streetscape was assessed in section 13.4 of the EIS. During construction, a high adverse impact is anticipated. However, during operation the assessment found the removal of traffic from this section of Church Street would result in considerable urban design improvements, providing space for street trees, outdoor dining and pedestrian priority movements. The attractive and comfortable (shaded) public domain would strengthen Parramatta’s Green Grid network. New surfaces and lighting would reinforce the amenity of this streetscape, creating a high quality public realm.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report), the EIS the project will investigate wire free technology over Lennox Bridge and in key areas along the alignment including along ‘Eat Street’, subject to confirmation of technical and commercial feasibility. This would be investigated further during the detailed design process once the design contractor(s) are appointed.



5-113

5.18.4 Overshadowing

One submission raised an issue regarding overshadowing.


In summary, the submission raised concern about the impacts of overshadowing from the James Ruse Drive bridge on an adjoining proposed development site.


135

5.18.4.3 Response

Overshadowing impacts associated with the proposed James Ruse Drive bridge were assessed in section 14.7.2.1 of the EIS. Overshadowing south of James Ruse Drive bridge would vary throughout the year with the greatest impact of overshadowing occurring during the winter solstice (when the angle of the sun is lowest in the sky) and the least impact during summer months. The vacant lot at 32 Tramway Avenue (proposed future development site as identified by the respondent) would experience around 14 metres of overshadowing during the winter solstice at 9:00am and decreasing thereafter. During the summer months, there would be minimal shadowing outside of that directly beneath the bridge. Given the details about the proposed development of this site as a future seven storey development are not available yet, specific impacts of overshadowing created by the proposed bridge cannot be determined at this time.

5.19 Socio-economic 5.19.1 Compensation for businesses

Five submissions raised issues regarding the compensation of businesses affected along the project alignment.



» Question what compensation or rent relief would be available for affected businesses during construction of the project.


39, 92, 115, 121, 142

5.19.1.3 Response

It is acknowledged there would be disruption for businesses during construction of the project and that this needs to be carefully managed.




Transport for NSW has employed four place managers for Parramatta Light Rail who have been regularly talking to potentially impacted businesses across the alignment, including undertaking surveys, to gain a better understanding of how businesses operate so this can be addressed through construction plans and schedules. In addition, the project team held seven information sessions to answer questions about the EIS for the project, including a dedicated information session for businesses. This engagement will continue throughout the construction phase. Regular information will be provided to businesses and property owners during construction of light rail so that any issues are identified quickly and solutions implemented.

Construction of the project would take place in stages, with streets closed in sections to minimise wider disruption to residents, businesses and commuters. The project team is also working closely with similar projects that are already underway to inform the Business Consultation and Activation Plan to minimise disruption to businesses as discussed in section 5.19.7 of this Submissions Report.

To further assist businesses throughout the construction phase, Parramatta Light Rail and Transport for NSW’s Sydney Coordination Office will work with business groups and Council on activities and events to maintain passing trade for retailers. Transport for NSW will also link businesses directly with the Department of Industry’s Business Connect program, which will provide advice and support to enhance businesses before, during and after construction of light rail.

5.19.2 Impacts on local businesses during construction

Seventeen submissions raised issues regarding the impacts to local businesses during construction.



» Comment that the construction of the light rail line on ‘Eat Street’ (Church Street between Parramatta River and Macquarie Street) would be disruptive, result in the loss of the alfresco dining area and require compensation of businesses.

» Comment that the proposed route would result in many businesses closing down during construction.

» Concern about the impacts on business owners associated with property acquisition.

» Comment that construction traffic impacts such as road closures, property access restrictions and parking restrictions would impact businesses.

» Concern about cumulative access impacts due to multiple construction projects occurring such as those occurring on Eat Street.

» Concern that business impacts would result in the loss of livelihood to owners and staff.


4, 12, 14, 39, 47, 74, 75, 76, 92, 104, 105, 107, 115, 132, 142, 150, 155



5-115

5.19.2.3 Response

Anticipated impacts (both positive and negative) to local businesses during the construction of the project are described in Chapters 11-15 of the EIS. While the total construction period is anticipated to be about 4.5 years (across the project alignment), activities would move along the alignment and individual premises would not be impacted for the entire duration of the construction program. Generally, economic impacts of the project have the potential to affect the viability of some businesses, workforce availability or trade, by changing factors that influence opportunities for employment or business growth, the ease of doing business, and/or the environment in which business is conducted.

As noted in section 13.9.3 of the EIS, construction would impact on businesses and facilities (such as cafes and other outdoor venues) along Church Street, George Street and Macquarie Street that rely on the existing amenity characteristics within Parramatta CBD. Construction impacts would include noise, modified access, and changes to traffic conditions. Amenity impacts during construction would also include visual intrusion of construction activities along Church Street, George Street and Macquarie Street within close proximity to businesses. These impacts would be minimised as far as practicable at all times of the construction of the project.

Refer to section 5.19.7 of this Submissions Report for further information on business activation and support to be provided to local businesses.

The impacts on business owners associated with property acquisitions have been discussed in Chapters 11-15 in the local property and land use and socio-economic characteristics sections of the EIS. The direct property and land use impacts upon outdoor dining areas are discussed in section 5.8.1 of this Submissions Report.

The identified cumulative construction impacts included potential disruption to traffic and access impacts along the project alignment. An assessment of the potential cumulative impacts from surrounding major developments is provided in Table 9.1 in section 9.2.3 of the EIS. In order to minimise cumulative impacts, management measures have been proposed which are included in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report. During the construction of the project, Transport for NSW would coordinate construction activities through the Sydney Coordination Office and with the proponents of the other major projects in order to identify potential cumulative impacts and identify potential strategies to minimise these impacts. As a minimum, the construction traffic management plan would include coordination of traffic management arrangements between projects to minimise traffic and access impacts.

A Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operations. This plan would include details on how Sydney Coordination Office, Council, local business chambers and business representatives would contribute to development and implementation of strategies. An overview of the Business Consultation and Activation Plan was provided in section 17.4.2 of the EIS and discussed in section 5.19.7 of this Submissions Report. Additional revised mitigation and management measures to minimise impacts on local businesses is provided in section 82 of this Submissions Report.

Notwithstanding the above adverse economic impacts, the project would also be expected to result in a number of other individual and broad economic benefits during construction, including increase in passing trade, especially for businesses at pedestrian crossing points and trade increases for businesses close to construction sites.




5.19.3 Impacts on local businesses during operation

Six submissions raised issues regarding the impacts to local businesses during operation.



» Query what proportion of the existing alfresco dining areas would be returned following construction of the project with a request for further details.

» Comment that businesses forced to relocate due to construction works would take many years to recover.

» Comment that the proposed site for the Fennell Street stop does not minimise economic impacts and does not capitalise on opportunities.

» Concern that the operation of the project would prevent the installation of an MRI machine at a property in Westmead, which would impact the business and community access to this service.


75, 92, 129, 132, 142, 156.

5.19.3.3 Response

Impacts upon outdoor dining during the construction phase of the project is discussed in section 5.8.1 of this Submissions Report.

The project team is focussed on minimising the duration of construction activities outside businesses and will be requiring contractors to minimise time spent in critical areas. Dedicated Place Managers have been appointed to manage all general communication with affected landowners, businesses and residents. The Place Managers will work closely with business owners to advise and support businesses impacted by the construction and operation of the project to ensure they have the best information available to make informed decisions.

In operation, Church Street south of the Parramatta River will be a light rail and pedestrian zone, resulting in streetscape benefits, lower noise levels and improved pedestrian amenity. The improved visual amenity would lead to an increase in business exposure, improved sightlines and improved streetscape amenity making the environment more comfortable and visually enticing to customers, potentially increasing passing trade.

The configuration and design of the outdoor dining areas on Church Street, including Eat Street, is yet to be determined. The configuration would be further developed during detailed design to manage changes to outdoor dining spaces and the provision of outdoor dining furniture. Control of the outdoor dining spaces would continue to be managed through licences issued by Council.

During operation, the project would provide a high quality urban environment for pedestrians and transport customers within the light rail and pedestrian zone on Eat Street. As outlined in section 13.9 of the EIS, the project would improve the character and amenity of Eat Street as well as accessibility outcomes. A moderate improvement in the potential for passing trade and viability of businesses along the street is anticipated.



5-117

The Fennell Street stop between Harold Street and Fennell Street, would serve the commercial and retail precinct along Church Street north of the Parramatta River and the existing residential areas near the stop. The Fennell Street stop was selected as it has a range of benefits including:

» Integration with walk-in catchments. The Fennell Street stop has a dense user catchment, including medium density residential to the north and east, Parramatta North Public School to the north, commercial and mixed use on Church Street, and proximity to the planned redevelopment as part of the future UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation Parramatta North Urban Transformation project.

» Serving the expanding commercial opportunity along Church Street. The stop location is approximately 400 metres north of the Prince Alfred Square stop, providing ideal catchment coverage of the evolving commercial and mixed land use on Church Street, with no point along Church Street between Pennant Hills Road and the Parramatta River being further than 200 metres from a stop.

» Minimising impacts on existing built form. The acquisition required for the Fennell Street stop is confined to a block characterised by relatively low density land uses which do not contribute to the streetscape character or public domain activation of Church Street. This includes a service station, Fennell Street car park, and a single small retail frontage (The Cheesecake Shop). Alternative locations would require demolition of substantial lengths of existing street-fronting built form.

Following completion of the project, the land adjacent to the Fennell Street stop proposed for acquisition by the project may provide an opportunity for potential redevelopment. Any redevelopment would be subject to the relevant land use planning requirements. Transport for NSW would review opportunities for the appropriate re-use of residual land in consultation with the Council. Consequently, streetscape impacts and transport catchments were the key considerations in determining the proposed stop location.

Regarding potential impacts on a proposed MRI machine in Westmead, the project team has been and will continue to consult with property owners along the alignment that were assessed as potential sensitive receivers to ensure that the light rail system minimises any impact from electro-magnetic interference and vibration. The project team are currently investigating the feasibility of ensuring that the electro-magnetic interference is kept within the suppliers’ specification for the MRI machine. An assessment of noise and vibration has also been completed and it is expected that the vibration impacts of the project would be well within the equipment suppliers stated sensitivity.

5.19.4 Impact assessment approach

Three submissions raised issues regarding the approach to the socio-economic impact assessment.



» Comment that the socio-economic assessment relied on Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 2011 and 2012. Comment that the Carlingford precinct has experienced substantial population growth in the period since this data was collected.

» Query why the ‘Impact Significance’ rating in Table 5.8 of the Technical Paper 15 - Social Impact Assessment (Volume 7) rates active transport as high and safety as low.

» Comment that Technical Paper 14 - Business Impact Assessment (Volume 7) should be updated to assess the economic benefits of providing a preference for cycleways and at-premises bike parking over car parking.





62, 140, 147

5.19.4.3 Response

The socio-economic assessment was based upon the latest information available at the time of reporting. The census data was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, with the 2016 census data not released at the time of reporting. Population growth estimates for Carlingford have been considered in Technical Paper 15 – Social Impact Assessment (Volume 7).

As described in Table 5.8 of Technical Paper 15 – Social Impact Assessment (Volume 7), the provision of an active transport link would enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in a highly positive impact for the community from a health and safety perspective. The presence of the light rail in George Street and Tramway Avenue may present a safety risk or impact on perceptions of safety for some communities in this area, for example surrounding residents. This was determined as a low negative impact.

As discussed in Technical Paper 14 – Business Impact Assessment (Volume 7), the methodology of the assessment was based on a review of the international literature on the key economic implications of light rail transport projects within major cities. This assessment was also undertaken in accordance with the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements. The benefits of providing an active transport link and associated infrastructure to promote walking and cycling was also included as part of Technical Paper 14 – Business Impact Assessment (Volume 7).

5.19.5 General economic impacts

One submission raised an issue regarding the general economic impacts.



» Concern that activating under-utilised lands would increase land prices and thereby increase the cost of housing.


96

5.19.5.3 Response

It is acknowledged that public transport accessibility can make developments more attractive to households, as indicated by the significant positive impact that proximity to public transport can have on land values.

The development of the project is expected to result in similar impacts as those identified in the previous case studies, for a number of the GPOP priority growth area precincts. The project would assist in making these locations more attractive to households, who, in turn, would be willing to pay more for developments at these locations, resulting in overall increase to existing land values.



5-119

However, the GPOP priority growth area provides the opportunity to create an affordable urban lifestyle, with apartments in the GPOP priority growth area costing half as much as the equivalent in the City of Sydney. Unlocking the potential for high-density development within the GPOP priority growth area would also improve affordability compared to existing low-density housing in the area. In particular, the proposed stop at Telopea would provide an improved public transport connection to the proposed affordable housing development in the Telopea Priority Precinct.

5.19.6 General amenity and socio-economic impacts during construction

One submission raised an issue regarding the general amenity and socio-economic impacts during construction.



» Concern about amenity impacts (such as noise, dust and visual impacts) to residents, workers and patients visiting Westmead Health Precinct during construction of the project.


115

5.19.6.3 Response

As described in section 11.9.2 of the EIS, the amenity impacts associated with the construction of the project, such as noise, light spill, dust, vibration and construction traffic, may temporarily impact on receivers within the Westmead precinct. While the total construction period is anticipated to be about 4.5 years (across the project alignment), activities would move along the alignment and therefore individual premises would not be impacted for the entire construction duration.

A range of mitigation and management measures have been developed to manage these impacts during construction, in some instances taking into consideration particularly sensitive land uses such as hospitals and educational facilities. The mitigation and management measures are provided in Section 8.2 of this Submissions Report.

5.19.7 Mitigation and management

Two submissions raised issues regarding the mitigation and management of socio-economic impacts.



» Request regular promotional events be undertaken during construction periods to attract people to areas impacted by construction.

» Request that council rates be waived during the construction period.


97, 115




5.19.7.3 Response

A Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to support businesses impacted by the project, which was detailed in section 17.4.2 of the EIS. Information on the Business Consultation and Activation Plan is provided in 5.19.1 of this Submissions Report. Marketing and promotions and precinct based events would be undertaken as part of the plan.

The Business Consultation and Activation Plan may include initiatives such as:

» Working with the Sydney Coordination Office on campaigns such as the Travel Choices program to prepare businesses for construction impacts and changes to the road network.

» Developing a schedule of programmed activations across the Parramatta area and the alignment.

» Maintaining access for activities such as deliveries.

» Providing or assisting with appropriate hoarding and wayfinding signage to maintain pedestrian activity during construction.

» Enforcing obligations through construction contracts to provide respite for businesses through quiet-work or no-work periods at specific times of the day.

» Establishing business forums in conjunction with stakeholders including Council and local Chamber of Commerce to provide a platform for businesses to access information, provide feedback and resolve issues.

» Provision of communication resources (in the form of newsletters, one-on-one meetings, business forums, website updates, social media) on construction activities for impacted businesses.

Council rates are not regulated by Transport for NSW and waiving these is beyond the scope of the project.

5.20 Hazards and risks 5.20.1 Impacts from electromagnetic emissions during operation

Two submissions raised concerns about potential impacts associated with electromagnetic emissions due to substations.



» Concern regarding the operation of the proposed Westmead substation in close proximity to medical facilities with sensitive medical equipment. Request for appropriate shielding and electromagnetic isolation around the substation to minimise these impacts.

» Concern regarding potential health impacts on residents in close proximity to substations due to electro-magnetic emissions.


33, 115



5-121

5.20.1.3 Response

As discussed in section 10.13.3.2 of the EIS, the operation of the project has potential to produce electromagnetic emissions. Electromagnetic emissions may result in disruption to the operation of equipment sensitive to interference and can be problematic for very sensitive imaging and research equipment. This type of equipment is known to or is highly likely to be present along the alignment, given presence of health facilities, research and university facilities in Westmead, Parramatta CBD and Rydalmere.

To address this issue, Transport for NSW has commenced targeted consultation with potentially affected businesses and organisations identified along the alignment following a preliminary risk assessment. Transport for NSW would continue to work with these businesses and organisations to ascertain if electromagnetic fields emitted by the project are likely to affect the operation of their equipment.

Further analysis would be carried out during detailed design. If any unacceptable impacts are identified, mitigation strategies would be implemented. Examples include:

» Minimisation of electromagnetic fields through the design of the project and installation of management measures.

» Earthing and bonding system design.

» Increasing the separation distance between the source and the equipment.

» Applying shielding mitigations to reduce the interaction between the source and the receiver.

If mitigation is required at the receiver (building or the equipment itself), Transport for NSW would work with the operator/owner to resolve the potential impact.

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) management planning of the light rail system shall be undertaken in accordance with AS 7722:2016 EMC Management, which references the ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields. The ICNIRP ELF guidelines are consistent with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) understanding of the scientific basis for the protection of the general public and workers from exposure to Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF).

The light rail power substations would operate at the same high voltage level as the green pad-mount kiosk substations on the side of the road. For distribution substations, the key sources of magnetic fields within the substation tend to be the low voltage boards, busbars and transformer cables. In most cases the magnetic field has decreased to background levels within a few metres of the substation. For this reason, distribution substations are not anticipated to be a significant source of exposure.

The areas of focus for magnetic field reductions are those areas accessible to the public. For substations, this location is generally the security fence line. Magnetic field reduction may be accomplished in a variety of ways, including substation siting, location and orientation of equipment, busbars and cabling, and location of access ways, buildings. Considerations include:

» Locating major magnetic field sources within the substation to increase separation distances. Key magnetic field sources include the transformer secondary terminations, cable runs to the switch room, capacitors, reactors, busbars, and incoming and outgoing feeders.

» Locating areas with the lowest magnetic fields closest to the boundaries (e.g. control rooms, equipment rooms, amenities, fire stairs, lifts, walkways, transformer roadway, oil containment, air vents/ducts and pilot isolation rooms).

» Orienting equipment so that magnetic fields are minimised.




5.20.2 Collisions, conflicts and accidents

Five submissions raised issues concerning potential collisions, conflicts and accidents.



» Concern regarding potential safety issues associated with overcrowding at stops in proximity to live traffic.

» Concern about safety risks associated with having a light rail route through the Cumberland Hospital mental health facility.

» Concern that the location of the project adjacent to the sports field at Robin Thomas Reserve poses a safety risk to children and that mitigation is required to prevent balls from entering the Harris Street road corridor.

» Request pedestrian activated traffic signals be installed to allow safe pedestrian access to light rail stops with centre island platforms.

» Concern regarding the location of a proposed traffic light pole conflicting with the entrance to the service station located on the corner of Alfred Street and George Street. Concern that this would create a potential safety risk to pedestrians and vehicles.


23, 47, 56, 119, 155.

5.20.2.3 Response

As outlined in section 10.13 of the EIS, without proper safety precautions, there is the potential risk of LRV accidents, particularly where pedestrians would cross or interact with the project alignment. To reduce this risk, the light rail operator would develop appropriate management measures, e.g. fitting warning bells to LRVs). During night time periods, bells would only be used where the driver considers there is a danger to public safety. In addition, targeted safety campaigns to raise awareness around the operation of LRVs would be used in the lead up to the opening of the project and during operation to promote the safe operation of the project. This would focus on raising awareness and promoting safe behaviours around the project.

A detailed safety review would also be undertaken during detailed design to identify requirements for further responses to manage and reduce the risk of incidents arising from collisions during operation. Hazards associated with the movement of LRVs through the existing road network and highly pedestrianised areas has been managed in many major cities (such as Strasbourg, France and Linz, Austria, Melbourne and Sydney) through widespread and targeted safety campaigns and safety in design review for the vehicles and stops. A similar approach would be applied to managing potential hazards or risks associated with the project. Transport for NSW has taken steps to ensure that a consistent look and feel will provide familiarity on how to interact with light rail systems such as Sydney Light Rail and Newcastle Light Rail.

Light rail stops will be sized to accommodate the passenger loads expected in busy periods. During high demand periods, such as special events, potential safety risks associated with overcrowding would be minimised by providing additional LRVs and/or services and crowd management applied. Current modelling indicates that the light rail system would be able to support patronage to at least 2053.



5-123

Along Harris Street, adjacent to Robin Thomas Reserve, the alignment would consist of a designated light rail corridor. This would be predominantly located within the existing road corridor and is not anticipated to represent a greater risk to children playing in Robin Thomas Reserve than the existing road corridor.

Council has recently prepared a new Master Plan for Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserves. Transport for NSW is currently working in close collaboration with Council to ensure that the project is consistent with future plans for the Robin Thomas Reserve precinct. Urban design treatments would aim to integrate light rail infrastructure within the surrounding environment and would consider potential improvements to the overall amenity and functionality of Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserves in consultation with Council, including any safety measures as required. The Master Plan currently shows a fence which would minimise the likelihood of a ball entering the light rail corridor.

The signalised pedestrian crossing at the service station on the corner of Alfred Street and George Street would be designed to ensure pedestrians utilising the crossing are separated from traffic entering the service station (refer to local access plan requirements identified in revised mitigation and management measure TT-17).

5.20.3 General hazards and risks during operation

Three submissions raised issues concerning general hazards and risks during operation of the light rail.



» Request CCTV and lighting be installed along the active transport link and that the design adopt Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

» Request Transport for NSW develop a strategy to improve the underpass beneath Victoria Road to create a safer, more accessible and aesthetically pleasing environment and provide improvements that follow CPTED principles.

» Query regarding the potential safety benefits to rail passengers resulting from the removal of the level crossing on Parramatta Road.


3, 80, 148

5.20.3.3 Response

CPTED refers to the application of a range of design initiatives to a site, location or area to maximise safety and minimise the potential for that site to facilitate and support criminal behaviour. CPTED is based on four key principles: surveillance (both active and passive); access control; territorial reinforcement; and space management.

CPTED principles have been, and will continue to be applied throughout the design of the project, in particular in the design of the active transport link and stops.




Appropriate lighting would be provided to maximise passenger safety at each stop, along access paths and the active transport link, and to enable the operation of CCTV. The final lighting design for the active transport link would be developed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and would consider the use of motion sensors to adjust light levels when in use. Lighting levels would balance the need to provide a safe environment while minimising potential light spill to the adjacent residential properties and other sensitive receivers.

As part of the construction of the active transport link, the area beneath Victoria Road would be improved in accordance with CPTED principles and the Urban Design Requirements.

The project would result in the cessation of passenger services on the T6 Carlingford Line between Carlingford and Clyde. As a result, there would be no requirement for the existing at grade crossing at Parramatta Road. This would remove a potential conflict between rail services and road vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in improved safety for road users.

5.20.4 Other hazards

One submission raised an issue concerning other hazards.


In summary, the submission raised concern about potential health risks (such as silicosis) to the local community associated with the demolition of buildings in structures within residential areas.


115

5.20.4.3 Response

Work processes during construction (such as cutting, sanding, grinding, and demolition) can generate respirable crystalline silica (RCS). Respiratory diseases (such as silicosis) have been found to be linked to exposure to construction dust. Due to the careful management proposed for demolition activities and the minimal exposure of the community to worksites, the risk to the community with respect to the contraction of respiratory diseases (such as silicosis) would be minor.

The demolition of existing structures along the alignment (refer to Chapter 6 of the EIS) would pose construction risks to site workers and the community if inadequate demolition technique and/or working clearances are adopted. These risks would be reduced by the application of mitigation and management measure AQ-1, which requires a dust management plan be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP. This plan would identify triggers and procedures for dealing with significant dust generating activities with the aim of minimising impacts on surrounding sensitive receivers.

The demolition of existing buildings and structures could also involve the removal of asbestos. This activity would be carried out only by licenced contractors that have current WorkCover NSW accreditation in asbestos removal and would be undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines, including OEH’s Waste Classification Guidelines (DECCW, 2009). A hazardous materials survey would also be carried out during detailed design to determine the presence of contaminated materials on-site that may require management through the CEMP.



5-125

5.21 Waste, energy and resources 5.21.1 Waste, energy and resource impacts

One submission raised an issue concerning waste, energy and resource impacts.



» Comment that materials removed during the decommissioning of the T6 Carlingford Line such as ballast, heavy rail track, brick, concrete and steel, should be reused on the project or on other areas of the Sydney Trains network.


96

5.21.1.3 Response

The material generated from the decommissioning of the T6 Carlingford Line will be re-used or recycled, as identified in mitigation and management measure WM-2 and WM-6 of the EIS. As detailed in section 6.6.3 of the EIS, ballast from the T6 Carlingford Line would be reused for the light rail corridor, where suitable. Due to expected contamination and degradation of ballast from the Sandown Line, ballast from this rail corridor is unlikely to be suitable for recycling or reuse. The track and sleepers of the existing heavy rail lines may also be reused on the project (subject to condition assessment) and will be considered during detailed design.

As discussed in section 10.12.4 of the EIS, a Construction Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required. Ballast, heavy rail track, concrete, steel and other materials would be considered in this plan.

Transport for NSW is committed to providing a sustainable outcome, setting the goal of achieving an ‘excellent’ ISCA rating for the project. Opportunities to reuse construction waste or spoil generated by the project, if it can be safely used for another purpose, would be explored during detailed design and during construction. This includes (but is not limited to) excavated natural material, excavated road material and asphalt pavement (as discussed further in Chapter 16 – Project Sustainability of the EIS). In the event it is not possible to re-use or recycle the materials arising from decommissioning of the rail line, it would be managed in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (OEH, 2009).




5.22 Land stability, soils and contamination 5.22.1 Contamination

One submission raised issues regarding hexavalent chromium contamination within Camellia.



» Query on when an announcement will be made on what remediation activities would be undertaken to address hexavalent chromium contamination on the Camellia peninsula to ensure the health of future workers and residents of the peninsula, and the environment.

» Query regarding what studies would be undertaken to ensure construction in the peninsula does not exacerbate contamination, and what ongoing monitoring would occur.


71

5.22.1.3 Response

As discussed in Technical Paper 8 – Contaminated Land Assessment (Volume 4), if not managed appropriately, contamination within the disturbance footprint could pose a potential risk to human health and/or the environment during construction or operation of the project.

Areas of Environmental Interest (AEIs), representing areas of known or potential contamination, have been identified via a desktop search of relevant databases and historical records. Several properties in Camellia and Rosehill that are along or in proximity to the alignment have been identified as AEIs due to a number of potential contaminants of concern, including hexavalent chromium. For AEIs identified as having a medium or high risk of contamination, further investigations would be undertaken during detailed design to identify appropriate mitigation and management measures (including worker health and safety measures) for the project, including any required remediation. Where remediation is required as a result of the project, the works will be performed in accordance with the hierarchy of preferred strategies in the NSW EPA’s Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, 3rd Edition (NSW EPA 2017).

Broader remediation of the peninsula, assessment of impacts due to the proposed Camellia Town Centre, and remediation of hexavalent chromium contamination across the Camellia peninsula is beyond the scope of this project. The Environment Protection Authority regulates the management and remediation of contaminated land under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The Environment Protection Authority website provides public information regarding contaminated sites and their remediation in NSW.



5-127

5.23 Issues external to the project 5.23.1 Light rail network extension to Epping and Macquarie Park

Twenty-seven submissions raised issues concerning the extension of the light rail from Carlingford to Epping and/or Macquarie Park.



» Request that the light rail be extended from Carlingford to Epping and / or Macquarie Park. Request that this extension includes a stop at Carlingford Court.

» Comment that any extension to Epping should use Ray Road or Willoughby Road.

» Comment that traffic impacts associated with an extension to Carlingford Court could be minimised by running the light rail through a tunnel.

» Comment that the extension should build upon work previously undertaken as part of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link.

» Query regarding the potential timeframes for the potential extension of the light rail to Epping.

» Concern that an extension to Epping could be prohibited by urban development. It also has not been allowed for in the Council’s Epping Planning Review.

» A heavy rail connection should be provided to Epping instead of a light rail connection.

» Comment that without a firm commitment to extend the light rail to Epping, the Carlingford portion of the project should not be built.


2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 28, 30, 34, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 62, 73, 96, 117, 119, 146, 148

5.23.1.3 Response

The currently proposed project, (Parramatta Light Rail – Stage 1), would connect Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia. Investigations on potential future stages of Parramatta Light Rail are ongoing and do not form part of the project.

A strategic assessment was undertaken to explore the feasibility of an extension of the project from Carlingford to Epping. The assessment explored a range of potential alignment options including both tunnel and at grade alignments. Parramatta to Macquarie Park (via Carlingford and Epping) was shortlisted as one of the final four options. Transport for NSW’s assessment showed that light rail would help to meet strong and growing transport demand in the Parramatta to Macquarie Park corridor and could link key residential, education and commercial precincts, including the Western Sydney University Rydalmere Campus, the Rydalmere Industrial Precinct and Telopea. The majority of these benefits were found to be between Parramatta and Epping due to Sydney Metro Northwest providing a new fast transport connection between Epping and Macquarie Park.

Investigations also showed a number of engineering challenges and comparatively higher costs per kilometre in constructing light rail beyond Carlingford, due to significant grade changes between the heavy rail line and Epping, and the need to minimise impacts to a number of major road intersections, commercial precincts and structures.




Any future light rail extension from Carlingford to Epping will be considered in conjunction with the longer-term strategies being explored by Transport for NSW’s Future Transport Strategy.

5.23.2 Light rail network extensions to Olympic Park and Strathfield

Three submissions raised issues concerning the extension of the light rail to Olympic Park and Strathfield.



» Request the Parramatta Light Rail should be extended along the Sandown Line to Sydney Olympic Park and to Strathfield.

» Request any extension include a stop at Sydney Olympic Park ferry wharf and Newington.

» Request that the light rail be extended to Burwood via Railway Parade.

Request that the extension to Sydney Olympic Park travel east along Grand Avenue and cross Parramatta River to Rydalmere at Park Road. Request that should this option not proceed the spur line be left at current ground level and enveloped by the new raised ground plane of the precinct.

» Request the alignment travel along Holker Street in Silverwater as this area is poorly served by buses (including service reliability).


3, 28, 47

5.23.2.3 Response

In October 2017, the NSW Government announced the preferred route for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2, which will connect to Stage 1 (the project) and run north of the Parramatta River through the rapidly developing suburbs of Ermington, Melrose Park and Wentworth Point to Sydney Olympic Park, providing a new public transport option to this booming sport, entertainment and employment hub. An option for extending east through Camellia before crossing the Parramatta River to Rydalmere is being considered as part of those investigations.

Stage 2 of the Parramatta Light Rail would be further developed through consultation with the community and stakeholders. A Final Business Case for Stage 2 is expected to be completed in 2018, with an investment decision and details on the timing of construction to follow.

5.23.3 Light rail network extensions to Eastwood

Two submissions raised issues concerning the extension of the light rail to Eastwood.



» Request the Parramatta Light Rail be extended, or not preclude the future extension, to Eastwood and Macquarie Park. This extension would provide a new transport route with a lower environmental impact, complexity and shorter route compared to the Carlingford to Macquarie Park via Epping.



5-129


79, 148

5.23.3.3 Response

During the project definition stage, a number of options were assessed for the light rail alignment. One of the options that was assessed included a Parramatta to Macquarie Park via Eastwood route option (refer to section 3.3 of the EIS). Compared to the alternative alignment to Macquarie Park via Epping, this route was considered to present a lower level of public transport demand, offered fewer opportunities for urban renewal and presented more environmental and construction risks.

The project would not preclude future extensions to Eastwood.

5.23.4 Light rail network extensions – Other alignments

Eight submissions raised issues concerning the other potential opportunities to extend the light rail network.



» Request the light rail network is extended to Castle Hill and the North West Growth Centre to provide a link with the Sydney Metro Northwest. This should include stops at Northmead (Moxham Road and Model Farms High School) and Baulkham Hills.

» Concern that if works aren’t undertaken soon the opportunity to extend the network to Castle Hill would be lost.

» Query why the other routes identified in the initial assessment undertaken by Council were not investigated.

» Request the project be extended from Camellia to Granville Station, Clyde Station or Lidcombe Station.


47, 48, 49, 96, 117, 119, 130, 148

5.23.4.3 Response

Two options to take the light rail to Castle Hill via Baulkham Hills were investigated during project definition (refer to section 3.3 of the EIS). The first option was Parramatta to Castle Hill via Windsor Road. This option was assessed as the weaker of the two Castle Hill options as it presented a lower level of public transport demand, and a less direct and slower route to Parramatta.

The second option was Parramatta to Castle Hill via Old Northern Road which was shortlisted as one of the final four options for the light rail alignment. Whilst shown to have some benefits, it was considered that this option would have comparatively fewer advantages over other alignment options and would create major disruptions within the regional road network.




The Strategic Business Case found that the key challenge for constructing light rail to Castle Hill was the limited capacity for accommodating light rail on the existing road network. The investigations showed that light rail to Castle Hill would result in major disruptions to roads both during construction and operation. In addition, compared to the Strathfield via Sydney Olympic Park and Macquarie Park corridors, this corridor presented lower transport demand and less potential for urban renewal.

The process of refining project options was outlined in section 3.3 of the EIS. Corridor options were selected on the basis of their potential to support existing and projected population growth, and to relieve associated levels of road congestion. The selection of 13 corridors for assessment was informed by the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan and Sydney’s Light Rail Future as well as the Council Western Sydney Light Rail Feasibility Study – Environmental Study.

Parramatta was identified as the preferred terminus as it integrates with the existing heavy rail and bus networks, as well as providing other benefits including:

» With the introduction of the 2018 timetable, Parramatta Interchange would have fast trains every three minutes in the peak direction to Strathfield, Redfern and Central Stations, during peak periods with a travel time of 26 minutes to Central Station and 32 minutes to Wynyard Station.

» Opportunity to interchange with the potential future Sydney Metro West station at Parramatta that would provide services to Sydney Olympic Park, The Bays precinct and Sydney CBD.

» Parramatta Interchange has comprehensive existing customer amenity at Westfield centre.

» Parramatta Interchange provides a large number of bus route options to connect to, including the Liverpool-Parramatta and North-West T-way services.

5.23.5 Associated or external projects (not part of Parramatta Light Rail)

Four submissions raised issues concerning associated or external projects (not part of the project).

5.23.5.1 Summary of issues raised » T6 Carlingford Line should be duplicated and extended to Liverpool and onto the T8 Southern

Line via the Liverpool to Parramatta Transit way.

» Sydney Metro Northwest should be heavy rail and extended to and beyond the T5 Cumberland Line that connects with a rebuilt Ropes Creek Line and onto the T1 Western Line.

» Request the light rail travel between Parramatta and North Ryde rather than via the T6 Carlingford Line.

» Sydney’s rail network should remain as heavy rail technology.

» T6 Carlingford Line should be extended from Carlingford to Granville Station, via Camellia.

» Grand Avenue could be extended and a 'bus only' bridge built across Duck Creek / Duck River to Holker Street to establish a direct express bus service to and from Olympic Park and Strathfield / Burwood.

» Request the service frequency of the RiverCat from Rydalmere ferry wharf to Circular Quay be increased and a direct city service be added.

» Comment that an underground train loop network should be established in accordance with the Simpson Plan. This new network would link Granville, Carlingford, Castle Hill, Richmond, Windsor, Blacktown and Parramatta.



5-131


1, 22, 47, 155

5.23.5.3 Response

Alignment alternatives and mode selection are discussed in section 3.2 of the EIS and section 5.4 of this Submissions Report.

The ideas raised above form part of broader transport planning across Sydney. Transport for NSW recently placed the draft Future Transport Strategy on public exhibition. The Future Transport Strategy is an update of the 2012 Long Term Transport Master Plan for NSW. The draft Future Transport Strategy sets out a vision, strategic directions and customer outcomes, with infrastructure and services plans for Greater Sydney and Regional NSW to deliver these directions across the state. The strategy will guide transport investment over the longer term. It will be delivered through a series of supporting plans.

More information on the Future Transport Strategy is available on the Future Transport website at http://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/.

5.23.6 Other general comments

Eleven submissions raised other general comments.


A number of submissions noted issues in relation to other matters. These comments are listed below.

» Ideally heavy rail services should operate on a 24/7 basis as they did previously. From 1.00 am to 5.00 am trains can run as 4-car sets for security purposes.

» Request the Rosehill Station be upgraded to provide accessibility features for persons with disabilities, prams and heavy luggage.

» Request to allow traffic to exit Rosehill Gardens Racecourse directly over the existing T6 Carlingford Line corridor.

» Transport and land use planning in Sydney is predicated on heavy flows of commuter traffic in the same directions in the morning and evening peaks.

» Request streets within the Parramatta CBD be speed limited to 30 kilometres per hour and traffic calming measures be constructed to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

» Request for a commuter car park in Westmead.

» Request that a shared active transport path be provided along Hawkesbury Road and speed be limited to 30 kilometres per hour.

» Refusal to pay increased council rates due to the construction of the project.

» Query what lessons have been learnt from the Sydney Light Rail project.

» Request that as a special event, Locomotive 3801 service Thirlmere Station.

» Request the name Telopea be dispensed for both the suburb and stop. Suggest the name Dundas Valley be adopted.

http://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/





1, 3, 5, 49, 110, 115, 116, 137, 143, 147, 155

5.23.6.3 Response

With respect to the request to operate train services on a 24-hour basis, the operation of heavy rail services is outside the scope of the current light rail project.

The Rosehill Station will be decommissioned as discussed in section 6.10 of this Submissions Report. As part of the proposed closure of the existing T6 Carlingford Line, the project would provide an alternative, frequent and accessible light rail service for patrons accessing Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. The preferred project would also provide improved pedestrian access between the Camellia stop and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse by providing new and upgraded pedestrian paths along the existing T6 Carlingford Line corridor.

Traffic operation into and out of the racecourse is controlled and managed by the Australian Turf Club. The project will ensure access is maintained into and out of the racecourse during construction and operation. The future use of the T6 Carlingford Line corridor is discussed in section 5.5 of this Submissions Report.

The comment regarding commuter traffic flows in the morning and afternoon peak periods is noted.

With respect to the request that streets within the Parramatta CBD be speed limited to 30 kilometres per hour and traffic calming measures be constructed, the light rail and pedestrian zones along Church and Macquarie Street would have lower speeds give the mix of road users in these zones. The speed limits and traffic controls within the other streets in the Parramatta CBD are managed and determined by the City of Parramatta Council.

With respect to the request for a commuter carpark in Westmead, the purpose of the light rail project is to provide intermediate public transport connections between Westmead train station and key land uses within the local area without the need to use private vehicles.

A shared active transport link along Hawkesbury Road would not be possible due to the constrained corridor.

In relation to the concern regarding payment of Council rates during the construction period, Council rates are not regulated by Transport for NSW and waiving these is beyond the scope of the project.

Transport for NSW makes a concerted effort to learn lessons from infrastructure projects to improve its service delivery. Lessons have been learnt from a number of other relevant transport infrastructure projects. The project team is led by Tim Poole, who was the project director for Stage 1 of the Gold Coast light rail project. The project team also continues to work closely with the Sydney Light Rail, Canberra Metro Light Rail and Newcastle Light Rail teams (and other similar projects) to learn from their experiences and the existing arrangements that are being used to manage these projects.

With respect to the request that as a special event Locomotive 3801 service Thirlmere Station, further information is available at http://www.transportheritagensw.com.au/contact.

http://www.transportheritagensw.com.au/contact



5-133

Stop names were considered during the feasibility design stage of the proposal and aim to be geographically accurate, recognise any historic or iconic value of place, maximise community ownership, and be consistent with Transport for NSW’s naming policy. Similar to the Sydney light rail project, it is expected that the Geographical Names Board would invite public feedback on the names for the stops along the project alignment following initial consultation with councils, businesses and other key stakeholders. The renaming of the suburb is beyond the scope of the project.

Preferred Infrastructure Report


6-1

6 Preferred Infrastructure Report This chapter documents and assesses the changes that Transport for NSW propose to make to the project since the public exhibition of the EIS. It also provides a comparative assessment of the environmental impact of those proposed changes compared to that of the exhibited project.

6.1 Overview Section 115Z (6)(b) of the EP&A Act enables the preparation of a Preferred Infrastructure Report that outlines any proposed changes to the project to further minimise its environmental impact or to respond to issues raised in submissions. The proposed design changes that have been assessed include:

» Road network changes – rationalisation of proposed road changes in North Parramatta and improvement to traffic flows within the Parramatta CBD (refer to section 6.3).

» Westmead piling works – undertaking of additional piling works along Hawkesbury Road (refer to section 6.4).

» Parramatta North Urban Transformation area building demolitions – seven additional buildings have been identified for demolition as part of the project within the Cumberland District Hospital site which were previously expected to be assessed as part of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation development (refer to section 6.5).

» Prince Alfred Square stop – relocation of the stop and relocation of the alignment further to the east to reduce potential impacts on Prince Alfred Square park (refer to section 6.6).

» Queens Wharf Reserve underpass – removal of existing pavement from the slip road, minor earthworks and landscaping (refer to section 6.7).

» Tramway Avenue stop re-configuration and improved flood immunity – reconfiguration of the Tramway Avenue stop arrangement from an island platform to a side platform (refer to section 6.8).

» James Ruse Drive bridge – minor amendment to the design of the James Ruse Drive bridge (refer to section 6.9).

» Rosehill Gardens Racecourse pedestrian link – upgrade and extension of existing pedestrian links between Camellia stop and the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse (refer to section 6.10).

» Dundas stop – refinement of the design of the Dundas stop to allow for improved integration with existing heritage structures (refer to section 6.11).

» Active transport link changes – minor changes to the proposed active transport link including provision of additional connections points and extension north of Carlingford stop within the rail corridor (refer to section 6.12).

» Carlingford rail line decommissioning – including removal of the existing rail infrastructure and systems including overhead wiring and a section of the tracks within the existing Carlingford Line corridor between the proposed Camellia stop and Parramatta Road (refer to section 6.13).

The locations of the above design changes are shown in Figure 6.1. Details of each project design change and a comparative assessment of the potential change in environmental impacts are also provided in the following sections. For the purposes of this Chapter, the project as described and assessed in the EIS is referred to as the ‘EIS project’ and the project including the proposed changes is referred to as the ‘preferred project’.




Figure 6.1 Proposed design changes



6-3

6.2 Assessment approach An environmental assessment of each proposed design change was undertaken as part of the development of the preferred project. Consideration of key and non-key environmental, social and economic issues was undertaken and an assessment made of the potential changes as compared to the environmental impacts described in the EIS. Evaluation of the proposed design changes for the preferred project also provided an opportunity to identify potential reduction in environmental impact and other benefits.

A summary of the potential environmental aspect affected by each of the proposed design changes is provided in Table 6.1. The aspects selected were those considered to have a change in impact from those described in the EIS. Impacts associated with other aspects would be unchanged from those assessed in the EIS.

Table 6.1 Summary of environmental aspect potentially affected by the proposed design changes

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

DESIGN CHANGE TR

AFF

IC A

ND

TRA

NSP

ORT

VISU

AL A

ND

LAN

DSC

APE

TREE

S

PRO

PERT

Y A

ND

LAN

D US

E

NO

ISE

AN

D VI

BRA

TION

NO

N-A

BORI

GIN

AL

HERI

TAG

E

SOC

IO-E

CO

NO

MIC

HYDR

OLO

GY,

DRA

INA

GE

& SU

RFA

CE

WA

TER

QUA

LITY

GRO

UNDW

ATE

R

SOIL

AN

D C

ON

TAM

INA

TION

ABO

RIG

INA

L HE

RITA

GE

BIO

DIVE

RSITY

AIR

QUA

LITY

WA

STE

AN

D RE

SOUR

CES

UTIL

ITIES

AN

D SE

RVIC

ES

GRE

ENHO

USE

GA

S A

ND

CC

HAZA

RDS

AN

D RI

SKS

PRIV

AC

Y

Road network changes × × × × × × × ×

Westmead piling works × × × × × x ×

Parramatta North Urban Transformation building demolition

× × × × × × ×

Prince Alfred Square stop × × × × × ×

Queens Wharf Reserve underpass × × × × × ×

Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity

× × × × × ×

James Ruse Drive bridge × × × × ×

Rosehill Gardens Racecourse pedestrian links

× × × × × × × ×

Dundas stop × × × ×

Active transport link changes × × × × × × × × × ×

Carlingford rail line decommissioning × × × ×




6.3 Road network changes 6.3.1 Description in the Environmental Impact Statement

As identified in the EIS, a large portion of the project would be integrated within the existing street environment. To accommodate the light rail and public domain infrastructure, several changes were proposed to be undertaken along those parts of the road network that would be directly and indirectly impacted by the project. In particular, these changes included locations where the project would impact on key roads within the Parramatta CBD network such as Church Street, George Street and Macquarie Street.

The proposed road network changes consisted of both road network changes along the project alignment and off-corridor road and traffic changes which would be required to facilitate changes in traffic movements within the wider traffic network.

The EIS identified key proposed road network changes directly associated with the project alignment included a range of different elements including:

» The creation of two light rail and pedestrian zones (along Church Street and Macquarie Street) where general traffic is proposed to be excluded.

» Modifications to the operation of Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth Street in Westmead, including new traffic signals and removal of some right turn movements and areas of on-street parking.

» Incorporation of the project alignment within the proposed road network for the Cumberland Hospital and the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area.

» Modifications to Factory Street including restriction of some turning movements and removal of existing on-street parking.

» Modifications to Church Street including removal of some turning movements, reconfiguration of some traffic lanes between Factory Street and Market Street, and removal of existing parking.

» Modifications through the Parramatta CBD changes to the operational traffic flows within the CBD and removal of some parking.

» Modifications through Rosehill and Camellia including removal of parking provisions along some streets and reconfiguration of some access arrangements, such as along Grand Avenue North.

» The proposed off-corridor changes included a number of different elements, particularly in North Parramatta to the north of Factory Street, including:

• Provision of new traffic lanes and new turning lanes.

• Modification of existing signalised intersections and provision of new signalised intersections.

• Removal of existing on-street parking.

• Line marking.

The list of proposed road networks changes associated with the EIS project were described in section 5.8.1 (road network changes associated with the project) and section 5.8.2 (off-corridor changes) of the EIS. An overview of the key elements of the proposed road network changes were also shown in Figure 5.2a to Figure 5.2h of the EIS.



6-5

6.3.2 Description of the proposed design change

6.3.2.1 Parramatta North road changes

Justification for proposed change

As described in section 5.8.2 of the EIS, a range of road network changes were proposed for a number of streets north of Factory Street to improve traffic flows during operation of the light rail and maintain a north-south arterial route. Following ongoing refinement of the proposed road network changes identified in the EIS, it is proposed to consolidate the proposed works to direct the main flow of traffic along Barney Street. The revised road network design would result in reduced property impacts, reduced tree removals, and less noise impacts to properties along O’Connell Street (north of Barney Street).

Overall, the benefits associated with the proposed road changes include:

» During construction, Church Street and Macquarie Street would have reduced capacity to accommodate existing traffic flows. To minimise disruptions, O’Connell Street was identified as the alternative arterial corridor north of the Parramatta River. By undertaking the proposed road network changes as part of the construction phase, diversion of traffic away from Church Street would occur earlier in the construction period, allowing for improved construction efficiency.

» During operation, the proposed road network changes would assist in maintaining network capacity north of the Parramatta River as a result of the loss of existing traffic lanes due to the proposed light rail tracks along Church Street.

Description of works

The proposed works as described in the EIS included upgrades to Board Street, Barney Street and O’Connell Street with new and/or additional turning and traffic lanes. The proposed works required one full property acquisition in addition to a number of partial acquisitions.

In addition to the property acquisitions, the proposed works required significant kerbside work on Church Street, between Ferris Road and Barney Street, to accommodate the extra traffic lanes to allow for access to Barney Street.

As part of the ongoing design process, refinement of the proposed off-corridor works has identified measures to improve the planned traffic circuit associated with Board Street, Church Street, Barney Street and O’Connell Street. A single, consolidated intersection at Barney and Church Streets is proposed.

This change would provide a widened alignment along Barney Street between Church Street and O’Connell Street, with two lanes of traffic in each direction (refer to Figure 6.2). Overall, the proposed design change for the preferred project would:

» Create an alternative route for traffic currently travelling in a north-south direction along Church Street from the intersection of Barney Street and Church Street.

» Allow Barney Street and O’Connell Street to function as an alternative to Church Street, sections of which would be closed and/or restricted to general traffic during construction and operation of the project.




The proposed reconfiguration of the traffic network at this location would also require the installation of new traffic signals at the following intersections:

» Church Street and Dunlop Street.

» O’Connell Street and Dunlop.

» Factory Street/New Street and Fleet Street.

As a result of the revised design, new traffic signals would no longer be required at the intersection of Board Street and Church Street, or at the intersection of Barney Street and O’Connell Street as identified as part of the EIS project.

Note: Indicative proposal shown. Subject to detailed design.

Figure 6.2 Revised off-corridor road network changes (Parramatta North)



6-7

6.3.2.2 Harris and Hassall Street intersection upgrade

Justification for proposed change

Ongoing traffic modelling and design has identified that, to alleviate impacts associated with the reversal of the traffic direction along Macquarie Street (specifically the removal of the right turn from Harris Street (southbound) into Macquarie Street) a right turn from Harris Street (southbound) into Hassall Street is required.

Description of works

To accommodate the right turn movement, it is likely that a new, short right-turn bay (southbound from Harris Street into Hassall Street) would be provided (refer to Figure 6.3; subject to detailed design). As part of the provision of the turning lane, the two existing southbound lanes along Harris Street would be maintained. The traffic movements northbound along Harris Street would be restricted to left in/left out of Hassall Street. The final arrangement of the intersection arrangement would be refined during the detailed design, which would include confirmation of the lane configuration and whether traffic signals would be required.

This intersection is located outside the previously proposed disturbance footprint identified in the EIS.

Note: Indicative proposal shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.3 Proposed additional road network changes – Harris Street/Hassall Street intersection




6.3.3 Change in impact

6.3.3.1 Traffic and transport

Parramatta North road changes Construction

The construction work associated with the proposed road network configuration in North Parramatta would require some minor additional work for the installation of new traffic signals at the intersections of Church Street and Dunlop Street, O’Connell Street and Dunlop and Factory Street/ New Street and Fleet Street. However, no work would be required at the intersection of Church Street/ Board Street. The works would likely result in a marginal increase in daily construction traffic volumes in North Parramatta, with negligible additional impact on the surrounding transport network.

The Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Technical Paper 2 of the EIS, Volume 2) indicated that buses currently travelling along Church Street would operate via two options during construction:

» Along Church Street as existing with active traffic management through the construction zone.

» Along O’Connell Street between Board Street/ Barney Street and Victoria Road to completely avoid the construction zone in Church Street for the Windsor Road bus routes. For the Pennant Hills Road bus routes, they would operate via Albert Street to O’Connell Street and then to Victoria Road.

The proposed road network change would result in buses not using Board Street to access Church Street from O’Connell Street. Instead, northbound and southbound buses would utilise Barney Street.

In accordance with revised mitigation and management measure TT-25 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report), site specific construction traffic management plan(s) would be prepared and implemented, including mitigation and management responses associated with the temporary closures (including weekend closures) of the affected roads, as previously identified in the Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report.

Operation

The proposed design of the Church Street to O’Connell Street traffic diversion via Barney Street would prioritise the right turn from Church Street into Barney Street, making it a more desirable north-south traffic link between Parramatta North and the Parramatta CBD.

The intersection of Church Street and Barney Street would continue to operate with some vehicle queuing on all approaches. However, the vehicle delays during the PM peak would be significantly reduced, improving the overall intersection operation from the road network design that was assessed in the Operational Traffic and Transport Assessment Report (Technical Paper 3 of the EIS, Volume 2), as shown in Table 6.2.



6-9

Table 6.2 Church Street and Barney Street intersection operation

PEAK INTERSECTION 2026 WITH THE PROJECT – EIS ROAD NETWORK

2026 WITH THE PROJECT – ROAD NETWORK WITH PROPOSED CHANGES

SATURATION AVERAGE DELAY (SEC)

95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE (M)

LEVEL OF SERVICE

DEGREE OF SATURATION

AVERAGE DELAY (SEC)


LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Church Street/ Barney Street 0.80 32 168 C 0.82 29 290 C

PM Church Street/ Barney Street 1.09 126 475 F 0.90 55 412 D

To prioritise traffic travelling between Church Street and O’Connell Street via Barney Street, east-west movements across Church Street at Barney Street would not be permitted. Alternative access routes via Dunlop Street would be required to accommodate these movements.

Two new signalised intersections would be provided at Church Street and Dunlop Street intersection and at O’Connell Street and Dunlop Street intersection to assist with prioritising movement along the alternative route. Detailed analysis of vehicle turning paths would be undertaken as part of the detailed design to confirm that the alternative access routes maintain a suitable level of access for heavy vehicles.

Right turn movements from O’Connell Street into Dunlop Street (north and southbound) would generally not be permitted (with the exception of northbound bus movements, subject to detailed design), limiting the impact of the new traffic signals to the primary north-south corridor.

To maintain local area access, the intersection of Factory Street / New Street and Fleet Street would also be signalised. Vehicles approaching the precinct from the east of Church Street or from south of Factory Street would need to use a combination of Factory Street, New Street and Dunlop Street to access the area.

Harris and Hassall Street intersection Construction

The construction works associated with the provision of the right turn movement from Harris Street into Hassall Street would include the removal (and potential relocation) of the existing pedestrian refuge on Harris Street and removal or modification of the splitter island on Hassall Street, as well as general pavement works, kerb realignment works and signage and line marking modifications.

Given that the construction activity would occur within the Harris Street and Hassall Street carriageway, the works are likely to require the partial closure of both roads. Any required temporary road closures would reduce the available road capacity along Harris Street and Hassall Street.

The proposed works would likely result in a marginal increase in daily construction traffic volumes in the Parramatta CBD compared with the construction vehicle volumes that were assessed and presented in the EIS. However, it is anticipated that the timing of the proposed works would not coincide with the peak hour heavy vehicle volumes for the main construction activities for the preferred project that were assessed in the EIS Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Technical Paper 2, Volume 2). Therefore, the marginal additional construction vehicle volumes would have a negligible additional impact on the surrounding transport network.




The removal or relocation of the existing pedestrian refuge on Harris Street would also affect pedestrian and cyclist movements between Robin Thomas Reserve and Hassall Street during construction.

Operation

Traffic network modelling and intersection modelling was completed to assess the operational traffic impacts of the project on the surrounding road network, as discussed in section 4.1.1 of the Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report (EIS Technical Paper 3, Volume 2). The modelling indicated that the removal of the right turn from Harris Street (southbound) into Macquarie Street would increase traffic volumes along the Smith Street and Wilde Avenue corridor, with the potential to increase traffic delays as well as delays on the north-south bus corridor.

The introduction of a right turn from Harris Street (southbound) into Hassall Street as part of the preferred project would reduce the modelled traffic volume increases along the Smith Street and Wilde Avenue corridor. The proposed right turn into Hassall Street would also facilitate a more direct access from the north to Council’s new public car park currently under construction on Hassall Street, rather than requiring vehicles to use less direct alternative routes via the CBD. The final arrangement of the intersection would be refined during the detailed design.

Westbound traffic volumes on Hassall Street would increase (nearly double) as a result of the new right turn from Harris Street. Hassall Street would however continue to operate as a secondary east-west link between Harris Street and Parramatta CBD, with a primary purpose of providing access to fronting properties including the off-street set-down / pick-up arrangements for Rowland Hassall School.

Safe pedestrian access at this intersection would be provided in operation, with the detailed design to be determined in consultation with Council.

Council’s Draft Bike Plan 2017-2037 identifies Hassall Street between Harris Street and Charles Street as a future bicycle route, linking with Robin Thomas Reserve, crossing Harris Street. The proposed right turn would not affect the general cross-section of Hassall Street and therefore, would not affect Council’s proposed bicycle route within Hassall Street. The final intersection arrangement would be reviewed in light of the proposed bicycle route and may require changes to the bike crossing of Harris Street shown in Council’s plan.

6.3.3.2 Visual and landscape character

Landscape impacts

The proposed design change would benefit landscape character during both construction and operation by avoiding impacts on 30 trees shown in the EIS as being subject to more than minor impacts (refer to Figure 6.5 below). The majority of these trees are located along the western side of O’Connell Street, adjacent to the former Parramatta Correctional Centre.

Reducing impacts to around 30 trees would improve to the overall visual and landscape impacts on O’Connell and Board streets compared with the impact assessed in the EIS. However, there would continue to be some reduction in landscape quality of Church Street during operation, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a moderate adverse landscape impact during construction. This landscape impact would be consistent with the impact identified in the EIS.

The proposed works along Harris Street are not anticipated to result in any additional landscape impacts, compared to those assessed in the EIS.



6-11

Impacts to views

With respect to potential impact on views, the proposed design change would result in reduced impacts on views to the off-corridor works during construction and operation as the visually prominent trees along O’Connell Street would be retained and overall extent of roadworks required would be reduced. Overall, there would be a noticeable reduction in the amenity of views from Church Street, which are of local sensitivity, resulting in a minor adverse visual impact during construction. This landscape impact would be consistent with the impacts identified for the EIS project.

The preferred project would not result in any perceived change in the night-time visual impact during construction and operation compared to the EIS project.

The proposed works associated with the additional right hand turning bay along Harris Street are not anticipated to result in any additional impacts to views in the local area, compared to those assessed in the EIS.

6.3.3.3 Built and non-Aboriginal heritage

Non-Aboriginal archaeology

The design for the Church Street, Board Street, and O’Connell Street road corridors was assessed in the EIS as having the potential to impact on potential archaeological resources associated with early agricultural activities, frontages of late 19th century residential and commercial development, early road infrastructure, and the 1902 tramway.

The realignment of Barney Street would encroach on areas which are outside of the EIS project disturbance footprint. There is moderate potential that structural remains and artefacts associated with these buildings would be impacted by the preferred project. Therefore, the proposed design changes may result in additional archaeological impacts. However, the archaeological remains which would potentially be impacted are consistent with the potential archaeological remains identified across the project area – that is the preferred project would not have potential impacts that would be unique or substantially different to the EIS project.

To accommodate the realignment of Barney Street, substantial kerbside work would also be required on Church Street, between Ferris Road and Barney Street. The kerbside works are within the previously assessed impact area however, and no new areas of archaeological potential would be impacted. Furthermore, the kerbside works are expected to primarily be surface works, with little to no additional excavation required in undisturbed areas. As a result, it is not expected that the kerbside works would impact on significant archaeological resources.

Due to the reconfiguration of Barney Street, no works would be undertaken north of Barney Street along O’Connell Street and Board Street. As there would be no associated excavation in these areas there would be reduced impacts on potential archaeological resources.

Overall, the preferred project would potentially result in additional impacts to locally significant archaeological remains on Barney Street. However, the preferred project would also result in reduced impacts to potential archaeological resources on O’Connell Street and Board Street north of Barney Street.

Overall, the preferred project would result in minor changes to impacts with respect to non-aboriginal archaeology.




Built heritage

Table 6.3 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed road network changes.

Table 6.3 Road network changes – Changes in impact to built heritage

EIS PROJECT IMPACTS PREFERRED PROJECT IMPACTS

Parramatta Correctional Centre State heritage register (SHR) (00812), Parramatta LEP 2011 (I00812)

Direct impact: Minor

Visual impact: Minor

Potential indirect impact: Minor

Direct impact from off-corridor works encroaching on existing heritage curtilage.

Road widening works on the corner of O’Connell and Board Streets would impact existing curtilage but not heritage fabric.

More than minor impact to trees along the western side of O’Connell Street and works in proximity to fence.

Direct impact: Neutral



The proposed changes would result in a reduction in impacts to Parramatta Correctional Centre to the north of Barney Street. There are no proposed works on the corner of O’Connell and Board Streets, and a reduction in the number of trees along the western side of O’Connell Street north of Barney Street subject to more than minor impacts.

The proposed road network changes and tree impacts south of Barney Street would have a minor visual impact along O’Connell Street. There are potential indirect impacts due to works in proximity to the fence along O’Connell Street, which would be mitigated by following the mitigation and management measures presented in the EIS.

Additionally, negligible direct impacts would occur as a result of the need to realign the existing pedestrian footpath within a small section of the heritage curtilage on the eastern side of O’Connell Street. This impact would occur as a result of the required small area of acquisition at this location. The area to be acquired would be around 200 millimetres by two metres and would not result in impacts to significant fabric, vegetation or archaeology.

Overall, the preferred project would result in reduced impacts with respect to built heritage.

6.3.3.4 Noise and vibration

As the construction works associated with the proposed road changes would generally occur within the areas previously defined as having off-corridor road works, these changes would not significantly affect the worst-case construction noise and vibration impacts as assessed in the EIS. As part of the noise impact assessment in the EIS, receivers which were likely to be Highly Noise Affected from the proposed construction works were identified. The preferred project is not anticipated to result in any additional receivers being identified as Highly Noise Affected compared to the EIS project.

6.3.3.5 Hydrology, drainage and surface water

Parramatta North Road changes

The Flooding Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 7, Volume 4) provided qualitative commentary on impacts associated with proposed works north of Barney Street. Flood modelling for this area was not available at the time of EIS submission. However, the qualitative assessment indicated that



6-13

some flooding could occur for existing conditions, and that change in flow behaviour would be likely to occur, with mitigation of these impacts likely required.

As part of the ongoing design of the project and revised off-corridor road network changes, additional flood modelling was undertaken in this area (including consideration of additional detailed topographical survey) and the previous flood analysis was updated. A concept drainage design for the full extent of the project enabling works (including the proposed off-corridor road network changes) was then prepared to address proposed road modifications. Potential flood impacts were subsequently assessed through preparation of a post-construction flood model.

The potential for water level increases (afflux) was found to be minor and would be contained within the road extents. Flooding would be further assessed as the detailed design progresses, and the design adjusted to mitigate and manage impacts (refer to management measure HY-3).

Harris and Hassall Street intersection

The proposed works at the intersection of Hassall Street and Harris Street are not anticipated to have any additional hydrology or flooding impacts compared to those assessed in the EIS.

6.3.3.6 Local property and land use

Parramatta North road changes

As described in section 12.7 and as shown on Figure 12.13b of the EIS, the proposed road works within North Parramatta would require a series of partial property acquisitions including properties along Church Street, O’Connell Street, Board Street and Barney Street. In particular, the proposed road network changes to the north of Factory Street identified the need to partially acquire a portion of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area located at the corner of Barney Street and O’Connell Street. This land was required to accommodate additional turning lanes at this location.

The preferred project would reduce the potential property and land use impacts to each of the properties along Board Street and along O’Connell Street (north of Barney Street) as shown in the EIS. However, the preferred project would result in additional property impacts to four properties along Barney Street. The current design would require full acquisition of each of these properties to accommodate the project change. Detailed design of the preferred project would seek to minimise the extent of property acquisitions associated with these works, where feasible. The location of these properties are shown in Figure 6.4.

Transport for NSW would also continue to engage with impacted property owners with respect to potential acquisition requirements during the detailed design of the project.

With respect to land use changes, the proposed design change, and resultant acquisition of the identified properties would result a change in use for these properties from their existing commercial land uses to transport infrastructure. Overall, the preferred project would result in a similar impact to property and land use as the EIS project.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.4 Revised property acquisition – Parramatta North



6-15


The proposed works at the intersection of Hassall Street and Harris Street are anticipated to occur wholly within the existing road reserve and would not have any additional property or land use impacts compared to those assessed for the EIS project.

6.3.3.7 Trees


The proposed design change to the off-corridor road network north of Factory Street would result in a beneficial outcome to tree impacts at this location. The removal of the road works along Barney Street and O’Connell Street from the preferred project would result in reduced tree impacts north of Barney Street. As a result, around 30 trees would no longer have more than a minor impact (subject to detailed design). The majority of these trees are located along the western side of O’Connell Street, adjacent to the former Parramatta Correctional Centre (refer to Figure 6.5).

No additional trees are anticipated to have more than a minor impact as a result of the road network changes along Barney Street between Church Street and O’Connell Street.

Overall, the preferred project would result in a reduced impact to trees compared to the impact as assessed for the EIS project.


The proposed intersection works for the inclusion of a new southbound turning lane at the Harris and Hassall Street intersection is not expected to result in any additional trees being subject to more than a minor impact, in comparison to those described in the EIS project (subject to detailed design).

6.3.3.8 Socio-economic


As described above, the revised design would result in additional property impacts to four commercial properties along Barney Street due to the need to widen the road at this location to accommodate the revised off-corridor road works. The impact to these properties would result in additional adverse impacts to around six businesses located on these properties, relative to the proposed impacts previously described as part of the EIS project.


The proposed works at the intersection of Hassall Street and Harris Street would not result in any additional socio-economic impacts compared to those assessed in the EIS.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.5 Revised tree impacts – Parramatta North



6-17

6.3.4 Additional or changed mitigation and management measures

For a majority of the identified impacts associated with the revised road network changes, the range of measures for mitigation and management outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report are considered to be sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the design change. However, one additional mitigation and management measure has been proposed to manage potential impacts with respect to potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed change at the intersection of Harris Street and Hassall Street.

This mitigation and management measure is presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Additional mitigation and management measure – Road network changes

REF MITIGATION

TT-18 The detailed design of the right hand turn from Hassell Street into Harris Street would, where possible, incorporate a safe pedestrian and cyclist crossing of Harris Street to link Robin Thomas Reserve with Hassall Street, and would consider the potential for a future on-road bike path with dedicated bike lanes in Hassall Street (to be delivered by others). Any alternative pedestrian and cyclist provisions would be implemented prior to the removal of the existing pedestrian refuge.

6.4 Westmead piling works 6.4.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

The EIS project identified a generally centre-running alignment along Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, incorporating three stops. One of the stops located along Hawkesbury Road, the Westmead Hospital stop, would be located between Caroline Street and Helen Street and would primarily serve the catchment for Westmead Hospital and the residential area to the east of Hawkesbury Road. This stop would be located opposite the northern end of the existing Westmead Hospital car park.

Works in this area would include construction of the Westmead stop and widening of the existing road to accommodate the light rail tracks while maintaining one lane of traffic as well as a turning lane into Westmead Hospital.


6.4.2.1 Justification for proposed change

Ongoing consultation with NSW Health has identified potential conflicts between the works associated with the project and a planned NSW Health development on Hawkesbury Road, within Westmead Hospital land. NSW Health propose to construct a new underground building on their land which would be located below the future widened Hawkesbury Road (up to six storeys below the existing level of Hawkesbury Road). The proposed National Particle Therapy Research Centre (NPTRC) building would be located adjacent to the existing Hawkesbury Road footpath, between the existing Westmead Hospital Emergency Department entry road and the existing Hospital Outpatients entry road (refer to Figure 6.6). This development by NSW Health would be subject to a separate planning approval and is programmed to start major construction after the commencement of operations of the light rail project.




As described above, the light rail project would require the alteration of the existing road alignment and footpath, pushing the current road reserve boundary onto the NSW Health land and subsequently above the proposed future underground development. As part of the EIS project, it was proposed to construct a retaining structure between the realigned road and footpath and the existing NSW Health car park.

NSW Health’s proposed development would be below the widened Hawkesbury Road reserve (footpath and turning lanes into the Hospital), and their future building would require construction of a row of piles. Ultimately the piles would become the south eastern underground wall of the new NPTRC building. The piles would be constructed along the north-west side of Hawkesbury Road (directly beneath the proposed new footpath and turning lanes to be constructed in conjunction with the proposed widening of Hawkesbury Road).

The concept design for the proposed piling works is currently under development by NSW Health, however, the piling works would have direct interfaces with adjacent services including communications cabling and pits, electricity supply for street lighting and other local services, road stormwater drainage, and other street-based infrastructure.

Whilst the need for the piles is directly related to the proposed building by NSW Health, constructing the piles as part of the light rail project would offer benefits in terms of consolidating construction activities as well as future proofing the development proposed by NSW Health. If the piling works for the NSW Health development were undertaken at the time of construction of the future building by NSW Health, this would likely result in additional works being undertaken to areas recently completed by the light rail project, disruption to traffic on Hawkesbury Road, pedestrians and light rail services.

It is therefore proposed that the piling retention works are carried out at the same time as the road widening works for the light rail project with a view to minimising disruption to Hawkesbury Road, the access to the Health precinct, the broader community, and light rail operations.

6.4.2.2 Description of works

The proposed piling works would run parallel along the western side of Hawkesbury Road and would be located within the existing NSW Health property boundary.

Subject to detailed design and ongoing geotechnical investigations, the proposed works would involve construction of a row of bored piles along the north-western side of Hawkesbury Road. Each pile would be bored to a depth of around 22 metres (subject to detailed design). These piles would support the retaining wall proposed in the EIS project at this location, and NSW Health’s proposed development at this location.

The location of the proposed piling works is shown in Figure 6.6 and a section of the proposed works is shown in Figure 6.7.



6-19

Note: Indicative design and location of piling shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.6 Location of proposed NSW Health development and piling works along Hawkesbury Road

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.7 Section of the proposed piling works




Construction methodology

The detailed construction methodology for the proposed piling works would be determined in consultation with NSW Health, and would likely involve of the following key elements:

» Removal of existing vegetation.

» Relocation of existing utilities and services such as existing water and local electricity services.

» Construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the bored piles.

» Construction of the bored piles. It is currently anticipated that piling works would be undertaken by two piling rigs and would consist of the following activities:

» Auger each pile.

» Use a crane to lift in reinforced cage into bored hole.

» Pour the concrete pile.

» Removal of spoil for off-site disposal.

» Installation of a jersey kerb barrier along Hawkesbury Road for road user safety due to the difference in levels that would occur, prior to completion of NSW Health’s proposal.

Following installation of the piles and utility relocations, the proposed footpath and traffic lane works associated with the light rail project would be constructed - as described in Chapter 6 of the EIS.

Program and construction hours

The proposed piling works would be undertaken during standard construction hours (7am-6pm Monday to Friday, 8am-1pm Saturday, with no work on Sunday or public holidays). Some out-of-hours works may be required for installation of safety barriers or delivery of materials, however these works would be undertaken in accordance with the out-of-hours protocol identified in section 17.2.3 of the EIS. It is expected that around four piles would be installed per day (subject to detailed geotechnical investigations). The overall construction of the piling works, including service relocations and other associated works, is expected to take around six to seven months.

Spoil removal

Spoil removed during the boring of the piles would be stockpiled during piling operations, then transferred to a truck in accordance with the hierarchy of use of resources established for the project (i.e. preference for reuse or recycling). Where contaminated materials are identified during the testing period (such as asbestos containing materials), standard construction management measures would be implemented in accordance with relevant waste classification and disposal guidelines.

Plant and equipment

The typical plant and machinery for this work would include (subject to development of a detailed construction methodology):

» Piling rig(s).

» 20 tonne crane(s).

» 10 tonne truck(s).

» Excavator(s).

» Skid steer / bobcat(s).

» Water cart.

» Concrete truck.

» Road profiler to strip asphalt.

» Pavement machine.

» Rock hammer.

» Concrete vibrator.

» Small vibrating roller.



6-21

6.4.3 Changes to impacts


Construction

The traffic modelling and broader traffic and transport impact assessment completed for the EIS adopted a worst-case scenario, assessing the impact of reduced capacity along Hawkesbury Road (one northbound traffic lane). Therefore, the reduced road capacity along Hawkesbury Road and associated traffic diversions due to the piling works would not result in any additional traffic and transport impacts beyond those identified in the EIS and detailed in section 5.2 of the Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Technical Paper 2, Volume 2).

The piling works are estimated to result in around 10 heavy vehicles per day (20 two-way vehicle movements) in addition to those assessed in the EIS. However, the peak piling activity would not be expected to coincide with the peak project construction activities along Hawkesbury Road or the wider the Westmead Precinct. While the proposed works may result in some minor additional traffic impact duration (due to an overall extension of the construction work period in this area), the piling works would not have a substantial additional impact on the surrounding road network, when compared with that assessed as part of the EIS.

Operation

The piling works would be completed before the opening of the preferred project without the need to affect the future operation of the light rail. Therefore, there would be no additional operational traffic and transport impacts associated with the piling works, compared to those assessed in the EIS.


Landscape impacts

Section 11.4.2.1 of the EIS identified that the key landscape character impacts along Hawkesbury Road during construction would be associated with more than minor impacts to a number of trees to allow for construction and road widening works. The presence of construction sites, partial road and footpath closure, and construction vehicles along Hawkesbury Road were also considered to adversely impact the landscape. As part of the proposed piling works around 10 additional trees are expected to have more than a minor impact from the project, resulting in some additional landscape impacts to this section of Hawkesbury Road.

Impacts to views

Section 11.4.2.1 of the EIS identified that the key viewpoint impacts on the Hawkesbury Road locality would be the impact on trees, establishment of construction sites and use of construction machinery within the road corridor. The piling works would require the use of some additional construction machinery which would rise vertically above the hoarding, making the works more visually prominent whilst this activity is undertaken. The overall viewpoint impacts would however be generally consistent with those identified in the EIS.

As the proposed piles would be located below the final roadway and footpath as identified in the EIS, the proposed piling works would not have any additional visual impacts compared to those described in the EIS.





Construction noise and vibration impacts

During construction of the piling works there would be a slight increase in construction noise impacts at receivers along the project alignment. Noise management levels exceedances at between 12 and 20 receivers, depending on the activity being undertaken at any given have been predicted due to the use of proposed construction equipment. These exceedances would apply to properties located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. A majority of the impacted receivers are expected to receive noise exceedances of less than 10dB. Each of the receivers identified as being impacted by the preferred project works were previously proposed to be impacted as part of the project presented in the EIS.

One receiver was identified as a potentially Highly Noise Affected property during road demolition and excavation works associated with the proposed change (refer Figure 6.8). This receiver was also identified as a highly affected receiver as part of the project as presented in the EIS. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no change to the number of receivers impacted in comparison to the project assessed as part of the EIS.

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design.

Figure 6.8 Highly noise affected (residential receivers)

For the worst-case scenario, key impacts associated with the proposed piling works identified were:

» During standard working hours and out of work hours, around seven receivers may experience impacts of greater than 10 dB exceedance above the daytime noise management level, with the majority of the receivers in this area being subject to considerably lower, or no exceedances.

» During out-of-hours working periods (such as installation of safety barriers, delivery of materials etc. as described above), around eight receivers may experience impacts of greater than 10 dB exceedance above the night-time noise management level, with the majority of the receivers in this area being subject to considerably lower exceedances during these periods. (It should be noted that most works proposed, including the drilling and piling works, would be undertaken during standard daytime periods with only limited works during out of hour periods).

Identified highly affected receiver

Proposed piling works location



6-23

Each of the receivers identified as being impacted by the preferred project works were previously proposed to be impacted as part of the project presented in the EIS. Overall, the proposed additional construction works are therefore considered to be consistent with the impacts presented in the EIS.

Operational noise and vibration impacts

Once piling works are completed, there would be no additional noise and vibration impacts, compared to those identified in the EIS.


Section 11.7.2 of the EIS identified that some strip acquisition along Hawkesbury Road would be required, including adjustments to property boundaries, adjoining fences, driveways and other structures. The proposed piling works would generally be consistent with the assessment presented in the EIS, as the area of land to be acquired would not change as a result of the additional construction works required.

6.4.3.5 Contamination

As identified in section 10.7.2.2 of the EIS, there is potential for contamination to be encountered at a number of locations throughout the project’s construction footprint. In particular, the EIS identified the Westmead Hospital as a potential area of concern due to the potential for contamination from uncontrolled fill with materials such as metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides and asbestos. The EIS assessed this as a potentially medium risk.

As the piling works are proposed to be undertaken generally within or adjacent to the existing footprint (although to a deeper level than previously proposed), it is considered that the potential risks of identifying contamination would be consistent with those assessed as part of the EIS.

6.4.3.6 Groundwater

As identified in section 10.5 of the EIS, there is potential for groundwater to be encountered at various locations along the project alignment. The EIS did not identify any specific areas of groundwater within the Westmead precinct as part of the groundwater assessment. However, given the proposed works would require deeper excavations than previously assessed, there would be the potential to impact groundwater at this location. The existing management measures identified in the EIS would be suitable to manage these potential impacts.

6.4.3.7 Trees

The proposed piling works would result in more than a minor impact to eight additional trees beyond what was presented in the EIS. This comprises five trees which were not previously assessed in the EIS and three which were previously assessed as having a minor impact which are now considered to have a more than minor impact. The location of the trees are shown in Figure 6.9.

The coordinated design between the Project and NSW Health would further enhance the ability to provide suitable tree planting opportunities to support a suitable urban design outcome in this area.





Figure 6.9 Revised tree impacts – Westmead piling works



6-25


No additional mitigation and management measures to those identified for the EIS project are proposed as a result of the preferred project. The existing mitigation and management measures are considered to be sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the design change.

6.5 Parramatta North Urban Transformation building demolition

6.5.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

The EIS project includes an alignment which passes through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area. This area is currently subject to a development application by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation (DA/1124/2016).

The first stage of the proposed development by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation includes large lot subdivision, construction of internal roads, landscaping, rehabilitation of the foreshore, removal of some vegetation, and demolition of several buildings associated with the State-heritage listed Cumberland District Hospital Group. Beyond this development, the site is proposed to be progressively subdivided for release for future urban renewal development which would include a number of subsequent development applications.

The EIS assessed only the demolition of the Recovery cottages (five buildings) and the Boronia Building. All other buildings in the project footprint through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area were identified for demolition as part of UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation’s development prior to commencement of the construction works for the light rail project.

Of the buildings to be demolished as part of proposed development by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, a number correspond to buildings that are part of the State Heritage Listed (SHR) Cumberland District Hospital Group that would also be inside the construction footprint for the light rail project. These properties are:

» Life skills (Building C52a) and associated ancillary building- Bridge Road.

» Palm House (Building C67) – Bridge Road.

» Recreation Department Store (C71) – Bridge Road.

» Bridgeway Centre (Building C72) – Bridge Road.

» Emily’s ECAV training Centre (C73) – Bridge Road.

» CHIP Hostel No1(C89) – 9 Fleet Street.

Figure 6.10 shows the location of the buildings through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area that will now be included for demolition as part of the light rail project – that is, not previously assessed in the EIS. It is noted that all these buildings were assessed for demolition as part of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation development.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.10 Parramatta North Urban Transformation area buildings proposed for demolition



6-27


Following ongoing consultation with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, requests made through the submissions from the Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Division) and National Trust of Australia and the likely need to commence demolitions early in the construction program, it has been determined that building demolition through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area be carried out as part of the light rail project.



Construction

The traffic modelling completed for the EIS adopted a worst-case scenario, by assessing the impact of peak hourly construction vehicle movements during the peak construction period and assuming that the peak heavy vehicle volumes would occur during the general road network AM and PM peak periods. However, it is expected that peak construction heavy vehicle volumes would be staged to occur outside of the road network peak hours and that the peak construction period for each section of the project may be staged to result in fewer construction vehicles for a given period.

The heavy vehicle volumes associated with the demolition works are expected to be low, generating up to five vehicles (10 two-way vehicle movements) per hour. Further, the peak demolition activity would not be expected to coincide with the peak construction activities for the project. Therefore, the demolition works would be considered to have negligible additional impact on the surrounding road network, when compared with that assessed as part of the EIS.

Operation

The demolition of the buildings on the Parramatta North Urban Transformation development site would be completed before the opening of the project. Therefore, there would be no operational traffic and transport impacts associated with the demolition works.


Landscape impacts

Section 12.4.2.1 of the EIS identified that the key landscape character impacts within the Cumberland Hospital (east) during construction would be associated with more than minor impacts on a number of trees, resulting in a reduction in the amenity of the area. The proposed removal of seven additional buildings within the Cumberland Hospital (east) as part of the preferred project is not expected to result in a substantial number of additional landscape elements being removed as part of the project. The expanded footprint of the demolition works would have some adverse impact on the accessibility and use of adjacent open space areas during construction, particularly some small parts of the oval, during this time.

The proposed landscape impacts associated with the preferred project during operation would be improved as the removal of these buildings would provide space for new landscape areas to be provided as part of the future development of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area. These new landscape areas would improve connectivity between the oval, Eastern Circuit, and open spaces to the north and south.




Similarly, there would be a wider landscape corridor created east to west from the Parramatta River to Factory Street. Regardless of these slight improvements, the tree impacts identified in the EIS, the overall assessment of impacts are also considered to be consistent with those identified in the EIS.

Impacts to views

Section 12.4.2.1 of the EIS identified that the key viewpoint impacts within the Cumberland Hospital (east) during operation would be primarily associated with more than minor impacts to trees, removal of sandstone kerbing and the establishment of construction sites. The demolition of several buildings along the alignment would increase the extent of construction activity and the scale of works seen within the Cumberland Hospital (east). However, the impacts associated with the preferred project during are considered to be generally consistent with those identified in the EIS.

During operation, it is considered that the removal of the buildings would have an overall beneficial impact to the wider Cumberland Hospital (east) area. As discussed in further detail in section 6.5.3.3 below, four of the seven buildings proposed for removal have previously been recommended for removal as part of the Parramatta North Historic Sites Consolidated Conservation Management Plan 2017. The removal of these buildings would assist in reinstating the original view lines through the Parramatta North site and lead to enhancement of the setting of the remaining elements of high and exceptional significance.

This would result in a minor improvement to views along the Eastern Circuit and to the oval in particular. However, due to the more than minor impacts to trees identified in the EIS, the overall impacts are considered to be consistent with those identified in the EIS.



The anticipated impacts to non-Aboriginal archaeology in the location of the identified buildings as a result of demolition is considered to be consistent with the impact assessment presented in the project EIS.

Built heritage Recovery Cottages and Boronia Cottages

As indicate above, the EIS for the project included assessment of the demolition of the Recovery cottages (five buildings) and the Boronia Building. The assessment concluded that the overall impact of the project on the SHR listed Cumberland District Hospital Group as a result of the demolition of these buildings would be minor.

Life skills (Building C52a) and ancillary structure, Palm House (Building C67), Recreation Department Store (C71), Bridgeway Centre (Building C72), Emily’s ECAV training Centre (C73), Recreation Building (C71).

A Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation for the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area – the Parramatta North Historic Sites Consolidated Conservation Management Plan Part B – Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) Site March 2017 (the Conservation Management Plan). This Plan has been endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW under Section 38A of the Heritage Act 1977 on 7 April 2017, with an expiry on 7 April 2022. The objective of the Plan is to facilitate the sustainable management of heritage values of the site.



6-29

The management recommendations as presented in the Conservation Management Plan for each building (forming part of the SHR listed Cumberland District Hospital Group) now to be demolished as of the project is shown in Table 6.5 below.

Table 6.5 Conservation Management Plan recommendations

BUILDING MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Life skills (Building C52a) – Bridge Road and associated ancillary structure

The later 1960s addition make little contribution to the heritage significance of the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and can be retained and adapted or demolished. However, given that they detract from the ability to understand the original form and layout of the building it is preferable that the additions are demolished when the opportunity arises.

It is noted that there is no reference to the ancillary structure though review of the aerial photography provided in the Conservation Management Plan would imply it was constructed after 1995 and is therefore highly unlikely to have any heritage value.

Palm House (Building C67) -Bridge Road

Palm House makes little contribution to the significant cultural landscape and can be retained and adapted or demolished.

Bridgeway Centre (Building C72) -Bridge Road

The Bridgeway Centre makes little contribution to the heritage significance of the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and can be retained and adapted or demolished. Demolition would assist with re-instating historic views from the font entry garden area to the Sports Oval and the Cricket Pavilion (C66).

Recreation Building (Building C71) – Bridge Road

The former Public Works Site Office makes little contribution to the heritage significance of the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and can be retained and adapted or demolished. Demolition is acceptable in order to reinstate views from the access road to the former Male Asylum Kitchen and Store Room (C65) and the Cricket Pavilion (C66).

Emily’s ECAV training Centre (C73) -Bridge Road

The ECAV Training Centre makes little contribution to the heritage significance of the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and can be retained and adapted or demolished. However, demolition of the buildings would assist with re-instating the historical visual relationship between the front entry garden and the Sports Oval.

CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89)

CHIPS Cottage No. 1 makes a moderate contribution to the heritage significance of the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and should be retained. The late 20th century and more recent additions are of lesser significance and can be demolished.

Assessment

All buildings through PNUT (excluding CHIP Hostel No 1)

The assessment indicates that, apart from the CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89), demolition of the buildings through Parramatta North Urban Transformation area for the preferred project would be consistent with the management recommendations of the Parramatta North Historic Sites Consolidated Conservation Management Plan Part B – Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) Site. In this regard demolition of these buildings, including the extension of the project disturbance footprint, would be assessed individually and cumulatively as reducing the environmental impacts of the preferred project in comparison to the project assessed in the EIS.




CHIP Hostel No 1

With respect to CHIP Hostel No. 1 (C89), the Conservation Management Plan indicates that this building, constructed in 1910, has moderate heritage significance and contributes to the New Street streetscape within the Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site. The building is significant for its association with government architects, particularly W.L. Vernon and its original external form and fabric. The Conservation Management Plan recommends the building should be retained, though the late 20th century and more recent additions are of lesser significance and can be demolished. Impacts to archaeology and significant trees would be avoided during demolition for the preferred project.

The Parramatta North Urban Transformation Stage 1 DA and DA1 (Early Works) Heritage Impact Statement (TKD Architects 2017:42) assessed demolition of the structure as including:

» Loss of a building that makes some contribution of the PNHS cultural landscape.

» Physical impacts on evidence of early land use including significant plantings, gardens, orchards, paths and other landscape features.

Accordingly, an additional heritage assessment was carried out consistent with the assessments undertaken for the recovery cottages and Boronia building. A summary of the assessment is provided below.

Built heritage impact assessment

Table 6.6 provides a detailed heritage impact assessment for CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) in relation to the project.

Table 6.6 Detailed heritage impact assessment for CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89)

CHIP HOSTEL NO 1 (C89)

Description CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) was constructed in 1910 as a hospital residence for the former Chief Attendant. It was constructed to a design overseen by the Government architect W.L. Vernon. It consists of a one storey cottage with a concrete tile roof, stucco walls, timber sash windows, and timber doors. CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) is located at 9 Fleet Street, Parramatta, and is situated within the Cumberland District Hospital Group in a park like setting. It is part of a larger institutional complex, which included the Cumberland Hospital and the former Parramatta Mental Hospital. The original 1910 plans for the building include a porch and staircase to the southern end of the building. In a floor plan from 1930, the porch appears infilled and there is no evidence of a staircase. Prior to 1996, the verandah to the east had undergone a timber and fibro infill.

Significance The following significance assessment has been taken from the CMP: The former Chief Attendant’s Cottage is of Moderate heritage significance. The building is of significance as an intact residence associated with W L Vernon and the Government architects of its time. It contributes to the ability to understand changing patient care and subsequently design philosophies associated with the site. Its contribution is secondary to the key buildings from this phase including the Administration Block (to Mental Hospital), Female Ward No.7 (Admissions) and Male Ward No.7 (Mental Hospital Admissions Block). The building’s association with these buildings is also not easily understood as it is located on the other side of the campus. The building does however make a positive contribution to the Fleet Street streetscape. Later additions including the infill to the east end verandah are intrusive. The infill compromises the intended character and form of the original building.



6-31

CHIP HOSTEL NO 1 (C89)

Existing Conservation Management Plan Policies

Management Recommendations The building and its setting should be managed consistent with the Principles, Policies and Guidelines in the Parramatta North Hospital Site Conservation Management Plan (Parts A and C) and the following site-specific recommendations: » CHIP Cottage No. 1 makes a moderate contribution to the heritage significance of the

Cumberland Hospital (East Campus) site and should be retained. » While the building can tolerate considerable change internally, substantial additions to

the existing envelope should be avoided. » Unsympathetic additions including services, air conditioning units and associated ducting

mounted on the exterior and the east end verandah infill should be carefully removed ensuring no adverse damage to the original form and fabric of the building.

» The late 20th century and more recent additions are of lesser significance and can be demolished.

» New development should: - Not further obstruct views from Fleet and Factory Street into and across the site. - Be of a scale, bulk, form and materiality that appropriately responds to the nearby

historic buildings of the Female Factory/Lunatic Asylum Precinct.

Heritage impact assessment

Direct impact: Major The proposed works would have a major direct impact on CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) requiring full demolition of an item identified as having a moderate heritage significance within the State Heritage Register curtilage. The demolition of building C89 can only be partially mitigated The Conservation Management Plan recommends retention of C89 as an element of moderate heritage significance. Impacts to significant trees would where feasible be avoided during demolition and an exclusion zone would be put in place to protect significant trees and landscape features (where possible). Visual impact: Major The proposed works would require the complete removal of CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89). This would result in a major visual impact to the item as the heritage item would be removed during the demolition process and its aesthetic values would be lost. Potential indirect impact: Minor There are potential indirect impacts to significant trees and landscape features. Mitigation and management measures, including an exclusion zone, would minimise potential indirect impacts.

Statement of heritage impacts

The proposed demolition of CHIP Hostel No 1 (C89) would have a major direct and visual impact on the building of moderate significance. The proposed works would have a minor potential indirect impact to significant trees and landscape features, which would be mitigated to minimise impacts.

Archaeological impact assessment

Where possible, impacts to archaeology would be avoided during the proposed demolition works. Impact to non-Aboriginal archaeology in the location of the building as a result of demolition would be consistent with the assessment in the project EIS.




Cumulative assessment

Assessed cumulatively, it is considered that the demolition of building C89 as part of the preferred project would increase the overall impact on the SHR listed Cumberland District Hospital Group to moderate, compared to the previously assessed minor impact in the project EIS. The demolition of building C89 would only be able to be partially mitigated. Notwithstanding the proposed demolition, it is considered that the Cumberland District Hospital Group would continue to meet the threshold for State heritage significance. The mitigation and management measures outlined in section 6.5.4 would be implemented to further minimise impacts of the project on the heritage values of the site.


Construction noise and vibration impacts

During construction, the works for the changes would include a slight increase in construction noise impacts at receivers along this section of the project alignment. The change in noise impacts would generally be minor, and would be consistent with those identified in the EIS. Some additional exceedances of noise management levels have been predicted due to the use of additional construction equipment. Around 21 receivers for would experience noise exceedances due to the general demolition works and around 80 receivers would experience noise exceedances during demolition works in the event a rock breaker is required. The number of receivers and the levels of exceedance are expected to be similar to those identified in the EIS.

It is noted however that during most activities, it is expected that the construction noise levels would frequently be lower than the worst-case levels predicted above for significant periods of time. Of these impacts, two receivers were identified as a potentially Highly Noise Affected property during demolition works where a rock breaker is required (refer to Figure 6.11). Both of these receivers were previously identified as a highly affected receiver as part of the project as presented in the EIS and are not anticipated to be substantially different as a result of the additional demolition works (although there would be a minor increase in the overall duration of the potential impacts).

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.11 Highly noise affected (residential receivers)

Identified highly affected receiver



6-33

With respect to the worst-case scenario impacts, these impacts are only expected during the daytime period as no night-time excavation works are proposed. During standard working hours and out of work hours, around 11 receivers may experience impacts of greater than 20 dB exceedance above the daytime noise management level where demolition works require a rock breaker. During general demolition works, only two receivers are expected to experience exceedances of greater than 20 dB as a result of the proposed demolition works. Most the other receivers in this area would be subject to considerably lower noise levels. The number of receivers and levels of exceedance are expected to be similar to those previously identified in the EIS.

Each of the receivers identified were previously proposed to be impacted as part of the project resented in the EIS, including the two receivers identified as being highly affected. Overall, the proposed additional construction works are therefore considered to be generally consistent with the overall noise and vibration impacts for construction of the project as presented in the EIS.

Operational noise and vibration impacts

The noise and vibration impact of the proposed demolition works would be limited to the construction phase. Once demolition works are completed, there would be no additional noise and vibration impacts associated with the preferred project, compared to those identified in the EIS.


Section 12.7.3 of the EIS identified that the project would require the use of land that is currently used for hospital purposes (within the Cumberland Hospital (west) campus) to construct the light rail through this area. The proposed inclusion of the demolition works as part of the preferred project would be consistent with the land use impacts previously considered for the Cumberland Hospital (as previously proposed to occur as part of the UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation approval).

Similar to the impacts described for the Cumberland Hospital (west) demolition works in the EIS, during construction of the preferred project there would be the need for the temporary and permanent relocation of NSW Health facilities within impacted buildings. Any relocation would continue to be informed by NSW Health’s longer term planning strategy for the hospital campus and would be done in coordination with the works to be carried out by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation.

The inclusion of the proposed additional building demolition in the preferred project would also be consistent with the long-term aspiration of urban renewal for the area.

6.5.3.6 Trees

The proposed demolition works would result in more than a minor impact to two trees beyond what was presented in the EIS. This comprises two additional trees that were not previously included within the EIS assessment. The location of the trees is shown in Figure 6.12.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.12 Revised tree impacts – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area



6-35


For a majority of the impacts associated with the additional demolition works, the range of measures for mitigation and management outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report are considered sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the design change. In particular, mitigation and management measures HE-14, HE-15 and HE-22 would provide appropriate management measures to mitigate potential heritage impacts associated with the proposed demolition.

These measures relate to measures including:

» Demolition of heritage items or within heritage curtilages.

» Methods for, and proposed salvage work scheme(s).

» Minimising direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items.

» Photographic archival recording and reporting.

6.6 Prince Alfred Square stop 6.6.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

Section 5.5.4 of the EIS identified the proposed design of the Prince Alfred Square stop would provide a configuration that included two side platforms consisting of:

» One side platform within the centre of Church Street for LRVs travelling towards Parramatta (southbound).

» A second side platform integrated with the footpath at Prince Alfred Square for LRVs travelling towards Westmead (northbound).

Two lanes of traffic (one lane in each direction) were to be maintained to the east of the stop, with pedestrian crossings provided at each end of the platforms. The stop also required the realignment of the pedestrian footpath and alteration to some of the existing urban domain elements within Prince Alfred Square to accommodate the proposed stop. The design of the stop proposed to incorporate new landscaping for Prince Alfred Square to replace the existing landscaped area, including new tree planting and pedestrian footpaths.

The proposed arrangement of the Prince Alfred Square stop for the EIS project is shown Figure 6.13 and an elevation is shown Figure 6.14.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.13 Indicative plan – Prince Alfred Square stop (as shown in EIS)



6-37

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.14 Indicative stop section – Prince Alfred Square stop (as shown in EIS)


Following ongoing discussion with Council and to minimise overall impacts to Prince Alfred Square, it is proposed to move the location of the Prince Alfred Square stop around five metres to the east of the previously proposed stop location. This would avoid direct impacts on Prince Alfred Square.

To accommodate the eastward shift of the stop and project alignment, the traffic lanes along Church Street would be reduced to provide only one northbound traffic lane between Palmer Street and Victoria Road (in comparison to the two traffic lanes as presented in the EIS). This lane would allow a right turn into Victoria Road only. The revised arrangement for the Prince Alfred Square stop is shown Figure 6.15 and Figure 6.16.

The design change would be contained to the previously identified disturbance footprint identified in Chapter 6 of the EIS.

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.15 Revised stop section – Prince Alfred Square stop




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.16 Revised stop plan – Prince Alfred Square stop



6-39



Construction

The eastward shift of the Prince Alfred Square stop would likely require a full road closure between Victoria Road and Palmer Street to facilitate construction work. Temporary alternative access via Marist Place and Market Street would likely to be required for general traffic, resulting in some additional construction traffic impact in comparison to that described for the EIS project. These would be determined as part of the site specific construction traffic management plan(s) to be prepared for the project (refer to revised mitigation and management measure TT-25 in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).

Operation

Removal of the southbound traffic lane on Church Street between Victoria Road and Palmer Street would result in the need for alternative local area access via Marist Place and Market Street. Traffic volumes on Marist Place and Market Street would increase marginally in comparison to the volumes predicted for the EIS project.

As shown on Table 6.7, the Victoria Road/Church Street and Victoria Road/Marist Place/Villiers Street intersections would continue to operate with a similar level of service as the EIS project. Accordingly, the traffic impact of the preferred project as compared to the EIS project is considered negligible.

Table 6.7 Victoria Road and Church Street intersection operation

PEAK INTERSECTION 2026 WITH THE PROJECT – EIS ROAD NETWORK

2026 WITH THE PROJECT – ROAD NETWORK WITH PROPSOED CHANGES

SATURATION AVERAGE DELAY (SEC)


LEVEL OF SERVICE

DEGREE OF SATURATION

AVERAGE DELAY (SEC)


LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM

Victoria Road and Church

Street

0.82 32 190 C 0.56 29 136 C

PM 0.92 43 283 D 0.92 44 281 D

AM 0.91 33 227 C 0.65 31 123 C

PM 1.27 145 759 F 1.18 145 773 F

The removal of the southbound traffic lane within Church Street between Victoria Road and Palmer Street would assist in making Church Street a less desirable north-south through route. This would support the proposed long term strategy to prioritise Church Street for local traffic and public transport, consistent with the draft Greater Parramatta Access Plan.

The eastward shift of the Prince Alfred Square stop also would facilitate increased pedestrian capacity to the west of the stop, which would improve pedestrian amenity and safety, particularly when large events are being held at the nearby Western Sydney Stadium.





Landscape impacts

The preferred project would result in significantly reduced landscape impacts on Prince Alfred Square during construction. This would include retaining the Victoria Street entrance, the rose gardens along Church Street, and the trees along the eastern park boundary. There would, however, continue to be construction works adjacent to the western boundary, which may include some temporary closure of the footpath along the eastern boundary of Prince Alfred Square adjacent to Church Street, temporarily reducing pedestrian legibility and altering access to the park from Church Street.

There would be some reduction in the quality of this landscape, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a minor adverse landscape impact during construction. However, the preferred project would still represent an overall improvement compared to the EIS project which identified a moderate adverse landscape impact on Prince Alfred Square during construction.

The preferred project would result in reduced landscape impacts during operation as the project alignment and light rail stop would no longer directly impact on Prince Alfred Square.

Impacts to views

The preferred project would result in reduced impacts on views from within Prince Alfred Square during construction and operation, when compared to the EIS project, as the site would no longer extend into the park. The level of impact on trees and garden areas located on the boundary of the square would be avoided and these plantings would enhance views to the stop and to the alignment from Church Street.

During operation, the preferred project would result in no perceived change in the amenity of views from Prince Alfred Square, and negligible visual impacts. This represents a reduced overall impact compared to the EIS project which identified a minor adverse visual impact during operation.

The preferred project would not result in any perceived change in the night-time visual impact during construction and operation compared to EIS project.



The EIS project design for the Prince Alfred Square stop was assessed as having the potential to impact on potential archaeological resources associated with the former gaol, factory complex, ‘village green’, and WWII era anti-aircraft shelter within Prince Alfred Square, and to impact the remains of the tramway and former road infrastructure within Church Street.

The preferred project would relocate the stop further to the east. This would reduce the excavation area within the park and would reduce the impacts to potential archaeological remains within the park. Potential for impacts on archaeological remains of the former tramway and road infrastructure within Church Street would be the same as the EIS project.

Overall, the preferred project would result in a net reduction of impacts to non-Aboriginal archaeology within Prince Alfred Square compared to the EIS project.



6-41

Built heritage

Table 6.8 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the preferred project for the Prince Alfred Square stop.

Table 6.8 Prince Alfred stop – Changes in impact to built heritage


Prince Alfred Square and potential archaeological site SHR (01997), NSW Department of Primary Industries s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Parramatta LEP 2011 (I686)

Direct impact: Moderate

Visual impact: Moderate


The proposed project alignment and Prince Alfred Square light rail stop would be adjacent to Prince Alfred Square park. The construction of Prince Alfred Square stop would require the removal of the current footpath in the north-eastern corner of Prince Alfred Square to make way for the platform. The footpath would be reconstructed further west into the heritage curtilage of Prince Alfred Square. This would require the removal of a section of the park boundary wall and a row of mature rose bushes. The significant war memorial would be retained. The construction of the Prince Alfred Square light rail stop would result in a moderate direct impact to Prince Alfred Square.

The proposed project alignment and Prince Alfred Square light rail stop would introduce a new element in the visual landscape of Prince Alfred Square. The design of the proposed stop would use modern materials and remain visually unobtrusive. The removal of a section of the park boundary wall would result in a moderate visual impact, as would the proposed platform along the curtilage of Prince Alfred Square. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Iris Visual Planning + Design assesses potential landscape and visual impacts of the project would be ‘moderate adverse’ during construction and ‘minor adverse’ during operation.

The proposed construction of the project alignment and Prince Alfred Square light rail stop would have potential indirect impacts from works in proximity to heritage items within Prince Alfred Square, such as the war memorial and fountains. There would be potential indirect impacts to trees through works in proximity. Vibration levels would be under the cosmetic damage screening level.




The proposed changes would result in a reduction in impacts to Prince Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site).

Direct impacts would consist of a minor impact to the heritage curtilage along Church Street, which consists of the footpath, but no impact to significant heritage fabric. The park boundary wall and a row of mature rose bushes would be retained. The footpath would be upgraded but this would not impact on the heritage significance of Prince Alfred Square park.

The proposed works along Market Street would also be within the listed SHR curtilage, although significant heritage fabric would not be impacted.

The proposed project alignment and Prince Alfred Square stop would introduce a new element in the visual landscape of Prince Alfred Square. The design of the proposed stop would use modern materials and remain visually unobtrusive, consistent with the design assessed as part of the EIS.

Significant views of the park, including the war memorial, would be retained.

The proposed construction of the project alignment and Prince Alfred Square stop would have the same potential indirect impacts assessed in the EIS, due to works in proximity to the war memorial and the park boundary walls.





Horse trough Parramatta LEP 2011 (I747)

Visual impact: Negligible

Potential indirect impact: Negligible

The proposed project alignment would be adjacent to the Horse Trough. This would remain in keeping with the current views from the structure which consists of a road and powerlines. The proposed works would result in a negligible visual impact to the Horse Trough.

It is unlikely that the works would result in a direct impact on the heritage item. Any potential impact would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a noise and vibration management plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the project as outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.



The proposed changes to the Prince Alfred Square stop would be consistent with the impacts to the Horse Trough assessed in the EIS.

Anthony Malouf and Co Parramatta LEP 2011 (I690)



The proposed project alignment and Prince Alfred Square stop would be adjacent to the Anthony Malouf and Co. building. This would introduce a new element in the visual landscape of the heritage item. The design of the proposed stop would use modern materials and remain visually unobtrusive. It would not significantly impact on views to and from Anthony Malouf and Co. The proposed works would result in a minor visual impact to the heritage item.

Modelling indicates that the closest façade of this item would experience vibration levels above the screening level for cosmetic damage. Further assessment and management would be undertaken in accordance with management measures NV-1 and NV-7 (refer to Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures).

Any other potential impacts would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a CEMP for the project as outlined in Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures) of this Submissions Report.



The proposed changes to the Prince Alfred Square stop would be consistent with the impacts to Anthony Malouf and Co. assessed in the EIS.



6-43


St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre (and potential archaeological site) Parramatta LEP 2011 (I687)



The proposed project alignment and Prince Alfred Square stop would be adjacent to St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre. This would introduce a new element in the visual landscape of the building. The design of the proposed stop would use modern materials and remain visually unobtrusive. It would not significantly impact on views to and from St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre. The proposed works would result in a minor visual impact to the heritage item.

Modelling indicates that the closest façade of this item would experience vibration levels above the screening level for cosmetic damage. Further assessment and management would be undertaken in accordance with management measures NV-1 and NV-7 (refer to Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures). Any other potential impacts would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a CEMP for the project as outlined in Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures) of this Submissions Report.



The proposed changes to the Prince Alfred Square stop would be consistent with the impacts to St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre (and potential archaeological site) as assessed for the EIS project.

Overall, the preferred project would result in a net reduction of impacts to built heritage for the Prince Alfred Square stop compared to the EIS project.


The proposed design change to the Prince Alfred Square stop would not affect the worst-case construction noise and vibration impacts identified for the EIS project, as the overall construction footprint would not change substantially.

The preferred project would result in minor changes to the operational noise and vibration predictions as a result of the shift in the stop location and the tracks moving closer to the adjacent receivers on Church Street. It is, however, noted that these receivers are commercial premises and since the LRV speeds at the stop location would be low, the impacts of this change would be minimal.

The EIS predicted compliance with the operational noise and vibration goals at this location. The preferred project would continue to meet the operational noise and vibration goals.

6.6.3.5 Hydrology, drainage and surface water quality

The removal of a single traffic lane along Church Street as part of the preferred project is expected to slightly decrease capacity for overland flow as assessed for the EIS project. This may result in some increase to predicted flood levels and potentially impact the flood immunity of the track alignment.

Flood modelling indicates that flooding is generally contained within the eastern (kerb side) lane along Church Street, and therefore it is anticipated that the change in afflux (surface water flows) associated with the change to a single traffic lane would be likely to be contained within the existing road corridor.




As required for the EIS project, further assessment would be undertaken during detailed design to confirm impacts to the track alignment and on surrounding properties, and mitigation and management measures would be identified and applied for any impacts expected (such as adjustments to local drainage or and localised re-grading of existing ground levels).


For the EIS project, the western platform of the Prince Alfred Square stop required a small partial property acquisition of Prince Alfred Square park. The area of impact identified included a strip of parkland along the eastern side of the park adjacent to Church Street at a width of around five metres and summing to around 600 square metres. This acquisition would no longer be required, reducing the impact on public land.

The proposed shift of the alignment would result in the direct impacts on an area of outdoor dining associated with the Armani Restaurant located at the corner of Church Street and Palmer Street. The additional area of potential impact to the outdoor dining area would be around 150 square metres. Opportunities to reduce the level of impact on this property would continue to be investigated during detailed design.

Overall, the preferred project for the Prince Alfred Stop would result in a reduced impact on public space/land use but a minor increase in loss of land used for business purposes. In comparison with the EIS project the net change would be minor.


In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Armani Restaurant as a result of the preferred project design, opportunities to reduce the level of impact on this property would continue to be investigated during detailed design (management measure LU-1). No other additional mitigation and management measures are proposed as a result of the proposed design changes to the Prince Alfred Square stop. The mitigation and management measures identified for the EIS project, in addition to the measure identified above, are considered to be sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the preferred project.

6.7 Queens Wharf Reserve underpass 6.7.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

As part of the EIS project, proposed road widening works along George Street required acquisition of a strip of land on the southern boundary of Queens Wharf Reserve. The existing slip road, which passes under the MacArthur Street bridge within Queens Wharf Reserve, was proposed to be retained as part of the EIS project.


Following ongoing discussions with the Council during exhibition of the EIS, it is proposed that the existing slip road be removed and the area revegetated. This would provide additional park area within the Queens Wharf Reserve to partially offset the reduction of open space in Robin Thomas Reserve as a result of the project.



6-45

The proposed works associated with the removal of the existing slip road would include:

» Removal of all pavement and kerb materials, including removal of existing crash barriers.

» Removal of road base material.

» Placement of appropriate fill and top soil.

» Earthworks to regrade the site.

» Landscaping works.

This would return approximately 900 square metres back to public open space within Queens Wharf Reserve.

As part of the works to Queens Wharf Reserve associated with the preferred project, some earthworks are proposed within the existing grassed area of the reserve to accommodate the identified eastbound turning lanes along George Street, west of MacArthur Street.

The proposed works would also provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian accessibility to this area. As part of any future development of this area (to be undertaken by others), appropriate urban design, security and lighting measures would be considered. The existing shared path along the northern boundary of the Queens Wharf Reserve would not be modified as part of the works. The proposed design change for Queens Wharf Reserve is shown Figure 6.17.


Figure 6.17 Queens Wharf Reserve underpass






Construction impacts

The construction works associated with the removal of the slip lane under the MacArthur Street Bridge would generally be limited to removal of pavement and road base material. Therefore, the works would likely result in a marginal increase in daily construction traffic volumes in the Parramatta CBD in comparison to the EIS project. Impacts of the additional traffic would be negligible.

Operational impacts

Removal of the existing slip road would have negligible impact on the surrounding road network during operation of the project. It is noted that the traffic modelling prepared for the EIS project considered a worst-case scenario, including the closure of the slip lane.


Landscape impacts

The proposed design change would result in a slightly increased landscape character impact on the Queens Wharf Reserve during construction compared to the EIS project as there would be an expanded disturbance footprint. This would include temporarily reducing accessibility within this area of the reserve, including footpaths and the river edge.

When completed, the preferred project would result in an improvement to the landscape character compared to the EIS project, as a result of the increased vegetated open space.

Impacts to views

During construction, the preferred project would have a greater visual impact within the Queens Wharf Reserve, around the MacArthur Street bridge due to works extending into this area. This would create a noticeable (temporary) reduction in views within the Queens Wharf Reserve, which is of regional sensitivity, resulting in a moderate adverse impact compared to the EIS project.

When completed, views to the Macarthur Street bridge from within the parkland and Parramatta River would be improved with the replacement of the slip road and parking with a larger parkland setting, complementing the sandstone bridge abutments. This would create a noticeable improvement in views within the Queens Wharf Reserve compared to the EIS project.



The preferred project would not affect the worst-case construction noise and vibration impacts as assessed for the EIS project. The EIS identified receivers which were likely to be Highly Noise Affected from the proposed construction works. The preferred project at Queens Wharf Reserve is not anticipated to result in any additional receivers being identified as Highly Noise Affected compared to those assessed for the EIS project. The preferred project is not expected to result in any change to the noise and vibration impacts compared to those identified in the EIS.



6-47

6.7.3.4 Aboriginal heritage

The proposed design change would occur predominantly outside of the previously assessed disturbance footprint as described in the EIS. The underpass is located on a modified slope above the Parramatta River. Topographically, the landform is not archaeologically sensitive due to historic earthworks associated with the original construction of the slip road. Previous assessments have demonstrated that greater archaeological potential in the Parramatta area is present on elevated terrace landforms along the river, particularly those associated with the Parramatta Sand Body. The river banks and adjacent slopes (where the proposed design change is located) are more exposed to flood effects and the consequent disturbance of archaeological deposits.

Modification of the natural slope and modern land-use disturbance from the construction of the existing roadway and park has reduced the potential for uncovering archaeological deposits.

The preferred project would be located in an area previously occupied by the Parramatta Gas Works (established 1873). Archaeological test excavations undertaken at PLR AFT 1 (formerly PLR PAD 2) as part of the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report process carried out for the EIS project identified a highly disturbed subsurface deposit within the previous Gas Works lands east of the proposed design change, with low potential for intact Aboriginal archaeology. It is therefore considered reasonable to assume that this level of disturbance would be present across the former Gas Works area. The historic earthworks and construction of the underpass road has contributed to the high level of disturbance.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed design changes to the Queens Wharf Reserve underpass would not impact on any intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. The preferred project is therefore considered to be consistent with the Aboriginal heritage assessment of the EIS project.


The EIS project proposed no change to the existing land use of the slip road. The preferred project would result in a change in the existing land use from the existing transport infrastructure to open public space. The preferred project would increase the overall size and functionality of the Queens Wharf Reserve, and would be consistent with the proposed Masterplan for Robin Thomas and James Ruse Drive Reserve as being developed by the Council. This would represent a substantial improvement to land use compared to the EIS project.

6.7.3.6 Public safety/security

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles were identified in section 5.11.2 of the EIS and will continue to be applied throughout the design of the project, including elements of the preferred project such as the improvements to Queens Wharf Reserve. Detailed design of the project would consider the key principles of CPTED with respect to the underbridge section of the proposed works including potential surveillance (both active and passive); access control, and space management.

6.7.3.7 Trees

The works within Queens Wharf Reserve, in particular the proposed earthworks adjacent to George Street, would potentially result in some additional more than minor impacts to trees in comparison to the EIS project. Subject to detailed design, the preferred project would result in around sixteen additional trees being subject to more than minor impacts as part of the project as a result of the construction of additional works at this location. The location of the subject trees is shown in Figure 6.18.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.18 Revised tree impacts – Queens Wharf Reserve



6-49

The works would increase the amount of parkland in this area, with revegetation of the slip road area. As described in revised mitigation and management measure TR-5 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report), where the loss of trees is unable to be mitigated, trees removed as a result of the project would be offset in accordance with the Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (Transport for NSW, 2016). The proposed offsetting activities would be documented in a Tree Offset Strategy to be developed for the project.


No additional mitigation and management measures to those identified for the EIS project are proposed as a result of the preferred project at Queens Wharf Reserve underpass. The existing mitigation and management measures are considered to be sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the design change.

6.8 Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity

6.8.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

6.8.1.1 Tramway Avenue stop configuration

The EIS project provided for an alignment that travelled along Tramway Avenue incorporating an island platform between Alfred Street and Arthur Street. It was proposed that Arthur Street be closed at its intersection with Tramway Avenue, with lanes being provided on either side of the project alignment to provide access for local properties.

The vertical alignment was effectively at-grade (ground level), consistent with the existing road alignment, with a low point towards the intersection of Tramway Avenue and Arthur Street.

6.8.1.2 Flood immunity

At the time of preparing the EIS, flood modelling demonstrated that the EIS project could be operated for most of the alignment up to a 0.05 EY (or approximately equivalent 1 in 20 year) flood event, except for some locations where the project would achieve a 0.2 EY (or approximately equivalent to a 1 in 5 year) flood immunity. One of the locations with a lower level of flood immunity is the low point on Tramway Avenue east of Alfred Street.

To mitigate the flood impacts of the project and to improve flood immunity at the stop, it was proposed in the EIS to provide a flood storage area east of the stop in the land between Arthur Street and Clay Cliff Creek.


6.8.2.1 Tramway Avenue stop configuration

Justification for the proposed change

As part of the ongoing refinement of the project design following exhibition of the EIS and changes to the operational requirements for the Tramway Avenue stop, opportunities to improve the arrangement of the stop were identified.




As part of the design refinement, it was identified that changing the design of the stop to provide a side platform arrangement would provide several benefits including:

» Improved integration with the surrounding environment and future urban renewal development opportunities.

» Improved traffic and access design for adjacent properties (in particular to the south of the stop).

» Improved flood immunity (refer to section 6.9.3 for details).

» Provides a more consistent platform arrangement along the project alignment.

Description of the proposed change

As part of the preferred project, it is proposed that the stop configuration be changed to a side platform arrangement (refer to Figure 6.19). The changes would require passengers accessing the stop to only cross one lane of traffic, rather than a traffic lane and light rail alignment to get to the stop when accessing the platform. This change would also result in the platform arrangement of Tramway Avenue stop being consistent with most of the other stops along the alignment. The preferred project would be contained to the previously identified disturbance footprint identified for the EIS project.

To maintain access to adjacent properties, a new access road would also be provided adjacent to the project alignment. It is proposed that Arthur Street remains closed at Tramway Avenue – as per the EIS project. To support connectivity through the area the active transport link identified for the EIS project would be retained along Tramway Avenue (refer to Figure 6.19).

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.19 Indicative alignment and stop arrangement of the revised Tramway Avenue platform

arrangement



6-51

6.8.2.2 Flood immunity

As identified for the EIS project, opportunities to improve existing flood impacts along the project alignment would be considered during detailed design.

Following additional investigations and concept design development, it was determined that the project would aim to achieve an immunity for a 0.05 EY flood event along the entire alignment. To achieve the required immunity, the preferred project includes raising the height of the alignment along Tramway Avenue by around half to one metre to the east of the intersection of Tramway Avenue and Arthur Street. This change removes the need for the flood storage area, noting that some minor regrading along sections of Arthur Street to provide a preferential overland flow path towards Clay Cliff Creek would still be required.

The removal of the flood storage area provides opportunity to create a landscaped space and active transport connection from Tramway Avenue to James Ruse Drive.

The improved flood immunity of this section of the project would result in an improvement from a 0.2 EY flood event immunity to a 0.05 EY flood event immunity, thereby ensuring operation of the project up to a 0.05 EY event.



Landscape impacts

During construction, the preferred project would result in a similar reduction in the quality of the Tramway Avenue precinct as the EIS project, due to the alterations to landscape character, legibility and accessibility.

When completed, the preferred project would have overall landscape benefits compared to the EIS project due to the side platforms and shared zone arrangement, which would result in improved accessibility for pedestrians between Arthur and Alfred Streets. However, the preferred project would have some adverse landscape impact compared to the EIS project due to the proposed changes in the vertical alignment, which would require the incorporation of some additional ramps, handrails, and sloped landscaped areas at the stop and along the alignment to ensure access for less mobile persons.

Overall, the landscape impacts of the preferred project would be consistent with the EIS project.

Impacts to views

There would be no anticipated change in visual impacts or views during construction as the tree impacts and extent of the disturbance footprint would be unchanged.

The preferred project would result in some minor increase in visual impact during operation as the vertical alignment of the light rail stop and canopies, and consequently the LRVs, would be raised up above the surrounding landscape. These elements would generally be in scale with the adjacent properties due to the wide corridor. There would be some visual benefit from the creation of a shared zone which would potentially have the amenity of a landscaped corridor.







The EIS project was assessed as having major impacts on significant archaeological resources related to the former tramline in this location.

The preferred project would not change the impacts to the potential remains of the former tramline as described in the EIS as the overall alignment of the light rail has not changed.

The works associated with raising the vertical alignment of the preferred project by around 0.6 metres and the addition of new shared zones are expected to primarily be aboveground works and would require little to no excavations in undisturbed areas. Furthermore, historical documentation indicates that there was little development around the shared zone until the 20th

century. Archaeological resources from this period are unlikely to reach the level of local significance. Overall, the preferred project would not result in any additional impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources compared to the EIS project.

Built heritage

Table 6.9 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the preferred project for Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity.

Table 6.9 Tramway Avenue stop configuration and flood immunity - changes in impact to built heritage


Resident flats and houses Parramatta LEP 2011 (I490)




The proposed project alignment would partially encroach on the heritage curtilage of the Resident Flats and Houses. This would not impact significant fabric, such as the houses. The proposed works would have a negligible direct impact to the Resident Flats and Houses.

The proposed project alignment and Alfred Street compound would be adjacent to the Resident Flats and Houses. This alignment would remain in keeping with the current views from the building which consist of a road and powerlines. This would result in a negligible visual impact. Alfred Street compound would result in a minor temporary visual impact. Overall, the proposed works would result in a negligible visual impact to Resident Flats and Houses.

Modelling indicates that the closest façade of this item would experience vibration levels above the screening level for cosmetic damage. Further assessment and management would be undertaken in accordance with management measures NV-1 and NV-7 (refer to Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures). Any other potential impacts would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a CEMP for the project as outlined in Chapter 8 (Revised environmental management measures) of this Submissions Report.




The proposed changes to the Tramway Avenue stop would be consistent with the impacts to Resident Flats and Houses assessed in the EIS.



6-53


Conceptual modelling of an elevated alignment through Tramway Avenue was undertaken in order to assess the feasibility of the proposed change. It was found that elevation of the alignment through Tramway Avenue would likely provide flood immunity for this section of the project for the 0.05 EY (or five per cent AEP/1 in 20 year) flood event.

Impacts were reviewed for a selection of events up the 0.01 EY (one per cent AEP/1 in 100 year) flood event. Results indicated that no adverse impact would occur within and outside the project disturbance footprint provided that the design included regrading of Arthur Street and regrading of the area between Arthur Street and Clay Cliff Creek. The extent of regrading required would be significantly less than that required for the detention storage proposed as part of the EIS project. Modelling also confirmed that surrounding roads would continue to be affected by flooding in the 0.2 EY event and beyond (i.e. no change to existing flood immunity).

Further urban design, alignment and flooding and drainage refinements would continue to be undertaken to further reduce potential flooding impacts during the detailed design (refer to management measure HY-3).

6.8.3.4 Noise and vibration impacts

The preferred project would not alter the construction noise and vibration impacts as assessed for the EIS project as the overall construction footprint would not change.

Similarly, the operational impacts would not be noticeably changed. The light rail tracks would be moved slightly closer together as a result of the removal of the island platform, and hence would be slightly further from the adjacent receivers; however, this would result in a negligible decrease in operational noise impacts since the speeds at the stop would be low.

The EIS project was predicted comply with the operational noise and vibration goals at this location except for two receivers along Tramway Avenue. The preferred project for the Tramway Avenue stop platform arrangement and light rail vertical alignment is not expected to result in an increase in impacts at these locations.


The preferred project for the Tramway Avenue stop would occur within the same footprint as the EIS footprint. There would not be any additional land use and property impacts as a result of the change.

6.8.3.6 Hazard and risk

The preferred project would provide hazard and risk improvements compared to the EIS project for both passengers accessing the stop and the public.

Section 10.13.3 of the EIS identified natural events (including flooding and extreme weather events) as one of the potential hazards and risks associated with the project. As described in section 6.8.3.3 above, the preferred project would result in an increase level of flood immunity along Tramway Avenue and would result in a reduced frequency that the light rail service would be potentially impacted by flooding. It is therefore considered that the reduction in potential flooding impacts along this section of the project alignment would result in a reduced potential risk for passengers and staff during operation of the light rail.

In addition, the removal of the flood storage area would also eliminate the potential public risk associated with this drainage structure.




With respect to the proposed change from an island platform to a side platform arrangement for the Tramway Avenue, side platform stops are also preferred from a safety perspective for pedestrians accessing the stops. The proposed side platform configuration would provide a more direct access to the stop from the adjacent footpath reducing the need to cross the light rail tracks (depending on direction of travel for passengers). The adjacent footpath to the platform would also provide room for additional passenger storage (should this be required).



6.9 James Ruse Drive bridge 6.9.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

The EIS project included the construction of a new bridge to span Clay Cliff Creek and James Ruse Drive between Albert Street (near the intersection of Tramway Avenue) and Grand Avenue North. The proposed bridge consisted of a curved deck on concrete piers supporting the two light rail tracks as well as an active transport link on the northern side of the bridge. The bridge would consist of around eight spans with a total length of about 240 metres and a maximum bridge height of around 10.5 metres (including anti-throw screens) above the existing surface level of James Ruse Drive.

The EIS project also included a centre-support pier within the James Ruse Drive median area with spans either site, maintaining the ability to retain the right turn from James Ruse Drive (northbound) into Grand Avenue North. The bridge was also designed to allow for any possible future upgrade (widening) to James Ruse Drive (by Roads and Maritime Services, outside the scope of the light rail project).

An indicative illustration of the proposed James Ruse Drive Bridge was shown in Figure 5.30 the project EIS.


As part of the ongoing concept design development and further consultation with Roads and Maritime Services during exhibition of the EIS, a review of the bridge design was undertaken. The review identified opportunities to reduce impacts on two key constraints which were associated with the EIS project, namely:

» Permanent property impacts on adjacent land, including land owned by the Australian Turf Club.

» Operational impacts to James Ruse Drive arising from the adoption of a centre-support pier.

To reduce potential property impacts and to minimise potential operational impacts to James Ruse Drive, the preferred project would include a single span bridge over James Ruse Drive. This would remove the need for the centre-support pier within the median of James Ruse Drive.

The overall alignment of the bridge would generally be the same as described for the EIS project, but would be raised around 0.6 metres to provide additional flood immunity within the Rosehill precinct (refer section 6.8). The preferred project would be contained within the same disturbance footprint identified for the EIS project.



6-55



For the construction phase, the preferred project would reduce the amount of construction works required within the James Ruse Drive road carriageway due to the removal of the central pier. This would reduce the need for temporary lane closures and lane adjustments required to facilitate construction, with an overall reduction to the construction impacts on local traffic compared to the EIS project.

During operation, the preferred project would avoid modification to James Ruse Drive and its intersections with Grand Avenue and River Road West. Consequently, the existing access arrangements for properties along Grand Avenue North would be maintained and the potential alternative access routes needed for the EIS project would no longer be required.


Landscape impacts

During construction, the visual impact of the preferred project would remain the same as the EIS project as the bridge would be in the same location and the disturbance footprint would be unchanged.

Impacts to views

The preferred project would result in some visual benefit compared to the EIS project for views from James Ruse Drive, adjacent footpaths and commercial properties where the bridge would be in the foreground and middle ground views. The benefit would be a result of no longer requiring the central pier within the James Ruse Drive median, resulting in less vertical structures when viewed from James Ruse Drive.

The preferred project would result in a minor increased visual impact to views where the bridge would be in the background, as the overall height of the structure would be slightly greater, with a resultant increase in the height of the LRVs, lighting, overhead lines and masts. The increased height of the bridge associated with the preferred project is not expected to result in any substantial change to the overshadowing compared to the assessment presented in section 14.7.2 of the EIS project.

The preferred project would not result in any perceived change in the night-time visual impact during construction and operation compared to EIS project.






The EIS project was assessed as having no impacts on significant archaeological resources in this location. The preferred project would generally keep the same alignment as the EIS design, however the bridge would be reduced from eight spans to one span, and the central pylon would be removed. These changes would result in a reduced amount of excavation, and therefore would have less potential to impact archaeological resources compared to the EIS project.

Built heritage

Table 6.10 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed design changes for James Ruse Drive bridge.

Table 6.10 James Ruse Drive bridge – Changes in impact to built heritage

PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IMPACTS IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF DESIGN CHANGE

Sewage Pumping Station 67 SHR (01643), Sydney Water s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Parramatta LEP 2011 (I01643)




The proposed project alignment would extend across the south section of the heritage curtilage of the Sewage Pumping Station 67. This section of the heritage item does not include buildings or elements of heritage significance. A mature tree would be impacted by the project alignment which would result in a minor impact to the landscape values of the item. There is no significant boundary fencing or hard landscape features in this section of the heritage item. The heritage curtilage of Sewage Pumping Station 67 would be slightly reduced in the south corner of the site by the project alignment. The proposed works would result in a minor direct impact to the Sewage Pumping Station 67.

The proposed project alignment would introduce a new visual element in the heritage curtilage of the Sewage Pumping Station 67. This would be located in the south section of the heritage curtilage. Significant views of the heritage item are available from the south corner looking north on the side façade of the pumping station building. The alignment along Grand Avenue would be keeping with the current views from the building towards the road.

The proposed new bridge across James Ruse Drive would be a new element in the vicinity of the Sewage Pumping Station 67, although it would not significantly alter significant view lines to the heritage item which would still be available from Grand Avenue. Overall, the proposed works and the more than minor impact on the tree would result in a minor visual impact to the heritage item.

It is unlikely that the works would result in a direct impact on the heritage item. Vibration levels would be under the cosmetic damage screening level. Any potential impact would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a CEMP for the project as outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.




The proposed changes would be consistent to the visual impact to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 assessed in the EIS. The proposed James Ruse Drive Bridge would continue to have a minor visual impact on the Sewage Pumping Station 67.



6-57


The proposed design change would not result in any additional land use or property impacts other than those shown in section 14.7 of the EIS as the overall footprint of the project would not change.


Minor changes to flood behaviour are anticipated as a result of the preferred project, in comparison to the EIS project due to the re-configuration of the proposed bridge piers. As the revised pier locations would continue to be located outside the Clay Cliff Creek main channel ‘floodway area’, it is unlikely that the changes would result in significant additional flood impacts compared with the EIS project. Consistent with the EIS project, the bridge would be designed such that the underside of the bridge would achieve a clearance of around 0.5 metres above the 1 in 100-year flood level in the creek.



6.10 Rosehill Gardens Racecourse pedestrian links 6.10.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

As part of the proposed closure of the existing T6 Carlingford Line north of Parramatta Road it was identified that the Rosehill Station would be closed. Under the EIS project Rosehill Gardens Racecourse would be serviced by the nearby Camellia stop, which would be located approximately 450 metres north of Rosehill Station and around 75 metres north of Rosehill Gardens Racecourse land boundary. The EIS project provided access by the use of existing pedestrian pathways between the Camellia stop, Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and the pedestrian crossing of Grand Avenue. The EIS indicated that Transport for NSW would continue consultation with the Australian Turf Club to discuss connectivity requirements at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse.


The preferred project would provide improved pedestrian access between the Camellia stop and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse by providing new and upgraded pedestrian paths along the existing T6 Carlingford Line corridor. Key features of the proposed new and upgraded pedestrian paths include:

» Provision of a new 3.6 metre, sealed footpath between Grand Avenue North to a new pedestrian crossing north of Rosehill Station.

» New pedestrian crossing and ramp between the western carpark and the northern end of the Rosehill Station platform.

» Retention of the existing Rosehill Station platform 1, including improved fencing to establish a new pathway from the entrance to the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and proposed pedestrian pathway.




The proposed footpath south of Grand Avenue North would generally be located along the alignment of the existing rail track. This would require the removal of around 350 metres of existing track, ballast and rail sleepers at this location between Grand Avenue North and Rosehill Station. This is in addition to the removal of the overhead rail systems associated with the decommissioning of T6 Carlingford Line (refer to section 6.13 of this Submissions Report – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Figure 6.20 provides an overview of the proposed additional footpaths south of the Camellia stop.

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.20 Proposed pedestrian path improvements between the Camellia Stop and Rosehill Gardens

Racecourse



6-59



The construction works associated with the new and upgraded pedestrian paths would generally be limited to minor earthworks and concrete works. Therefore, the preferred project would continue to have a negligible impact on the surrounding transport network in as was assessed for the EIS project.

Similar to the EIS project, vehicular and pedestrian access to the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse would be maintained during construction, with works to be completed on non-event days, where practical.

During operation, the pedestrian path upgrades would provide improved connectivity compared to the EIS project between the Camellia stop and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and encourage use of the project by visitors and staff to reduce the reliance on private vehicles for event access.


Landscape impacts

The preferred project would generally result in similar landscape impacts during construction as no additional trees would have a more than minor impact within the existing the rail corridor (refer to section 6.10.3.7).

When operational, the preferred project would result in some adverse landscape impact as the accessibility and legibility of the entry to the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse would be reduced with a more distant public transport arrival point at Camellia stop, and a longer route for pedestrians. There would be a noticeable reduction in the quality of the landscape of Rosehill Station, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in some minor adverse landscape impacts.

There would be no change in the landscape impact during construction or operation due to the removal of the track, ballast and rail sleepers.

Impacts to views

During construction, some visual impact to views from the Rosehill Racecourse would be experienced. There would be a noticeable reduction in the amenity of views surrounding Rosehill Station, which are of local sensitivity, resulting in a minor adverse impact during construction.

There would be no notable visual impacts during operation as the works would be minor in nature and visually integrated into this setting. There would be no perceived change in the amenity of views surrounding Rosehill Station, which are of local sensitivity, resulting in a negligible impact during operation.

Due to the brightly lit night scene in this area there would also be no additional night-time visual impacts during construction and operation compared to the impacts for the EIS project.






The previous project design for the proposed works in the vicinity of Rosehill Station was assessed as having no impacts on significant archaeological resources. The proposed additional works would typically consist of surface works, and would likely involve minimal excavation. Furthermore, these works would also primarily occur within an area that has been disturbed by the existing track. Therefore, these additional works are unlikely to impact on potential archaeological resources.

The proposed design changes would result in no additional impacts to potential archaeological resources.

Built heritage

Table 6.11 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed design changes for the Rosehill Station pedestrian links.

Table 6.11 Rosehill Station pedestrian links – changes in impact to built heritage

PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IMPACTS

IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF DESIGN CHANGE

Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register


Visual impact: Neutral

Potential indirect impact: Neutral

Assessment not undertaken as part of EIS – no works previously proposed in this corridor




The proposed changes to the Rosehill Station pedestrian links would include a new pedestrian crossing and ramp to the north of the Rosehill Station platform, and the retention of the existing Rosehill Station platform including improved fencing. The proposed changes would have a positive impact in allowing the Rosehill Railway Station footbridge to be continued to be used.

The proposed new pedestrian crossing and ramp would have a neutral visual impact on the Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge as it would be situated at a distance north of the station platform, and the proposed fencing on the platforms would not have a visual impact on the footbridge. The removal of the existing track, ballast, and rail sleepers would not impact on the footbridge. The removal of the overhead rail systems would not have a direct or visual impact on the Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge.

The current overhead wires at Rosehill Railway Station pass under and attach to the footbridge. The proposed design changes have the potential for indirect impacts to the footbridge due to works in proximity, although these would be mitigated by following the mitigation and management measures presented in the EIS (and consolidated in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).



6-61


Potential noise impacts

The assessment of the preferred project considered the construction scenarios outlined in Table 6.12. Construction of the pedestrian link is anticipated to likely require the use of a hydraulic breaker, small excavator, jackhammer, piling rig (bored), mobile crane, hand tools and concreting/pavement plant.

Table 6.12 Summary of airborne construction noise scenarios considered

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

LOCATIONS SCENARIOS SCENARIO SOUND POWER

LEVEL (DBA)

APPROXIMATE DURATION OF

WORKS

Pedestrian Footpath Construction

Along Pedestrian Link

Site Preparation 118 To be confirmed during detailed

design

Piling works 108

Delivery of pre-cast, assembly and installation of lighting

105

Pavement works 110

The noise impacts during the footpath construction works are expected to be limited to the residential receivers adjacent to the works across James Ruse Drive (nearest being around 65 metres away), together with some commercial buildings at Rosehill Racecourse. The predicted worst-case daytime noise impacts are shown in Table 6.13.

Table 6.13 Construction Noise Predictions – Daytime

SCENARIO NCA TYPE NOISE LEVEL – LAEQ(15MINUTE) (DBA)

WORST-CASE PREDICTED NML EXCEEDANCE

Pedestrian Footpath Construction

NCA12 Residential 61-74 56 Up to 18

Commercial 71-84 70 Up to 14

The predicted noise levels at the nearest receivers indicate the potential for moderate exceedances of the noise management levels during the works. The most noise intensive activity considered in the assessment is rock breaking (if required) during the site preparation works. The potential noise impact would be substantially lower when this noise intensive plant item is not in use.

However, as no construction works were assessed in the EIS along the Carlingford Line to the south of Grand Central Drive, the subject works anticipated to introduce some new impacts to receivers in this area compared to those presented in the EIS.

Vibration Impacts

The separation distances between the proposed works and the nearest receivers would generally be sufficient so that nearby buildings are unlikely to be at risk of ‘cosmetic damage’. However,




there is potential for rock breaking of the existing footpath to occur within around 20 metres of the commercial buildings at Rosehill Racecourse, which would be within the recommended safe working distances.

The required locations for vibration intensive equipment would be reviewed during detailed design when more information is available.

Noise and vibration mitigation and management measures for these works would include careful equipment selection and scheduling noise intensive work to less sensitive periods as much as possible, in consultation with Rosehill Racecourse. Attended monitoring may be required where impacts are anticipated to be high, consistent with mitigation and management measure NV-7 (refer to revised mitigation and management measure TT-25 in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).


The preferred project is anticipated to have minimal additional land use and property impacts in comparison to the EIS project. This area of land was included within the EIS project disturbance footprint however no works were previously proposed to occur in this location.

The additional area of land impacted is currently open space located within the existing rail corridor. The proposed construction of a new pedestrian footpath at this location would not substantially change the current use of this land.

6.10.3.6 Biodiversity

Minimal additional impact to biodiversity is anticipated as a result of the minimal level of clearing required to accommodate the design change. The preferred project may result in the clearing of a small amount of vegetation identified as Miscellaneous Ecosystem: Highly Disturbed Vegetation with no or limited native vegetation. This vegetation does not align to any recognised vegetation community in NSW due to the lack of native vegetation and degraded nature of the vegetation.

6.10.3.7 Trees

The construction of the new sealed footpath between Grand Avenue the northern end of Rosehill Station platform is not anticipated to result in any new more than minor tree impacts compared to the EIS project.

6.10.3.8 Waste and resources

The existing tracks, ballast and concrete sleepers to be removed to accommodate the pedestrian path would be recycled as part of the preferred project where possible, in line with the waste avoidance hierarchy identified in the EIS. Where existing track materials cannot be effectively or feasibly reused as part of the preferred project, these materials would be stockpiled within the remaining area of the corridor between Rosehill Station and Parramatta Road for possible future use by Sydney Trains. Where these materials are not proposed to be retained on-site, they would be disposed of in accordance with relevant waste classification guidelines to ensure the most appropriate disposal option (management measure WM-2).


No additional mitigation and management measures to those identified for the EIS project are proposed as a result of the preferred project. The existing mitigation and management measures are considered to be sufficient to manage the potential impacts of the design.



6-63

6.11 Dundas stop changes 6.11.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

For the EIS project, the Dundas stop was proposed to be located adjacent to the existing Dundas train station along the existing T6 Carlingford Line.

The proposed design of the stop allowed for two new side platforms to be built slightly north of, and separated from, the existing platform for Dundas Station. The arrangement of the stop also included a new pedestrian footpath adjacent to the project alignment to provide access to the existing pedestrian access between the rail corridor and Kissing Point Road as part of the active transport link. Footpath connections to the east were also proposed, similar to those provided for the current train station.

As part of the design, the existing station building and heritage aspects of the platform (listed as part of the Dundas Railway Station Group on the State Heritage Register) would be retained.

An indicative section for the previously proposed Dundas stop arrangement is shown in Figure 6.21.

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.21 Indicative section of the platform arrangement for Dundas Station as described in the EIS


Revised management and mitigation and management measure HE-19 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report) identified that during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Dundas Railway Station Group would be explored, including improving the interface design between the proposed light rail infrastructure and the existing heritage infrastructure. The measure also recommended that the potential adaptive re-use of original heritage infrastructure be considered as part of the light rail stop and any adaptive re-use be developed in consultation with a heritage architect.




In accordance with the identified mitigation and management measures, and as part of the ongoing concept design development of the project, Transport for NSW engaged a heritage architect to review the EIS project. Following this review, the design of the Dundas stop has been refined to allow for the adaptive re-use of original heritage infrastructure associated with the Dundas Station Group platforms and buildings.

To achieve the revised design, the existing station platform (eastern platform) would be lowered to its original height by removing the more recent surface which has been added to the heritage station platform to build up and extend the length of the platform to accommodate modern trains along the T6 Carlingford Line. This would potentially include resurfacing the original platform, depending on the condition once the more recent surface has been removed.

The track bed would then be filled with additional material to bring the light rail tracks to the correct level in relation to the original platform edge. This would be a relatively minor increase in fill compared to that previously proposed in the EIS design.

The proposed design change would be contained within the previously identified disturbance footprint identified for the EIS project.

An indicative plan for the revised Dundas stop is shown in Figure 6.22 with an indicative section shown in Figure 6.23.

Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.22 Indicative plan – Revised layout for Dundas Station platform arrangement



6-65


Figure 6.23 Indicative section – Revised layout for Dundas Station platform arrangement



Landscape impacts

The preferred project would result in an improved landscape impact during construction compared to the EIS project as the disturbance footprint would not extend as far to the west as the EIS Project.

The preferred project would also result in an improved landscape impact during operation as the existing heritage listed Dundas Station building would be retained and integrated in the new stop design, improving the legibility and accessibility of the stop. Overall, there would be a noticeable improvement in the landscape quality of Dundas station, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a minor beneficial landscape impact during operation. This represents an improved, positive impact compared to the assessment of the EIS project.

Impacts to views

The preferred project would result some minor privacy and landscape benefits during construction and operation, as the stop would be located slightly closer to the existing station buildings, away from the existing low density residential buildings to the west of the corridor.

The preferred project would reduce night-time visual impacts compared to the EIS project during construction and operation as night works and operations would not extend as far to the east, and there would be less impact on the elevated viewing locations within the medium density apartments to the south of the corridor.






The EIS project design for Dundas Station stop was assessed as having low potential to impact on significant archaeological resources. The preferred project design consists of lowering the station platform to the level of the original platform, and adding additional fill to the track bed to raise the light rail tracks to the correct level.

The lowering of the station platform has the potential to impact on archaeological remains of utilities located underneath the platform surface. However, the remains of these utilities would not reach the level of local significance. Raising the level of the light rail tracks would only involve the introduction of additional fill to the track bed, and would not require the excavation of the present surface.

The proposed design changes would therefore not result in additional impacts to potential significant archaeological resources, in comparison to those identified for the EIS project.

Built heritage

Table 6.14 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed design changes for the Dundas stop.

Table 6.14 Dundas stop changes - changes in impact to built heritage


Dundas Railway Station group SHR (1133), RailCorp s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Parramatta LEP 2011 (I01133)




The proposed project alignment would go through the curtilage of Dundas Railway Station Group. The proposed Dundas light rail stop would be located to the northwest of the current platform. The new alignment of the railway line would alter the original Simpson Railway line. The single track alignment of the Simpson Railway Line would be converted to double tracks. The current design proposes to retain the original 1896 platform of the station, pending detailed design. The platform is the only remaining original element of the station and its retention would result in a positive heritage outcome. The proposal would also retain the reconstructed station building, pending detailed design.




The proposed design changes would be beneficial in allowing the continued use of the original station platform for its original purpose.

The proposed project alignment would continue to go through the curtilage of Dundas Railway Station Group. The proposed Dundas light rail stop would utilise the existing station platform by lowering the platform to the original platform height by removing the more recent surface. The original single track alignment of the Simpson Railway Line would be converted to double tracks. The double track rail alignment would be raised and located along a similar alignment to the existing rail track. The significant station building would be retained.

The platform is the only remaining original element of the station and its retention and re-use would result in a positive heritage outcome. The shelter adjacent to the platform building would be removed, consistent with the EIS. This is not a significant element and its removal would result in opening up of setting and views of significant structures.



6-67


The shelter adjacent to the platform building would be removed. This is not a significant element and its removal would result in opening up of the setting and views of significant structures. The pedestrian crossing that provides access to the platform, which is rare in an operational railway line, would be altered for the new platform and project alignment. Mitigation and management measures would ensure direct impacts to moveable heritage are minimised. The proposed works would result in a moderate direct impact on Dundas Railway Station Group.

The proposed light rail stop to the north of the current platform would introduce a new element into the current landscape. Views from the current platform and station building would be altered to the north by the introduction of new platforms and stop fixtures. This view is currently of the railway line and residential houses with vegetation. Significant views of the reconstructed station building would still be available from the platform, northern entrance and southern entrance to the station. Pending detailed design, significant views of the original platform brick face from the northern entrance may be altered. The proposed works would result in a moderate visual impact on Dundas Railway Station Group.

There is potential for indirect impacts due to vibration and works taking place in proximity of the heritage item. Modelling indicates that the closest façade of this item would experience vibration levels above the screening level for cosmetic damage. Further assessment and management would be undertaken in accordance with management measures outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Depending on detailed design, Dundas Railway Station Group would continue to meet the threshold for State significance under the current proposal.

The pedestrian crossing that provides access to the platform, which is rare in an operational railway line, would be altered for the new platform and project alignment. Mitigation and management measures (as described in the EIS and consolidated in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report) would continue to ensure direct impacts to moveable heritage are minimised.

The design changes would have a positive outcome in comparison to the EIS by reusing the original 1896 platform for its original purpose and removing more recent fabric from the top of the platform. The introduction of new elements into the curtilage, changing the landscape of the heritage item, the change from single to double track, and the removal of the rare pedestrian crossing would result in a moderate direct impact on Dundas Railway Station Group.

Similar to the previously assessed impacts, views from the current platform and station building would be impacted by the introduction of new platforms and stop fixtures. This view is currently of the railway line and residential houses with vegetation. Significant views of the reconstructed station building would still be available from the platform, northern entrance and southern entrance to the station. New views would be introduced from the new northern platform and views from the east would be opened up with removal of the adjacent shelter. Significant views looking south-east of the original platform brick face would be altered due to the raised tracks screening views of the lower portion of the brick face. The removal of non-original fabric of the platform would be positive in allowing the original form of the platform to be visually appreciated. The introduction of new views within the station would have a positive outcome. The proposed introduction of new platforms and stop fixtures, and the raising of the tracks would result in a moderate visual impact on Dundas Railway Station Group.

There is potential for indirect impacts due to vibration and works to take place in proximity of the heritage item. These impacts would typically be consistent with the impacts identified previously as part of the EIS.

Dundas Railway Station Group would continue to meet the threshold for State significance under the current proposal as the significant original 1896 platform of the station would be retained and the station would continue in its original use as a transport hub.





The preferred project would not result in any additional land use or property impacts compared to the EIS project.

6.11.3.4 Privacy

Maintaining privacy of residences along the Carlingford corridor and at the proposed stops would be an important consideration for the urban design for the project. The preferred project would result in a slightly improved overall impact from a privacy perspective compared to the EIS project due to the location of the platform and tracks moving towards the east, further away from the existing low density residential dwellings located to the west of the existing rail corridor.



6.12 Active transport link changes 6.12.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

The primary active transport link proposed as part of the EIS project would be a new connection between Carlingford and Parramatta, generally following the alignment of the existing T6 Carlingford Line and utilising the proposed James Ruse Drive Bridge. The new active transport link would connect each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line and the Parramatta Valley Cycleway.

The active transport link as described for the EIS project also noted that crossings for pedestrians and cyclists would be provided at each of the proposed stops along the alignment.


Three main elements of the proposed active transport link have been identified for refinement following public exhibition of the EIS. These changes are described in the following sections.

6.12.2.1 Improved Western Sydney University access

As part of ongoing consultation, Western Sydney University identified the need to provide additional connection opportunities between the proposed Rydalmere stop location and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus. The opportunities identified by Western Sydney University include:

» Improving the ease of access between the active transport link and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.

» Improvement of passive surveillance and the visibility of the stop from the campus for the safety of university students accessing the campus from Rydalmere stop.



6-69

To respond to these opportunities, the preferred project within the vicinity of the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus provides for:

» Widening of the previously proposed active transport link section of the bridge over Vineyard Creek to connect the Rydalmere stop to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.

» Increasing the number of connection points from the active transport link to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus with an additional two connections points (compared to the connection points identified in the EIS).

» Increasing the width of the active transport link from 3.6 metres to around 5.0 metres between the Rydalmere stop and Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus, to cater for the expected higher pedestrian numbers in this area whilst also considering cyclists. The 5.0 metre pathway width would commence from the northern exit of the Rydalmere stop to the widened active transport link section of the bridge over Vineyard Creek.

The key benefits of the preferred project include:

» Improving student safety and access between the proposed Rydalmere stop and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus, without the need to construct an additional stop south of the currently proposed location.

» Increasing the active transport link width which would reduce potential conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists accessing the university and/or Rydalmere stop.

» Linking the new active transport link along the Carlingford Line to the existing Parramatta Valley Cycleway.

Figure 6.24 shows an indicative plan of the proposed design changes to the active transport link between the project and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.





Figure 6.24 Active transport link improvements to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus

6.12.2.2 Active transport connection at Dundas

As part of the ongoing design refinement of the project, and based on responses received from the community during exhibition of the EIS, an opportunity for an additional connection point to the proposed active transport link has been identified at Dundas. The connection point would include a short section of new active transport link between the existing shared path on southern side of Kissing Point Road and the proposed active transport link along the Carlingford corridor (refer to Figure 6.25).

The design of the active transport link would comply with access requirements for accessible access and provide for improved access to the Dundas stop from locations north and east of the Dundas stop.



6-71

Note: Design is indicative. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.25 Location and arrangement of new active transport link connection at Dundas

6.12.2.3 Active transport link extension at Carlingford

The EIS project provided an active transport link at the northern end of the project at the Carlingford stop. The EIS identified opportunities to enhance connectivity across the alignment within the Carlingford precinct. Based on the ongoing design refinement of the active transport link, an opportunity to provide an additional connection with the surrounding local road network has been identified.

To provide the additional connection, it is proposed that the active transport link would be extended to the north, within the existing rail corridor (and previously assessed project disturbance footprint), and connect with Boundary Road. This would result in around 250 metres of additional active transport link.

A figure showing an indicative alignment for the additional section of the active transport link is shown in Figure 6.26.




Note: Indicative design shown. Subject to detailed design. Figure 6.26 Location of proposed active transport link extension between Carlingford stop and

Boundary Street



6-73



Construction

The construction works associated with the preferred project active transport links, pedestrian paths and access points would generally be limited to earthworks and concrete work. Therefore, the work would likely result in a marginal increase in daily construction traffic volumes in the Carlingford precinct, with negligible impact on the surrounding transport network. Vehicular and pedestrian access near the construction works would generally be maintained during construction, with localised alternative access routes provided, if required.

Operation

Overall, the proposed changes would provide a series of benefits. These would include:

» Wider active transport links between Rydalmere stop and the pedestrian bridge, over Vineyard Creek.

» Additional connection points near the library building.

» Improved access between the Rydalmere stop and the university campus and improved pedestrian permeability.

» Improved passive surveillance and overall visibility of the stop and active transport link.

Additional details are provided in the following sections.

Improved Western Sydney University access

The proposed active transport connection at Rydalmere would be expected to have minimal traffic and transport impacts during construction in comparison to the impacts for the EIS project.

During operation, the wider active transport link between the Rydalmere stop and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus would accommodate safer pedestrian and cyclist movements, with a reduced likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist conflicts. It would also allow for future growth in light rail patronage and active transport link users.

The widening of the Vineyard Creek bridge crossing would improve connectivity between the Rydalmere stop and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus by providing a more direct link. Similarly, the additional pedestrian access points south of the Rydalmere stop, via the active transport link, would accommodate direct access to key locations within the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.

Collectively, the preferred project would improve pedestrian access and amenity for the local area and encourage use of the light rail and active transport link for staff, students and visitors to the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.




Active transport connection at Dundas

The proposed active transport connection at Dundas associated with the preferred project would be expected to have minimal traffic and transport impacts during construction in comparison to the EIS project.

The provision of a pedestrian and cyclist connection from the active transport link at the Dundas light rail stop immediately south of Kissing Point Road to the existing active transport link on the eastern side of the light rail alignment would provide improved access for local residents and pedestrians and cyclists accessing the light rail stop from the east. This extended active transport link would improve accessibility between the Dundas light rail stop to encourage light rail and active transport link use.

Active Transport Link at Carlingford

The proposed active transport connection at Carlingford would be expected to have minimal traffic and transport impacts during construction in comparison to the EIS project.

Extension of the active transport link to Boundary Road, north of the Carlingford stop would improve the local pedestrian and cyclist network near the Carlingford stop by replacing an existing narrow shared path that connects the Carlingford Railway Station with Boundary Road.

The extended active transport link would improve accessibility between the Carlingford stop and the surrounding growing residential population, therefore encouraging light rail use and active transport facility use.


Landscape impacts

The preferred project would result in some increased adverse landscape impacts during construction compared to the EIS project. These proposed additional vegetation impacts are to accommodate construction of a wider active transport link, the Vineyard Creek pedestrian and cycle bridge crossing and the additional active transport link to the north of Dundas stop. Overall, there would continue to be a noticeable reduction in the landscape quality of the rail corridor vegetation, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a minor adverse landscape impact during construction. This impact would be consistent with the impact as assessed for the EIS project.

During operation, there would be minimal change to the previously impacts identified in the EIS as a result of the preferred project. Overall, the proposed changes to the active transport link at Carlingford are also not expected to result in any substantial changes to the landscape impacts assessed as part of the EIS project.

Impacts to views

With respect to impacts to views along the project alignment, the preferred project would result in some increased visual impact compared to the EIS project as the removal of vegetation near the Vineyard Creek pedestrian bridge and for the widening of the active transport link would reduce filtering of the alignment, and reduce the amenity of areas to the west of the rail corridor.



6-75

Overall, the visual impact would be consistent with the impact identified for the EIS project.

The proposed changes to the active transport link at Carlingford are also not expected to result in any substantial changes to the viewpoint impacts assessed as part of the EIS.

The preferred project would not result in any perceived change in the night-time visual impact during construction and operation compared to the impacts assessed for the EIS project.

6.12.3.3 Built non-Aboriginal Heritage


The proposed works near Western Sydney University were assessed for the EIS project as having the potential to impact archaeological resources depending on the location and extent of the proposed excavation works. The preferred project consists of widening the previously proposed pedestrian bridge over Vineyard Creek, increasing the width of the previously proposed active transport link, and adding new connection points to the active transport link.

The construction of the pedestrian bridge over Vineyard Creek was assessed in the EIS, and would include excavation for piles for the bridge to be driven around 10 meters. The proposed footbridge for the preferred project would be located further to the south of the expected location of the former c. 1896 Rydalmere Railway Station (west side of the tracks). This area was assessed as having nil to low potential to contain archaeological resources associated with the 19th century agricultural development of the area. Therefore, the excavations for the preferred project are not expected to impact any significant archaeological resources.

The proposed widening of the active transport link and new connection points works are expected to be surface works, requiring little to no excavation. As a result, they are not expected to have additional impacts to archaeological resources.

The preferred project changes for the active transport link extension at Carlingford Station would consist of surface works, requiring little to no excavation and would be located within the extent of the previous project disturbance footprint. As a result, the preferred project is not expected to result in any additional impacts to archaeological resources. Similarly, the proposed works at Dundas are not expected to result in additional impacts to archaeological resources.

Overall, the proposed design changes would result in no additional impacts to potential significant archaeological resources.

Built heritage

Table 6.15 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed active transport link changes.




Table 6.15 Active transport link changes - changes in impact to built heritage


Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former) SHR (00749), University of Western Sydney s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Department of Health s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Parramatta LEP 2011 (I00749)

Direct impact: Minor Visual impact: Minor (temporary) Potential indirect impact: Minor The 2014 Master Plan identifies the area to be used for the Parramatta River bridge (north) compound as a landscape of high significance, and the area for the Vineyard Creek compound as a landscape of moderate significance.

An external heritage view line crosses over the proposed site of the Parramatta River bridge (north) compound. The small building on the south-eastern corner of Parramatta River bridge (north) compound is the Pump House not significant as it is part of the University of Western Sydney (Parramatta) campus phase of buildings since 1993.

Direct impact: Minor Visual impact: Minor Potential indirect impact: Minor

The proposed transport link changes would occur within the heritage curtilage of Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former) in open grassed areas, although significant heritage fabric would not be impacted.

Parramatta River bridge (north) compound is located within the Institutional Complex conservation area 1 on the Landscape Management Plan, and Vineyard Creek compound is within Vineyard Creek conservation area 3 on the Landscape Management Plan. The proposed Parramatta River bridge (north) compound and Vineyard Creek compound would be located within the heritage curtilage of Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. This would be a temporary site during the construction of the project used for site offices and compounds. The site would utilise a grassed area for Parramatta River bridge (north) compound and for the Vineyard Creek compound. This would result in a minor direct impact to Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. The proposed Parramatta River bridge (north) compound and Vineyard Creek compound would be visible during the construction of the project. This would result in a minor temporary visual impact to Rydalmere Hospital Precinct.

The proposed works would have a potential indirect impact to tree root systems and tree branches through works in proximity. Vibration levels would be under the cosmetic damage screening level.

The proposed changes to the active transport links would be minor in nature and not impact significant views of Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former). Potential indirect impacts to trees would be mitigated by following mitigation and management measures presented in the EIS (and consolidated in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).



6-77


Carlingford Stock Feeds (Carlingford Produce Store) RailCorp s170 Heritage and Conservation Register, The Hills LEP 2012 (I46)

Direct impact: Minor Visual impact: Minor Potential indirect impact: Minor The proposed project alignment, Carlingford light rail stop, and Pennant Hills Road compound and Carlingford compound are located within the heritage curtilage of Carlingford Stock Feeds. The proposed project alignment would be located in the current railway corridor near Carlingford Station and would not impact significant heritage fabric associated with the Carlingford Stock Feeds. Similarly, the compounds would not impact significant heritage fabric and would result in a negligible direct impact on the Carlingford Stock Feeds. The proposed Carlingford light rail stop would result in the removal of the existing platform building and the station platform which are not of heritage significance. Provided that mitigation and management measures are followed, the project would result in a minor impact on the heritage item overall. The proposed stop would introduce a new element in the visual landscape of the Carlingford Stock Feeds. The design of the proposed light rail stop would use modern materials and remain visually unobtrusive. It would not significantly impact on views to and from the Carlingford Stock Feeds. The proposed Carlingford light rail stop would be in keeping with the current use of the line as a mode of rail transport. The construction compounds would result in a minor temporary visual impact to Carlingford Stock Feeds. Overall, the proposed works would result in a minor visual impact to Carlingford Stock Feeds.

There is potential for indirect impacts due to vibration and works to take place in proximity of the heritage item. Modelling indicates that the closest façade of this item would experience vibration levels above the screening level for cosmetic damage. Further assessment and management would be undertaken in accordance with management measures outlined in the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Direct impact: Minor Visual impact: Minor Potential indirect impact: Minor

The proposed active transport link extension at Carlingford would extend around 250 metres north of the EIS design. This would occur within the heritage curtilage of Carlingford Stock Feeds (Carlingford Produce Store), although no significant heritage fabric would be impacted. The proposed extension would not impact significant views of Carlingford Stock Feeds, and would introduce new viewing areas for the public.

6.12.3.4 Aboriginal heritage

The preferred project would include works outside of the EIS project disturbance corridor, including the two additional connection points, and the revised pedestrian bridge over Vineyard Creek and the additional access location to the north of Dundas stop.

The additional connection points south of the Rydalmere stop would be located in a highly modified environment, being positioned between the existing rail corridor and the landscaped grounds of the campus. Similarly, the proposed connection to the Dundas stop would be in a




modified environment between Station Street and Kissing Point Road. These areas exhibit high levels of both surface and subsurface disturbance with little to no potential for Aboriginal archaeology.

The widened pedestrian bridge over Vineyard Creek would be located in a low-lying floodplain. Previous assessments have demonstrated that greater archaeological potential in the Parramatta area is present on elevated terrace landforms along the river, particularly those associated with the Parramatta Sand Body. The proposed location of the pedestrian bridge does not display any archaeological sensitivity and would be unlikely to contain intact Aboriginal archaeological deposit in comparison to that assessed in the EIS.

Overall, no impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage significance have been identified as a result of the proposed design changes to the active transport link. The preferred project is therefore considered to be consistent with the Aboriginal heritage assessment presented for the EIS project.


At both Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus and Boundary Road (north of Carlingford stop), the impacts of the proposed design refinements to the active transport link are anticipated to be consistent with the predicted construction noise levels in the EIS, as the overall construction footprint would be the same (with the exception of an additional area at the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus).

The EIS identified receivers which were likely to be Highly Noise Affected from the proposed construction works. No additional receivers are predicted as a result of the preferred project compared with EIS.


The preferred project is anticipated to have minimal additional land use and property impacts in comparison to the EIS project. A minor amount of additional land would be required within the Western Sydney University (Parramatta Campus) site at Rydalmere to accommodate the proposed additional active transport link connection.


The preferred project would result in some additional flooding impacts compared to the EIS Project.

Western Sydney University access

The active transport link bridge over Vineyard Creek associated with the preferred project would likely have some impact on flooding behaviour through Vineyard Creek upstream of the proposed crossing. The preferred project would include one row of additional piers in line with the existing piers (in comparison to the EIS project). The Vineyard Creek bridge would, however, be designed with a similar height to the EIS project, minimising potential changes to the flooding impacts compared to those assessed as part of the EIS.

Overall, the bridge structure for the preferred project would result in a minor increase in impacts on flood behaviour compared to the EIS project, for events greater than, and including, the 0.05 EY flood event. As was identified for the EIS project, further flood modelling would be undertaken during detailed design to confirm the impacts of the proposed Vineyard Creek Bridge on flood behaviour. In line with the existing mitigation and management measures, the bridge would be designed such that there would be no worsening of peak flood levels upstream of the proposed structure compared to the existing case.



6-79

Active transport connection at Dundas

The proposed works provide an additional connection to the proposed active transport link at Dundas is not anticipated to have any additional hydrology or flooding impacts compared to those assessed in the EIS.

Active Transport Link extension at Carlingford

Where the extension of the active transport link necessitates widening of the existing embankment, there may be some additional impact on flooding behaviour on the eastern side of the existing railway embankment. This area is currently a flood detention area. Widening of the existing embankment may reduce the overall volume of storage available and potentially increase local flood levels at this location.

As identified for the EIS project, further flood modelling would be required to confirm the impacts of the project (including the proposed extension to the active transport link at Carlingford) compared to existing conditions, and if required to mitigate the identified impacts.

6.12.3.8 Biodiversity

The preferred project would require the additional clearing of a small area of vegetation identified as Miscellaneous Ecosystem: Highly Disturbed Vegetation with no or limited native vegetation. This vegetation does not align to any recognised vegetation community in NSW due to the limited native vegetation and degraded nature of the vegetation.

6.12.3.9 Trees

The proposed active transport link changes at Rydalmere and Dundas are not anticipated to result in any new more than minor tree impacts compared to the EIS project. It is considered that the proposed active transport link can be designed to minimise potential impacts to existing trees.

6.12.3.10 Hazard and risk

The preferred project would result in an overall benefit to the students of Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus compared to the EIS project. This is a result of improving the connection between the university campus and the active transport link in addition increasing the passive surveillance to and from the stop (through the removal of some of the identified trees).






6.13 Carlingford rail line decommissioning 6.13.1 Description of the Environmental Impact Statement design

As part of the project, the T6 Carlingford Line between (south of) Parramatta Road and Carlingford would be closed in accordance with Transport Administration Act 1988. This would include the removal of rail assets at the existing Parramatta Road level crossing such as signalling and boom gates (excluding tracks), and installing gates to restrict entry to the rail corridor.

Further to this, it was also noted in the EIS that as part of the ongoing development of the project, consideration was being given to whether the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line between Camellia (south of Grand Avenue North) and south of Parramatta Road would also include the removal of the existing rail infrastructure (such as overhead wiring, tracks, the station platform associated with Rosehill Station, etc.) pending further investigation during design development. As identified in section 6.11 of this Submissions Report, is it now proposed to remove the existing track between Grand Avenue North and the northern end of Rosehill Station to accommodate an additional pedestrian path.


Following ongoing consultation with Transport for NSW the preferred project now includes the removal of the existing overhead rail systems within the existing Carlingford Line corridor between the proposed Camellia stop and Parramatta Road. The intention is to make it safe for construction workers throughout the construction period for the project. The removal of the overhead rail systems would include removal of the following infrastructure elements from the existing Carlingford Line corridor:

» All overhead wiring.

» Communications infrastructure.

» Existing heavy rail signalling infrastructure.

The removal of the existing overhead rail systems would include the following typical activities (subject to development of a detailed construction methodology):

» Disconnection of the infrastructure from the existing Sydney Trains network.

» Removal of the overhead wiring and associated cabling.

» Collection of overhead wiring and associated cabling and removal for recycling or general waste disposal.

» Removal of existing overhead wiring structures.

As part of the proposed works, the existing platforms associated with the Rosehill Station and pedestrian bridge to the south of Rosehill Station would be retained, as described in section 6.10.

As discussed in section 14.7.3.2 of the EIS, following the completion of works within the corridor, this section of the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP).



6-81



The removal of the existing overhead rail systems within the Carlingford Line corridor would likely result in a marginal increase in daily construction traffic volumes in the Camellia precinct, with negligible impact on the surrounding transport network. Removal of the existing overhead rail systems within the Carlingford Line corridor would not present any adverse operational traffic and transport impact.


Landscape impacts

The preferred project would result in an overall benefit to the existing landscape character impact during operation with the removal of heavy rail overhead wiring and masts, communications and signalling infrastructure. Overall, there would be no perceived change in the landscape quality of the decommissioned rail corridor, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a negligible landscape impact during construction.

Impacts to views

Where the existing rail corridor is visible from adjacent roads and commercial areas, there would be some visible decommissioning activity during construction, which would create a minor reduction in visual amenity. This would include glimpses through vegetation from James Ruse Drive and Unwin Street, glimpses along the corridor where it intersects Parramatta Road, and views from adjacent commercial properties. Overall, there would be no perceived change in the amenity of views to the decommissioned rail corridor, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a negligible impact during construction.

Visual amenity would be improved during operation with the removal of vertical overhead wiring and masts and other infrastructure, reducing clutter in views from adjacent properties and roads. Overall, there would be no perceived change in the amenity of views to the decommissioned rail corridor, which is of local sensitivity, resulting in a negligible impact during operation.

The proposed design change would also not result be expected to result in any perceived night-time visual impacts during construction and operation.


Potential Noise Impacts

The assessment has considered the construction scenarios outlined in Table 6.16. Removal of the infrastructure elements is anticipated to require the use of an elevated work platform, crane(s) mechanised track removal plant and hand tools. Equipment related to removal of the existing track would likely use an excavator, mobile crane, rail saw and crane.




Table 6.16 Summary of Airborne Construction Noise Scenarios Considered

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

LOCATIONS SCENARIOS SCENARIO SOUND POWER LEVEL (DBA)

APPROXIMATE DURATION OF

WORKS

Carlingford Line Decommissioning

Along Carlingford Line Decommissioning 102 To be confirmed

during detailed design

Between Grand Avenue North and Rosehill Station.

Existing Track Removal

114

The noise impacts during the decommissioning works are expected to be limited to residential receivers adjacent to the works across James Ruse Drive (typically around 50 metres away), together with some commercial buildings at Rosehill Racecourse. The predicted worst-case daytime noise impacts are shown in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17 Construction Noise Predictions – Daytime

SCENARIO NCA TYPE NOISE LEVEL – LAEQ(15MINUTE) (DBA)

WORST-CASE PREDICTED

NML EXCEEDANCE

Carlingford Line Decommissioning

NCA12 Residential 60 56 4

Commercial 64 70 -

Existing Track Removal NCA12 Residential 72 56 16

Commercial 76 70 6

The predicted noise levels at the nearest receivers indicate the potential for minor exceedances of the NMLs during the works.

As no construction works were assessed in the EIS along the Carlingford Line to the south of Grand Avenue, these additional works are anticipated to introduce new impacts to receivers in this area over those presented in the EIS.

The mitigation and management measures detailed in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report are considered to be sufficient to manage these impacts.

Vibration impacts

The separation distances between the proposed works and the nearest receivers would generally be sufficient so that nearby buildings are unlikely to be at risk of ‘cosmetic damage’ for the proposed construction equipment.



6-83



The proposed works along the Carlingford Line associated with the EIS project were assessed as having no impacts on significant archaeological resources (no previous works proposed). The proposed additional works are all expected to be surface works, and would likely involve minimal excavation. Where excavation is required, they would only be in previously impacted areas around the existing infrastructure. Therefore, these additional works are unlikely to impact on potential archaeological resources compared to the EIS project.

Built heritage

Table 6.18 presents the changes in impact for built heritage for the proposed Carlingford rail line decommissioning.

Table 6.18 Carlingford rail line decommissioning - changes in impact to built heritage



Carlingford Rail Line (unlisted)




Potential indirect impact: Neutral

The Carlingford Rail Line was constructed as a private railway owned by Benjamin Christian Simpson. Simpson’s Railway Act was passed in 1893 which authorised the construction of the private railway from Rosehill to Dural. The line between Rosehill and Carlingford opened in 1896, and progress of the line further north of Carlingford never proceeded. This railway connected to Bennett’s Railway which ran from Clyde to Rosehill and was constructed in 1888.

There are five listed heritage items along the Carlingford Rail Line of both local and state significance: Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge, Camellia Underbridge abutments, Dundas Railway Station Group, and Carlingford Stock Feeds.

Although the Carlingford Rail Line is not a listed heritage item, the line does have historical associations with the construction of a private railway under the Simpson’s Railway Act, and the line continues to be serviced as a single track line for much of its length.

The decommissioning of the line between Grand Avenue North and Parramatta Road would result in the original Bennet’s Railway alignment ceasing to operate. The original Simpson’s Railway would cease to operate between Rosehill and Camellia, and would be upgraded to double tracks between Camellia and Carlingford (as part of the project). The upgrading of the Carlingford Line between Camellia and Carlingford would be a positive outcome, allowing more people to use the line as the area develops, and allowing an opportunity for heritage interpretation.






Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge (RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register)





The current overhead wires at Rosehill Railway Station pass under and attach to the footbridge. The proposed removal of the overhead wires would not have a direct or visual impact on the Rosehill Railway Station Footbridge. The proposed design changes have the potential for indirect impacts to the footbridge due to works in proximity, although these would be mitigated by following mitigation and management measures presented in the EIS (and consolidated in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).



Additional investigations and clarification to the Environmental Impact Statement


7-1

7 Additional investigations and clarification to the Environmental Impact Statement

This section documents additional investigations that have been undertaken since the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement. This section also provides clarifications to the Environmental Impact Statement in response to feedback received from the community and other stakeholders during the exhibition period.

7.1 Urban design requirements To achieve a high level of urban design excellence for the project, the EIS identified that an Urban Design Requirements handbook was being prepared by Transport for NSW. This document has continued to be developed since the public exhibition of the EIS including ongoing collaboration with Council, relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders.

An overview of the key elements of the Parramatta Light Rail Urban Design Requirements handbook is provided below.

7.1.1 Purpose of the document

The project has developed site specific Urban Design Requirements in consultation with key stakeholders. The Urban Design Requirements aim to balance engineering, traffic and project constraints. As more design work is completed, further opportunities to improve urban design responses may be identified.

Overall, the purpose of the Urban Design Requirements handbook is to provide a strategic framework that will guide the delivery of the project, establish urban design excellence, and reinforce its vision and objectives. The Urban Design Requirements establishes the principles, objectives and design responses to achieve design excellence for the project. The document:

» Establishes a clear expectation for consistent high quality urban design for the project.

» Establishes design objectives and principles for the project at a range of scales, from urban precincts to system elements.

» Defines the project alignment, stop locations and scope.

» Identifies the role of project elements, urban infrastructure and streetscape elements in contributing to public domain objectives.

» Establishes an agreed basis to further develop design.

» Outlines design and functional requirements to inform project procurement specifications.

Additional investigations and clarification to the

Environmental Impact Statement



7.1.2 Structure of the Urban Design Requirements document

The Urban Design Requirements is divided into three key sections, increasing in detail from the city, down to the precinct, the street and to the individual stop level design. These three sections comprise:

» Overview – The first section places the project into Greater Parramatta, its evolving vision, current and future city scale projects and significant developments. It defines the project’s overall corridor design strategy, describes and responds to landscape settings, urban contexts, corridor wide transport networks and catchments.

» Precinct and corridor wide design – The second section defines specific precincts along the route, based on character and use. These precincts are not identical to those identified in the EIS, and while there is substantial overlap in some instances different precinct boundaries are identified. Each precinct includes a sequence overview, vision, pedestrian catchments and movements, urban design and landscape principles and public domain design.

» Each Precinct section defines the proposed character, customer experience, including stop information, and details how the light rail integrates with the street and public domain. Stop plans describe key characteristics, and typical arrangements, as well as special conditions.

» Design and operational requirements – There are many elements along the light rail corridor that have design and operational impacts. The final section includes designs and principles for corridor wide public domain design and stop elements, including:

• Public domain design.

• Stop design and materials.

• Wayfinding.

• Lighting.

• Corridor, fencing and special safety requirements.

7.1.3 Strategic objectives

The project would demonstrate an elegant integration of transport infrastructure into the public domain of Greater Parramatta. It would contribute to the quality of the urban environment, facilitate the delivery of a high quality public domain, and improve connections at stops and interchanges across and along the corridor. To achieve this, a series of key strategic objectives for the Urban Design Requirements handbook have been developed. These objectives are to:

» Welcome Light Rail – To create an attractive and reliable light rail that is easy for customers to use, connects multiple transport modes, serves different journeys, and links employment, cultural, educational, health and sporting precincts with existing and new communities.

» Shape the City – To support Greater Parramatta as a 21st century city with transport capacity to attract new investment and economic development, and catalyse sustainable growth of its CBD, emerging centres, precincts and local hubs.

» Put People First – To design for the human scale, and enhance everyday urban experiences, comfort and safety.

» Celebrate Place – To create attractive and memorable public spaces and streets that reflect the local setting, cultural richness and landscape character of Greater Parramatta.

» Build a resilient City – To ensure a light rail that is environmentally responsive, and supports the sustainable growth and vitality of Greater Parramatta into the future.



7-3

7.1.4 Place making outcomes

The project would also provide links to places of change, growth and renewal within the Greater Parramatta area. To achieve an appropriate urban design, a number of key place making objectives have also been developed to support the strategic objectives identified above. These objectives are to:

» Deliver a high quality public domain that integrates with urban centres along the corridor.

» Build on the existing character and commercial success of Parramatta’s Eat Street. Centrally locate the light rail stop and complement it with increased pedestrian space, new paving and street tree planting along the corridor.

» Reinforce pedestrian spaces and activate the Parramatta CBD by providing a light rail stop in Macquarie Street that will link to and complement the heavy rail station, Parramatta Square, the proposed Civic Link and the Parramatta River.

» Renew Hawkesbury Road as an accessible, shaded and legible gateway and street address for the rapidly expanding Westmead Health and Education Precinct.

» Enhance pedestrian permeability with new or upgraded connections across the T6 Carlingford Line at Rydalmere, Dundas, Telopea and Carlingford, as well as a grade-separated pedestrian link over James Ruse Drive to the Camellia town centre.

» Contribute to the health, liveability and transport choice of communities by providing six kilometres of dedicated active transport links, connecting to major regional cycle routes such as the Parramatta Valley Cycleway and major public open spaces.

» Upgrade landscaping and provide new tree canopy to benefit neighbourhoods adjoining the corridor between Carlingford and Camellia.

To achieve urban design excellence, the project is working closely with the Council, and other stakeholders, to ensure a holistic design. The Urban Design Requirements handbook is anticipated to be completed in early to mid-2018.

7.1.5 Alignment urban design and landscape principles

The project will apply the following urban design and landscape principles to the alignment which will integrate with the existing and future plans for the precincts and support and enable growth and development along the light rail corridor.

Pedestrian amenity

» Provide a legible and attractive public domain through selection of a simple palette of high-quality, durable, natural materials and furniture elements.

» Create safe, attractive and accessible public domain around the project stops with high quality street furniture, lighting and signage which considers universal access and encourages good pedestrian permeability wherever possible.

» Provide generous and clear footpaths, widened pedestrian crossings and coordinated traffic signalling that will safely accommodate the high pedestrian numbers that are predicted to increase in the future with new development and correspond with light rail stops and bus interchanges.

» Where feasible, limit street clutter (furniture, signage and line marking) to improve public domain legibility and sight lines to maximise pedestrian movement and maintain the visual integrity of the street.

» Provide seamless finishes with the urban fabric to minimise the impact of the light rail.





» Create a streetscape arrangement that is consistent, simple and responds to location specific constraints and influences.

» Clearly delineate and contrast materials between track and pedestrian areas whilst minimising barriers.

» Create an urban environment that is respectful of the prevailing heritage context including buildings, statues and bridges.

» Design a people-focused public space around the light rail stop and encourage active frontages to provide a safe, vibrant and attractive pedestrian environment.

» Design for material durability, ease of maintenance and resistance to vandalism and graffiti.

» Consider the integration of public art, seating and landscaping.

» Ensure pedestrian safety by maintaining sight lines around the proposed stops and junctions.

» Coordinate design of the stops and public domain to deliver high pedestrian amenity, improve connectivity and support the local centres.

» Coordinate the refined landscape and urban design with precinct master plans.

Transport

» Provide convenient and direct customer access to light rail services and related public transport modes.

» Coordinate the design and location of light rail stops, light rail vertical elements, street furniture, lighting and street trees to minimise clutter in the public domain and maintain sight lines.

» Ensure light rail stops integrate effectively and seamlessly with surrounding public domain.

» Design light rail stops to be safe, well-lit, accessible and comfortable with clear sight lines to promote a high degree of safety and surveillance.

» Provide high quality, safe and legible connections from light rail stops to the active transport link, ‘kiss and ride’ and ‘park and ride’.

Active transport

» Integrate light rail stops with the City of Parramatta’s existing and proposed cycle paths.

» Provide bicycle racks and associated infrastructure to support the use of active transport.

» Integrate the active transport links with stops and provide adequate infrastructure to encourage transport choice.

» Create connections throughout the precinct to provide links to the active transport link and surrounding suburbs.

Landscape

» Utilise planting to provide screening and safety buffers.

» Utilise WSUD in verges and to improve catchment and waterway health management, where appropriate.

» Coordinate utilities and services to maximise landscape and street tree planting.

» Use low planting to soften the streetscapes and reduce stormwater runoff.

» Retain existing mature trees where possible and celebrate heritage landscapes.

» Preserve and protect sensitive vegetation along the river banks.



7-5

» Use planting to minimise conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and light rail.

» Select tree species that will provide high levels of shade to improve pedestrian amenity and of a proportion appropriate to proposed scale of the street.

» Retain existing street trees and plant new street trees to enhance the continuity of landscaping where possible. Ensure sight lines, regulations and utility requirements are considered for new plantings.

» Provide high-quality landscape and shade trees around light rail stops.

» Plan for substantial tree planting and other green elements throughout to reduce the heat island effect.

» Coordinate landscape plan with the precinct master plans where practical.

» Where the light rail and active transport link run parallel to existing streets, integrate the landscape to create a cohesive movement corridor and streetscape.

» Retain and supplement the vegetation along the corridor to screen and visually integrate the project with the surrounding area, including sensitive ecological communities.

» Landscape design to ensure sight lines are maintained along the corridor at stops and at crossings.

» Landscape design to define the light rail corridor, provide local character, and amenity along the active transport link.

» Integrate lighting within the landscape design along the corridor.

7.1.6 Precinct urban design and landscape principles

As outlined in Section 7.1.2 of this report, the precinct boundaries used in the EIS and this report are not identical to those used in the Urban Design Requirements. While the precincts used in the EIS were developed based on more varied considerations, the Urban Design Requirements precincts were selected based on landscape character and use. The following principles are based on the precincts used in the Urban Design Requirements, which substantially overlap with the EIS precincts however in some instances different precinct boundaries are used or two distinct character areas are defined within the one precinct.

7.1.6.1 Westmead

Hawkesbury Road will be a vibrant corridor with high quality public domain provision. Lying between a medium-rise residential community to the east, and a vast and expanding health precinct to the north and west, Hawkesbury Road provides important vehicle and pedestrian connections to key health and education destinations. It also provides a connection via Queens Road to the World Heritage listed Parramatta Park. An avenue of street trees and landscaped spaces will contribute significantly to amenity for residents and those working at and visiting the hospital.

The urban design strategy for this precinct focuses on a coordinated approach with Health NSW and the City of Parramatta to ensure Hawkesbury Road becomes a well-connected, safe and revitalised street. The strategy seeks to improve pedestrian amenity and provide high quality and sustainable public domain outcomes. These interventions will support Westmead in becoming the premier health precinct in Australia.





Westmead precinct design principles

» Create a pedestrian-friendly, shaded street with safe connections between the light rail stops and the key destinations of Westmead Hospital, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Western Sydney University and Parramatta Park.

» Deliver a transport interchange that is a gateway to Westmead and emphasises multimodal legibility, safety, connectivity and accessibility between Westmead Station, the light rail terminus and T-Way bus stops.

» Support bicycle and pedestrian connections to Parramatta North and beyond through the provision of a separated active transport link adjacent to the light rail from Hainsworth Street along Bridge Road and facilitating a safe crossing point over Hawkesbury Road.

» Create a strong and consistent landscape character with street tree planting on both sides of Hawkesbury Road.

» Integrate the design of the public domain with adjacent open spaces, including the planned Westmead Hospital Entry Plaza and the Children’s Hospital at Westmead forecourt.

7.1.6.2 Parramatta North

Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area

The Parramatta Light Rail urban design strategy is to respect, reinforce and integrate into the natural open, vegetated landscape and built heritage of the precinct of Parramatta North, while providing a catalyst for sustainable growth close to the CBD. The Cumberland Hospital stop is located in the proposed village centre and public plaza on Factory Street. The village centre will incorporate retail and residential frontages to define the corridor bringing with it an increase in density to reinforce precinct activation.

The Parramatta Light Rail urban and landscape design will consider the heritage values, principles and public domain materials outlined in UrbanGrowth NSW’s Urban Design and Landscape Report and the Parramatta North Urban Transformation DCP. The design will also respond to the Canopy Replenishment Strategy for Parramatta North Urban Transformation. This approach will include retaining significant existing landscapes, historic view lines and replanting to address unavoidable impacts on historically significant trees.

Parramatta North Urban Transformation area design principles

» Locate the light rail stop to reinforce the new local village centre.

» Provide an integrated public domain design connecting Factory Street retail / commercial ground floor uses and the light rail stop.

» Integrate light rail within the existing cultural, heritage and landscape setting of Parramatta North.

» Provide an integrated public domain design connecting Factory Street retail / commercial ground floor uses and the light rail stop, which will reinforce the new local village centre.

» Create a bridge crossing that minimises visual impacts and damage to river vegetation and ecological communities.

» Provide an active transport link to Warrinya Avenue and cycle parking at the light rail stop to encourage modal shift and link the cycle path to pedestrian and cycle routes proposed by both City of Parramatta and UrbanGrowth NSW along the eastern bank of the Parramatta River.

» Facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement along the northern side of Factory Street and the eastern side of Church Street.



7-7

» Maintain the existing open, vegetated character of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation precinct.

Church Street North

The light rail along Church Street will support City of Parramatta’s vision to extend the Parramatta CBD into North Parramatta through provision of a high quality public domain, improved pedestrian amenity and transport choice.

The Urban Design Strategy for this area is to build on, and improve the existing character of Church Street North. To provide quality and amenity that is required of a future expanding CBD. Interchanges with bus services will ensure a smooth transition between modes servicing the northern suburbs. Street tree plantings will connect the strong cultural landscapes of St Patrick’s Cemetery and Prince Alfred Square, and improve pedestrian comfort and amenity within the public domain.

Church Street North precinct design principles

» Reinforce Church Street as the northern gateway into Parramatta CBD.

» Coordinate with Council to create a continuous, legible, high-quality streetscape with consistent footpath and building alignments, where possible.

» Recognise the extension of the CBD northwards by adopting Council’s palette of public domain materials and street furniture.

» Improve pedestrian amenity and walkability by reducing traffic movement to and from secondary streets, and re-designating these spaces for passive recreational use.

» Create a consistent street profile where possible that builds from existing elements in the streetscape such as St Patrick’s Cemetery.

» Visually extend, clarify and define historic Prince Alfred Square.

» Design Church Street North as a pedestrian, cycle and public transport corridor with capacity for future urban intensification and uplift.

» Plant new, mature trees where possible to create a tree-lined street, to highlight the importance of Church Street North as an extension of the CBD. Where possible take into consideration requirements for sight lines, clearances and utilities.

» Reinforce the green link between St Patrick’s Cemetery, Prince Alfred Square and Parramatta River with verge planting and street trees.

7.1.6.3 Parramatta CBD

The light rail will provide an integrated public transport system that reinforces the strategic importance of the Parramatta CBD. It will continue to transform the city as a highly connected, liveable pedestrian environment.

The alignment of the light rail through the CBD will unify Church and Macquarie Streets to create a cohesive pedestrian zone while providing the opportunity to create a high quality, beautiful public domain.

Parramatta CBD precinct design principles

» Create a design that will safely and comfortably accommodate the light rail alignment, light rail stops, pedestrian circulation, public domain elements and on Church Street outdoor dining and trading opportunities.





» Enhance the historic Lennox Bridge by creating a pedestrian and light rail only environment with appropriate public domain treatments.

» Remove vehicles and existing barriers and clutter and create a safe pedestrian zone from Prince Alfred Square along Church Street to Centenary Square and west along Macquarie Street to Smith Street.

» Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings at Prince Alfred Square, Centenary Square, Parramatta Square, Robin Thomas Reserve and major intersections.

» Reinforce pedestrian links to the river and ferry wharf.

» Ensure tree planting locations along Church Street to Lennox Bridge maintain generous access and sight lines around stops and intersections.

7.1.6.4 Rosehill and Camellia

Robin Thomas Reserve and Rosehill

The George Street east segment of the Parramatta Light Rail is defined by the adjoining green spaces of Robin Thomas Reserve and Queens Wharf Reserve. An alignment and streetscape design that is highly sympathetic to this environment, will ensure that locals and visitors have access to public transport and high quality riverfront public open spaces for social and recreation activities and reinforce City of Parramatta’s River City Strategy.

Tramway Avenue will be revitalised as a new local centre with high quality pedestrian access. As an area undergoing urban renewal, light rail infrastructure will support the desired future character by encouraging an environment with high quality public domain and connections to the Parramatta River and Parramatta CBD. The Parramatta Light Rail project will maintain the quality and green character of the Parramatta River and be a catalyst for the renewal of Rosehill.

Robin Thomas Reserve and Rosehill precinct design principles

» Provide a safe, civic light rail stop on Tramway Avenue that will support the urban renewal and growth of Rosehill.

» Create an attractive public open space on Alfred Street with high quality design of the public domain and landscaping. Maintain visual links to the river.

» Sensitively integrate the light rail alignment within Robin Thomas Reserve and along George Street.

» Design an elegant and simple bridge over James Ruse Drive that minimises visual, environmental and flood impacts on the local area and considers the design’s relationship to the surrounding natural and built landscape.

» Ensure bridge landings are designed to integrate with surrounding streets and public spaces.

» Provide safe access under the bridge for pedestrians and cyclists and clear sight lines for road users.

» Enhance pedestrian links around the Tramway Avenue Stop and between the Parramatta River and Robin Thomas Reserve, nearby schools and sports fields.

» Ensure pedestrian and future vehicle access to properties on the northern and southern sides of Tramway Avenue.

» Minimise loss of green space and trees along the light rail corridor, and the heritage listed Eucalyptus grove on the corner of George Street and Purchase Street.

» Reinforce the grid of Parramatta Ways major routes, in particular, Alfred Street linking the Parramatta River, Tramway Avenue stop and Elizabeth Farm.



7-9

» Integrate flood detention in Tramway Avenue (if required) within a holistic streetscape and public domain design.

» Integrate sensitively with heritage landscapes of Robin Thomas Reserve and Queens Wharf Reserve.

Camellia

The Camellia Town Centre is planned to be a 21st century living and business district comprising industry research, education, employment, retail, recreation, entertainment and residential uses with transport at its heart. The light rail is an integral component of the Camellia Town Centre vision and its growth as a vibrant mixed-use area.

Consultation between NSW Government agencies to coordinate light rail and Camellia Town Centre design is ongoing. The Sandown Line extends from Camellia Town Centre to the depot as two light rail tracks.

Camellia precinct design principles

» Facilitate the urban renewal of Camellia for transit-oriented development, urban activation and place making.

» Provide a sensitive interface with and views to the historic Sydney Water heritage pumping station.

» Provide safe and generous pedestrian access to Rosehill Racecourse from the Camellia stop, which is robust enough to accommodate event mode population.

» Ensure safe access to the light rail throughout the staging of Camellia’s development. Design a legible, well-connected, and well-lit urban environment featuring short term access to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse land.

» Design the James Ruse Drive overpass landing to integrate with the proposed town centre and plaza. Maximise access and minimise hidden, awkward spaces around the landing.

» Adapt the Sandown Line to support light rail access to the light rail stabling and maintenance facility.

» Ensure the stabling and maintenance facility addresses Grand Avenue and reinforces the streetscape.

» Extend the stop slab to provide for future street intersection north of Camellia stop.

» Incorporate an active transport link from the Tramway Avenue stop over James Ruse Drive to Camellia stop and north along light rail corridor.

» Design a sensitive bridge addition to accommodate the active transport link.

» Design so as not to preclude possible extension of light rail from Camellia stop to Clyde along existing heavy rail corridor should this be proposed in future.

» Retain easement and access to north-south underground fuel line adjacent rail alignment.

» Retain existing trees and provide low level planting with shallow top soil adjacent to utility services to improve stop amenity and stabilise embankments.

7.1.6.5 Carlingford

The precinct from Parramatta River to Carlingford will be a sustainable transport corridor supporting evolving centres at each stop. An active transport link will be delivered along this section of the line to provide safe active transport choices and improve connections across the corridor.





Landscape design will optimise planting opportunities along the precinct to enhance the natural landscape and help screen residential properties. Planting will increase in density and become more formal around each stop. This will reinforce a sense of arrival and setting for a new public domain. Views from elevated vantage points are to be retained.

Carlingford precinct design principles

» Create a safe, continuous active transport link that connects the Parramatta River to Carlingford, via Rydalmere, Dundas and Telopea.

» At a minimum provide bike racks and water stations at all stops on the Carlingford Line stops.

» Consider planting strategies, including the use of endemic plant species where appropriate, that will contribute to the creation of a biodiversity corridor along the Carlingford Line to improve habitat and links between existing vegetation communities.

» Provide a high quality, landscaped pedestrian focused public open space at the stops.

» Enhance the address, pedestrian and cycle access to Western Sydney University through the provision of a shared pathway with direct access to the University.

» Design a safe pedestrian bridge link to Western Sydney University that is adequate in size, appropriate for proposed use and sensitive to landscape and existing vegetation.

» Improve underpass condition at Victoria Road, Rydalmere amd Leamington Road, Dundas, to provide a safe, adequate corridor for light rail and the active transport link, where appropriate.

» Provide a safe and legible bus interchange at Rydalmere and Carlingford and upgrade existing pedestrian paths to the bus interchange on Kissing Point Road.

» Redesign existing ‘park and ride’ facilities at Rydalmere and Dundas to improve the public domain and ensure a high level of pedestrian amenity.

» Provide opportunities to connect existing and future communities by facilitating improved east-west pedestrian connections with the change to light rail within the corridor.

» Design a bridge over Kissing Point Road that is adequate in size, appropriate to use, sensitive to landscape and vegetation.

» Widen and improve underpass conditions at Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford to provide a safe, adequate corridor for light rail and the active transport link.

» Design Carlingford Stop to enable future potential opportunities for light rail extension.

» Create safe active transport link crossing of Adderton Road where the active transport link departs the corridor.

» Integrate the landscape design with open space, including Winjoy Reserve, Dundas and the future public square at Carlingford.

» Work with Council on the development of a linear park between Telopea and Carlingford along the light rail alignment.

7.1.7 Project design requirements

The design requirements describe how the urban design, landscape and architecture of the project will integrate a major new transport corridor into the existing and emerging character of Greater Parramatta, its streets and public spaces.

7.1.7.1 Public domain materials

The public domain will incorporate materials and finishes that enhance existing place, character and the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment.



7-11

Public domain materials and finishes will be:

» Fit for their intended use including high pedestrian activity and cycling.

» Consistent with relevant DDA and Australian Standards particularly in regard to slip resistance.

» Compatible with City of Parramatta’s public domain palette.

» Consistent with Parramatta North Urban Transformation Precinct DCP.

7.1.7.2 Landscaping and tree planting

Tree planting along the Parramatta Light Rail corridor will be guided by technical and design considerations to ensure safe light rail operation and high quality integration with the public domain. These include tree form, size, crown spread, growth rate, as well as desired aesthetics and shading.

Tree planting will be undertaken in accordance with the principles below and will be subject to project-specific safety assessment and design framework.

Principles include:

» Align tree planting and vegetation selection with desired character of each precinct and the project’s environmental objectives.

» Assist in meeting the City of Parramatta Council’s 40% canopy target with an emphasis on streets, plazas and hard surfaces.

» Tree density and siting will balance shading with solar access.

» Ensure resilience of the urban forest by providing a diversity of tree species.

» Design and siting of tree pits, root guards and growing media will allow healthy root systems to coexist with pavement, utilities and structures.

» Minimise impacts on established open spaces and prioritise retention of existing trees over removal and planting of new trees.

» Provide medium and large size trees wherever possible in streets, parks and urban spaces.

7.1.7.3 Stop design

A project-wide customer centred design approach focuses on improving customer comfort in the public realm. The stop design aims to improve customer comfort and deliver a legacy of visual amenity and utility, with active consideration to its overall sustainability.

The light rail stops will consist of urban elements that will integrate into the existing Greater Parramatta context. These elements will include stop canopies, furniture, signage, lighting and landscape and sustainable features. The stops will be designed in a modular system that will deliver architectural merit, consistency, maintainability, durability and seamless integration with the existing fabric along the light rail corridor.

Project stop design principles include:

» Design light rail stops to create a legible and specific identity for Parramatta and light rail with a modular and scalable design.

» Create a `whole of line’ shelter strategy which balances the need for consistent identifiable wayfinding elements with the ability to deliver unique responses which respond to place.

» Ensure shelter design is sensitive to heritage precincts and items at key locations.





» Ensure shelter design and stop placement does not form a barrier to free flowing pedestrian movement.

» Integrate architecture, urban design and landscape design to reflect local character and improve active transport integration.

» Design stops to allow room for dispersal and marshalling during event periods, where appropriate.

7.1.7.4 Stop materials palette

The proposed materials are drawn from the Parramatta vernacular, with an intent to design with a sense of place. Materials are to be chosen with consideration to:

» Appropriate to context as defined in the Public Domain Guidelines.

» Use local low embodied energy and recycled materials such as locally sourced aggregates within the concrete.

» All materials selection to be low maintenance and vandal resistant. All furniture to be subsurface mounted and any exposed fixings to be tamper resistant.

7.1.7.5 Stabling and maintenance facility

The proposed stabling and maintenance facility site is adjacent to the development potential of Camellia as a town centre. The design needs to be integrated into an overall project environment, where stabling and maintenance facilities would be part of a holistic approach, rather than separate industrial facilities.

The design principles are based on objectives and customer focused design that will enhance the precinct and be part of an integrated building in the project. These include:

» Creating effective administration and maintenance facilities and minimise public domain impacts.

» Design building height and building mass to context.

» Design clear, equitable access for staff and visitors.

» Minimise conflicts between pedestrian routes and LRV’s.

» Ensure the stabling and maintenance facility street address provides a safe and legible public frontage with the main stabling and maintenance facility entry on Grand Avenue.

» Consider street presentation and the built form/street interface to avoid long sterile edges to the surround streets and adjacent blocks.

» Provide generous footpaths and a wide building setback along Grand Avenue to enable pedestrian circulation and tree planting appropriate to the context.

The stabling and maintenance facility will be designed to fit within the existing and emerging urban character. Landscape principles include:

» Landscaping, including planting of shade trees, to reduce the urban heat island effect and provide improved amenity for staff.

» Be visually screened from future adjacent residential areas as appropriate.

» Seek to design in visual or physical permeability consistent with security considerations.

» Respond to local environmental context.



7-13

7.1.7.6 Substations

The location and design of substations in the initial stages is part of the holistic design of the public domain. The siting of substations should not obstruct pedestrian movement, be easily accessed for maintenance and at the same time, secure from public access.

The design of the substations should complement the neighbourhood character of each location and be constructed of materials robust enough to endure environmental conditions and potential damage or defacement. The design of substations would consider the setting of each location for neighbourhood character, scale, materiality in order to minimise visual impact.

Design criteria for substations include:

» Locate substations to be unobtrusive in the streetscape and allow clear passage for pedestrians.

» Integrate the design of the substation into the public domain.

» Consider location and design of access pits if sited within the public domain.

» Design cladding material to be site specific and complement the public domain.

» Design substations that are secure, robust, vandal-resistant and follow CPTED principles.

7.1.7.7 Wayfinding

Wayfinding helps light rail customers orientate themselves and navigate to, from and around light rail stops. Signage provides information for customers traveling between light rail, other transport modes and destinations.

Successful wayfinding is established by anticipating customer needs, providing the right information at the right time, planning and designing predictable and intuitive environments. Wayfinding design principles and guidelines for the project include:

» Locate signs at decision points.

» Make signs legible and visible from a distance.

» Assist with intuitive wayfinding by maintaining a legible and accessible environment for customers and the public by considering the location of stops and crossings.

» Ensure travel to destinations is intuitive, clear, direct and safe.

» Ensure clear sight lines to stops, along the light rail corridor, at crossings and approach paths.

» Use TfNSW suite of signage to easily identify light rail stops and other transport modes.

» Provide floor signage and markers to provide easy, safe accessible travel.

» Incorporate wayfinding into design of the stops, light rail infrastructure and public domain.





7.2 Clarifications 7.2.1 Bus stop changes

As part of the EIS project, a number of bus stop changes were identified for those services travelling through or near the project alignment (refer to section 5.2.2 of the Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report (Technical Paper 3 of the EIS). As part of the ongoing design refinement, some of the proposed bus stop changes have been adjusted. The adjustments include:

» Removal of some bus stops where they were deemed to be too close together within overlapping walkable catchments or where there will no longer be bus services due to light rail operations.

» Relocation of some stops to better serve existing key destinations along the project alignment.

The proposed changes to bus stops changes associated with the preferred project are shown on Figure 7.1, which updates Figure 5.2 of the Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report (Technical Paper 3). The exact location of bus stops and bus stop infrastructure changes are indicative only and would be further refined as part of ongoing stakeholder consultation (where required). Where bus stops are proposed to be removed, this would only occur due to low patronage and/or close proximity to an alternative light rail stop or other bus stop.

New bus stop infrastructure would comply with NSW State Transit standards and requirements. Provision would also be made for short term parking of out-of-service buses on bus routes that terminate at Carlingford, Rydalmere and Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

Figure 7.1 Proposed streets for the bus network with the project



7-15

7.2.2 Telopea traffic changes

The EIS project identified a series of light rail stop access plans for each of the stops along the project alignment. As part of the EIS, a new road link across the light rail line linking Sturt Street with Adderton Road was shown in Figure 3.23 of Technical Paper 3).

This road is not proposed to be constructed as part of the project, and would be developed as part of the Telopea Master Plan by the Land and Housing Corporation when specific requirements and timing needs are better understood. It was shown in Figure 3.23 of Technical Paper 3 to identify that the project design had accommodated this future access road.

As part of the mitigation and management measures presented for the EIS project, it was identified that during detailed design, Transport for NSW would liaise with the Land and Housing Corporation concerning the safeguarding of an additional crossing in the vicinity of the Telopea stop to link Adderton Road and Sturt Street to improve east-west connectivity for the Telopea Priority Precinct. Provision for an additional crossing would be safeguarded if the road crossing would not unreasonably impact light rail operation. If proposed, the road crossing would be subject to separate planning approval and would be delivered by others.

7.2.3 Property impacts and acquisitions

Sections 11.7, 12.7, 13.7, 14.7 and 15.7 of the EIS provided an overview of the potential property impacts and a summary of the potential property acquisitions that would be required to accommodate the project. Additionally, as identified in mitigation and management measure LU-1, it was identified that the overall disturbance footprint would continue to be refined during detailed design to identify areas where the footprint could be minimised to reduce temporary or permanent impacts on existing land uses.

In line with this management measure, ongoing refinement of the project following public exhibition of the EIS has identified a series of changes to direct property impacts and acquisition requirements to those previously shown, including a series of reductions and additions to previously identified partial and whole acquisitions. Two of the key additional property acquisitions are described in the following sections.

7.2.3.1 Additional acquisition – O’Connell Street and Victoria Road intersection

As part of the off-corridor road works, the EIS project identified requirements for works at the intersection of O’Connell Street and Victoria Road, Parramatta, which included provision of a dual left turn lane (southbound) and widening of Victoria Road (southern kerb). However, the impact assessment did not previously identify partial property acquisition requirements adjacent to accommodate these proposed works – an area of about 300 square metres on the south side of Victoria Road (affecting two properties affected).

The areas proposed for acquisition are shown in Figure 7.2.

The environmental impact on the area of proposed acquisition was assessed in the EIS.





Figure 7.2 Proposed land acquisition – O’Connell Street and Victoria Road intersection



7-17

7.2.3.2 Additional acquisition – 25 Marshall Road, Telopea

An additional partial acquisition is required at the rear of a property at 25 Marshall Road, Telopea, for the proposed active transport link (refer Figure 7.3). The area to be acquired would be around 115 square metres. Currently the rear boundary of this property extends beyond adjacent property boundaries, whereas the existing rear fence line of this property aligns with other adjacent properties. In this regard the partial acquisition would have minimal impact on the current use of the property.

Note: Yellow dashed line represents the boundary as presented in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Area between the black line and the yellow dashed line represents the additional area to be included within the final disturbance footprint

Figure 7.3 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Marshall Road, Telopea





7.2.4 Disturbance footprint refinement changes

As part of the ongoing design refinement of the project, the disturbance footprint as described in Chapter 6 of the EIS has been refined in a number of locations to accommodate both the proposed design changes outlined in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report), minor design refinements (such as additional road works at some intersections) and revised construction access.

The key disturbance footprint changes which have been identified for the preferred project are summarised below.

7.2.4.1 Parramatta North Urban Transformation area

In addition to the proposed footprint changes within the Parramatta North Development Area associated with the demolition of additional buildings within this area (refer to section 6.5 of this Submissions Report – Chapter 6, Preferred Infrastructure Report), a series of additional, minor changes are also proposed along this section of the alignment.

These footprint changes involve minor increases to accommodate a new road stub and a minor adjustment for proposed light rail track construction at this location. The adjustment for the track construction would provide the flexibility to build a potentially straighter alignment at this location. The road stub would allow connection into UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation’s proposed road network (subject to ongoing separate approval).

The proposed change to the project disturbance footprint at this location is shown in Figure 7.4.

The revised footprint to accommodate the additional road stub and of the minor changes would not result in any additional environmental impacts compared to those assessed as part of the EIS. In particular:

» No additional impact to significant fabric would occur as a result of the amendment to the footprint.

» No remnant native vegetation or key biodiversity values occurs within this area. The amended area may require some additional clearing of vegetation identified as Miscellaneous Ecosystem: Highly Disturbed Vegetation with no or limited native vegetation.



7-19


Black line represents the additional area to be included within the final disturbance footprint Figure 7.4 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area





7.2.4.2 Sewage Pumping Station 67 – Camellia

The proposed changes to the alignment of the project boundary in proximity to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 site and would encroach slightly more of the heritage curtilage along the southern boundary, and would impact on the significant date palm and frangipani located in the southern portion of the heritage curtilage. The purpose of the proposed change is to allow for a retaining wall at this location. The proposed change to the disturbance footprint at this location is shown in Figure 7.5.


Black line represents the additional area to be included within the final disturbance footprint Figure 7.5 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Sewage Pumping Station 67 site



7-21

As the proposed change would result in some additional minor encroachment of the project disturbance footprint into the heritage-listed Sewage Pumping Station 67 site. Table 7.1 presents a summary of the change in impacts for built heritage to Sewage Pumping Station 67.

Table 7.1 Sewage Pumping Station 67 - changes in impact to built heritage

IMPACTS AS IDENTIFIED IN EIS CHANGE IN IMPACTS


The proposed project alignment would extend across the south section of the heritage curtilage of the Sewage Pumping Station 67. This section of the heritage item does not include buildings or elements of heritage significance. A mature tree would be impacted by the proposed alignment which would result in a minor impact to the landscape values of the item. There is no significant boundary fencing or hard landscape features in this section of the heritage item.

The heritage curtilage of Sewage Pumping Station 67 would be slightly reduced in the south corner of the site by the construction of the proposed project alignment. The proposed works would result in a minor direct impact to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 overall.


The proposed design changes in proximity to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 would impact on slightly more of the heritage curtilage along the southern boundary, and have more than a minor impact on two additional trees: a date palm and a frangipani. Both the date palm and the frangipani are identified for retention in the Conservation Management Plan guidelines. The date palm is described in the Management Plan as being original, intact and of high significance, and the frangipani as early, intact and of moderate/high significance.

The impact to the significant date palm and the frangipani would remove the remaining trees that are noted in the CMP, although the open nature and traditionally grassed area of this section would be retained. No buildings would be impacted.

The impact to the significant date palm and the frangipani would result in a major direct impact to these two elements, but an overall minor direct impact to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 when considering the overall heritage significance of the item.

Mitigation and management measures outlined in the EIS would be sufficient to manage the proposed change.


The proposed project alignment would introduce a new visual element on the southern edge of the heritage curtilage of the Sewage Pumping Station 67. Significant views of the heritage item are available from the south corner looking north on the side façade of the pumping station building. The alignment along Grand Avenue would be in keeping with the current views from the building to a road. The proposed new bridge across James Ruse Drive would be a new element in the vicinity of the Sewage Pumping Station 67, although it would not significantly alter significant view lines to the heritage item from Grand Avenue. Overall, the proposed works and the removal of the tree would result in a minor visual impact to the heritage item.


The proposed design changes would have more than a minor impact on two additional trees that form part of the visual landscape of the heritage item, although the open nature and traditionally grassed area would be retained. No visual impacts to the buildings would occur.

The impact to the date palm and the frangipani would result in a major visual impact to these two elements, but an overall minor visual impact to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 when considering the overall visual significance of the item.

Mitigation and management measures outlined in the EIS would be sufficient to manage the proposed change.


It is unlikely that the works would result in a direct impact on the heritage item. Vibration levels would be under the cosmetic damage screening level. Any potential impact would be minimised and managed by the preparation of a CEMP for the project.

Potential direct impact: Negligible

Potential direct impacts would be consistent with the EIS. Mitigation and management measures outlined in the EIS would be sufficient to manage the proposed change.





Additionally, with respect to Non-Aboriginal archaeology, the project alignment in proximity to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 is located within HAMU 25. The proposed change to the disturbance footprint at this location would be consistent to the EIS.

7.2.4.3 Carlingford corridor access – Camellia

To allow for improved construction access along the T6 Carlingford Line corridor, the project disturbance footprint has been increased along the western side of the existing rail corridor.

The additional area contains an existing unsealed vehicle track which would be used to provide access for construction vehicles. No additional clearing is anticipated within the additional footprint area.

The revised disturbance footprint would not result in any additional environmental impacts compared to those assessed as part of the EIS.

The proposed change to the disturbance footprint at this location is shown in Figure 7.6.



7-23


Black line represents the additional area to be included within the final disturbance footprint Figure 7.6 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Camellia





7.2.4.4 Carlingford corridor access – Carlingford

To allow for improved construction access and construction parking at the northern end of the project corridor, the project disturbance footprint has been increased along the western side of the existing rail corridor within the vicinity of the proposed Carlingford stop.

The proposed changes to the disturbance footprint include the following:

» The unnamed access road to between the rail corridor and Jenkins Road would be used (during construction only) for access, parking construction vehicles, unloading materials and vehicle standby. Access for adjacent landowners would be retained.

» At the James Street and Thallon Street intersection, a new access point for construction vehicles would be established (construction only). This would involve kerb modification, pavement/gravel access, more than a minor impact to two trees, with some other trees also likely to have minor impacts (trimming).

The environmental impact as a result of the revised footprint would be consistent with that of the EIS.

The proposed change to the disturbance footprint at this location is shown in Figure 7.7.


Black line represents the additional area to be included within the final disturbance footprint Figure 7.7 Proposed disturbance footprint amendment – Carlingford



7-25

7.2.5 Impacts on trees

A series of submissions raised queries regarding the number of tree removals required by the project. Existing trees and anticipated impacts were outlined in EIS chapters 11.8, 12.8, 13.8, 14.8 and 15.8. In the EIS, indicative numbers of tree impacts were outlined in two categories:

» Minor impact: this category includes a range from no direct impact through to minor pruning (less than 10 per cent).

» More than a minor impact: this category includes a range from pruning (10 per cent or more) through to removal.

7.2.5.1 Tree survey

An arborist was engaged to survey the trees along the project alignment. The arborist identified a number of key elements to classify the trees. These included:

Size

A common method of determining the size of a tree is to identify the diameter measured at 1.5 metres above ground level (known as diameter at breast height (DBH)), which provides information on tree maturity. The Transport for NSW Vegetation Offset Guide identifies three categories:

» Large mature tree – DBH of greater than 60 centimetres.

» Medium tree – DBH between 15 and 60 centimetres.

» Small young tree – DBH less than 15 centimetres.

Retention value

The retention value essentially is a rating of the importance of retaining a tree or group of trees using a combination of environmental, cultural, physical and social values. To determine the retention value of a tree, the arborist assigns a value of low, medium or high to each tree or group of trees in accordance with the criteria listed in the IACA Significance of a Tree, Assessment Rating System (STARS) (refer to 11.8 in the EIS for further information).

The retention value is also used to prioritise the level of further investigation during detailed design to save trees from impacts.

Tree protection zone

The tree protection zone is the canopy and root area that requires protection to maintain tree health (as defined by AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites). The tree protection zone avoids root and canopy damage and minimises interruption to a tree’s growing environment. If works are required within the tree protection zone, tree sensitive construction measures must be implemented.

7.2.5.2 Tree impacts

In response to submissions received, clarification is provided below regarding the number of trees which may potentially be removed by the project. As identified in the EIS, the assessment of potential impacts is conservative given the level of design development.





Due to the impact of pruning on tree health, trees may remain viable for retention with more than 10 per cent pruning or may require removal. Species, location, health and growth form influence the extent of pruning which can be sustained by a tree. As a result, some trees identified with a high or medium impact may require removal, whereas others may be retained and pruned. The sum of the number of trees subject to medium impacts and those subject to high impacts is therefore an upper limit to the potential number of tree removals.

A range is provided which includes the following impacts on trees:

» A high impact (more than 20% impact on the tree protection zone).

» A medium impact (10-20% impact on the tree protection zone).

All tree pruning and removal works, including any root pruning, would be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373-2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees in order to retain trees where possible (revised mitigation and management measure TR-4).

Table 7.2 identifies the number of trees which may require removal in each of the precincts. The table also provides information on how many of these trees were identified by the arborist as large trees (measured by DBH) or high retention value.

Table 7.2 Indicative range of trees requiring removal (EIS)

WESTMEAD PARRAMATTA NORTH

PARRAMATTA CBD

ROSEHILL & CAMELLIA

CARLINGFORD

Large trees (measured by DBH) which may require removal

Fewer than 10 (around 2% of potential tree removals)

54 to 65 (around 9-10% of potential tree removals)



26 to 48 (around 6% of potential tree removals)

Potential tree removals

216 to 354 569 to 684 247 to 308 411 to 533 466 to 771

Trees of high retention value which may require removal





91 to 155 (around 20% of potential tree removals)

Large trees (measured by DBH) make up eight per cent of those trees which potentially require removal, when considering all potential tree removals across the project.

In certain instances, these numbers may be slightly different from those provided in the EIS, as following the public exhibition of the EIS additional data analysis was undertaken. This results in an increase of the upper range of potential tree removals by around one per cent.

The potential number of tree removals required for design changes identified in the Preferred Infrastructure Report are outlined in Chapter 6 of this document.

As outlined in Section 6.3 of this report, in the Parramatta North precinct adjustments to the road network would reduce impacts on 30 trees. In the EIS these had been identified for potential removal (i.e. more than a minor impact) however it is now expected that those trees would have no impact. This would make the potential tree removals range for Parramatta North 539 to 654.



7-27

7.2.5.3 Mitigation of impacts

Further investigation into the feasibility of retaining impacted trees, in particular those of medium to high retention value, would be undertaken during detailed design. These measures would include design modification and construction techniques to try to retain these trees.

A suite of mitigation and management measures to reduce impacts on trees was provided in Sections 17.2 and 17.5 of the EIS, as updated for this Submissions Report in Section 8.2. This includes:

» Avoidance of impacts in detailed design where possible (revised mitigation and management measure TR-1).

» Minimising construction impacts and protecting trees during construction (revised mitigation and management measures TR-3 and TR-4).

» Offsetting the unavoidable impacts resulting in tree removals with appropriate offset plantings (management measures TR-5 to TR-9).

7.2.6 Errors and omissions

7.2.6.1 Vineyard Creek bridge design

Section 10.2.2.3 of the EIS and Technical Paper 4 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (Volume 3) identified that as part of the project the new bridge over Vineyard Creek at Rydalmere would consist of a single-span design in order to avoid the installation of an instream pier with the existing pier structures proposed to be removed to below creek bed level. The design as described in the biodiversity section of the EIS was incorrect. The correct design, a two-span bridge consistent with the design of the existing structure is proposed as described in section 5.9 of the EIS.

The proposed design would likely have only a minor impact on stream flow and potential for blockage of fish passages in comparison to the existing bridge. The construction of the two-span bridge would result in the same impacts as described in the EIS, including clearing of vegetation comprised mainly of weeds and exotic species along the creek banks, which have previously been disturbed by construction of the existing rail bridge.

7.2.6.2 Editorial error

One editorial error within the EIS was noted in one submission. Table 12.23 of the EIS (Volume 2) did not include the Parramatta Correctional Centre heritage item as part of the assessment. This item was however included and assessed in Table 37 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10, Volume 5).

Revised environmental management measures


8-1

8 Revised environmental management measures

This chapter presents the revised environmental management measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to reduce the identified environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of the project.

8.1 Overview Chapter 17 of the EIS documented a range of environmental management measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to reduce the identified environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of the Parramatta Light Rail project.

Subsequent to the public exhibition of the EIS, Transport for NSW has amended some of the previously identified environmental management measures for the Parramatta Light Rail project in response to:

» Issues raised in submissions received during the public exhibition period (as outlined in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of this report).

» The design changes proposed in Chapter 6 of this report.

» Additional investigations undertaken since the public exhibition of the EIS (as described in Chapter 7 of this report).

» The plans described in Sections 17.2.1.1 of the EIS have been transferred into the mitigation and management measures tables in Section 8.2.

» Further review and rationalisation of the environmental management measures presented in the EIS to remove any duplication and inconsistencies between these measures, and ensure they clearly communicate the environmental management requirements of the project.

Tables 8.1 to 8.3 outline the revised set of environmental management measures for the project. New measures that are proposed to be added to the environmental management measures (including any new additional text or clarifications to the existing measures) have been denoted in Tables 8.1 to 8.3 with underlined text, while any environmental management measure proposed to be removed (or have text deleted from the measure) has been shown with strikethrough text. Explanatory text has, where required, been provided [in brackets].

A revised set of environmental management measures documented in Tables 8.1 to 8.3 of this report supersedes the measures that were documented in section 17.5 of the EIS.

Following project approval (if approved), the conditions of approval would guide the subsequent phases of the project. The nominated consortium or contractor selected to undertake further planning, detailed design, construction and/or operation of the project would be required to undertake all works in accordance with the specified environmental management measures and conditions of approval (as set by the Department of Planning and Environment).




8.2 General and precinct-specific mitigation and management measures

The following tables provide a consolidated list of general (i.e. applicable to all precincts) and precinct-specific mitigation and management measures to be implemented during detailed design, construction and operation of the project. These tables incorporate the mitigation and management measures identified in the regional, other and local impacts chapters of the Environment Impact Statement, as well as some additional general measures associated with local impacts.

8.2.1 Detailed design

Table 8.1 outlines the consolidated mitigation and management measures to be implemented during detailed design of the project.



8-3

Table 8.1 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (detailed design)

EIS REF. REVISED REF.

MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE (EIS) REVISED MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE APPLICABLE PRECINCT(S)

Biodiversity

BI-1 B1-1 Mitigation and management measures which would be investigated during detailed design to minimise potential biodiversity impacts include: » Minimising the need for new instream structures » Appropriate design and alignment of new instream

structures with existing conditions to minimise turbulence, erosion and scouring.

» Options for minimising impacts on habitat connectivity, including establishment of native vegetation and habitat elements such as rock piles and large woody debris under the bridges to provide cover for fauna.

» Opportunities for minimising the potential for injury and mortality of wildlife associated with OHW and fences would be investigated in consultation with an ecologist and implemented where practicable.

Mitigation and management measures which would be investigated during The detailed design would demonstrate in the reporting for detailed design, consideration of measures to minimise potential biodiversity impacts include: » Minimising the need for new instream structures » Appropriate design and alignment of new instream

structures with existing conditions to minimise turbulence, erosion and scouring.

» Consideration of DPI’s Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (2013 update) and the NSW Office of Water’s Guidelines for controlled activities for the design of instream structures or riparian works. These elements of the design would be developed in consultation with DPI – Crown Lands and Water and DPI - Fisheries.

» Options for minimising impacts on habitat connectivity, including establishment of native vegetation and habitat elements such as rock piles and large woody debris under the bridges to provide cover for fauna.

» Opportunities for minimising the potential for injury and mortality of wildlife associated with OHW and fences would be investigated in consultation with an ecologist and implemented where practicable.

» Investigating opportunities for collaborating with organisations and stakeholders to rehabilitate existing waterways along the project alignment (such as Vineyard Creek) as part of the Vegetation Offset Strategy.

All precincts






N/A B1-2 Not included in previous version Transport for NSW would discuss the requirements for entering into a voluntary planning agreement with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and Department of Planning and Environment during detailed design.

All Precincts

Aboriginal heritage

AB-1 AB-1 Aboriginal heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the design of the project in consultation with registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

Aboriginal heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the design of the project in consultation with registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

All precincts

Hydrology, drainage and surface water quality

HY-1 HY-1 A water quality management program would be established prior to construction to ensure compliance with identified water quality objectives and enable potential impacts on surface and groundwater to be identified, controlled and reported. This would include targeted baseline monitoring of receiving waters and shallow groundwater prior to construction to identify baseline water quality conditions.

A water quality management program would be developed in consultation with the Department of Industry (Lands and Water) and the EPA, and established prior to construction to ensure compliance with identified water quality objectives and enable potential impacts on surface and groundwater to be identified, controlled and reported. This would include targeted baseline monitoring of receiving waters and shallow groundwater prior to construction to identify baseline water quality conditions.

All precincts



8-5



HY-2 HY-2 Contemporary good practice guidelines would be followed to ensure stormwater runoff from the project area receives adequate water quality treatment, where required. Water quality guidelines to be followed include NSW Sustainable Design Guidelines (Transport for NSW (v4.0)), Managing Urban Stormwater, Environmental Targets Consultation Draft (DECCW, 2007) and Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook (EPA, 1997). This would include consideration of water quality treatment devices such as Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs) and other Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment measures such as water quality basins where possible, and biofiltration swales. The location and specification for these would be determined through the detailed design.

Contemporary good practice guidelines would be followed to ensure stormwater runoff from the project area receives adequate water quality treatment, where required. Water quality guidelines to be followed include the Water Sensitive Urban Design Guideline. Applying water sensitive urban design to NSW Transport projects (Transport for NSW, 2017 NSW Sustainable Design Guidelines (Transport for NSW (v4.0)),, Managing Urban Stormwater, Environmental Targets Consultation Draft (DECCW, 2007) and Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook (EPA, 1997). This would include consideration of water quality treatment devices into the drainage design, such as Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs) and other Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment measures such as water quality basins where possible, and biofiltration swales, where required to achieve the relevant targets. The location and specification for these would be determined through the detailed design and documented in the design report. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to also address the requirements of mitigation and management measure UT-5 from the EIS.]

All precincts

HY-3 HY-3 Opportunities to improve existing flood impacts along the project alignment would be considered during the detailed design of the project. Measures considered would include improved drainage, streetscape design and integration of WSUD measures.

Opportunities to improve existing flood impacts along the project alignment would be considered during the detailed design of the project. Measures considered would include improved drainage, streetscape design and integration of WSUD measures. Adequate drainage and runoff management would be incorporated into the design of the stabling and maintenance facility. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include mitigation and management measure GW-2 from the EIS.]

All precincts






HY-4 HY-4 A Flood Management Strategy would be prepared for flood affected land as a result of the project prior to construction. The strategy would demonstrate how the project design achieves the desired Performance Criteria (refer to Table 17.5 of the EIS) and would be supported by additional flood modelling. The Flood Management Strategy would identify design responses and construction management measures that would be implemented in design or during construction. Construction management procedures would be detailed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

A Flood Management Strategy would be prepared for flood affected land as a result of the project, to include an update of the flood impact assessment undertaken for the EIS (refer Technical Paper 7) to inform the detailed design, re-assess the level of flood immunity of the project and to identify potential impacts of the project on flood behaviour prior to construction. The strategy would demonstrate how the project design achieves the desired Performance Criteria (refer to Table 17.5 of the EIS) and would be supported by additional flood modelling. The Flood Management Strategy would identify design responses and construction management measures that would be implemented in design or during construction. Construction management procedures would be detailed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The Flood Management Strategy would be prepared in consultation with the City of Parramatta Council.

All precincts

HY-5 HY-5 A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) would be prepared as part of the CEMP prior to the commencement of construction. The plan would detail measures for reducing the incidence of sediment, litter and chemical pollution reaching Parramatta River, Clay Cliff Creek, Vineyard Creek and other nearby waterways within the study area during construction.

A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) would be prepared as part of The CEMP would include soil and water management measures to manage the risk of prior to the commencement of construction. The plan would detail measures for reducing the incidence of sedimentation, littering and chemical pollution reaching of the Parramatta River, Clay Cliff Creek, Vineyard Creek and other nearby waterways within the study area during construction.

All precincts

Groundwater

GW-1 GW-1 The design of embankments would incorporate adequate drainage to reduce compaction and/or sealing of the underlying aquifer.

The design of embankments would incorporate adequate drainage to reduce compaction and/or sealing of the underlying aquifer.

All precincts



8-7



GW-2 N/A Adequate drainage and runoff management would be incorporated into the design of the stabling and maintenance facility.

Adequate drainage and runoff management would be incorporated into the design of the stabling and maintenance facility. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into mitigation and management measure HY-3 (see above).]

Rosehill and Camellia

GW-3 GW-2 A condition assessment of existing buildings and infrastructure would be carried out to monitor the risk of settlement from groundwater drawdown.

A condition assessment of existing buildings and infrastructure located in those areas that may potentially be affected by groundwater drawdown as a result of the project would be carried out prior to and following construction to monitor the risk of settlement from groundwater drawdown.

All precincts

Soils and Geology

SG-1 SG-1 A geotechnical investigation would be carried out to guide the detailed design and construction of the project.

A geotechnical investigation would be carried out to guide the detailed design and construction of the project. Detailed design would consider the potential impacts on elements that are buried or in contact with identified acid sulfate soils and determine mitigation and management measures for minimising impacts. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include mitigation and management measure SG-2 from the EIS.]

All precincts

SG-2 N/A Detailed design would consider the potential impacts on elements that are buried or in contact with identified acid sulfate soils and determine mitigation and management measures for minimising impacts.

Detailed design would consider the potential impacts on elements that are buried or in contact with identified acid sulfate soils and determine mitigation and management measures for minimising impacts. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SG-1 (see above).]

All precincts






Contamination

CM-1 CM-1 During detailed design, a desktop risk assessment would be carried out for the following Areas of Environmental Interest (AEI) to confirm high or medium risk of contamination: » 435 Church Street, Parramatta (AEI 9).

» 1A Barrack Lane, Parramatta (AEI 13). » 142-154 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (AEI 14). » 127 Alfred Street Parramatta (AEI 16). » Former James Hardie Property at 181 James Ruse Drive,

Rosehill and 1 Grand Avenue, Rosehill (AEI 21 and AEI 22). » 6 Grand Avenue, Rosehill (former Akzo Nobel site) (AEI 27). This would involve a review of available data, collaboration with stakeholders and consideration of the extent of disturbance by the project in the vicinity of the AEI. Based on the results of this assessment: » Mitigation and management measure CM-2 would apply to

AEIs classified as high risk » Mitigation CM-4 would apply to AEIs classified as medium

risk.

During detailed design, a desktop risk assessment would be carried out for the following Areas of Environmental Interest (AEI) to confirm high or medium risk of contamination: » 435 Church Street, Parramatta (AEI 9).

» 1A Barrack Lane, Parramatta (AEI 13). » 142-154 Macquarie Street, Parramatta (AEI 14). » 127 Alfred Street Parramatta (AEI 16). » Former James Hardie Property at 181 James Ruse Drive,

Rosehill and 1 Grand Avenue, Rosehill (AEI 21 and AEI 22). » 6 Grand Avenue, Rosehill (former Akzo Nobel site) (AEI 27). This would involve a review of available data, collaboration with stakeholders and consideration of the extent of disturbance by the project in the vicinity of the AEI. Based on the results of this assessment: » Mitigation and management measure CM-2 would apply to

AEIs classified as high risk » Mitigation CM-4 would apply to AEIs classified as medium

risk.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD




8-9



CM-2 CM-2 Prior to the commencement of construction in the vicinity of these sites, site investigations would be carried out at the following high risk AEI: » Former gas works at Queens Wharf Reserve (AEI 15) » 13A Grand Avenue, Camellia (AEI 21). The results from the site investigations would be assessed against criteria contained within the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (2013) to determine any need for remediation. Remediation works would be performed in accordance with the hierarchy of preferred strategies in the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (DECCW 2006). Where practical, remediation works would be integrated with excavation and development works performed during construction.

Prior to the commencement of construction in the vicinity of these sites, site investigations would be carried out at the following high risk AEI: » Former gas works at Queens Wharf Reserve (AEI 15) » 13A Grand Avenue, Camellia (AEI 21). The results from the site investigations would be assessed against criteria contained within the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (2013) to determine any need for remediation. Remediation works would be performed in accordance with the hierarchy of preferred strategies in the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (DECCW 2006). Where practical, remediation works would be integrated with excavation and development works performed during construction.

Parramatta CBD


Utilities and services

UT-1 UT-1 Dial before you dig searches and non-destructive digging (including pot-holing and/or hand-digging) would be carried out to identify the presence of underground utilities prior to commencement of construction in accordance with guidelines provided by the relevant utility authority.

Dial before you dig searches and non-destructive digging (including pot-holing and/or hand-digging) would be carried out to identify the presence of underground utilities prior to commencement of construction in accordance with guidelines provided by the relevant utility authority.

All precincts






UT-2 UT-2 Consultation with utility service providers would be carried out during detailed design to ensure that appropriate measures are taken regarding the potential integration of future utilities requirements along the project alignment, and to ensure that the project does not preclude the development or installation of these proposed utilities. A Basis of Design Manual would be developed for each utility owner which would: » Outline relocation or protection rules for each utility » Identify design approval process(es) and indicative

timeframes » Identify construction requirements, including provisions for

standby support » Indicate future proofing spares requirements » Identify interfacing projects to consider during project

construction.

Consultation with utility service providers would be carried out during detailed design to ensure that appropriate measures are taken regarding the potential integration of future utilities requirements along the project alignment, and to ensure that the project does not preclude the development or installation of these proposed utilities. A Basis of Design Manual would be developed for each utility owner which would: » Outline relocation or protection rules for each utility » Identify design approval process(es) and indicative

timeframes » Identify construction requirements, including provisions for

standby support » Indicate future proofing spares requirements » Identify interfacing projects to consider during project

construction. Ongoing consultation would be carried out with high risk utility providers (including Caltex and Jemena) to identify appropriate construction methodologies which would apply to construction operations within the vicinity of the Hunter Pipeline and Jemena secondary gas mains. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include mitigation and management measure HR-7 from the EIS.]

All precincts



8-11



UT-3 UT-3 A strategy for the management of utilities would be developed during detailed design. The strategy for the preferred hierarchy of utilities treatment would be as follows: » Avoid/Do nothing – avoid impact on utilities where possible. » Protect – protect utilities in their existing locations where

feasible. » Relocate – utilities to be relocated only where no other

options are feasible or acceptable.

A strategy for the management of utilities would be developed during detailed design. The strategy for the preferred hierarchy of utilities treatment would be as follows: » Avoid/Do nothing – avoid impact on utilities where possible. » Protect – protect utilities in their existing locations where

feasible. » Relocate – utilities to be relocated only where no other

options are feasible or acceptable.

All precincts

UT-4 UT-4 Risk assessments and hazard logs would be developed and specific management plans put in place if deemed necessary to mitigate the risk of personal safety incidents and asset integrity damage.

Risk assessments and hazard logs would be developed and specific management plans put in place if deemed necessary to mitigate the risk of personal safety incidents and asset integrity damage.

All precincts

UT-5 N/A Opportunities for incorporation of water sensitive urban design opportunities as part of future water and drainage requirements during operation of the project would also be considered during detailed design.

Opportunities for incorporation of water sensitive urban design opportunities as part of future water and drainage requirements during operation of the project would also be considered during detailed design. [This mitigation and management measure has been deleted as it has been merged with mitigation and management measure HY-2 (see above).]

All precincts

UT-6 UT-5 The design of the project and construction activities would comply with the requirements of AS 2885 Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Petroleum, to ensure that existing utilities are protected.

The design of the project and construction activities would comply with the requirements of AS 2885 Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Petroleum, to ensure that existing utilities are protected.

All precincts






Greenhouse gases

GG-1 GG-1 During detailed design, an energy and greenhouse gas strategy would be developed that documents the greenhouse reduction targets for the construction and operational stages of the project. The strategy would be prepared in line with the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) and government resource efficiency policy (GREP) requirements, and would identify the key initiatives that would be explored further to meet these targets in accordance with the carbon emissions management hierarchy. It would be continually reviewed throughout the project lifecycle. Performance would be measured in terms of a percentage reduction target in greenhouse gas emissions from a defined reference footprint as documented in the energy and greenhouse gas strategy.

During detailed design, an energy and greenhouse gas strategy would be developed that documents the greenhouse reduction targets for the construction and operational stages of the project. The strategy would be prepared in line with the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) and government resource efficiency policy (GREP) requirements, and would identify the key initiatives that would be explored further to meet these targets in accordance with the carbon emissions management hierarchy. It would be continually reviewed throughout the project lifecycle. Performance would be measured in terms of a percentage reduction target in greenhouse gas emissions from a defined reference footprint as documented in the energy and greenhouse gas strategy. Opportunities to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions would be investigated during detailed design including: » Purchasing electricity derived from a renewable energy

source (where available). » The use of regenerative braking on rolling stock. » Promoting the selection of energy efficient rolling stock (such

as air conditioning, ventilation fans with smart temperature set points, insulation and weight considerations for rolling stock).

All precincts



8-13



» Selection of energy efficient maintenance vehicles. » Selection of energy efficient electrical equipment as per

government resource efficiency policy (GREP). » Energy efficient design of buildings within the stabling and

maintenance facility (such as natural ventilation designs and use of insulation).

» Achieving the minimum improvement for operational energy for buildings as per the GREP.

» The use of photovoltaic cells at the stabling and maintenance facility.

» Use of low embodied energy and recycled materials at light rail stops.

Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of identified opportunities would also be carried out during detailed design and would be documented in an energy and greenhouse gas strategy. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include mitigation and management measure GG-3 from the EIS.]

GG-2 GG-2 An iterative process of greenhouse gas assessments and design refinements would be carried out during detailed design and construction to identify opportunities to minimise greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operational. Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of identified opportunities would also be carried out during detailed design.

An iterative process of greenhouse gas assessments and design refinements would be carried out during detailed design and construction to identify opportunities to minimise greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operational. Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of identified opportunities would also be carried out during detailed design.

All precincts






GG-3 N/A Opportunities to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions would be investigated during detailed design including: » Purchasing electricity derived from a renewable energy



» Selection of energy efficient maintenance vehicles.

» Selection of energy efficient electrical equipment as per government resource efficiency policy (GREP).

» Energy efficient design of buildings within the stabling and maintenance facility (such as natural ventilation designs and use of insulation).


» The use of photovoltaic cells at the stabling and maintenance facility


Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of identified opportunities would also be carried out during detailed design and would be documented in an energy and greenhouse gas strategy.

Opportunities to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions would be investigated during detailed design including: » Purchasing electricity derived from a renewable energy



» Selection of energy efficient maintenance vehicles.

» Selection of energy efficient electrical equipment as per government resource efficiency policy (GREP).

» Energy efficient design of buildings within the stabling and maintenance facility (such as natural ventilation designs and use of insulation).


» The use of photovoltaic cells at the stabling and maintenance facility


Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of identified opportunities would also be carried out during detailed design and would be documented in an energy and greenhouse gas strategy. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into the revised mitigation and management measure GG-1 (see above).]

All precincts



8-15



Climate change adaptation

CC-1 CC-1 Climate change risk treatments would be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and supported by an updated climate change risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. Treatments could include adaptation strategies as identified in the Table 10.44 of this the EIS and the following additional strategies to respond to identified high risks: » Consideration of stop orientation, appropriate materials

selection and passenger amenity (e.g. inclusion of water bubblers and misting fans).

» Refurbishment of shelters every 10 years and adapted to changing climate conditions as required.

A climate change risk assessment supported by an economic analysis would be undertaken during detailed design to identify the level of risk to the project from climate change and, where necessary, identify risk treatments that could be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and supported by an updated climate change risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. Treatments could include adaptation strategies as identified in the Table 10.44 of this the EIS and the following additional strategies to respond to identified high risks: » Consideration of stop orientation, appropriate materials

selection and passenger amenity (e.g. inclusion of water bubblers and misting fans).

» Refurbishment of shelters every 10 years and adapted to changing climate conditions as required.

All precincts






Waste, energy and resource management

WM-1 WM-1 During detailed design and detailed construction planning, the following resource and material minimisation initiatives would be explored, and if determined to be reasonable and feasible, implemented: » Use of recycled materials, such as the maximum permitted

recycled content for asphalt and concrete (including use of fly ash and blast furnace slag).

» Use of modular, prefabricated and precast structural and finishing materials.

» Use of recycled materials and local low embodied energy materials for light rail stops.

» Use of wastewater or recycled water to reduce potable water demand during construction and operation.

» Design track components, structures and stops for disassembly to enable readily separation of parts for recovery and recycling.

» Water efficient fixtures and fittings at the stabling and maintenance facility, including the light rail vehicle (LRV) wash facility.

» Rainwater harvesting infrastructure at the stabling and maintenance facility to provide non-potable water for operational uses.

During detailed design and detailed construction planning, the following resource and material minimisation initiatives would be explored, and if determined to be reasonable and feasible, implemented: » Use of recycled materials, such as the maximum permitted

recycled content for asphalt and concrete (including use of fly ash and blast furnace slag).

» Use of modular, prefabricated and precast structural and finishing materials.

» Use of recycled materials and local low embodied energy materials for light rail stops.

» Use of wastewater or recycled water to reduce potable water demand during construction and operation.

» Design track components, structures and stops for disassembly to enable readily separation of parts for recovery and recycling.

» Water efficient fixtures and fittings at the stabling and maintenance facility, including the light rail vehicle (LRV) wash facility.

» Rainwater harvesting infrastructure at the stabling and maintenance facility to provide non-potable water for operational uses.

All precincts



8-17



Hazards and risks

HR-1 HR-1 All electronic and electrical equipment for the project would be designed and constructed to ensure its operation and functionalities are not degraded or malfunction due to EMI. Further opportunities to minimise potential electromagnetic impact would be investigated during detailed design including consideration of: » Wire-free technology and on-board energy storage

» Reduction of the current-loop circuit created between the substation and LRVs.

All electronicmagnetic and electrical equipment for the project would be designed and constructed to: ensure its operation and functionalities are not degraded or malfunction due to EMI. » Be compatible with the existing electromagnetic

environment along the light rail route. » Ensure that no part of the light rail system interferes

electromagnetically with the safe and proper operation of any other parts of the light rail system.

Further opportunities to minimise potential electromagnetic impact would be investigated during detailed design including consideration of: » Wire-free technology and on-board energy storage. » Reduction of the current-loop circuit created between the

substation and LRVs. » Reduce traction control demand.

All precincts

HR-2 HR-2 The project would be designed to comply with appropriate standards for the management of EMI including the international European Standards EN 50121 Electromagnetic Compatibility and EN 61000-6-2 Generic Standards – Immunity Standard for Industrial Environment.

The project would be designed to comply with appropriate standards for the management of EMI including the international European Standards EN 50121 Electromagnetic Compatibility series and EN 61000-6-2 Generic Standards – Immunity Standard for Industrial Environment AS 7722:2016 EMC Management. The light rail would be designed so that electromagnetic emissions comply with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) guidelines for emitted radiation.

All precincts






HR-3 HR-3 Targeted consultation with identified sensitive receivers for EMI (such as the Westmead Health Precinct and the Western Sydney University) would be carried out to inform the detailed design. Any issues identified would be resolved on a case by case basis with solutions such as monitoring and, if necessary, protective screening at the site of the sensitive equipment.

Targeted consultation with identified sensitive receivers for EMI (such as the Westmead Health Precinct and the Western Sydney University) would be carried out to inform the detailed design. Any issues identified would be resolved on a case by case basis with solutions such as monitoring and, if necessary, protective screening at the site of the sensitive equipment. Additional mitigation strategies would be considered and, where required, implemented. These may include: » Minimisation of electromagnetic fields through the design

and engineering of the project. During detailed design, considerations for magnetic field reduction at substations would include:

• Locating major magnetic field sources within the substation to increase separation distances including transformer secondary terminations, cable runs to the switch room, capacitors, reactors, busbars, and incoming and outgoing feeders.

• Locating areas with the lowest magnetic fields closest to the site boundaries (e.g. control rooms, equipment rooms, amenities, fire stairs, lifts, walkways, transformer roadway, oil containment, air vents/ducts and pilot isolation rooms).

• Orienting equipment so that magnetic fields are minimised.

» Earthing and bonding.

» Increasing the separation distance between the source and equipment.

» If mitigation is required at the receiver (building or the equipment itself), Transport for NSW would work with the operator/owner to resolve the potential impact.

All precincts



8-19



HR-4 HR-4 All project electronic and electrical equipment would comply with the limits such as defined in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields.

All project electronic and electrical equipment would comply with the limits such as defined in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields.

All precincts

Privacy

PR-1 PR-1 Detailed design would consider measures to minimise removal of existing vegetation where possible. Where the project corridor is located close to residential dwellings or other sensitive receivers, the Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) to be developed for the project would consider how planting and other landscaping options can be used to create or maintain privacy.

Detailed design would consider measures to minimise removal of existing vegetation where possible, so as to minimise visual and landscape impacts. Where the project corridor is located close to residential dwellings or other sensitive receivers, the Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) to be developed for the project would consider how planting and other landscaping options can be used to create or maintain privacy.

All precincts

PR-2 PR-2 Where landscaping is not able to mitigate privacy impacts, additional urban design elements such as fencing or other screening features would be considered so as to mitigate a reduction in the privacy of existing sensitive receivers (i.e. private residences and businesses). This is most likely to occur at receivers within the vicinity of stops and active transport links, in particular in areas which currently experience relatively low levels of pedestrian activity as follows: » Cumberland Hospital stop (within the current Cumberland

Hospital site) » The active transport link between Carlingford and Camellia » The light rail and active transport bridge over James Ruse

Drive between Rosehill and Camellia. The design of landscaping or privacy screening would also need to consider safety issues such as sightlines for LRVs and CPTED principles.

Where landscaping is not able to mitigate privacy impacts, additional urban design elements such as fencing or other screening features would be considered so as to mitigate a reduction in the privacy of existing sensitive receivers (i.e. private residences and businesses). This is most likely to occur at receivers within the vicinity of stops and active transport links, in particular in areas which currently experience relatively low levels of pedestrian activity as follows: » Cumberland Hospital stop (within the current Cumberland

Hospital site) » The active transport link between Carlingford and Camellia » The light rail and active transport bridge over James Ruse

Drive between Rosehill and Camellia. The design of landscaping or privacy screening would also need to consider safety issues such as sightlines for LRVs and CPTED principles.

All precincts






PR-3 PR-3 Detailed design of the active transport link would consider the potential privacy impacts to adjacent properties. Measures to be considered would include: » Separation of levels between the active shared path and adjacent properties to lower the path, minimising opportunities for overlooking of existing fences. » Provision of additional fencing or vegetation to provide screening.

Detailed design of the active transport link would consider the potential privacy impacts to adjacent properties. Measures to be considered would include: » Separation of levels between the active shared path and

adjacent properties to lower the path, minimising opportunities for overlooking of existing fences.

» Provision of additional fencing or vegetation to provide screening.


Carlingford

PR-4 PR-4 Lighting within the project corridor would be required to address safety and consider the potential privacy impacts of light spill to adjoining properties, including the use of fixtures that prevent light within the light rail corridor from spilling upwards and/or beyond the required area to be lit and into adjacent residences or sensitive environmental areas. Lighting would be designed by a specialist lighting consultant and would comply with relevant Australian Standards, including AS4282.1997 (Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting).

Lighting within the project corridor would be required to address safety and consider the potential privacy impacts of light spill to adjoining properties, including the use of fixtures that prevent light within the light rail corridor from spilling upwards and/or beyond the required area to be lit and into adjacent residences or sensitive environmental areas. Permanent lighting would be designed by a specialist lighting consultant and would comply with relevant Australian Standards, including AS4282.1997 (Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting) and AS 1158 Road lighting. The final lighting design would consider the use of motion sensors to adjust light levels to balance the need to provide a safe environment while minimising potential light spill to the adjacent residential properties. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measure VL-2.]

All precincts

Local traffic, transport and access

TT-1 TT-1 A wayfinding and road signage strategy would be developed during detailed design and measures incorporated into the project design. This would include signage to communicate changes in turning / access restrictions, property access, and pedestrians/cyclist routes, and signage within Parramatta CBD to encourage use of alternative routes.

A wayfinding and road signage strategy would be developed and incorporated into the during detailed design and measures incorporated into of the project design. This would include signage to communicate changes in turning / access restrictions, property access, and pedestrians/cyclist routes, and signage within Parramatta CBD to encourage use of alternative routes.

All precincts



8-21



TT-2 TT-2 Road safety audits would be completed during detailed design. This includes review of the design of uncontrolled crossings at light rail stops to consider suitable sight distances. If uncontrolled crossing cannot be safely provided, alternative designs would be incorporated into the project.

Road safety audits would be completed during detailed design. This includes review of the design of uncontrolled crossings at light rail stops to consider suitable sight distances. If uncontrolled crossing cannot be safely provided, alternative designs would be incorporated into the project. A detailed safety review would be undertaken during detailed design to identify requirements for further responses to manage and reduce the risk of incidents arising from collisions during operation.

All precincts

TT-3 TT-3 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would review opportunities to maximise integration of the project with current and proposed bicycle corridors.

The detailed design of the active transport link would:

» During detailed design, Transport for NSW would Be reviewed by Transport for NSW for opportunities to maximise integration of the project with current and proposed bicycle corridors, such as future crossings of the Parramatta River associated with the Camellia Town Centre Master Plan.

» Be designed in accordance with Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (2017 Edition).

All precincts

TT-4 TT-4 Staged pedestrian crossing designs along the alignment in the vicinity of each stop would be reviewed during detailed design to provide adequate pedestrian storage.

Staged pedestrian crossing designs in the vicinity of each stop along the alignment in the vicinity of each stop would be reviewed during detailed design to ensure they provide adequate pedestrian storage commensurate with the available space.

All precincts

TT-5 TT-5 Transport for NSW would work with the City of Parramatta Council in the context of its long term strategy for car parking in the local government area to identify appropriate parking management measures (e.g. parking controls) to balance supply and demand for parking.

The Parramatta Light Rail team from Transport for NSW would work with the City of Parramatta Council and the Sydney Coordination Office in the context of its long term strategy for car parking in the local government area. The team would identify appropriate parking management measures (e.g. parking controls or replacement of special parking such as mobility parking or loading zones) to balance supply and demand for parking for incorporation into the Parramatta Light Rail design, where it is impacting on-street car parking.

All precincts






N/A TT-6 Not included in previous version. The detailed design of interchanges with other modes of transport would be developed to enable easy customer transfer at Parramatta Transport Interchange, Westmead Station and at other significant locations identified for customer transfer. The design would: » Consider accessibility for a range of customer types and

abilities. » Develop Interchange Operations and Maintenance Plans

setting out who owns, operates and maintains each asset within the interchange.

» Identify walking and cycling catchments and facilities at interchanges.

» Identify the network service plan post construction. » Confirm changes necessary to footpaths, cycleways,

passenger facilities, parking, traffic and road access, and integration of public domain to optimise access.

All Precincts

TT-6 TT-7 During detailed design, the design for the Darcy Road / Hawkesbury Road intersection would be reviewed to determine if additional pedestrian storage capacity is required to meet future demand. This would be supported by pedestrian storage capacity assessments to determine suitable crossing widths and configurations. Identified reasonable and feasible changes would be incorporated into the project design.

During detailed design, the design for the Darcy Road / Hawkesbury Road intersection would be reviewed to determine if additional pedestrian storage capacity is required to meet future demand. This would be supported by pedestrian storage capacity assessments to determine suitable crossing widths and configurations. Identified reasonable and feasible changes would be incorporated into the project design.

Westmead



8-23



TT-7 TT-8 During detailed construction planning, liaison would be undertaken with City of Parramatta Council, NSW Health, hospitals and other facilities within the Westmead Health Precinct (including Cumberland Hospital (east and west)) and emergency services to ensure construction staging of the project does not result in unacceptable access to the hospital precinct, and is coordinated with other developments underway within the Westmead Health Precinct.

During detailed construction planning, liaison would be undertaken with City of Parramatta Council, NSW Health, hospitals and other facilities within the Westmead Health Precinct (including Cumberland Hospital (east and west)) and emergency services to ensure construction staging of the project does not result in unacceptable maintains appropriate access to the hospital precinct, and is coordinated with other developments underway within the Westmead Health Precinct. Any potential impacts on the existing road network and internal access (including emergency vehicle access) would also be addressed including alerting emergency services when construction arrangements change. Any identified mitigation and management measures would be incorporated into the project design. UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation would also be consulted to minimise impacts of the operation of the light rail on road access and the future road network performance of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area, and pedestrian and cyclist access across the alignment. Transport for NSW would consider opportunities to optimise the integration of the light rail into the development, where reasonable and feasible. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measures TT-9 and TT-11, which have overlapping requirements.]

Westmead, Parramatta

North






TT-8 TT-9 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would undertake a broader operational review of the existing local road network in Westmead and Parramatta North precincts in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services, City of Parramatta Council, Parramatta Park Trust and NSW Health to identify measures to minimise impacts due to re-direction of traffic onto the local road network. This could include Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) measures, localised capacity improvements (such as the reconfiguration of parking along Caroline Street) and measures to prioritise public emergency access to the Westmead Health Precinct. Reasonable and feasible mitigation and management measures would be implemented as part of the project.

During detailed design, The Parramatta Light Rail team from Transport for NSW would undertake an broader operational review of the existing local road network in Westmead and Parramatta North precincts in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services, City of Parramatta Council, Parramatta Park Trust and NSW Health to identify measures to minimise the impacts of the Parramatta Light Rail project due to re-direction of traffic onto the local road network. This could include Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) measures, localised capacity improvements (such as the reconfiguration of parking along Caroline Street) and measures to prioritise public emergency access to the Westmead Health Precinct. Reasonable and feasible mitigation and management measures would be considered as part of the detailed design of the project.


North

TT-9 N/A During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with NSW Health to address any potential impacts on the existing internal road network and access (including emergency vehicle access) for the Cumberland Hospital (east and west) during construction and operation. Any identified mitigation and management measures would be incorporated into the project design.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with NSW Health to address any potential impacts on the existing internal road network and access (including emergency vehicle access) for the Cumberland Hospital (east and west) during construction and operation. Any identified mitigation and management measures would be incorporated into the project design. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into mitigation and management measure TT-8 (see above).]


North

N/A TT-10 Not included in previous version. During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consider whether there is an opportunity to consolidate the Bridge Road Bridge and Parramatta North Bridge to provide access for light rail, hospital vehicles and active transport. This would be documented as an options assessment.


North



8-25



TT-10 TT-11 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would explore opportunities to provide through movements at the New Street / Fleet Street / Factory Street intersection to minimise impacts to local area access. Should this not unreasonably impact light rail or road network operations, through movements would be incorporated into the project design.

Transport for NSW would explore opportunities during detailed design to provide through movements at the New Street / Fleet Street / Factory Street intersection. The goal would be to minimise impacts to local area access during the operation of the project and improvements would be incorporated, subject to impact assessment on final light rail or road network operations,

Parramatta North

TT-11 N/A During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with UrbanGrowth NSW to minimise impacts of light rail on road access and the future road network performance of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area, and pedestrian and cyclist access across the alignment. Any identified reasonable and feasible mitigation and management measures would be incorporated into the project design.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation to minimise impacts of light rail on road access and the future road network performance of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area, and pedestrian and cyclist access across the alignment. Any identified reasonable and feasible mitigation and management measures would be incorporated into the project design. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into mitigation and management measure TT-8 (see above).]

Parramatta North

TT-12 TT-12 Signal coordination along Factory Street would be considered during detailed design to reduce road vehicle delays during operation.

Signal coordination along Factory Street would be considered during detailed design to reduce road vehicle delays during operation.

Parramatta North

TT-13 TT-13 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would identify and implement additional pedestrian crossing locations at (or in the vicinity of): » The eastern end of the Cumberland Hospital stop. » Northern end of the Fennell Street stop. » O’Connell Street north of Dunlop Street.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would identify and implement additional pedestrian crossing locations at (or in the vicinity of): » The eastern end of the Cumberland Hospital stop. » Northern end of the Fennell Street stop. » O’Connell Street north of Dunlop Street.

Parramatta North






TT-14 TT-14 Signal coordination and phasing would be considered during detailed design to allow for increased pedestrian crossing times along Church Street and Victoria Road, with consideration of staged pedestrian crossings during detailed design.

Signal coordination and phasing would be considered during detailed design to allow for increased pedestrian crossing times: » Along Church Street and Victoria Road, with consideration

of staged pedestrian crossings during detailed design. » Along other Church Street intersections, Smith Street

intersections, and other key intersections across the Parramatta CBD.

Where required, this would be supported by pedestrian storage capacity assessments to determine suitable crossing widths and configurations. Identified reasonable and feasible changes would be considered for the project design. [This mitigation and management measure has been updated to incorporate the similar EIS mitigation and management measure TT-19.]

Parramatta North

TT-15 N/A During detailed design, designs for the Church Street / Board Street intersection and the Church Street / Barney Street intersection would be refined to reduce traffic demand along Church Street north of Factory Street.

During detailed design, designs for the Church Street / Board Street intersection and the Church Street / Barney Street intersection would be refined to reduce traffic demand along Church Street north of Factory Street. [This measure has been deleted as it has now been implemented as part of the preferred project, refer to Section 6.3.2.2 of this report.]

Parramatta North

TT-16 TT-15 During detailed construction planning, Transport for NSW would determine in consultation with Western Sydney University a temporary alternative stop location and route for the university’s free shuttle service.

During detailed construction planning, Transport for NSW would determine, in consultation with Western Sydney University, a temporary alternative stop location and route for the university’s free shuttle service.

Parramatta CBD



8-27



TT-17 TT-16 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would investigate the need for the signalisation of the Harris / Hassall Street intersection and the need for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) measures to address increased traffic demand on Hassall Street. The need for signalisation would be confirmed through additional traffic modelling.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would investigate the need for the signalisation of the Harris / Hassall Street intersection and the need for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) measures to address increased traffic demand on Hassall Street. The need for signalisation would be confirmed through additional traffic modelling.

Parramatta CBD

TT-18 TT-17 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with impacted owners of properties along the southern side of Macquarie Street and other relevant stakeholders (such as the City of Parramatta Council) to maintain access to all properties during operation. This could include (but is not limited to): » Provision of alternative access location (new or use of an

existing alternative available access location), where possible

» Provision of temporary offsite parking elsewhere in the Parramatta CBD, if the impacted property is expected to undergo redevelopment

» Maintaining current access if it does not have unreasonable impacts on the operation of the project and the property owner (subject to review of traffic volumes and control arrangements).

In locations where access for local residents, businesses or other organisations to properties is permanently changed as a result of the operation of the project, a local access plan will be prepared. The local access plan will identify the traffic control or other measures to be implemented in the detailed design to provide alternative access. The local access plan will be communicated to the affected parties. Locations identified to date that require consideration include, but are not limited to: » The southern side of Macquarie Street.

» Hainsworth Street, Westmead. » Tramway Avenue, Parramatta. » Alfred Street, Parramatta. » North of Grand Avenue, Camellia, where properties are

impacted by works on the Sandown Line. During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with For impacted owners of properties along the southern side of Macquarie Street and other relevant stakeholders (such as the City of Parramatta Council) to maintain access to all properties during operation. This the local access plans could include (but is are not limited to): » Provision of alternative access location (new or use of an

existing alternative available access location), where possible.

All precincts






» Provision of temporary offsite parking elsewhere in the Parramatta CBD, if the impacted property is expected to undergo redevelopment.

» Maintaining current access if it does not have unreasonable impacts on the operation of the project and the property owner (subject to review of traffic volumes and control arrangements).

[This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include the similar mitigation and management measure from the EIS, TT-22.]

TT-19 N/A Signal coordination and phasing would be considered during detailed design to allow for increased pedestrian crossing times along Church Street intersections, Smith Street intersections, and other key intersections across the Parramatta CBD. Where required, this would be supported by pedestrian storage capacity assessments to determine suitable crossing widths and configurations. Identified reasonable and feasible changes would be incorporated into the project design.

Signal coordination and phasing would be considered during detailed design to allow for increased pedestrian crossing times along Church Street intersections, Smith Street intersections, and other key intersections across the Parramatta CBD. Where required, this would be supported by pedestrian storage capacity assessments to determine suitable crossing widths and configurations. Identified reasonable and feasible changes would be incorporated into the project design. [This mitigation and management measure has been combined with the similar mitigation and management measure, TT-16 (see above).]

Parramatta CBD



8-29



TT-20 TT-18 The existing at-grade pedestrian crossing across Macquarie Street in the vicinity of Arthur Phillip High School would be maintained. During detailed design, a detailed risk assessment would be completed to identify management measures to ensure safe interaction of the project with school children crossing between schools sites located on either side of Macquarie Street. Any identified mitigation and management measures for an at-grade crossing would be incorporated into the project design. Transport for NSW would consult with the Department of Education on the outcomes of the risk assessment and identified responses.

Safe pedestrian and cyclist crossings will be maintained or be provided as necessary and practical. A dedicated risk assessment would be completed to identify management measures to ensure safe interaction of the project with the public. This will include: » The existing at-grade pedestrian crossing across Macquarie

Street in the vicinity of Arthur Phillip High School would be maintained. During detailed design, a detailed risk assessment would be completed to identify management measures to ensure safe interaction of the project with school children crossing between schools sites located on either side of Macquarie Street. Any identified mitigation and management measures for an at-grade crossing would be incorporated into the project design. Transport for NSW would consult with the Department of Education on the outcomes of the risk assessment and identified responses.

» The detailed design of the right hand turn from Hassell Street into Harris Street would, where reasonable and feasible, incorporate a safe pedestrian and cyclist crossing of Harris Street to link Robin Thomas Reserve with Hassall Street, and would consider the potential for a future on-road bike path with dedicated bike lanes in Hassall Street (to be delivered by others). Any alternative pedestrian and cyclist provisions would be implemented prior to the removal of the existing pedestrian refuge.

Parramatta CBD






TT-21 N/A During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with property owners that would have altered access to properties located to the north of Grand Avenue due to the repurposing of the Sandown Line for the project. This would identify modifications to existing access points or provision of alternative access arrangements. Final access arrangements would consider appropriate sight distance requirements to maintain safe access across the project alignment.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would consult with property owners that would have altered access to properties located to the north of Grand Avenue due to the repurposing of the Sandown Line for the project. This would identify modifications to existing access points or provision of alternative access arrangements. Final access arrangements would consider appropriate sight distance requirements to maintain safe access across the project alignment. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with the new mitigation and management measure TT-17 (see above).]


TT-22 TT-19 Transport for NSW would continue liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment during detailed design to ensure integration of the project with future rezoning / master planning projects for the Camellia Town Centre project.

Transport for NSW would continue liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment during detailed design to ensure integration of the project with future rezoning / master planning projects for the Camellia Town Centre project.


TT-23 TT-20 During detailed design, opportunities to facilitate improved east-west crossings of the project alignment for existing and future communities would be explored by Transport for NSW in consultation with City of Parramatta Council. Provision for additional crossings would be safeguarded if any such crossing does not unreasonably impact light rail operation, and would be delivered by others / incorporated into the project.

During detailed design, opportunities to facilitate improved east-west crossings of the project alignment for existing and future communities would be explored by Transport for NSW in consultation with City of Parramatta Council. Provision for additional crossings would be safeguarded if any such crossing does not unreasonably impact light rail operation, and would be delivered by others / incorporated into the project.

Carlingford

TT-24 TT-21 During detailed design, Transport for NSW would liaise with the Housing and Land Corporation concerning the safeguarding of an additional crossing in the vicinity of the Telopea stop to link Adderton Road and Sturt Street to improve east-west connectivity for the Telopea Priority Precinct. Provision for an additional crossing would be safeguarded if the road crossing does not unreasonably impact light rail operation, and would be delivered by others.

During detailed design, Transport for NSW would liaise with the Land and Housing Corporation concerning the safeguarding of future-proofing for an additional road crossing in the vicinity of the Telopea stop to link Adderton Road and Sturt Street to improve east-west connectivity for the Telopea Priority Precinct. Provision for an additional crossing would be subject to a feasible design and would seek to safeguard the proposed location of the road crossing for final delivery by others.

Carlingford



8-31



TT-25 TT-22 The Carlingford services bus replacement strategy for the project would be finalised during detailed construction planning, including the identification of any supporting infrastructure at Camellia, Rydalmere, Telopea, Dundas and Carlingford stations.

The Carlingford services bus replacement strategy for the project would be finalised during detailed construction planning, including the identification of any supporting infrastructure at Camellia, Rydalmere, Telopea, Dundas and Carlingford stations.

Carlingford

Visual and landscape character

VL-1 VL-1 Design of hoardings would feature graphics, artwork or project information wherever possible at appropriate locations to be determined in consultation with Transport for NSW. This may include artworks or project information. Guidelines for hoardings graphics, including location-specific guidelines, would be submitted by the contractor for approval by Transport for NSW prior to the commencement of works.

Design of hoardings would feature graphics, artwork or project information wherever possible at appropriate locations to be determined in consultation with Transport for NSW. This may include artworks or project information. Guidelines for hoardings graphics, including location-specific guidelines, would be submitted by the contractor for approval by Transport for NSW prior to the commencement of works.

All precincts

VL-2 N/A All permanent lighting for the project would be designed in accordance with AS 1158 Road Lighting and AS 4282 Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting.

All permanent lighting for the project would be designed in accordance with AS 1158 Road Lighting and AS 4282 Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into mitigation and management measure PR-4 (see above).]

All precincts






VL-3 VL-2 An UDLP would be prepared for the project. The plan would include: » Integration with the adjacent built environment. » Design detail that responds to the amenity and character of

the local area and heritage items located within or adjacent to the project area.

» Materials and finishes.

» Location and design of proposed project elements including footpaths and active transport, street furniture, bicycle storage and lighting.

» Proposed plantings. » Opportunities for locations to display public art.

An UDLP would be prepared for the project. The plan would include: » Integration with the adjacent built environment. » Design detail that responds to the amenity and character of

the local area and heritage items located within or adjacent to the project area, including for the following sites / items:

• Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.

• North Parramatta Conservation Area.

• Stable (and potential archaeological site).

• Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape.

• Sewage Pumping Station 67.

• Rydalmere Hospital Precinct.

• Dundas Railway Station Group.

• Carlingford Stock Feeds. » Materials and finishes.

» Location and design of proposed project elements including footpaths and active transport, street furniture, bicycle storage and lighting.

» Proposed plantings. » Opportunities for locations to display public art. The UDLP would be prepared in consultation with local council and other relevant stakeholders. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measures VL-4 and HE-11.]

All precincts



8-33



VL-4 N/A The UDLP would be prepared in consultation with local council and other relevant stakeholders.

The UDLP would be prepared in consultation with local council and other relevant stakeholders. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-2 (see above).]

All precincts

VL-5 VL-3 Architectural treatments of substations would be designed to minimise visual impact and respect the local landscape character.

Architectural treatments of substations would be designed to minimise visual impact and respect the local landscape character.

All precincts

VL-6 VL-4 Detailed design of new bridges would be carried out in accordance with Bridge Aesthetics: Design guidelines to improve the appearance of bridges in NSW (RMS, 2012).

Detailed design of new bridges would be carried out in accordance with Bridge Aesthetics: Design guidelines to improve the appearance of bridges in NSW (RMS, 2012).

All precincts

VL-7 VL-5 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated to improve pedestrian connections and public domain treatments at interchanges between transport services.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated to improve pedestrian connections and public domain treatments at interchanges between transport services.

All precincts






VL-8 VL-6 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated where feasible to retain vegetation in order to screen and visually integrate the project with the surrounding area, and where required, additional tree planting and landscaping would be provided to screen views in order to soften the visual impact of the project including: » Along Hawkesbury Road. » Within the Cumberland Hospital (east and west). » Riparian areas in the vicinity of bridge crossings. » Along the O’Connell Street perimeter of the Parramatta

Gaol. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery.

» Within Prince Alfred Square. » Within Robin Thomas Reserve. » Within Queen’s Wharf Reserve. » Along the boundary of the stabling and maintenance facility

site. » Along the site boundary with the Western Sydney University

campus. » Along the Carlingford Line.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated where feasible to retain vegetation in order to screen and visually integrate the project with the surrounding area, and where required, additional tree planting and landscaping would be provided to screen views in order to soften the visual impact of the project including: » Along Hawkesbury Road. » Within the Cumberland Hospital (east and west). » Riparian areas in the vicinity of bridge crossings. » Along the O’Connell Street perimeter of the Parramatta

Gaol. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Within Prince Alfred Square. » Within Robin Thomas Reserve. » Within Queen’s Wharf Reserve. » Along the boundary of the stabling and maintenance facility

site. » Along the site boundary with the Western Sydney University

campus. » Along the Carlingford Line.

All precincts

VL-9 VL-7 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for grass track treatments to mitigate visual impact on sections of the alignment through: » Cumberland Hospital (east). » Robin Thomas Reserve.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for grass track treatments to mitigate visual impact on sections of the alignment, for example through key heritage areas such as: » Cumberland Hospital (east). » Robin Thomas Reserve.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD



8-35



VL-10 VL-8 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for wire-free sections of the alignment through: » Cumberland Hospital (east). » Parramatta CBD precinct.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for wire-free sections of the alignment through key locations such as: » Cumberland Hospital (east). » Parramatta CBD precinct. » Robin Thomas Reserve (Ancient Aboriginal and Early

Colonial Landscape). [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measure HE-18.]

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD

VL-11 VL-9 During detailed design, where feasible opportunities would be investigated to refine the project footprint in order to reduce impact on; » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Prince Alfred Square.

» Robin Thomas Reserve.

During detailed design, where feasible opportunities would be investigated to refine the project footprint in order to reduce impact on key heritage areas such as: » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Prince Alfred Square.

» Robin Thomas Reserve.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD






VL-12 VL-10 Detailed design of any overhead wire masts on Lennox Bridge would: » Minimise the number of vertical elements » Locate vertical elements considering symmetry and

surrounding built form » Minimise visibility from the river foreshore parkland.

Detailed design of any overhead wire masts on Lennox Bridge would: » Minimise the number of vertical elements » Locate vertical elements considering symmetry and surrounding built form » Minimise visibility from the river foreshore parkland. During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including: » Minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural

engineer with heritage experience. » Minimising impacts on the significant fabric of the bridge in

consultation with a heritage architect. » Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual

impacts. » Design responses to ensure adverse impacts to the bridge

structure due to operational vibration are avoided. » The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage

Council) would be consulted during detailed design. [This mitigation and management measure has been updated to include EIS mitigation and management measure HE-19.]

Parramatta CBD

VL-13 VL-11 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated to minimise the visual impact of the stabling and maintenance facility to reduce adverse views to the facility.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated to minimise the visual impact of the stabling and maintenance facility to reduce adverse views to the facility.


VL-14 VL-12 During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for the layout of the Dundas stop so that it has greater visual prominence from approaching footpaths, and an improved relationship with the retained heritage station platform and building.

During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for the layout of the Dundas stop so that it has greater visual prominence from approaching footpaths, and an improved relationship with the retained heritage station platform and building.

Carlingford



8-37



Built and non-Aboriginal heritage

HE-1 HE-1 Three archaeological management zones have been developed for the project to manage archaeology with varying levels of significance throughout the project corridor. The general mitigation and management measures to be applied to each management zone are outlined below. The precinct-specific measures identify which management zone(s) measures apply to each archaeological management unit (HAMU) within a precinct. » The following mitigation and management measures would

be implemented for Zone 1 – State significant historical archaeology: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all

contractors, to be developed as part of the heritage management plan.

• An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

• An excavation director who meets the NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant archaeological investigations must manage the works.

• Impact or removal is generally unacceptable for State significant archaeology identified as being highly intact and if proposed should be justified appropriately by the excavation director.

Three archaeological management zones have been developed for the project to manage archaeology with varying levels of significance throughout the project corridor. The general mitigation and management measures to be applied to each management zone are outlined below. The precinct-specific measures identify which management zone(s) measures apply to each archaeological management unit (HAMU) within a precinct. » The following mitigation and management measures would

be implemented for Zone 1 – State significant historical archaeology: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all


• An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

• An excavation director who meets the NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant archaeological investigations must manage the works.

• Impact or removal is generally unacceptable for State significant archaeology identified as being highly intact and if proposed should be justified appropriately by the excavation director.






• In situ retention of archaeological remains would be considered in accordance with the ARD as required.

• The NSW Heritage Division would be notified should intact State significant relics be unexpectedly identified.

• Public engagement, such as open days or media releases, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.

• Post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and relics conservation would be carried out if relics are identified.

» The following mitigation and management measures would be implemented for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all


• An ARD would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

• Archaeological monitoring would be carried out by a suitably qualified excavation director, followed by open area salvage (if required).

• Impact or removal is likely to be considered acceptable if appropriate mitigation and management measures are followed as outlined in the ARD.

• Public engagement, such as open days, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.

• In situ retention of archaeological remains would be considered in accordance with the ARD as required.

• The NSW Heritage Division would be notified should intact State significant relics be unexpectedly identified.

• Public engagement, such as open days or media releases, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.


» The following mitigation and management measures would be implemented for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all


• An ARD would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

• Archaeological monitoring would be carried out by a suitably qualified excavation director, followed by open area salvage (if required).

• Impact or removal is likely to be considered acceptable if appropriate mitigation and management measures are followed as outlined in the ARD.

• Public engagement, such as open days, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.

All precincts



8-39




» The following mitigation and management measures would be implemented for Zone 3 – Nil-low archaeological resource present: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all


• Works are unlikely to impact on significant archaeological resources; however, an archaeologist would be engaged should any unexpected potential archaeological remains be encountered in accordance with an unexpected finds procedure.


» The following mitigation and management measures would be implemented for Zone 3 – Nil-low archaeological resource present: • A heritage induction would be carried out for all


• Works are unlikely to impact on significant archaeological resources; however, an archaeologist would be engaged should any unexpected potential archaeological remains be encountered in accordance with an unexpected finds procedure.

HE-2 HE-2 Archaeological salvage excavation would not be carried out prior to the preparation of an archaeological research design. For this project, it is likely that the archaeological research designs would recommend archaeological salvage in the following instances: » Where detailed archival research and understanding of

modern disturbance (such as information to show the extent of previous sub-surface excavation, for example plans or drawings of a building’s basement level(s)) needs to be supplemented with more site-specific (on-ground) information to better define the archaeological potential and/or significance of the site.

» In areas where access for excavation activities is not restricted by buildings or other structures.

» Salvage excavation would generally be recommended in areas where there is a moderate to high potential for relics of local or State significance to be present. It would involve locating and recording any relics found prior to their removal by construction. Staged salvage excavation could only be carried out after project approval.

Archaeological salvage excavation would not be carried out prior to the preparation of an archaeological research design. For this project, it is likely that the archaeological research designs would recommend archaeological salvage in the following instances: » Where detailed archival research and understanding of

modern disturbance (such as information to show the extent of previous sub-surface excavation, for example plans or drawings of a building’s basement level(s)) needs to be supplemented with more site-specific (on-ground) information to better define the archaeological potential and/or significance of the site.

» In areas where access for excavation activities is not restricted by buildings or other structures.

» Salvage excavation would generally be recommended in areas where there is a moderate to high potential for relics of local or State significance to be present. It would involve locating and recording any relics found prior to their removal by construction. Staged salvage excavation could only would be carried out after project approval.

All precincts






HE-3 HE-3 Archaeological monitoring (i.e. the monitoring of construction excavation activities by a qualified archaeologist) would be carried out as required in accordance with the archaeological research design to record any significant remains uncovered during excavation. Examples of where archaeological monitoring may be required include: » Low impact construction activities (such as narrow

trenching) in areas of moderate to high potential for local or State significant relics.

» Areas with low potential to contain remains of State significance.

Archaeological monitoring (i.e. the monitoring of construction excavation activities by a qualified archaeologist) would be carried out as required in accordance with by the archaeological research design to record any significant remains uncovered during excavation. Examples of where archaeological monitoring may be required include: » Low impact construction activities (such as narrow

trenching) in areas of moderate to high potential for local or State significant relics.


All precincts

HE-4 HE-4 Modification of the project alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered, and impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance avoided where possible. As detailed design progresses, care should be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance. The project design would be sympathetic to identified potential archaeological resources items (i.e. in archaeological management Zones 1 and 2) and, where reasonable and feasible, minimise impacts to those resources. The detailed design for sections of the project that would impact on known archaeological resources would be developed in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and relevant stakeholders as advised (e.g. the OEH and City of Parramatta Council).

Modification of the project alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered, and impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance avoided where possible. As detailed design progresses, care should be taken opportunities to avoid or further minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance would be considered and documented in the design report. The project design would be sympathetic to identified potential archaeological resources items (i.e. in archaeological management Zones 1 and 2) and, where reasonable and feasible, minimise impacts to those resources. The detailed design for sections of the project that would impact on known archaeological resources would be developed in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and relevant stakeholders as advised (e.g. the OEH and City of Parramatta Council).

All precincts

HE-5 HE-5 An Exhumation Policy and Guideline would be prepared prior to construction as part of the heritage management plan, and would inform the unexpected finds procedure in relation to the unexpected discovery of human remains. It would be developed in accordance with the Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains (NSW Heritage Office, 1998).

An Exhumation Policy and Guideline would be prepared prior to construction as part of the heritage management plan, and would inform the unexpected finds procedure in relation to the unexpected discovery of human remains. It would be developed in accordance with the Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains (NSW Heritage Office, 1998).

All precincts



8-41



HE-6 HE-6 The mitigation and management measures for Zone 1 – State significant historical archaeology would apply to the following HAMU: » HAMU 4 – Cumberland Hospital (east). » HAMU 8 – Roman Catholic Cemetery. » HAMU 13 – Prince Alfred Square. » HAMU 18 – The Town Drain – Macquarie Street and Barrack

Lane. » HAMU 20 – Robin Thomas.

» HAMU 21 – Commissariat and barracks (George Street east).

» HAMU 31 – Grave of Eliner Magee and Child. The mitigation and management measures for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology would apply to the following HAMUs: » HAMU 1 – Eastern side of Hawkesbury Road including the

road corridor. » HAMU 2 – Western side of Hawkesbury Road including the

road corridor. » HAMU 3 – Cumberland Hospital (west).

» HAMU 5 – Factory Street. » HAMU 7 – Church Street. » HAMU 9 – Parramatta North Public School. » HAMU 10 – Church Street west (between Fennell and Harold

Street). » HAMU 11 – Royal Oak Hotel. » HAMU 12 – Parramatta North off-corridor works. » HAMU 14 – Phillip Street. » HAMU 15 – George Street.

The mitigation and management measures for Zone 1 – State significant historical archaeology would apply to the following HAMU: » HAMU 4 – Cumberland Hospital (east). » HAMU 8 – Roman Catholic Cemetery. » HAMU 13 – Prince Alfred Square. » HAMU 18 – The Town Drain – Macquarie Street and Barrack

Lane. » HAMU 20 – Robin Thomas.

» HAMU 21 – Commissariat and barracks (George Street east).

» HAMU 31 – Grave of Eliner Magee and Child. The mitigation and management measures for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology would apply to the following HAMUs: » HAMU 1 – Eastern side of Hawkesbury Road including the

road corridor. » HAMU 2 – Western side of Hawkesbury Road including the

road corridor. » HAMU 3 – Cumberland Hospital (west). » HAMU 5 – Factory Street. » HAMU 7 – Church Street. » HAMU 9 – Parramatta North Public School. » HAMU 10 – Church Street west (between Fennell and Harold

Street). » HAMU 11 – Royal Oak Hotel. » HAMU 12 – Parramatta North off-corridor works. » HAMU 14 – Phillip Street. » HAMU 15 – George Street.

All precincts






» HAMU 16 – Macquarie Street. » HAMU 17 – Horwood Place. » HAMU 19 – Barrack Lane. » HAMU 22 – Smith Street. » HAMU 23 – Charles Street. » HAMU 24 – Parramatta CBD off-corridor works. » HAMU 25 – Tramway Avenue. » HAMU 27 – Carlingford Railway Line. » HAMU 28 – Sandown Line. » HAMU 29 – Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. » HAMU 32 – Female Orphan School. » HAMU 33 – The Ponds and Rydalmere Station. » HAMU 34 – Dundas Railway Station. » HAMU 35 – Carlingford Stock Feeds. The mitigation and management measures for Zone 3 – Nil-low archaeological resource present would apply to the following HAMUs: » HAMU 6 – Westmead off-corridor works. » HAMU 25 – The former Wunderlich Tile Factory. » HAMU 26 – James Ruse Drive.

» HAMU 16 – Macquarie Street. » HAMU 17 – Horwood Place. » HAMU 19 – Barrack Lane. » HAMU 22 – Smith Street. » HAMU 23 – Charles Street. » HAMU 24 – Parramatta CBD off-corridor works. » HAMU 25 – Tramway Avenue. » HAMU 27 – Carlingford Railway Line. » HAMU 28 – Sandown Line. » HAMU 29 – Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. » HAMU 32 – Female Orphan School. » HAMU 33 – The Ponds and Rydalmere Station. » HAMU 34 – Dundas Railway Station. » HAMU 35 – Carlingford Stock Feeds. The mitigation and management measures for Zone 3 – Nil-low archaeological resource present would apply to the following HAMUs: » HAMU 6 – Westmead off-corridor works. » HAMU 25 – The former Wunderlich Tile Factory. » HAMU 26 – James Ruse Drive.



8-43



HE-7 HE-7 In relation to HAMU 4 − Cumberland Hospital (east), the following mitigation and management measures would be implemented: » Thorough archaeological investigation of potential

archaeological remains associated with Mrs Bett’s House and the Lunatic Asylum would be required prior to the proposed excavation works commencing in these areas as required in accordance with the Zone 1 archaeological management measures.

» Alternative construction methods would be identified and considered for the Grose Street Drain (local significance). Should impact to a section of the drain be unavoidable, archaeological investigation of this area would be carried out prior to excavation works.

In relation to HAMU 4 − Cumberland Hospital (east), the following mitigation and management measures would be implemented: » Thorough archaeological investigation of potential

archaeological remains associated with Mrs Bett’s House and the Lunatic Asylum would be required prior to the proposed excavation works commencing in these areas as required in accordance with the Zone 1 archaeological management measures.

» Alternative construction methods would be identified and considered for the Grose Street Drain (local significance). Should impact to a section of the drain be unavoidable, archaeological investigation of this area would be carried out prior to excavation works.

Parramatta North

HE-8 HE-8 In relation to HAMU 18 − The Town Drain − Macquarie Street and Barrack Lane, alternative construction methods would be investigated and considered for works in the location of the town drain in George Street in order to retain this section of the drain where feasible.

In relation to HAMU 18 − The Town Drain − Macquarie Street and Barrack Lane, alternative construction methods would be investigated and considered for works in the location of the town drain in George Street in order to retain this section of the drain where feasible.

Parramatta CBD

HE-9 HE-9 Appropriate heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and would include results of archaeological investigations. An interpretation plan would be prepared for the project in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual, the NSW Heritage Office’s Interpreting Heritage Places and Items: Guidelines (August 2005), and the NSW Heritage Council’s Heritage Interpretation Policy. This would apply across the project, in particular in relation to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Royal Oak Hotel and Stables. » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin

Thomas Reserve).

Appropriate heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and would include results of archaeological investigations. An interpretation plan would be prepared for the project in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual, the NSW Heritage Office’s Interpreting Heritage Places and Items: Guidelines (August 2005), and the NSW Heritage Council’s Heritage Interpretation Policy. This would apply across the project, in particular in relation to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Royal Oak Hotel and Stables. » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin

Thomas Reserve).

All precincts






» Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north). » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.

» Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north). » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.

HE-10 HE-10 The platforms, stops and substations would be designed to remain non-obtrusive with limited bulk to minimise visual impacts on heritage items in the vicinity to respect the historical landscape of the project. Form, fabric and palette would respond to place and context, and respect the heritage values of the area. Where possible, the recommendations of the interpretation plan would be incorporated into design. Ancillary works required by the project related to power supply, drainage facilities, railway tracks, OHW and any other works would be designed to minimise impacts on heritage items and areas of archaeological potential as much as feasible within the context of the project. This would apply across the project, in particular, with respect to the following heritage items: » Western Sydney University. » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.

» Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Lennox Bridge. » Anthony Malouf and Co. » St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre. » Shop (and potential archaeological site) (item I663). » Shop (item I662).

» Shop (item I661). » Parramatta House (and potential archaeological site).

The platforms, stops and substations would be designed to remain non-obtrusive with limited bulk to minimise visual impacts on heritage items in the vicinity to respect the historical landscape of the project. Form, fabric and palette would respond to place and context, and respect the heritage values of the area. Where possible, the recommendations of the interpretation plan would be incorporated into design. Ancillary works required by the project related to power supply, drainage facilities, railway tracks, OHW and any other works would be designed to minimise impacts on heritage items and areas of archaeological potential as much as feasible within the context of the project. This would apply across the project, in particular, with respect to the following heritage items: » Western Sydney University. » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.

» Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Lennox Bridge. » Anthony Malouf and Co. » St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre. » Shop (and potential archaeological site) (item I663). » Shop (item I662).

» Shop (item I661). » Parramatta House (and potential archaeological site).

All precincts



8-45



» Westpac Bank. » Warders Cottages. » Convict Barracks Wall. » Dundas Railway Station Group.

» Carlingford Stock Feeds.

» Westpac Bank. » Warders Cottages. » Convict Barracks Wall. » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.

HE-11 N/A The UDLP (refer to VL-3) would apply across the project and would be applicable to the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » North Parramatta Conservation Area.

» Stable (and potential archaeological site). » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape. » Sewage Pumping Station 67. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.

The UDLP (refer to VL-3) would apply across the project and would be applicable to the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » North Parramatta Conservation Area.

» Stable (and potential archaeological site). » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape. » Sewage Pumping Station 67. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-2 (see above).]

All precincts






HE-12 HE-11 During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including: » Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual

impacts. » Design of the Parramatta North Bridge to minimise visual

impacts and retain significant views and vistas to the nineteenth century heritage landscape. A high-quality design would be prepared in consultation with an experience heritage architect.


» Design of roadworks would seek to prioritise the retention and protection of kerbing.

» Impacts significant trees and plantings would be avoided where possible.

The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would be consulted during detailed design.

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including: » Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual

impacts. » Design of the Parramatta North Bridge to minimise visual

impacts and retain significant views and vistas to the nineteenth century heritage landscape. A high-quality design would be prepared in consultation with an experience heritage architect.


» Design of roadworks would seek to prioritise the retention and protection of kerbing.

» Impacts significant trees and plantings would be avoided where possible.

The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would be consulted during detailed design.

Westmead Parramatta

North



8-47



HE-13 HE-12 An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Lennox Bridge.

» Dundas Railway Station Group. An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage engineer would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to Lennox Bridge.

An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Lennox Bridge.

» Dundas Railway Station Group. The detailed design report(s) prepared for the project would document how the recommendations of the heritage architect / engineer have been considered and actioned. An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage engineer would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to Lennox Bridge.

Westmead Parramatta

North Parramatta

CBD Carlingford

HE-14 HE-13 A moveable heritage item strategy would be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant and include a comprehensive record of all moveable heritage. The moveable heritage item strategy would form part of a broader interpretation strategy for the project and would include the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Royal Oak Hotel and stables. » Dundas Railway Station Group.

A moveable heritage item strategy would be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant and include a comprehensive record of all moveable heritage. The moveable heritage item strategy would form part of a broader interpretation strategy for the project and would include the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Royal Oak Hotel and stables. » Dundas Railway Station Group.

Parramatta North

Carlingford






HE-15 HE-14 Photographic archival recording and reporting would be carried out in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office’s How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items (1998), and Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006). The record would be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant using archival-quality material. Records for State Heritage Register (SHR) listed items would be held at the NSW Heritage Council, the State Library and the owner of the asset. Records for locally-listed items would be held by the local council, the local library/studies and the owner of the asset. Specific items subject to archival recording would be documented as part of the heritage management plan and would include: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery.

» Royal Oak Hotel and Stables. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin

Thomas Reserve). » Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north). » Dundas Railway Station Group.

Prior to the commencement of construction, photographic archival recording and reporting would be carried out in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office’s How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items (1998), and Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (2006). The record would be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant using archival-quality material. Records for State Heritage Register (SHR) listed items would be held at the NSW Heritage Council, the State Library and the owner of the asset. Records for locally-listed items would be held by the local council, the local library/studies and the owner of the asset. Specific items subject to archival recording would be documented as part of the heritage management plan and would include: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery.

» Royal Oak Hotel and Stables. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site). » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin

Thomas Reserve). » Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north). » Dundas Railway Station Group.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD


Carlingford



8-49



HE-16 HE-15 Prior to total or partial demolition of heritage items or elements located within the boundaries of a heritage item, heritage fabric would be identified for salvage and reuse opportunities considered. Components of high and exceptional significance recommended for conservation and reuse would be listed within a salvage schedule to be incorporated within a Salvage Scheme for the project. The scheme would indicate appropriate storage locations as well as appropriate types of buildings and structures where the salvaged elements may be reused. This would apply to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Stone kerbing and trees (I362). » Stone kerb and gutter (I353). » Stone kerb and gutter (I329). » Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north).

» Dundas Railway Station Group (platforms).

Prior to total or partial demolition of heritage items or elements located within the boundaries of a heritage item, heritage fabric would be identified for salvage and reuse opportunities considered. Components of high and exceptional significance recommended for conservation and reuse would be listed within a salvage schedule to be incorporated within a Salvage Scheme for the project. The scheme would indicate appropriate storage locations as well as appropriate types of buildings and structures where the salvaged elements may be reused. This would apply to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Stone kerbing and trees (I362). » Stone kerb and gutter (I353). » Stone kerb and gutter (I329). » Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north).

» Dundas Railway Station Group (platforms).

Parramatta North


Carlingford






HE-17 HE-16 For State Heritage Register items, existing Conservation Management Plans (CMPs) would inform the design and construction methodology in that area. Where impacts to SHR items would modify the item or impact significant elements, updated CMPs would be prepared which would include recommendations on amendments to curtilage. This would apply to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site) (when

listed). » Lennox Bridge.

» Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve).

» Sewage Pumping Station 67. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former). » Dundas Railway Station Group.

For State Heritage Register items, existing Conservation Management Plans (CMPs) would inform the design and construction methodology in that area. Where impacts to SHR items would modify the item or impact significant elements, updated CMPs would be prepared which would include recommendations on amendments to curtilage. This would apply to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site) (when

listed). » Lennox Bridge.


» Sewage Pumping Station 67. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct (former). » Dundas Railway Station Group.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD


Carlingford

HE-18 N/A A wire-free design would be considered during the detailed design phase to minimise visual impacts on the Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve):

A wire-free design would be considered during the detailed design phase to minimise visual impacts on the Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve): [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-8 (see above).]

Parramatta CBD



8-51



HE-19 N/A During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including: » Minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural

engineer with heritage experience » Minimising impacts on the significant fabric of the bridge in

consultation with a heritage architect. » Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual

impacts. » Design responses to ensure adverse impacts to the bridge

structure due to operational vibration are avoided. The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage

Council) would be consulted during detailed design.

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including: » Minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural

engineer with heritage experience » Minimising impacts on the significant fabric of the bridge in

consultation with a heritage architect » Considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual

impacts » Design responses to ensure adverse impacts to the bridge

structure due to operational vibration are avoided. The Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would be consulted during detailed design. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-10 (see above).]

Parramatta CBD






HE-20 HE-17 During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce direct impacts on trees would be investigated in accordance with the tree mitigation and management measures, including trees and plantings associated with the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Street trees along O’Connell Street that form part of heritage

item (I362). » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site).


» Queen’s Wharf Reserve and stone wall and potential archaeological site.

» Wetlands. » Trees in median strip. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct.

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce direct impacts on trees where they contribute to the heritage character of a location would be investigated in accordance with the tree mitigation and management measures, including trees and plantings associated with the following heritage items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Street trees along O’Connell Street that form part of heritage

item (I362). » St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. » Alfred Square (and potential archaeological site).


» Queen’s Wharf Reserve and stone wall and potential archaeological site.

» Wetlands. » Trees in median strip. » Rydalmere Hospital Precinct.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD


Carlingford

HE-21 HE-18 During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to appropriately reuse the Camellia underbridge abutments would be explored in consultation with a heritage architect.

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to appropriately reuse the Camellia underbridge abutments would be explored in consultation with a heritage architect.


Carlingford

HE-22 » HE-19

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Dundas Railway Station Group would be explored including improving the interface design between the proposed light rail infrastructure and the existing heritage infrastructure, including the potential adaptive reuse of original heritage infrastructure as part of the light rail stop. Any adaptive reuse would be developed in consultation with a heritage architect.

During detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Dundas Railway Station Group would be explored including improving the interface design between the proposed light rail infrastructure and the existing heritage infrastructure, including the potential adaptive reuse of original heritage infrastructure as part of the light rail stop. Any adaptive reuse would be developed in consultation with a heritage architect.

Carlingford



8-53



Local property and land use

LU-1 LU-1 The overall disturbance footprint would be refined during detailed design to identify areas where the footprint could be minimised to reduce impacts on existing land uses. Detailed staging of the project would also be determined during detailed design and would aim to minimise the time that affected land uses are impacted during construction.

The overall disturbance footprint would be refined during detailed design to identify areas where the footprint could be minimised to reduce impacts on existing land uses. Detailed staging of the project would also be determined during detailed design and would aim to minimise the time that affected land uses are impacted during construction.

All precincts

LU-2 LU-2 Consultation and collaboration would continue with relevant stakeholders including NSW Health and City of Parramatta Council to maximise integration of stops with transport infrastructure (rail and bus) and surrounding developments, including public domain works.

Consultation and collaboration would continue with relevant stakeholders including NSW Health and City of Parramatta Council to maximise integration of stops with transport infrastructure (rail and bus) and surrounding developments, including public domain works.

All precincts

Trees

TR-1 TR-1 Trees that would not be directly impacted or only impacted to a minor extent by the project’s permanent works (e.g. overhead wires, substations, light rail stops, kerb realignments, service relocations, etc.) and that would not substantially impinge on required clearances to allow for the safe operation of such infrastructure would be retained (i.e. trees identified as not being impacted or of minor impact as identified for each precinct).

The detailed design and construction planning would demonstrate in the design report that they have sought to avoid Trees that would not be directly impactsed to trees located near or on the alignment and minimise the level of impact identified in the EIS. Particular consideration would be given to those trees that: » Are large trees, as defined in the Transport for NSW

Vegetation Offset Strategy. » Are medium or high retention value trees, as identified via

application of the Significance of a Tree Assessment and Rating System endorsed by the Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturalists.

or only impacted to a minor extent by the project’s permanent works (e.g. overhead wires, substations, light rail stops, kerb realignments, service relocations, etc.) and that would not substantially impinge on required clearances to allow for the safe operation of such infrastructure would be retained (i.e. trees identified as not being impacted or of minor impact as identified for each precinct).

All precincts






[Mitigation and management measure has been merged with EIS mitigation and management measure TR-2.]

TR-2 N/A Opportunities for retaining trees of medium to high retention value which have been identified as being potentially impacted by the project (i.e. trees having more than a minor impact) would be considered where appropriate and feasible through the use of design modification and tree sensitive construction techniques.

Opportunities for retaining trees of medium to high retention value which have been identified as being potentially impacted by the project (i.e. trees having more than a minor impact) would be considered where appropriate and feasible through the use of design modification and tree sensitive construction techniques. [Mitigation and management measure has been merged into mitigation and management measure TR-1 (see above).]

All precincts

TR-3 TR-2 An UDLP would be developed for the project which would include recommended tree species to be used for replacement planting in each of the precincts. Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in close consultation with City of Parramatta Council.

An UDLP would be developed for the project which would include recommended tree species to be used for replacement planting in each of the precincts. Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in close consultation with City of Parramatta Council.

All precincts

Sustainability

SU-1 SU-1 Sustainability initiatives would be incorporated into the detailed design and construction of the project to support the achievement of the project sustainability objectives, as detailed in the Sustainability Plan.

Sustainability initiatives would be incorporated into the detailed design and construction of the project to support the achievement of the project sustainability objectives, as detailed in the Sustainability Plan.

All precincts

SU-2 SU-2 A best practice level of performance would be achieved by achieving a minimum project score of 65 (an ‘Excellent’ rating) for each project stage during detailed design and construction.

A best practice level of performance would be achieved by achieving a minimum project score of 65 (an ‘Excellent’ rating) for each project stage during detailed design and construction.

All precincts



8-55

8.2.2 Construction

Table 8.2 outlines the consolidated mitigation and management measures to be implemented during detailed design of the project.

Table 8.2 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (construction)

EIS REF

Revised REF


Environmental Management Approach

N/A GEN-1 Not included in previous version. A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) would be prepared for the construction phase of the project. The CEMP would provide a centralised mechanism through which all potential environmental impacts would be managed. The CEMP would document mechanisms for demonstrating compliance with the commitments made in the Environmental Impact Statement), the submissions report, as well as any other relevant statutory approvals (e.g. conditions of approval, licences and permits). The CEMP would outline a framework for the management of environmental impacts during construction, including further details on the following: » Traffic, transport and access management.

» Noise and vibration management. » Heritage management. » Air quality and dust management. » Soil and water management. » Flora and fauna management. » Waste and resource management.

» Site compound and ancillary works management. » Landscape and temporary works management. » Emergency and incident response management.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


The CEMP would be prepared by the responsible contractor(s) and approved by the Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. [This new mitigation and management measure is from section 17.2.1.1 of the EIS].

N/A GEN-2 Not included in previous version. A construction compounds plan would be prepared for the project as part of the overall CEMP. This sub-plan would set out details for each of the approved construction compounds, including stockpile areas, laydown areas and other ancillary activities required to construct the project. The sub-plan would supplement, in greater detail, the information provided in the main body of the CEMP. The objectives and strategies of the construction compounds and ancillary facilities management sub-plan would include the following: » Minimise the impact of construction compounds on

surrounding land uses and sensitive receivers. » Locate construction compounds away from sensitive land

uses and receivers, wherever practical and feasible, or configure internal compound layouts in a manner that considers noise and light sensitive receivers (e.g. use of buildings to shield noisy activities, minimising the requirement for reversing vehicles, or locating noise intensive activities to maximise the distance to noise sensitive receivers).

» Manage stockpile areas to minimise potential pollution of watercourses, groundwater and local air quality.

» Minimise the clearing of vegetation (e.g. street trees and trees within public open spaces) to the minimum amount necessary to construct the project, particularly where construction compounds are proposed in public open spaces/parkland areas.

» Locate construction compounds away from (or able to be managed in such a way so as to not impact on) heritage items and high retention value trees.

All precincts



8-57

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Locate construction compounds away from or implement management measures so as to not impact on waterways.

» Flood response measures for compounds that are located on land affected by the 20 year ARI flood level (e.g. bridge support construction compounds).

» Situate construction compounds and ancillary facilities on relatively level ground, and avoid excavation in construction compounds where risk of heritage impacts or disturbance of contaminated material.

» Minimise the visual impact of construction compounds and ancillary facilities through either siting such facilities away from sensitive receivers (where practical and feasible) and/or providing screening.

» Reinstatement strategies for construction compounds. As a minimum, this would include:

• At the completion of construction, all plant, temporary buildings or vehicles would be removed.

• All land, including roadways, footpaths or other land having been occupied temporarily would be returned to their pre-existing condition or better.

• Reinstatement of community spaces, infrastructure and services would occur as soon as possible after completion of construction.

Environmental management measures for construction compounds would be developed as part of the overall CEMP, with the construction compounds sub-plan identifying where such measures are documented within the CEMP. [This additional mitigation and management measure is from section 17.2.9 of the EIS].




EIS REF

Revised REF


N/A GEN-3 Not included in previous version. Incident management procedures would be developed as part of the CEMP. The procedures would clearly outline the process to be followed in the event of an environmental incident or noncompliance, including (but not limited to) the following: » Classification of the incident (e.g. minor, moderate, serious)

based on the severity of the likely impact on the surrounding environment and community.

» Emergency response procedures.

» Notification requirements (e.g. Transport for NSW and/or other regulatory authorities, or owners/occupiers in the vicinity of the incident).

» Mechanisms for improving environmental controls to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring.

» Incident reporting and tracking. [This additional mitigation and management measure is from section 17.2.12 of the EIS].

All precincts

Regional cumulative

RC-1 RC-1 Coordination and consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and the following stakeholders would occur at the appropriate project stages: » Department of Planning and Environment. » Other Transport for NSW agencies (including Roads and

Maritime Services; Sydney Trains and Sydney Buses). » Sydney Water.

» City of Parramatta Council. » UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation. » Western Sydney University. » NSW Health (and its construction contractors).

Coordination and consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and the following stakeholders would occur at the appropriate project stages as required to coordinate interfacing projects: » Department of Planning and Environment. » Other Transport for NSW agencies (including Roads and

Maritime Services; Sydney Trains and Sydney Buses). » Sydney Water.

» City of Parramatta Council. » UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation. » Western Sydney University. » NSW Health (and its construction contractors).

All precincts



8-59

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Emergency service providers. » Utility providers.

» Construction contractors. » Other stakeholders as required, as advised by Transport for

NSW. Coordination and consultation with these stakeholders would include: » Provision of regular updates to the detailed construction

program, construction sites and haul routes. » Identification of key potential conflict points with other

construction projects. » Developing mitigation strategies in order to manage conflicts.

Depending on the nature of the conflict, this could involve:

• Adjustments to the Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) construction program, work activities or haul routes; or adjustments to the program, activities or haul routes of other construction projects.

• Coordination of traffic management arrangements between projects.

» Land and Housing Corporation. » Emergency service providers.

» Utility providers. » Construction contractors. » Other stakeholders as required, as advised by Transport for

NSW. Coordination and consultation with these stakeholders would include: » Current and upcoming development applications and

precinct master plans. » Provision of regular updates to the detailed construction

program, construction sites and haul routes. » Identification of key potential conflict points with other

construction projects. » Developing mitigation strategies in order to manage conflicts

cumulative impacts of the Parramatta Light Rail and other interfacing projects. Depending on the nature of the conflict, this could involve:

• Adjustments to the Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1) construction program, work activities or haul routes; or adjustments to the program, activities or haul routes of other construction projects.


• Coordination of noise generating activities, such as out of hours works.




EIS REF

Revised REF


Biodiversity

BI-2 BI-3 Where possible, the removal of native vegetation would be minimised as far as practicable. Measures to minimise the removal of native vegetation would include: » Vegetation clearing extents would be clearly identified

during the construction process as ‘no-go’ areas. These would be marked on maps provided to contractors, as well as on the ground using high visibility fencing (such as barrier mesh).

» A trained ecologist would accompany clearing crews in order to ensure disturbance is minimised and to assist any native animals to relocate to adjacent habitat.

A flora and fauna management plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. Specific measures would be identified in consultation with relevant government agencies. The flora and fauna management plan would include the following: » A requirement to prepare Environmental Control Maps in

accordance with Transport for NSW’s Guide to Environmental Control Map. The maps would delineate ecologically sensitive areas (such as habitat areas or locations of threatened species, populations or ecological communities), clearing extents, vegetation to be retained, and any other no go areas.

» Procedures for the clearing of vegetation and the relocation of flora and fauna. Where possible, the removal of native vegetation would be minimised as far as practicable. Measures to minimise the removal of native vegetation would include:

• Vegetation clearing extents would be clearly identified during the construction process as ‘no go’ areas. These would be marked on maps provided to contractors, as well as on the ground using Use of high visibility fencing (such as barrier mesh) to delineate vegetation to be retained or limits of clearing.

• A trained ecologist would accompany clearing crews in order to ensure disturbance is minimised and to assist any native animals to relocate to adjacent habitat.

» Measures to reduce disturbance to sensitive fauna. » Rehabilitation requirements, including identification of flora

species and sources, and measures for the management and maintenance of rehabilitated areas (including for example a program of weed removal and monitoring).

All precincts



8-61

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Weed management measures focusing on monitoring for early identification of invasive weeds and pathogens and detailed effective management controls for minimising the risk of introducing weeds and pathogens.

» Procedure for dealing with unexpected identification of Endangered Ecological Communities or threatened species during construction.

» Auditing and monitoring of the plan. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include additional text as required from EIS mitigation and management measure BI-9 and section 17.2.7 of the EIS].

BI-3 BI-4 The following measures would be implemented to mitigate impacts on aquatic habitats during construction: » Preparation of acid sulfate soils/contaminated soils

management plan. » Establishment and marking of vegetation buffer zones in

areas of vegetation removal in riparian zones. » Design and implementation of site-specific soil and erosion

mitigation and management measures in accordance with Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction (Landcom, 2004).

» Removal of existing pier footings to below river or creek bed levels to reduce instream blockage to fish passage.

» Crossing design would adhere to the fish friendly passage guidelines (Fairfull and Witheridge, 2003) for waterway crossings and avoid/minimise disruption to fish movements.

» Construction compounds would be located within previously disturbed areas, away from riparian vegetation (to the extent possible).

» Use of platforms/temporary wharfs in preference to weirs for instream construction works.

The following measures would be adopted in the flora and fauna management plan to mitigate impacts on aquatic habitats during construction: » Implementing the soil and water mitigation and

management measures HY-7, SG-3, SG-4 and CM-3. » Preparation of acid sulfate soils/contaminated soils

management plan. » Minimising the works footprint in and adjacent to

watercourses, including establishment and marking of vegetation buffer zones in areas of vegetation removal in riparian zones.

» Design and implementation of site-specific soil and erosion mitigation and management measures in accordance with Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction (Landcom, 2004).

» Removal of existing pier footings to below river or creek bed levels to reduce instream blockage to fish passage.

» Crossing design would adhere to relevant policies and guidelines including the fish friendly passage guidelines (Fairfull and Witheridge, 2003) for waterway crossings and avoid/minimise disruption to fish movements and the Policy

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


» Use of floating booms around work zones. » Use of silt curtains around new piers during piling to restrict

turbidity. » Remediation and revegetation of disturbed banks and

aquatic habitats as soon as possible following disturbance.

and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (Department of Primary Industries, 2013).

» Construction compounds would where feasible be located within previously disturbed areas, away from riparian vegetation (to the extent possible).

» Use of platforms/temporary wharfs in preference to weirs for instream construction works.

» Use of floating booms around work zones. » Use of silt curtains around new piers during piling to restrict

turbidity. » Bund integrity of equipment wash-downs would be

maintained for all works on/near river banks. » Prohibition dumping of excavated materials or untreated

runoff water in the river. » Remediation and revegetation of disturbed watercourse bed

banks and aquatic habitats as soon as possible following disturbance in accordance with the Guidelines for watercourse crossings on waterfront land (Department of Primary Industries, 2012) and the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (Department of Primary Industries, 2013).

The relevant mitigation and management measures would be shown on Environmental Control Maps in accordance with Transport for NSW’s Guide to Environmental Control Map. [This mitigation and management measure includes relevant bullet points taken from EIS mitigation and management measure BI-4.]



8-63

EIS REF

Revised REF


BI-4 » BI-5 Mitigation and management measures to avoid and minimise the risk to mangroves would be implemented during construction. This would include (but is not limited to): » Minimisation of the disturbance footprint on banks

» Establishment and mark vegetation exclusion zones. » Work area planning and management of activities to avoid

removing existing mangrove plants. » Temporary wharf/platforms and vessel routes would be

planned to avoid pneumatophore zones and minimise erosion.

» Bund integrity would be maintained around all works on/near river banks, including equipment wash-down areas and construction compounds.

» Use of silt curtains around new piers during piling to restrict turbidity.

» Prohibition dumping of excavated materials or untreated runoff water in the river.

» Employment floating booms around work zones.

» Remediation of disturbed banks with mangroves/native vegetation, and if required, use of mangrove shrubs/seedlings transplanted from disturbed areas.

In addition to the mitigation and management measures described in BI-4, the following mitigation and management measures to avoid and minimise the risk to mangroves would be implemented during construction as part of the flora and fauna management plan. This would include (but is not limited to): » Minimisation of the disturbance footprint on banks » Establishment and mark vegetation exclusion zones.

» Work area planning and management of activities to avoid removing existing mangrove plants.

» Temporary wharf/platforms and vessel routes would be planned to avoid pneumatophore zones and minimise erosion.

» Bund integrity would be maintained around all works on/near river banks, including equipment wash-down areas and construction compounds.

» Use of silt curtains around new piers during piling to restrict turbidity

» Prohibition dumping of excavated materials or untreated runoff water in the river.

» Employment floating booms around work zones. » Remediation of disturbed banks with mangroves/native

vegetation, and if required, use of mangrove shrubs/seedlings transplanted from disturbed areas.

[This mitigation and management measure has been updated to avoid duplication with BI-4 (see above).]

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


BI-5 BI-6 To mitigate fragmentation and reduced habitat connectivity, plant species chosen for revegetation under the bridges would be selected for their shade tolerance (e.g. rainforest understorey species native to the Sydney Basin Bioregion) even if these species are not usually found in the Alluvial Woodland/Riparian Forest vegetation types.

To mitigate fragmentation and reduced habitat connectivity, plant species chosen for revegetation under the bridges would be selected for their shade tolerance (e.g. rainforest understorey species native to the Sydney Basin Bioregion) even if these species are not usually found in the Alluvial Woodland/Riparian Forest vegetation types. This requirement would be translated into the UDLP, where appropriate.

All precincts

BI-6 BI-7 To mitigate habitat loss as a result of the project, the following would be investigated and implemented: » Consideration would be given to fitting roost boxes to the

bridge the Parramatta River at Cumberland Hospital to provide roost sites for the Large-footed Myotis and other species of microbats (e.g. Eastern Bentwing-bat) which may utilise such structures. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to structure disturbance.

» Nest boxes of a variety of designs would be installed including boxes suitable for roosting by microbats. Relocation of natural hollows by either affixing them to existing live retained trees or to poles/trunks of felled trees installed in revegetated areas would also be considered as an alternative to nest box installation. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to disturbance in the area.

» Important habitat elements (e.g. large woody debris) would be moved from the construction area to locations outside the clearing area in native vegetation remnants or to stockpiles for later use in vegetation/habitat restoration.

» Suitable winter-flowering trees would be preferentially planted in landscaped areas of the site to provide a winter

The flora and fauna management plan would include measures to mitigate habitat loss as a result of the project. These measures would be confirmed during preparation of the plan, and would include: the following would be investigated and implemented: » Consideration would be given to fitting roost boxes to the

bridges over existing creek crossings the Parramatta River at Cumberland Hospital to provide roost sites for the Large-footed Myotis and other species of microbats (e.g. Eastern Bentwing-bat) which may utilise such structures. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to structure disturbance.

» Nest boxes of a variety of designs would be installed including boxes suitable for roosting by microbats. Relocation of natural hollows by either affixing them to existing live retained trees or to poles/trunks of felled trees installed in revegetated areas would also be considered as an alternative to nest box installation. The quantity and location of roost boxes would be determined in consultation with an ecologist to meet the specific needs for the targeted species and would be installed prior to disturbance in the area.

» Important habitat elements (e.g. large woody debris) would be moved from the construction area to locations outside the clearing area in native vegetation remnants or to stockpiles for later use in vegetation/habitat restoration.

All precincts



8-65

EIS REF

Revised REF


foraging resource for migratory and nomadic nectar-feeding birds and the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

» Development of contingency measures with relation to the potential impacts to the Parramatta Grey-headed Flying-fox camp.

Suitable winter-flowering trees vegetation would be preferentially planted in landscaped areas of the site to provide a winter foraging resource for migratory and nomadic nectar-feeding birds and the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

BI-7 BI-8 To minimise the likelihood of fauna injury or death during the clearing of vegetation during construction, a staged habitat removal protocol would be developed as part of the environmental management plans and implemented. It would include the following measures: » All habitat trees in the area to be cleared would be identified

(by an arborist) and marked. » A pre-clearing procedure that encourages animals to leave

prior to clearing. » Pre-clearing surveys would be conducted at least 12 to 48

hours prior to vegetation clearing to search for native wildlife (e.g. reptiles, frogs) which can be captured and relocated.

» Where practical, felled habitat trees would be left on the ground for a further 24-hour waiting period prior to removal from the construction area or immediately moved to the edge of retained vegetation at the discretion of the supervising ecologist.

» All contractors would have the contact numbers of wildlife rescue groups in case animals are injured or orphaned during clearing and require veterinary assistance and/or extended care prior to release.

» Relocation of animals to adjacent retained habitat would be carried out by an ecologist during the supervision of vegetation removal.

The flora and fauna management plan would include measures to minimise the likelihood of fauna injury or death during the clearing of vegetation during construction including a staged habitat removal protocol would be developed as part of the environmental management plans and implemented. It would include incorporating the following measures: » All habitat trees in the area to be cleared would be identified

(by an arborist) and marked. » A pre-clearing procedure that encourages animals to leave

prior to clearing. » Pre-clearing surveys would be conducted at least 12 to 48

hours prior to vegetation clearing to search for native wildlife (e.g. reptiles, frogs) which can be captured and relocated.

» Where practical, felled habitat trees would be left on the ground for a further 24-hour waiting period prior to removal from the construction area or immediately moved to the edge of retained vegetation at the discretion of the supervising ecologist.

» All contractors would have the contact numbers of wildlife rescue groups in case animals are injured or orphaned during clearing and require veterinary assistance and/or extended care prior to release.

» Relocation of animals to adjacent retained habitat would be carried out by an ecologist during the supervision of vegetation removal.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


BI-8 BI-9 The potential for translocation of threatened plant species as individuals or as part of a soil translocation process would be considered during the detailed development of the CEMP.

The potential for translocation of threatened plant species as individuals or as part of a soil translocation process would be considered during the detailed development of the flora and fauna management plan prepared as part of the CEMP.

All precincts

BI-9 N/A The CEMP would include detailed measures for minimising the risk of introducing weeds and pathogens. During construction, a program of weed removal and riparian vegetation restoration in the native remnant vegetation would be implemented. This would include monitoring of the landscaped areas of the facility for the presence of noxious and environmental weeds. The duration of the program would be detailed in the CEMP.

The CEMP would include detailed measures for minimising the risk of introducing weeds and pathogens. During construction, a program of weed removal and riparian vegetation restoration in the native remnant vegetation would be implemented. This would include monitoring of the landscaped areas of the facility for the presence of noxious and environmental weeds. The duration of the program would be detailed in the CEMP. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure BI-3 (see above).]

All precincts

Aboriginal heritage

N/A AB-2 Not included in previous version. An Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage management plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. Specific measures would be identified in consultation with NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and other relevant government agencies. As relevant, the plan would be developed in consultation with Registered Aboriginal Parties. The objectives and strategies of the plan would include the following: » Minimise impacts on items or places of heritage value. » Procedures for carrying out salvage or excavation of heritage

relics or sites (where relevant) and any recordings of heritage relics prior to works commencing that would impact the heritage relic or site.

» Procedures for interpretation of heritage values uncovered during salvage or excavation during detailed design.

All precincts



8-67

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Details on management measures to be implemented to prevent and minimise impacts on heritage items (including further heritage investigations, archival recordings and/or measures to protect unaffected sites during construction works in the vicinity).

» Procedures for unexpected heritage finds, including procedures for dealing with human remains (and burials). The Transport for NSW Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (2014) would be implemented.

» Procedures for the reinstatement of areas of heritage value that would be temporarily impacted by construction following the completion of construction.

» Heritage monitoring and auditing requirements. [This mitigation and management measure is from section 17.2.4 of the EIS, as modified to include the EIS mitigation and management measure AB-4].

AB-2 AB-3 Archaeological salvage excavation (in accordance with the methodology detailed in Technical Paper 4 – Parramatta Light Rail: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment) would be carried out for the following sites prior to the commencement of construction: » Cumberland Hospital East. » Harris Street Footpath/Robin Thomas Reserve. » PLR AFT 2 (formerly PLR PAD 2).

» Sydney Turf Club car park. The strategy for conservation of salvaged Aboriginal objects would be detailed in the heritage management plan.

Archaeological salvage excavation (in accordance with the methodology detailed in Technical Paper 4 – Parramatta Light Rail: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment) would be carried out for the following sites prior to the commencement of construction: » Cumberland Hospital East. » Harris Street Footpath/Robin Thomas Reserve. » PLR AFT 2 (formerly PLR PAD 2).

» Sydney Turf Club car park. The strategy for conservation of salvaged Aboriginal objects would be detailed in the heritage management plan.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD Rosehill and

Camellia




EIS REF

Revised REF


AB-3 AB-4 Exclusion zones would be established during construction for the following partially impacted sites to protect the portion of the site located outside the project construction disturbance boundary: » Cumberland Hospital East. » Harris Street Footpath/Robin Thomas Reserve. Suitable controls would be identified in the heritage management plan, which may include barrier fencing to delineate the exclusion zones.

Exclusion zones would be established during construction for the following partially impacted sites to protect the portion of the site located outside the project construction disturbance boundary: » Cumberland Hospital East. » Harris Street Footpath/Robin Thomas Reserve. Suitable controls would be identified in the heritage management plan and shown on the Environmental Control Maps (refer Transport for NSW Guide to Environmental Control Map), which may include barrier fencing to delineate the exclusion zones.

Parramatta North

Parramatta CBD

AB-4 N/A In the event of unexpected finds (including burials), the Transport for NSW Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (2014) would be implemented. This would be incorporated into the heritage management plan to be developed as part of the CEMP for the project.

In the event of unexpected finds (including burials), the Transport for NSW Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (2014) would be implemented. This would be incorporated into the heritage management plan to be developed as part of the CEMP for the project. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged into the new mitigation and management measure AB-2 (see above).]

All precincts


NA HY-6 Not included in previous version. A soil and water management plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. Specific measures would be identified in consultation with relevant government agencies and would be consistent with the principles and practices detailed in Landcom’s (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction. The objectives and strategies of the soil and water management sub-plan would include the following: » Minimise the extent and duration of exposed surfaces

(particularly those works that have the greatest potential to disturb soils that are contaminated or have a high erosion and runoff hazard).

All precincts



8-69

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Develop and implement adequate water quality control measures prior to the carrying out of significant earthwork or bridge construction activities.

» Minimise and manage impacts on water quality and downstream receiving environments during instream activities.

» Flood response measures for activities located on land affected by the 20 year ARI flood level (e.g. bridge support construction compounds), or works within waterways (such as bridge works).

» Where possible, reuse excavated materials as fill on other parts of the project in preference to disposing off-site in accordance with OEH’s Waste Classification Guidelines (2016).

» Areas of potential contamination concern would be identified and works in these areas managed to minimise disturbance.

» Excavate pre-classified contaminated materials and transfer such materials directly into haulage trucks for off-site disposal at a waste facility licensed to accept the contaminated material.

» Transport for NSW would also undertake consultation with DPI Fisheries with respect to the development for the CEMP, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the project.

» Develop procedures for the assessment, handling and stockpiling of potentially contaminated materials, in accordance with OEH’s Waste Classification Guidelines (2016).

[This additional mitigation and management measure is from section17.2.6 of the EIS].




EIS REF

Revised REF


HY-6 HY-7 During construction, any water collected from the worksites would be treated and discharged in accordance with current guidelines to avoid any potential contamination or local stormwater system impacts. These guidelines include: » The Blue Book - Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and

Construction (Landcom, 2004 and DEC 2008). » Transport for NSW Water Discharge and Reuse Guideline 7TP-

SD-024.

During construction, any water collected from the worksites would be treated and discharged in accordance with current guidelines to avoid any potential contamination or local stormwater system impacts. These guidelines include: » The Blue Book - Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and

Construction (Landcom, 2004 and DEC 2008). » Transport for NSW Water Discharge and Reuse Guideline 7TP-

SD-024. All water (including groundwater) requiring disposal during construction would be tested and treated in accordance with the Transport for NSW Water Discharge and Reuse Guideline 7TP-SD-024 and the Waste Classification Guidelines (OEH, 2016) prior to disposal. If required, water treatment would occur to ensure guidelines are met prior to water disposal. Treatments may include sediment basins and pH neutralisation. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include relevant EIS mitigation and management measures HY-7 and GW-5.]

HY-7 N/A All water requiring disposal during construction would be tested and treated in accordance with the Transport for NSW Water Discharge and Reuse Guideline 7TP-SD-024 prior to disposal. If required, water treatment would occur to ensure guidelines are met prior to water disposal. Treatments may include sediment basins and pH neutralisation.

All water requiring disposal during construction would be tested and treated in accordance with the Transport for NSW Water Discharge and Reuse Guideline 7TP-SD-024 prior to disposal. If required, water treatment would occur to ensure guidelines are met prior to water disposal. Treatments may include sediment basins and pH neutralisation. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with revised mitigation and management measure HY-7 (see above).]

All precincts



8-71

EIS REF

Revised REF


HY-8 HY-8 Large areas of disturbance such as compound areas would be located away from any surface runoff flow paths and above flood levels.

Large areas of disturbance such as compound areas and stockpile sites would, where feasible and reasonable, be located away from any surface runoff flow paths and above the 10% AEP flood levels. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measure HY-10.]

All precincts

HY-9 HY-9 Where existing longitudinal pit and pipe drainage exists and needs to be reinstated or repaired, appropriate scour protection measures would be reinstated or improved at outlets to watercourses or drainage lines. Typical scour protection might include concrete energy dissipating structures or dumped stone rip rap.

Where existing longitudinal pit and pipe drainage exists and needs to be reinstated or repaired, appropriate scour protection measures would be reinstated or improved at outlets to watercourses or drainage lines. The design of stormwater outlets would consider the need for scour protection measures. Typical scour protection might include concrete energy dissipating structures or dumped stone rip rap.

All precincts

HY-10 N/A Stockpile sites would be located outside areas of frequent inundation, with an acceptable level of flood risk depending on the duration of use.

Stockpile sites would be located outside areas of frequent inundation, with an acceptable level of flood risk depending on the duration of use. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with relevant mitigation and management measure HY-8 (see above).]

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


HY-11 HY-10 The following measures would be adopted for construction of new bridges/modification of new bridges over waterways: » Maximising use of pre cast elements to minimise construction

works within the floodplain. » Minimising temporary formwork requirements and removal of

formwork as soon as possible after completion of each work stage.

» Minimising temporary structures required within the waterway. » Staging works to minimise the duration of construction

activities within the waterway.

The construction planning will demonstrate that it has considered following measures would be adopted for construction of new or bridges/modification of new existing bridges that minimise impacts on waterways (e.g. in a design report or constructability assessment). This would include consideration of: over waterways: » Maximising use of pre cast elements to minimise construction

works within the floodplain. » Minimising temporary formwork requirements and removal of

formwork as soon as possible after completion of each work stage.

» Minimising extent and duration of use of temporary structures required within the waterway.

» Staging works to minimise the duration of construction activities within the waterway.

All precincts

Groundwater

GW-4 GW-3 Excavation techniques would be adopted to minimise impacts on aquifers.

Excavation techniques would be adopted to minimise impacts on aquifers

All precincts

GW-5 N/A Any groundwater encountered during the construction of the project would be managed and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (DECC 2009) and Transport for NSW’s (2012) Water Discharge and Re-use Guideline.

Any groundwater encountered during the construction of the project would be managed and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (DECC 2009) and Transport for NSW’s (2012) Water Discharge and Re-use Guideline. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with new mitigation and management measure HY-7]

All precincts

GW-6 GW-4 Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and refuelling and maintaining construction vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP to minimise potential for groundwater quality impacts due to chemical spills.

Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and refuelling and maintaining construction vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP to minimise potential for groundwater quality impacts due to chemical spills.

All precincts



8-73

EIS REF

Revised REF


GW-7 GW-5 No new wells would be drilled to extract water for construction use.

No new wells would be drilled to extract water for construction use.

All precincts

Soils and Geology

SG-3 SG-3 To manage potential impacts to geology and soils standard management measures would be implemented during construction, including (but not limited to): » Erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for

each worksite in accordance with Volume 2D of Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004). Due to the potential high erosion of soils along the alignment, the erosion and sediment control plans would be established prior to the commencement of construction and be updated and managed throughout as relevant to the activities during construction.

» Stabilised surfaces would be reinstated as quickly as practicable after construction.

» All stockpiled materials would be stored in bunded areas and kept away from waterways to avoid sediment entering the waterways.

» Sediment would be prevented from moving off-site and sediment laden water prevented from entering any watercourse, drainage line or drainage inlet.

» Clean water would be diverted around the work site in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004).

» Erosion and sediment control measures would be regularly inspected (particularly following rainfall events) to ensure their ongoing functionality.

Erosion and sediment control measures would be left in place until the works are complete and areas are stabilised.

To manage potential impacts to geology and soils , the soil and water management plan prepared as part of the CEMP (refer HY-6 above) would include standard management measures to would be implemented during construction, including (but not limited to): » Erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for

each worksite in accordance with Volume 2D of Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004). Due to the potential high erosion of soils along the alignment, the erosion and sediment control plans would be established prior to the commencement of construction and be updated and managed throughout as relevant to the activities during construction.

» Stabilised surfaces would be reinstated as quickly as practicable after construction.

» All stockpiled materials would be stored in bunded areas and kept away from waterways to avoid sediment entering the waterways.

» Sediment would be prevented from moving off-site and sediment laden water prevented from entering any watercourse, drainage line or drainage inlet.

» Clean water would be diverted around the work site in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004).

» Erosion and sediment control measures would be regularly inspected (particularly following rainfall events) to ensure their ongoing functionality.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


Erosion and sediment control measures would be left in place until the works are complete and areas are stabilised.

SG-4 SG-4 The presence of ASS along the project alignment would be confirmed through intrusive testing of soils in areas where ASS is likely to occur. Should ASS be identified during intrusive investigations at any section along the project, an ASS management plan would be required for construction of the project in these areas. The ASS management plan should outline procedures for the safe handling, treatment and transport of potential/actual ASS excavated during construction or maintenance works and identify management measures, including: » Excavation procedures » Spoil storage and treatment » Dewatering and groundwater management » Bunding and measures to protect surrounding areas and

waterways from the potential risk of acid contamination. The objective of the ASS management plan would be to comply with all statutory requirements and implement all environmental controls to minimise and manage impacts on the environment from the disturbance of potential or actual ASS.

The presence of ASS along the project alignment would be confirmed through intrusive testing of soils in areas where ASS is likely to occur. Should ASS be identified during intrusive investigations at any section along the project, an ASS management plan would be required for construction of the project in these areas. The ASS management plan should outline procedures for the safe handling, treatment and transport of potential/actual ASS excavated during construction or maintenance works and identify management measures, including: » Excavation procedures » Spoil storage and treatment » Dewatering and groundwater management » Bunding and measures to protect surrounding areas and

waterways from the potential risk of acid contamination. The objective of the ASS management plan would be to comply with all statutory requirements and implement all environmental controls to minimise and manage impacts on the environment from the disturbance of potential or actual ASS.

All precincts

Contamination

CM-3 CM-3 For low and medium risk sites, environmental management measures would be applied as detailed in a Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan (CCLMP), as a sub-plan to the CEMP. The measures would be tailored to address any specific locations where contamination is identified through the current contaminated land investigations. This includes worker health and safety measures.

For low and medium risk sites, environmental management measures would be applied as detailed in a Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan (CCLMP), as a sub-plan to the CEMP. The measures would be tailored to address any specific locations where contamination is identified through the current contaminated land investigations. This includes worker health and safety measures.

All precincts



8-75

EIS REF

Revised REF


CM-4 CM-4 Visual inspections and monitoring would be performed during excavation activities at medium risk AEIs to identify potential indicators of contamination. If suspected contamination is encountered, the materials would be subject to sampling and analysis to determine management requirements and suitability for reuse, recycling or remediation.

Visual inspections and monitoring would be performed during excavation activities at medium risk AEIs to identify potential indicators of contamination. If suspected contamination is encountered, the materials would be subject to sampling and analysis to determine management requirements and suitability for reuse, recycling or remediation.

All precincts

CM-5 CM-5 Construction activities within AEI 23 (Sandown Line, including 27 Grand Avenue, Camellia) would be carried out under asbestos control and removal conditions by an appropriately licensed asbestos contractor.

Construction activities within AEI 23 (Sandown Line, including 27 Grand Avenue, Camellia) would be carried out under asbestos control and removal conditions by an appropriately licensed asbestos contractor.


CM-6 CM-6 An unexpected finds procedure would be developed and implemented as part of the project CCLMP, outlining a set of potential contamination issues which could be encountered, and detailing the corrective actions to be implemented.

An unexpected finds procedure would be developed and implemented as part of the project CCLMP, outlining a set of potential contamination issues which could be encountered, and detailing the corrective actions to be implemented.

All precincts

Air quality

AQ-1 AQ-1 A dust management plan would be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP. This plan would identify triggers and procedures for dealing with significant dust generating activities, with the aim of minimising impacts on surrounding sensitive receivers. Dust management measures that would be identified in the CEMP would include: » Apply wheel-wash or rumble grid facilities as appropriate to

remove loose material and prevent the tracking of spoil debris onto local roads.

» Clean loose materials and debris from the tailgate of vehicles unloading materials to stockpiles prior to departure from site.

» Conduct routine servicing and maintenance, and subsequent inspections to ensure that equipment continues to operate efficiently.

» Ensure that all loads are covered when materials are being hauled to and from site.

An air quality and dust management plan would be developed and implemented as part of the CEMP. This plan would identify triggers and procedures for dealing with significant dust generating activities, with the aim of minimising impacts on surrounding sensitive receivers. Air quality and dust management measures that would be identified in the CEMP would include: » Apply wheel-wash or rumble grid facilities as appropriate to

remove loose material and prevent the tracking of spoil debris onto local roads.

» Clean loose materials and debris from the tailgate of vehicles unloading materials to stockpiles prior to departure from site.

» Conduct routine servicing and maintenance, and subsequent inspections to ensure that equipment continues to operate efficiently.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


» Ensure that compound area surfaces are well compacted or sealed to limit the potential for dust generation.

» Ensure that structures are inspected by a suitably qualified person to confirm that they do not contain any hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos) which could be broken and mobilised during demolition. Where such materials are identified, adhere to the requirements for removal and disposal listed in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and Work health and Safety Regulation 2011.

» Impose low speeds limits around compound sites to limit the generation of dust from vehicle movements.

» Install dust monitoring devices to quantify dust levels and determine whether control measures are adequate or whether further actions are required.

» Installation of perimeter screening around areas where there is a potential to generate emissions to air and around long-term compound and stockpile locations.

» Plan activities and avoid adversely windy conditions which may result in the generation of off-site dust impacts.

» Position stockpiling areas as far as possible from surrounding receivers.

» Regularly water exposed and disturbed areas and stockpiles especially during inclement weather conditions.

» Water demolition areas as necessary to minimise the generation of dust.

» Wherever possible and practical, limit the amount of materials stockpiled, extent of disturbed and exposed surfaces. Restoration of cleared areas to occur as soon as possible.

» Ensure that all loads are covered when materials are being hauled to and from site.

» Ensure that compound area surfaces are well compacted or sealed to limit the potential for dust generation.

» Ensure that structures are inspected by a suitably qualified person to confirm that they do not contain any hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos) which could be broken and mobilised during demolition. Where such materials are identified, adhere to the requirements for removal and disposal listed in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and Work health and Safety Regulation 2011.

» Impose low speeds limits around compound sites to limit the generation of dust from vehicle movements.

» Install dust monitoring devices to quantify dust levels and determine whether control measures are adequate or whether further actions are required.

» Installation of perimeter screening around areas where there is a potential to generate emissions to air and around long-term compound and stockpile locations.

» Plan activities and avoid adversely windy conditions which may result in the generation of off-site dust impacts.

» Position stockpiling areas as far as possible from surrounding receivers.

» Regularly water exposed and disturbed areas and stockpiles especially during inclement weather conditions.

» Water demolition areas as necessary to minimise the generation of dust.

» Wherever possible and practical, limit the amount of materials stockpiled, extent of disturbed and exposed surfaces. Restoration of cleared areas is to occur as soon as possible.



8-77

EIS REF

Revised REF


» Apply odour supressing agents to materials as necessary to minimise related impacts should any contaminated or hazardous materials be uncovered during the works.

» Construction plant and equipment would be well maintained and regularly serviced so that vehicular emissions remain within relevant air quality guidelines and standards.

» All vehicles used on site, for transporting materials to or from site, or for any other activities associated with the project, shall be maintained to avoid the emission of excessive air impurities in accordance with Part 5.8 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010.

» All on-road trucks would comply with the relevant Australian emission standards.

» All chemicals and fuels would be stored in sealed containers as per appropriate regulations and guidelines.

» The on-site storage of fuel would be kept to a minimum. » Unloading of fuels (diesel or liquefied nitrogen gas (LNG))

would be vented via return hoses that recirculate vapours from delivery to receiver.

» On dry days, unsurfaced haul roads would be watered to aid dust suppression.

» Stockpiles left for extended periods would be grassed or covered with appropriate material.

» Chemical/fuel storage tanks would be fitted with a conservation vent (to prevent air inflow and vapour escape until a pre-set vacuum or pressure develops).

[This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate relevant elements of EIS mitigation and management measure AQ-2.]




EIS REF

Revised REF


AQ-2 N/A Air quality management measures would be developed and implemented during the construction of the project as part of the CEMP. These measures would include the following: » Apply odour supressing agents to materials as necessary to

minimise related impacts should any contaminated or hazardous materials be uncovered during the works.



» All on-road trucks would comply with the relevant Australian emission standards







Air quality management measures would be developed and implemented during the construction of the project as part of the CEMP. These measures would include the following: » Apply odour supressing agents to materials as necessary to

minimise related impacts should any contaminated or hazardous materials be uncovered during the works.



» All on-road trucks would comply with the relevant Australian emission standards









8-79

EIS REF

Revised REF


[This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure AQ-1 (see above).]

Utilities and services

UT-7 UT-6 When working in the vicinity of utilities during construction, a review of the proposed works at these location(s) would be carried out by the Construction Contractor in consultation with the relevant service provider(s). The review would consider service provider and project requirements in terms of safety, network integrity and constructability. Safe working method statements and appropriate management plans must be implemented to minimise the risk of striking nearby utilities.

When working in the vicinity of utilities during construction, a review of the proposed works at these location(s) would be carried out by the Construction Contractor in consultation with the relevant service provider(s). The review would consider service provider and project requirements in terms of safety, network integrity and constructability. Safe working method statements and appropriate management plans must be implemented to minimise the risk of striking nearby utilities.

All precincts

N/A UT-7 Not included in previous version. During construction, the upgrade of utilities along Eat Street would consider, as far as practical, staging so that only part of the street is affected at any one time.

Parramatta CBD

Greenhouse gases

GG-4 GG-3 Management of emissions would be incorporated into site inductions, training and pre-start talks.

Management of emissions would be incorporated into site inductions, training and pre-start talks.

All precincts

GG-5 GG-4 Activities with the potential to cause substantial emissions (such as material delivery and loading and bulk earthworks) would be identified in the energy and greenhouse gas emissions strategy. Emissions management actions would be investigated and applied where reasonable and feasible. These would potentially include: » The use of biodiesel and other low carbon fuels in vehicles

and equipment. » The use of fuel-efficient construction equipment. » The use of energy efficient construction practices. » Use of energy efficient or solar powered lighting for

temporary construction facilities.

The CEMP would incorporate measures to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases during construction. Activities with the potential to cause substantial emissions (such as material delivery and loading and bulk earthworks) would be identified in the energy and greenhouse gas emissions strategy. Emissions management actions would be investigated and applied where reasonable and feasible. These would potentially include: » The use of biodiesel and other low carbon fuels in vehicles

and equipment. » The use of fuel-efficient construction equipment. » The use of energy efficient construction practices. » Use of energy efficient or solar powered lighting for

temporary construction facilities.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


GG-6 GG-5 Procurement of construction services and materials locally (where feasible and cost effective) to reduce fuel consumption for transport.

Local procurement of construction services and materials locally would be undertaken (where feasible and cost effective) to reduce fuel consumption for transport. Where practical and reasonable, construction planning would ensure that deliveries are managed in an efficient manner to minimise the number of trips required and therefore reduce the amount of emissions. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate EIS mitigation and management measure GG-7.]

All precincts

GG-7 N/A During construction planning and where practical, ensure that deliveries are managed in an efficient manner to minimise the number of trips required and therefore reduce the amount of emissions.

During construction planning and where practical, ensure that deliveries are managed in an efficient manner to minimise the number of trips required and therefore reduce the amount of emissions. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure GG-5 (see above).]

All precincts

GG-8 GG-6 Energy efficient work practices, such as switching off construction plant, vehicles and equipment when not in use to minimise idling, would be implemented during construction.

Energy efficient work practices, such as switching off construction plant, vehicles and equipment when not in use to minimise idling, would be implemented during construction.

All precincts

GG-9 GG-7 Regular monitoring, auditing and reporting on energy, resource use and associated greenhouse gas emissions as part of the environmental reporting requirements specified within the CEMP would be carried out.

Regular monitoring, auditing and reporting on energy, resource use and associated greenhouse gas emissions would form as part of the environmental reporting requirements specified within the CEMP, and would be carried out.

All precincts

GG-10

GG-8 Selection of materials during construction planning to ensure products with low embodied carbon or recycled materials are considered and used.

Selection of materials during detailed design and construction planning to ensure products with low embodied carbon or recycled materials are considered and used.

All precincts

GG-11

GG-9 During construction, greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption of electricity of the project would be offset to the target specified in the energy and greenhouse gas strategy.

During construction, greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption of electricity of the project would be offset to the target specified in the energy and greenhouse gas strategy.

All precincts



8-81

EIS REF

Revised REF



CC-2 CC-2 Construction-related climate change risks (e.g. increased frequency and severity of extreme rainfall events placing increased pressure on construction water quality control measures) would be considered during the development of environmental management measures as part of the CEMP.

Construction-related climate change risks (e.g. increased frequency and severity of extreme rainfall events placing increased pressure on construction water quality control measures) would be considered during the development of environmental management measures as part of the CEMP.

All precincts


WM-2 WM-2 Construction waste would be managed through the waste hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2001. Resource recovery would be applied to the management of construction waste and would include (but is not limited to): » Classification of waste during construction in accordance

with the current guidelines » Segregation of waste into stockpiles of spoil, concrete, steel,

timber, paper and cardboard and vegetation to make it easier to recycle components and prevent cross contamination.

» Procurement of materials would be carried out on an ‘as needed’ basis to reduce over-ordering and wastage, and exploring opportunities to reuse materials, where applicable.

A waste and resource management plan would be prepared for the project as part of the overall CEMP. This plan would set out details for managing waste generation and resource consumption. The plan would be informed by the Parramatta Light Rail Sustainability Plan and the requirements of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001. The objectives and strategies of the waste and resource management plan would include the following: » Construction waste would be managed through the waste

hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 management hierarchy.

• Classification of waste during construction in accordance with the current guidelines

• Segregation of waste into stockpiles of spoil, concrete, steel, timber, paper and cardboard and vegetation to make it easier to recycle components and prevent cross contamination.

• Procurement of materials would be carried out on an ‘as needed’ basis to reduce over-ordering and wastage, and exploring opportunities to reuse materials, where applicable.

» Targets for the recovery, recycling or reuse of construction waste, and beneficial reuse of spoil. A Construction Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


of the CEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required.

» Identification of carbon and energy strategies and initiatives to minimise carbon and energy use associated with construction (e.g. selection of equipment, inclusion of renewable energy sources to power temporary facilities and equipment, designing site offices for energy efficiency, and efficient operation of vehicles and equipment).

» Consideration of materials mitigation and management measures including use of recycled materials, recycling and reuse of materials on site, use of materials with lower embodied impact, and consideration of whole of life costs during procurement.

» Prior to disposal/removal or reuse off-site, all wastes would be classified in accordance with the waste classification guidelines (Waste Classification Guidelines (OEH , 2016) and Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021 (EPA, 2014) to ensure the most appropriate disposal or reuse option.

» Monitoring and compliance requirements. [This mitigation and management measure has been updated to consolidate waste management requirements by incorporating EIS mitigation and management measures WM-3, WM-4 and WM-7.]

WM-3 N/A A Construction Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required.

A Construction Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure WM-2 (see above).]

All precincts



8-83

EIS REF

Revised REF


WM-4 N/A Prior to disposal/removal or reuse off-site, all wastes would be classified in accordance with the waste classification guidelines to ensure the most appropriate disposal or reuse option.

Prior to disposal/removal or reuse off-site, all wastes would be classified in accordance with the waste classification guidelines to ensure the most appropriate disposal or reuse option. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure WM-2 (see above).]

All precincts

WM-5 WM-3 The project would achieve a diversion rate for construction waste from landfill of a minimum of 90 per cent of waste by volume, with a target of 95 per cent. The project would also reuse 100 per cent of paving and other reusable materials or facilitate reuse of such materials. Contaminated waste which cannot be diverted from landfill would be excluded from this calculation. Where targets cannot be achieved, the project must demonstrate all feasible measures have been taken to achieve as close to the targets as possible.

The project would achieve a diversion rate for construction waste from landfill of a minimum of 90 per cent of waste by volume, with a target of 95 per cent. The project would also reuse 100 per cent of paving and other reusable materials or facilitate reuse of such materials. Contaminated waste which cannot be diverted from landfill would be excluded from this calculation. Where targets cannot be achieved, the project must demonstrate all feasible measures have been taken to achieve as close to the targets as possible.

All precincts

WM-6 WM-4 Construction waste would be segregated and stockpiled on site, with materials such as bricks and tiles, timber, plastic, metals and existing track materials (such as rail and ballast materials) being separated where practicable and sent to a waste facility with recycling capabilities.

Construction waste would be segregated and stockpiled on site, with materials such as bricks and tiles, timber, plastic, metals and existing track materials (such as rail and ballast materials) being separated where practicable and sent to a waste facility with recycling capabilities.

All precincts

WM-7 N/A Wastes would be managed (classified, handled and stored) in accordance with relevant State legislation and government policies (including the Waste Classification Guidelines (OEH, 2009) and Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021 (EPA, 2014)).

All waste to be disposed of would be directed to a waste management facility that is lawfully permitted to accept that type of waste.

Wastes would be managed (classified, handled and stored) in accordance with relevant State legislation and government policies (including the Waste Classification Guidelines (OEH, 2009) and Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021 (EPA, 2014)). All waste to be disposed of would be directed to a waste management facility that is lawfully permitted to accept that type of waste. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure WM-2 (see above).]

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


WM-8 WM-5 The disturbance, movement and disposal of asbestos containing materials would be carried out in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 and other relevant guidelines.

The disturbance, movement and disposal of asbestos containing materials would be carried out in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 and other relevant guidelines.

All precincts

WM-9 WM-6 Where possible and fit for purpose, spoil would be beneficially reused within the project before off-site reuse or disposal options are pursued.

Where possible and fit for purpose, spoil would be beneficially reused within the project before off-site reuse or disposal options are pursued. A spoil management strategy would be developed prior to the commencement of construction and implemented during construction. The strategy would identify spoil disposal sites and describe the management of spoil on-site and during off-site transport. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with old mitigation and management measure WM-10]

All precincts

WM-10

N/A A spoil management strategy would be developed prior to the commencement of construction and implemented during construction. The strategy would identify spoil disposal sites and describe the management of spoil on-site and during off-site transport.

A spoil management strategy would be developed prior to the commencement of construction and implemented during construction. The strategy would identify spoil disposal sites and describe the management of spoil on-site and during off-site transport. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure WM-6 (see above).]

All precincts

Hazards and risks

HR-5 HR-5 Environmental management measures would be developed and implemented as part of the wider project CEMP. Measures to minimise hazards and risks identified in the CEMP would include: » Potential environmental hazards and risks associated with

construction activities would be identified prior to construction.

» The storage of hazardous materials, and refuelling/maintenance of construction plant and equipment

Environmental management measures relating to hazards and risk would be developed and implemented as part of the wider project CEMP. Measures to minimise hazards and risks identified in the CEMP These would include: » Potential environmental hazards and risks associated with

construction activities would be identified prior to construction.

» The storage of hazardous materials, and refuelling/maintenance of construction plant and equipment

All precincts



8-85

EIS REF

Revised REF


would be carried out in clearly marked and bunded areas within the construction site that are designed to contain spills and leaks in accordance with Australian Standards and DECCW guidelines.

» Hazardous materials would not be stored below the five per cent AEP flood level flood level.

» Chemical spill kits would be readily available and accessible to construction workers. Kits would be kept at site compounds and on specific construction vehicles, and all hazardous materials spills and leaks would be reported to site managers and actions would be immediately taken to remedy spills and leaks.

» Employees would be trained in the correct use of spill kits.

would be carried out in clearly marked and bunded areas within the construction site that are designed to contain spills and leaks in accordance with Australian Standards and DECCW guidelines.

» Hazardous materials would not be stored below the five ten per cent AEP flood level flood level.

» Chemical spill kits would be readily available and accessible to construction workers. Kits would be kept at site compounds and on specific construction vehicles, and all hazardous materials spills and leaks would be reported to site managers and actions would be immediately taken to remedy spills and leaks.

» Employees would be trained in the correct use of spill kits.

HR-6 HR-6 A process for regularly reviewing work practices/procedures would be implemented throughout construction to identify, report and respond to any new environmental hazards/risks.

A process for regularly reviewing work practices/procedures would be implemented throughout construction to identify, report and respond to any new environmental hazards/risks.

All precincts

HR-7 N/A Ongoing consultation would be carried out with high risk utility providers (including Caltex and Jemena) to identify appropriate construction methodologies which would apply to construction operations within the vicinity of the Hunter Pipeline and Jemena secondary gas mains.

Ongoing consultation would be carried out with high risk utility providers (including Caltex and Jemena) to identify appropriate construction methodologies which would apply to construction operations within the vicinity of the Hunter Pipeline and Jemena secondary gas mains. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure UT-2 (see above).]

All precincts

Privacy

PR-5 PR-5 The design and placement of construction hoardings would consider opportunities to minimise privacy impacts on adjacent residents or other adjacent land uses sensitive to privacy concerns.

The design and placement of construction hoardings would consider opportunities to minimise privacy impacts on adjacent residents or other adjacent land uses sensitive to privacy concerns.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF



TT-26 TT-24 Existing cycle routes would be maintained or diverted during construction.

Existing cycle routes would be maintained or diverted during construction.

All precincts

TT-27 TT-25 To maintain safe motorist, pedestrian and cyclist access where construction works would occur, mitigation and management measures would be detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan and implemented during construction. This would include: » Use of speed awareness signs in conjunction with variable

message signs near construction sites to provide alerts to drivers

» Appropriate controls where vehicles are required to cross footpaths to access construction areas, including manual supervision, physical barriers or temporary traffic signals.

» Consideration of shared experience educational events that allow pedestrians, cyclists or motorists to sit in trucks and understand the visibility restrictions of truck drivers, and for truck drivers to understand the visibility from a bicycle.

» Specific construction driver training to understand route constraints, expectations, safety issues and to limit the use of compression braking.

» Safety devices on construction vehicles that warn drivers of the presence of a vulnerable road user located in the vehicles’ blind spots and warn the vulnerable road user that a vehicle is about to turn.

To maintain safe motorist, pedestrian and cyclist access where construction works would occur, mitigation and management measures would be detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan and implemented during construction. This would include: » Use of speed awareness signs in conjunction with variable

message signs near construction sites to provide alerts to drivers

» Appropriate controls where vehicles are required to cross footpaths to access construction areas, including manual supervision, physical barriers or temporary traffic signals.

» Consideration of shared experience educational events that allow pedestrians, cyclists or motorists to sit in trucks and understand the visibility restrictions of truck drivers, and for truck drivers to understand the visibility from a bicycle.

» Consideration of pedestrian access needs for elderly people, children and people with disability, where reasonably practicable.

» Specific construction driver training to understand route constraints, expectations, safety issues and to limit the use of compression braking.

» Safety devices on construction vehicles that warn drivers of the presence of a vulnerable road user located in the vehicles’ blind spots and warn the vulnerable road user that a vehicle is about to turn.

Site specific construction traffic management plans and site specific traffic control plans would be prepared and implemented, including mitigation and management responses

All precincts



8-87

EIS REF

Revised REF


associated with the temporary closures (including weekend closures) of: » Church Street and Pennant Hills Road. » Church Street and Barney Street. » Church Street and Board Street.

» Church Street and Victoria Road. » Smith Street and Macquarie Street. » Church Street and George Street. » James Ruse Drive. » Grand Avenue.

» Kissing Point Road. These site-specific traffic management plans would detail: » Site access and associated route and turning movements. » Potential activities that could result in the disruption to traffic

and transport networks, including pedestrian, cyclist and public transport networks and during special events.

» The timing to limit disruptions to the road and transport networks.

» The maintenance of access and safety of transport networks, parking and property.

» Details responses to the management of an event that directly involves or impacts on traffic and transport networks.

[This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate the requirements of EIS mitigation and management measures TT-30 and SE-9]




EIS REF

Revised REF


TT-28 TT-26 Heavy vehicle construction traffic would be prohibited from using: » Railway Parade, Westmead.

» Trott Street, North Parramatta. » Noller Parade, Parramatta.

Heavy vehicle construction traffic would be prohibited from using: » Railway Parade, Westmead.

» Trott Street, North Parramatta. » Noller Parade, Parramatta.


North, Parramatta CBD

TT-29 TT-27 Modifications and capacity upgrade works on O’Connell Street would be completed prior to the closure of Church Street to general through traffic.

Modifications and capacity upgrade works on O’Connell Street and George Street would be completed prior to the closure of Church Street and Macquarie Street to general through traffic. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate EIS mitigation and management measure TT-31.]

Parramatta North and

Parramatta CBD

TT-30 N/A Site specific construction traffic management plans would be prepared and implemented, including mitigation and management responses associated with the temporary closures (including weekend closures) of: » Church Street and Pennant Hills Road. » Church Street and Barney Street. » Church Street and Board Street. » Church Street and Victoria Road.

» Smith Street and Macquarie Street. » Church Street and George Street. » James Ruse Drive. » Grand Avenue. » Kissing Point Road.

Site specific construction traffic management plans would be prepared and implemented, including mitigation and management responses associated with the temporary closures (including weekend closures) of: » Church Street and Pennant Hills Road. » Church Street and Barney Street. » Church Street and Board Street. » Church Street and Victoria Road.

» Smith Street and Macquarie Street. » Church Street and George Street. » James Ruse Drive. » Grand Avenue. » Kissing Point Road.

[This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure TT-25 (see above).]

Parramatta North,

Parramatta CBD, Rosehill

and Camellia, Carlingford



8-89

EIS REF

Revised REF


TT-31 N/A Modifications and capacity upgrade works on George Street would be completed prior to the closure of Macquarie Street to general through traffic.

Modifications and capacity upgrade works on George Street would be completed prior to the closure of Macquarie Street to general through traffic. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure TT-27 (see above).]

Parramatta CBD

TT-32 TT-28 Hours of when construction deliveries and spoil removal would be undertaken within the Parramatta CBD and Rosehill and Camellia precincts would be determined in consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and Roads and Maritime Services.

Hours of when construction deliveries and spoil removal would be undertaken within the Parramatta CBD and Rosehill and Camellia precincts would be determined in consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and Roads and Maritime Services.

Parramatta CBD, Rosehill and Camellia

TT-33 TT-29 To maintain property access during construction, mitigation and management measures would be detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan and implemented during construction. This would include: » Use traffic controllers and localised traffic management

measures to maintain access through worksites, where practical.

» Temporary access closures would occur in stages to minimise the duration of closures.

» Provision of temporary alternative car parking for properties with on-site parking.

To maintain property access during construction, mitigation and management measures would be detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan and implemented during construction. This would include: » Use traffic controllers and localised traffic management

measures to maintain access through worksites, where practical.

» Temporary access closures would occur in stages to minimise the duration of closures.

» Provision of temporary alternative car parking for properties with on-site parking.

All precincts

TT-34 TT-30 Construction works that occur above or from Parramatta River at the Parramatta River Bridge (e.g. barges) would be scheduled during periods as agreed with NSW Ports Authority and Harbour City Ferries.

Construction works that occur above or from Parramatta River at the Parramatta River Bridge (e.g. barges) would be scheduled during periods as agreed with Roads and Maritime, NSW Ports Authority and Harbour City Ferries.

Rosehill and Camellia,

Carlingford


N/A VL-13 Not included in previous version. A landscape and temporary works management plan would be developed as part of the CEMP. The plan would include the following:

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


» Approaches to temporary construction works (hoardings etc.) that consider urban design and visual impacts, including:

• Artwork, graphics and images to enhance the visual appearance of temporary works in high visibility locations.

• Project information to raise awareness on benefits, explain the proposed works at each site and provide updates on construction progress.

• Community information, including contact numbers for enquiries/complaints.

• Signage and information to mitigate impacts on local businesses which may be obscured by the construction site.

» Apply the principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to all works, including temporary works that have a public interface.

» Apply the principles of Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting and relevant safety design requirements and detail mitigation and management measures to minimise lighting impacts on sensitive receivers for all permanent, temporary and mobile light sources.

» Wherever feasible and reasonable, vegetation around the perimeter of the construction sites will be maintained.

» Measures to minimise direct and visual impacts on heritage items from works within the curtilage of or in the vicinity of heritage items.

» Regular inspections of construction hoardings and scaffolding to keep it clean and free of dust build up, with graffiti on construction hoardings and scaffolding to be removed or painted over promptly.

[This additional mitigation and management measure is from section 17.2.10 of the EIS].



8-91

EIS REF

Revised REF


VL-15 VL-14 Visual mitigation and management measures identified below would be implemented as soon as feasible and reasonable, and remain for the duration of the construction activities in that area.

Visual mitigation and management measures identified below would be implemented as soon as feasible and reasonable, and remain for the duration of the construction activities in that area.

All precincts

VL-16 VL-15 Hoardings including graphics, artwork or project information as identified during detailed design would be installed as early as feasible and reasonable in the construction process.

Hoardings including graphics, artwork or project information as identified during detailed design would be installed as early as feasible and reasonable in the construction process. Hoardings would be kept in good condition including the prompt removal of graffiti. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate relevant EIS mitigation and management measure VL-17.]

All precincts

VL-17 N/A Hoardings would be kept in good condition including the prompt removal of graffiti.

Hoardings would be kept in good condition including the prompt removal of graffiti. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-15 (see above).]

All precincts

VL-18 VL-16 Where feasible and reasonable, the elements within worksites and construction compounds would be located to minimise visual impact, for example materials and machinery would be stored behind fencing/hoarding.

Where feasible and reasonable, the elements within worksites and construction compounds would: » Be located to minimise visual impact, for example materials

and machinery would be stored behind fencing/hoarding. » Include temporary lighting that would be orientated to

minimise glare and light spill impact on adjacent receivers. » Retain and protect existing vegetation around the perimeters

where feasible and reasonable to act as a visual screen. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate related EIS mitigation and management measures VL-19 and VL-20.]

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


VL-19 N/A Temporary lighting of construction sites and compounds would be oriented to minimise glare and light spill impact on adjacent receivers.

Temporary lighting of construction sites and compounds would be oriented to minimise glare and light spill impact on adjacent receivers. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-16 (see above).]

All precincts

VL-20 N/A Existing vegetation around the perimeter of construction sites would be retained and protected where feasible and reasonable to act as a visual screen.

Existing vegetation around the perimeter of construction sites would be retained and protected where feasible and reasonable to act as a visual screen. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-16 (see above).]

All precincts

VL-21 VL-17 The footprint of construction compounds in open space areas would be minimised where feasible.

The footprint of construction compounds in open space areas would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts. This includes the following areas: » Westmead compound. » Parramatta North Compound. » Parramatta River Bridge (north). » Dundas. » Kissing Point Road. » Carlingford. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate related EIS mitigation and management measures VL-22, VL-23 and VL-24.]

All precincts

VL-22 N/A The footprint of the Westmead compound would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on this open space area.

The footprint of the Westmead compound would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on this open space area. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-17 (see above).]

Westmead



8-93

EIS REF

Revised REF


VL-23 N/A The footprint of the Parramatta North compound would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on this open space area.

The footprint of the Parramatta North compound would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on this open space area. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-17 (see above).]

Parramatta North

VL-24 N/A The footprint of the following compounds would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on these open space areas: » Parramatta River Bridge (north). » Dundas. » Kissing Point Road.

» Carlingford.

The footprint of the following compounds would be minimised where feasible to reduce visual impacts on these open space areas: » Parramatta River Bridge (north). » Dundas. » Kissing Point Road.

» Carlingford. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure VL-17 (see above).]

Carlingford


HE-23 HE-21 Archaeological monitoring of construction excavation activities would be carried out by a qualified archaeologist based on the archaeological research design to record any significant remains uncovered by excavation. Examples of where archaeological monitoring may be required include: » Low impact construction activities (such as narrow trenching)

in areas of moderate to high potential for local or State significant relics.


An Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Management Plan would be prepared as described in AB-2. In addition, archaeological monitoring of construction excavation activities would be carried out by a qualified archaeologist based on the archaeological research design to record any significant remains uncovered by excavation (in accordance with HE-3). Examples of where archaeological monitoring may be required include: » Low impact construction activities (such as narrow trenching)

in areas of moderate to high potential for local or State significant relics.


All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


HE-24 HE-22 The method for the construction (including the demolition of existing buildings and/or structures) would be developed to minimise direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items (including vibration related impacts identified in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

The method for the construction methodology (including the for demolition of existing buildings and/or structures) would be developed to minimise direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items. This would include consideration of potential (including vibration related impacts, where identified in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

All precincts

HE-25 HE-23 In relation to HAMU 31 – Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be protected and avoided during construction works.

In relation to HAMU 31 – Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be identified in the Environmental Control Maps and protected and avoided during construction works.


Noise and vibration

NV-1 NV-1 A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be developed to document all necessary measures to manage and mitigation potential noise and vibration levels during standard daytime and out-of-hours construction activities (refer to section 17.2.3). The CNVMP would also provide the framework and mechanisms for: » The mitigation and management of the noise and vibration

impacts from the project. » Out-of-hours work associated with the project.

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be developed in accordance with the requirements of Transport for NSW’s Construction Noise Strategy and the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (DECC 2009). It would to document all necessary measures to manage and mitigation mitigate potential noise and vibration levels during standard daytime working hours and for all and out-of-hours construction activities (refer to section 17.2.3 of the EIS). The CNVMP would also provide the framework and mechanisms for: » The mitigation and management of the noise and vibration

impacts from the project. » Development of site specific construction noise management

plans. » Out-of-hours work associated with the project.

All precincts

NV-2 NV-2 During construction, standard mitigation and management measures would be applied to the works with reference to the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) and Transport for NSW Construction Noise Strategy (CNS). Mitigation and management measures which would be considered include: » For construction concentrated in a single area, such as at the

stops, worksites, substation construction sites, bridge sites and

During construction, standard The CVNMP prepared for the project would include standard mitigation and management measures would be applied to for the works with reference to the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) and Transport for NSW Construction Noise Strategy (CNS). Mitigation and management measures which would be considered include:

All precincts



8-95

EIS REF

Revised REF


the stabling and maintenance facility location, temporary acoustic fencing/barriers around the site perimeter would be considered where feasible and reasonable to mitigate off-site noise levels.

» Given the potentially high noise levels at residential receivers, adherence to daytime construction hours is recommended for excavation, demolition or rock breaking activities, and for activities concentrated in a single area (i.e. activities that do not move along the alignment, and do not require out-of-hours activities for safety reasons or to minimise disruption to road networks).

» Out of hours works would be programmed to minimise the number of consecutive out of hour work periods impacting the same receptors.

» Consultation would be carried out with local schools and other educational facilities prior to noise intensive works to ensure impacts are minimised during examination periods and/or other critical periods in the school calendar (where works are predicted to exceed the relevant construction noise management level for this receiver). Consultation with nearby childcare centres would be carried out to potentially avoid noisy works during rest periods at the centres (where possible).

» Simultaneous operation of noisy plant in close proximity to sensitive receptors would be avoided (where possible).

» Equipment which is used intermittently would be shut down when not in use.

» Where possible, the offset distance between noisy plant items and nearby noise sensitive receptors would be as great as possible.

» Where possible, equipment with directional noise emissions would be oriented away from sensitive receptors.

» For construction concentrated in a single area, such as at the stops, worksites, substation construction sites, bridge sites and the stabling and maintenance facility location, temporary acoustic fencing/barriers around the site perimeter would be considered where feasible and reasonable to mitigate off-site noise levels.

» Given the potentially high noise levels at residential receivers, adherence to daytime construction hours is recommended would be used for excavation, demolition or rock breaking activities, and for activities concentrated in a single area (i.e. activities that do not move along the alignment, and do not require out-of-hours activities for safety reasons or to minimise disruption to road networks).

» Where possible, noisy works would be scheduled to minimise impacts to adjacent businesses and commercial properties, such as avoiding undertaking noisy activities on Eat Street during lunch and dinner periods.

» Out of hours works would be programmed to minimise the number of consecutive out of hour work periods impacting the same receptors.

» Consultation would be carried out with local schools and other educational facilities prior to noise intensive works to ensure impacts are minimised during examination periods and/or other critical periods in the school calendar (where works are predicted to exceed the relevant construction noise management level for this receiver). Consultation with nearby childcare centres would be carried out to potentially avoid noisy works during rest periods at the centres (where possible).

» Simultaneous operation of noisy plant in close proximity to sensitive receptors would be avoided (where possible).

» Equipment which is used intermittently would be shut down when not in use.




EIS REF

Revised REF


» Construction compounds would use 2.4 metre high hoarding of solid construction where required to minimise noise on sensitive receivers, where safe to do so.

» Structures such as site sheds would be positioned to further shield sensitive and residential receivers from works activities.

» Regular compliance checks for noise emissions from all plant and machinery used for the project would be carried out to indicate whether noise emissions from plant items are higher than predicted. This would also identify defective silencing equipment on the items of plant.

» Ongoing noise monitoring would be carried out during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events.

» Where possible heavy vehicle movements should be limited to daytime hours.

» Reversing of equipment should be minimised so as to prevent nuisance caused by reversing alarms, which would be limited to the use of non-tonal reversing alarms.

» Loading and unloading should be carried out away from sensitive receptors, where practicable.

» Work should be scheduled to provide respite periods from the noisiest activities, and impacted residents should be communicated with to clearly explain the duration and noise levels for the works.

» Where possible, the offset distance between noisy plant items and nearby noise sensitive receptors would be as great as possible.

» Where possible, equipment with directional noise emissions would be oriented away from sensitive receptors.

» Construction compounds would use 2.4 metre high hoarding of solid construction where required to minimise noise on sensitive receivers, where safe to do so.

» Structures such as site sheds would be positioned to further shield sensitive and residential receivers from works activities.

» Regular compliance checks for noise emissions from all plant and machinery used for the project would be carried out to indicate whether noise emissions from plant items are higher than predicted. This would also identify defective silencing equipment on the items of plant.

» Ongoing noise monitoring would be carried out during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events.

» Where possible heavy vehicle movements should be limited to daytime hours.

» Reversing of equipment should be minimised so as to prevent nuisance caused by reversing alarms, which would be limited to the use of non-tonal reversing alarms.

» Loading and unloading should be carried out away from sensitive receptors, where practicable.

» Work should be scheduled to provide respite periods from the noisiest activities, and impacted residents should be communicated with to clearly explain the duration and noise levels for the works.

NV-3 NV-3 In the event of predicted exceedances of the noise goals, particularly during out-of-hours works, additional noise mitigation and management measures to be considered in the CNVMPs as

In the event of predicted exceedances of the noise goals, particularly during out-of-hours works, additional noise mitigation and management measures to be considered in the CNVMPs as

All precincts



8-97

EIS REF

Revised REF


described in the CNS. Additional mitigation and management measures would be determined on a site specific basis and are dependent upon the level of predicted impact. Additional mitigation and management measures which would be considered include: » Periodic notifications – These include regular newsletters,

letterbox drops or advertisements in local papers to provide an overview of current and upcoming works and other topics of interest.

» Website updates – The project website would form a resource for members of the community to seek further information, including CNVPs and current and upcoming construction activities.

» Project info-line and construction response line – Transport for NSW will operate a construction response line and a project info-line. These numbers will provide a dedicated 24-hour contact point for any complaints regarding construction works and for any project enquiries. All complaints require a verbal response within two hours. All enquiries require a verbal response within 24 hours during standard construction hours, or on the next working day during out-of-hours work (unless the enquirer agrees otherwise).

» Email distribution list – An email distribution list would be used to disseminate project information to interested stakeholders.

» Signage – Signage on construction sites would be provided to notify stakeholders of project details and project emergency or enquiry information.

» Specific notifications – Specific notifications would be letterbox dropped or hand distributed to the nearby residences and other sensitive receptors no later than seven days ahead of construction activities that are likely to exceed the noise objectives. This form of communication is used to

described in the CNS. Additional mitigation and management measures would be determined on a site specific basis and are dependent upon the level of predicted impact. Additional mitigation and management measures which would be considered include: » Periodic notifications – These include regular newsletters,

letterbox drops or advertisements in local papers to provide an overview of current and upcoming works and other topics of interest.

» Website updates – The project website would form a resource for members of the community to seek further information, including CNVPs and current and upcoming construction activities.

» Project info-line and construction response line – Transport for NSW will operate a construction response line and a project info-line (1800 775 465). These numbers will provide a dedicated 24-hour contact point for any complaints regarding construction works and for any project enquiries. All complaints require a verbal response within two hours. All enquiries require a verbal response within 24 hours during standard construction hours, or on the next working day during out-of-hours work (unless the enquirer agrees otherwise).

» Email distribution list – An email distribution list would be used to disseminate project information to interested stakeholders.

» Signage – Signage on construction sites would be provided to notify stakeholders of project details and project emergency or enquiry information.

» Specific notifications – Specific notifications would be letterbox dropped or hand distributed to the nearby residences and other sensitive receptors no later than seven days ahead of construction activities that are likely to exceed the noise objectives. This form of communication is used to




EIS REF

Revised REF


support periodic notifications, or to advertise unscheduled works.

» Phone calls – Phone calls may be made to identified/affected stakeholders within seven days of proposed work. For these works considering the large numbers of receptors, phone calls are not likely to be considered a reasonable mitigation and management measure in all cases, but could be used to inform specific receptors if requested (after notification of the works as above).

» Individual briefings – Individual briefings may be used to inform stakeholders about the impacts of high noise activities and mitigation and management measures that would be implemented. Communications representatives from the contractor(s) would visit identified stakeholders at least 48 hours ahead of potentially disturbing construction activities. Considering the large numbers of potentially affected receptors, individual briefings may not be considered a reasonable mitigation and management measure in all cases, but could be used for specific receptors if requested (after notification of the works as above).

» Monitoring – Ongoing noise monitoring during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods would be used to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events. Monitoring of noise would also be carried out in response to complaints. All noise monitoring would be carried out by an appropriately trained person in the measurement and assessment of construction noise and vibration, who is familiar with the requirements of the relevant standards and procedures.

support periodic notifications, or to advertise unscheduled works.

» Phone calls – Phone calls may be made to identified/affected stakeholders within seven days of proposed work. For these works considering the large numbers of receptors, phone calls are not likely to be considered a reasonable mitigation and management measure in all cases, but could be used to inform specific receptors if requested (after notification of the works as above).

» Individual briefings – Individual briefings may be used to inform stakeholders about the impacts of high noise activities and mitigation and management measures that would be implemented. Communications representatives from the contractor(s) would visit identified stakeholders at least 48 hours ahead of potentially disturbing construction activities. Considering the large numbers of potentially affected receptors, individual briefings may not be considered a reasonable mitigation and management measure in all cases, but could be used for specific receptors if requested (after notification of the works as above).

» Monitoring – Ongoing noise monitoring during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods would be used to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events. Monitoring of noise would also be carried out in response to complaints. All noise monitoring would be carried out by an appropriately trained person in the measurement and assessment of construction noise and vibration, who is familiar with the requirements of the relevant standards and procedures.

» Project specific respite offer – Residents subjected to lengthy periods of noise or vibration may be eligible for a project specific respite offer. The purpose of such an offer is to provide residents with respite from an ongoing impact. An

» Project specific respite offer – Residents subjected to lengthy periods of noise or vibration may be eligible for a project specific respite offer. The purpose of such an offer is to provide residents with respite from an ongoing impact. An



8-99

EIS REF

Revised REF


example of a respite offer might be pre-purchased movie tickets. The provision of this measure would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Project specific respite offers are unlikely to be reasonable and feasible in the CBD precinct. This is partly due to the impracticability of providing respite offers to large numbers of people during the proposed 24-hour works, but also reflects the existing evening and weekend noise environment in the Parramatta CBD precinct.

» Alternative accommodation – As described in the CNS, provision of alternative accommodation for residents should be considered in the event that highly intrusive noise impacts are predicted during the night-time period (between 10 pm and 7 am). However, as the project is likely to require night-time works at many locations (particularly in the Parramatta CBD precinct), provision of alternative accommodation in all cases may not always be feasible or reasonable.

example of a respite offer might be pre-purchased movie tickets. The provision of this measure would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Project specific respite offers are unlikely to be reasonable and feasible in the CBD precinct. This is partly due to the impracticability of providing respite offers to large numbers of people during the proposed 24-hour works, but also reflects the existing evening and weekend noise environment in the Parramatta CBD precinct.

» Alternative accommodation – As described in the CNS, provision of alternative accommodation for residents should be considered in the event that highly intrusive noise impacts are predicted during the night-time period (between 10 pm and 7 am). However, as the project is likely to require night-time works at many locations (particularly in the Parramatta CBD precinct), provision of alternative accommodation in all cases may not always be feasible or reasonable.

NV-4 NV-4 For sensitive receiver that operate outside standard construction hours, for example hospitals which operate on a 24-hour basis, feasible and reasonable noise mitigation options and measures would be developed in consultation with the sensitive receiver.

For sensitive receiver that operate outside standard construction hours, for example hospitals which operate on a 24-hour basis, feasible and reasonable noise mitigation options and measures would be developed in consultation with the sensitive receiver.

All precincts

NV-5 NV-5 The use of noise intensive plant items would be scheduled for normal working hours. If the works cannot be carried out during the daytime, it has been recommended to complete them before 11 pm, where practicable. This would be particularly relevant for works impacting the following noise catchment areas (NCAs) where a number of activities have been predicted to result in high impacts on many residential receivers during the night-time: » NCA04 in the Westmead precinct » NCA06 and NCA07 in the Parramatta North precinct

» NCA11 in the Rosehill and Camellia precinct.

The use of noise intensive plant items would be scheduled for normal working hours. If the works cannot be carried out during the daytime, it has been recommended to complete them before 11 pm, where practicable. This would be particularly relevant for works impacting the following noise catchment areas (NCAs) where a number of activities have been predicted to result in high impacts on many residential receivers during the night-time: » NCA04 in the Westmead precinct » NCA06 and NCA07 in the Parramatta North precinct

» NCA11 in the Rosehill and Camellia precinct.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


NV-6 NV-6 Opportunities to reduce road traffic noise during construction would be investigated, including restricting heavy vehicle movements to standard construction hours and/or to routes with fewer sensitive receivers.

Opportunities to reduce road traffic noise during construction would be investigated during construction planning, including restricting heavy vehicle movements to standard construction hours and/or to routes with fewer sensitive receivers.

All precincts

NV-7 NV-7 Where vibration intensive construction activities are proposed within 100 metres of sensitive receivers, these works would be confined to the less sensitive daytime period where possible. The potential impacts from vibration are to be considered in the site-specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statements (to be developed during detailed design). In general, mitigation and management measures that would be considered include: » Relocate vibration generating plant and equipment to areas

within the site in order to lower the vibration impacts. » Investigate the feasibility of rescheduling the hours of

operation of major vibration generating plant and equipment.

» Use lower vibration generating items of excavation plant and equipment (e.g. smaller capacity rock breaker hammers).

» Minimise consecutive works in the same locality (if applicable).

» Use dampened rock breakers to minimise the impacts associated with rock breaking works.

If vibration intensive works are required within the safe working distances, vibration monitoring or attended vibration trials would be carried out to ensure that levels remain below the cosmetic damage criterion. Building condition surveys would be completed both prior to the commencement of construction works and following the completion of construction works to identify existing damage and any damage due to the works. Measurements of existing ambient vibration levels would be carried out at receivers with vibration sensitive equipment during

Where vibration intensive construction activities are proposed within 100 metres of sensitive receivers, these works would be confined to the less sensitive daytime period where possible. The potential impacts from vibration are to be considered in the site-specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statements (to be developed during detailed design). In general, mitigation and management measures that would be considered include: » Relocate vibration generating plant and equipment to areas

within the site in order to lower the vibration impacts. » Investigate the feasibility of rescheduling the hours of

operation of major vibration generating plant and equipment.

» Use lower vibration generating items of excavation plant and equipment (e.g. smaller capacity rock breaker hammers).

» Minimise consecutive works in the same locality (if applicable).

» Use dampened rock breakers to minimise the impacts associated with rock breaking works.

If vibration intensive works are required within the safe working distances, vibration monitoring or attended vibration trials would be carried out to ensure that levels remain below the cosmetic damage criterion. Building condition surveys would be completed both prior to the commencement of construction works and following the completion of construction works to identify existing damage and any damage due to the works. Measurements of existing ambient vibration levels would be carried out at receivers with vibration sensitive equipment during

All precincts



8-101

EIS REF

Revised REF


the detailed design. This information would be used to inform the site-specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statements for works near these locations.

the detailed design. This information would be used to inform the site-specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statements for works near these locations.

NV-8 NV-8 Mitigation and management measures to address potential noise and vibration impacts to facilities within the Westmead Research Zone would be implemented during construction. Mitigation and management measures would be determined in consultation with the facility operator / owner and informed by the sensitivity of impacted spaces prior to the commencement of construction. The mitigation and management measures (in addition to those provided in NV-1 to NV-7) could include: » Consultation with the affected facilities to determine periods

when noise and/or vibration intensive works can occur with least impact.

» Relocation of vibration sensitive equipment to less impacted locations within the facilities.

» Vibration isolation of sensitive equipment predicted to have potential impacts.

» Unattended noise and vibration monitoring within the facilities to ensure noise and/or vibration levels are within acceptable levels.

Mitigation and management measures to address potential noise and vibration impacts to facilities within the Westmead Research Zone would be implemented during construction. Mitigation and management measures would be determined in consultation with the facility operator / owner and informed by the sensitivity of impacted spaces prior to the commencement of construction. The mitigation and management measures (in addition to those provided in NV-1 to NV-7) could include: » Consultation with the affected facilities to determine periods

when noise and/or vibration intensive works can occur with least impact.

» Relocation of vibration sensitive equipment to less impacted locations within the facilities.

» Vibration isolation of sensitive equipment predicted to have potential impacts.

» Unattended noise and vibration monitoring within the facilities to ensure noise and/or vibration levels are within acceptable levels.

Westmead

Local property and land use

LU-3 LU-3 Consultation would be carried out prior to and throughout construction with the surrounding businesses, the local community and key stakeholders including City of Parramatta Council, Western Sydney University, NSW Health, UrbanGrowth NSW, Greater Sydney Commission and other potentially impacted stakeholders to advise them in advance of proposed works and any temporary access arrangements that may be required.

Consultation would be carried out prior to and throughout construction with the surrounding businesses, the local community and key stakeholders including City of Parramatta Council, Western Sydney University, NSW Health, UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, Greater Sydney Commission and other potentially impacted stakeholders to advise them in advance of proposed works and any temporary access arrangements that may be required.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


N/A LU-4 Not included in previous version. Transport for NSW would undertake works required to realign of the existing playing fields to mitigate the direct impact of the project on the ongoing use of the playing fields.

CBD precinct

Trees

TR-4 TR-3 The use of low impact construction techniques (on existing tree roots) for installation of new services would be considered, where appropriate and feasible.

The use of low impact construction techniques (on existing tree roots) for installation of new services all works would be considered, where appropriate and feasible.

All precincts

TR-5 TR-4 All tree pruning and removal works, including any root pruning, would be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373-2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees.

All tree pruning and removal works, including any root pruning, would be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373-2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees.

All precincts

TR-6 TR-5 Where the loss of trees is unable to be mitigated, trees removed as a result of the project would be offset in accordance with the Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2016). Trees would be replaced at a ratio of between 2:1 and 8:1 depending on the size of the tree to be removed. This would be documented in the Tree Offset Strategy to be developed for the project.

Where the loss of trees is unable to be mitigated, trees removed as a result of the project would be offset in accordance with the Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2016). Trees would be replaced at a ratio of between 2:1 and 8:1 depending on the size of the tree to be removed. The proposed offsetting activities This would be documented in the Tree Offset Strategy to be developed for the project. The City of Parramatta Council’s Parramatta Ways: Implementing Sydney’s Green Grid would be considered as part of the development of a Vegetation Offset Strategy for the project.

All precincts

TR-7 TR-6 Temporary tree protection measures would be installed prior to construction works commencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites as required for any trees to be retained within active construction sites.

Temporary tree protection measures would be installed prior to construction works commencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites as required for any trees to be retained within active construction sites.

All precincts

TR-8 TR-7 Where activities which could cause soil compaction within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of trees to be retained cannot be avoided (e.g. due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level or use of suitable ground protection measures beneath site access tracks (e.g. geotextile fabric) would be investigated and implemented, where feasible, so as to avoid impacting on the

Where activities which could cause soil compaction within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of trees to be retained cannot be avoided (e.g. due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level or use of suitable ground protection measures beneath site access tracks (e.g. geotextile fabric) would be investigated and implemented, where feasible, so as to avoid impacting on the

All precincts



8-103

EIS REF

Revised REF


underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

TR-9 TR-8 Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in close consultation with local council and in accordance with the UDLP to be developed for the project.

Selection of tree species, size and planting locations would be carried out in close consultation with local council and in accordance with the UDLP to be developed for the project.

All precincts

N/A TR-9 Not included in previous version. As far as practical, the construction compounds would be configured so as to not directly impact on trees that would not already be directly impacted by the project. Where trees which can be retained are located within construction boundaries, exclusion fencing would be erected to protect these trees from construction activities. Similarly, for road network modifications away from the main alignment, these works would be carried out, as far as practical, so as to minimise any further impact on trees as a result of the project.

All precincts

Socio-economic characteristics

SE-1 SE-1 A Community Engagement Plan would be prepared to guide community engagement during the construction phase of the project. Communication would be with the local community, stakeholders and the wider region.

A Community Engagement Plan would be prepared to guide community engagement during the construction phase of the project. Communication would be with the local community, stakeholders and the wider region. Place Managers dedicated to each precinct would be available during the lead up to construction and during construction to hear concerns or answer questions from the community and businesses. They would provide a single point of contact for those wanting to find out more about the project, including impacts of construction and how to minimise them. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with old mitigation and management measure SE-2]

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


SE-2 N/A Place Managers dedicated to each precinct would be available during the lead up to construction and during construction to hear concerns or answer questions from the community and businesses. They would provide a single point of contact for those wanting to find out more about the project, including impacts of construction and how to minimise them.

Place Managers dedicated to each precinct would be available during the lead up to construction and during construction to hear concerns or answer questions from the community and businesses. They would provide a single point of contact for those wanting to find out more about the project, including impacts of construction and how to minimise them. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-1 (see above).]

All precincts

SE-3 SE-2 A Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operations. This plan would include details on how Sydney Coordination Office, Local Business Chambers and business representatives would contribute to development and implementation of strategies.

A Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operations. This plan would include: » Details on how Sydney Coordination Office, Local Business

Chambers and business representatives would contribute to development and implementation of strategies.

» A Business Activation team which liaises with a number of agencies such as the NSW Department of Industry and City of Parramatta Council, would work with businesses to improve resilience during construction and to changes during operations. The team would also consider bringing together business forums to address specific issues of interest for businesses.

» Place Managers who would work with businesses to understand their needs and work with the construction teams on the best way to meet these requirements including signage, parking, access and other measures to avoid disruption for customers and deliveries.

[This mitigation and management measure has been modified to incorporate EIS mitigation and management measures SE-4 and SE-5.]

All precincts



8-105

EIS REF

Revised REF


SE-4 N/A Place Managers would work with businesses to understand their needs and work with the construction teams on the best way to meet these requirements including signage, parking, access and other measures to avoid disruption for customers and deliveries.

Place Managers would work with businesses to understand their needs and work with the construction teams on the best way to meet these requirements including signage, parking, access and other measures to avoid disruption for customers and deliveries. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-2 (see above).]

All precincts

SE-5 N/A A Business Activation team which liaises with a number of agencies such as the NSW Department of Industry and City of Parramatta Council, would work with businesses to improve resilience during construction and to changes during operations. The team would also consider bringing together business forums to address specific issues of interest for businesses.

A Business Activation team which liaises with a number of agencies such as the NSW Department of Industry and City of Parramatta Council, would work with businesses to improve resilience during construction and to changes during operations. The team would also consider bringing together business forums to address specific issues of interest for businesses. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-2 (see above).]

All precincts

SE-6 SE-3 Areas affected by construction would be reinstated and restored in accordance with the UDLP.

Areas affected by construction would be reinstated and restored in accordance with the UDLP.

All precincts

SE-7 SE-4 A strategy for managing displacement of homeless people would be prepared in collaboration with the City of Parramatta Council and other agencies in accordance with the NSW Government’s Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places: Guidelines for Implementation (May 2013).

A strategy for managing displacement of homeless people would be prepared in collaboration with the City of Parramatta Council and other agencies in accordance with the NSW Government’s Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places: Guidelines for Implementation (May 2013).

All precincts

SE-8 SE-5 Carry out ongoing consultation and communication with local communities about changes to public transport and local pedestrian and cycle access, including through signage, public notices and provision of regular updates to user groups.

Carry out ongoing consultation and communication with local communities about changes to public transport and local pedestrian and cycle access, including through community events, signage, public notices and provision of regular updates to user groups.

All precincts




EIS REF

Revised REF


SE-9 N/A Access for pedestrians and cyclists near construction works would be maintained, including consideration of pedestrian access needs for elderly people, children and people with disability.

Access for pedestrians and cyclists near construction works would be maintained, including consideration of pedestrian access needs for elderly people, children and people with disability. This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure TT-25.]

All precincts

SE-10 SE-6 Specific consultation would be carried out with businesses potentially impacted during construction. Consultation would aim to identify and develop measures to manage the specific construction impacts for individual or groups of businesses as appropriate.

Specific consultation would be carried out with businesses potentially impacted during construction. Consultation would aim to identify and develop measures to manage the specific construction impacts (such as impacts to outdoor dining areas) for individual or groups of businesses as appropriate.

All precincts

SE-11 SE-7 A business impact risk register would be developed to identify, rate and manage the specific construction impacts for individual businesses.

A business impact risk register would be developed to identify, rate and manage the specific construction impacts for individual businesses.

All precincts

SE-12 SE-8 Appropriate signage would be provided around construction sites to provide visibility to retained businesses, where required.

Appropriate signage would be provided around construction sites to provide visibility to retained businesses, where required.

All precincts

SE-13 SE-9 Consult with managers of Wesley Apartments and Cumberland Hospital about potential support in relation to relocation of affected facilities.

Transport for NSW would consult with managers of Wesley Apartments and Cumberland Hospital about opportunities to potential support in relation to the relocation of affected facilities.

Westmead

SE-14 SE-10 Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to): » Westmead Hospital, the Children’s Hospital at Westmead and

Cumberland Hospital precinct » Western Sydney University, including the Western Sydney

University Early Learning Centre » Schools, such as Parramatta Marist High School, and

Catherine McAuley Catholic Girls’ School.

Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to): » Westmead Hospital, the Children’s Hospital at Westmead and

Cumberland Hospital precinct » Western Sydney University, including the Western Sydney

University Early Learning Centre » Schools, such as Parramatta Marist High School, Arthur Phillip

High School, Parramatta Public School, Parramatta North


North, Parramatta CBD

and Rosehill and Camellia



8-107

EIS REF

Revised REF


Primary School, St Patrick’s Primary, Our Lady of Mercy College and Catherine McAuley Catholic Girls’ School.

» Nursing homes. » Medical facilities. » Managers of Prince Alfred Square and Robin Thomas Reserve.

» Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. » Rosehill Bowling Club. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include relevant EIS mitigation and management measures SE-15, SE-16 and SE-18.]

SE-15 N/A Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to) schools (such as Parramatta North Primary School, St Patrick’s Primary and Our Lady of Mercy College) nursing homes and medical facilities.

Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to) schools (such as Parramatta North Primary School, St Patrick’s Primary and Our Lady of Mercy College) nursing homes and medical facilities. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-10 (see above).]

Parramatta North

SE-16 N/A Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include: » Western Sydney University, including the Western Sydney

University Early Learning Centre. » Schools, such as Arthur Phillip High School, Parramatta Public

School. » Managers of Prince Alfred Square, Robin Thomas Reserve.

Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include: » Western Sydney University, including the Western Sydney

University Early Learning Centre. » Schools, such as Arthur Phillip High School, Parramatta Public

School. » Managers of Prince Alfred Square, Robin Thomas Reserve. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-10 (see above).]

Parramatta CBD




EIS REF

Revised REF


SE-17 SE-11 Ensure planning for the temporary full or partial closure of local and regional roads in the study area considers the timing of major events within the study area, for example those at Parramatta Park and Prince Alfred Square.

Ensure planning for the temporary full or partial closure of local and regional roads in the study area considers the timing of major events within the study area, for example those at Parramatta Park, Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and Prince Alfred Square. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measure SE-19.]

Parramatta CBD, Rosehill and Camellia

SE-18 N/A Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to): » Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. » Rosehill Bowling Club.

Carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities near the project about potential impacts and proposed management measures. These include (but not limited to): » Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. » Rosehill Bowling Club. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-10 (see above).]


SE-19 N/A Ensure planning for the temporary full or partial closure of local and regional roads in the study area considers the timing of major events within the study area, for example those at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse.

Ensure planning for the temporary full or partial closure of local and regional roads in the study area considers the timing of major events within the study area, for example those at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure SE-11 (see above).]


SE-20 SE-12 Alternate public transport access (i.e. buses) would be provided for communities along the T6 Carlingford Line.

Alternate public transport access (i.e. buses) would be provided for communities along the T6 Carlingford Line.

Carlingford

Sustainability

SU-3 SU-3 A workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during construction.

A workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during for the construction of the project. The development of this strategy would consider any existing programs, such as the Parramatta Skills Exchange, which may be applicable to the project.

All precincts



8-109

8.2.3 Operation

Table 8.3 outlines the consolidated mitigation and management measures to be implemented during operation of the project.

Table 8.3 Consolidated mitigation and management measures (operation)

EIS REF

REVISED REF



HY-12 HY-11 A Flood Operational Management Plan (FOMP) would be prepared to describe the project operational procedure for the network during flood events.

A Flood Operational Management Plan (FOMP) would be prepared to describe the project operational procedure for the network during flood events.

All precincts

Groundwater

GW-8 GW-7 Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and the refuelling and maintenance of vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented during the operation of the project to minimise potential for groundwater quality impacts associated with chemical spills and leaks. These procedures would adequately address activities at the stabling and maintenance facility, as well as other general maintenance facilities that would occur along the project alignment.

Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and the refuelling and maintenance of vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented during the operation of the project to minimise potential for groundwater quality impacts associated with chemical spills and leaks. These procedures would adequately address activities at the stabling and maintenance facility, as well as other general maintenance facilities that would occur along the project alignment.

All precincts

Soils and geology

SG-5 SG-5 Should ASS be identified during intrusive investigations, acid sulfate soils management plans would be required for future maintenance works in these areas.

Should ASS be identified during intrusive investigations, acid sulfate soils management plans would be required for future maintenance works in these areas.

All precinct

SG-6 SG-6 Embankment stabilisation treatments would require maintenance during the operation phase of the project to ensure functionality.

Embankment stabilisation treatments would require maintenance during the operation phase of the project to ensure functionality.

All precinct




EIS REF

REVISED REF


Contamination

CM-7 CM-7 Ongoing management and monitoring measures would be implemented for any areas where minor residual contamination remains following construction.

Ongoing management and monitoring measures would be implemented for any areas within the permanent light rail corridor where minor residual contamination remains following construction.

All precincts

Air quality

AQ-3 AQ-2 Potential air quality impacts associated with the operation of the project would be managed through the implementation of the following environmental management measures: » Conduct routine maintenance to clear debris and loose

materials from around the light rail operating area. » Plan and coordinate the removal of sand to avoid inclement

weather conditions which may result in emissions being blown towards nearby receivers.

» Inspect plant/equipment prior to commencement of maintenance activities to ensure that equipment continues to operate efficiently.

» Conduct routine servicing and maintenance, and subsequent inspections to ensure that the light rail transport infrastructure continues to operate efficiently (such as replacing any wearing parts).

» Ancillary maintenance service vehicles and equipment would be maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturers requirements.

» Conduct maintenance activities within planned enclosures as appropriate.

» Wherever possible, complete emission-generating maintenance activities away from the perimeter of the stabling and maintenance facility.

Potential air quality impacts associated with the operation of the project would be managed through the implementation of the following environmental management measures, to be specified in the project OEMP: » Conduct routine maintenance to clear debris and loose

materials from around the light rail operating area. » Plan and coordinate the removal of sand to avoid inclement

weather conditions which may result in emissions being blown towards nearby receivers.

» Inspect plant/equipment prior to commencement of maintenance activities to ensure that equipment continues to operate efficiently.

» Conduct routine servicing and maintenance, and subsequent inspections to ensure that the light rail transport infrastructure continues to operate efficiently (such as replacing any wearing parts).

» Ancillary maintenance service vehicles and equipment would be maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturers requirements.

» Conduct maintenance activities within planned enclosures as appropriate.

» Wherever possible, complete emission-generating maintenance activities away from the perimeter of the stabling and maintenance facility.

All precinct



8-111

EIS REF

REVISED REF


Greenhouse gases

GG-12

GG-9 During operation, a 100 per cent offset of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption of electricity of the project would be targeted.

During operation, a 100 per cent offset of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption of electricity of the project would be targeted.

All precincts


CC-3 CC-3 Operational procedures would be developed and implemented to enable the light rail system to be maintained and managed efficiently in order to appropriately respond to extreme climate events (temperature, winds or rainfall), as identified in the updated climate change risk assessment.

Operational procedures would be developed and implemented to enable the light rail system to be maintained and managed efficiently in order to appropriately respond to extreme climate events (temperature, winds or rainfall), as identified in the updated climate change risk assessment.

All precincts


WM-11

WM-7 Operational waste produced by the project would be managed through the provision of bins at each stop to dispose of any general or putrescible wastes. The collection of this waste would be managed by the network operator for the project.

Operational waste produced by the project would be managed through the provision of bins at each stop to dispose of any general or putrescible wastes. The collection of this waste would be managed by the network operator for the project.

All precincts

WM-12

WM-8 An Operational Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part of the OEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use (including the stabling and maintenance facility) is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required.

An Operational Waste, Reuse, Recycling and Energy Plan would be prepared as part of the OEMP. It would ensure resource and materials use, waste disposal and energy use (including the stabling and maintenance facility) is minimised by tracking and reporting performance, and applying corrective action as required.

All precincts

Hazards and risks

HR-8 HR-7 Targeted safety campaigns to raise awareness around the operation of LRVs would be used in the lead up to the opening of the project and during operation to promote the safe operation of the project. This would focus on raising awareness and promoting safe behaviours around the project.

Targeted safety campaigns to raise awareness around the operation of LRVs would be used in the lead up to the opening of the project and during operation to promote the safe operation of the project. This would focus on raising awareness and promoting safe behaviours around the project.

All precincts




EIS REF

REVISED REF


HR-9 HR-8 All cables would be buried within ducts and would adhere to all International and Australian electrical standards in terms of distances from surrounding cables (i.e. adjacent high voltage cables require minimum separation in accordance with industry standards).

All cables would be buried within ducts and would adhere to all International and Australian electrical standards in terms of distances from surrounding cables (i.e. adjacent high voltage cables require minimum separation in accordance with industry standards).

All precincts

HR-10 HR-9 Storage of chemicals associated with the operation and maintenance of the LRVs would be designed in line with the appropriate EPA guidelines and legislative requirements. All hazardous substances that may be required for operation would be stored and managed in accordance with the Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods Code of Practice (WorkCover NSW, 2005) and Hazardous and Offensive Development Application Guidelines: Applying SEPP 33 (Department of Planning, 2011).

Storage of chemicals associated with the operation and maintenance of the LRVs would be designed in line with the appropriate EPA guidelines and legislative requirements. All hazardous substances that may be required for operation would be stored and managed in accordance with the Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods Code of Practice (WorkCover NSW, 2005) and Hazardous and Offensive Development Application Guidelines: Applying SEPP 33 (Department of Planning, 2011).

All precincts

HR-11 HR-10 Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and the refuelling and maintenance of vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented during the operation of the project to minimise potential for impacts associated with chemical spills and leaks. These procedures would adequately address activities at the stabling and maintenance facility, as well as other general maintenance facilities that would occur along the project alignment.

Hazardous material procedures (including procedures for managing spills and the refuelling and maintenance of vehicles/equipment) would be developed and implemented during the operation of the project to minimise potential for impacts associated with chemical spills and leaks. These procedures would adequately address activities at the stabling and maintenance facility, as well as other general maintenance facilities that would occur along the project alignment.

All precincts

N/A HR-11 Not included in previous version. During high demand periods, such as special events, measures to minimise potential safety risks associated with overcrowding at stops would be implemented, such as more regular services, additional LRVs and/or crowd control at stops.

All precincts



8-113

EIS REF

REVISED REF


HR-12 HR-12 An emergency response strategy would be developed for the operation of the light rail which would ensure risks to the project are minimised in event of possible explosion from the known high pressure petroleum pipeline that extends along Grand Avenue and adjacent to the existing T6 Carlingford Line between Grand Avenue and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.

An emergency response strategy would be developed for the operation of the light rail which would ensure risks to the project are minimised in event of possible explosion from the known high pressure petroleum pipeline that extends along Grand Avenue and adjacent to the existing T6 Carlingford Line between Grand Avenue and the Western Sydney University (Parramatta) campus.

Rosehill and Camellia and

Carlingford precincts


TT-35 TT-31 A strategy for maintaining emergency vehicle access to the Westmead Health Precinct in case of a breakdown along Hawkesbury Road would be prepared in consultation with NSW Health and implemented.

A strategy for maintaining emergency vehicle access to the Westmead Health Precinct in case of a breakdown along Hawkesbury Road would be prepared in consultation with NSW Health and implemented. The project would be designed to enable emergency vehicles to use the project alignment in an emergency situation during periods of traffic congestion along Hawkesbury Road. [This mitigation and management measure has been modified to include EIS mitigation and management measure TT-36.]

Westmead

TT-36 N/A The project would be designed to enable emergency vehicles to use the project alignment in an emergency situation during periods of traffic congestion along Hawkesbury Road.

The project would be designed to enable emergency vehicles to use the project alignment in an emergency situation during periods of traffic congestion along Hawkesbury Road. [This mitigation and management measure has been merged with mitigation and management measure TT-31 (see above).]

Westmead

Noise and vibration

NV-9 NV-9 An operational mitigation strategy would be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to operations and then validated once the project is complete (usually 12 months post opening). Potentially feasible and reasonable mitigation for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including:

An operational mitigation strategy would be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to operations and then validated once the project is complete (usually 12 months post opening). Potentially feasible and reasonable mitigation for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including:

All precincts




EIS REF

REVISED REF


» Minimise LRV source noise levels via specifications » Vegetated trackforms.

» Speed restrictions. » Minimise wheel and rail roughness. » Absorptive paving. » Property treatments. The final operational mitigation strategy would be determined during detailed design in consultation with the affected community.

» Minimise LRV source noise levels via specifications » Vegetated trackforms.

» Speed restrictions. » Minimise wheel and rail roughness. » Absorptive paving Low noise trackforms such as absorptive

paving or vegetated trackforms. » Ballast mats. » Under sleeper pads. » Property treatments. The final operational mitigation strategy would be determined during detailed design in consultation with the affected community.

Sustainability

SU-4 SU-4 Sustainability initiatives would be incorporated into the operation of the project to support the achievement of the project sustainability objectives, as detailed in the Sustainability Plan.

Sustainability initiatives would be incorporated into the operation of the project to support the achievement of the project sustainability objectives, as detailed in the Sustainability Plan.

All precincts

SU-5 SU-5 A best practice level of performance would be achieved by achieving an ISCA rating for the operational stage of the project.

A best practice level of performance would be achieved by achieving an ISCA rating for the operational stage of the project.

All precincts

SU-6 SU-6 A workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during operation.

A workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during operation.

All precincts

Conclusion


9-1

9 Conclusion 9.1 Overview The Parramatta Light Rail – Stage 1 EIS included a comprehensive assessment of the likely environmental impacts of the project and, where appropriate, proposed environmental mitigation and management measures to address these potential impacts. Consultation was carried out with affected stakeholders throughout the EIS process to identify key potential impacts at an early stage and address these issues where possible. The EIS concluded that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and management measures throughout design, construction and operation of the project, the identified environmental impacts are considered to be acceptable and manageable.

The EIS was placed on public exhibition between 23 August and 23 October 2017. During this period, a comprehensive community engagement program was undertaken to encourage community feedback on the proposal.

A total of 156 submissions were received, comprising 15 submissions from government agencies and key stakeholders, and 141 community submissions (where ‘community’ includes businesses, special interest groups and community action groups). Of the 141 community submissions, 15 submissions were received from special interest groups and community action groups, and 21 submissions were received from businesses.

Most community submissions were concerned about the following issues (refer to section 3.2 for a detailed breakdown of these issues):

» Traffic, transport and access impacts.

» The project’s design and operation.

» Project alternatives.

» Issues external to the project and future extensions of the project.

» Built and non-Aboriginal heritage impacts.

» Socio-economic impacts.

» Noise and vibration impacts.

» The project’s need and justification.

A number of design changes are proposed in response to the submissions received, ongoing consultation with key stakeholders and further design development. An assessment of the changes is provided in Chapter 6. The impacts associated with the proposed design changes would be manageable through the application of the environmental mitigation and management measures documented in Chapter 8 of the Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report (this document), which includes some new and revised measures. Overall, the benefits of the change to the community and the environment, and the benefits for operation of the project are expected to outweigh the potential impacts of these changes.

Conclusion



9.2 Next Steps The DP&E will, on behalf of the NSW Minister for Planning, review the EIS and this Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report. Once Department of Planning and Environment has completed its assessment, a draft assessment report will be prepared for the Secretary of Department of Planning and Environment, which may include recommended conditions of approval.

The assessment report will then be provided to the Minister for Planning, who will determine the project.

A copy of the Submissions and Preferred Infrastructure Report will be published on Department of Planning and Environment’s website. The NSW Minister for Planning’s determination, including any conditions of approval and the Secretary’s report will be published on Department of Planning and Environment’s website immediate following determination.

References


10-1

10 References » Austroads, 2017. Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (2017 Edition).

» City of Parramatta, 2017a. Parramatta Bike Plan.

» City of Parramatta, 2017b. DRAFT Parramatta CBD Car Parking Strategy 2017-23.

» City of Parramatta, 2017c. Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserves Draft Master Plan Report.

» Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2009. Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG).

» Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2009. Managing Urban Stormwater, Environmental Targets Consultation Draft.

» Department of Planning and Environment, 2015. Camellia Precinct Land Use and Infrastructure Analysis.

» Department of Primary Industries, 2012. Guidelines for watercourse crossings on waterfront land.

» Department of Primary Industries, 2013. Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management.

» Elton Consulting, 2016. Parramatta Light Rail – How the preferred network was determined.

» Environment Protection Authority, 1997. Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook.

» Environment Protection Authority, 1999. Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non-liquid Wastes.

» Environment Protection Authority, January 2000. NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP).

» Environment Protection Authority, July 2013. Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING).

» Environment Protection Authority, 2014a. NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014–21.

» Environment Protection Agency (NSW), 2014b. NSW Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste.

» Greater Sydney Commission, 2016c. Draft Greater Parramatta and the Olympic Peninsula Vision.

» Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996. NSW Heritage Manual.

» ICOMOS, 2013. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, The Burra Charter, 2013 (Burra Charter).

» Infrastructure NSW, 2012. The State Infrastructure Strategy 2012-2032.

» Landcom, 2004. Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction.

» NSW Government, 2014a. A Plan for Growing Sydney.

» NSW Government, 2014b. Rebuilding NSW: State Infrastructure Strategy 2014.

» NSW Heritage Office, 2005a. Interpreting Heritage Places and Items: Guidelines.

» NSW Heritage Office, 2005b. Heritage Interpretation Policy.

» NSW Heritage Office, 2001. Assessing Heritage Significance, update to the NSW Heritage Manual.

» Office of Environment and Heritage, 2009. Waste Classification Guidelines.

» Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014a. Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects.

References



» Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014b. NSW Framework for Biodiversity Assessment Methodology.

» Tideman, 2003. A Framework for Assessing the Value of Downtown Land.

» Transport for NSW, 2017a. Construction Noise Strategy.

» Transport for NSW, 2017b. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 1A – Main Document).

» Transport for NSW, 2017c. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 1B – Main Document).

» Transport for NSW, 2017d. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 1 – Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions (Prepared by GTA Consultants). Volume 2.

» Transport for NSW, 2017e. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 2 – Construction Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Report (Prepared by GTA Consultants). Volume 2.

» Transport for NSW, 2017f. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 3 – Operational Traffic and Transport Technical Assessment Report (Prepared by GTA Consultants). Volume 2.

» Transport for NSW, 2017g. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 4 – Biodiversity Assessment Report (Prepared by WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff). Volume 3.

» Transport for NSW, 2017h. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 5 – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (Prepared by Kelleher Nightingale Consulting). Volume 4.

» Transport for NSW, 2017i. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 6 – Water Quality Working Paper (Prepared by Jacobs). Volume 4.

» Transport for NSW, 2017j. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Technical Paper (Prepared by Arup). Volume 4.

» Transport for NSW, 2017k. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 8 – Stage 1 Contaminated Land Technical Paper (Prepared by Coffey). Volume 4.

» Transport for NSW, 2017l. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 9 – Air Quality Working Paper (Prepared by Jacobs). Volume 4.

» Transport for NSW, 2017m. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 10 – Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Prepared by Artefact). Volume 5.

» Transport for NSW, 2017n. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 11 – Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment (Prepared by Artefact). Volume 5.

References


10-3

» Transport for NSW, 2017o. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 12 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Prepared by IRIS Visual Planning + Design). Volume 6.

» Transport for NSW, 2017p. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 13 – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Prepared by SLR Consulting). Volume 6.

» Transport for NSW, 2017q. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 14 – Business Impact Assessment (Prepared by HillPDA Consulting). Volume 7.

» Transport for NSW, 2017r. Parramatta Light Rail (Stage 1), Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia – Environmental Impact Statement - Technical Paper 15 – Social Impact Assessment (Prepared by Jacobs). Volume 7.

Appendix A: Key issue and sub issue categories


A-1

KEY ISSUE AND SUB-ISSUE CATEGORIES Table A.1 Key issue and sub-issue categories

Key issue Sub issue

Planning and statutory requirements

Accuracy of EIS documentation

Detail provided in EIS documentation

EIS process and documentation

Planning approval process

Community and stakeholder consultation

General concern regarding the project’s team’s engagement with the community

Level of consultation about the Parramatta Light Rail project

Community and stakeholder consultation during construction

Request for further consultation

Project need and justification

Ability to meet project objectives

Adequacy of the existing public transport system

Benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project

Other general comments

Economic assessment and value for money

Patronage

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – General

Alignment alternatives – Westmead

Alignment alternatives – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area

Alignment alternatives – O’Connell Street

Alignment alternatives – Parramatta CBD

Alignment alternatives – Rosehill and Camellia

Alternative or additional stop locations

Mode alternatives

Stabling and maintenance facility locations

Substations

Additional active transport options

Adequacy of the alternatives assessment

Other issues

A-2 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


Key issue Sub issue

Project design and operations

Landscaping and urban design

Closure of T6 Carlingford Line

Light rail vehicles

Mobility and accessibility

Other structures/facilities

Power supply, catenary and wire-free technology

Project design and operations (cont)

Road network design

Stop layout, design and treatment

Track and corridor design

Services and trip duration

Active transport link

Fares and ticketing

Integration with existing or future transport services

Light rail and pedestrian zones

Project construction Construction work hours

Construction scheduling and staging

Work sites and construction compounds

Concern about and/or mitigation of construction impacts

Construction traffic and haulage

Traffic, transport and access

Construction impacts on property access

Construction parking and loading impacts

Construction pedestrian and cyclist impacts

Construction traffic impacts

Operational impacts to property access

Operational parking and loading impacts

Operational pedestrian and cyclist impacts

Operational traffic impacts

Direct impacts to existing bus services and routes during construction

Disruptions to access for emergency service vehicles

Traffic, transport and access impact assessment approach and scope


A-3

Key issue Sub issue

Mitigation and management

Public use of private property to access light rail

T6 Carlingford Line replacement strategy

Land use and property Property acquisition and property impacts

Impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve

General land use impacts

Integration with Camellia Town Centre

Integration with Telopea Master Plan

Biodiversity General biodiversity impacts

Mitigation and management measures

Impact assessment and approach

Aboriginal heritage Aboriginal heritage impacts – construction


General built and landscape heritage impacts – construction

Impacts to Cumberland District Hospital Precinct

Impacts to the Former Female Factory

Impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel

Impacts to Lennox Bridge

Hydrology, drainage, flooding and groundwater

Flooding

Air quality Air quality impacts during construction

Air quality impacts during operation

Utilities and services Utilities and services impacts during construction

Privacy Privacy

Noise and vibration Construction noise and/or vibration impacts – General

Construction noise and vibration mitigation and management

Noise and vibration impact assessment approach and scope

Operational noise and/or vibration impacts – General

Operational noise impacts – Westmead

Operational noise impacts – Rosehill and Camellia

Operational noise impacts – Carlingford

Operation noise and vibration mitigation and management

A-4 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


Key issue Sub issue

Trees Impacts to trees along the project alignment

Tree replacement and mitigation and management measures


General visual amenity concern


Visual impacts during operation

Overshadowing

Socio-economic Compensation for businesses

Impacts on local businesses during construction

Impacts on local businesses during operation

Impact assessment approach

General economic impacts

General amenity and socio-economic impacts during construction


Hazards and risks Impacts from electromagnetic emissions during operation

Collisions, conflicts and accidents

General hazards and risks during operation

Other hazards

Waste, energy and resources

Waste, energy and resource impacts

Land stability, soils and contamination

Contamination

Issues external to the project

Light rail network extension to Epping and Macquarie Park

Light rail network extensions to Olympic Park and Strathfield

Light rail network extensions to Eastwood

Light rail network extensions – other alignments

Associated or external projects (not part of Parramatta Light Rail)

Other general comments

Appendix B: Table of issues per community submission


B-1

TABLE OF ISSUES PER COMMUNITY SUBMISSION Table B.2 Table of issues per community submission

SUB NO.

SUBMITTER KEY ISSUE SUB-ISSUE SECTION

1 Community member

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – O’Connell Street

5.4.4

Issues external to the project Associated or external projects (not part of Parramatta Light Rail)

5.23.5

Issues external to the project Other general comments 5.23.6

2 Community member

Issues external to the project Light rail network extension to Epping and Macquarie Park

5.23.1

3 Community member

Traffic, transport and access Construction parking and loading impacts

5.7.2

Traffic, transport and access Operational parking and loading impacts

5.7.6

Hazards and risks General hazards and risks during operation

5.20.3


5.23.1

Issues external to the project Light rail network extension to Olympic Park and Strathfield

5.23.2


4 Community member


Project team’s engagement with the community

5.2.1


5.4.4


5.7.2

Traffic, transport and access Operational traffic impacts 5.7.8


5.8.1

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage Impacts to Cumberland District Hospital Precinct

5.11.2

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage Impacts to the Former Female Factory

5.11.3

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage Impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel 5.11.4


5.17.1

Socio-economic Impacts on local businesses during construction

5.19.2

B-2 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia


SUB NO.


5 Community member



6 Community member


5.23.1

7 Community member


5.23.1

8 Community member


5.23.1

9 Community member

Project need and justification Economic assessment and value for money

5.3.5

Project design and operations Closure of T6 Carlingford Line 5.5.2

10 Community member


5.23.1

11 Community member

Project need and justification Benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project

5.3.3


5.23.1

12 Community member

Project design and operations Power supply, catenary and wire-free technology

5.5.6


5.8.1


5.19.2

13 Community member


5.7.6


5.23.1

14 Community member


Planning approval process 5.1.4

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area

5.4.3


5.4.4

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – Parramatta CBD

5.4.5

Project alternatives Alternative or additional stop locations

5.4.7

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage General built and landscape heritage impacts – construction

5.11.1


5.11.3


B-3

SUB NO.




5.19.2


5.23.1

15 Community member

Traffic, transport and access Construction traffic impacts 5.7.4

Traffic, transport and access Operational impacts to property access

5.7.5


5.7.6


16 Community member

Privacy Privacy 5.15.1

Noise and vibration Operation noise impacts – Carlingford

5.16.7

Noise and vibration Operation noise and vibration mitigation and management

5.16.8

17 Community member

Traffic, transport and access Operational pedestrian and cyclist impacts

5.7.7

18 Community member


5.7.7

19 Save the Trees and Animals Campaign

Project alternatives Mode Alternatives 5.4.8

20 Community member

Project need and justification Adequacy of the existing public transport system

5.3.2


5.3.5



Land use and property General land use impacts 5.8.3


5.23.1

21 Community member


Project team’s engagement with the community

5.2.1

Project design and operations Road network design 5.5.7


5.7.5


5.7.7




SUB NO.


22 Community member

Project need and justification Ability to meet project objectives 5.3.1


5.4.4


5.4.5


5.4.7

Project design and operations Services and trip duration 5.5.10


5.23.5

23 Community member


5.3.5


5.4.7

Project design and operations Stop layout, design and treatment 5.5.8


5.7.6



5.17.1

Visual and landscape character General visual amenity concern 5.18.1

Hazards and risks Collisions, conflicts and accidents 5.20.2

24 Community member


25 Community member


26 Community member



5.2.2


5.3.5


27 Community member


5.4.4


5.11.1


28 Community member


5.23.1


5.23.2


B-5

SUB NO.


29 Community member


30 Community member

Project design and operations Other structures/facilities 5.5.5


5.7.6



5.16.1

Visual and landscape character Mitigation and management 5.18.2


5.23.1

31 Community member


5.3.2


5.11.2


5.11.3



5.17.1


32 Granville Historical Society Inc


5.3.2


5.11.2


5.11.3



5.17.1


33 Sydney Paediatric Society Inc.

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives - General 5.4.1


5.4.7

Project alternatives Substations 5.4.10


Traffic, transport and access Construction impacts on property access

5.7.1



SUB NO.



5.7.5

Noise and vibration Operation noise impacts – Westmead

5.16.5


5.20.1

34 Community member




5.23.1

35 Community member

Project design and operations Landscaping and urban design 5.5.1

36 Community member


37 Community member

Support Support -

38 NSW Environment Protection Agency

Refer to Appendix C

39 Community member



5.2.2



5.11.2

Visual and landscape character Visual impacts during operation 5.18.3

Socio-economic Compensation for businesses 5.19.1


5.19.2

40 NSW Department of Primary Industries

Refer to Appendix C

41 Community member


5.4.4


5.4.5



5.23.1


B-7

SUB NO.


42 Community member

Biodiversity General biodiversity impacts 5.9.1

Biodiversity Mitigation and management measures

5.9.2


5.17.1

43 Community member


5.23.1


5.23.1

44 Community member


5.7.6


5.23.1

45 Community member



5.23.1

46 Community member

Project design and operations Mobility and accessibility 5.5.4

47 Community member


5.3.2


5.3.5

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – Parramatta North Urban Transformation area

5.4.3


Project alternatives Stabling and maintenance facility locations

5.4.9

Project design and operations Light rail vehicles 5.5.3


Project construction Construction work hours 5.6.1

Project construction Construction scheduling and staging

5.6.2



5.19.2



5.23.1



SUB NO.



5.23.2

Issues external to the project Light rail network extensions – other alignments

5.23.4


5.23.5

48 Community member


Project design and operations Track and corridor design 5.5.9


5.23.1


5.23.4

49 Community member



5.23.1


5.23.4


50 Community member


5.3.2



5.11.2


5.11.3



5.17.1


51 Community member


52 Community member


5.4.4

Built and non-Aboriginal heritage Impacts to the Lennox Bridge 5.11.5

53 Fire & Rescue NSW

Refer to Appendix C

54 Community member


5.7.5


B-9

SUB NO.


55 NSW Commuter Council



56 Granville Waratah Soccer Football Club Inc.


5.4.5

Project construction Work sites and construction compounds

5.6.3

Project construction Concern about and/or mitigation of construction impacts

5.6.4

Traffic, transport and access Construction pedestrian and cyclist impacts

5.7.3


5.7.7

Land use and property Impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve 5.8.2


5.17.1


57 Community member


58 Astute Architectural Drafting


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.7


5.11.1


59 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.7


5.11.1


Noise and vibration Construction noise and vibration mitigation and management

5.16.2



SUB NO.


Noise and vibration Operation noise and/or vibration impacts – General

5.16.4

60 Community member


61 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6

Traffic, transport and access Public use of private property to access light rail

5.7.13



5.16.2

62 Community member

Socio-economic Impact assessment approach 5.19.4


5.23.1

63 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.13



5.16.2


5.16.8

64 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6



5.16.1


5.16.4

65 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.13


B-11

SUB NO.



5.16.1


5.16.4

66 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6



5.13.1

Air quality Air quality impacts during operation

5.13.2


5.16.1


5.16.4

67 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.13



5.13.1


5.13.2


5.16.1


5.16.4

68 Western Sydney Local Health District, NSW Health

Refer to Appendix C

69 OEH Heritage Division

Refer to Appendix C

70 Community member


5.7.6


5.7.13




SUB NO.



5.13.1


5.13.2


5.16.1


5.16.4

71 Community member

Land stability, soils and contamination

Contamination 5.22.1

72 Office of Environment and Heritage

Refer to Appendix C

73 Community member


5.23.1

74 Speedway Service Station


5.7.1


5.7.6



5.19.2

75 Community member


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.19.2

Socio-economic Impacts on local businesses during operation

5.19.3

76 Dahtone Automotives


5.7.6



5.19.2

77 Speedway Petroleum Pty Ltd


5.7.5

78 Community member

Project alternatives Additional active transport options 5.4.11

Project design and operations Active transport link 5.5.11


B-13

SUB NO.


79 Ryde-Eastwood Light Rail Development Group

Issues external to the project Light rail network extension to Eastwood

5.23.3

80 Community member

Project need and justification Patronage 5.3.6




5.7.3



5.16.8


5.20.3

81 Community member



5.7.3

82 Community member


5.7.2


5.7.5


5.7.13



5.16.2

83 Community member


5.7.2


84 Community member

Proposal design and operations Active transport link 5.5.11

85 Community member


Proposal design and operations Light rail and pedestrian zones 5.5.14

86 Community member





SUB NO.


87 Community member



88 Community member

Project need and justification Benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project

5.3.3



89 Community member


5.7.1


5.7.5


5.7.6


5.7.13



5.16.1


5.16.4

90 Community member


91 Community member


92 Ray and Lous Project construction Construction scheduling and staging

5.6.2



5.19.2


5.19.3

93 Community member

Project need and justification Other general comments 5.3.4


5.4.9





94 The National Trust of Australia (NSW)

Refer to Appendix C


B-15

SUB NO.


95 Skin & Cancer Foundation Australia



5.1.2


Project construction Construction work hours 5.6.1


5.6.3

Project construction Construction traffic and haulage 5.6.5


5.7.1



Traffic, transport and access Disruptions to access for emergency service vehicles

5.7.10

Traffic, transport and access Traffic, transport and access impact assessment approach and scope

5.7.11


5.16.1


5.16.2

Noise and vibration Noise and vibration impact assessment approach and scope

5.16.3

96 Community member

Project need and justification Ability to meet project objectives 5.3.1


5.3.5

Project need and justification Patronage 5.3.6


5.7.11

Socio-economic General economic impacts 5.19.5

Waste, energy and resources Waste, energy and resource impacts

5.21.1


5.23.1


5.23.4



SUB NO.


97 Community member


5.4.5





5.6.3

Trees Tree replacement and mitigation and management measures

5.17.2


Socio-economic Mitigation and management 5.19.7

98 Macken Planning Solutions


Land use and property Integration with Camellia Town Centre

5.8.4

99 Community member


5.4.4



100 Community member


5.7.6










Project alternatives Other issues 5.4.13

104 Armani Restaurant


5.19.2



5.19.2


B-17

SUB NO.




Community and stakeholder consultation during construction

5.2.3



5.5.6



5.6.3


5.7.3



5.16.8



5.19.2

108 Western Sydney Cycling Network




5.3.5


5.5.6


5.7.3


5.11.2


110 Camwest Project design and operations Closure of T6 Carlingford Line 5.5.2




5.7.3


111 Australian Turf Club

Refer to Appendix C



5.3.2


Project design and operations Fares and ticketing 5.5.12



SUB NO.



Project alternatives Adequacy of the alternatives assessment

5.4.12



5.7.6


5.7.11





Accuracy of EIS documentation 5.1.1



5.2.2


5.3.2

Project alternatives Substations 5.4.10


5.6.2

115 (cont).


5.7.1


5.7.2


5.7.3



Traffic, transport and access Direct impacts to existing bus services and routes during construction

5.7.9

Traffic, transport and access Disruptions to access for emergency service vehicles

5.7.10


5.7.11


5.13.1

Utilities and services Utilities and services impacts during construction

5.14.1


5.16.1


5.16.4


B-19

SUB NO.




5.19.2

Socio-economic General amenity and socio-economic impacts during construction

5.19.6

Socio-economic Mitigation and management 5.19.7


5.20.1

Hazards and risks Other hazards 5.20.4








5.7.3




5.3.2


5.3.5


5.4.12






5.11.2


5.23.1


5.23.4

118 Parramatta Chamber of Commerce

Refer to Appendix C



SUB NO.




5.4.5

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – Rosehill and Camellia

5.4.6



Project design and operations Integration with existing or future transport services

5.5.13



5.23.1


5.23.4

120 Cycling NSW Project design and operations Active transport link 5.5.11

Project design and operations Light rail and pedestrian zones 5.5.14

121 Action for Public Transport





5.6.2



122 Bicycle NSW Project alternatives Additional active transport options 5.4.11









124 Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd


5.4.6


5.4.12


B-21

SUB NO.


125 The Hellenic Orthodox Community of Parramatta and Districts


5.4.5


5.4.6



5.5.6




5.7.1


5.7.5

Aboriginal heritage Aboriginal heritage impacts – construction

5.10.1


5.11.1


Flooding 5.12.1


5.16.8

126 Cumberland Council

Refer to Appendix C




5.1.2


5.4.12





5.7.11


5.11.1





SUB NO.


129 BP Australia Pty Ltd


EIS process and documentation 5.1.3



5.2.2


5.4.7


5.6.2


5.8.1


5.19.3



Traffic, transport and access T6 Carlingford Line replacement strategy

5.7.14


5.23.4

131 Sydney Water Refer to Appendix C

132 Khoury & Partners


5.4.4


5.19.2


5.19.3



5.4.4



134 Walker Corporation


5.4.7



5.7.5



Flooding 5.12.1


B-23

SUB NO.


135 Resico Pty Ltd Planning and statutory requirements


5.1.2


5.7.1


5.7.5


Flooding 5.12.1


5.16.8

Visual and landscape character Overshadowing 5.18.4

136 The GPT Group Project alternatives Alignment alternatives – Rosehill and Camellia

5.4.6


5.4.9


5.7.5








5.1.2


5.4.7



5.11.2

Noise and vibration Operation noise impacts – Westmead

5.16.5

139 North Parramatta Residents Action Group


5.3.2


5.3.5


5.11.2


5.11.3



5.17.1



SUB NO.





Accuracy of EIS documentation 5.1.1


5.4.5


5.7.5


5.7.6



5.7.11

Noise and vibration Operation noise impacts – Rosehill and Camellia

5.16.6


5.16.8




142 Church Street Restaurants


5.6.2


5.7.3

Traffic, transport and access Mitigation and management 5.7.12


5.8.1



142 (cont).


5.19.2


5.19.3

143 Bike North Project alternatives Additional active transport options 5.4.11







B-25

SUB NO.


144 Western Sydney University

Refer to Appendix C




5.7.3



5.7.14


5.23.1

147 BIKESydney Project alternatives Additional active transport options 5.4.11







Request for further consultation 5.2.4

Project alternatives Alignment alternatives - General 5.4.1


5.4.7






5.5.13


5.7.3


5.7.14


5.20.3


5.23.1

Issues external to the project Light rail network extension to Eastwood

5.23.3


5.23.4



SUB NO.




5.4.7



5.6.2





5.19.2



Biodiversity General biodiversity impacts 5.9.1

Biodiversity Impact assessment approach 5.9.3


Flooding 5.12.1

152 NSW Health – Westmead Precinct Partners

Refer to Appendix C

153 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation

Refer to Appendix C

154 City of Parramatta Council

Refer to Appendix C



EIS process and documentation 5.1.3


Planning approval process 5.1.4


5.3.5


5.4.7



5.4.12






B-27

SUB NO.





5.5.13


5.7.6


5.7.11


Land use and property Integration with Telopea Master Plan

5.8.5


5.11.1


Flooding 5.12.1

Visual and landscape character Visual impacts during operation 5.18.3


5.19.2



5.23.5



Project alternatives Alignment alternatives - Westmead

5.4.2


5.16.4


5.19.3

Appendix C: Response to government agency and key stakeholder submissions


C-1

CITY OF PARRAMATTA COUNCIL The City of Parramatta Council (hereafter referred to as Council) provided a submission regarding the project in October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.1.

Table C.1 City of Parramatta Council

ITEM SUMMARY OF ISSUE RESPONSE

1.0 Overview / summary of key issues

1.1 Council identified strong support for the Parramatta Light Rail – Stage 1 project.

Council’s support for the project is acknowledged.

1.2 Council noted it has established a Parramatta Light Rail Community and Business Advisory Committee and welcomed Transport for NSW’s commitment for ongoing community consultation. Council noted it would like to continue to work together with Transport for NSW to engage with the community throughout the construction of the Project.

Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing stakeholder and community engagement throughout the ongoing stages of the design and development of the project, including ongoing consultation with Council.

Transport for NSW is a member of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Community and Business Advisory Committee.

1.3 Design Detail Council raised concerns in relation to the lack of design detail of the project presented in the EIS. It noted that given the limited design detail in the EIS, Council prepared two key reference documents being:

» City of Parramatta Light Rail Urban Design Framework (Volume 1).

» Technical Requirements (Volume 2).

Council requested that these documents be incorporated into the final Urban Design Requirements for the Project.

The EIS provides a sufficient level of detail to support the environmental impact assessment and to seek planning approval. Transport for NSW would continue to refine the design during subsequent phases of the project.

Transport for NSW acknowledges the reference documents prepared by Council and is committed to working with the Council beyond the planning phase through detailed design, construction and commissioning of the project to achieve an appropriate urban design and technical outcome for the project.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, Transport for NSW has worked closely with Council over a number of months to develop an Urban Design Requirements handbook. This document is intended to establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes and principles for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during the detailed design phase.

C-2 Parramatta Light Rail | Stage 1 – Westmead to Carlingford via Parramatta CBD and Camellia



1.4 Closure of the T6 Line Council identified support for the retention of the existing tracks between Camellia and Clyde and ownership of the land remain with Transport for NSW, pending a further detailed assessment of future transport needs, including Light Rail (future stages), Sydney Metro West and the heavy rail network.

Council’s support for the retention of the tracks between Camellia and Clyde is acknowledged. As identified in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report), the T6 Carlingford Line between Camellia and Parramatta Road is proposed to be decommissioned with the existing track between Camellia and Rosehill Stations proposed to be removed (refer to sections 6.10 and 6.13). Following completion of works within the T6 Carlingford Line corridor, the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the GPOP.

The EIS and this Submissions Report describe changes to the T6 Carlingford Line as relevant to the project. As discussed in section 14.7.3.2 of the EIS, following the completion of works within the corridor, this section of the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP).

Further discussion regarding the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line is provided in Item 7.17 of this table.

1.5 Parking Council stated that the relocation of impacted parking, especially for mobility parking spaces, should be carefully considered. Council also noted support of the preparation of a Parking Offset and Management Strategy in consultation with Council, businesses and stakeholders.

Loading zones, accessible parking, taxi ranks and service vehicle zones impacted by the project would be relocated, where possible, and the remainder of the displaced parking would be absorbed in the surrounding car parks, as described in Item 7 of this table.

In accordance with mitigation and management measure TT-5, Transport for NSW would work with the Council in the context of its long-term strategy for car parking in the local government area to identify feasible and reasonable parking mitigation and management measures (e.g. parking controls) for incorporation into the project design.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan (Greater Parramatta Access Plan) (described in section 2.5.6 of the EIS) will include relevant actions such as development of kerbside use management plans by Sydney Coordination Office for Parramatta CBD and Westmead Health Precinct, which would assist in ensuring parking provision in these locations consistent with the future development plans for the area.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with the Council to manage parking demand to support jobs and local business and contribute to more vibrant and liveable places in Greater Parramatta.


C-3


1.6 Economic impacts Council stated support for the preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which details plans and programs that specially address the economic impacts and provides costed business continuity strategies for commercial centres along the corridor.

Council’s support for the preparation of plans and programs as part of the project detailed design is acknowledged. A CEMP would be prepared as outlined in section 17.2.1 of the EIS.

1.7 Community engagement Council recommended that Transport for NSW prepare a Community Engagement Strategy to outline the procedures and mechanisms for community and key stakeholders during subsequent stages of the project.

Council also recommends the establishment of a Community Reference Group, a Business Reference Group and a specific Church Street Working Group.

Subject to planning approval, Transport for NSW (and the nominated construction contractor) would continue to engage with the community and key stakeholders prior to and during construction. Transport for NSW would lead a construction stakeholder and community engagement program, with support from contractors in accordance with the Community Consultation Framework which was detailed in Appendix D of the EIS.

Further discussion regarding community engagement is provided in section 5.2 of this Submissions Report.

1.8 Impact on trees Council stated that the EIS did not assess or delineate the significance levels of the impacted trees in detail or identify hollow-bearing trees. Council noted that the design and location of the project should minimise removal of highly significant trees and provide further details on the impact on trees, quantify the extent of ‘minor’, ‘more than minor’ and ‘full removal’ impacts and assess significance of all impacted trees (i.e. high, medium or low).

It is acknowledged that the removal of trees in some locations represents a substantial impact. The impacts presented in the EIS consisted of a potential worst-case scenario, and further information has been provided in Section 7.2.5 of this Submissions Report. Where possible, the detailed design would seek to avoid and minimise the identified impacts, and where these impacts are unavoidable, mitigate the identified tree impacts, in particular for trees of medium or high retention value.

Further discussion regarding tree impacts is provided in Item 8.14 and Item 16 of this table.




1.9 Flooding Council noted that nearly all of the light rail route is affected by flooding, either by rising waters from Parramatta River, Clay Cliff Creek and other tributaries, or by overland flow in the sub-catchments from major rainfall events. Council requested that conditions regarding design and operation of the project to minimise risk and maximise safety during flooding events be implemented as part of any approval of the project.

Transport for NSW recognises the constraints associated with potential flooding and surface water impacts along the project alignment. Transport for NSW is committed to developing a design which minimises potential flood risks to the project and the community.

Further discussion regarding flooding impacts is provided in section 13 of this table.

1.10 Robin Thomas Reserve Council requested that as part of the project, Transport for NSW prepare a revised Master Plan in collaboration with Council and in consultation with the community.

Although it does not form part of the project, Transport for NSW is currently working with Council on the development of a revised Master Plan for Robin Thomas Reserve.

Further discussion regarding the Master Plan for Robin Thomas Reserve is provided in Item 5.2 and Item 11.4 of this table.

1.11 Heritage Impacts Council raised concern in relation to the impact of the project on heritage parks, trees, items and both Aboriginal and historic archaeology.

Transport for NSW is committed to avoiding and minimising potential impacts of the project on existing heritage items, important trees, heritage parks and existing Aboriginal and historic archaeology.

Further discussion regarding specific heritage impacts raised in the submission are provided in section 11 of this table.

1.12 Council strongly supports investigations or modifications prior to determination of the following: » Council requested Transport for NSW

undertake an update of the traffic model with revised inputs and further testing and assessment of the impact of intersection delays on the network.

As part of the ongoing design of the project, Transport for NSW has undertaken ongoing consultation with Council and would continue to refine a range of aspects of the project as presented in the EIS during detailed design. This would include consideration of the need to update the traffic model should revised inputs become available for elements such as impacts on intersection delays.

Further discussion regarding traffic and transport impacts is provided in section 7 of this table.


C-5


1.13 Preparation of a draft Greater Parramatta Access Plan to manage the impacts of significant traffic changes as a result of the construction and operation of the project.

As discussed in section 2.5.6 of the EIS, the Greater Parramatta Access Plan will be prepared by Transport for NSW. The Greater Parramatta Access Plan considers the transport changes necessary to support the growth of the Greater Parramatta area over the next 10 years, and consider efficient, reliable and safe journeys to, from and within the Parramatta CBD. It outlines the functions of a fully integrated transport network in Parramatta’s CBD. Council have been involved in regular consultation during development of the Greater Parramatta Access Plan. The plan seeks to ensure the right modes of transport are prioritised in different parts of the CBD, to optimise capacity and improve journey reliability. This includes consideration of the project, as well as other forms of public and private transport.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan is not part of the project, but will provide a high-level framework, outlining changes to the integrated transport network to accommodate growth in the Greater Parramatta area over the next five to ten years. The plan will provide a description of the range of specific actions that are required to support each of the initiatives, including implementation timeframes and identification of action owners.

1.14 Revision of the design of the Westmead light rail stop to ensure an integrated interchange at Westmead Station and connection between heavy rail, bus T-way and future Sydney Metro West.

A range of options for the location and design of the Westmead stop were presented as part of the overall options assessment presented in the EIS. Further discussion regarding alignment option alternatives for the sections identified are provided in Item 2.5 of this table.

1.15 Light rail alignment changes at the following locations:

» Hainsworth Street through to Factory Street, Parramatta North.

» George Street to Noller Parade and Tramway Avenue, Rosehill.

» Grand Avenue, Camellia.

As outlined in Chapter 3 of the EIS, detailed consideration was given to the light rail alignment options between Westmead and Carlingford. This included consideration of alignments along Hainsworth Street to Factory Street (section 3.6.3), Noller Parade (section 3.6.6) and Grand Avenue (section 3.4.2). Further discussion regarding alignment option alternatives for the sections identified are provided in section 3, section 5 and section 6 of this table.




1.16 Demonstration that the retention of a single track at Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford, would not compromise the future need for increased frequency of service, nor any proposed extension to Epping.

Due to constraints associated with the width of the existing Pennant Hills Road Bridge at this location, it is proposed that a single bi-directional track be installed under the bridge. Signalling equipment would be provided to allow for controlled movement of LRVs along this section of track. A replacement of Pennant Hills Road Bridge is not considered necessary, as operational planning for the project indicates that this section of single track would cause minimal delays to light rail services.

The construction of a new bridge would cause disruption to road users and would increase the costs with minimal operational benefit. Should light rail be extended beyond Carlingford, the need for changes to Pennant Hills Road Bridge would be re-visited and subject to a separate planning approval.

1.17 Proposed light rail stop additions or changes:

» At Macquarie Street.

» Along Church Street.

» At Parramatta Park.

» At Rydalmere (associated with Western Sydney University).

The approach to selecting the location and configuration of stops for the project was described in section 3.6.8 of the EIS. A comprehensive assessment process was followed which considered the nature and type of key land uses and functionality of stops to provide access to residential areas, transport interchanges, major trip generators (such as town centres, and education, medical and recreational facilities), and future planned major land uses (such as Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area and Parramatta Square).

While the proposed stop locations are considered to be appropriate to meet the objectives of the project, the final design and precise location of the stops would be considered further as part of the detailed design development and in consultation with Council and other relevant stakeholders.

Further discussion regarding stop option alternatives for the sections identified are provided in section 3, section 5 and section 6 of this table.

1.18 Future-proofing of the project for:

» Extension of the light rail to Epping via Carlingford Court and to the south at Westmead.

» Additional stops at Telopea South and Carlingford South.

» An interchange with Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 at Rydalmere.

The current design of the project does not preclude the future development of additional stops or alignment options, including the potential for extension to Epping or additional stops along the existing Carlingford line.


C-7


1.19 Redesign of the active transport link from Carlingford to Camellia as a separated cycling and pedestrian link to cater for the projected patronage.

The proposed combined active transport link is considered to be adequate to support both cycling and pedestrian activity, consistent with existing shared paths within the Council area. The project is intended to provide public transport to support the growth of the region, and the proposed active transport links are being provided as an ancillary element of the project, where feasible, taking into account opportunities to link with existing and future planned Council cycleways. Further discussion regarding the proposed active transport link is provided in Item 6.3 of this table.

1.20 Investigation of alternatives to avoid the removal of local heritage items, including the Royal Oak Hotel, abutments of Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge and Clyde Carlingford Bridge.

Transport for NSW is committed to minimising potential impacts to all heritage items, wherever practicably possible. Further discussion on minimising impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel and the existing bridge abutments at Camellia is provided in Item 6.11 and Items 11.21 and 11.22 of this table respectively.

2.0 Westmead precinct

2.1 Council noted general support for the alignment along Hawkesbury Road.

Council’s support for the project alignment along Hawkesbury Road is acknowledged.

2.2 Council recommended (R1) that the project should deliver a whole of street upgrade to Hawkesbury Road that establishes a highly identifiable streetscape and promotes an activated street edge.

Council also recommended (R2) that Transport for NSW work with property owners on the eastern side of Hawkesbury Road to achieve a holistic approach to an improved public domain, street trees and planting.

As described in Item 1.3 of this table, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW in conjunction with Council. This document is intended to establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes and principles for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during the detailed design phase. The urban design principles for the Westmead precinct are outlined below: » Create a high amenity, pedestrian-friendly, shaded street with good connections between

Westmead Station, light rail stops, health buildings and housing. » Provide generous footpaths that will accommodate high pedestrian numbers that are predicted

to increase in the future with new development. » Enhance the area’s landscape character through planting of new street trees. » Maintain pedestrian connections between Westmead Station, the T-way bus stops and the light rail

terminus through footpath widening, widening of the pedestrian crossing at the existing traffic signals and other public domain improvements.




» Improve amenity for existing residential dwellings on the east side of Hawkesbury Road with new and retained street trees.

» Create an attractive and sustainable public domain through selection of a simple palette of durable, natural materials and furniture elements.

The urban design outcomes identified have been developed on a precinct basis along the project alignment with the intention of delivering a series of identifiable and consistent streetscapes along the length of the project (such as along Hawkesbury Road). The designs would also respond to local characteristics and consultation with relevant stakeholders within each of the precincts.

Any other upgrades to the public domain along Hawkesbury Road beyond those required to manage the impacts of the project would, if proposed, be subject to development and delivery by other proponents. Transport for NSW remains committed to ongoing liaison with Council to ensure integration of the project’s urban design with any future public domain improvements by others.

2.3 Council stated that it was unclear how any of the stops proposed will provide a clear and consistent streetscape and integrate with the public plazas planned by NSW Health. Council recommended (R3 and R4) that Transport for NSW undertake further design work on the three stop locations in Westmead to achieve a strong and consistent streetscape which prioritises pedestrian movement and has a high degree of pedestrian amenity in consultation with property owners on the eastern side of Hawkesbury Road.

The proposed design of the stops as presented in the EIS were intended to be indicative and provide sufficient detail to allow for planning approval. Transport for NSW has worked with Council and NSW Health to prepare the Urban Design Requirements handbook and will continue to work with to refine the urban design of the stops during detailed design.

The final design will provide a clear and consistent streetscape and allow for the integration of adjacent land uses such as the public plazas planned by NSW Health along Hawkesbury Road and allow for appropriate pedestrian movement while meeting relevant safety requirements along this corridor.

2.4 Council expressed a preference for a consistent stop arrangement (i.e. side or central platforms) along the whole of Hawkesbury Road.

The current design of the stops along Hawkesbury Road have been developed to provide stop arrangements which minimise potential impacts on adjacent land uses outside the existing road corridor wherever possible. An effort has been made by the project team to provide a consistent stop layout across the project, noting this is not always possible given the specific site constraints. The final design and arrangement of the stops along the project alignment (including the proposed stops along Hawkesbury Road) would be considered further as part of the detailed design development.


C-9


2.5 Council acknowledged that vehicle access to the hospitals, clinics and research institutions would be maintained along Hawkesbury Road, however requested that further design work be carried out by Transport for NSW to demonstrate how this would be achieved.

During detailed construction planning, site specific traffic management plans would be prepared, including for Westmead, which would provide additional detail on access.

Access to Westmead Hospital and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be maintained at all stages of construction. The northbound lane approaching The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be open to traffic at all times (for hospital and local traffic only). The final operational configuration of accesses to these facilities would be undertaken during the detailed design phase in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, including Council, NSW Roads and Maritime and NSW Health.

A strategy for maintaining emergency vehicle access to the Westmead Health Precinct in case of a breakdown along Hawkesbury Road would be prepared in consultation with NSW Health and implemented.

The project would also be designed to enable emergency vehicles to use the light rail alignment in an emergency during periods of traffic congestion along Hawkesbury Road.

2.6 Council raised concern that the proposed position of the Westmead stop did not adequately achieve good integration with heavy rail and buses. Council also noted that the proposed Westmead stop did not: » Contribute to the upgrade of the existing

Westmead Station. » Did not provide a good interchange with the

future Sydney Metro West.

Council also outlined two alternative stop options for the Westmead stop and requested Transport for NSW consider these options prior to approval. » Option 1 – New railway bridge overpass:

Positioning the light rail terminus stop alongside traffic lanes and footpaths on a new bridge overpass between Alexandra Avenue and Railway Parade.

» Option 2 – Alexandra Parade: Positioning the light rail terminus stop on Alexandra Avenue parallel with Westmead Station.

The location of the Westmead stop was considered as part of the overall design of the project. A key purpose of the proposed stop is to provide an interchange with other modes of transport, in a location that would allow for the best number of interchange opportunities with strategic bus routes (such as the T-Way) or with the existing heavy rail network at Westmead Station.

In order to maximise these opportunities, it was determined during development of the concept design that providing a stop on the northern side of the Western railway line was preferred. Construction of the stop on the northern side would also avoid the need to construct the light rail across the rail overbridge. This would avoid substantial traffic impacts during construction and operation of the project. Based on this decision, four key stop locations for the Westmead stop were considered (refer section 3.6.8 of the EIS) including options along different sections of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road (including on the bridge crossing of the railway line).

Based on the options considered and the information available, the preferred option as presented in the EIS provided a range of advantages including better urban design outcome and improved opportunity for integrated property redevelopment surrounding the stop. The preferred option would also result in a simplified arrangement for the Darcy Road and Hawkesbury Road intersection which would avoid impacts on the intersection of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road.

The stop option on the Hawkesbury Road bridge would have a number of disadvantages including traffic and transport impacts, limited ability to provide integration with adjacent land uses, and additional operational impacts. Construction of a new railway bridge overpass was not considered and is beyond the scope of the project.




It is noted that sufficient detail regarding the proposed alignment or design of Sydney Metro West was not available at time of concept design development for the project. Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing liaison with key stakeholders to ensure appropriate integration with this project, consistent with the project objectives and scope.

2.7 Council recommended a condition (C1) be applied to the project that Transport for NSW address the requirements contained in Part 3 – Design Sequences Westmead of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Framework – Volume 1.

Transport for NSW acknowledges the reference documents prepared by Council. Transport for NSW is committed to continuing to work and consult with Council beyond the planning phase through detailed design, construction and commissioning of the project with the aim of achieving an appropriate urban design and technical outcome for the project.

3.0 Parramatta North precinct

3.1 Council raised a number of concerns with the impact of the proposed alignment through Parramatta North. In summary, Council stated the alignment would present a series of constraints/disadvantages including: » Not extend into, or providing a service to

Parramatta Park. » Remove the opportunity to provide a stop to

service the Cumberland West precinct. » Additional property impacts. » Duplicates the existing bridge over the

Parramatta River. » Removal of the cluster of fig trees at the

corner of Bridge Road and Warrinya Avenue. » A lack of clarity on active transport through

the corridor. » Integration with the historic, existing and

future requirements through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area.

Two main options were considered as alternative alignments for the section between Hainsworth Street and Factory Street (refer section 3.6.3 of the EIS). The options considered included using the existing bridge alignment, (Option 1) and an alignment which continued further along Hainsworth Street, crossing the Parramatta River about 120 metres south of the existing bridge (Option 2).

While it is acknowledged that the proposed alignment would result in some negative impacts as outlined in section 3.6.3.4 of the EIS, the preferred option (which follows the existing bridge alignment) had a series of advantages. When compared to the other two options, the preferred option had a number of benefits including: » Reduced heritage impacts, specifically the Female Factory (which was recently listed under the

EPBC Act) and the World Heritage Parramatta Park, which has significant sub-surface archaeology.

» Reduced landscape impacts along the Parramatta River area and reduced property impacts on the southern portion of this area.

» Better integration with the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area. » Reduced impact on biodiversity, in particular potential impacts to the known Grey-Headed Flying

Fox colony.

As part of the ongoing detailed design, Transport for NSW would seek to further reduce the potential impacts of the proposed alignment through Parramatta North including opportunities to reduce impacts to trees and existing properties.


C-11


During construction, continued emergency access is required between facilities in Cumberland Hospital (east and west). The existing bridge cannot structurally support the light rail and a new bridge is required (referred to as the North Parramatta Bridge in the EIS). The future of the Bridge Road Bridge access after Cumberland Hospital (east) is closed is not yet determined. During detailed design the project would consider whether there is an opportunity to consolidate the bridges to provide access for light rail, hospital vehicles and active transport.

With respect to servicing Parramatta Park, the location of The Children’s Hospital at Westmead stop provides access to these areas (around 300 metres to 350 metres from each of the stops).

3.2 Council noted support for the proposed location of the Cumberland Hospital stop as it would provide opportunity for development of an active village centre with outdoor dining at this location.

Council’s support for the proposed location of the Cumberland Hospital stop is acknowledged.

3.3 Council recommended that the design of the light rail alignment and stop within the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area have regard for the heritage context of the area, and not be designed to be identical to the rest of the project. Council requested that the alignment in this location include a range of design elements including: » Wire free. » Vegetated tracks. » Creation of Factory Street as a light rail and

pedestrian zone only. » Avoidance or reduction of the need for

signalised traffic crossings. » Use of landscaping as barriers.

» Delivery of regional connections for pedestrians and cyclists over Parramatta River.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW. The urban design outcomes identified in this document have been developed on a precinct basis along the project alignment with the intention of delivering a series of identifiable and consistent streetscapes along the length of the project (such as within the Parramatta North Urban Development Area).

As discussed in section 5.12 of the EIS, the Urban Design Requirements handbook was prepared in close collaboration with a range of key stakeholders including Council and UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation (including participation in a Joint Urban Design Working Group). The final vision for the Parramatta North precinct would continue to be developed as part of ongoing detailed design in consultation with these stakeholders. This would include consideration of the design elements identified in Council’s submission, including opportunities for wire-free operation and grass track treatments through the Cumberland Hospital (east) (refer to mitigation and management measures VL-7 and VL-8). Mitigation and management measures HE-9 and HE-10 identify requirements to undertake heritage interpretation and integrate the project to respect the historical values of Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. Wire-free technology for sections of the project is also being investigated.




3.4 Council noted that due to the precinct’s heritage significance, the community has an active interest in future planning of the site. Council noted that they welcomed any opportunities for Transport for NSW to actively engage with the broader community in the design of the light rail route though the site including naming of the light rail stop, heritage interpretation options and plans for the overall design.

Transport for NSW would consider appropriate opportunities for community input during detailed design, such as those suggested by Council.

Stop names were considered during the feasibility design stage of the proposal and aim to be geographically accurate, recognise any historic or iconic value of place, maximise community ownership, and be consistent with Transport for NSW’s naming policy.

Similar to the Sydney Light Rail project, it is expected that the Geographical Names Board would invite public feedback on the names for the stops along the project alignment following initial consultation with councils, businesses and other key stakeholders.

3.5 Council stated that an alternative alignment should be considered for the section between Hainsworth Street and Factory Street. Council recommended (R5) Transport for NSW, in collaboration with Council and Department of Planning and Environment, undertake further detailed investigation for an alternative alignment from Westmead to Parramatta North (further to the south of the current alignment).

This issue has been responded to in Item 3.1 of this table.

3.6 Council recommended a condition (C2) be applied to the project that Transport for NSW address the requirements contained in Part 3 – Design Sequences Parramatta North of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Framework – Volume 1.



C-13


4.0 Parramatta CBD precinct

4.1 Council noted that while the EIS considered potential growth from some DAs and significant renewal areas, it did not account for the growth proposed under the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, as well as other site-specific Planning Proposals located in the Parramatta CBD.

The draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is currently in its planning stages and has not yet been finalised or made publicly available. As such, it was not specifically assessed in detail in the EIS. However, it is acknowledged that the proposal seeks to amend existing CBD planning controls to allow for increased density throughout the Parramatta CBD core areas. Notwithstanding, one of the objectives of the project is to facilitate future development and land use changes, by providing a more efficient and high capacity transport option (refer to section 2.7 of the EIS).

The potential impacts of future developments were also considered at a broad level as part of the cumulative impact assessment presented in Chapter 9 of the EIS. This assessment identified a number of known future and current developments along the length of the alignment and the potential interactions of these developments and the project during both construction and operation.

4.2 Church Street north alignment Council recommended (R6 and R9) that Transport for NSW refine the proposed design of the Project along Church Street to: » Avoid heritage impacts to St Patricks Church,

the Royal Oak Hotel and Prince Alfred Square.

» Identify where buses will travel to inform whole of street design outcomes.

» Ensure pedestrian refuge islands are provided.

Transport for NSW is committed to minimising potential impacts to all heritage items wherever possible. Where practical and feasible, detailed design of the project would seek to avoid or reduce impacts on key heritage items along Church Street. With respect to the identified heritage items: » The project is not expected to directly impact on St Patricks Cathedral (west of Prince Alfred

Square). » The project has been refined to reduce impacts on Prince Alfred Square (refer to section 6.6 of this

Submissions Report, Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). » A number of options have been investigated with the aim of avoiding or minimising impacts to the

Royal Oak Hotel. Based on the investigations, this building is proposed to be demolished as part of the project (refer to Item 11.21 for further discussion).

For buses, where routes are retained along Church Street, these would travel within the identified traffic lanes that would be retained alongside the light rail corridor. No dedicated bus lanes are proposed along Church Street as part of the operation of the project.

With respect to the provision of pedestrian refuge islands, the relevant locations for these traffic elements would be finalised during detailed design.




4.3 Macquarie Street alignment Council raised a number of concerns regarding the proposed alignment along Macquarie Street between Church and Harris Streets including: » Impacts to local access and functionality of

the Parramatta CBD road network. » Impacts to east-west vehicular access and

movement. » A lack of visual connection to Parramatta

Station. » An unresolved relationship with the proposed

Sydney Metro West interchange. » A lack of effective interchange with the ferry. » Pedestrian amenity associated with the

proposed Macquarie Street stops. » Impacts on the Civic Link and access to

Parramatta Square. » Impacts to the Parramatta CBD cycle

network on George Street.

Council recommended (R10) that Transport for NSW demonstrate that the impacts to the Parramatta CBD created by the alignment on Macquarie Street will be acceptable.

As outlined in section 3.4.2 of the EIS, Macquarie Street was identified as the preferred route option through the Parramatta CBD for the project for a number of reasons including providing better integration with Parramatta Station and attracting greater levels of patronage when compared to George Street.

Responses to the specific issues raised are as follows: » The proposed design would maintain access to all existing properties. » East-west vehicular access and movement would be consistent with the future outcomes as

proposed within the Greater Parramatta Access Plan. » The proposed location of the two stops along Macquarie Street would provide the most efficient

interchange location to Parramatta Station and ferry wharf, while at the same ensuring the project provides appropriate journey times for light rail patrons.

» With respect to the potential for interchange with the future Sydney Metro West, the location of any proposed stop for this infrastructure has not yet been finalised. The relationship between Sydney Metro West and the project would be further considered when additional information becomes available.

» Elements such as pedestrian amenity and impacts on the proposed Civic Link would be further refined during detailed design in consultation with Council and as part of the development of the Urban Design Requirements handbook.

It is noted that George Street (and surrounding streets) does not currently have provision for on-street bike lanes, and therefore the project would not negatively impact any cycling facilities in this area. On-road cycling is currently allowed in Macquarie Street. The operation of the project would not preclude on-road cycling on George Street.


C-15


4.4 Church Street (CBD) alignment

Council noted it is important that the whole of Church Street be considered in detailed design of the project due to its distinct local character.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW. The urban design outcomes identified in this document have been developed on a precinct basis along the project alignment with the intention of delivering a series of identifiable and consistent streetscapes along the length of the project (such as along Church Street).

As discussed in section 5.12 of the EIS, the Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared in close collaboration with a range of key stakeholders, including Council. The development of a final vision for that section of Church Street falling within the project extent would continue to be developed as part of ongoing detailed design and finalisation of the Urban Design Requirements. This would include consideration of the local character of this area.

4.5 Stop Issues Council raised concern with the proposed stop locations and /or platform arrangements within the Parramatta CBD and presented a series of options for investigation of alternate stop locations (outlined below). » Church Street North stop location » Council recommended further work on the

stop location currently placed at Fennell Street to improve legibility and connectivity.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with Council to refine the design of stops.

With respect to the stop location near Fennell Street, detailed design would include refinement of the stop design to improve the legibility and connectivity.

4.6 Lennox Bridge split stop Council identified an opportunity to explore a split stop option on either end of Lennox Bridge, in place of both the Prince Alfred Square stop and the stop near the intersection with George Street. Council recommended (R8) that Transport for NSW refine the design of the stop and alignment beside Prince Alfred Square.

The option to provide a split stop on either end of Lennox Bridge would make it harder for customers to navigate the stop, result in increased operational constraints (such as potential additional traffic phasing and additional pedestrian crossing phases) and have additional maintenance costs. It is therefore considered to result in a poorer customer outcome in comparison to the proposed stop arrangements. Further, installing stop infrastructure adjacent to Lennox Bridge would have a greater impact on this state heritage item.

As previously discussed, the project is seeking to provide a consistent design for stops along the project alignment, and this suggestion would be inconsistent with that approach.




4.7 Riverside Theatres stop location

Council expressed a preference that the proposed stop at Prince Alfred Square be relocated to the front of Riverside Theatres. Council recommended (R7) that Transport for NSW refine the alignment design at Lennox Bridge in line with this preference.

The proposed location of the Prince Alfred Stop is preferred as this stop would serve both access to the Riverside Theatres as well as a number of developments to the north of the Parramatta River. The current stop location would also service the new Parramatta stadium, being located around 350 to 400 metres to the west.

In addition, providing a stop closer to the Riverside Theatre would reduce the distances between stops along Church Street (south of the Parramatta River), thereby reducing the effective catchments of both stops, and increasing travel times for the light rail service.

4.8 George Street split stop

Council requested that an alternative arrangement (including potential for a split stop arrangement) for the George Street stop be investigated to reduce potential impacts (such as pedestrian access, outdoor dining impacts, tree impacts etc.) of this stop.

Similar to the proposed split stop at either end of Lennox Bridge, the provision of a split stop at George Street is not considered to provide a suitable project outcome. A split stop at this location would result in similar disadvantages to those for the Lennox Bridge stop, including making it harder for customers to navigate the stop, increased operational constraints and poorer customer outcomes, increased project footprint, and additional overall costs.

4.9 Parramatta Square (Macquarie Street) Stop

Council requested (recommended condition C4) that the Parramatta Square stop be relocated to the west of Civic Link, to improve sight lines, provide unencumbered pedestrian access to the Civic Link, increase pedestrian capacity in this area, and maintain vehicle access to Parramatta Square.

Vehicle access to Parramatta Square is provided with the proposed stop location, and would be maintained in any design refinements.

4.10 Council recommended a condition (C3) be applied to the project that Transport for NSW address the requirements contained in Part 3 – Design Sequences Church Street North, Church Street CBD and Macquarie Street CBD of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Framework – Volume 1.



C-17


5.0 Rosehill and Camellia precinct

5.1 Council noted that the project should safeguard the open space network, river connections and heritage assets at Rosehill as a priority to support a growing city. Council stated that this should include establishing a high amenity parkland interface with all open space and heritage items and ensuring continuity and permeability between Robin Thomas Reserve, Queens Wharf Reserve and the Parramatta River Foreshore.

Wherever possible, the design of the project has aimed to minimise impacts to the existing open space network, river connections and heritage assets along the length of the project, including in Rosehill. The interface with existing open spaces is considered in the Urban Design Requirements to ensure continuity and permeability, such as improvement to Queens Wharf Reserve (refer to section 6.7 of this Submissions Report – Preferred Infrastructure Report) and the Parramatta River Foreshore (through provision of the proposed active transport link).

5.2 Robin Thomas Reserve Council identified concern regarding the proposed level of impact from the project on Robin Thomas Reserve, identifying a series of recommended conditions (C5 – C7) including: » Prior to construction, Transport for NSW in

collaboration with Council prepare a revised Master Plan for Robin Thomas Reserve for the purposes of community consultation.

» That the Master Plan should demonstrate that there is an enhanced standard of public open space and amenity within Robin Thomas Reserve and any immediately adjoining public land.

» Following community consultation, Transport for NSW and Council agree on the public domain and built works to be funded by Transport for NSW. Prior to commencing works, Transport for NSW shall submit the final Master Plan, with a detailed schedule of works to the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment for approval.

Where possible, the project has sought to minimise potential impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve, including those areas identified as highly archaeologically significant.

Transport for NSW is currently working with Council on the development of a revised Master Plan for Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserves. Where the project directly impacts on existing infrastructure in Robin Thomas Reserve or elements of the proposed Master Plan, Transport for NSW would seek to manage these impacts in consultation with Council in such a way that does not preclude the implementation of the larger Master Plan by Council. The implementation of other elements of the Master Plan by Transport for NSW is subject to agreement with Council and do not form part of the project. They would be subject to a separate impact assessment and approvals pathway.

The Master Plan was on public display for comment during December 2017 and January 2018. The draft Master Plan proposed to enhance the standard of public open space and amenity within Robin Thomas and James Ruse Reserves through a range of elements including additional landscaping, community building and enhancement of the existing playing fields.

With respect to works proposed to be undertaken by Transport for NSW, at this time it is proposed that the realignment of the existing playing fields and upgrades associated works would be undertaken to mitigate the direct impact of the project on the ongoing use of the playing fields (refer to mitigation and management measures LU-4).




5.3 Rosehill Council raised a series of concerns on the proposed alignment through Rosehill from George Street (at Purchase Street) to Tramway Avenue including the proposed impacts to:

» Two key street intersections. » A series of private properties.

» Arthur Street and the resultant impacts to operations of the Alfred Street/Tramway Avenue intersection.

» Queens Wharf Reserve. » Pedestrian and cycling movements though

this part of the corridor. » The public domain and local amenity.

Council recommended an alternate alignment (R11) which travelled along George Street, Noller Parade and Tramway Avenue.

As outlined in section 3.6.6 of the EIS, detailed consideration was given as to whether to develop the light rail alignment along Noller Parade or George Street. The assessment considered each option against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.22 of the EIS).

Both the George Street and Noller Parade options required residential property acquisitions. The George Street option was identified as the preferred option as this would: » Remove the potential safety risk and conflict between private vehicles and LRVs utilising the

shared running section along Noller Parade. » Reduce the impact on Queens Wharf Reserve and associated landscape amenity impacts.

» Maintain LRV movements on main roads, leading to improved visibility and accessibility to the project.

» Reduce the potential impact from known flood zones along Noller Parade.

Further, due to the quiet residential nature of Noller Parade, the alternate alignment along Noller Parade was considered likely to have a more substantial negative impact on local amenity.


C-19


5.5 Bridge over James Ruse Drive Council raised a series of concerns regarding the proposed bridge crossing of James Ruse Drive including: » Impact to properties fronting onto Tramway

Avenue including impacts to visual amenity, redevelopment opportunities, land values, access and vehicle movements.

» Impacts on the local street network. » Potential flood impacts requiring mitigation.

» Concerns with the proposed pedestrian and cycle link utilising the bridge including its length, permeability and possible entrapment issues.

» Undesirable public domain outcomes which may affect the Camellia Town Centre.

» Council recommended that Transport for NSW, as part of detailed design of the bridge, address the above urban design and property impacts.

The design for the James Ruse Drive Bridge shown in the EIS was indicative only and would be refined during detailed design. This would include identifying opportunities to reduce visual amenity impacts such as providing an improved urban design outcome for the bridge structure (refer to mitigation and management measure VL-4). Opportunities to minimise other visual impacts such as overshadowing would also be considered as identified in section 14.7.2 of the EIS.

Further refinement of the bridge design to reduce the overall visual and traffic impacts is discussed in section 6.9 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

With respect to access and vehicle movements, as described in the EIS, all existing access points to properties along the alignment would be maintained as part of the project.

With respect to the potential flooding impacts described in the EIS project, the bridge would be designed such that the underside of the bridge would achieve a clearance of around 0.5 metres above the 1 in 100-year flood level in the creek. The detailed design would seek to optimise the bridge design to address flood risks at the site. In accordance with HY-4, a Flood Management Strategy would be prepared before construction.

With respect to the Camellia Town Centre, the Master Plan was not available at the time of preparation of this document. The final design of the James Ruse Drive bridge would consider the proposed urban design and structure of the future Camellia Town Centre Master Plan. Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council and the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the design of final treatments to this section of the project alignment.




5.6 Camellia – Grand Avenue alignment The EIS indicates a light rail alignment for Camellia along the Sandown route. Council considers that the EIS does not adequately address the SEARs 6 relating to consideration of NSW Government’s Priority Precincts and those areas identified for renewal, which includes the Camellia Town centre. Council considers that the EIS does not adequately address the concerns in relation to the light rail alignment along the Sandown line through Camellia.

Council recommended (R12) that the project alignment be modified to Grand Avenue.

Council also recommended (R13) that Transport for NSW prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in order to better assess the advantages and disadvantage of the proposed base case alignment versus the Grand Avenue alignment.


Council’s concerns regarding the consideration of the light rail alignment along the Sandown Line are however acknowledged. As outlined in section 3.4.2 of the EIS, consideration was given as to whether to develop the light rail alignment along Grand Avenue or the Sandown Line. The assessment considered both options against a range of criteria (refer to Figure 3.10).

The Sandown Line was considered the preferred route option as it would: » Offer greater future place making opportunities associated with the future Camellia Town Centre. » Align with the current design for the Camellia Master Plan, allowing for integration with a future

transit-oriented town centre. » Reduce conflict/risks associated with an existing hazardous goods and heavy vehicle route

(Grand Avenue) and significant utilities (water and fuel pipelines). » Have lower constructability and delivery risks, as it would follow a disused rail corridor, would avoid

costly utility relocations (including for major gas, fuel pipelines and electricity mains), minimise property acquisitions and would improve safety by minimising interactions between heavy vehicles and LRVs along Grand Avenue.

» Would not preclude further extensions to the network beyond Camellia.

A thorough options assessment process has already been undertaken as outlined and it is not proposed to undertake a Cost Benefit Analysis regarding the advantages and disadvantage of the proposed alignment versus an alternative Grand Avenue alignment.


C-21


5.7 Treatment of the Sandown Line Council expressed concern regarding the potential that the existing ballast and tracks would be used along this section of light rail, affecting the future town centre.

Council recommended as a condition (C8) that the project include repurposing the existing Sandown Line to embedded tracks and a public domain treatment around the light rail stop. That the treatment is reflective of a design standard within a new town centre setting, consistent with the Camellia Master Plan and undertaken in consultation with Department of Planning and Environment and Council.

The final design of the project would allow the Sandown Line to both provide light rail access to the light rail stabling and maintenance facility. Ballast track is to be used throughout Camellia along the Sandown Line.

With respect to the Camellia Town Centre, the Master Plan was not available at the time of preparation of this document. Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council and the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the design of final treatments (such as the use of embedded tracks) to this section of the project alignment as further information becomes available.

Further discussion regarding integration with the Camellia Town Centre is provided in section 5.8 of this Submissions Report.

5.8 Camellia Stabling and Maintenance Facility As the location of the stabling and maintenance facility would be immediately to the south of the future Camellia Town Centre, Council requested that the design appropriately integrates into the surrounding future town centre.

Council also requested that the facility be designed to ensure both Grand Avenue and Colquhoun Street have a public street frontage with street presentation and edge character which responds to the future urban context.

Transport for NSW would ensure that the design of the stabling and maintenance facility would appropriately integrate into the surrounding future town centre. A series of mitigation and management measures have been identified to reduce the visual impact of the facility and integrate with the town centre are identified (refer to mitigation and management measures VL-6 and VL-11). This would consider the Grand Avenue and Colquhoun Street presentation and edge character.

Transport for NSW would also continue to consult with Council and the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the coordination of design and landscaping for the stabling and maintenance facility with the forthcoming Camellia Town Centre Master Plan.




5.9 Council raised concerns that the proposed raising of the stabling and maintenance facility site (to accommodate flood planning) would result in a separation from the street level and poor street presentation, as well as negative flood impacts.

Council recommended as a condition (C9) that, prior to the construction of the Camellia Stabling and Maintenance Facility, Transport for NSW prepare a detailed design in conjunction with Council and Department of Planning and Environment to ensure that the facility is fully integrated with the Camellia Town Centre Master Plan.

Refer to response item 5.8 of this table with respect to street separation and integration with the Camellia Town Centre

With respect to the concern about flood impacts, as noted in section 9.1.5 of Technical Paper 7 (Flooding Impact Assessment) of the EIS, the proposed stabling and maintenance facility is located outside the one percent AEP flood extent and is not subject to local overland flows in the one percent AEP event. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any substantial reduction in the floodplain capacity nor worsening of existing flood conditions (in the one percent AEP event) resulting from the raising of the site.

Ongoing development of the final layout of the stabling and maintenance facility during detailed design would continue to refine the stormwater drainage design and re-assess flood impacts, to ensure an acceptable level of flood immunity for the facility and that negative impacts on flood behaviour are avoided or minimised. In the event of unavoidable impacts on adjacent landholders, suitable mitigation would be developed in consultation with the affected landholder.

5.10 Council recommended a condition (C10) be applied to the project that Transport for NSW address the requirements contained in Part 3 – Design Sequences Robin Thomas Reserve to Rosehill and Camellia of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Framework – Volume 1.


6.0 Rydalmere to Carlingford

6.1 Council supports adapting the T6 Carlingford Line to Light Rail. Council also supports the proposed Active Transport Link

Council’s support for the conversion of the existing T6 Carlingford Line to light rail and the proposed active transport link is acknowledged.


C-23


6.2 Council recommended (R14) that Transport for NSW refine the general scope of the Carlingford Line corridor to achieve an alignment that responds to both existing and future urban structure and precinct planning throughout the corridor including the Telopea Master Plan.

Council also recommended that the corridor be reoriented to be outward-facing, catalysing redevelopment through improved connections, and integrating seamlessly into the surrounding public domain and neighbourhoods.

During detailed design Transport for NSW would continue to refine the urban design of the Carlingford Line corridor to ensure that the project responds to both existing and future urban structure and precinct planning throughout the corridor. This would be supported by a range of urban design and landscaping principles which would be identified in the Urban Design Requirements handbook.

The final design of the project would also consider opportunities to ensure elements of the project (such as light rail stops) provide improved permeability and integration with future developments (such as the Telopea town centre Master Plan).

6.3 Council requested that, where physical constraints allow, the active transport link be designed as a separate walking and cycling path and avoid at-grade crossings of existing roads. Specifically, Council recommended the design of the active transport link address the following: » Along the entire active transport link, cyclists

and pedestrians should be separated from general traffic.

» The active transport link continue under the Adderton Road Bridge.

» Utilise speed reduction strategies on dedicated cycle paths to indicate change in condition and requirements.

» Provide clear sight lines prior to cyclist and pedestrian approach of shared spaces.

» A minimum four metre clear path of travel to cater for pedestrian and cyclists for the active transport bridge over the Parramatta River linking Rydalmere and Camellia.

The proposed active transport link is being provided as an ancillary element of the project, where feasible, taking into account opportunities to link with existing and future planned Council cycleways.

The purpose of the new active transport link would be to connect each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line and the Parramatta Valley Cycleway. Therefore, the need to provide a consistent and dedicated active transport link is seen as a benefit for both safety and access for customers and recreational users.

With respect to the specific recommendations raised by Council, the following is noted: » The proposed width (3.6 metres) is considered adequate to support both cycling and pedestrian

activity, consistent with existing shared paths within the Council local government area. Cycling facilities, including bike racks, would be provided at selected stops, as well as regular access points onto the path and the surrounding road network. Opportunities to widen certain sections of the link have been identified as part of the ongoing design of the project. To date this has included widening of the section of active transport link between Rydalmere stop and the Western Sydney University campus (refer to section 6.12 of this Submissions Report, Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). The design would not preclude the widening or separation of the path in the future by others.

» Due to space constraints at this location, the active transport link would leave the rail corridor to the north of the Adderton Road Bridge and travel along existing roadways before re-entering the corridor about 100 metres south of Manson Street. Apart from this minor deviation, the active transport link would generally be located within the existing rail corridor and would travel parallel to the light rail tracks, connecting each of the proposed light rail stops along the converted T6 Carlingford Line.




» During detailed design safety issues, including sight lines for pedestrians and cyclists, would be addressed.

» Due to bridge constraints, the proposed pathway at the Parramatta River truss bridge would be about 2.5 metres wide, subject to detailed design. A wider active transport link on the bridge would require substantial strengthening works, increasing program and costs. It is anticipated that many active transport link users would connect to the Parramatta Valley Cycleway rather than continuing across the Parramatta River at this point. The final placement and design of this bridge would however also be subject to outcomes of the future masterplan for this area being developed by the Department of Planning and Environment. The proposed Masterplan may incorporate future crossings of the Parramatta River, and therefore these connections may be consolidated as part of the masterplan. Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the most appropriate outcome for an active transport crossing at this location.

» Future links across the river would be considered as part of the future Camellia Town Centre. It is therefore considered that the current design is appropriate.

6.4 Council stated that the active transport link corridor design should achieve a parkland setting which creates new open space and improved public domain.

The overall landscape design for the section of the project along the Carlingford Line would seek to optimise planting opportunities along the precinct to enhance the existing natural landscape while ensuring pedestrian and cyclist safety and a safe operating environment for light rail. To achieve this, the final design of the active transport link corridor would be developed using a number of landscaping principles (detailed further in the Urban Design Requirements handbook) and would include: » Where the light rail and active transport link run parallel to existing streets, these elements would

integrate with the landscape to create a cohesive movement corridor and streetscape. » Retention and supplementing of vegetation along the corridor to screen and visually integrate the

project with the surrounding area, including sensitive ecological communities, for example along Vineyard Creek.

» The landscape design would ensure sight lines are maintained along corridor at stops and at crossings.

» The landscape design would define the light rail corridor, provide local character and amenity along the active transport link, and provide privacy screening to adjacent residential, where appropriate.

» Integrating lighting within the landscape design along the corridor.


C-25


6.5 Council recommended a number of new and future-proofed links with the surrounding neighbourhoods in addition to the connections proposed as part of the EIS design to improve connectivity to surrounding areas including new street connections, new pedestrian and cycling links/connections and improvements to existing barriers.

Council recommended that, where required, property acquisitions are explored to achieve new street crossings, and pedestrian and cycleways.

Council recommended (recommendation R16) that Transport for NSW undertake further work in consultation with Council and relevant authorities to resolve a number of issues relating to connectivity in the Rydalmere to Carlingford including future linkages and preparation of a strategy for the active transport link in conjunction with relevant authorities and Council.

The proposed combined active transport link is considered to be adequate to support both cycling and pedestrian activity, consistent with existing shared paths within the Council area. The project is intended to provide public transport to support the growth of the region, and the proposed active transport links are being provided as an ancillary element of the project, where feasible, taking into account opportunities to link with existing and future planned Council cycleways. Further discussion regarding the proposed active transport link is provided in Item 6.3 of this table.

Any other upgrades beyond those required to manage the impacts of the project would, if proposed, be subject to development and delivery by other proponents. Transport for NSW remains committed to ongoing liaison with Council to ensure integration of the project’s urban design with any future public domain improvements by others. The proposed alignment as described in the EIS notes that no residential properties would be required for the provision of the active transport link.

Acquisition of properties to accommodate additional connections is not proposed.

6.6 Proposed Carlingford terminus

Council stated that the EIS referred to a ‘future public plaza to be delivered by Council’ as part of the Carlingford terminus. Council noted that this project is not identified by Council and requested clarification.

The intended wording of the statement was in reference to a future public plaza to be developed in consultation with Council. The light rail would improve the public space to the west of the Carlingford stop. The specific scope would be refined in during the detailed design of the project, and would not preclude the development of a future plaza or open space in this area by Council in the future, while noting the need to retain existing business access to the Carlingford Produce Store.




6.7 Future proofing for additional stops and extension

Council recommended (R15) that Transport for NSW undertake further design work to demonstrate future proofing of additional stops along the Carlingford Line in response to the current and future structure of local centres along the corridor, including at Telopea South and Carlingford South.

The current stop locations along the Carlingford line are the same as those that occur along the existing heavy rail line. These locations are considered to appropriately respond the current and future known demand and land uses including the Telopea South and Carlingford South developments. No additional stops are proposed for the current design of the project.

However, the potential for additional stops have not been precluded along the existing Carlingford line. Should these stops be identified as being required in the future, Transport for NSW would undertake further design work at that time in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including Council.

However, the benefit of any additional stops would need to be considered against the potential increase light rail travel times along the line, and any adverse impact this may have on patronage.

6.8 Council recommended (R15) that the project should future-proof an extension to Epping via Carlingford Court.

The current design of the project would not preclude the extension of the current project to Epping.

6.9 Pennant Hills Road Bridge

Council raised concern in relation to the proposal to retain a single track along the Carlingford line under Pennant Hills Road at Carlingford. Council stated they believe that this would create a pinch point which could unduly constrain operations and service frequency, and limit the ability to upgrade and future-proof the service. Council recommended (R15) that dual tracks at this location be considered.



C-27


6.10 Additional stop at WSU and related issues

Council recommended an additional stop be provided at Western Sydney University (Rydalmere) to support this campus, and to act as a future transport interchange. Council also stated that, inclusion of this stop should also be accompanied by shifting the proposed Rydalmere stop location to the north, under the Victoria Road overpass bridge.

As identified in the EIS, the Rydalmere stop would serve the Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus) to the west of the stop, the residential area immediately north of Victoria Road and the existing industrial precinct to the east of the existing rail corridor. The installation of a direct pedestrian connection to the Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus) as part of the project would substantially improve access compared with the existing arrangement, which requires a pedestrian detour. To provide access to the above areas and reduce potential impacts on vegetation, including impacts on endangered ecological communities, the preferred Rydalmere stop location was considered to be at the existing location of Rydalmere Station.

However, the project alignment would not preclude a future additional stop serving the Western Sydney University (Parramatta campus), to the southern edge of the campus in the future, should demand provide an opportunity for a second stop in the future.

6.11 Council recommended (R17), that Transport for NSW undertake the following work on Rydalmere: » Investigate moving the Parramatta River

active transport bridge element to the eastern side of the bridge, and undertake refined design of the link between the bridge to the riverbank walk below.

» Retain the heritage abutments to Parramatta River Bridge.

» In conjunction with the additional stop at Western Sydney University, establish a continuous north-south pedestrian link between the two Rydalmere stops.

With respect to the recommendation to move the active transport bridge to the eastern side of the rail bridge, the current location is considered the most feasible option as it is consistent with the alignment of the active transport link to the north and south of the river, does not require multiple crossings of the light rail alignment (which would affect speed and therefore travel times) and provides improved access to both the Western Sydney University and the Parramatta Valley Cycleway.

With respect to the proposed removal of the heritage abutments, as discussed in section 14.5.2 of the EIS, the Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments have no structural purpose and are required to be removed to facilitate the widening and strengthening works on the approach spans to support the dual track crossing and cantilevered active transport crossing. Options to retain the underbridge abutments were considered but ultimately were not feasible for a dual track and active transport crossing. In accordance with revised mitigation and management measure HE-18, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to salvage and appropriately reuse the Camellia underbridge abutments would be explored in consultation with a heritage architect.

With respect to the proposed active transport link, the current design of the path allows for a continuous north-south pedestrian link between the proposed Rydalmere stop and the Parramatta Valley Cycleway.




6.12 Council recommended as a condition (C12) that prior to commencement of construction Transport for NSW demonstrate that Western Sydney University Library, Early Years’ Service and Events Management, as well as Carlingford West Preschool, Scouts NSW, City of Parramatta Library and Childcare Management, have been communicated the construction schedule and determined strategies to enable them to continue their key services during construction of the project.

Transport for NSW will carry out ongoing consultation in accordance with the Community Engagement Plan with managers of community facilities, near the project, about potential impacts during construction to enable them to continue their key services during construction of the project.

6.13 Council recommended a condition (C10) be applied to the project that Transport for NSW address the requirements contained in Part 3 – Design Sequences Camellia to Rydalmere and Rydalmere to Carlingford of Council’s Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 Framework – Volume 1.



C-29


7.0 Traffic, transport and access

7.1 Traffic Impacts

Traffic modelling

Council believes that the refinement of the traffic model is required so to better reflect current and future conditions. Council recommended (R19) that Transport for NSW undertake revised traffic modelling which includes the following inputs: » Buses as a separate vehicle type (as

opposed to general vehicle class). » Include impacted surrounding local

residential streets such as Isabella Street, Sorrell Street, Caste and Macarthur Streets, Horwood Place, and the intersection of Marsden and Phillip Streets.

» Extend the model to 2036 to include projected growth in the Parramatta CBD and Westmead.

» Remove assumptions in relation to grade separation of James Ruse Drive, at Grand Avenue / Hassall Street.

» Model the closure of Horwood Place on both sides of George Street as part of the Civic Link.

Transport for NSW has been meeting regularly with Council and Roads and Maritime throughout 2017 to discuss traffic impacts and the traffic modelling undertaken to inform the design development. Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing consultation with Council throughout detailed design. With respect to the specific items raised: » The impact on bus services has been subject to ongoing modelling and refinement following

exhibition of the EIS to further reduce impacts identified in the EIS. Further work would continue to be undertaken during detailed design.

» The intersections identified have been considered as part of the traffic modelling. Ongoing assessment of impacts, including on local streets, would be undertaken to inform the detailed design of the project.

» With respect to the request to extend the model to 2036, there are various uncertainties associated with detailed operational modelling beyond a 10 year horizon. The uncertainties make it difficult to apply in operational models and ultimately make it difficult to achieve appropriate outcomes from these operational models. In addition, the increasingly congested nature of the existing road network limits its ability to accommodate high future growth in demand without significant infrastructure improvements beyond the scope of an individual project.

» With respect to the assumptions regarding James Ruse Drive, this was included in the modelling as a result of ongoing consultation with Roads and Maritime who advised this work would be undertaken by Roads and Maritime in response to operational performance on James Ruse Drive and future growth in the Camellia precinct, but does not form part of the project.

» The closure of Horwood Place is not part of the project scope, however changes to the way it operates would result from the project. If Council proposes future changes to the road network, such as the closure of Horwood Place, the changes would need to be further modelled as part of those future changes.




7.2 Council noted that the traffic modelling presented in the EIS indicates queues at several key intersections that are of concern and that the project is likely to result in a significant deterioration in traffic conditions within the Parramatta CBD.

Council recommended (R20) that Transport for NSW assess the impact of intersection delays in and around the Parramatta CBD on the network, including increased travel distances and decreased legibility of the network. Further mitigation and management measures should be presented in order to reduce delays.

The traffic assessment considered a worst-case assessment (assuming an unmanaged demand scenario) and assessed the future operation of intersections using forecast traffic volumes without considering upstream network constraints or pinch points that would restrict a proportion of this traffic from being able to travel through the assessed intersections. Further, the full traffic demand growth scenario does not consider any travel behaviour changes that would likely occur (such as mode shift or peak spreading) which would reduce the future number of peak hour trips across the road network.

The future traffic demand arising from the large number of developments planned for the Parramatta area would require a number of changes to the road network to manage the rapid increase in traffic demand.

Ongoing traffic modelling of the managed traffic demand forecasts by Transport for NSW would occur through detailed design, and would involve ongoing consultation with Council.

Transport for NSW would continue to undertake ongoing modelling and design refinements to identify opportunities to reduce potential intersection impacts.

7.3 Council recommended (R21) that the preliminary results of the revised traffic modelling be presented to Department of Planning and Environment and Council for discussion with the final results of the assessment presented in a revised report.

As part of the ongoing design of the project during detailed design, Transport for NSW would continue to refine the traffic model based on updated information as it becomes available. Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council and the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the updated modelling.

7.4 Proposed ‘Off Corridor’ Road Network Changes

Council raised concern that the proposed ‘off-corridor’ network changes in the Parramatta CBD would have substantial adverse impacts, including: » Loss of on-street parking in George Street. » Narrowing the footpath in Marsden Street. » Traffic impacts as a result of closure of

Macquarie Street and George Street becoming a two-way street.

The assessment presented in the EIS considered a worst-case assessment, assuming all parking would be removed to allow the conversion of this section of George Street from one-way to two-way.

Ongoing design refinement and traffic assessment would aim to reduce the extent of parking loss along George Street, particularly outside the road network peak periods. Notwithstanding this, further assessment of the current utilisation of off-street car parks across the Parramatta CBD has indicated that there is spare capacity in some off-street car parks to accommodate some of the displaced on-street parking across the Parramatta CBD, albeit not necessarily in the same location as the displaced on-street car parking. Further discussion regarding the loss of parking associated with the project is provided in section 5.7.7 of this Submissions Report.

A car parking survey of on-street parking along the project and its surrounds has also been undertaken to further understand the impacts of the removal of the parking spaces. The results indicated that within the Parramatta CBD there is currently on-street parking availability. Some capacity also exists with existing surrounding short-term parking spaces.


C-31


Transport for NSW will continue to work with Council in the context of its long term strategy for car parking in the local government area to identify appropriate parking mitigation and management measures (e.g. parking controls).

With respect to the concern regarding the footpath in Marsden Street, the reconstruction of the intersection with George Street would not impact on the Marsden Street kerb location, preserving the current footpath width.

With respect to the concern regarding the changed traffic arrangements along Macquarie Street and George Street, modelling results identified changes (including some decreased performance) to vehicle queuing and delays at some intersections in the Parramatta CBD precinct. Opportunities to reduce potential impacts through the implementation of the revised mitigation and management measures outlined in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report would be further considered during detailed design.

7.5 George Street

Council raised a series of concerns in relation to impacts arising from George Street becoming a two-way street, including:

» Reduced pedestrian safety. » Removal of on-street parking.

» Property access. » Not providing on-street bike lanes.

Council recommended (R22) that Transport for NSW prepare a design for George Street in collaboration with Council.

In addition, it was recommended (R23) that Transport for NSW investigate signalising the intersection of Horwood Place and George Street, with the consideration of the Civic Link Framework Plan as part of the identified changes to George Street.

The design of the project along George Street would maintain pedestrian safety. Mitigation and management measure TT-2 identified that road safety audits would be completed during detailed design and would include measures to manage pedestrian safety.

The removal of on-street parking has previously been discussed in response Item 7.4 of this table.

With respect to property access, existing access arrangements to properties would be retained during construction and operation of the project (this may include altered access in some situations). This would be developed as part of the preparation of local access plans during detailed design and in consultation with property owners (refer to mitigation and management measure TT-17).

It is noted that George Street (and surrounding streets) does not currently have provision for on-street bike lanes, and therefore the project would not negatively impact any cycling facilities in this area. On-road cycling is currently allowed in Macquarie Street. The operation of the project would not preclude on-road cycling on George Street.

With respect to investigating the signalisation of the intersection of Horwood Place and George Street, traffic flows at this intersection do not warrant the installation of signals. Additionally, as this intersection is less than 100 metres from the existing Smith Street signals, it would be challenging to provide these safely. The final design of this intersection would however be determined during detailed design.




7.6 Council recommended two conditions (C13 and C14) relating to the Parramatta Road network being that:

» The final design for George Street be approved by Council.

» All works associated with the project that are undertaken on Council roads and land be subject to approval by Council.

As described previously, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council during detailed design. Approval of the project would be obtained through the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the current planning approval process.

7.7 Upgrade of Gasworks Bridge (and the Intersection of George and Harris Streets)

Council noted that the project would limit the options for Council’s proposed widening of Gasworks Bridge. Council recommended (R24) that Transport for NSW prepare a design for the widening of Gasworks Bridge and Harris Street to demonstrate the impacts of the project alignment along this corridor and a reduced overall corridor width.

The project would not preclude the future widening of Gasworks Bridge by Council. Designing future elements of the road network being proposed by other authorities is beyond the project scope.

Ongoing consultation would continue to be undertaken between Transport for NSW, Roads and Maritime and Council regarding future proofing for the potential widening of Gasworks Bridge.

7.8 Grade Separation James Ruse Drive and Hassall Street / Grand Avenue

Council identified that they believe the proposed light rail bridge’s height will be required to be increased to ensure the grade separation to be constructed in the future. Council recommended a condition (C15) that the project be designed so that the light rail bridge accommodates the potential future grade separation of James Ruse Drive at Hassall St/ Grand Avenue.

The light rail bridge over James Ruse Drive has been designed to accommodate the concept design that is currently being developed by Roads and Maritime for future grade separation at Hassall Street and allows for a clearance above James Ruse Drive of around 4.6 metres. Refer to section 6.9 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).


C-33


7.9 Telopea

During construction, the bus stop location proposed requires many pedestrians to cross Robert Street and may restrict sight lines for motorists exiting from Robert Street.

Council recommended (R25) that Transport for NSW assess the traffic and pedestrian impacts at the intersection of Robert Street and Adderton Road and consider treatment options in consultation with Department of Planning and Environment and Council in relation to the Telopea Master Plan.

A joint inspection by project staff, Council and Transport for NSW bus planners identified some safety concerns with the existing stop if it were maintained during construction. Bus stop safety would be considered as part of the road safety audit to be undertaken for the Construction Traffic Management Plan, and if necessary relocating the stop would be considered.

Ongoing consultation with the NSW Land and Housing Corporation and Council regarding the Telopea Master Plan will continue in detailed design. Pedestrian and traffic safety will be considered in this process.

7.10 Hassall Street

Council is concerned that any proposed traffic signals would significantly increase the volume of traffic in what is primarily a residential street, and this level of detail should be part of the EIS.

Council recommended as a condition (C17) that if traffic signals at Hassall and Harris Streets are provided as part of the Project, that Transport for NSW prepare and implement associated local traffic measures, subject to approval through the Parramatta Traffic Committee process.

Further design refinement following preparation of the EIS has identified that, while there is a continued requirement to retain a right turn movement from Harris Street (southbound) into Hassall Street, the intersection may be maintained as a priority controlled intersection with a right turn bay. This will be further considered in detailed design and traffic modelling, and the need for a signalised intersection considered at that time.

Further discussion regarding the proposed intersection arrangement is provided in section 6.3 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).




7.11 Market Street

In light of the future redevelopment of Riverside Theatres and the opportunity to connect pedestrians to Prince Alfred Square, Council request that the project not limit the ability for Council to consider closure, or part closure of Market Street to through traffic in the future.

Council recommended as a condition (C16) that the Project not limit the ability of the redevelopment of Riverside Theatre and the future whole or partial closure of Market Street to through traffic.

The proposed design of the project would not preclude the full or partial closure of Market Street in the future, should this be undertaken by Council.

7.12 Construction traffic impacts

Council is supportive of a Construction Traffic and Transport Management Plan being prepared to appropriately manage the impacts of construction.

Council’s support of the Construction Traffic and Transport Management Plan is acknowledged.


C-35


7.13 Cumulative impacts of construction

Council noted that the construction phase of the project is likely to coincide with the construction phase of several redevelopment sites throughout the corridor (such as Telopea, Western Sydney Stadium and Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences). Council recommended a series of condition s (C18 – C20) including:

» The Community Engagement Plan for the project shall ensure the coordination of construction processes to manage cumulative impacts. This should include a strategy to ensure local stakeholders are made aware of the activities on different sites, and how the cumulative impacts are being managed.

» Prior to construction, work with Council, relevant state agencies including Venues NSW, the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, the Australian Turf Club, NSW Health and Parramatta Park Trust to develop coordinated strategies for the easy and safe movement of traffic, pedestrians and cyclists during construction and events.

» The staging plan included with the CMP is to address construction projects within the Parramatta CBD to manage conflicts and develop appropriate strategies.

As discussed in Chapter 9 of the EIS, it is acknowledged that the construction (and operational) phases of the project would likely coincide with the construction phase of other redevelopment sites along the length of the project alignment.

With respect to the recommended conditions the following is noted: » Construction programs would be developed by the contractor during detailed construction

planning and would consider opportunities to stage construction works to minimise impacts with other major external construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the project.

» A Community Engagement Plan, and ongoing input from project place managers, would include strategies to ensure local stakeholders are made aware when various activities will be occurring on site.

» Transport for NSW and the appointed construction contractor(s) would also consult with all relevant stakeholders (including stakeholders such as Venues NSW, the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, the Australian Turf Club, NSW Health and Parramatta Park Trust) prior to commencement of works.

All of the identified measures would be consolidated as part of the overall Construction Environmental Management Plan for the project.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan will include relevant actions to manage cumulative impacts. The Sydney Coordination Office would review Construction and Pedestrian Traffic Management Plans (CPTMPs) for developments within the Parramatta CBD and along the project alignment, to ensure an integrated approach with the needs and safety of all transport users considered including walking and cycling.




7.14 Impacts on the traffic network

Network access plan

Council feels that the Greater Parramatta Access Plan is a critical part of the process for identifying and mitigating transport issues arising from the Parramatta Light Rail Project. Accordingly, Council considers that the Greater Parramatta Access Plan needs to be considered during the assessment process.

Council recommended (R26) that, prior to approval of the EIS, Transport for NSW prepare the Greater Parramatta Access Plan, in consultation with Council, Roads and Maritime, other business units of Transport for NSW for the purposes of public exhibition.

Additionally, it was recommended that a condition (C21) be included that stated that prior to construction, Transport for NSW finalise the Greater Parramatta Access Plan in collaboration with Council, Roads and Maritime and Transport for NSW.

The purpose of the Greater Parramatta Access Plan has been discussed in Item 1.13 of this table. The Greater Parramatta Access Plan will support the introduction of light rail into Parramatta, as well as the transformative works currently proposed including a significant building program to support jobs and residential growth.

The Greater Parramatta Access Plan is not part of the project but will provide a high-level framework, outlining changes to the integrated transport network to accommodate growth in the Greater Parramatta area over the next five to ten years. Council and Roads and Maritime have both been involved in regular consultation during development of the Greater Parramatta Access Plan.

7.15 Impact on Bus Services

Council raised concerns in relation to the impact on bus travel times for Castle Hill and Windsor Road services during operation of the project. Council noted that bus changes should be considered through an open and consultative process.

As part of the ongoing design development, Transport for NSW is undertaking more traffic modelling to consider impacts of the project on bus travel times. As detailed design progresses, any project impacts on existing bus services identified would be discussed with relevant stakeholders, as required.


C-37


7.16 Free shuttle bus (Route 900)

Council believes there is opportunity to re-route the free shuttle service, which is proposed to be discontinued when construction commences, around other parts of the Parramatta CBD during construction, and re-assess its need six months prior to operation of the project.

Council recommended two conditions (C22 – C23) to address the concern:

» That the free shuttle bus continue operation throughout construction of the light rail, using an alternative route to be designed in consultation with Council.

» That 6 months prior to operation of the project, Transport for NSW and Council undertake an assessment of the patronage and future role of the shuttle service to determine its future operation.

As identified in section 8.2.2 of the EIS, during construction of the project Route 900 free shuttle bus would be temporarily discontinued due to difficulties in re-routing this service.

The future role of the service would be reviewed as part of broader bus network considerations included in the Greater Parramatta Access Plan. As such, the project team proposes to communicate the need to undertake the review to the relevant parties within Transport for NSW. It is, however, considered that the proposed condition regarding the ongoing operation of the service would not be appropriately assigned to the project approval.




7.17 Closure of the T6 Carlingford Line

Council raised a series of issues in relation to the proposed shuttle service and closure of the T6 Carlingford Line, including anticipated use of the shuttle service, shuttle bus travel times, impacts to existing users of Rosehill Station, consideration of a shuttle bus to Carlingford Court and the need to future proof the line between Camellia and Clyde as part of a southern extension for Light Rail.

Council recommended (R27) that Transport for NSW assess the impact on existing commuters and impact of the proposed shuttle service, in terms of frequency, travel routes and catchment area.

Council also recommended as a condition (C24) that as part of the closure of the existing Clyde to T6 Carlingford Line, Transport for NSW must undertake a detailed assessment of the impact on existing patrons and future transport to determine future capacity needs, including its role in an integrated transport network including Light Rail (proposed and future stages), Sydney Metro West and heavy rail network.

The decommissioning of Rosehill Station and the closure of the T6 Carlingford Line would impact around 200 passengers per day using Rosehill Station.

As described in section 8.2.2.6 of the EIS, the T6 Carlingford Line rail replacement shuttle bus service would replace the existing hourly train services with buses every 10 minutes in the peak periods and 30 minutes in the off-peak and evenings. Additional buses would be added as required to meet peak loads. For example, on major event days, special shuttle bus services would be provided between Parramatta Station and Rosehill Gardens.

The bus replacement service is considered to be generally comparable to the current rail services. Travel time comparisons between the T6 Carlingford Line stations and the city (Wynyard Station, as presented in Table 5.10 of Technical Paper 2) indicated that the rail replacement shuttle bus service may result in a minor increase in travel time of one minute to seven minutes, when combined with the new rail timetable (which provides more trains between Parramatta and the CBD). The potential for minor increases in travel time would be offset by the provision of more frequent services, which allows for greater accessibility and flexibility.

With respect to catchment areas, the shuttle bus stops would generally be located as close as possible to the existing heavy rail stops and therefore would service similar catchments.

Further refinement of the operation of the proposed the rail replacement shuttle bus service (frequency, capacity etc.) would be investigated during detailed design. With respect to the proposed consideration of a shuttle bus to Carlingford Court, the provision of this service is outside the scope of the proposed rail replacement shuttle service between Carlingford and Clyde. Carlingford Court is not serviced by the T6 Carlingford Line at present. The proposed rail replacement buses would replace the existing rail service, and would not seek to extend it.

As discussed in section 14.7.3.2 of the EIS, following the completion of works within the T6 Carlingford Line corridor between Camellia and Parramatta Road, the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the GPOP.


C-39


As discussed in section 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report), Transport for NSW propose to decommission the section of the T6 Carlingford Line between Parramatta Road and Camellia and provide an additional footpath to the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. Decommissioning would provide an opportunity to improve existing level crossings and / or provide additional permeability. The final design of the new pedestrian path would be undertaken in consultation with the Australian Turf Club.

Alternative public transport options would be provided at the Tramway Avenue and Camellia light rail stops for customers that currently use the Rosehill Station for special event access or commuting to and from the residential area west of James Ruse Drive.

7.18 Council identified support for the retention of existing rail tracks between Camellia and Clyde and ownership of the land with Transport for NSW.

Detailed discussion regarding the proposed closure of the T6 Carlingford Line is provided in item 7.17 of this table.

Council’s support for the retention of existing rail tracks between Camellia and Clyde is acknowledged. As identified in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report), the T6 Carlingford Line between Camellia and Parramatta Road is proposed to be decommissioned with the existing track between Camellia and Rosehill Stations proposed to be removed as part of the project (refer to sections 6.10 and 6.13 of this Submissions Report).

7.19 Parramatta CBD Road Corridor Analysis

Council recommended as a condition (C25) that Transport for NSW liaise with Council in relation to any amendments necessary for Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to accommodate reservations and acquisitions on the Local Road Acquisition map.

It is not anticipated that any amendments to the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 will be necessary as a result of the project. TfNSW will deal with property acquisitions and road reserves through the Transport Administration Act.




7.20 Impacts on parking

On street parking impacts

The EIS indicates a vacancy rate of 63 per cent in the Parramatta CBD. This appears to be overstated as it includes areas beyond the Parramatta CBD and restricted operational spaces as available. In reality, there is a much lower vacancy rate for the public seeking a space in the Parramatta CBD core.

The existing and future extent of the Parramatta CBD varies across several strategic planning documents. Figure 1.1 of the Traffic and Transport Existing Conditions Report (Technical Paper 1, Volume 2) identified the precinct boundaries that were adopted for the traffic and parking study, namely the area bounded by Macarthur Street, Harris Street, Purchase Street and Parramatta River was included in the Parramatta CBD precinct. It is recognised that this area generally has lower on-street parking demand than the remainder of the precinct.

Notwithstanding, a car parking survey was undertaken of on-street parking along the project and its surrounds to further understand the potential impacts of the removal of the parking spaces as a result of the project. The assessment assumed a worst-case scenario, and it is noted that the project is likely to impact fewer parking spaces. The results indicated that there is some spare off-street car parking capacity currently exists and that this could reasonably accommodate some of the displaced on-street parking across the Parramatta CBD, albeit not necessarily in the same location as the displaced on-street car parking.

Transport for NSW is committed to working with Council to prioritise kerbside allocations required as a direct result of the project throughout detailed design and construction. The Greater Parramatta Access Plan identifies that Transport for NSW would develop kerbside use management plans for Parramatta CBD and Westmead Health Precinct. Development of these plans would align with project construction and operation planning.


C-41


7.21 Council identified the proposed loss of on-street parking associated with the project as an important consideration for Council and our community. Council recommended four conditions (C26 – C29) to address the proposed impact of the project on on-street parking being:

» Transport for NSW shall prepare a Parking Offsets and Management Strategy in consultation with Council, including the Traffic Committee, businesses and key stakeholders.

» During construction, the Sydney Coordination Office shall coordinate the implementation of any parking offset and management strategies and lead the consultation with affected businesses, residents and land owners.

» That any disabled car parking spaces that are to be lost as a result of construction be replaced as close to the site as possible, so there is no overall net loss of disabled parking spots.

» The project and the Sydney Coordination Office should work with Council to prioritise kerb-side use and relocate uses based on mutually-agreed priorities. Any parking mitigation and management measures go through the approvals processes with Council and/or Roads and Maritime as road authorities.

Transport for NSW acknowledges the level of concern regarding project impacts on parking. As noted in the EIS, Transport for NSW would continue to work with Council regarding the potential impacts associated with the removal of parking along the project alignment. This includes working with Council on its long-term strategy for car parking in order to identify appropriate parking mitigation and management measures (e.g. parking controls) to balance supply and demand for parking where it is being directly impacted by the project (refer to mitigation and management measure TT-5).

Critical on-street parking (including accessible spaces, loading zones and, where possible, short-stay parking) would be replaced on a ‘like for like’ basis within the local vicinity of existing parking such as in adjacent side streets. The detailed implementation of this replacement parking would also be worked through with Council prior to commencement of construction. The remainder of the displaced parking (non-allocated parking) would be absorbed in the existing surrounding parking provisions and is not proposed to be replaced by the project.

Transport for NSW would also work with the Sydney Coordination Office and Council throughout the construction of the project to manage a range of aspects, including implementation of any parking management strategies (refer to mitigation and management measure TT-5).




7.22 School on Macquarie Street – Parking Impacts

Council raised concern regarding the potential impact of removing existing parking spaces along Macquarie Street and the impact that this would have on the two schools currently being constructed between Charles Street and Smith Street.

Council recommended (R28) that Transport for NSW should undertake further assessment of parking impacts and mitigation and management measures in relation to the High and Primary Schools along Macquarie Street. This should be completed with Council, Roads and Maritime and Department of Education and Communities.

The Arthur Phillip High School and Parramatta Public School Transport Assessment (Arup, August 2016) prepared as part of the impact assessment for the redevelopment of both schools was prepared in consultation with Transport for NSW. Section 3.2 of the assessment identified an assumption that the existing Macquarie Street kerbside provisions would be removed and therefore, the planning of both schools includes alternative arrangements. Further, the project would likely provide an opportunity to increase the number of students that use public transport to access the schools, reducing the need for parking facilities.

It is understood that most set-down/ pick-up activity associated with Rowland Hassall School occurs via Hassall Street. The introduction of a right turn from Harris Street to Hassall Street (refer to section 6.3 of this Submissions Report – Preferred Infrastructure Report) would improve access to Hassall Street to accommodate this activity. The need for kerbside use reallocations in Hassall Street during peak set-down/ pick-up times would be further considered in consultation with Council and Rowland Hassall School.

7.23 Park and ride facilities

Council noted that commuter parking should be identified as part of the design process and delivered with the project. Council recommended (R29) that Transport for NSW investigate opportunities for future provision of commuter car parking, including at Dundas, Rydalmere and other suitable locations.

Council also recommended two conditions (C30 – C31) to address the concern being:

» Prior to operation of the project, Transport for NSW shall construct a permanent commuter car park at Carlingford for capacity of approximately 150 car spaces.

» Prior to operation of the project, Transport for NSW shall construct a temporary commuter car park at Camellia in proximity to the Light Rail Stop.

At Dundas and Rydalmere stops, the project would maintain the existing park and ride facilities. Additional spaces would be considered in detailed design, where space permits.

The provision of a new commuter car park at Carlingford is not part of the current scope of the project. However, as part of the Transport Access Program, the State government has committed to a car parking project at Carlingford and this is being investigated as a separate proposal (and would be subject to separate planning approval and assessment).

A temporary commuter car park is not proposed at Camellia. Any future parking strategy for the Camellia area may be considered in the context of the future Camellia Town Centre (beyond the scope of this project). As outlined in the draft Future Transport Strategy, Transport for NSW will develop and implement a Greater Sydney Parking Guideline in collaboration with local government as a separate program beyond the scope of this project


C-43


7.24 Property access

Parramatta Square access arrangements

Council identified that they did not support any proposed changes to the Parramatta Square car park entry/exit to Macquarie Street. Council also noted that if Light Rail construction overlaps with Parramatta Square construction, this may impose unreasonable constraints on construction of either, or both.

Council recommended two conditions (C32 – C33) to address the concern being:

» The project shall provide for a right-hand turn from Smith Street (southbound) into Macquarie Street (westbound).

» The project shall not impede the continuous and unencumbered ingress and egress of the approved Parramatta Square vehicle access to Macquarie Street throughout construction and operation of the Light Rail, unless by prior agreement with Council.

Access to the car park for Parramatta Square (169 Macquarie Street) would be maintained during construction and operation of the project. Where temporary closures are required during construction, stakeholders would be consulted, as identified in mitigation and management measure RC-1.

With respect to the recommendation for a right-hand turn from Smith Street (southbound) into Macquarie Street (westbound), this turn has been incorporated into the revised design of the intersection following exhibition of the project.




7.25 Waste services

Council raised concern about both construction and operational impacts on access for domestic and commercial (business) waste services as a result of the project. It was recommending (R30) that Transport for NSW provide more detail in regards to the construction period and staged operational impacts of the project on waste servicing and vehicle access to affected residents and businesses across all precincts.

A recommended condition was also identified which noted that prior to construction, Transport for NSW and construction contractors are to work with Council and its waste collection service to ensure waste collections can operate effectively during staging of construction and operation of the project.

Access for waste services would be maintained in construction and operation. Consultation with Council and the relevant waste collection service(s) would be undertaken as part of detailed design and construction planning. The construction traffic management plan (CTMP) would identify any necessary measures for waste collection.


C-45


7.26 Pedestrian and cycling

Impacts on pedestrians

Council noted a series of comments regarding potential impacts to pedestrians as a result of the construction and operation of the project, in particular the potential impacts to pedestrians along Hawkesbury Road during construction. Council recommended two conditions (C35 – C36) to address the potential impacts being:

» During construction, Transport for NSW ensures that accessibility of Hawkesbury Road be maintained, especially along routes to and from key hospital and institutions entrances to and from Westmead Station.

» Prior to commencement of works, a Pedestrian Access and Network Plan is to be prepared in consultation with Council, Roads and Maritime and relevant Reference Groups.

As described in section 11.3.3.5 of the EIS, the existing footpaths would be maintained along both sides of Hawkesbury Road as part of the operation of the project. This would include the area between Westmead Station and the Westmead Health Precinct.

In addition, a series of mitigation and management measures have been identified. The measures include coordination and phasing of crossings to allow for increased pedestrian crossing times of key roads such as Hawkesbury Road, Church Street, Macquarie Street, etc. (refer to revised mitigation and management measures TT-7 to TT-14).

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council, Roads and Maritime and other relevant stakeholders prior to and during the works to identify additional measures to mitigate impacts to pedestrians during construction, if required.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (refer to revised mitigation and management measure TT-25) will be prepared by the Contractor(s) to outline measures to ensure safe motorist, pedestrian and cyclist access during construction.

7.27 The EIS states that uncontrolled crossing of Church Street for pedestrians would be encouraged, however, it is not stated how this would affect, or be affected by, the operating speed of the light rail.

As stated in section 13.3.3 of the EIS, uncontrolled crossing of the light rail by pedestrians would be allowed within the two shared light rail and pedestrian zones. As described in section 5.6 of the EIS, for safety reasons the LRVs would travel through these areas at lower speeds than along other sections of the project alignment. The urban design would also incorporate elements to ensure the light rail tracks are clearly identifiable to pedestrians.

7.28 Impacts on cyclists

Council is strongly supportive of Transport for NSW’s commitment to funding the regional cycle route along the Carlingford to Camellia corridor

Council’s support for the development of the active transport link as part of the project is acknowledged.




7.29 The document does not address the NSW Government’s key Cycling document, Sydney’s Cycling Future that identified key cycling corridors directly influenced by the project, as well as prescribing route typologies. Therefore, the EIS does not reflect the current state of the network or the planned future cycling network.

Sydney’s Cycling Future is referenced in Chapter 2 of the EIS as part of the strategic context. The proposed active transport link in the Carlingford Precinct is considered to be consistent with Sydney’s Cycling Future, as it will provide one of the strategic bicycle corridors identified within the strategy.

7.30 The EIS states that the existing on-road cycling route on Church Street would be replaced by alternative north-south cycling connections in the Parramatta CBD. No route is mentioned and there will be significant difficulty in achieving this due to the higher traffic volumes and speeds.

Parramatta City Council’s Draft Bike Plan 2017-2037 identifies Marsden Street and Marist Place as a future north-south separated cycleway south of Albert Street. Traffic modelling indicates that future traffic volumes along Marsden Street would not significantly increase as a result of the project. Therefore, the opportunity to utilise Marsden Street as an alternative cycle route in the future would not be precluded by the project, however this is not part of the project scope.


C-47


7.31 Council noted a series of comments regarding potential impacts to cyclists as a result of the project including construction impacts, the proposed Parramatta to Camellia cycle link, cycling within the light rail and pedestrian zones and bicycle parking. Council recommended four conditions (C37 – C40) to address the potential impacts being:

» Prior to commencement of works, a Cyclist Access and Network Plan is to be prepared in consultation and to the satisfaction of Council, Roads and Maritime, Bicycle NSW and relevant Reference Groups.

» The applicant shall implement the Cyclist Access and Network Plan.

» The Applicant shall ensure all stops are designed to ensure safety, connectivity, efficiency and convenience is maximised for pedestrian and cyclists.

» The Applicant to prepare a conceptual design for a future dedicated cycleway between the Tudor Gatehouse at O’Connell Street to the active transport link bridge over James Ruse Drive. This route shall be developed in consultation with Council and Roads and Maritime and be located along a route that would be desirable for cyclist use.

The proposed design of the active transport link would be consistent with Council’s Draft Bike Plan 2017-2037. The EIS identified traffic and transport management strategies (refer to section 17.2.2.5 of the EIS), which require consideration of managing cyclist impacts during construction. Cyclist access during construction would be identified and managed through the implementation of the CTMP. Mitigation and management measure TT-24 and TT-25 also note during construction:

» That existing cycle routes would be maintained or diverted. » That consideration would be given to shared experience educational events that allow

pedestrians, cyclists or motorists to sit in trucks and understand the visibility restrictions of truck drivers, and for truck drivers to understand the visibility from a bicycle.

Light rail stop design was discussed in section 5.4 of the EIS. All stops would be compliant with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Access to each stop has been an important consideration in the development of the stop design and this would be further refined during detailed design. This would include consideration of safety, connectivity and efficiency for pedestrian and cyclists.

With respect to the recommendation to prepare a design for a cycleway between O’Connell Street and James Ruse Drive, the current design of the project would allow for a potential route along George Street. As identified in mitigation and management measure TT-3, during detailed design, Transport for NSW would review opportunities to maximise integration of the project with current and proposed bicycle corridors. The provision of a new cycle route along George Street is not proposed as part of the project.




7.32 Future proofing of light rail The EIS does not take into account the likely cumulative impact of growth in the light rail catchment and the resultant construction and operational impacts. While the EIS outlines some of the development which is likely to coincide with the project, major elements of the likely growth scenario have been omitted. Furthermore, Council noted that the EIS did not appear to make a reasonable attempt to predict potential growth that the light rail might be catalyst for in the future.

Council made two recommendations regarding future proofing of the light rail (R31 and R32) being:

» That prior to determination of the EIS, a more detailed analysis of growth scenarios and likely capacity of the project.

» That Transport for NSW present to Department of Planning and Environment and Council the analysis and measures for futureproofing the light rail for future growth scenarios.

The role of light rail as a catalyst for further future urban development within western Sydney was considered as part of the regional economic impact assessment presented in section 8.4 of the EIS. The design of the project has taken into account the anticipated population figures (based on known and proposed development areas) and would be able to accommodate future growth along the alignment through the increase in services, as well as other measures including the introduction of additional LRVs.

Future growth scenarios were also considered as part of specific impact assessments including traffic and transport modelling, noise and vibration, and socio-economic impact assessments.


C-49


8.0 Urban and technical design

8.1 Design detail Council expressed concern that the EIS provided limited design detail, presenting only indicative or diagrammatic design of light rail elements, therefore associated urban design and public domain outcomes are not clear. Council recommended two conditions (C41 and C42) to achieve Council’s objectives regarding urban design being:

» The City of Parramatta Light Rail Technical Requirements are to be incorporated into the final Urban Design Requirements and that the Urban Design Requirements are finalised by Transport for NSW in collaboration with the City of Parramatta.

» Transport for NSW shall establish an Independent Design Review Panel and shall be responsible for reviewing and endorsing significant design aspects of the project.

The EIS provides a sufficient level of detail to support the impact assessment and to seek planning approval. Transport for NSW would continue to refine and develop additional details for the design of key elements such as stops and urban design during subsequent stages of the project. Mitigation and management measure VL-2 identifies that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared for the project during detailed design and would include development of design that responds to the amenity and character of the local area and heritage items located within or adjacent to the project area.

Transport for NSW acknowledges the development of the technical requirements reference document prepared by Council and will consider these requirements as part of the finalisation of the Urban Design Requirements handbook for the project which was prepared in close collaboration with Council, relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders.

Transport for NSW is committed to working with Council and other relevant stakeholders beyond the planning phase through detailed design, construction and commissioning of the project to achieve an appropriate urban design and technical outcome for the project, including review of urban design elements associated with the project.




8.2 Design flexibility Council expressed concern regarding elements of the proposed flexibility provisions outlined in the EIS. In particular, Council noted that the ability for Transport for NSW to change design without the need for additional assessment or approvals should only be the case if the change is substantially within project parameters that have been sufficiently defined.

Council provided two recommendations (R33 and R34) to address the identified concerns being:

» Prior to approval, Department of Planning and Environment and Transport for NSW, discuss with Council any proposed condition relating to design flexibility.

» In relation to areas of project flexibility, Council requested amendments to the provisions relating to the following amendments to the Table 5.1: • Tree planting outside project corridor • Survey / utility / lighting works. • Substations and related utilities. • Road network changes including off-

corridor works. • New or widened bridges.

As noted in section 5.1 of the EIS, the ability for Transport for NSW to implement design flexibility without the need for additional assessment or approvals would only occur where the identified project parameters identified in Table 5.1 of the EIS are met and no additional impacts arise compared to those identified in the EIS.

As identified in Table 5.1, changes to the detailed design of aspects of the project (under the flexibility provisions) would not occur without prior written notice to Council of the intention to carry out the change(s) and following consideration of any response to the notice that is received from Council within 21 days after the notice is given.


C-51


8.3 Design of key elements Council requested that all significant built form (stabling and maintenance yard, driver facilities, substations, station buildings to be retained) are designed to seamlessly integrate into the surrounding built fabric and shall be subject to ongoing design review by City of Parramatta.

Council requested (as a recommended condition – C43) that design drawings for a number of project elements be prepared for review by Council.

As described previously, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW in collaboration with Council. This document establishes the desired urban design and public domain principles for the project including all significant built form elements such as stabling and maintenance facility, driver facilities and substations. In addition, mitigation and management measure VL-2 identifies that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared for the project during detailed design and would include development of design that responds to the amenity and character of the local area and heritage items located within or adjacent to the project area.

As part of the development of the detailed design for the project, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council regarding the design and review of plans for these project elements. For example, following preparation of the EIS further design refinement has been undertaken, in consultation with a heritage architect, to improve the Dundas stop design with reference to the retention and incorporation of the existing heritage fabric of Dundas Station.

8.4 Design of key streets and corridors The EIS promotes the differentiation of track bed paving finish for all streets to distinguish pedestrian and light rail track zones. This principle should not be applied in pedestrianised zones in Church Street and Macquarie Street.

The public domain would incorporate high quality paving, landscaping, furnishings, lighting and public art. The final finishes for all track treatments, including within the pedestrian and light rail track zones, would be considered during detailed design in consultation with relevant stakeholders. This would be undertaken as part of the overall road safety audit as identified in mitigation and management measure TT-2.

8.5 Council requested (as a recommended condition – C44) that design drawings for a number of key streets for both the on and off-corridor sections of the project be prepared for review by Council.

Final designs for both on and off-corridor road works would be developed during detailed design of the project. As identified previously, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council regarding the design and review of plans for these project elements.

Mitigation and management measure VL-2 identified that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared during detailed design of the project. The finalisation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be guided by the development of the Urban Design Requirements and ongoing consultation with the Council.




8.6 Levels Council noted that the rationalisation of levels around all stop locations and in the corridor condition are required, ensuring meeting relevant Universal Design principles, DDA and BCA requirements for accessibility.

Council requested (as a recommended condition – C45) that the design of the project must ensure that re-grading of levels and finishes is not to negatively impact on the public domain.

Council also identified a series of key design requirements regarding level changes that should be considered (C46).

As described in section 5.4.2 of the EIS, access to each of the stops would be designed to comply with (where feasibly possible) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002, the Australian Standards and National Construction Code (Part H2) (AS 1428) as well as the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

As described previously, to achieve a high level of urban design excellence for the project, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW (in collaboration with Council) which includes a number of design principles for guiding the urban outcomes for the project. Mitigation and management measure VL-2 also identified that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared during detailed design of the project and would include details of the proposed stops. The final design would take into account existing levels to ensure that re-grading and finishes do not negatively impact on the existing public domain.

8.7 Light rail stops, shelters and platforms A series of urban design requirements and considerations regarding the proposed stops, shelters and platforms were identified by Council.

Council requested (as recommended condition C47) that detailed design drawings of Light Rail Stops be produced for Council’s review demonstrating a number of elements such as accessibility requirements, paths of travel, public domain elements and finishes.

As described in the EIS, each stop would provide a range of typical facilities including shelters, stop furniture/seating and wayfinding signage. Some stops, including interchange stops at Westmead Station and Carlingford, would include bicycle rack facilities.

As part of the finalisation of the Urban Design Requirements handbook and proposed stop designs, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Council regarding the final design of these project elements.

Mitigation and management measure VL-2 identified that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared during detailed design of the project. The finalisation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be guided by the development of the Urban Design Requirements and ongoing consultation with the Council.

8.8 Council requested (recommended condition C48) that Transport for NSW produce a prototype stop to allow design refinement and allow engagement with user groups, the community and stakeholders.

The development of a prototype stop would be considered by Transport for NSW as part of the detailed design of a typical stop.

The design would be generally consistent with other light rail projects that have been constructed in Sydney and Newcastle by Transport for NSW. These projects provide examples of light rail stops in different environments and provide the community with an appreciation of the typical look and feel of stops.


C-53


8.9 Overhead wires and poles Due to heritage and streetscape amenity reasons, Council requests that overhead wire-free running is to be implemented along Hawkesbury Road to the corner of Factory and Church Street and between Prince Alfred Square stop and Rosehill (recommended condition C49).

As identified in the mitigation and management measures contained in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, a number of locations have been identified for further consideration of wire-free running along the project alignment during detailed design. These areas included the alignment through Cumberland Hospital (east) and the Parramatta CBD precinct.

Further opportunities for incorporation of wire-free design would be considered as part of the detailed design of the project. The feasibility of wire-free technology between Hawkesbury Road and the intersection of Factory and Church streets is currently being investigated.

8.10 Lighting and multi-function poles Council recommended conditions (C51 and C52) to achieve Council’s objectives regarding lighting associated with the project being:

» Where possible, Transport for NSW must ensure multifunction poles integrate signals, CCTV, alert high speakers, digitalised wayfinding, screen information, and lighting in order to avoid clutter of public domain.

» Light quality and management is to be consistent with Council’s lighting requirements.

Mitigation and management measure VL-2 identified that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared during detailed design of the project. One of the components of the plan would be to detail the location and design of proposed project elements including footpaths and active transport links, street furniture, bicycle storage and lighting. The finalisation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be guided by the development of the Urban Design Requirements and ongoing consultation with the Council.

With respect to lighting, revised mitigation and management measure PR-4 identifies that all permanent lighting for the project would be designed in accordance with AS 1158 Road Lighting and AS 4282 Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting.

8.11 Council identified as recommended condition C50, that where new poles are required, the design and placement of these poles should be agreed with Council and redundant poles should be removed.

This issue has been responded to above in Item 8.10 of this table.




8.12 Vegetated tracks Council identified that vegetated tracks should be provided in some locations along the corridor, and these would improve the streetscape and place making outcomes. As a recommended condition (C53), Council recommended that vegetated track be provided at the following locations:

» Railway Parade to Parramatta River, Westmead.

» The Parramatta North Urban Transformation project site.

» Church Street (between Factory Street to Victoria Road).

» Macarthur Street (between George Street and Harris Street) along George Street and Tramway Avenue to Tramway Ave stop.

Mitigation and management measure VL-7 identifies that Transport for NSW would consider opportunities for grass track treatments to mitigate visual impacts on sections of the alignment, such as Cumberland Hospital (east) and Robin Thomas Reserve. This would be confirmed during detailed design.

Consideration of the additional sections for potential vegetated tracks as identified in the submission would be undertaken in consultation with Council during detailed design and outlined in the Urban Design and Landscape Plan.

8.13 Pedestrian permeability

Council stated that the light rail corridor must be designed to maximise pedestrian and cycle permeability. To achieve this Council recommended as a condition (C55), the project be designed to maximise pedestrian permeability and ease of access, including avoiding fencing and barriers, aligning pedestrian crossings and not dividing open spaces.

The project would be designed to maximise pedestrian permeability along the length of the light rail. Where possible, fencing and other solid barriers would be avoided (subject to maintaining appropriate levels of pedestrian safety). The detailed design of the project would consider aligning pedestrian crossings (subject to safety audit) as well as minimising impacts to open spaces.


C-55


8.14 Trees Council recommended three conditions (C56 and C58) to achieve Council’s requirements for trees:

» The Applicant in their detailed design incorporate trees within the corridor in consultation with Council.

» The Applicant shall design Hawkesbury Road to deliver a high amenity tree lined boulevard.

» The Applicant shall design and deliver street planting in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Public Domain Guidelines (2017).

Transport for NSW is committed to retaining trees where possible and to enhancing biodiversity outcomes as part of the whole of the project.

Where there are unavoidable impacts on trees, Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide, Council’s Parramatta Ways: Implementing Sydney’s Green Grid and the requirements of Council’s Public Domain Guidelines would be used as a framework to develop a Vegetation Offset Strategy to maximise biodiversity outcomes across the Parramatta LGA and contribute to urban greening (refer to revised mitigation and management measure TR-5).

Final design of replacement planting would be undertaken in consultation with Council.

8.15 Signage and advertising

Council requested that no third-party advertising will be permitted on the light rail rolling stock (external), stops or bridges as this will add to visual clutter and may conflict with Council overall visual / community information strategy (recommended condition C59).

Transport for NSW has standard requirements around advertising and branding, and these would be adopted for the project. Transport for NSW may use stops to provide transport and passenger information.




8.16 City identify

Public art

Council stated that the Stage 1 project should set the character, tone and identity for the entire network which should respond to local character and identity. As part of this, Council identified a recommended condition (C60) that Transport for NSW prepare a Public Art Strategy during the detailed design stage to realise public art along the alignment in collaboration with Council prior to the commencement of works.

Opportunities to include public art would be considered, and if adopted, included in the Urban Design and Landscape Plan. The opportunity to incorporate public art at or near stops and other project structures to aid place making and to enhance local amenity would be considered in detailed design (refer to management measureVL-2).

8.17 Interpretation

Council identified a recommended condition (C60) that Transport for NSW prepare a Heritage Interpretation Strategy which identifies opportunities for interpretation of historic built heritage or landscape or archaeology. A draft Strategy should be submitted to Council for comment prior to the commencement of works.

Mitigation and management measure HE-9 identified that appropriate heritage interpretation would be incorporated into the detailed design of the project and would include results of archaeological investigations. An interpretation plan would be prepared for the project in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual (DUAP, 1996), the Interpreting Heritage Places and Items: Guidelines (NSW Heritage Office, 2005a), and the Heritage Interpretation Policy (NSW Heritage Office, 2005b).

This would apply across the project, in particular to the following items: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Royal Oak Hotel and Stables.

» Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve). » Camellia Underbridge Abutments (south and north). » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.


C-57


8.19 Light rail stop names

The adoption of dual naming (English/Darug) is supported by Council to recognise the importance on the local Aboriginal connection to place and supporting both Council’s Cultural Plan and Reconciliation Action Plan. Stops should be clearly named to denote place rather than use, reflecting the changing nature of cities and the temporary nature of ‘uses’ in urban environments.


8.20 Rolling Stock Design

A Parramatta Light Rail specific colour palette for the rolling stock is supported by Council so to provide a unique and recognisable icon and ambassador for the city and the community.

The colour palette for the rolling stock would be determined during detailed design.

8.21 Substations

Due to their size and bulk, Council is concerned that substations will have a material impact on the built environment. Therefore, where possible we request that substation be located underground. If substations are located aboveground they should be designed so to recede in their proposed settings (recommended condition C63).

At this time, it is not proposed that any of the existing substations would be located underground as this increases cost, the duration of construction, and (in some areas) archaeological impacts. It is also noted that underground substations require a larger footprint to allow appropriate access.

Mitigation and management measure VL-3 identified that architectural treatments of substations would be developed during detailed design to minimise visual impact and respect the local landscape character.




9.0 Social and economic impacts

9.1 Overall, Council considers that the project has extensive positive social and economic impacts. These include improved public and active transport access to sporting, entertainment and recreational infrastructure, the Parramatta CBD; health and medical services, tertiary education and employment centres.

The Council’s identification of the positive social and economic impacts of the project are acknowledged.

9.2 Demographic assumptions

Council raised concern that the social impact assessment was prepared using 2011 Census data. Council recommended (R35) that Transport for NSW revise the Social Impact Assessment to include updated demographic analysis based on 2016 Census data. Additionally, a summary should be provided that identifies where the data and trends show a significant variation between 2011 and 2016 population characteristics.

The socio-economic assessment was based on the 2011 Census as this was the information available at the time of preparing the existing socio-economic baseline. Initial population and demographic information from the 2016 Census was not available until late June 2017, with a second release of information provided in late October 2017.

However, information from the 2011 Census was also supplemented with more recent information and data, where available, including on population and growth (i.e. estimated residential population information from 2006, 2015 and 2016). Recent information on community health and well-being and outcomes of stakeholder engagement was also used to inform the description of existing communities and socio-economic conditions. As such, it is considered that the existing assessment remains valid and does not need to be updated.

9.3 Stakeholder and community engagement

Council is supportive of the initiatives proposed by Transport for NSW in the EIS including the development and implementation of a Community Engagement Strategy, dedicated Precinct Managers and the provision of regular updates using a number of different platforms.

The Council’s support for the proposed community engagement activities associated with the project are acknowledged.


C-59


9.4 Council raised some concerns in relation to the lack of detail around the frequency of communication with each stakeholder group and communication for high impact groups such as local businesses.

Council recommended a series of conditions (C64 to C72) regarding ongoing community and stakeholder engagement including recommendations such as:

» Preparation of a Community Engagement Strategy which is to be submitted to Department of Planning and Environment and Council prior to construction.

» Establish and maintain a series of reference groups including a community and business reference groups and a Church Street reference group.

» Provision of public communication materials to Council prior to release.

» Bi-monthly update meetings with Council during the construction period.

Subject to planning approval, Transport for NSW (and its construction contractor) would continue to engage with the community and key stakeholders prior to and during construction. Transport for NSW would lead a construction stakeholder and community engagement program, with support from contractors in accordance with the Community Consultation Framework which was detailed in Appendix D of the EIS. This would include ongoing communication with Council throughout the construction of the project.

Further discussion regarding community engagement has been provided in section 5.2 of this Submissions Report.

9.5 Aboriginal stakeholder engagement

Council recommended continued engagement with the Aboriginal stakeholder community.

Transport for NSW held an Aboriginal Focus Group meeting with Registered Aboriginal Parties in 2017, and consulted on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Registered Aboriginal Parties as part of the ongoing design.




9.6 Social Impact during construction

Environmental impacts and health

Council raised concern regarding the potential health impacts to individuals by dust if it is not managed by the project. Council recommended a condition (C73) that Transport for NSW establish a communication portal with relevant NSW based respiratory health organisations and peak bodies, as well as the NSW Ministry of Health in order to communicate to their members when potential dust generating activities are taking place during construction.

It acknowledged that there is potential for a temporary increase in dust from earthworks and particulate emissions from the movement and use of on-site machinery and traffic during construction. However, these issues are typical of infrastructure projects and should be able to be successfully managed using standard environmental management measures. Measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to manage construction air quality impacts are listed in section 10.8.4 of the EIS.

A construction response line (1800 775 465) is available for all Transport for NSW projects and would be a 24-hour contact point for the community to register concerns regarding construction works for the project.

9.7 Homeless community

The intention to develop a Homeless Engagement Strategy is noted and supported. Council recommend a series of conditions (C74 – C76) to ensure effective communication with the homeless community and service providers including the need for Transport for NSW to:

» Attend quarterly meetings of the Parramatta Region Homeless Interagency during the construction phase.

» Develop a Homeless Persons Engagement Strategy in consultation with the Parramatta Region Homeless Interagency and Council.

» Fund an Assertive Outreach Officer for the period of construction.

The Council’s support for the preparation of a Homeless Engagement Strategy is acknowledged.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure SE-4, a strategy for managing displacement of homeless people would be prepared in collaboration with Council and other agencies in accordance with the NSW Government’s Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places: Guidelines for Implementation (May 2013).

The strategy would identify relevant meetings and key stakeholders for consultation on this issue.


C-61


9.8 Key community services

Council noted that access to Government, non-Government and private community services and social infrastructure should be maintained during construction. Council recommended (C77) that prior to construction, Transport for NSW demonstrate communication with key services such as:

» Places of worship. » Childcare facilities. » Nursing homes and aged care facilities.

» Council social and community services. » Schools and universities.

Access to Government, non-Government and private community services and social infrastructure is not proposed to be impacted during construction of the project.

Transport for NSW is committed to working with relevant stakeholders and community organisations throughout the ongoing stages of the project’s design and development to consider opportunities to minimise potential impacts to existing community services during construction of the project (such as the identified impact to the Wesley Apartments and patients associated with Cumberland Hospital).

Consultation with these services would typically be undertaken in accordance with the Community Consultation Framework through the relevant place manager(s).

9.9 Employment opportunities

It is Council’s strong preference that the Parramatta Skills Exchange program be the main vehicle that light rail use to deliver on employment and education targets. Council recommended (R36) that as part of the project Transport for NSW engage in the Parramatta Skills Exchange program which is a program involving a partnership between Council and TAFE and meet identified employment and training targets.

The project’s Environment and Sustainability Policy identifies that Transport for NSW will work with the community and our stakeholders to develop workforce skills and diversity.

Mitigation and management measures SU-3 and SU-6 identified that a workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during construction and operation. The development of this strategy would consider any existing programs, such as the Parramatta Skills Exchange program involving a partnership between Council and TAFE, which may be applicable to the project. On other projects, Skills Exchange programs have been successful in responding to training needs and improving literacy, numeracy and computer skills of workers.




9.10 Social Impact during operation

Pedestrian safety

Council identified the interface between the project and pedestrians is an important element of the project. To address this concern, Council recommended as a condition (C78) that Transport for NSW provide education and training sessions for the community to promote safe interaction with the project.

As identified in section 8.2.2.4 of the EIS, all pedestrians, including vulnerable users, would be considered as part of the detailed design in accordance with legislative requirements (for example, kerb ramps at crossings, maintaining minimum footpath widths).

In addition, section 5.15.11 of the EIS identified that during operation, the light rail operator would be responsible for the safety of customers and staff at all times, and the public where they interact with the light rail system. The operator would maintain a customer safety plan (or similar management plan) identifying how customers would be made aware of the safety risks associated with being in the proximity of LRVs. The customer safety plan would include information and education program(s) to advise the general public regarding the introduction of the project and any interactions with LRVs.

9.11 Council identified a series of recommended conditions (C79 – C81) regarding safety and security for passengers and pedestrians including the requirement for Transport for NSW to:

» Conduct protective security risk assessments and propose suitable treatments to mitigate identified risks (in addition to any general CPTED assessments proposed).

» Consult with Council to identify how best to integrate public safety systems such as CCTV to provide better coverage and situational awareness.

» Consider sharing CCTV monitoring facilities between Transport for NSW and Council.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles have been, and will continue to be applied throughout the design of the project.

As identified in section 5.11.2 of the EIS, closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras for passenger security and to deter vandalism would be provided at all stops along the project alignment. An emergency telephone/help point and warning signs would also be provided at each stop.

Any access to shared CCTV monitoring between Council and Transport for NSW would be considered as part of a separate legal agreement between the parties.


C-63


9.12 Affordable housing

It is considered that the light rail’s macroeconomic impact in the corridor will increase property values. Therefore, it is considered that, without appropriate intervention, housing in the corridor would become less affordable, rather than more affordable.

Council recommended (R37) that the Department of Planning and Environment, in consultation with Council, identify affordable housing opportunities in the Priority Precincts along the Light Rail corridor.

It is acknowledged that public transport accessibility can make developments more attractive to households, as indicated by the significant positive impact that proximity to public transport can have on land values. As discussed in section 8.4.2.6 of the EIS, case studies undertaken following the extension of the Inner West light rail and the construction of the Epping to Chatswood heavy rail line, the estimated land value increases (within 400 metres of a stop or stations associated with these developments) were estimated at around seven per cent and around 48 per cent (for light rail and heavy rail respectively).

The development of the project is expected to result in similar impacts on those identified in the previous case studies, for a number of the GPOP priority growth area precincts. The project would assist in making these locations more attractive to households, who, in turn, would be willing to pay more for developments at these locations, resulting in overall increase to existing land values.

However, the GPOP priority growth area provides the opportunity to create an affordable urban lifestyle, with apartments in the GPOP priority growth area costing half as much as the equivalent in the City of Sydney. Unlocking the potential for development of additional apartments within the GPOP priority growth area would also improve affordability compared to existing low-density housing in the area, with apartments estimated to cost 34 per cent less than a house with the same number of bedrooms. In particular, the proposed stop at Telopea would provide significant benefit to proposed affordable housing development.

Planning for the GPOP priority growth area is being managed by the Department of Planning and Environment and the Greater Sydney Commission and is outside the direct control of the Project.




9.13 Economic Impact Modelling

Council stated that the EIS contained a lack of economic impact modelling to determine the impact of construction on the local economy (due to disruptions etc.), noting there was no economic analysis of the impact of the project on the local economy and businesses.

Council recommended as a condition (C82) that Transport for NSW undertake an Economic Impact Modelling Assessment to determine the range and extent of the potential negative impacts within specific business precincts along the project corridor.

The Business Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 14, Volume 7) assessed a wide range of potential economic impacts, including macro-economic impacts (summarised in Chapter 8 of the EIS) as well as a range of local economic impacts (Chapters 5 and 6 of the Business Impact Assessment and summarised in sections 11.9, 12.9, 13.9, 14.9, and 15.9 of the EIS).

The assessment was considered to be comprehensive and appropriate to the level of detail required to assess the macro and local economic impacts on businesses (both positive and negative) along the project alignment during both construction and operation phases. While individual businesses were not specifically addressed in the assessment, consultation was undertaken during the preparation of the assessment (including business surveys) to assist in identifying potential impacts.

Overall, it is considered that the assessment provided is sufficient to allow the Minister to determine the project.

The Project will develop a Business Consultation and Activation Plan to assist businesses during the construction period to minimise their impacts. Further information in relation to the Business Consultation and Activation Plan is outlined in section 5.19.1.

9.14 Impact on Small Business

Council recommended a condition that Transport for NSW prepare a Business Management Plan, detailing relevant plans and programs that specifically address economic impacts and provide costed business continuity strategies for the commercial centres on the corridor, particularly the Parramatta CBD.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure SE-2, a Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to develop strategies to minimise impacts on businesses during construction and as a result of operation of the project. This would include consultation with all potentially affected businesses along the alignment, particularly businesses such as the alfresco dining areas on Eat Street. Refer to 5.19.1 for further information.


C-65


9.15 Communication and engagement with businesses

Council noted that the EIS references a future ‘Business Management Plan’, but provided minimal detail on what is included, who is responsible, or when and how it will be completed. Council also noted that the EIS did not discuss business promotion, local area activation and precinct activation as well as business engagement throughout the construction phase.

As a recommended condition (C84), it was identified that Transport for NSW should provide a Construction Management Plan to detail how construction works would be managed in order to minimise impacts to existing businesses located in the vicinity of construction sites and activities during construction of the project.

As described above in Item 5.19.1 of this Submissions Report, a Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared during detailed design.

Section 17.4.2 of the EIS outlined a range of indicative initiatives for consideration including: » Developing a schedule of programmed activations across the Parramatta area and the

alignment. » Maintaining access for activities such as deliveries.

» Providing or assisting with appropriate hoarding and wayfinding signage to maintain pedestrian activity during construction.

» Provision of communication resources (newsletters, one-on-one meetings, business forums, website updates, social media) on construction activities for impacted businesses.

Additional opportunities such as business promotion, local area activation and precinct activation throughout the construction phase would also be considered.

Transport for NSW has employed four place managers for Parramatta Light Rail who have been regularly talking to potentially impacted businesses across the alignment, including undertaking surveys, to gain a better understanding of how businesses operate so this can be addressed through construction plans and schedules. In addition, the project team held seven information sessions to answer questions about the EIS, including a dedicated information session for businesses. This engagement will continue throughout the construction phase. Regular information will be provided to businesses and property owners during construction of light rail so that any issues are identified quickly and solutions implemented.

Place Managers would also work with businesses to understand their needs and work with the construction teams to identify signage, parking, access and other measures to avoid disruption for customers and deliveries (refer to revised mitigation and management measure SE-1). The communication of construction works to minimise business impacts would be a part of the Community Engagement Plan.

Section 17 of the EIS included numerous mitigation and management measures to minimise construction impacts, and require that a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan be prepared to manage impacts.




9.16 Construction staging

Council stated that the EIS did not provide detail on the program of construction works and consider the option of staging the works, noting consideration should be given to staging the construction, to best reduce the transport and construction impacts on the local economy.

As a recommended condition (C85), Council noted that the Construction Management Plan should include a staging plan prepared in consultation with Council and relevant parties. These plans should specifically address issues relating to business and events, particularly in the Parramatta CBD.

The construction program provided in Chapter 6 of the EIS provided a realistic timeframe to complete the construction of the project. The construction program aimed to provide a balance between the efficient completion of construction and minimising impacts to adjacent receivers.

Detailed construction programs would be developed by the nominated construction contractor(s) during construction planning which would consider opportunities to stage construction works to further minimise impacts to residents and/or businesses. Construction planning would also consider cumulative impacts associated with other major external construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the project.

As noted in section 17.2.2 of the EIS the CTMP would be prepared in consultation with a range of stakeholders including the Sydney Coordination Office, Roads and Maritime, Council, emergency services, NSW Police and bus operators. Consultation with the community and businesses regarding the construction program would also continue prior to and during the construction of the project.

9.17 Key Institutions

Council noted there was no indication on how Transport for NSW would partner with key institutions along the alignment (such as Western Sydney University, University of New England, Westmead Hospital and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse) to ensure negative impacts are managed as best they can.

Council recommended a conditions (C86) that prior to construction, Transport for NSW prepare detailed economic impact mitigation and management measures which are tailored to these key institutions.

As identified throughout the EIS, Transport for NSW would continue to consult with all effected stakeholders (including key institutions along the alignment) to ensure negative impacts are managed wherever possible.

Economic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project were considered in Technical Paper 14: Business Impact Assessment of the EIS. The economic impacts considered included a range of impacts including property acquisition and lease cessations; property values; impacts to rent returns; impacts associated with changes to access and connectivity; and impacts on the demand for goods and services. Additionally, a series of mitigation and management measures have been identified for each of the precincts to manage potential impacts (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).

It is not proposed that detailed economic impact mitigation and management measures tailored to individual institutions be prepared. Where specific impacts are identified through consultation with these institutions (refer to Item 9.16 of this table), these issues would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis as required.


C-67


9.18 Eat Street Economic Impacts

Council raised concern regarding the economic impacts associated with the proposed construction works, specifically with respect to the viability of the Eat Street precinct. Council recommended as a condition that Transport for NSW should not erect construction hoarding or fencing along Church Street more than 48 hours prior to commencing works in order to minimise the impact on the public domain and business operations.

Staging of the project would be programmed so as to minimise potential impacts on the existing businesses along Church Street. This would include working with the construction contractor(s) on the timing of construction and ensuring hoardings are, where possible, not erected for any extended length of time prior to commencing works. Section 17.2.10 of the EIS identified that to minimise visual and socio-economic impacts hoardings may feature:

» Artwork, graphics and images to enhance the visual appearance of temporary works in high visibility locations.

» Project information to raise awareness on benefits, explain the proposed works at each site and provide updates on construction progress.

» Community information, including contact numbers for enquiries/complaints. » Signage and information to mitigate impacts on local businesses which may be obscured by the

construction site.

The construction program aims to provide a balance between the efficient completion of construction and minimising impacts to adjacent receivers. Efforts would be made to expedite construction of the project where possible.

Consultation with the community and businesses regarding the construction program would continue prior to and during the construction of the project. Further information regarding consultation prior to and during construction is provided in Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report.

9.19 Impacts on Events

The EIS indicates that Transport for NSW will consult major event organisers to minimise impact on events during construction. Clarification is needed as to the mechanism, timing and format of this consultation. A staging plan may also be of assistance in managing these (and other) impacts.

To provide additional clarify, Council recommended as a condition (C88) that Transport for NSW include the process to engage Council and other major event organisers as part of the Construction Management Plan.

Section 6.14.12 of the EIS identified that the construction contractor(s) would be responsible for incorporating known special events into the construction program and detailed responses and contingencies in the construction traffic management plan, subject to further inputs from other stakeholders (such as Council, the Sydney Coordination Office and Roads and Maritime). The construction contractor(s) would work with event organisers to identify the possibility of relocating planned events, if possible.

Wherever possible, agreement would be sought with event organisers to avoid multiple events occurring concurrently, where such events are identified to have a cumulative impact on travel demand around the project construction corridors.




9.20 Operational hours

Council recommended as a condition (C89) that the project operational hours be 24-hours, 7 days a week, at a frequency that is compatible with the type of workers and visitors along the corridor.

Services would operate from 5 am to 1 am, seven days a week. Additional services, including the potential to provide 24-hour services, would be provided as required to meet demand for special events (e.g. New Year’s Eve or events at the Western Sydney Stadium and Rosehill Gardens Racecourse).

9.21 Tourism impacts

Council is concerned with the potential loss of coach parking and impact to group travel to/from hotels, noting there is very limited coach parking in the Parramatta CBD. Council noted coaches are currently parking on Church Street and Market Street.

Council recommended (R38) that the project clearly demonstrates no net loss of coach parking in the Parramatta CBD as a result of the light rail project. The economic modelling should undertake capacity analysis for expected growth in the tourism sector.

During operation of the project Market Street would continue to be accessible to coaches. The project design has allowed for coach turning paths to Market Street from Church Street. In addition, the project would not impact on existing coach set down at Fitzwilliam Street.

However, coach parking would no longer be available on Church Street near the Information Centre once this area is closed to traffic for construction of the project. During operation, this area would be part of the pedestrian and light rail zone. Transport for NSW would consult with the current users of this parking regarding the future closure of this area.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with Venues NSW to ensure that the project does not inhibit the development of event management plans for Western Sydney Stadium, including coach movements.

10.0 Property and development impacts

10.1 Subdivision Council stated that while the EIS comments that there will be a number of residual pieces of land as a result of the construction of the EIS and that subdivision is to be included insufficient detail was provided regarding these subdivisions. Council recommended as a condition (C90) that prior to commencement of works, Transport for NSW prepare in consultation with Council a subdivision plan which clearly addresses the size, location, ownership and future use of any residual lots.

As identified in section 5.14.1 of the EIS, where a part of any lot is identified as being surplus to operational requirements or requiring boundary adjustment following the completion of construction, detailed Deposited Plans of subdivision would be developed and lodged at Land and Property Information NSW for the subdivision of such land. Future use of surplus land parcels is beyond the scope of the project and will be the subject of any necessary planning approvals process.

Council would be consulted regarding the subdivision process, where required.


C-69


10.2 Development sites The status of many Development Applications and Planning Proposals referred to in the EIS has progressed since the time of its writing, and will continue to progress as assessment of the EIS continues. Council recommended as a condition (C91) that Transport for NSW implement a system which involves Council to ensure ongoing coordination with proximate Development Applications and Planning Proposals, including construction coordination, public domain delivery, traffic impacts and other matters.

As identified in section 9.3 of the EIS, the interaction between the light rail and these projects is highly dependent on the status of construction for the other projects.

Mitigation and management measure RC-1 noted that the project team would manage and coordinate the interface with projects under construction at the same time. This would occur through coordination and consultation between Transport for NSW and other relevant stakeholders such as Department of Planning and Environment; other Transport for NSW agencies (Roads and Maritime; Sydney Trains; Sydney Buses etc); Sydney Water; Council; UrbanGrowth NSW; Western Sydney University; emergency service providers; utility providers; and relevant construction contractors.

10.3 Directly affected properties Council identified a series of properties whose direct access would be affected by the project including properties at Tramway Avenue/Grand Avenue, outdoor dining leases and awnings and other council owner/managed properties. Council made three recommendations (C92, R39 and R40) which stated:

» Both physical and legal access to the Sydney Water boat ramp and Lot 102, DP840898 is maintained throughout construction and operation. If physical and legal access to Lot 102 DP840898 cannot be maintained, Transport for NSW must acquire the property.

» That Transport for NSW resolve vehicle access issues to properties bounded by Arthur, Alfred, and George Streets, and Tramway Avenue.

» That Transport for NSW partially acquires Lot 1 DP 126881 from Council.

As described in the EIS, property access arrangements along the project alignment would be maintained during operation of the project. This would include:

» Access to the Sydney Water boat ramp. » Vehicle access to the properties bounded by Arthur, Alfred, and George Streets, and Tramway

Avenue.

Transport for NSW do not propose as part of the project to partially acquire Lot 1 DP 126881 (part of the Queens Wharf Reserve). Transport for NSW would only lease or acquire properties necessary to facilitate construction or operation of the project (or where the proposed impacts of the project would remove the ability for the property to be maintained).

The final property acquisition (or lease) requirements would be determined during detailed design.

The issue relating to outdoor dining leases is discussed in in Item 10.4 of this table.




10.4 Outdoor dining leases and awnings Council is concerned that impacts on outdoor dining and businesses at Church Street have not been adequately addressed. Council made two recommendations (R41 and R42) which stated:

» Transport for NSW should provide further discussion regarding procedures for the cessation of outdoor dining licenses, including how Transport for NSW will engage with business owners.

» Transport for NSW should provide further discussion regarding procedures for the removal and replacement of outdoor dining structures and building awnings.

The outdoor dining spaces on Church Street are managed through licences issued by Council. During construction of the project, all outdoor dining furniture along Eat Street would be temporarily removed to allow for the upgrade of utility services. Prior to construction of the project, Transport for NSW would work with Council to lawfully terminate all on-street dining licences as required for construction and operation of the project. This may be staged so that only part of the street is affected at any one time.

The configuration and design of the outdoor dining areas on Church Street during operation of the project, including Eat Street, is yet to be determined. During detailed design, further discussion would be undertaken with business owners and the Council to determine the most suitable way to manage changes to outdoor dining spaces and the provision of outdoor dining furniture, including shades.

Impacts to awnings would be identified during detailed design. Consultation with affected owners and/or businesses would be undertaken to determine the most suitable way to manage the impact.

10.5 Property acquisition Council noted the project will require both full and partial land acquisition. However, Council noted the number of properties presented in the EIS did not appear to align to the number of properties highlighted on the relevant maps and that this should be clarified. Council made three recommendations (C93, R43 and R44) which stated:

» Transport for NSW should provide further information clarifying the number of properties which are to be acquired.

» Transport for NSW should advise whether Council is required to be involved in any land acquisition agreements.

» Transport for NSW, in consultation with Council, should develop and implements a Property Acquisition Engagement Plan.

The number of properties proposed to be acquired as shown in the EIS (sections 11.7, 12.7, 13.7, 14.7 and 15.7) was based on the project’s design as described in the EIS. With respect to potential discrepancies between the figures presented and the mapping, the scale of the mapping may have resulted in some smaller areas not being easily identifiable. Notwithstanding, all affected property owners were notified regarding the proposed acquisitions prior to exhibition of the EIS. The final property acquisition (or lease) requirements would be determined during detailed design.

Where land is required to be obtained from Council to accommodate the project, Transport for NSW would prepare any land acquisition agreements in conjunction with Council.

All property acquisitions are managed in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. A Property Acquisition Information Guide has been developed by the NSW Government and is publicly available.


C-71


10.6 Land subject to Aboriginal Land Claim Council identified that Robin Thomas Reserve is currently subject to an Aboriginal Land Claim (lodged by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council on 7 October 2009). Council recommended (R45) that Transport for NSW should continue to liaise with Council and the NSW Lands Department regarding the Aboriginal Land Claim at Robin Thomas Reserve.

Transport for NSW has been advised that the identified Aboriginal Land Claim at Robin Thomas Reserve has been determined by the Minister for Lands, who refused the claim.

10.7 Project relationship to Council assets Council raised concerns that Roads and Maritime was identified as the main body approving road-related details associated with the project, noting Council should be a key stakeholder in all design and construction works. Council recommended four conditions (C94 to C97):

» Transport for NSW include Council as a key and main stakeholder in all design and construction works on and off alignment in similar capacity as Roads and Maritime.

» Prior to construction, a dilapidation report is required for existing Council assets (roads, footpaths, and drainage), buildings (within construction zone) and heritage buildings/structures.

» Transport for NSW include Council in handover of relevant assets and infrastructure upon completion of the works

» Road opening permits are sought from Council where required.

Transport for NSW has undertaken extensive consultation with both Council and Roads and Maritime with respect to the potential impacts of the project on the existing road network, including regular meetings involving both parties. It is acknowledged that both on and off-corridor road works proposed would require input from both stakeholders.

Existing condition surveys would be undertaken for potentially impacted assets prior to and following construction. Any damage from construction would be repaired by the contractor.

Where assets and infrastructure works are proposed to be handed over upon completion to the managing agency, Transport for NSW would include all relevant stakeholders (including Roads and Maritime and/or Council) in this process.

Where required, Transport for NSW would obtain relevant permits from both Roads and Maritime and/or the Council.




10.8 Council is also concerned that no set boundaries between Roads and Maritime and Council’s assets have been defined. It was recommended (R46) that a clear definition between Roads and Maritime and Council’s assets and infrastructure is established, including responsibility for design checks, conditioning and maintenance works.

As identified in section 6.6.6 of the EIS, the road network would be modified in numerous locations (particularly around intersections) to accommodate the track infrastructure. These works are required to ensure the road surface ties into the new track and the grade is sufficient to provide suitable drainage. These works would involve milling the road surface and laying new asphalt. The final boundaries for these works would be determined during detailed design of the project.

Once finalised, the works would be carried out in consultation with Roads and Maritime, Sydney Coordination Office, and Council, and in accordance with the relevant standards and specifications. The establishment of future responsibilities for design checks, conditioning and maintenance works would be finalised as part of the separate legal agreements as required.

10.9 Road pavements Council noted that the EIS and associated documents did not include adequate detail on existing and proposed road pavements. Council recommended (R47) that Transport for NSW conduct pavement investigation and testing and prepare a Pavement Design Report (to be agreed with Council when finalised) to provide information on existing pavements and changes that will be required as part of the project.

The final road pavements for the project would be determined during detailed design in consultation with Roads and Maritime and Council (as required).

As noted above in item 10.8 of this table, an existing condition survey of the pavement for adjoining roads would be undertaken prior to construction. Any damage due to construction traffic would be repaired by the contractor.

10.10 Bus shelters Council noted that the project should meet the costs of any relocated bus shelters, recommending (C98) that Transport for NSW carry out a survey and prepare a plan and detailed design of all bus and related facilities that are affected by the project, including a proposal for replacement, reinstatement, and/or restoration of these facilities.

Bus stops to be permanently removed or relocated to support the project would be subject to further analysis and consideration of stakeholder feedback, including from Council, during detailed design.

Where bus and related facilities are affected by the project, these would be replaced, reinstated, and/or restored as part of the project.


C-73


10.11 Construction impacts on local schools The EIS does not demonstrate how access will be maintained to schools in a safe manner. Council recommended (R48) that further information be provided to Council regarding how access will be maintained to schools in a safe manner and how construction will affect the redevelopment of the Arthur Phillip High School, as well as how the school development may impact construction of the project.

Mitigation and management measure TT-18 identifies that the existing at-grade pedestrian crossing across Macquarie Street in the vicinity of Arthur Phillip High School would be maintained.

During detailed design, a detailed risk assessment would be completed to identify mitigation and management measures to ensure safe interaction of the project with school children crossing between school sites located on either side of Macquarie Street. Any identified mitigation and management measures for an at-grade crossing would be incorporated into the project design. Transport for NSW would consult with the Department of Education on the outcomes of the risk assessment and identified responses.

11.0 Heritage and archaeology impacts

11.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Scope of the Assessment

Council stated that the Aboriginal heritage assessment has not adequately identified the range of Aboriginal historic, social or aesthetic values associated with the study area, or the potential impacts on these values arising from the project. It was considered that the assessment did not satisfy the requirements of SEAR 9 (Heritage).

The Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (Technical Paper 5, Volume 3) was prepared in conjunction with the registered Aboriginal parties and addresses impacts to Aboriginal heritage values.

Assessment / consultation included an Aboriginal focus group meeting with Aboriginal stakeholders to identify and assess all relevant Aboriginal values within the project area. Aboriginal stakeholders supported the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report assessment methodology and findings.

Prior to public exhibition, DP&E completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition. Compliance with the requirements of the SEARs is considered to have been demonstrated in sections 2 to 7 and 10 to 11 of the CHAR.

11.2 Section 5 of the relevant technical paper includes no predictive statement or model as required under the Code of Practice.

A predictive statement was included in section 7 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report as part of the identification of the project methodology.




11.3 It was noted that the study did not consider ‘contact’ period archaeology and its significance at local, state or national levels in addition to not assessing known or potential Aboriginal contact sites. Additionally, it was noted that no historical research is presented on local Aboriginal people, places, or events with no connections drawn between events and places, and no mapping of the early cultural landscape and how this would have affected the local Aboriginal land use, their economy and society is presented.

Verifiable ‘contact’ archaeological objects (as opposed to post-contact objects) have not been identified within the study area (refer to section 5 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report). Discussion regarding the ethnographic and historical context was included in section 4 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report.

All aspects of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report investigations were completed with the participation and consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders, who identified relevant cultural values (as described in section 2 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report).

11.4 Impact to Robin Thomas Reserve

An assessment of the impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve (adhering to the SEAR requirement 9.2 and the cited heritage guidelines) is not presented, despite the proposed direct impacts to the SHR curtilage. Furthermore, it is considered that Robin Thomas Reserve should be identified as having high significance throughout the EIS (designated in the assessment as only holding moderate archaeological potential).

Assessment of the impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve was presented in section 6.3.2.2 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10).

With respect to the concern regarding the significance of Robin Thomas Reserve, the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report prepared by the project’s heritage specialist identified the small portion of Robin Thomas Reserve within the study area as exhibiting a moderate-high archaeological significance (sections 9 and 11 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report).

Furthermore, prior to public exhibition, DP&E completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition.

11.5 The built heritage and non-Aboriginal archaeological reports recommended that ‘impacts within Robin Thomas Reserve be avoided where possible in order to retain its intact and significant cultural heritage and archaeological significance’. Council considers that the project should also mitigate and avoid impacts to the state listed Aboriginal values of this place, and detail the process of impact avoidance. It was considered that attempts to avoid impact have not been adequately demonstrated.

The project area within Robin Thomas Reserve was designed so as to include the smallest possible footprint while still allowing for construction and operation of the project (refer to section 3.6.5 of the EIS.

Mitigation and management measures for Aboriginal objects and values associated Robin Thomas Reserve were detailed in section 11 and Appendix E of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. This included recommendations to undertake archaeological salvage excavation of impacted portion(s) of site and barrier fencing to ensure construction does not extend outside the area of identified impact.


C-75


11.6 Archaeological Test Excavation

The test excavations should have been undertaken in accordance with best practice, including consultation with representatives of the local Aboriginal community, and notification provided to the NSW Heritage Division of the identification of historical relics under Section 146 of the Heritage Act.

Test excavations were undertaken in accordance with best practice standards to maximise the information retrieval and minimise impact (section 7 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report). The test excavation methodology was created in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders (section 2 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report) and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage).

Relevant notifications were provided to the Heritage Division prior to commencement of test excavations.

11.7 Some identified Potential Archaeological Deposits have not been subject to sufficient test excavation to categorically confirm the absence of an archaeological deposit, and consideration of contact-period ‘imported’ material repurposed as Aboriginal objects (glass, ceramic, metal, etc.) has not been undertaken.

Test excavations were undertaken in accordance with best practice standards to maximise the information retrieval and minimise impact (section 7 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report). All recovered materials were fully assessed for evidence of Aboriginal modifications in accordance with the test excavation methodology which was developed in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

11.8 Cultural landscape

The assessment report focuses on physical archaeological sites only. However, there are a significant number of places, landscapes and aesthetics which are also connected including the Parramatta River, Parramatta Place, Parramatta Native Institute (symbolic), Old Government House and the Domain, original Parramatta layout and system of streets.

Analysis of values for these places needs to be addressed in the report, with consequent impact assessment and management requirements.

Aboriginal cultural values within the study area were fully considered by sections 3 to 11 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. All methods, investigations and assessment were completed in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders.




11.9 Council questioned a series of errors, inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the Aboriginal heritage assessment. Specific examples identified included:

» How mapping of the Parramatta Sand Body has been undertaken.

» That no mapping of previous impacts with nil archaeological potential had been presented.

» No statement of cumulative impact assessment was presented (as required by the SEARs).

Mapping of the Parramatta Sand Body was derived from a composite of publicly available sources, Council information, digital elevation models and results of the test excavation program (refer to sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report).

With respect to the concern regarding mapping, Potential Archaeological Deposit mapping was presented in section 6 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. By default, areas not identified as exhibiting archaeological potential were considered to represent nil archaeological potential.

Cumulative impact assessment of the project was considered as part of the determination of impact significance and impact assessment ratings presented in the assessment.

11.10 Council provided a number of recommendations (R49) and recommended conditions (C99 – C105) summarised as follows:

» Transport for NSW in consultation with Council, provide a revised Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment report which addresses the issues raised in order to meet the SEAR requirements.

» Prior to construction Transport for NSW should:

• Prepare, in consultation with Council, a Cultural Landscape Study for the light rail route encompassing the Aboriginal historic, social and aesthetic values.

• Undertake additional test excavation within PADs 3, 5 and 6.

• Undertake test excavations to identify the Parramatta Sand Body through parts of the study area which cannot be investigated as part of the EIS.


With respect to the recommendations related to activities undertaken prior to construction, it is noted several are post approval and are specifically addressed in the report:

» The Cultural Heritage Assessment Report functions as a cultural landscape study for areas within the project area and was prepared in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and in accordance with the relevant guidelines.

» Additional assessment is not warranted for areas exhibiting high levels of disturbance and no Aboriginal archaeological deposit (refer to section 7 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report).

» All areas exhibiting potential new information related to the Parramatta Sand Body within the project area were assessed as part of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report and EIS.

» All assessment/mitigation methodologies utilised and recommended by the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report were developed in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

The final Aboriginal salvage excavation report would be prepared in a reasonable time as agreed with the Aboriginal stakeholders (refer section 11 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report). This is as per the requirements of the relevant NSW OEH Code of Practice and due diligence guidelines.


C-77


• Implement the revised methodology for the investigation of Aboriginal archaeological sites to be impacted by the project.

» Following construction, Transport for NSW shall prepare a final Aboriginal archaeological investigations report within 12 months of completion of archaeological fieldwork.

» That Transport for NSW consult with Council’s Darug Reference Panel and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee regarding Aboriginal Cultural Heritage matters in relation to the Light Rail Project.

The registered Aboriginal parties, which include Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee and members of the Council’s Darug Reference Panel, were identified in accordance with the relevant guidelines. They would continue to be consulted in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report.

11.11 Historical archaeology

Adequacy of assessment

Council questioned the adequacy of the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment noting that the report’s purpose did not clearly relate to the SEARs, and that the assessment did not directly respond to a number of the SEAR requirements, in particular those related to requirements to achieve conservation outcomes or impact avoidance.

Prior to public exhibition, DP&E completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition.

Information on how the archaeological assessment meets the SEARs is provided in Table 1-2 of the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment (Technical Paper 11). Impact avoidance was achieved through design advice provided to Transport for NSW, for example at Robin Thomas Reserve where design options included impacts through the centre of the reserve. Information on options assessment and design input was also provided in Section 5.4 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10).




11.12 It was stated that the methodology and level of analysis in the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment did not comply with NSW Heritage Division guidelines or best practice, and would not meet the requirements for an application to the NSW Heritage Division for an archaeological permit under the ‘relics provisions’ of the Heritage Act (as would be required if the development was being assessed by Council).

The analysis in the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment was prepared using the document Statement of Heritage Impact 2002, prepared by the NSW Heritage Office, contained within the NSW Heritage Manual, as a guideline. Justifications for heritage impacts including information on optioneering were included where available in accordance with the Statement of Heritage Impact 2002 document. Terminology and definitions used within the assessment were also based on those contained in guidelines prepared by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The assessment methodology is also consistent with other State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) approvals such as Sydney Light Rail and Sydney Metro City and Southwest.

As identified in mitigation and management measures HE-1, an Archaeological Research Design would be prepared during detailed design which would include more detail on impacts and appropriate mitigation and management measures within the framework proposed under the Built Heritage Impact Assessment.

11.13 Management Measures

Council raised concern that the mitigation and management measures proposed as part of the assessment were generic and assume archaeological impact mitigation during the construction program. It was stated that no recommended mechanism for proactive archaeological conservation management was identified as part of the design process prior to and during construction and did not take into account lessons learned on other projects (such as the Sydney Light Rail project).

Archaeological management would be discussed in greater detail in the Archaeological Research Design as identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1.

The Archaeological Research Design would include discussion around triggers for potential conservation in situ and intact State significant archaeology as identified in mitigation and management measures HE-1 and HE-4.

Lessons learned on other projects (such as the Sydney Light Rail) would also be considered as part of the development of the final Archaeological Research Design.


C-79


11.14 HAMUs

Council raised concerned about the assessment of most HAMUs identified in the report, noting that in most circumstance, the impacts have been considered in a generic manner and that there was a need for more specific mitigation and management measures.

The purpose of the Heritage Archaeological Management Units (HAMUs) was to identify the potential for archaeological remains to occur within these areas. The assessment of these areas assumed a worst-case scenario; that is, that subsurface impacts would occur across the project footprint.

As with other SSI projects (such as Sydney Light Rail and Sydney Metro City and Southwest) the Archaeological Research Design would identify more detailed mitigation and management measures and require Archaeological Work Method Statements to be prepared prior to construction. These statements would outline appropriate archaeological management in accordance with the EIS and Archaeological Research Design and taking into account known impacts (such as location of utilities etc.) in accordance with Heritage Division requirements.

The Archaeological Research Design would also include provision for appropriate consultation with the OEH (Heritage Division) if State significant archaeology was uncovered during archaeological excavation or as an unexpected find.

Specific mitigation and management measures which would be implemented for each HAMU (Zones 1, 2, and 3) were identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1.

11.15 Council raised concern that the assessment contained a number of other issues, inconsistencies and inaccuracies throughout the report such as:

» The order of the mitigation and management measure element is not appropriate.

» Heritage Interpretation guidelines have not informed the mitigation and management measures for historical archaeology.

» Register of Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Study (PHALMS) AMUs within the study area was not included.

» The terms ‘management’ and ‘management measures’ have been interchanged throughout the report.

With respect to the concerns identified by Council, the following is noted: » The mitigation and management measures are intended to represent a suite of overall measures

to be implemented, and not a specific linear order in which they are to be implemented. » A Heritage Interpretation Strategy would be prepared as part of the detailed design and would

include consideration of any archaeological remains uncovered during the life of the project (mitigation and management measures HE-9).

» All PHALMS archaeological management units were listed in the relevant HAMU tables presented in the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10).

The terms ‘management’ and ‘management measures’ represent the same outcome, being identification of measures to mitigate the identified impacts and is not considered to change the interpretation of the report outcomes.




11.16 Council provided a number of recommendations (R50) and recommended conditions (C106 – C111) summarised as follows:

» Transport for NSW in consultation with Council, provide a revised Historical Archaeology Assessment which addresses the issues raised in order to meet the SEAR requirements

» Prior to construction Transport for NSW should:

• Prepare precinct-based Archaeological Research Design (rather than one for the overall project).

• Undertake archaeological test investigations at state significant HAMUs and key locally significant HAMUs prior to finalising design and construction commencement.

• Prepare an Interpretation Strategy, in consultation with Council, NSW Heritage Division and Aboriginal stakeholders.

» Following construction, Transport for NSW shall prepare a final non-Aboriginal archaeological investigations report within 12 months of completion of archaeological fieldwork.

With respect to the concerns identified by Council, the following is noted: » Refer to response Item 11.11 of this table with respect to the adequacy of the assessment against

the identified SEARs. » The development of an Archaeological Research Design is recommended as part of mitigation

and management measure HE-1. Consideration would be given to a precinct based format during the preparation of this Submissions Report.

» Archaeological management would be outlined under the Archaeological Research Design. The Archaeological Research Design would discuss a testing program and triggers for potential conservation of significant archaeological resources. The conservation of State significant archaeology is also identified in revised mitigation and management measure HE-14.

» The development of an Interpretation Strategy is recommended as mitigation and management measure HE-9, and would be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders such as Council, NSW Heritage Division, Aboriginal stakeholders.

» Timing of finalising ongoing heritage reporting would be included in the Archaeological Research Design.


C-81


11.17 Impact on built heritage

Adequacy of heritage assessment

Council believes that the EIS Technical Paper 10 - Built Heritage Assessment is inadequate and does not follow the detailed guidelines of the NSW Heritage Council Statements of Heritage Impact for each individual heritage item. It is still considered that more detail is needed for many, if not majority of heritage items.


11.18 It was noted that the proposed mitigation and management measures in the Built Heritage Assessment should be revised and improved such as improved commitment to where wire-free design is proposed and improved certainty regarding the involvement of heritage architects during detailed design.

As identified in the mitigation and management measures contained in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, a number of locations were identified for further consideration of wire-free running along the project alignment during detailed design. These areas included the alignment through Cumberland Hospital (east) and the Parramatta CBD precinct. This is further discussed in response Item 8.9 of this table.

With respect to the involvement of a heritage architect, revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 identifies that an appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to a number of heritage items along the project.

11.19 Council was concerned regarding the lack of involvement in the detailed design process with respect to impacts on heritage items.

Transport for NSW has undertaken a range of consultation with Council regarding the project, including potential impacts to heritage items. Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing consultation with a range of stakeholders, including Council as part of the ongoing development of the project.




11.20 Council provided a series of recommendations (R51) and recommended conditions (C112 and C113) summarised as follows:

» Transport for NSW in consultation with Council, provide a revised Heritage Impact Assessment which addresses the issues raised in order to meet the SEAR requirements and NSW Heritage Council Guidelines.

» Prior to construction, all relevant requirements under NSW Heritage Act and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act, as appropriate, are to be satisfied.

» Any historical fabric which may eventually be approved for damage or destruction are to be archivally recorded, and records deposited in the Parramatta Heritage Centre.

With respect to the concerns identified by Council, the following is noted: » The adequacy of the assessment with respect to the SEARs has previously been addressed in

Item 11.11 of this table. » Prior to construction, all relevant requirements under NSW Heritage Act 1977 and NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 would be satisfied. » Archival recording would be undertaken during construction of the project where required, as

identified in revised mitigation and management measure HE-14. Transport for NSW would consult with the Parramatta Heritage Centre regarding depositing archived materials, where appropriate.


C-83


11.21 Royal Oak Hotel and Stables

Council noted that while the EIS deemed the proposed impact as ‘major’, the EIS and Technical Paper do not respond to the NSW Heritage Council Statement of Heritage Impact Guidelines which are required to be addressed in the process of heritage impact assessment.

Council requested (recommendation R52) that Transport for NSW investigate alternatives to the demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel. Additionally, Council also recommended (R53) that where demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel cannot be avoided, any remaining property (including the Stables) that is not required for ongoing operation of the project shall be converted to public domain, dedicated to Council and incorporate heritage interpretation.

With respect to the proposed impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel, a number of options have been investigated with the aim of avoiding or minimising impacts to this building. These options included alternative routes, modifying the requirements of the Church Street corridor and realignment of the corridor further east.

The street layout is constrained due to the setbacks of other buildings and the intrusion of the Royal Oak Hotel into the road reserve beyond the building lines north and south. If the Royal Oak Hotel were to be retained, the street design and alignment would need to be modified over a distance of approximately 200 metres. These modifications would have impacts to the required functionality of the precinct road network and operations within the alignment, and would impact multiple other properties.

Due to the space constraints associated with the corridor and operational requirements of the project (further outlined in section 5.11.4 of this Submissions Report), including road lane and footpath widths and turning paths, this building is proposed to be removed as part of the project.

The stables would be retained during operation, and protected during the demolition of the Royal Oak Hotel. The future use of any residual land is yet to be determined. Further discussion regarding the potential impacts of the Royal Oak Hotel are discussed in section 5.11.4.

11.22 Abutments of Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge and Clyde Carlingford Bridge

Council raised concern regarding the proposed removal of the abutments associated with the Camellia underbridge. Council recommended (R52) that Transport for NSW investigate alternatives to the demolition of the abutments of the Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge, and abutments of Clyde Carlingford Bridge (referred to in the EIS as the Parramatta River Bridge).

Discussion regarding the proposed removal of the abutments associated with the Parramatta River Bridge has been provided previously in response Item 6.11 of this table.




11.23 Lennox Bridge

Council requested that Transport for NSW confirm that the Lennox Bridge is suitable from a structural perspective to carry light rail, recommending as a condition (C114) that prior to construction, Transport for NSW engage a suitably qualified person to undertake a structural adequacy assessment during the construction and operation of the project on Lennox Bridge.

A structural assessment of the Lennox Bridge was undertaken in September 2017 as part of the ongoing design of the project across this structure. The assessment concluded that the bridge would have sufficient capacity to support the development of a light rail.

Notwithstanding, as identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural engineer with heritage experience.

11.24 Impact on Heritage Parks and Places Prince Alfred Square, War Memorial, Gollan Clock and St Peters Church and Hall

The EIS fails to address the impact of the proposed Prince Alfred Square Stop on the state heritage listed park including the War Memorial and Gollan Clock. Council also raised concern regarding the visual impacts of a light rail stop opposite St Peters Church, in particular the impact of overhead wires at this location.

Prince Alfred Square was assessed in Section 6.3.2.3 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10) as having a moderate direct and moderate visual impact. Direct impacts identified related to the removal of a section of footpath along Market Street, a section of wall and some mature rose bushes. The clock and war memorial would have no direct impacts.

It is noted that the recent SHR listed curtilage is slightly larger than the assessed Local Environmental Plan curtilage and extends to the south. Design refinement since the EIS was produced has reduced the extent of impact on Prince Alfred Square. A revised impact assessment has also been presented in section 6.4 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report) (identifying a changed arrangement to the proposed stop location) which takes into account the design change, and the listing and larger curtilage.


C-85


11.25 Impact on Queens Wharf and Robin Thomas Reserves

The proposal outlined in the EIS implies removal of trees within Queens Wharf and Robin Thomas Reserves, however, insufficient detail is provided to assess the impact of these actions in detail.

Section 13.8 of the EIS identified the potential tree impacts associated with Queens Wharf and Robin Thomas Reserves.

The assessment presented an indication of the number of trees to be impacted by the project was based on a conservative assessment. Potential for retention of impacted trees, in particular those of medium to high retention value, would be further considered during detailed design.

Additionally, following exhibition of the EIS, it is also proposed that the existing slip road be removed and the area revegetated. This would provide additional park area within the Queens Wharf Reserve to partially offset the reduction of open space in Robin Thomas Reserve as a result of the project. This impact to Robin Thomas Reserve would also require the adjustment of the existing sports fields at Robin Thomas Reserve a few metres east. During the relocation works, there would be a period in which the sporting fields would be unavailable. To minimise disruption to users of the sporting fields, construction planning would aim to complete these works between late September and early February. The adjustment would occur prior to the commencement of construction at the reserve to enable the continued use of both fields (refer to mitigation and management measure LU-4).

11.26 Grave of Eliner Magee and Child

Council raised concern regarding the potential impact of the project alignment on the Grave of Eliner Magee and Child and proposed encroach into the heritage curtilage of this item.

The assessment of potential impacts to the Grave of Eliner Magee and Child presented in the EIS was identified to be minor (Table 14.18 of the EIS). To future reduce potential impacts, revised mitigation and management measure HE-23 identified that, in relation to the Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be protected and avoided during construction works.

As part of the construction works, an appropriate exclusion zone would be established to prevent any impact to extant grave fabric.




11.27 St Patrick’s Cemetery

The EIS inadequately addresses the potential impacts on St Patrick’s Cemetery as it incorrectly assumes that the current fencing along Church Street corresponds with the historic cemetery boundary.

The archaeological assessment did not assume that the current fencing corresponds with the historic cemetery boundary. The assessment for HAMU 8 stated:

» The boundaries of the cemetery remained unchanged until 1930 when triangular portion of land measuring 36 ¾ perches was acquired by the Main Roads Board for the widening of the intersection of Church Street and Pennant Hills Road.

» Church Street has been widened in stages from the 1930s. In 1975 the Department of Main Roads proposed widening of Church Street from 11 metres to 16 metres be undertaken within the cemetery reserve. In 2007 the RTA modified the Windsor bound carriageway of Church Street between Pennant Hills Road and Barney Street to include a designated bus lane.

In addition, the assessment took into consideration the findings of previous archaeological investigations where fence lines were identified (Austral 2010) and identified that the boundary gates were relocated in 1976.


C-87


11.28 Council identified a series of recommended conditions (C115 to C122) the impacts to heritage items including:

» That a number of sections of the alignment be designed as wire-free.

» Prince Alfred Square be sensitively designed to minimise the impact.

» That any approval of the project be conditioned to include avoidance of the grave with a protective buffer area provided around its curtilage.

» Measures be established to minimise the use of fencing and other barriers in the vicinity of heritage items.

» Condition assessments be prepared for all assets and infrastructure on open land.

» Development of a Landscape & Temporary Works Management Plan in order to minimise impacts to St Patricks Cemetery, Prince Alfred Square, Robin Thomas Reserve and Queens Wharf Reserve.

» Site specific tree protection plans shall be prepared and submitted to Council for approval.

With respect to the recommended conditions, the following is noted: » With respect to the request to incorporate wire-free design, this has previously been discussed in

response Item 8.9 of this table. » Prince Alfred Square would be sensitively designed to minimise the impact. Details would be

developed as part of the Urban Design Requirements handbook. » Revised mitigation and management measure HE-23 states that in relation to HAMU 31 – Grave of

Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be protected and avoided during construction works.

» Fencing of the project worksite would be in accordance with relevant safety requirements. Where feasible, minimising of the use of fencing and other barriers in the vicinity of heritage items would be considered.

» Existing condition surveys would be undertaken for potentially impacted assets prior to construction.

» As identified in section 17.2.10 of the EIS, a Landscape and Temporary Works Management Plan would be prepared during construction as part of the CEMP.

» Revised mitigation and management measure TR-6 identified that temporary tree protection measures would be installed prior to construction works commencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites as required for any trees to be retained within active construction sites. As part of the measures, site specific tree protection plans would be prepared as part of the CEMP to be approved by the Department of Planning and Environment.




12.0 Sustainability impacts

12.1 Sustainability Strategy Council noted that the EIS states that the project has developed a Sustainability Strategy. Council requested (R54) that this strategy be provided to Council for review as part of the EIS process. It was also recommended as a condition (C123) that the preparation of the Sustainability Strategy be undertaken in consultation with Council and other relevant agencies/stakeholders.

Transport for NSW has prepared a Sustainability Strategy with consideration of current Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia guidelines including input from Council during the development of the strategy.

A summary of the approach to sustainability for the project was presented in Chapter 16 of the EIS. Transport for NSW would continue to work with Council regarding the ongoing development of the project, including opportunities to provide improved sustainable outcomes for the project.

12.2 Urban heat Council noted that from the EIS it is unclear what mitigation and response strategies are proposed in relation to urban heat and climate change impacts. Council recommended as a condition (C128) that Transport for NSW incorporate climate change adaptation in the Sustainability Strategy for the project, specifically to address the risks of urban heat during construction and operation phases.

Climate change adaptation strategies are part of the Sustainability Strategy for the project. A climate change adaptation strategy has been developed for concept design, and would be used as a baseline for future strategy work in detailed design.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with stakeholders to enable an aligned approach to corridor adaptation and resilience, which would include street tree plantings as part of the urban design to mitigate urban heat island effect.


C-89


12.3 Energy and emissions Council noted that the EIS did not provide clear quantifiable outcomes in relation to energy savings targets nor greenhouse gas emissions reductions apart from offsetting emissions at the operational stage. In addition, Council noted the emission inventory did not include maintenance equipment use/transport, minor vegetation removal (pruning), street tree removal and waste generation and materials used for maintenance.

Council recommended a number of conditions (R55 and C124 to C127) regarding sustainability including:

» The project must achieve a minimum 65 or ‘excellent’ rating at the design, as built and operation stages.

» The project should comply with Transport for NSW’s Sustainable Design Guide Version 4 and achieve a minimum gold rating.

» The Project at a minimum offset all GHG emissions from its operation.

» The Sustainability Strategy must include a GHG emissions plan in consultation with Council for the lifecycle of the project construction.

With respect to the comments made by Council, the following is noted: » As identified in section 16.1.3.2 of the EIS, Transport for NSW is committed to achieve a minimum

project score of 65 (an ‘Excellent’ rating) for each project stage during detailed design and construction, and a rating for the operational stage of the project.

» As the project is seeking an Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia rating, only relevant parts of the Sustainability Design Guideline would be applied to the project, such as the compulsory requirements of the guideline that relate to the Government Resource Efficiency Policy. A rating under the Sustainability Design Guidelines (SDG) would not be obtained for the project, however the goal of an ‘excellent’ ISCA rating is considered substantially equivalent to a SDG ‘gold’ rating.

» As identified in mitigation and management measure GG-9, during operation, a 100 per cent offset of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption of electricity of the project would be targeted.

As identified in mitigation and management measure GG-1, during detailed design, an energy and greenhouse gas strategy would be developed that documents the greenhouse reduction targets for the construction and operational stages of the project. The strategy would be continually reviewed throughout the project lifecycle. Where relevant, consultation would be undertaken with relevant stakeholders (such as Council).




12.4 Water Council noted that the EIS did not commit the project to water efficiency and use of alternative water sources, recommending as a condition (C129 and C130) that Transport for NSW include in the Sustainability Strategy a range of measures relating to potable water and alternative water supply targets, rainwater harvesting and water monitoring.

A series of sustainability objectives and potential initiatives/targets including those relating to minimising potable water and maximising opportunities for reuse of rainwater, stormwater, wastewater and groundwater were denied in section 16.1.4 of the EIS. These objectives and potential initiatives/targets would be further considered as part of any refinement of the Sustainability Strategy for the project.

In operation, the major water use would be the LRV wash, for which a recycled water target has been identified. Construction water use monitoring and reduction targets have also been identified.

12.5 Waste and resource management Council considers that the construction, operational and maintenance waste streams are appropriately addressed in the EIS in terms of alignment with State Government targets and experience with the Sydney Light Rail projects.

The Council’s comments on the project’s proposed waste and resource management is acknowledged. Waste management targets would be identified for construction and operation across relevant waste streams as part of the detailed design.

13.0 Flooding and water quality impacts

13.1 Flood modelling Council raised concern with respect to the flood model, and requested that Transport for NSW undertake further detailed work to finalise the modelling prior to the determination of the EIS.

Council recommended two conditions (C133 and C134) relating to flood modelling associated with the project. In particular that Transport for NSW must prepare and submit to DPE and Council a detailed, comprehensive hydraulic flood model that includes the impacts.

Detailed requirements for further flood model development (post-EIS) were outlined in Section 10.3.2 of the Flooding Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 7), and included the commitment that this would be carried out in consultation with a number of stakeholders, including Council.

The flood model has already been provided to Council for review, along with the results for the impact of the project on the existing flood behaviour and on the operation of the project. It is noted that changes during detailed design would require reassessment of the flood impacts, and hence it is not feasible to finalise the modelling prior to determination of the EIS. Furthermore, the iterative modelling undertaken during detailed design will also be used to inform the design process, seeking opportunities to improve the flood immunity of the project and further alleviate any identified impacts.

Transport for NSW commits to ongoing consultation with the Council and OEH during the detailed design process.


C-91


13.2 Council stated particular concern that the project model references a ‘Draft 9 MIKE 11 flood model’ for the Upper Parramatta catchment, noting this is an unauthorised version of a previous Council adopted ‘Draft 8 MIKE 11 flood model’, and recommending (R56) this model should not be used for this study.

Prior to commencement of the flood investigations for the project, Transport for NSW liaised with the relevant stakeholders (including Council) to request the existing models be provided, with a view to ensuring consistency in the flood modelling. The Draft 9 MIKE 11 model was the only version of the Upper Parramatta River MIKE11 model that was provided. In the absence of any other information or model files, Transport for NSW determined to use the Draft 9 MIKE 11 model for the flood impact assessment.

Notwithstanding the above, the Draft 9 MIKE 11 model is considered more suitable for the project impact assessment, as Transport for NSW has been advised that the Draft 9 model has been calibrated to historical events. Model calibration to available data (in particular historical flood events) is identified as a critical input to flood model development in the NSW Government (2005) Floodplain Development Manual and in the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guidelines. It is understood that the ‘Draft 8 MIKE 11 flood model’ has not been calibrated to historical events, which is a limitation of the model.

13.3 Project design and flood risk levels Council requested inclusion of a series of conditions (R57 and C135 to C138) regarding design and operation of the project including:

» Demonstrating that all relevant flood-related planning and development controls have been addressed.

» Submission of detailed flood modelling and design to Council prior to commencement of works.

Development of the stormwater design for the project is ongoing, and would continue to involve consultation with Council and OEH. This would include consultation regarding alterations to the stormwater network. Drainage design (and the design of any flood mitigation and management measures, if required) for the project would comply with all relevant flood-related planning and development controls, such as the Floodplain Development Manual and other associated guidelines. While planning controls such as Council’s Development Control Plan have not specifically been identified, the impact assessment prepared as part of the EIS was consistent with the SEARs and the requirements of both the Floodplain Development Manual and associated guidelines, and is therefore considered consistent with the requirements of the Council DCP (with respect to flood impact assessment, flood afflux and drainage design).

Transport for NSW commits to ongoing consultation with Council and OEH during the detailed design process. As noted in response the response to issue 13.1, the model has already been provided to Council.




13.4 Council also raised concerns that the flood assessment did not adequately address SEAR 10 (Flooding), in particular the performance requirements of Council’s guidelines referred to in the Current Guidelines column of the SEARs. These guidelines included:

» NSW Government's Floodplain Development Manual.

» PS 07‐003 New guideline and changes to section 117 direction and EP&A Regulation on flood prone land.

» Practical Consideration of Climate Change ‐ Flood risk management guideline.

» Australian Rainfall and Runoff Urban Drainage analysis and design.

» Floodplain Risk Management Policy. » Relevant floodplain risk management

studies; plans; local catchment flood studies; catchment management plans.

» Draft Update of Parramatta Floodplain Risk Management Plans.

» Draft Best Practice Urban Design in Flood Prone Areas – Urban Design Strategy.

Relevant flood evacuation strategies.

Table 1 of the Flooding Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 7) detailed where the respective requirements of the SEARs had been addressed. Consistency of the project with each of Council’s guidelines referred to in the Current Guidelines column in the SEARs was addressed in section 3.3 of the Flooding Impact Assessment.

Furthermore, prior to public exhibition, a preliminary assessment of document adequacy was completed by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to assess the provided documentation against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided was considered suitable to meet the requirements of SEAR 10 (Flooding).


C-93


13.5 Emergency planning Council raised concern that adequate operational management techniques have not been identified or addressed as part of the project, and that an approach to operational risk management which takes into account the full range of flooding risks be demonstrated to at least concept viability prior to approval of the EIS (recommendation R58). This should be undertaken in consultation with Council and the SES.

As identified in the EIS, mitigation and management measure HY-11 states that a Flood Operational Management Plan would be prepared to describe the project operational procedure for the network during flood events. As part of this plan, emergency response procedures for managing potential flooding events which affect light rail operations would be developed, including the need for, and procedures to be implemented, in the event evacuation is required. The Flood Operational Management Plan would also be prepared with input from relevant stakeholders (where required) including State Emergency Service, OEH and Council.

13.6 Council also raised concern that the EIS proposes insufficient monitoring of water levels and recommended (R59) that the project utilise appropriate monitoring devices and connect to the latest local flood warning system (FloodSmart) which provides timely data and allows the greatest possible response time in a flash-flood event.

Transport for NSW has committed to ongoing consultation with Council and the SES on the flood management for the project. These monitoring measures would be discussed with Council and considered as part of the development of the Flood Operational Management Plan for the project (refer to mitigation and management measure HY-11).

13.7 Council recommended a number of conditions relating to emergency flood planning (C139 to C144) including:

» Preparation of a Flood Emergency Response and Operational Risk Management Plan for the light rail system.

» Demonstrate integration with other emergency plans.

» Placement of water level sensors at key flood locations.

This issue has been responded to in Items 13.5 and 13.6 of this table.




13.8 Stormwater, WSUD and water quality Council is concerned that the EIS approaches stormwater and water quality at a minimum compliance level, as opposed to an integrated, holistic manner in keeping with global best practice. Council recommended a series of conditions (R60 – R62 and C145 to C148) including:

» Considering the requirements of Council’s Draft Best Practice Urban Design in Flood Prone Areas – Urban Design Strategy.

» Providing further detail about how operational water quality impacts from the stabling facility at Camellia will be managed.

» Demonstrating to concept viability level an approach to Water Sensitive Urban Design across the project which conforms to Council’s DCP requirements.

» Preparing an interdisciplinary Water Sensitive Urban Design Strategy for the project.

Preparing and implement a strategy for litter management and protection of waterways during operation.

Contemporary good practice guidelines would be followed during detailed design and operation of the project to ensure stormwater runoff from the project area receives adequate water quality treatment, where required. Relevant guidelines to be followed include Managing Urban Stormwater, Environmental Targets Consultation Draft (DECCW, 2007) and Managing Urban Stormwater: Council Handbook (EPA, 1997) and Council’s Draft Best Practice Urban Design in Flood Prone Areas – Urban Design Strategy. This would include consideration of integrated Water Sensitive Urban Design elements to manage both stormwater quality and quantity, such as through the use of biofiltration swales or gross pollutant traps.

The detailed design process would include involve computer modelling of stormwater processes to identify appropriate stormwater mitigation and management measures designed to achieve the required targets. These measures would be implemented at locations along the project alignment as required, including at the stabling and maintenance facility at Camellia (refer to Figure 6-1 of Technical Paper 6 – Water Quality Impact Assessment, Volume 4).

A Surface Water Management Plan would be prepared during detailed design as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-5 of the EIS. The plan would detail measures for reducing pollutant loads in stormwater reaching Parramatta River, Clay Cliff Creek, Vineyard Creek and other nearby waterways within the study area during construction.


C-95


13.9 Drainage Council recommended a series of conditions (C149 to C153) relating to drainage associated with the project including:

» Integrating the project within the surrounding catchment and road system in accordance with Council’s standard design requirements.

» Replacing existing drainage assets directly impacted by the project in a manner compliant with the relevant policy and legislation.

» Provision of details to Council on all proposed drainage network designs.

» All stormwater drainage system elements are to achieve a minimum 5% AEP (inclusive of the upper bound of the 0.2EY climate change impacts).

Undertaking hydraulic analysis and design of the stormwater drainage system for the minimum 5% peak design storm.

The detailed design of the project would be prepared to integrate with the existing road and stormwater network. This will include upgrades to the existing stormwater drainage where it is intercepted by the works, and consideration of drainage issues such as cross fall and ponding for streetscape and road design (mitigation and management measure HY-3). It is noted that the existing stormwater drainage is in many locations under-capacity, and it is anticipated that the project would result in some beneficial outcomes by alleviating some existing drainage issues in some locations.

The design of the Project has been undertaken to integrate the proposed light rail into the existing road system and surrounding catchment areas wherever possible along the alignment. This has included designing drainage which has been sized to comply with relevant council design standards. A Flood Management Strategy (mitigation and management measure HY-4) would be prepared for flood affected land as a result of the project prior to construction. The strategy would demonstrate how the project design achieves the desired Performance Criteria (refer to Table 17.5 of the EIS and would be supported by additional flood modelling.

Transport for NSW is aware of, and has adopted, the Council requirement to achieve a minimum 5% AEP capacity for the stormwater drainage. In addition, the flood modelling that informs the drainage design has included the relevant climate change parameters (such as increased rainfall intensity) in accordance with the Floodplain Risk Management Guideline – Practical Considerations for Climate Change and the Draft NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement. As a result, in some locations, the detailed drainage design may exceed Council’s minimum requirements to convey the five per cent AEP flows, where the modelling indicates flood behaviour is sensitive to climate change impacts.

New drainage assets that are installed by the Project will be capable of supporting the five per cent AEP event inclusive of climate change with the assumption that the downstream assets can also support this target. However, downstream assets which are not required to achieve the light rail system requirements will not be augmented or replaced by the Project.

Transport for NSW would provide details of the drainage design for the project to Council.




13.10 Flooding Impacts at Macquarie Street Council raised concern in relation to flooding along Macquarie Street where overland flow results in floodwater depths of 0.5 - 3m depth depending on flooding event. Council recommended (R63 and C154) that Transport for NSW undertake additional consultation and detailed design with Council relating to minimise potential flooding and stormwater management issues along Macquarie Street.

A new stormwater pipe connection has been proposed in the concept design for the project, extending along Macquarie Street from Centenary Square to Smith Street (and alongside the Parramatta Square Stop), before discharging to the Parramatta River (refer to Map 8.3 of Technical Paper 7 – Flooding Impact Assessment (Volume 4). The proposed connection has been included in the flood modelling, which showed that the concept design successfully mitigates flood impacts of the project, and in fact alleviates some existing flood risk in the five per cent AEP and one per cent AEP events at this location by provision of additional drainage along Macquarie Street, Harris Street and Smith Street.

Ongoing development of the stormwater drainage design would be undertaken during detailed design, as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-3. This may result in further mitigation of existing flood issues.

13.11 Water quality during construction Council recommended a series of conditions (C155 to C159) relating to the management of water quality during construction, in particular the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Monitoring Program to manage risks and impacts to water quality as a result of the construction of the project.

A water quality management program would be developed and implemented for the construction phase to assist in identification of any water quality impacts associated with the works, and to sure that any impacts are controlled and reported, as identified in mitigation and management measure HY-1 of the EIS. This would include targeted baseline monitoring of receiving waters and shallow groundwater prior to construction to identify baseline water quality conditions.


C-97


14.0 Utilities and services impacts

14.1 Project approach to utilities and services Council believes that the project provides an opportunity to consolidate the services provision for both current and future need, specifically within the CBD and the existing heavy rail corridor to Carlingford to promote efficiencies within the services provision sector.

Council recommended a number of conditions (C160 – C168) relating to the management of utilities and services, in particular the establishment of a Utilities Management Group to allow Council, Transport for NSW and relevant utilities and service organisations to provide a coordinated approach to utilities management.

Consultation with utility service providers (including Council) would continue to be carried out during detailed design to ensure that appropriate measures are taken regarding the potential integration of future utilities requirements along the project alignment and to ensure that the project does not preclude the development or installation of these proposed utilities (refer to measure UT-2).

14.2 Intrusions into drainage systems Council recommended a condition (C169) that where construction of a new drainage pipe is required on top of an existing service, adequate bridging construction is required and all utility works are to meet relevant Australian Standards, guides and service authority requirements.

Transport for NSW intends to follow all relevant utility agency asset adjustment processes as well as relevant Australian Standards where the project requires the relocation, adjustment or protection of these assets.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with relevant utility agencies throughout the ongoing detailed design and construction of the project with respect to any potential works which may impact on existing utilities.




15.0 Biodiversity impacts

15.1 Council considered that the full array of threatened species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC Act) have not been adequately addressed within the EIS as only those threatened species listed under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) have been addressed.

Council recommended (R64) that Transport for NSW provide additional assessment of a number of Threatened Species listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 which are identified in the EIS as being either of Moderate or High Likelihood of Occurrence.

Impacts to species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1997 (now Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016) such as the Powerful Owl, and impact to native fauna habitat have been assessed in accordance with Section 8 of the Framework of Biodiversity Assessment (section 10.2.2.3 of the EIS and Biodiversity Assessment Report (Technical Paper 4, Volume 3).

Due to removal of native vegetation (including potential hollow-bearing trees) along the proposed alignment, mitigation and management measures for habitat loss are outlined in Section 9.1 of the Biodiversity Assessment Report. Mitigation and management measures would include staged clearing procedures; installation of nest boxes, revegetation of native vegetation, retention of important habitat elements (i.e. large woody debris) and offsetting of threatened native vegetation where clearing cannot be avoided (refer to revised mitigation and management measures BI-4, BI-7, BI-8 and TR-5 – Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).

15.2 Council raised concern relating to the project’s interface with Vineyard Creek Reserve, riparian vegetation along Parramatta River and trees along the Carlingford railway corridor.

Council recommended a condition (C170) that no loose materials are to be stockpiled within the Vineyard Creek Reserve compound to minimise potential impacts on the nearby Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest EEC.

As as described in section 5.9 of the EIS , a two-span bridge consistent with the design of the existing structure is proposed. The proposed design would likely have only a minor impact on stream flow and potential for blockage of fish passages in comparison to the existing bridge. The construction of the two-span bridge would generally result in some clearing of vegetation, comprised mainly of weeds and exotic species along the creek banks, which have previously been disturbed by construction of the existing rail bridge.

The net result at this site would be an additional instream structure (in line with the existing piers), resulting in some potential for creek bed and bank erosion and blockage of fish passage compared to the existing condition. Vegetation clearing required for construction of abutments would affect mainly weeds and exotic species along creek banks previously disturbed by construction of the existing rail bridge.

All potential risks to aquatic environments would be negligible or low with the implementation of recommended mitigation and management measures, including measures such as appropriate stockpiling of materials.


C-99


15.3 Council raised concern regarding the potential impact of the project on existing roosting locations for microchiropteran bats associated with existing bridge crossings over the Parramatta River and Vineyard Creek crossings. Council noted the preferred approach is that the new bridges incorporate more permanent microbat habitat through the provision of suitably dimensioned cavities and lattice structures.

Council recommended two conditions (C171 and C172) including:

» The design of the new bridges over Parramatta River and Vineyard Creek should incorporate roosting habitat for threatened microchiropteran bats.

» A Flora and Fauna Management Plan should be prepared and implemented as part of the CEMP to detail how impacts on ecology will be minimised and managed.

Section 8.6.2 of the Biodiversity Assessment Report (Technical Paper 4, Volume 3) assessed in detail the proposed impacts on threatened microchiropteran bats and associated artificial roosting sites. Three bridge structures were identified as potentially providing marginal roosting opportunities for microchiropteran bats species, however no evidence of existing use was observed during targeted inspections. Further consideration for incorporation of roosting sites would be undertaken as part of the detailed design.

Transport for NSW would prepare a Flora and Fauna Management Plan as part of the implementation of the CEMP, and would consider of the provision of roosting habitats for threatened microchiropteran bats in bridge design over the Parramatta River and Vineyard creek.




16.0 Tree impacts

16.1 Council stated that the EIS did not clearly delineate or assess the significance levels of the impacted trees or hollow-bearing trees. Council noted that the EIS should undertake a tree assessment with an accompanying significance map that identifies the location of high, medium and low value trees.

Council recommended (R65) that Transport for NSW provides further detail about tree impacts, including:

» A consolidated total number of trees to be impacted, including clarifying the extent of ‘minor’, ‘more than minor’ and ‘full removal’ impacts.

» Assessment of significance of all impacted trees (i.e. high, medium or low).

» Demonstrate how significant trees have been considered for retention.

Further information on the potential number of trees requiring removal is provided in 7.2.5. However as identified in the EIS, the assessment of potential impacts is conservative given the level of design development.

All trees within the identified disturbance footprint were assessed as part of the tree impact assessment. The subject trees were assessed utilising a visual tree assessment methodology and a retention value of low, medium or high was assigned to each tree or group of trees in accordance with the criteria listed in the IACA Significance of a Tree, Assessment Rating System (STARS). Sections 11.8, 12.8, 13.8, 14.8 and 15.8 of the EIS identify the percentage of trees with a high retention value. Further details regarding management of tree impacts associated with the project is provided in section 5.17 of this Submissions Report.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure TR-1, opportunities for retaining trees of medium to high retention value which have been identified as being potentially impacted by the project (i.e. trees having more than a minor impact), would be considered where appropriate and feasible through the use of design modification and tree sensitive construction techniques.

Impacts to trees would be further assessed and managed through detailed design and in construction to reduce impacts. In Section 17 of the EIS, the approach to reducing tree impacts was outlined including:

» Avoidance of impacts in detailed design where possible (revised mitigation and management measure TR-1).

» Minimising construction impacts and protecting trees during construction (revised mitigation and management measures TR-3 and TR-4).

» Offsetting where impacts are unavoidable, with appropriate offset plantings (mitigation and management measures TR-5 to TR-9).


C-101


16.2 Council stated that the EIS failed to adequately address the potential removal of hollow-bearing trees that may be present within the light rail corridor, noting the design and location of infrastructure needs to minimise the number of tree removals and ensure there are no significant impacts on nearby retained trees.

Council recommended as a condition (C173) that Transport for NSW prepare a revised tree survey, which is undertaken by a qualified ecologist, to identify the type and location of hollow bearing trees that will potentially be impacted by the Project and recommended mitigation strategies.

The potential impacts of removing hollow-bearing trees was considered as part of the assessment of species that may utilise these trees as part of the Biodiversity Assessment Report (Technical Paper 4, Volume 3).

Section 9.1.15 of the Biodiversity Assessment Report also provides mitigation and management measures associated with the removal and impacts to habitat trees by the project (summarised in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).

16.3 Council noted that to ensure canopy replenishment, any removed trees are to be replaced in accordance with Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2016), being a ratio of between 2:1 and 8:1 depending on the size of the tree removed. As part of the project, Council recommended as a condition (C174) that Transport for NSW prepare a Vegetation Offset Strategy to outline how the vegetation impacts of the project will be compensated for within and adjacent to the corridor.

As described in section 17.2.11 of the EIS, where impacts to native vegetation and trees along the project alignment are unavoidable, Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide and the City of Parramatta’s Parramatta Ways: Implementing Sydney’s Green Grid would be used as a framework to develop a Vegetation Offset Strategy.

The delivery of this strategy would include consideration of a range of options including: » Planting trees or landscaping along the alignment. » Planting trees or landscaping in a public space within the Parramatta LGA. » Working with Council to implement a program of rehabilitation to a natural environment such as a

forested reserve or waterway within the Parramatta LGA. » Reservation of land for conservation or buying and retiring credits under the NSW Government

BioBanking scheme. » Rehabilitation and weeding » Civil works such as walking tracks or erosion management » Contributions towards biodiversity improvement actions by others or existing tree planting

programs » Ecological research and education (such as the provision of interpretive signage or publicly

accessible online educational material).




16.4 Council noted that due to the extent of likely tree offsets required, tree planting not along the light rail corridor should be undertaken within or in proximity to the project footprint and needs to be implemented in consultation with Council.

It is acknowledged that due to the extent of tree offsets potentially required as a result of the project, that not all tree planting would be able to be accommodated within the light rail corridor. Priority for offset planting would be given to areas in proximity to the impacted area to address the particular impacts of tree removal (for example, visual, heritage etc.).

As noted in Item 16.3, the Vegetation Offset Strategy would identify opportunities for tree and other vegetation offsets both within and outside the light rail corridor. The implementation of the strategy would also be undertaken in consultation with Council.

16.5 Council recommended two additional conditions (C175 – C176) relating to management of trees as part of the project, including:

» Retained street and park trees within or in proximity to works are to be physically protected by implementing tree protection measures.

» Preparation of site specific tree protection plans for St Patricks Cemetery; Prince Alfred Square; Robin Thomas Reserve; and Queens Wharf Reserve.

Transport for NSW is committed to retaining trees, where possible, and to enhancing biodiversity outcomes as part of the project. Potential retention of impacted trees, in particular those of medium to high retention value, would be further considered during detailed design, including design modification and construction techniques which may increase the likelihood of retaining these trees.

With respect to protecting retained trees, revised mitigation and management measure TR-6 identified that temporary tree protection measures would be installed prior to construction works commencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites as required for any trees to be retained within active construction sites. This would apply to trees within or adjacent to the construction area in St Patricks Cemetery; Prince Alfred Square; Robin Thomas Reserve; and Queens Wharf Reserve.

17.0 Environmental management

17.1 Construction Management Council noted the proposal to prepare a CEMP as part of the project and that the plan will be developed by the appropriate contractor and submitted to the Secretary of Department of Planning and Environment for approval. Council recommended as a condition (C177) that the CEMP should also be submitted to Council for review prior approval.

For the purposes of the project, the CEMP would be approved by the Secretary of the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.


C-103


17.2 Council noted and supported the proposal that Independent Environmental Representatives be engaged by Transport for NSW to provide review and oversight of relevant environmental documentation, environmental monitoring/ auditing/reporting services throughout the project.

The Council’s support or the proposed engagement of an Independent Environmental Representative is acknowledged.

17.3 Noise and Vibration

Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts

The project should apply all feasible and reasonable work practices to reduce potential noise and vibration impacts.

Transport for NSW is committed to achieving environmental performance outcomes and reducing potential noise and vibration impacts identified as part of the assessment (Chapters 8-15 of the EIS). Transport for NSW is also committed to the implementation of the mitigation and management measures identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report which include a range of feasible and reasonable mitigation practices.

17.4 It is noted in the recommendations that a curfew time of 11:00pm is proposed for the use of noise intensive plant items. An alternate curfew time of 10:00pm is proposed by Council.

As described in section 17.2.3 of the EIS, a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed during detailed design and would be included as part of the overall CEMP for the project (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-1).

As described in the EIS, the detailed out-of-hours works protocol would be developed at a later stage when more information is available regarding specific details of how the project would be constructed. As part of the development of the out-of-hours works protocol(s), relevant curfew times would be established, including consideration of the requested revised timing and consideration of the overall construction timing impact. The outcome deemed to have the least level of impact would be adopted and implemented.




17.5 Council recommended a series of conditions (C178 – C183) relating to the management of construction noise including:

» Preparing a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan in consultation with Council.

» Application of all feasible and reasonable work practices to meet the Noise Management Level, where possible.

» Undertaking building condition surveys prior to construction.

Refer to response Item 17.3 of this table regarding preparation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan and application of feasible work practices.

With respect to building condition surveys, as identified in mitigation and management measure NV-7, building condition surveys would be completed both prior to the commencement of construction works and following the completion of construction works to identify existing damage and any damage due to the works.

17.6 Operational noise impacts

Council recommended (C184) that an Operational Environmental Management Plan be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to operations and validated once the project is complete.

Council also recommended additional conditions (C185, C186 and C191) regarding general operational noise including:

» Preparation of a noise and vibration validation report.

» Transport for NSW should provide noise mitigation treatments to those residential and other sensitive land uses identified along the corridor (as required).

Existing mitigation and management measure NV-9 identified that an operational mitigation strategy would be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to operations and then validated once the project is complete (usually 12 months’ post opening). Potentially feasible and reasonable mitigation for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including:

» Minimise LRV source noise levels via specifications. » Vegetated trackforms. » Speed restrictions. » Minimise wheel and rail roughness. » Absorptive paving. » Property treatments.

The final operational mitigation strategy would be determined during detailed design in consultation with the affected community.


C-105


17.7 Ground-borne noise impacts

Council recommended as a condition (C187) that Transport for NSW undertake more detailed investigation into the potential for ground-borne noise impacts, including measurement of existing internal and external noise and vibration levels due to the existing road and rail traffic.

Additional investigation into the potential for localised ground-borne noise impacts, and vibration levels would be undertaken as part of the operational noise and vibration mitigation strategy for the project (refer to measure NV-9).

17.8 Substation noise impacts

Council identified a recommended condition (C189) that validation monitoring and reporting be conducted before operations start to ensure that noise impacts from substations have been appropriately mitigated.

Validation monitoring of noise impacts from substations would be undertaken as part of the operational mitigation strategy for the project (refer to measure NV-9).

17.9 Stabling and maintenance facility noise

Council identified a recommended condition (C190) that prior to final design of the Stabling and Maintenance Facility, the Applicant shall undertake noise and vibration assessment based on future surrounding land uses in consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the Camellia Priority Precinct process.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 13) undertaken as part of the EIS took into account proposed future developments where sufficient details of these facilities were known at the time of preparing the assessment (such as potential developments associated with the future Camellia Town Centre).

With respect to the proposed Camellia Town Centre, section 7.6 of the assessment noted that, while limited details are available regarding the redevelopment of the site, it is acknowledged that the stabling and maintenance facility has the potential to impact on future receivers that are built in proximity to the boundary of the site. Potential impacts would be investigated further during detailed design. Where mitigation is identified as being necessary, the mitigation strategy may require a combination of source control measures. Also, the Camellia Town Centre Master Plan would be required to undertake effective design (as required in the Development near rail corridors and busy roads – Interim guideline, Department of Planning 2008). This would include positioning less sensitive land uses adjacent to the boundary of the stabling and maintenance facility.




17.10 Operational vibration impacts

Council is satisfied with the process that Transport for NSW is undertaking to assess operational vibration impacts, including predicted vibration levels and consultation with facility owner/operators of premises with identified vibration sensitive equipment.

The Council’s comment regarding operational vibration impacts is acknowledged.

17.11 Contamination Council noted that the Contaminated Land Technical Paper only provided a desktop study which did not include sampling or analysis. Council stated that, given the existing and historical use of the proposed corridor that land contamination to an extent requiring remediation will be likely. Council recommended a number of conditions (R66 and C192 – C198) relating to contamination and remediation as part of the project including:

» Recommendations regarding the need for and extent of involvement of EPA accredited site auditor(s).

» Requirements to undertake a preliminary soil investigation to evaluate the suitability of the land for use as a light rail corridor.

» Requirements for asbestos removal and importation of fill materials.

While no sampling was undertaken as part of the EIS, Technical Paper 8 – Contaminated Land Assessment (Volume 4) presented information gathered from a range of information sources in addition to the public registers maintained by NSW EPA to identify Areas of Environmental Interest (AEI) with potential for contamination. These sources include historical aerial photography, government and regulatory lists, records and databases, inspections of current land use activities, and available reports for sites within the project area (of which there are a considerable number). The level of assessment undertaken for the EIS is consistent with a Phase 1 contaminated land investigation and a suitable to address the SEARs. Notwithstanding, contamination sampling and analysis has been undertaken at targeted locations within the project area with the potential to have contamination, as part of the proposed remediation of the stabling and maintenance facility site (subject to separate planning approval).

As identified in the EIS and Technical Paper 8 – Contaminated Land Assessment (Volume 4), AEIs identified as high risk with respect to contamination (refer to mitigation and management measure CM-2), or medium risk requiring further assessment (refer to mitigation and management measure CM-1), would be subject to further investigation and assessment. As identified in mitigation and management measure CM-2, should these further investigations identify the need for remediation, remediation works would be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines and policies made or endorsed by NSW EPA, including the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, 3rd Edition (October 2017). In addition, visual inspections and monitoring would be performed during excavation activities at all medium risk AEIs to identify potential indicators of contamination, as identified in mitigation and management measure CM-4. If suspected contamination is encountered, the materials would be subject to sampling and analysis to determine management requirements and suitability for reuse, recycling or remediation.


C-107


Transport for NSW has consulted with the NSW EPA as part of the preparation of the EIS and will continue this consultation as part of the future phases of the project as required. Where investigations and assessments at specific sites determine that remediation is required, and that such remediation is subject to the NSW site auditor scheme a NSW EPA-accredited Site Auditor would be engaged to confirm the appropriateness of the remediation works and the suitability of the site for its intended land use (refer to mitigation and management measure CM-2).

Revised mitigation and management measures for removal of asbestos are outlined in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report, including measure CM-5, AQ-1 and WM-5. Requirements would also be established as part of the CEMP to manage the importation of any fill materials which cannot be sourced from within the project area.

17.12 The extent and nature of groundwater and soil vapours need to be investigated in detail to understand extent and manage the potential impact on the Parramatta Light Rail design schedule or cost.

The contamination information and data reviewed as part of the impact assessment identified 48 AEIs within the study area with the potential for contamination to be present. Selected AEIs were identified as having a high or medium risk of contamination which would be further assessed during detailed design (refer to mitigation and management measures CM-1 and CM-2). These further assessments would include consideration of potentially contaminated groundwater and soil vapours associated with these sites.

The stabling and maintenance facility is known to have groundwater and soil vapour contamination. To mitigate these risks, it is proposed to install a vapour mitigation system on this site as identified in section 6.10 of the EIS.

17.13 Council noted that an Unexpected Finds Protocol was not identified in the EIS. It was recommended (C197) that an Unexpected Finds Protocol be implemented and incorporated into the CEMP for the entire project.

As identified in existing mitigation and management measure CM-6, an unexpected finds procedure would be developed and implemented as part of the project Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan. The plan would detail the procedures and actions to be undertaken should unexpected finds of contamination be discovered during construction of the project

17.14 Council notes that the subsurface of the stabling and maintenance facility at Camellia would be remediated under a planning approval process separate from the EIS. Council requested that a copy of the proposal be provided for review and comment prior to determination.

Transport for NSW provided a briefing to Council in November 2017 regarding the proposed remediation plan for the stabling and maintenance facility.

Transport for NSW determined the REF in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act in December 2017.




17.15 Air quality

Council considered that the potential for air quality impacts from dust generation potentially containing asbestos fibres (due to the likelihood of contaminated soils being disturbed during construction) should be reflected as high risk and a key issue (identified as being medium risk in the EIS).

Council considers that potential air quality impacts (particularly during construction) should have been considered important enough to warrant a SEAR.

It is acknowledged that the project, due to the historic land uses of some sections of the proposed alignment, may impact on areas that have the potential to contain asbestos materials. As such, a series of mitigation and management measures relating specifically to potential asbestos impacts are identified and detailed in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report, including measure CM-5, AQ-1 and WM-5.

The SEARs against which the project was assessed were provided by the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the planning approval process. Transport for NSW does not determine which SEARs are issued to the project.

17.16 Council noted support for the recommendation outlined in the Air Quality Technical Paper recommending as conditions (C199 and C200) that these measures be implemented as part of the project and reviewed and updated as necessary.

It is the intention that the mitigation and management measures outlined in Technical Paper 9 - Air Quality Impact Assessment (Volume 4) would be implemented as part of the project and form part of the overall suite of mitigation and management measures to manage potential impacts associated with the project.

17.17 Independent monitoring and reporting Council recommended as a condition (C201) that an independent representative be appointed to ensure all required environmental and management plans are developed, delivered and monitored throughout the project.

As identified in section 17.3 of the EIS, Transport for NSW would engage independent Environmental Representative(s) to carry out the following, along with any additional roles as required:

» Review, provide comment on and endorse (where required) any relevant environmental documentation to verify it is prepared in accordance with relevant environmental legislation, planning approval conditions, relevant standards and the CEMP.

» Monitor and report on the implementation and performance of the above-mentioned documentation and other relevant documentation.

» The independent Environmental Representative would be engaged for the construction period and would oversee and review any changes to the documentation as the project progresses.


C-109

CUMBERLAND COUNCIL The Cumberland Council provided a submission regarding the project on 23 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.2.

Table C.2 Cumberland Council

REF SUMMARY OF ISSUE RESPONSE

1.0 Study area boundary

1.1 Cumberland Council raised concerns that the project boundary did not extend to the Cumberland LGA (south of the Western railway line), noting that while this portion of Westmead is outside of the Parramatta Light Rail study area, that there will be direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this area due to the light rail construction woks and its operation.

Cumberland Council stated that this approach is restricted and does not consider the opportunities and benefits that would be attained by extending the light rail to the south into the Cumberland LGA.

While it is acknowledged that the project boundary did not extend to the Cumberland LGA, the project boundary included the required area to accommodate the project.

It is also acknowledged that the project may result in some indirect impacts to areas outside the identified boundary, and a range of mitigation and management measures are identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report to mitigate these potential impacts.

Opportunities and benefits that may be attained by extending the light rail to the south into the Cumberland LGA would be considered as part of any future stage of the light rail south of Westmead.




2.0 Westmead Terminus Location and opportunity to integrate the Westmead suburb

2.1 Cumberland Council identified that they did not support the current location of the Westmead terminus for a number of reasons including: » The current placement of the Westmead stop

reinforces the physical and perceived separation of the suburb of Westmead into two distinct areas.

» Shifting the proposed terminus to the south would strengthen Hawkesbury Road and connect the north and south areas of Westmead, in addition to allowing the light rail to service the Westmead Public School.

» Placement of the light rail terminus as proposed would be at odds with the key objective of better integrating transport modes, capitalising on significant infrastructure investment, and improving access for the high volume of people likely to interchange between modes and/or seek to access key facilities at Westmead (hospitals and Westmead centre).

» Access between the train station, bus T-way and Hawkesbury Road is not ideal for people with impaired mobility, prams, wheelchairs etc.

The location of the Westmead stop was considered as part of the overall design of the project. As one of the key purposes of the proposed stop is to provide an interchange with other modes of transport, locations were considered that would allow for the best number of interchange opportunities with strategic bus routes (such as the T-Way) or with the existing heavy rail network at Westmead Station.

In order to maximise these opportunities, it was determined that providing a stop on the northern side of the railway line was preferred. Based on this decision, four key stop locations for the Westmead stop were considered (section 3.6.8 of the EIS) including options along different sections of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road (including on the bridge crossing of the railway line). Based on the options identified, it was considered various options presented key opportunities and constraints with respect to factors such as: » Distance between interchange opportunities. » Engineering constraints such as grades. » Traffic and transport network impacts.

» Varying extents of land use and private property impacts.

Overall, the proposed stop as presented in the EIS was the preferred option as, based on the information available, the identified location provided a range of advantages including:

» Better urban design outcome. » Improved opportunity for integrated property redevelopment surrounding the stop. » A simplified arrangement for the Darcy Road and Hawkesbury Road intersection which would

avoid impacts on the intersection of Railway Parade and Hawkesbury Road.


C-111


2.2 Cumberland Council identified that improved access from the train station, such as wider pedestrian routes/paths, covered walkways and clear visual connection from the train station to the light rail stop may assist in integrating and transitioning the different modes.

As described in section 11.3.3.5 of the EIS, the existing footpaths would be maintained along both sides of Hawkesbury Road as part of the operation of the project. In the area between Westmead Station and the Westmead stop a new widened plaza area would be created on the northern side of Railway Parade to allow for clear visual and pedestrian connections between these locations as well as allow for passengers waiting for light rail services.

While the proposed light rail stops would include awnings and weather protection, it is not proposed as part of the current project to provide covered walkways between the Westmead stop and Westmead Station.

2.3 Cumberland Council identified that real time information on the next service(s) for all modes at all stops/stations would also assist in passenger transitions between the different transport modes and would likely raise perception of efficiency of using and moving between the modes.

As discussed in section 5.15.4 of the EIS, passenger information displays would be located at each stop to provide passengers with the information necessary to make early, informed decisions on journey plans, both routinely and in response to abnormal conditions. The passenger information displays would provide up to date service information both specific to the stop and general information about the surrounding area.

There are also mobile apps available to download that provide customers with real time update and interchange services to enable pre-planning of trips.

2.4 Cumberland Council proposed that the terminus be shifted to the south (over the railway bridge) strengthen Hawkesbury Road to improve the passenger interchange between modes to better connect and integrate the suburb of Westmead and the role of Hawkesbury Road.


2.5 Cumberland Council identified that it is important that the design for the current light rail services, and in particular the proposed terminus, does not preclude or prevent the potential future expansion the light rail infrastructure further to the south into the wider Westmead suburb as part of a larger regional light rail network (stage 3 and beyond).

The current design of the project including the proposed terminus location would not preclude potential expansion the light rail infrastructure further to the south, should this be identified in the future.




3.0 Construction and operational phases – access and movement beyond the study area boundary

3.1 Cumberland Council identified the expected disruption to traffic utilising Hawkesbury Road and the traffic redirection onto the surrounding road network during the construction phase activities, including of the area outside of the Light Rail Study Area, will need to be carefully managed and negative impacts mitigated.

It is acknowledged that the construction of the project would result in the potential for disruption to traffic utilising Hawkesbury Road and the traffic redirection onto the surrounding road network. These impacts were identified and assessed in section 11.3 of the EIS. To manage and mitigate potential adverse traffic impacts, the EIS outlined a series of construction traffic, transport and access management strategies (section 17.2.2 of the EIS) which would be prepared and implemented during construction to minimise potential impacts. These strategies/plans would include: » Construction network management plan to identify appropriate traffic mitigation and

management measures and establish a framework for coordinating their implementation during the construction of the project.

» Construction traffic management plans including site-specific construction traffic management plans and traffic control plans.

» Other traffic, transport and access management strategies for managing specific issues such as intersection works, pedestrian and cycle traffic movements, road changes and obtaining road occupancy licences.

3.2 Cumberland Council stated that safe and clear access routes for pedestrians and cyclists, within the changed vehicle traffic conditions and areas of construction activities, with minimal time delays will also need to be carefully managed and addressed.

As identified above, as part of the suite of construction traffic management strategies that would be prepared to manage impacts during construction, specific strategies to manage and maintain pedestrian and cycle movements throughout the project corridor, including along Hawkesbury Road, would be developed. These strategies would include requirements to ensure that safe and clear access routes for pedestrians and cyclists, within the areas of construction activities are maintained.

3.3 There are a number of bus routes which travel through the southern portion of Westmead and hence are outside of the study area, but which will be affected by the vehicular traffic/road diversions, slowing of traffic and associated congestion of the construction phase in particular. The prioritisation of bus services though any such traffic/route changes and the easy and safe access to bus stops, including at/with Westmead Station and local schools (such as Westmead Public School) should be protected.

Additional construction traffic associated with the project would have potential to result in minor delays to some existing bus services which operate to the south of the project. However, the proposed works are not anticipated to prevent the ongoing operation of these services.

Transport for NSW and the nominated contractor would consult with relevant bus operators and Cumberland Council to ensure that efficient bus services can continue to be provided.


C-113


4.0 Westmead Priority Precinct and future development

4.1 Cumberland Council noted that Westmead, including that area within the Cumberland LGA, has been designated as a Priority Precinct by the NSW Government. The cumulative challenges and benefits, and potential for improved outcomes, from the light rail and the Westmead priority precinct based activities (including those within the Cumberland Council local government area) will need to be taken into account and addressed.

The area associated with the Westmead Priority Precinct, including the area to the south of the Western railway line is acknowledged. As recognised throughout the EIS, the project would provide a catalyst for urban renewal along its entire corridor, providing connections to various areas of Western Sydney that would be transformed through significant NSW Government and private investment.

The proposed light rail alignment would provide three new stops within the priority precinct, including the Westmead stop. Based on a typical light rail stop catchment area of around 400 metres, the Westmead stop would also provide opportunities for redevelopment within a substantial portion of the priority precinct south of the T1 Western railway line. This would assist in meeting the cumulative challenges and benefits, and potential for improved outcomes, which the overall priority precinct presents.

4.2 Cumberland Council stated that if the light rail terminus was shifted to the southern side of the railway bridge, with potential for further extension southwards in future, this could facilitate and support the housing and employment based growth anticipated though Westmead Priority Precinct initiatives.

While it is noted that extension of the light rail to the south of the current Westmead stop could facilitate and support additional housing and employment based growth, this location has not been identified as a target area for Stage 1 of the project.

Further detail regarding the consideration of the proposed location for the Westmead stop is provided in Item 2.1 of this table. Item 2.5 of this table provides a response to the potential future extension of the project south of the Western railway line at Westmead.

5.0 Wentworthville

5.1 Cumberland Council identified that given the proximity and access between the Wentworthville and Westmead centres, and the planned future growth of each centre, there is anticipated to be increased movement between these two centres. The future light rail would also directly and indirectly influence this relationship and so will have a regional and cumulative impact on and from Wentworthville.

The planned and ongoing development of centres adjacent to and within the vicinity of the project such as Wentworthville is acknowledged.

Further detail regarding the consideration of and potential future extension of the project south of the Western railway line at Westmead is provided in Item 2.5 of this table.




6.0 Other Cumberland Council Actions and Priorities

6.1 Cumberland Council noted that they would continue to advocate for and seek to provide sufficient infrastructure for the increasing resident and working population particularly in terms of public transport as well as open space and community facilities to achieve improved amenity outcomes.

Cumberland Council’s ongoing advocacy for ongoing infrastructure provisions and community facilities is acknowledged.

6.2 All stakeholders should be involved in planning for these areas. Cumberland Council is a key stakeholder in this and in any other project that involves development in and around the Greater Parramatta area. We will welcome further opportunities to provide input into the planning for the future of this important area.

Transport for NSW is committed to working with all key stakeholders, including local government, as part of the development of the project, including ongoing consultation with Cumberland Council.


C-115

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE The Office of Environment and Heritage provided a submission regarding the project on 16 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.3.

Table C.3 Office of Environment and Heritage


1.0 Biodiversity

1.1 Potential impacts on the Grey-headed Flying-fox Office of Environment and Heritage noted that it is essential that all efforts are made to protect and enhance the camp, and any potential impacts that may lead to dispersal or to the camp shifting location, must be minimised.

Mitigation and management measures to minimise impacts to the camp as far as practicable would be implemented and detailed in the Biodiversity Management Plan. The proposed mitigation and management measures are outlined in mitigation and management measure BI-1 to BI-9.

1.2 The BAR states that Grey-headed Flying-fox are tolerant of some level of ongoing noise and light impacts, which Office of Environment and Heritage agrees with. However, it is the impacts from construction noise associated with this proposal that OEH considers are of most concern. The BAR mentions construction noise impacts in section 8.6.1.2, but the BAR concludes that these will not be an issue as the noise will be adequately buffered by vegetation and buildings.

Office of Environment and Heritage notes that the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by SLR Consulting does not include objective measurement of potential noise that could reach the camp.

Ambient noise monitoring and an assessment of predicted construction noise (worst case scenario) in the vicinity of the Grey-headed Flying-fox camp was completed as part of the EIS. The results of ambient noise monitoring and contours depicting the assessment results are provided in Appendix C, D and H of Technical Paper 13 – Ambient, Construction and Operational Noise results.

Ambient noise monitoring results of Cumberland Hospital identified noise levels between 43 and 72 dBA would have the potential to occur in this area. Ambient noise included light vehicle activity (ignition, door slamming, idling engine etc.), aeroplanes and helicopters (likely associated predominantly with the operation of Westmead Health Precinct). The existing Flying-fox camp is assumed to have become accustomed to noise levels within this dBA range as a result of the existing environment in addition to recent developments such as the redevelopment of the Western Sydney Stadium.




1.2 (cont.)

Additionally, Office of Environment and Heritage considered that given the high risk that the construction noise impacts could move the (current Grey-headed Flying-fox) camp to a less suitable location, that the BAR should include a more thorough noise assessment, which quantifies potential impacts and demonstrates, through comparisons with other similar situations and projects, that the Grey-headed Flying-fox will not be impacted by this noise.

Similar camps throughout NSW (i.e. Singleton, Balgowlah, Botanic Gardens etc.) have situated themselves within urban environments that would have similar ambient noise range and as a result are not significantly affected or dispersed (Tidemann, 2003, SLR Consulting, 2017). Additional ambient noise monitoring was undertaken following exhibition of the EIS at the Balgowlah Grey-headed Flying-fox camp, which is situated adjacent to the busy Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation. Monitoring from Birrima Street and Balgowlah Road (adjacent to the existing camp) identified a range of ambient noise from 61 to 72dBA (SLR Consulting, 2017). It is acknowledged the Balgowlah Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is currently stable and does not appear to be disrupted by existing ambient noise levels.

The monitoring of the Balgowlah Flying-fox camp displays adaptation to similar noise range to the Parramatta Flying-fox camp and similar noise levels which are predicted to occur during operation of the project.

The construction noise mapping results presented in the EIS illustrate that based on the proposed construction methodologies, construction noise levels are predicted to be 50 to 60 dBA in the camp area (about 150 metres from the proposed works). As the camp is situated about 150 metres from the proposed works and are buffered by vegetation and buildings, construction noise is anticipated to be within or less than the ambient noise range currently recorded in the vicinity.

SLR Consulting have also previously undertaken actual construction noise monitoring of the Sydney Light Rail project. Construction noise from Sydney Light Rail project (to date) has ranged between 45 and 95dBA, immediately adjacent to the works. Excavation works (i.e. plant operation, potholing, material movement and minor demolition) during the project ranged between 60 and 71dBA, similar to the predicted noise levels within the EIS.

As stated in the BAR (section 8.6.1.2), there are numerous locations where colonies camp in metropolitan areas (i.e. Balgowlah, Singleton, Coffs Harbour etc.) where ambient noise would likely be higher (i.e. greater than 70 dBA) than predicted construction noise, yet these camps are not regularly impacted / dispersed due to noise within this range.

Based on these findings and the fact that the Parramatta Flying-fox camp is situated 150 metres from construction and operation noise, it is unlikely that the camp would be impacted by noise to the point it would disperse from the area.


C-117


1.3 Office of Environment and Heritage supports the proposed development of a biodiversity management plan which will include strategies to minimise impacts on the GHFF camp at Parramatta Park.

However, Office of Environment and Heritage considers that the biodiversity management plan should also include contingency measures that will be undertaken if the mitigation and management measures have been unsuccessful in mitigating impacts, i.e. if the camp disperses or shifts location as a result of the works.

Support for the development of a management plan for biodiversity by Office of Environment and Heritage is acknowledged.

During development of the flora and fauna management plan, inclusion of contingency measures in relation to the potential impacts to the Parramatta Flying-fox camp would be reviewed and developed.

1.4 Supplementary measures The BAR states that no ecosystem credits are available to offset impacts on the Mangrove Forest and so the Biodiversity Offset Strategy proposes the use of supplementary measures in lieu of offsets. It is noted that in accordance with the Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (OEH, 2014a), proponents must enter into a voluntary planning agreement with the Department of Planning and Environment to implement a supplementary measure.

The project requires a single credit for the impacts to ME024 Mangrove Forest for an area of impact less than 0.03 hectares. Given the minimum vegetation size required for assessment has previously been limited for operation reasons to 0.25 hectares, it is proposed that the impacts and offset requirement to ME024 would be combined with the adjoining impacts on the vegetation zone for ME023. As such the residual 1 credit of ME024 mangrove forest would be offset as part of the credit requirements for ME023 accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment 2014.

Transport for NSW is also committed to reviewing the currently available credits prior to the timeframes required for finalising the biodiversity offset requirements for the project and if ME023 credits are available these would be investigated further. Alternatively, the project could propose to provide the residual credit requirement through payment into the Biodiversity Conservation Trust in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment 2014 supplementary measures.

Transport for NSW would confirm the requirements in relation to the implementation of the supplementary measures in lieu of offsets with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and Department of Planning and Environment during detailed design.




1.5 Offsetting The Biodiversity Offset Strategy proposes to offset ME058 with ME041 from Biobank Agreement 148. The variation rules allow for this where the ecosystem credit being used as an offset is in the same vegetation formation as the ecosystem credit being impacted. ME058 is equivalent to PCT 1841 which is in the Wet Sclerophyll Forest (shrubby sub-formation), and ME041 is equivalent to PCT1281 which is in the Wet Sclerophyll Forest (grassy sub-formation). Therefore, offsetting ME058 with ME041 does not meet the variation rules, as they are not from the same vegetation formation.

It is acknowledged that while both of the Plant Community Types (PCTs) belong to the Wet Sclerophyll Forest vegetation formation, ME058 is the equivalent of the PCT 1841 (Wet Sclerophyll Forest (shrubby sub-formation)) and ME041 is equivalent to PCT 1281 (Wet Sclerophyll Forest (grassy sub-formation)) and therefore strictly falls outside of the variation rules. However, it is considered that within the project’s locality the PCT ME058 provides similar habitat values to ME041 and Transport for NSW also acknowledge that the proposed outcome within the BOS will result in an increased protection to the critically endangered ecological community Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest listed (ME041) under State and Commonwealth and as such provides a valuable conservation outcome for the biodiversity within the locality.

The project requires a relatively small number of residual ME058 credits for an area of impact of less than 0.15 hectares (five credits). Given the minimum vegetation size required for assessment has previously been limited for operation reasons to 0.25 hectares, Transport for NSW propose that the impacts and offset requirement to ME058 would be combined with the adjoining impacts on the vegetation zone for ME041. As such the residual five credits of ME058 would be offset as part of the credit requirements for ME041 in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment 2014.

Transport for NSW is also committed to reviewing the currently available credits prior to the timeframes required for finalising the biodiversity offset requirements for the project. If ME058 credits are available, the potential purchase of these credits would be investigated further. Alternatively, the project could propose to provide the residual credit requirements through payment into the Biodiversity Conservation Trust in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment 2014 supplementary measures.


C-119


2.0 Floodplain risk management

2.1 Climate change impact Section 6.1.1 of the report (Technical Paper 7) states that ‘Given the project is located a significant distance upstream from the coast it is not realistic to apply the full increase of the sea level rise at the downstream boundaries of each of the project TUFLOW models.’

This statement is incorrect, as there is no reason to conclude that Mean Sea Level is attenuated by distance from the coast.

The statement is not intended to imply that the full sea level rise was not considered in the climate change modelling (TUFLOW). The intent was to explain that there is an intermediate step required to correctly derive the downstream boundary conditions for climate change in the project TUFLOW model, given that the type of downstream boundary is different to that used in Council’s MIKE11 model. This process is explained in greater detail in section 6.1.1 of the Flooding Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 7, Volume 4).

The downstream boundary conditions in the TUFLOW climate change runs were derived by applying the full sea level rises (+0.4 metres and +0.9 metres) and associated rainfall increases to Council’s MIKE11 model (as the downstream boundary condition is based on tidal levels). The applicable stage hydrographs from the MIKE11 runs were then extracted and adopted as the downstream boundary conditions in the TUFLOW models for the project climate change scenarios. Therefore, the full predicted increases in mean sea level were reflected in the flood modelling.

2.2 Performance criteria and design status OEH noted that the level of flood immunity proposed for the project is such that it cannot operate during any flood event larger than 0.2 EY (i.e. 20% AEP event). OEH notes that the level of flood immunity for project is lower than the Sydney Light Rail flood immunity. Given this, Office of Environment and Heritage questioned whether the proposed level of immunity was acceptable for a major transport infrastructure service.

Office of Environment and Heritage recommended that the proponent clarify how and on what basis the adopted design event for flood protection for operation of the project was set as 20% AEP (i.e. 5 year ARI event). In this regard, OEH recommends that the proponent review the level of flood immunity proposed, considering damages, the cost of repair and social disruption given the likely frequency of flooding resulting in damages.

It is acknowledged that the light rail alignment travels through flood prone areas. As discussed in section 10.4.4.6 of the EIS, the impact assessment demonstrates that it is hydraulically feasible to operate the project along its entire length up to a 0.2 EY. This assumes a maximum depth of standing water over the track of 80 millimetres. The operation of the light rail would rarely need to cease and when required would cease for a short amount of time. The assessment also demonstrated that potential impacts up to the one per cent AEP would be mitigated with the exception of some minor local impacts, further reducing the potential risk of affecting the operation of the light rail. These areas would be investigated further during detailed design and specific mitigation and management measures developed.

Ongoing refinement of the project is also investigating the potential for the project to achieving a 0.05 EY flood immunity along the full length of the project alignment without materially impacting on flooding of neighbouring land.




2.3 Drainage upgrade Section 8.5.3 states that the flood immunity for the operation of the project is based on upgrading the stormwater drainage system. However, the proposed concept drainage plans to achieve the targeted flood immunity are based on key assumptions that involve a high degree of uncertainty. Office of Environment and Heritage notes that this uncertainty may risk their implementation.

The flood modelling completed for the EIS (as presented in Flooding Impact Assessment) demonstrates that the required flood immunity could be achieved for the concept design, and that further modelling would be completed during detailed design to confirm the flood immunity of the project. Aspects of the proposed stormwater design which are subject to uncertainty would be addressed in detail at future design stages as further information is obtained.

2.4 Office of Environment and Heritage supports the ‘incorporation of stormwater survey commissioned by PLR that has not yet been received to confirm the existing network’ identified in Section 10.3.2 Flood Model Development of the Flood Technical Paper. Further, this additional survey data should be provided to Council as well as for work as executed new/upgraded drainage infrastructure.

Support from Office of Environment and Heritage regarding ongoing survey works for stormwater is acknowledged.

Where additional drainage is provided as part of the project, Transport for NSW would provide the additional survey information for this infrastructure to relevant stakeholders (such as Council).

2.5 North Parramatta Bridge and Vineyard Creek Bridge Section 8.5.4 notes that the proposed replacement of the North Parramatta Bridge soffit level is proposed to be lower than the existing bridge soffit level. As this is a major hydraulic structure in the Upper Parramatta Catchment, the lower level of the bridge would alter flood levels for all floods above the 1% AEP. Similarly, the Vineyard Creek Bridge soffit level is proposed to be lower than the existing bridge.

Office of Environment and Heritage notes that the impacts of lowering bridge levels should be addressed in consultation with Council.

Transport for NSW is committed to achieving key environmental performance outcomes including not adversely affecting existing flood behaviour in the vicinity of the project, as identified in section 17.7 of the EIS. The North Parramatta bridge and Vineyard Creek bridge would be designed to meet these outcomes.

The soffit levels provided in Technical Paper 7 were based on the structural design at concept design stage. During detailed design the bridges will be further refined, and soffit of the replacement bridge may match that of the existing bridge provided the impact criteria are met.

Consultation with Council would be ongoing as flooding impacts resulting from the replacement/inclusion of existing structure are further investigated as the design progresses.


C-121


2.6 Emergency Response Plan

Office of Environment and Heritage noted that it is prudent to prepare an emergency management response plan (ERP), in consultation with the State Emergency Service and Council, to address emergency management aspects including access and evacuation for locations within the probable maximum flood (PMF) extent to ensure safe construction and operation of the project. This ERP should include an assessment of the flood evacuation needs and impacts from the project on the capacity or operational aspects of existing local evacuation routes.

Section 17.2.12 of the EIS identified that an emergency and incident response management plan would be prepared as part of the project CEMP. The plan would include processes to be followed in the event of an environmental incident or other emergency response procedures to be implemented during construction of the project.

Additionally, as identified in the EIS, mitigation and management measure HY-11 states that a Flood Operational Management Plan would be prepared to describe the project operational procedure for the network during flood events. As part of this plan, emergency response procedures for managing potential flooding events which affect light rail operations would be developed, including the need for, and procedures to be implemented, in the event evacuation is required. The Flood Operational Management Plan would also be prepared with input from relevant stakeholders (where required) including State Emergency Service and Council.

2.7 Flood Management Strategy

The Flooding Technical Paper indicates that a Flood Management Strategy would be prepared for flood affected land prior to construction and a concept strategy for operational response during flooding up to depth of 80mm has been developed by the project.

Office of Environment and Heritage recommends that the project impacts and associated mitigation and management measures be incorporated in the Flood Management Strategy and that the proposed completion time of the Flood Management Strategy should be agreed by the Secretary.

As identified in the EIS and detailed in mitigation and management measure HY-4, a Flood Management Strategy would be completed for the project which would demonstrate how the detailed design would achieve the desired Performance Criteria. This would be supported by additional flood modelling and would identify design responses to manage potential impacts during construction and operation.

The Flood Management Strategy would be prepared with input from relevant stakeholders (where required) and approved as part of the overall project CEMP.

2.8 Utilisation of Council Flood Study

Office of Environment and Heritage recommends that the project TUFLOW modelling be updated when the results become available following the completion of the ongoing City of Parramatta Flood Study.

As part of the detailed design, ongoing modelling would consider all accessible information, including any available modelling completed as part of the City of Parramatta’s Flood Study.



OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE – HERITAGE DIVISION The Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division provided a submission regarding the project on 16 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.4.

Table C.4 Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division (Heritage Council of NSW)


1.0 General comments

1.1 The EIS has not investigated if there are any potential heritage items within the development area. An assessment should be undertaken (including the two-storey industrial building proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed maintenance/ stabling facility) to understand if any potential heritage items will be impacted by the works.

The project methodology for assessment of potential heritage items within the vicinity of the project was consistent with other SSI impact assessments such as Sydney Light Rail and Sydney Metro. The assessments undertaken, including the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10) and the Archaeological Assessment (Technical Paper 11) identified and assessed all known heritage items in accordance with the secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) relating to built and non-Aboriginal heritage.

Demolition of the existing structures on the site was assessed as part of a separate planning approvals process (remediation of the site).


C-123


1.2 Plans are deficient The supplied plans are not sufficiently detailed to provide an understanding of the alignment of the light rail line or impacts to statutory listed places along the route. Further, detailed designs for the light rail infrastructure including stops and interchanges have not been finalised. This has made it difficult to adequately assess the visual impacts to the views, setting and character of statutory listed places.

The impact assessment has been undertaken based on a project disturbance footprint. This takes into account the light rail alignment as well as those areas adjacent to the alignment that could potentially be impacted by the project. This has allowed for identification of areas and heritage items potentially impacted along the route prior to the detailed design. Prior to public exhibition, Department of Planning and Environment completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs. This review identified that the information provided met the relevant requirements and could be placed on public exhibition.

The assessments considered the potential visual impacts of the project on heritage items and identified where further consideration of urban and landscape design is required during detailed design to mitigate these impacts. Specifically, mitigation and management measure VL-2 identifies that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared for the project during detailed design and would include development of design that responds to the amenity and character of the local area and heritage items located within or adjacent to the project area. Mitigation and management measure HL-11 identifies that the Urban Design and Landscape Plan would apply across the project and be applicable to the following heritage areas: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » North Parramatta Conservation Area. » Stable (and potential archaeological site). » Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape. » Sewage Pumping Station 67.

» Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. » Dundas Railway Station Group. » Carlingford Stock Feeds.

Mitigation and management measure HE-10 requires that the detailed design of platforms, stops, substations and ancillary works minimise heritage impacts. Continued consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the Office of Environment and Heritage would continue to be undertaken during the detailed design development where relevant to potential heritage impacts.




1.3 Need for Design Guidelines

Significant design development is required and should involve consultation with specialist urban designers and heritage architects. It is recommended the Heritage Council provides input into the design of the stops within the proximity of SHR listed items to ensure impacts to setting and character are minimised.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW. This document is intended to establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape outcomes during detailed design.

The Urban Design Requirements handbook was prepared in close collaboration with Council, relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders. This includes a Joint Urban Design Working Group with Council, and presentations to the independent Transport for NSW Design and Sustainability Review Panel (the Panel), chaired by the Government Architect.

With respect to consideration of potential heritage impacts during detailed design and the involvement of a heritage architect as part of this process, revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 identifies that an appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to a number of heritage items along the project alignment including: » Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. » Prince Alfred Square. » Lennox Bridge. » Dundas Railway Station Group.

Where relevant, the heritage architect would also be available to provide advice regarding impacts to other heritage items which may be impacted by the project.

Transport for NSW would consult with Heritage Council regarding the proposed design of the stops within proximity to the above listed items.


C-125


1.4 Cumberland District Hospital Site – Separate Consideration

The proposed works within the Cumberland District Hospital Site for the project will be considered as part of a separate Integrated Development Assessment application for the public domain at Parramatta North. That assessment is yet to be approved. The project has assumed that this assessment will be approved as some of the proposed works are dependent on it being approved.

It would be more appropriate for the light rail project to provide an appropriate assessment of the impact of the project route on the affected items.

Following exhibition of the EIS, ongoing development of the project and discussion with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, the demolition of the buildings within the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area which are required to be removed to accommodate the project have been assessed for inclusion within the proposed scope of works as part of the Preferred Infrastructure Report.

Further detail and assessment of the potential impacts associated with the demolition of these buildings is provided in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

1.5 Post Approval Consideration

It is noted that if the project were approved, there would be a need to manage infrastructure generated from this project within the SHR curtilages of several items. This would need to be addressed post approval.

As identified in section 17.2.10 of the EIS, measures to minimise direct and visual impacts on heritage items from works within the curtilage of or in the vicinity of heritage items would be undertaken as part of ongoing landscape management.

Where works are identified that would impact on SHR curtilages that have an existing Conservation Management Plan, revised mitigation and management measure HE-16 identifies that for several State Heritage Register items, existing Conservation Management Plans would inform the design and construction methodology in these areas. Where impacts to SHR items would significantly modify the item or impact significant elements, Transport for NSW would be responsible for preparing updated CMPs which would include recommendations on any required amendments to curtilages.

Updates to existing CMPs would be undertaken during detailed design following project approval.




1.6 Uncertainty of Risk Assessment and Impact Methodology

The EIS methodology for assessing impact from this proposal has been based on an approach explained in the ICOMOS publication Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment for Cultural World Heritage Properties. This type of assessment methodology makes it difficult to understand the level of impact the project will have. This assessment approach for the project has been used in other assessments, for example the Sydney Metro but it does not lead to clarity about specific project impacts.

The assessment methodologies undertaken for the each of the heritage assessments (Technical Papers 10 and 11) were based on the ICOMOS guidelines and also the NSW Heritage Manual including the Statements of Heritage Impact publication. Assessments of significance were provided for each item, and where required, levels of impacts identified to clarify how impacts would affect the existing significance levels.

Levels of impact are assessed based on definitions relating to ability to mitigate those impacts, for example major impacts cannot be fully mitigated. This approach is appropriate for SSI approvals as its enables an effective capping of impacts as part of the approval. Any impacts over the level assessed would trigger a modification which would require consultation with Heritage Division. Consistency assessments also rely on assessment of levels of impact.

As well as the methodology described above, the Built Heritage Impact Assessment and the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment also discussed cumulative impacts in more general terms, both for individual items, such as the Cumberland Hospital site and the project area as a whole.

1.7 Key Research into Likely Impacted Archaeological Sites Missing

The SSI EIS lacks appropriate site-specific research and assessment to understand the impacts and level of significance for historical archaeological resources along the identified project route. The Assessment has relied on the values assessed in the 2000 archaeological management plan prepared for Parramatta (Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Study). The absence of specific assessment and research has created potential for underassessment of both significance and the impact of this proposal.

It is uncertain whether detailed design could mitigate or avoid harm to these sites. To address this, the project must include a detailed assessment stage as part of the Research Design prepared to support the project.

The Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Study (PHALMS) was used as the basis for the assessment in accordance with Council requirements under the LEP, although site specific research was undertaken for each Heritage Archaeological Management Unit (HAMU). Primary research was undertaken for the general history and outlined where relevant in the HAMU tables. Historical maps and plans were overlayed to assess archaeological potential in more detail. It should be noted that assessments only considered the portion of PHALMS archaeological management unit (AMU) impacted by the project. For example, if a PHALMS AMU was large in extent, only the section relating to the project’s area of impact was assessed in the HAMU table.

In accordance with HE-1, different levels of mitigation have been proposed depending on the assessed archaeological significance of the HAMU. For example, for works within an area assessed as having state or local archaeological significance, an Archaeological Research Design (ARD) would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

The OEH Heritage Division would be consulted during the preparation of the Archaeological Research Design.


C-127


1.8 Recommended Conditions of Approval The Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division provided a series of recommendations for conditions of approval which should be applied to the project, subject to approval. Recommended conditions are summarised below: » Engaging a heritage architect and heritage

landscape architect to be involved in the detailed design of the project.

» Nominating a qualified historical archaeological consultant to be involved with the project during detailed design and construction.

» Undertaking additional Historical Archaeological Testing to Inform Design and avoid harm to state significant archaeological sites.

» Preparation of a final archaeological report detailing of any artefacts recovered, where they are located and details of their ongoing conservation and protection in perpetuity by the land owner.

» Preparation of an interpretation plan.

The conditions of approval recommended by Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division are noted and align with the mitigation and management measures identified in Section 17 of the EIS. Further, as outlined in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, the following measures have been adopted: » Revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 identified that an appropriately qualified and

experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design.

» Mitigation and management measure HE-1 requires additional archaeological testing be undertaken during detailed design to inform the finalisation of the project. The process of this testing would be detailed in the Archaeological Research Design.

» The Archaeological Research Design would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. An excavation director who meets the NSW Heritage Division requirements for directing State significant archaeological investigations must manage the works.

» As identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1, post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and relics conservation would be carried out if relics are identified.

» As identified in mitigation and management measure HE-9, an interpretation plan would be prepared for the project in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual, the NSW Heritage Office’s Interpreting Heritage Places and Items: Guidelines (August 2005), and the NSW Heritage Council’s Heritage Interpretation Policy.




1.9 The Cumberland District Hospital Group

Landscaping

An analysis of existing landscaping within the Cumberland District Hospital (West campus) must be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage landscape specialist to identify significant planting, and to provide measures to avoid or mitigate any impacts during construction.

The revised mitigation and management measures identified in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report also note a number of measures which would assist in minimising impacts including: » VL-2 which stated that an Urban Design and Landscape Plan would be prepared in consultation

with local council and other relevant stakeholders (including heritage specialists as required). » Revised mitigation and management measure VL-2 which noted that the Urban Design and

Landscape Plan would consider specific measures for a number of heritage items including the Cumberland District Hospital.

» Revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 which noted that during detailed design and construction, impacts to significant trees and plantings would be avoided where possible.

» Revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 which stated that an appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review of the project (including elements such as the Urban Design and Landscape Plan) throughout detailed design including in relation to the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct.

1.10 Design

Design development for the proposed bridge connecting the Cumberland District Hospital Western and Eastern campuses must give consideration to the surrounding setting and landscape character of the area. Views to the SHR Cumberland District Hospital (East campus) must not be impacted. Designs must be prepared in consultation with the Heritage Council or its delegate.

As identified in section 12.4.2 of the EIS, the establishment of a light rail alignment within this area would result in some contrast with the current parkland landscape; however, this would be consistent with the future use and urban character of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area.

Revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 notes that during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including design of the Parramatta North Bridge to minimise visual impacts and retain significant views and vistas to the nineteenth century heritage landscape. This would be prepared in consultation with an experience heritage architect and the Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council).


C-129


1.11 Alignment

The alignment of the Light Rail line through the Cumberland District Hospital (East campus) site must be modified to avoid the removal of trees identified as being of high significance to minimise impacts to the significant landscape setting.

The impact assessment in the EIS was undertaken at concept design phase, therefore indicative tree impacts were identified which reflect a conservative estimate. Impacts to trees would be further assessed and managed through detailed design and in construction to reduce impacts. TR-1 identifies that opportunities for retaining trees of medium to high retention value which have been identified as being potentially impacted by the project (i.e. trees having more than a minor impact) would be considered where appropriate and feasible through the use of design modification and tree sensitive construction techniques.

Where possible, the alignment through the Cumberland District Hospital (east) would be further considered. Revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 notes that during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including avoiding impacts to significant trees and plantings where possible.

1.12 Kerbing

Sandstone kerbing proposed to be removed as part of the Light Rail alignment through Cumberland District Hospital (East campus) must either be retained or salvaged and reused within the site.

Revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 identifies that as part of the detailed design, opportunities to minimise impacts on the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct would be explored including designing roadworks to prioritise the retention and protection of kerbing.

Additionally, revised mitigation and management measure HE-15 identified that prior to total or partial demolition of heritage items or elements located within the boundaries of a heritage item (including elements within the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct), the heritage fabric would be identified for salvage and reuse opportunities considered. Components of high and exceptional significance recommended for conservation and reuse would be listed within a salvage schedule to be incorporated within a Salvage Scheme for the project.

1.13 Vibration

Significant buildings within the Cumberland District Hospital site (East campus) in the vicinity of the proposed Light Rail line must be monitored for impacts of vibration during construction to ensure they are not structurally damaged. Protection systems must be put in place to ensure potential impact damage during construction is avoided.

As outlined in revised mitigation and management measure NV-1, a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed during detailed design and would be included in the CEMP.

Specifically, revised mitigation and management measure HE-22 notes that the method for the construction of the project would be developed to minimise direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items (including vibration related impacts identified in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan).

As identified in mitigation and management measure NV-7, building condition surveys would be completed both prior to the commencement of construction works and following the completion of construction works to identify existing damage and any damage due to the works.




1.14 Acoustic treatment

Any acoustic treatments proposed to be implemented on significant buildings within the Cumberland District Hospital site (East campus) must be done in consultation with an experienced heritage specialist and the Heritage Council or its delegate.

Where acoustic treatment to buildings within the Cumberland District Hospital site (east) are identified as required to mitigate noise impacts, the design of these treatments would be undertaken in consultation with a heritage specialist and the Heritage Division.

Revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 notes that during detailed design, appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to a number of heritage items, including the Cumberland District Hospital Precinct. Where required, the Heritage Division (as delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would also be consulted.

1.15 Design in context

Design development of the Light Rail stop proposed within the Cumberland District Hospital site (East campus) must involve consultation with the Heritage Division to ensure the significant heritage values of the place are not impacted.

Mitigation and management measure HE-10 requires that the platforms, stops and substations be designed to remain non-obtrusive with limited bulk to minimise visual impacts on heritage items in the vicinity to respect the historical landscape of the project. Revised mitigation and management measure HE-11 also identifies that the detailed design development of the stop within the Cumberland District Hospital site (east) would include ongoing consultation with relevant stakeholders including the OEH Heritage Division to ensure the significant heritage values of the place are not impacted. A heritage architect would advise on design features within Cumberland District Hospital (revised mitigation and management measure HE-12).

1.16 Public Domain

The proponent must explore a grass track treatment within the designated open public space areas of the Cumberland District Hospital site (East campus) to ensure the significant parklike setting of the site is maintained. Further, consideration must be given to utilising a wire free operation of the Light Rail line within the site to mitigate against adverse visual impacts.

Mitigation and management measure VL-7 identifies that during detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for grass track treatments to mitigate visual impact on sections of the alignment including Cumberland Hospital (east).

In addition, mitigation and management measure VL-8 identifies that during detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for wire-free sections of the alignment including Cumberland Hospital (east). Feedback on the feasibility of wire-free technology for Cumberland District Hospital is currently being investigated with the construction industry.


C-131


1.17 Archaeology

The alignment of the project and associated impacts through the intersection of Greenup Drive and Factory Street should avoid known archaeologically significant remains identified through historical archaeological testing of the PNUT site. Significant archaeological remains shall be avoided in the placement of the alignment through the Cumberland District Hospital Group site. The project must demonstrate how avoidance has been achieved.

The alignment through the Cumberland District Hospital Group may impact on unknown/unrecorded archaeology. In accordance with HE-1, an Archaeological Research Design would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The Archaeological Research Design would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

Mitigation and management measure HE-4 identifies that modification of the proposed alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered, and impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance avoided where possible. As detailed design progresses, care would be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance, including the Cumberland District Hospital Group site.

In addition, the detailed design for sections of the project that would impact on known archaeological resources would be developed in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and relevant stakeholders as advised (e.g. the OEH and Council).

1.18 Old Government and Domain

Design development for the proposed works adjacent to the World Heritage listed Old Government House and Domain site’s Buffer Zone (in the ‘sensitive’ area) must give consideration to visual impacts to the site.

The design of the project included the consideration of visual impacts (both direct and indirect) to and from the Old Government House and Domain site (and buffer zone).

Section 11.5.2 of the EIS assessed the potential impacts of the project noting that the alignment is located away from the World Heritage site and buffer zone and therefore would minimise any direct impacts on the landscape values. Some minor works (consisting of line-marking within the existing road corridor only) would be required within the buffer zone of the item at the intersection of O’Connell Street with George Street and the intersection of O’Connell Street with Macquarie Street (located within the Parramatta central business district (CBD) precinct).

It was also acknowledged that the natural settings and significant views also contribute to the significance of Parramatta Park. The assessment concluded that in the locations where the project may potentially intersect with significant views, any impacts would be negligible to minor.




1.19 St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery

The proponent must explore wire free operations of the Light Rail line adjacent to the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery site to minimise visual impacts. Further, the design must be modified to ensure there is no encroachment within the SHR site.

As identified in the mitigation and management measures contained in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, a number of locations were identified for further consideration of wire-free running along the project alignment during detailed design. There are technical challenges in providing wire free in the area adjacent to the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery site, as there are limits to onboard energy storage capacity which pose challenges through major intersections. However, wire free has not been precluded through this area if a technical solution is identified.

A number of mitigation and management measures have been identified with the aim of minimising potential impacts including: » VL-9: Investigation of opportunities to refine the project footprint. » Revised mitigation and management measure HE-17: Investigating opportunities to reduce direct

impacts on trees.

1.20 The detailed design must be guided by the archaeological testing. The project must demonstrate how avoidance has been achieved to state significant archaeological remains associated with the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. This includes historic burials now outside the boundary of the site.

The ongoing design of the project would take into account the results of existing archaeological information and archaeological testing undertaken during the preparation of the EIS.

Mitigation and management measure HE-1 identifies that three archaeological management zones have been developed for the project to manage archaeology with varying levels of significance along the project corridor. These have been identified as including Zone 1 (State significant historical archaeology); Zone 2 (Locally significant historical archaeology); and Zone 3 (Nil-low archaeological resource present). As such, St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery is located within archaeological management zone - Zone 1 (State significant historical archaeology). Mitigation and management measure HE-1 included measures for State significant historical archaeology such as: » Preparation of an Archaeological Research Design which would outline a methodology for the

investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources. » Management of works under the supervision of an archaeological excavation director. » Methods for appropriate justification of impact or removal of archaeology within a State significant

site.


C-133


1.21 The Royal Oaks Hotel and potential archaeological site

The demolition of the Royal Oaks Hotel building along Church Street is not supported. The proponent must explore alternative design solutions to retain the building. This building is rare in the context of North Parramatta and must be excluded from the development area.

With respect to the proposed impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel, a number of options have been investigated with the aim of avoiding or minimising impacts to this building. These options included alternative routes, modifying the requirements of the Church Street corridor and realignment of the corridor further east.

The street layout is constrained, including the setbacks of other buildings and the intrusion of the Royal Oak Hotel into the road reserve beyond the building lines north and south. If the Royal Oak Hotel were to be retained, the street design and alignment would need to be modified over a distance of approximately 200 metres. These modifications would have impacts to the required functionality of the precinct road network, multiple properties and operations within the alignment.

Due to the space constraints associated with the corridor and operational requirements of the project (further outlined in section 5.11.4 of this Submissions Report), including road lane and footpath widths and turning paths, this building is proposed to be removed as part of the project.

1.22 Prince Alfred Square and Potential Archaeological Site

Design development of the Light Rail stop proposed to be located adjacent to the Prince Alfred Square must involve consultation with the Heritage Division to ensure the significant heritage values of the place are not impacted.

Following ongoing development of the project design following exhibition of the EIS, the proposed stop at this location has been moved around five metres to the east of the previously proposed location, further reducing potential impacts to Prince Alfred Square (refer to section 6.6 of this Submissions Report – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Consultation with the Heritage Division would continue to be undertaken to ensure the heritage values of the place are not impacted.

1.23 The proponent must explore alternative design solutions to retain the north-eastern corner of Prince Alfred Square and ensure the existing configuration of the square is not adversely modified.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, the proposed stop at this location has been moved around five metres to the east of the previously proposed location. The proposed change to the design and location of the stop would result in reduced impacts to Prince Alfred Square, including retention of the north-eastern corner of the park. This change is further described in the Preferred Infrastructure Report.

Further details regarding the proposed change are provided in section 6.6 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report).




1.24 Lennox Bridge

The Heritage Council raises strong concerns to the alignment across this nationally significant structure on visual, structural and landscape grounds. The proponent must explore alternative design options to avoid the Light Rail alignment crossing Lennox Bridge.

The Heritage Council’s concerns regarding the potential visual, structural and landscape impacts associated with the project are addressed in response to Items 1.25 to 1.30 of this table.

With respect to the request to explore alternative design options to avoid an alignment which crosses Lennox Bridge, alternative alignments such as along O’Connell Street were considered during the initial route assessment. This route had a number of disadvantages compared with the Church Street route, including: » Traffic: O’Connell Street is a strategic freight and traffic corridor. O’Connell Street forms part of the

inner ring road for the Parramatta CBD ensuring traffic can move around the Parramatta area and avoid the CBD. Establishing light rail along O’Connell Street would result in more significant traffic impacts to the wider network when compared to a Church Street alignment.

» Heritage: The alignment along O’Connell Street would be directly adjacent to the World Heritage listed Old Government House and Domain which would potentially have direct, indirect and visual impacts.

» Socio-economic benefits: A route along O’Connell Street would not allow direct access to restaurants and cafes on Eat Street. It would also reduce the connectivity to Church Street and Macquarie Street, reducing potential growth in business exposure, passing trade and potential sales. The reduced accessibility would also potentially adversely affect the levels of safety, connectivity and productivity of the night time economy along this street.

» Crowd management: A light rail stop on O’Connell Street would be too close to the new Western Sydney Stadium to allow safe crowd dispersal. During consultation Venues NSW recommended that any light rail stop serving Western Sydney Stadium be at least 450 metres from the stadium entrance to maintain a safe environment following sporting events.

» Supporting development: Existing land use controls due to the proximity of the O’Connell Street to the World Heritage-Listed Old Government House and Domain would limit the potential development opportunities that light rail would support.

Impacts of the project on Lennox Bridge are discussed in section 13.5.2.1 of the EIS. Construction of the project would require installation of light rail tracks on the eastern side of Lennox Bridge. While these works would be undertaken on the historic 1836 side of the bridge, they would be carried out in the non-significant bitumen deck, and would not impact on heritage fabric. Strengthening works were recently carried out on Lennox Bridge and the structure has been assessed by structural engineers as being suitable to support light rail. The project would result in a moderate direct impact on Lennox Bridge as impacts on the original fabric would be avoided.


C-135


1.25 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, an independent engineering specialist with experience in heritage bridges must prepare a thorough structural investigation/ report into the SHR listed Lennox Bridge. This must outline what impacts construction of the Light Rail line will have on the bridge; what strengthening measures are proposed, and their likely impact.

An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage engineer would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to Lennox Bridge to minimise the direct and visual impacts, as identified in revised mitigation and management measure HE-12.

Further, strengthening works were recently carried out on Lennox Bridge (by others) and the structure has been independently assessed by structural engineers as being suitable to support the project.

1.26 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, an assessment of the introduction of rail and rail infrastructure on the heritage bridge must be fully assessed as it has the potential to undermine the State significant heritage values of this unique asset.

An assessment of the heritage impacts on Lennox Bridge is provided in section 13.5.2 of the EIS and Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10). As concluded in the Built Heritage Impact Assessment, Lennox Bridge would continue to meet the threshold for State heritage significance.

1.27 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, the alignment should be modified to run across the 1935 section of the bridge instead of the 1839 section.

The alignment in this area is constrained by the built form, road reserve, Lennox Bridge and Prince Alfred Square. By running on the eastern side of Lennox Bridge, the proposed alignment would minimise impact on Prince Alfred Square and provide an efficient (i.e. straight line) alignment across the bridge which does not span both sections of the bridge. The construction of the light rail tracks on Lennox Bridge would be carried out in the non-significant bitumen deck, and would not impact on the heritage fabric of the original 1839 masonry.

1.28 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, the proponent must utilise wire free operations of the Light Rail line on the Lennox Bridge to minimise visual impacts. Similarly, new lighting structures on Lennox Bridge are not supported as they will have an adverse visual impact.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including considering a wire-free design to reduce visual impacts. Feedback on the feasibility of wire-free technology across Lennox Bridge is currently being investigated with the construction industry.

The design of new lighting structures (if determined to be required) would be finalised as part of the detailed design of the project. A heritage architect would provide advice through detailed design on Lennox Bridge, including with respect to lighting elements.




1.29 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, detailed drawings showing any structural changes to the bridge, including stabilisation and conservation works, must be provided to the Heritage Council for comment prior to finalisation of the project.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, the Heritage Division (as a delegate of the NSW Heritage Council) would be consulted during detailed design.

1.30 Should the route across the Lennox Bridge be approved, all works to Lennox Bridge must be undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience working on heritage sites, under the supervision of a heritage specialist.

All works associated with the project would be undertaken by appropriately skilled tradespeople. Revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 identifies that an appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to a number of heritage items along the project.

1.31 Barrack Lane/Parramatta Convict Lumberyard

Physical remains located in Arthur Philip High School (on Macquarie Street), Parramatta, must be avoided through the placement of the PLR, compound, utility substation and new services. An alternative location must be selected along Macquarie Street to avoid retained state significant archaeological resources protected under SSD 7372.


1.32 Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape/Robin Thomas Reserve

The proponent must explore alternative design options to retain at least two of the three mature fig trees on the western boundary of Robin Thomas Reserve proposed to be removed. Further, the use of a grass track treatment and wire free operations should be utilised to ensure the landscape setting of the site is maintained.

It is acknowledged that the removal of the identified trees at this location would represent a substantial impact. The impacts presented in the EIS consisted of a potential worst-case scenario. Where possible, opportunities to mitigate identified tree impacts where possible would be explored during detailed design, including the trees located along Harris Street at the Robin Thomas Reserve. However, it is noted that given the alignment of the track turning out of Macquarie Street into Harris Street space is limited in this area. Additionally, Harris Street forms part of the Parramatta CBD inner ring road ensuring traffic can move around the Parramatta area and avoid the CBD. A central alignment along Harris Street may result in potential traffic impacts to the wider road network.

Mitigation and management measures VL-7 and VL-8 presented in the EIS identified that during detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for grass track treatments and wire free design to mitigate visual impact on sections of the alignment including Robin Thomas Reserve. Feedback on the feasibility of wire-free technology for Robin Thomas Reserve is currently being investigated with the construction industry.


C-137


1.33 The detailed design must be guided by the archaeological testing as required under the above archaeological management conditions. The project must demonstrate how maximum avoidance has been achieved to state significant archaeological remains associated with rare state significant Aboriginal and historical archaeological site.

The project area within Robin Thomas Reserve was designed so as to include the smallest possible footprint while still allowing for construction and operation of the project (refer to section 3.6.5 of the EIS). The concept design of the project was informed by desktop research on the likely archaeological values, and avoided areas anticipated to include state significant archaeology.

The ongoing design of the project would take into account the results of existing archaeological information and archaeological testing undertaken during the preparation of the EIS.

Robin Thomas Reserve was assessed as having state significant historical archaeology. Mitigation and management measure HE-1 identifies specific measures which would be applied for works within State significant zones such as: » Preparation of an Archaeological Research Design which would outline a methodology for the

investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources. » Management of works under the supervision of an archaeological excavation director. » Methods for appropriate justification of impact or removal of archaeology within a State significant

site.

1.34 Sewage Pumping Station 67

Design development for the proposed bridge across James Ruse Drive must include consultation with the Heritage Council or its delegate to ensure significant views to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 are not impacted.

As outlined in Section 14.5.2.1 of the EIS, construction of the project and James Ruse Drive bridge would result in the introduction of a new visual element in the vicinity of the heritage curtilage of Sewage Pumping Station 67. Regardless, the project would not significantly alter view lines to the heritage item which would still be available from Grand Avenue.

Ongoing design of the James Ruse Drive Bridge would include consideration of the potential views to the Sewage Pumping Station 67.

Consultation with the Heritage Council would be undertaken in the event that the detailed design would impact any significant views.

1.35 A qualified heritage specialist must undertake an investigation of the building proposed to be demolished adjacent to the proposed maintenance/stabling facility at Rosehill to assess its potential heritage significance. Should the property be identified as a potential heritage item, the entry into the maintenance/stabling facility must be modified to avoid demolition.

The building adjacent to the stabling and maintenance facility is an electrical utilities facility and is not proposed to be demolished to accommodate the facility.




1.36 Camellia Underbridge Abutments

The demolition of the Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments is not supported. The proponent must modify the design to retain these significant elements. Protection systems must be put in place to ensure damage does not occur during construction.

Concern regarding the proposed demolition of the Underbridge abutments is acknowledged.

Further discussion regarding the impacts to this item is provided in item 2.17 of this table.

1.37 Rydalmere Hospital Precinct The proponent must explore alternative design solutions to the proposed construction of the two compound sites within the curtilage of Rydalmere Hospital Precinct to ensure these landscapes, identified as being of high - moderate significance are not adversely impacted.

The project would require the establishment of the Parramatta River Bridge North construction compound and the Vineyard Creek compound within the boundaries of the Rydalmere Hospital Precinct.

The Parramatta River Bridge North construction compound would be used to support works associated with modifications to the Parramatta River Bridge and could not be relocated to an alternate location. The construction compound would be established on top of capping material and would not require any substantial excavations. The construction compound would not result in any permanent impacts to the Rydalmere Hospital landscape or any heritage fabric with the exception of the Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments.

The Vineyard Creek compound would be located within a grassed area bordered by Railway Street, Vineyard Creek and the T6 Carlingford Line. The site is currently being used as a construction compound by Western Sydney University for development currently being undertaken within the Rydalmere Hospital Precinct. The use of the site would not result in any permanent impacts to the Rydalmere Hospital landscape or impact any heritage fabric.


C-139


1.38 Dundas Station

Design development for the proposed Light Rail stop at the Dundas Station must include consultation with the Heritage Council or its delegates to ensure the significant elements of the station are not adversely impacted. Further, protection systems must be put in place to mitigate damage during construction.

Following preparation of the EIS further design refinement has been undertaken, in consultation with a heritage architect, to improve the Dundas stop design with reference to the heritage fabric of Dundas Station. Refer to section 6.11 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report) for further description and assessment undertaken.

A number of mitigation and management measures have been identified to manage the potential impacts to the Dundas Railway Station Group » HE-9 which identified measures for appropriate heritage interpretation which would be

incorporated into the detailed design of the project » HE-10 which identified a series of measures which would be implemented with respect to design of

the stop to remain non-obtrusive with limited bulk to minimise visual impacts on the heritage item as well as providing a form, fabric and palette for the stop which responds to the existing context of the station

» Revised mitigation and management measure VL-2, including the consideration of the Dundas Railway Station Group as part of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan

» Revised mitigation and management measure HE-12 which identified that a qualified and experienced heritage architect would be engaged to provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design, including with respect to the Dundas Railway Station Group.

Where required, consultation with the Heritage Council regarding potential impacts to the Dundas Railway Station Group would be undertaken.

Overall, it is considered that the range of mitigation and management measures outlined in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report would be sufficient to manage potential impacts to this site during construction.




1.39 Carlingford Station

Design development for the proposed Light Rail stop at Carlingford Station must include consultation with the Heritage Council or its delegates to ensure the significant elements of the Carlingford Stock Feeds are not adversely impacted. Further, protection systems must be put in place to mitigate damage during construction.

Mitigation and management measure HE-10 identified a series of measures which would be implemented with respect to minimising potential impacts to the Carlingford Stock Feeds/Produce Store during detailed design including: » Designing the stop to remain non-obtrusive with limited bulk to minimise visual impacts on heritage

items in the vicinity to respect the historical landscape of the project. » Designing a form, fabric and palette for the stop which responds to the existing place and context

of the Carlingford Stock Feeds/Produce Store.

Where required, consultation with the owners of the heritage item and the section 170 RailCorp listing would be undertaken regarding potential impacts to the Carlingford Stock Feeds.

It is considered that the range of mitigation and management measures outlined in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report would be sufficient to manage potential impacts to this site during construction.

2.0 Detailed comments

2.1 Historical Archaeological Site: C1859 Church of England Cemetery (HAMU 2)

The assessment lacks detailed and site-specific research to address key questions about this cemetery. The proposed mitigation and management measures for harm focus on excavation. The management for human skeletal remains as outlined in supporting Heritage Council of NSW Guidelines, identifies that exhumation should be avoided (should there prove to be burials in this location). Specific requirements are recommended in conditions for detailed assessment to more clearly understand the potential resource of this cemetery.

The archaeological assessment identified that this area, although set aside as a cemetery, was likely never used for that purpose. In addition, due to intensive 20th century development of the area (the Westmead Hospital complex) the area is considered to have nil to low archaeological potential. As the assessment identifies nil to low potential for relics associated specifically with the use of the area as a cemetery, Zone 2 mitigation and management measures are deemed to be sufficient.

As above, an Archaeological Research Design would be prepared as identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1 so that once impacts are known appropriate archaeological management can be identified in accordance with the framework discussed in the Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment and Archaeological Research Design. The OEH Heritage Division would be consulted during the preparation of the ARD in accordance with mitigation and management measure HE-1.


C-141


2.2 Cumberland District Hospital (West campus) (SHR 00820) It is noted that the plans for the light rail stop and new bridge crossing provided in the EIS are indicative only and that further detail is yet to be developed. Mitigation of heritage impacts should be a key consideration of the detailed design phase of the project and include options for a grass track treatment within the designated open public space areas and wire free rail operations to ensure the parklike setting of the site is maintained.

As identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, a number of mitigation and management measures are identified to minimise direct and visual impacts on heritage items from works within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of heritage items, would be undertaken as part of ongoing landscape management. A range of identified mitigation and management measures for both urban design, landscape and heritage impacts have been discussed in detail previously in this table.

While wire-free running eliminates the need for overhead wiring, there are a number of constraints including steep grades, high speed running and the distance between stops. Feedback on the feasibility of wire-free technology for sections of the project is currently being investigated with the construction industry. Further discussion of grassed track treatments and wire free operation has been included previously in Item 1.16 of this table.

2.3 Archaeological testing results have recently become available confirming impacts are likely from the project in the alignment of the road at the intersection of Factory Street and Greenup Drive. These confirmed remains should be avoided through detailed design of the road alignment and in careful placement of services to facilitate the light rail.

The recent archaeological testing results are acknowledged and would be considered as part of the ongoing design of the project in this area, including consideration of the future road network within the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area (works which are proposed to be undertaken by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation).

Mitigation and management measure HE-4 proposes that modifications to the alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered during detailed design, and that impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance would be avoided where possible. As detailed design and construction progresses, care would be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance.

2.4 Old Government House and Domain site

As the project area is located approximately 100 metres from the Old Government House and Domain site at its closest point and the detailed design is yet to be developed, any visual impacts to the site must be considered.

As discussed in section 11.5.2, the project has considered potential impacts on World Heritage listed Parramatta Park and Old Government House (Australian Convict Site) as part of the project development. The alignment for the project is located away from the World Heritage buffer zone and therefore minimises any direct impacts by the LRVs on the landscape values. Some minor works (consisting of line-marking within the existing road corridor only) would be required within the buffer zone of the item at the intersection of O’Connell Street with George Street and the intersection of O’Connell Street with Macquarie Street (located within the Parramatta central business district (CBD) precinct), which would not impact the World Heritage site.

Ongoing development of the project during detailed design would seek to further reduce potential impacts of the project such as through consideration of potential wire-free sections of track where this is visible from important views and vista’s associated with the Old Government House and Domain site.




2.5 St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery (SHR 01880) The proponent must investigate the use of wire free rail operations within this area to mitigate any visual impacts, including seeking advices from a heritage landscape architect.


2.6 The alignment has the potential to impact unmarked burials for the alignment of the project and associated infrastructure. The design should be informed by test excavation and detailed design should limit harm to these significant resources of state significance.

The potential for the project to impact on unmarked burials along the alignment is acknowledged and was assessed as part of the non-Aboriginal heritage assessment undertaken as part of the EIS (Technical Paper 10 —Built Heritage Impact Assessment and Technical Paper 11 - Non-Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment.

Mitigation and management measure AB-2 identified that in the event of unexpected finds (including burials) during the construction of the project, the Transport for NSW Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (2014) would be implemented. This guide would be incorporated into the heritage management plan to be developed as part of the CEMP for the project.

2.7 Royal Oaks Hotel and stables (and potential archaeological site) (LEP item I691) The two-storey rendered brick Royal Oaks Hotel was constructed in 1831 and is considered a landmark and rare in the context of North Parramatta. The demolition of this building is strongly opposed by the Heritage Council as it will have a major impact on the character of the streetscape. The Light Rail alignment must be modified to avoid demolition of this significant building.

The management of historical archaeological resources should also be considered in this impact.

A detailed discussion regarding the impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel is provided in section 5.11.4 of this Submissions Report.

As identified in the EIS, the mitigation and management measures for Zone 2 – Locally significant historical archaeology would apply to HAMU 11 which includes the Royal Oak Hotel. These are outlined in mitigation and management measure HE-1.


C-143


2.8 Prince Alfred Square and Potential Archaeological Site (SHR 01997) The proposed reconfiguration of the north-eastern corner of the site, including the demolition of the Victoria Street entrance, will significantly alter the streetscape. Further, the construction of the light rail stop has the potential to have adverse visual impacts, including to the War Memorial situated within the site.

The design of the light rail stop and line must be modified to ensure the configuration of the site (square) is not altered, that significant views to and from the site are not impacted (through the use of wire free rail operations), and that significant elements of the site are retained.

Since the exhibition of the EIS, the proposed stop at this location has been moved around five metres to the east of the previously proposed location. The proposed change to the design and location of the stop would result in reduced impacts to Prince Alfred Square, including retention of the north-eastern corner of the park. The project would have no direct impact on the War Memorial.

Further details of the proposed design change are provided in section 6.6 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report).

2.9 With respect to the Potential Archaeological Site, the Assessment argued that the site has a low archaeological potential. It has failed to consider the results of assessment undertaken previously by consultants’ and consequently this may not be an accurate statement of likely impact. The Heritage Division recommends conditions to require test excavation and avoidance of known deposits in the detailed design.

The assessment of the Potential Archaeological Sites associated with the project considered all available information at the time of preparation of the EIS.

As described in response item 2.8 of this table, further design development of the proposed stop location and light rail alignment at this location has identified opportunities to move the project to the east of the previous location identified within the EIS. The proposed refinement of the project alignment and stop at this location would further reduce the impacts to the Potential Archaeological Site.




2.10 Lennox Bridge (SHR 00750) Heritage Council members expressed strong concerns regarding the proposed alignment of the light rail line across the original sandstone side of the bridge, which includes potential strengthening of the bridge.

It is recommended that a thorough structural investigation be undertaken by an engineering specialist with experience in heritage bridges to understand what the potential impacts of this project are on the bridge.

Detailed discussion regarding Lennox Bridge impacts have been discussed previously in items 1.24 to 1.30 of this table.

However as identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, during detailed design and construction planning, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored including minimising structural impacts in consultation with a structural engineer with heritage experience. In addition, VL-10 also notes that design responses would ensure adverse impacts to the bridge structure due to operational vibration are avoided.

2.11 Further, proposed new lighting structures on the bridge are strongly opposed. Wire free operations should be considered for the bridge and bridge approaches to retain its current unencumbered presentation.

Feedback on the feasibility of wire-free technology for Lennox Bridge is currently being investigated with the construction industry. As identified in revised mitigation and management measure VL-10, opportunities to reduce impacts on Lennox Bridge would be explored during detailed design and construction planning including considering a wire-free design in this area to reduce visual impacts.

Additionally, mitigation and management measure VL-10 would be implemented if wire-free is not considered feasible, which notes that detailed design of any overhead wire masts on Lennox Bridge would: » Minimise the number of vertical elements » Locate vertical elements considering symmetry and surrounding built form » Minimise visibility from the river foreshore parkland.

An appropriately qualified and experienced heritage architect would also provide independent review periodically throughout detailed design in relation to heritage items along the project alignment, including Lennox Bridge (revised mitigation and management measure HE-12).


C-145


2.12 Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape/Robin Thomas Reserve (SHR 01863) The alignment of the light rail track would have a direct, irreversible impact on this site and its significance. Excavation and salvage would cause further loss of the existing Aboriginal resource within the site, not mitigate it. The alignment will also impact on the setting of the place.

It is recommended the use of a grass track and wire free rail operations to reduce the visual impact within this area. However, the current project impacts through this site will be major and irreversible impacts which may materially affect the significance of this item on the State Heritage Register.

Section 3.6.5 of the EIS considered seven key alignment options to transition the preferred alignment between the Parramatta CBD and Camellia, in particular within the vicinity of Robin Thomas Reserve. Each of the seven alignment options presented a range of benefits and constraints.

Two of the key constraints identified as part of this options assessment were Robin Thomas Reserve, including significant trees along Harris Street, and a residential redevelopment site on the corner of Macquarie Street and Harris Street. In addition, the space available for tracks turning out of Macquarie Street into Harris Street space is limited in this area. Furthermore, Harris Street forms part of the Parramatta CBD inner ring road.

While an option which resulted in some impacts to the western edge of Robin Thomas Reserve was identified to be the preferred option, the impact assessment of this alignment identified several mitigation and management measures aimed at minimising these impacts. These measures include: » During detailed design, opportunities would be investigated for grass track treatments to mitigate

visual impact on sections of the alignment in a number of locations, including through Robin Thomas Reserve (mitigation and management measure VL-7).

» Where feasible opportunities would be investigated during detailed design to refine the project footprint in order to reduce impact on a series of sites, including Robin Thomas Reserve (mitigation and management measure VL-9).

» Development of a heritage interpretation plan including consideration of Robin Thomas Reserve (mitigation and management measure HE-9).

» A wire-free design would be considered during the detailed design phase to minimise visual impacts on the Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve) (revised mitigation and management measure VL-8).

Additionally, as identified in mitigation and management measure AB-2, salvage works would be undertaken in accordance with the detailed methodology identified in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (Technical Paper 4 of the EIS). Mitigation and management measure AB-3 also notes that for sites such as the Robin Thomas Reserve, exclusion zones would be established during construction to protect portions of the site located outside the project construction disturbance boundary and minimise potential impacts.

As concluded in Technical Paper 10 – Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Volume 5), the proposed works would result in a moderate impact on the heritage significance of Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape (Robin Thomas Reserve), and the heritage item would continue to meet the threshold for State significance.




2.13 Historical Archaeological Sites: Grose Street Town Drain, Church Street and the Town Drain Macquarie Street The town drains are identified archaeological resources with direct links to the development of the Town of Parramatta. One of these items is identified by the project as being local and the other of state significance. There is an inconsistency in this approach based on the perceived level of significance.

The preferred approach for these two related items is to identify the alignments and avoid harm where possible, particularly through careful placement of stormwater and other services requiring relocation in these areas for this project.

The items being assessed as having differing levels of significance was based primarily on the rarity of intact portions of the Town Drain, and the date of construction. Although the Grose Street Town Drain has been assessed at a lower level of significance, the management for historic utilities would be the same.

With respect to the preferred approach for these two items, the detailed design of the project would aim to avoid impacts to these drainage structures where possible. As identified in mitigation and management measure UT-3, the strategy for the preferred hierarchy of utilities treatment (including heritage items such as the identified town drains) would be as follows: » Avoid/Do nothing – avoid impact on utilities where possible. » Protect – protect utilities in their existing locations where feasible. » Relocate – utilities to be relocated only where no other options are feasible or acceptable.

Where the town drains are identified as part of ongoing utilities investigations during detailed design (mitigation and management measure UT-1), the design of project stormwater and other service requirements would seek to apply the above hierarchy to avoid impacts on the identified heritage items, including avoidance of these structures in the first instance.

Mitigation and management measure HE-8 also stated in relation to HAMU 18 (The Town Drain, Macquarie Street and Barrack Lane), alternative construction methods would be investigated and considered for works in the location of the town drain in George Street in order to retain this section of the drain where feasible.


C-147


2.14 Historical Archaeological Site: (Retained in-situ state significant remains) Barrack Lane/Parramatta Convict Lumberyard

The historical archaeological potential of this area includes substantially intact and interpretable remains of the 1820s Convict Barracks and Convict Lumberyard. The current Assessment for the project does not reflect the fact these resources are extant and of state significance (it assesses low potential).

The proposed impacts are likely to remove such evidence because they have not been considered as an impact. This section of the project should be conditioned to require redesign to avoid these significant archaeological resources which have been protected through a separate D&PE approval (SSD 7372), which should be a priority area of avoidance.

The impact assessment presented as part of the EIS considered this site as part of HAMU 16. The assessment identified the following with respect to the archaeological and heritage impact potential: » There is high potential that truncated remains associated with early services and drains survive

within the road corridor. » There is moderate potential that archaeological remains within the Macquarie Street (west) road

corridor. » Due to ongoing modification of the road corridors within the Parramatta CBD, there is low potential

that archaeological evidence associated with early agricultural uses to survive within the Macquarie Street road corridor.

Overall the assessment did however conclude that, based on available information, that there was low potential that archaeological remains associated with the convict lumberyard and barracks extend into Macquarie Street.

Notwithstanding, mitigation and management measure HE-4 stated that modification of the proposed alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered, and impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance avoided where possible. As the design progresses, care would be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance.




2.15 Historical Archaeological Site: Queen’s Wharf Reserve (HAMU 21) This site has been previously investigated through archaeological assessment and geotechnical testing, however these results have not been considered by the project assessment. Impacts include the rail corridors, public domain works and utilities adjustments. It is unclear how the proposed mitigation of detailed design could effectively avoid and resolve these impacts. Conditions for testing to inform and guide the detailed design are recommended to reduce these impacts as much as possible.

A program of test excavations was undertaken by Kelleher Nightingale Consulting between April and May 2017, consisting of a series of test squares and bore holes. During the course of test square excavation with the Queens Wharf Reserve (PLR PAD 2 and 3) a portion of brick wall in the approximate location of one of the former sheds associated with the Gasworks was identified (TS 6). The find was recorded, protected, and the pit backfilled. No other historical relics were encountered during the Aboriginal testing program. The find is consistent with the assessment of historical archaeological potential as discussed in HAMU 15: » Much of the area around Queens Street Wharf has been built up considerably along the river's

edge with introduced fill used to level the ground surface and parts of the river bank have been reclaimed. The service pits throughout the area and the large outfall pipes which run to the river indicate that there has been some disturbance of this area by service trenches. There is high potential that remains associated with the Parramatta Gasworks and associated commercial and industrial development would be encountered within the Queens Wharf Reserve. There may be some toxic contamination of deposits associated with the Gasworks infrastructure and substantial structural remains.

» The development of the Gasworks infrastructure would have affected the survival of earlier remains within Queens Street wharf, such as the former Emu Hotel fronting George Street. There is therefore moderate potential that archaeological remains within the George Street road corridor may include the following: - Truncated frontages of structures within the George Street roadway, including footings and

postholes (these are likely to be truncated by modern services) » Deeper subsurface structural features that would have been located below building frontages,

such as basements, light wells, cisterns. Mitigation and management measure HE-6 states the Zone 2 mitigation and management measures would be implemented for HAMU 15. As identified in mitigation and management measure HE-1, Zone 2 mitigation and management measures would include: » A heritage induction would be carried out for all contractors, to be developed as part of the

heritage management plan. » An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in

accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The ARD would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

» Archaeological monitoring would be carried out by a suitably qualified excavation director, followed by open area salvage (if required).


C-149


» Impact or removal is likely to be considered acceptable if appropriate mitigation and management measures are followed as outlined in the ARD.

» Public engagement, such as open days, would be considered where feasible to inform the public of the archaeological findings and proposed management measures.

Post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and relics conservation would be carried out if relics are identified.

2.16 Historical Archaeological Site: Eliner Magee and Child grave (HAMU 31) The project identifies it would attempt to avoid impact to the burial site and if it cannot, excavation including exhumation would be proposed. This may be partially compounded by the exact location being unclear. The proposed approach is not supported by the Heritage Division for such a rare and early site. The proposed management should be guided by archaeological testing as conditioned below.

The Eliner Magee grave would be avoided by the project as described in the EIS. An appropriate exclusion zone would be established to prevent any impact to extant grave fabric. Exhumation for this item is not proposed. However, as stated in mitigation and management measure HE-5, an Exhumation Policy and Guideline would be prepared prior to construction as part of the heritage management plan, and would inform the unexpected finds procedure in relation to the unexpected discovery of human remains.

Mitigation and management measure HE-23 states that in relation to HAMU 31 - Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be protected and avoided during construction works.

2.17 Camellia Underbridge Abutments/ Clyde Carlingford Bridge

The Heritage Council strongly opposes the demolition of the Camellia Underbridge Abutments. Modification to the design must be undertaken to ensure these significant elements are not destroyed.

As identified in section 5.5 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10 of the EIS), consideration of the Camellia Underbridge Abutments as part of the design development identified that the existing bridge structure is wide enough to accommodate two light rail tracks, however the approach span and abutments are only a single track width due to the existing rail alignment configuration. Removal of the abutments is required to facilitate installation and operation of the project.

A series of other options to minimise impacts to the abutments were also considered however were not considered feasible for the following reasons: » A single bi-directional section of track – This option would substantially impact on light rail reliability

and journey time. » Raising the existing bridge to avoid demolition of the abutments – This option would have

substantial cost and property impacts, and because the heightening of piers within Parramatta River posed substantial constructability and feasibility risks.




As identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, identification of elements of the existing heritage fabric of the abutments for potential salvage and reuse would be undertaken during detailed design and construction planning in consultation with a heritage architect (revised mitigation and management measures HE-15 and HE-18).

2.18 Dundas Railway Station (SHR 01133) The retention of the platform and station building is seen as positive. However, design development must be undertaken in consultation with the Heritage Council to ensure significant heritage values including significant views to and from the site are retained and enhanced.

Office of Environment and Heritage’s comment identifying that retention of the platform and station building is positive is acknowledged.

Since the display of the EIS, Transport for NSW has identified opportunities to change the arrangement of the proposed stop to better incorporate and retain the heritage elements of the existing platform and station building. Further details of the proposed design change are provided in section 6.11 of this Submissions Report (Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Ongoing refinement of this design would continue to be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders during detailed design, including Office of Environment and Heritage – Heritage Division.


C-151

NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA The National Trust of Australia provided a submission regarding the project on 19 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.5.

Table C.5 The National Trust of Australia


1.1 The National Trust raised concerns regarding the Parramatta Light Rail - Stage 1 Project, the inadequacies of the EIS and its failure to address the impacts of the development on buildings, precincts, landscapes and archaeology of heritage significance.


The assessment methodology adopted for the project’s EIS is consistent with other SSI approvals such as Sydney Light Rail and Sydney Metro City and Southwest. As detailed design has not been finalised the level of impact assessment is more general that a Statement of Heritage Impacts that would accompany an approval application under the Heritage Act. The principles of the Heritage guidelines are adhered to in the context of design stage and known impacts. Mitigation and management measures intended to reduce impact during detailed design, construction and operation were outlined in Section 17 of the EIS.

1.2 The current (2017) National Trust Register contains 193 places in Parramatta and numerous more places along the proposed light rail route in other suburbs. The EIS did not take into account the listings on the National Trust Register, limiting itself to only statutory listings.

As the National Trust register is a non-statutory list it was not specifically required to be included as part of the assessment. However, it is considered likely any items on the National Trust register which may be impacted by the project would also have been included on the LEP or other statutory lists. All relevant items identified in the National Trust submission were however considered as part of the EIS and associated specialist assessment.

The project methodology is consistent with other SSI approvals such as Sydney Light Rail and Sydney Metro and was prepared in accordance with the project SEARs. As identified in item 1.1 of this table, prior to public exhibition, Department of Planning and Environment completed an assessment of the EIS against the required SEARs, identifying that the information provided met the relevant requirements.




Heritage listed items and significant views and vistas were identified through a search of relevant State and federal statutory heritage registers including:

» World Heritage List. » Commonwealth Heritage List. » National Heritage List.

» State Heritage Register. » Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. » Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. » The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012. » Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Registers for Sydney Water, Roads and Maritime, RailCorp,

Department of Health, Department of Primary Industries, Attorney General’s Department, Parramatta Park Trust, and Western Sydney University.

» NSW State Heritage Inventory database.

1.3 Lennox Bridge The EIS does not indicate whether the light rail will cross on the historic 1836 bridge or on the western 1934-5 concrete new bridge span. The Statement does not give any clear indication of the impacts of the project on Lennox Bridge.

The rail line should utilise the western (concrete) bridge and avoid adverse impacts on the 1836 bridge.

Impacts of the project on Lennox Bridge are discussed in section 13.5.2.1 of the EIS. Construction of the project would require installation of light rail tracks on the eastern side of Lennox Bridge as the 1934-5 side of the bridge is not structurally suitable for light rail loads. While these works would be undertaken on the historic 1836 side of the bridge, they would be carried out in the non-significant bitumen deck, and would not impact on heritage fabric. Strengthening works were recently carried out on Lennox Bridge and the structure has been assessed as being suitable to support light rail. The project would result in a moderate direct impact on Lennox Bridge as impacts on the original fabric would be avoided.


C-153


1.4 St Patrick's Roman Catholic Cemetery There have been a series of damaging road widening proposals on Church Street to allow for extra bus lanes. Further damage to the cemetery is unacceptable.

The light rail project has the potential to impact on unmarked graves the potential existence of which has been investigated and found to be likely. The proposed station on Church Street is too close to the cemetery and would certainly impact visually on the cemetery. The station should be relocated further from the cemetery and the rail line route needs to be relocated so as not to impact on the archaeology and likely unmarked burials of the cemetery along Church Street.

As outlined in Section 12.5.2.1 of the EIS, the project alignment would directly impact on the north-western corner of the St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery (01880) curtilage. The footpath would be relocated closer to the existing boundary of the cemetery, resulting in the removal of medium-size trees located outside the curtilage of the heritage item. A small section of the heritage curtilage would be partially impacted between the existing fence and Church Street. The direct impact and visual impact of the project on the cemetery would be considered minor.

The project would also have potential to indirectly impact tree root systems and tree branches through works in proximity and impact headstones through vibrations resulting in a minor potential indirect impact. This would be managed through applying a range of mitigation and management measures, including revised mitigation and management measure HE-22 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report) which states that the method for the construction of the project (including the demolition of existing buildings and/or structures) would be developed to minimise direct and indirect impacts on adjacent and/or adjoining heritage items (including vibration related impacts identified in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan). Revised mitigation and management measure TR-6 also identified that temporary tree protection measures would be installed prior to construction works commencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites as required for any trees to be retained within active construction sites.

The project was also assessed as having a moderate to major adverse impact on archaeology, should the archaeological resource exist and dependent on the location and extent of the proposed excavation. The assessment takes into consideration the findings of previous archaeological investigations where fence lines were identified (Austral, 2010) and identified that the boundary gates were relocated in 1976. The assessment states: » Although remains are likely to have been truncated by later road adjustments and utilities

installation, and earlier investigations have not encountered evidence that graves are located outside the current cemetery boundaries, the presence of undocumented graves cannot be discounted.

Mitigation and management measure HE-1 and HE-2 identified that (among other sites), during excavation works adjacent to St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery, Zone 1 mitigation and management measures would be adopted. This would include:

» Preparation of an ARD which would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

» Management of works under the supervision of an archaeological excavation director. » In situ retention of archaeological remains considered in accordance with the ARD as required.




1.5 Parramatta North

The Trust raised a series of issues with the project impacts within Parramatta North which are outlined below.

The Trust is pleased that Option 2 was not chosen for the light rail route across the Parramatta River to Westmead Children's Hospital. Option 2 would have had a far greater impact in many ways on views and native vegetation. However, lack of detail in the EIS makes it impossible to determine the impact of the Option 1 new bridge across the Parramatta River.

National Trust of Australia’s preference for the adoption of Option 1 rather than Option 2 within Parramatta North is acknowledged.

Details regarding the design of the Parramatta North bridge are provided in section 5.9.1.1 of the EIS, with details regarding the construction methodology of the Parramatta North bridge are also provided in section 6.8.2 of the EIS.

With respect to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed bridge, as outlined in section 11.4.2.1 of the EIS, a high adverse landscape impact on the Parramatta River landscape is expected due to the removal of vegetation from each bank to facilitate the construction of the new Parramatta North bridge. Once operational, a moderate adverse landscape impact is expected due to the location of the two bridges in Cumberland Hospital, side by side across the river, causing a break in the continuity of the riparian vegetation along this stretch of river.

1.6 The National Trust noted that three buildings as part of the UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation DA are proposed for demolition as part of the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Project. Concern was raised that the buildings which have been proposed for demolition as part of the development application would also need to be removed for the light rail project and were not assessed in the EIS as being heritage impacts associated with the project.

The National Trust questioned what would be the result if an approval condition for the UrbanGrowth Project required the retention of these buildings, noting that if the buildings are required for the project, the EIS should address the heritage impacts of their removal.

Following ongoing consultation with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, requests made through the submissions received from the Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Division) and National Trust of Australia and the likely need to commence demolitions early in the construction program, it has been determined that it would be more appropriate that building demolition through the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area be carried out as part of the light rail project.

An assessment of the impacts associated with the demolition of these buildings has been undertaken as part of the Preferred Infrastructure Report and is provided in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).


C-155


1.7 The National Trust noted that there is the potential for highly significant archaeology along the route of the light rail through the Parramatta North precinct. The National Trust stated that the EIS should have regard to all recent archaeology undertaken in this area and should set out a route that avoids disturbing significant archaeology.

Similarly, the siting of a stop should be determined after a proper review of recent archaeology investigations, minimising all possible impacts.

As identified in Section 12.5.2.2 of the EIS, archaeological resources within most areas of the Parramatta North precinct, are generally assessed as having state and local archaeological significance. The significance ratings adopted for the EIS were developed based on the Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Study (PHALMS) prepared by Godden Mackay Logan in 2001. Although not statutory, the PHALMS has been adopted by Parramatta City Council and the NSW Heritage Division for the management of Parramatta’s archaeological resources.

Mitigation and management measure HE-4 presented in the EIS stated that opportunities to avoid or further minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance would be considered and documented as part of a design report. As detailed design progresses, care would be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance, particularly within the Cumberland District Hospital Group site.

In addition, the detailed design for sections of the project that would impact on known archaeological resources, including final siting of the proposed stop, would be developed in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and relevant stakeholders as advised (e.g. the OEH and Council).

1.8 Arthur Philip High School, Macquarie Street - Convict Lumberyard and Convict Barracks The remains of this highly significant site were identified recently in conjunction with archaeological investigations relating to the State Significant Development Arthur Philip High School. The remains of a wall of the Convict Lumberyard are being restored under the approval conditions of the Arthur Philip High School development.

It appears that the light rail project may impact this site due to the positioning of a light rail construction compound, utilities adjustment and a substation. These facilities need to be re-sited to ensure the continuing conservation of the convict building remains.

The impact assessment presented as part of the EIS considered this site as part of HAMU 16. The assessment identified the following with respect to the archaeological and heritage impact potential:

» There is high potential that truncated remains associated with early services and drains survive within the road corridor.

» There is moderate potential that archaeology remains within the Macquarie Street (west) road corridor.

» Due to ongoing modification of the road corridors within the Parramatta CBD, there is low potential that archaeological evidence associated with early agricultural uses has survived within the Macquarie Street road corridor.

Overall the assessment concluded that, based on available information, that there was low potential that archaeological remains associated with the convict lumberyard and barracks extend into Macquarie Street.

Notwithstanding, mitigation and management measure HE-4 stated that modification of the proposed alignment to avoid State significant archaeology would be considered, and impacts to historical archaeological sites of State significance avoided where possible. As the design progresses, care would be taken to avoid or minimise impacts to identified archaeological sites of State and local significance.




1.9 Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape - Robin Thomas Reserve, Harris Park The light rail project will have a major and unacceptable impact on the State Heritage Registered Listing ‘Ancient Aboriginal and Early Colonial Landscape’.

The National Trust noted that the present route and design of the light rail proposal will cause major damage to this site. There needs to be a major re-design to avoid impacting on this site.

As outlined in 3.6.5, of the EIS outlined a series of options for the project alignment between Macquarie Street and George Street, with a key aim of these options being to avoid potential impacts to Robin Thomas Reserve. Based on the range of constraints identified in this area (including potential impacts to heritage values), the alignment for the light rail as currently proposed was still considered to be the preferred alignment (along the western and northern boundary of Robin Thomas Reserve).

The project has been designed to minimise impacts on Robin Thomas Reserve and the vast majority of the reserve would be avoided and retained for continued recreational use. Regardless, construction of the project would involve the removal of some landscape elements and significant trees resulting in a reduction of the heritage curtilage and the diminishment of landscape values. The results of these direct impacts are considered moderate. Construction of the project would have potential to impact on the archaeological remains associated with the Purchase Street nursery as well as any surviving remains associated with the former Soldiers District.

Mitigation and management measure HE-1 identifies that during excavation works within Robin Thomas Reserve, Zone 1 mitigation and management measures would be adopted. This would include:

» Preparation of an Archaeological Research Design which would outline a methodology for the investigation, monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

» Management of works under the supervision of an archaeological excavation director. » In situ retention of archaeological remains considered in accordance with the ARD as required.

1.10 Grave of Elinor Magee and Child In December, 1980 the Grave of Elinor Magee and her Child was listed on the National Trust Register. The grave is situated directly to the east of the railway line at Camellia.

This grave is one of the oldest single graves in Australia and needs to be protected from any possible impacts from the construction of the Parramatta Light Rail.

The assessment of potential impacts to the Grave of Eliner Magee and Child presented in the EIS was identified to be minor. To further reduce potential impacts, revised mitigation and management measure HE-23 identified that, in relation to the Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, the grave site would be protected and avoided during construction works.

As part of the construction works, an appropriate exclusion zone would be established to prevent any impact to extant grave fabric.


C-157


1.11 Camellia Sewage Pumping Station SPS 67 This 1931 Sewage Pumping Station was listed on the National Trust Register in 1910. The Pumping Station must not be adversely impacted by the development of the Parramatta Light Rail.

The project alignment would extend across the south section of the heritage curtilage of Sewage Pumping Station 67, resulting in a reduction in the size of the curtilage. This section of the heritage item does not include buildings or elements of heritage significance and there is no significant boundary fencing or hard landscape features in the impacted area. One mature tree would be impacted by the alignment which would result in a minor impact on the landscape values of the item. Further, the project would introduce a new visual element in the southern section of the heritage curtilage of Sewage Pumping Station 67. In accordance with revised mitigation and management measure HE-16, the design and construction methodology adopted in the area adjacent to the Sewage Pumping Station 67 would be informed by the existing Conservation Management Plan. As per mitigation and management measure VL-2, the Urban Design and Landscape Plan would apply to the impacted landscape areas.




1.12 Camellia (Parramatta River) Underbridge Abutments The Camellia Railway Underbridge Abutments were listed on the National Trust Register in October, 1995. There is no proper justification in the EIS for the demolition of the abutments and the National Trust strongly opposes their demolition.

As identified in section 5.5 of the Built Heritage Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 10, Volume 5), consideration of the Camellia Underbridge Abutments as part of the design development identified that the existing bridge structure is wide enough to accommodate two light rail tracks, however the approach span and abutments are only a single track width due to the existing rail alignment configuration. Removal of the abutments is required to facilitate installation of the alignment. A series of other options to minimise impacts to the abutments were also considered however were not considered feasible for the following reasons:

» A single bi-directional section of track – This option would substantially impact on light rail reliability and journey time.

» Raising the existing bridge to avoid demolition of the abutments – This option would have substantial cost and property impacts, and because the heightening of piers within Parramatta River posed substantial constructability and feasibility risks.

» A new structure east of the existing structure – This option would have substantial cost and property impacts, and increased impacts on other heritage items including The Grave of Eliner Magee and Child, and Wetlands.

As identified in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report, a series of revised mitigation and management measures have been proposed which would allow for the management of the identified impacts, including:

» Identification of elements of the existing heritage fabric of the abutments for potential salvage and reuse in consultation with a heritage architect (revised mitigation and management measures HE-15 and HE-18).

» Appropriate heritage interpretation of the item (revised mitigation and management measure HE-9).

» Photographic archival recording and reporting (revised mitigation and management measure HE-14).


C-159


1.13 Female Orphan School Precinct, Rydalmere The Female Orphan School Precinct, Rydalmere was listed on the National Trust Register in June, 1975. The Precinct was listed on the State Heritage Register in April 1999. The Trust is concerned to read in the Statement that two compounds are proposed for construction in the precinct. These compounds should be relocated outside of the boundaries of the heritage-listed precinct.

The project would require the establishment of the Parramatta River Bridge North construction compound and the Vineyard Creek compound within the boundaries of the Female Orphan School Precinct (Western Sydney University).

The Parramatta River Bridge North construction compound would be used to support works associated with modifications to the Parramatta River Bridge and could not be relocated to an alternate location. The construction compound would be established on top of capping material and would not require any substantial excavations. The compound would not result in any impacts to any heritage fabric associated with the Female Orphan School Precinct.

The Vineyard Creek compound would be located within a grassed area bordered by Railway Street, Vineyard Creek and the T6 Carlingford Line. The site is currently being used as a construction compound by Western Sydney University for development within the Female Orphan School Precinct. The use of the site would not result in any impacts on any heritage fabric associated with the Female Orphan School Precinct.



NSW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The NSW Environmental Protection Agency provided a submission regarding the project on 28 September 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.6.

Table C.6 NSW Environmental Protection Agency


1.0 Contaminated land

1.1 The proponent should further consider the potential for the presence of contamination at sites which are present within the proposal footprint which are not subject to regulation. Even if a site is identified as ‘Regulation Not Required’ under the CLM Act, this does not preclude the presence of contamination or associated risks present at these sites.

The project considered the potential presence of contamination at sites within, adjacent to, and outside the project’s disturbance footprint, based on sites regulated by NSW EPA, as well as sites not subject to regulation. The EIS presented information from a range of sources of information, in addition to public registers maintained by NSW EPA, to identify sites with potential for contamination. These sources include historical aerial photography, government and regulatory lists, records and databases, inspections of current land use activities, and review of available reports for sites within the project area.

The assessment identified 48 Areas of Environmental Interest (AEIs) within the study area with the potential for contamination to be present. These AEIs are identified in Table 10.28 of the EIS. The AEIs identified included sites that are not currently subject to regulation, as well as sites that were identified on the EPA's public record of notices and classified as 'Regulation Not Required'.

1.2 While it is positive that a number of areas have been identified as areas of concern, there could potentially be other unidentified contaminated sites across the footprint, and an unknown finds protocol must be included as part of the proposal.

The project recognises that previously unidentified contamination may be present across the project area, especially given the history of land use activities with the potential to cause contamination within the project area.

The EIS identified the requirement for an unknown finds protocol to be incorporated into the Construction Contaminated Land Management Plan (refer to mitigation and management measure CM-6).

1.3 The proponent must discuss and/or seek approval from EPA for any work proposed within the Stage 1 corridor which intersects, or impacts on, sites subject to regulation under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

Transport for NSW would liaise with the EPA prior to commencing any works on sites subject to regulation under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.


C-161


1.4 The proponent must consult with the EPA for any work proposed within the Stage 1 corridor which intersects sites notified to the EPA and under assessment, or where the EPA is finalising regulation.

Transport for NSW would liaise with the EPA prior to commencing any works on sites notified to the EPA, classified as under assessment, or where the EPA is finalising regulation of these sites.

1.5 The EIS should substantiate and show calculations of how the presented risk ratings as per Table 7 of Technical Paper 8, were derived. The EPA notes Appendix D of the Technical Paper discusses risk ranking at Camellia only, but no clear calculations were provided. The proposal should update the risk ratings once more data is collected (such as from the cited Phase 2 DSI reported as being in progress) considering factors such as proximity to sensitive land use and receptors, and potential risk to on site and off site receptors.

The risk ratings presented in Table 7 of the Contaminated Land Technical Paper (Technical Paper 8, Volume 4), and summarised in Table 10.28 and Section 10.7 of the EIS, are qualitative risk ratings based on the likelihood and consequence of pre-existing contamination at these sites to adversely impact the construction and operation of the project (as discussed in Section 4 of the Contaminated Land Technical Paper).

This qualitative assessment of risk is similar to the approach adopted by NSW Department of Planning and Environment in the analysis of contamination risks for the Camellia Precinct – Land Use and Infrastructure Analysis (July, 2015). Risk ratings were determined through evaluation of source–pathway–receptor linkages, specifically focusing on the potential to disturb and/or be exposed to pre-existing contamination in each location. As such, no quantitative calculations exist for the risk ratings provided, as the ratings were determined qualitatively.

1.6 Table 8 of Technical Paper Number 8 presents mitigation and management measures based on the assessment risk from contamination. Area of Environmental Interest AEI 23 (Sandown Line, including 27 Grand Avenue, Camellia) is the only area identified high risk due to the presence of asbestos.

The EPA considers other high risk areas should be identified due to the presence of significant quantities of buried asbestos within Camellia peninsula, and questions why these have not been identified as high risk.

Section 10.7 of the EIS and the Contaminated Land Technical Paper (Technical Paper 8, Volume 4) identify the presence of buried asbestos within Camellia peninsula, and this contamination source has been incorporated in the determination of qualitative risk ratings for sites within the Camellia peninsula. The risk ratings are based on the likelihood and consequence of pre-existing contamination, such as asbestos, to adversely impact the construction and operation of the project. Due to the significant construction activities scheduled and available information confirming the presence of asbestos within AEI 23, a specific mitigation and management measure (refer mitigation and management measure CM-5) was included to manage this risk.

As identified in mitigation and management measure CM-1, other AEIs within the Camellia peninsula that are within the project's disturbance footprint, such as AEIs 21, 22 and 27, have been identified for further desktop assessment and investigation to confirm the identified risk ratings. Should asbestos be identified at these sites, a high risk rating would apply (as per the requirements identified in mitigation and management measure CM-1), and specific management and control measures (including measures for asbestos) would be developed and implemented for these sites through application of mitigation and management measure CM-2.




While other AEIs within the Camellia peninsula have also been identified and may contain buried asbestos, due to their location in relation to the project's disturbance footprint (being either outside the footprint or with limited portions within the disturbance footprint), the likelihood of encountering asbestos is correspondingly lower. The reduced likelihood of encountering asbestos at these sites, because construction activities associated with the project would not extend into these sites, was the basis for classifying these sites with Low or Medium risk ratings.

Should asbestos be disturbed by the construction works in these areas, appropriate controls would be triggered through mitigation and management measures CM-3, CM-4 and CM-6.

1.7 Section 6 of Technical Paper Number 8 discusses principles for further contamination assessment and remediation. Discussion is presented for potential management of contaminated soils with reference to NSW DECCW Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (DECCW 2006). This is a very limited discussion.

Given there is contaminated groundwater underlying the footprint (particularly in Camellia), the proponent must also consider clean up measures and management of contaminated groundwater (to the extent practicable) to meet national and EPA endorsed guidelines. The proponent should also have regard for contamination management with respect to ecologically sustainable development, and given proximity to the Parramatta River, potential for sea level fluctuations.

The principles for further assessment and remediation of contamination were targeted at contaminated soils, as contaminated soils and fill are the most likely environmental media to be encountered during the construction activities.

While contaminated groundwater is present in some areas of the project footprint, the depth of ground disturbance required to construct the light rail infrastructure means it is highly unlikely that groundwater would be encountered. Additionally, the narrow, linear nature of the project infrastructure would provide reduced opportunity to perform effective remediation of groundwater contamination, which is known to be a regional issue (particularly in Camellia).

While Section 6 of the Contaminated Land Technical Paper discusses the principles for further assessment and remediation of contaminated soils, should further assessment and management of contaminated groundwater be required during construction of the project, this would also be undertaken in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC, 2013) and relevant guidelines made or endorsed by NSW EPA.

Remediation and management of groundwater at the stabling and maintenance facility is being undertaken as part of a separate planning approval.

1.8 The proponent must follow EPA endorsed guidance to assess, manage and report potentially contaminated land, beyond the two references listed.

All relevant guidelines made or endorsed by NSW EPA would be used to assess, manage and report potentially contaminated land. As identified in section 10.7.4 of the EIS investigations would be performed in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC, 2013) and relevant guidelines made or endorsed by NSW EPA.


C-163


1.9 Waste generated or stored at the site should be disposed to a NSW EPA licensed landfill that is licensed to receive the waste as classified in accordance with the EPA’s Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste.

All waste would be managed (including waste classification, handling and storage) in accordance with relevant NSW legislation and government policies, including NSW EPA's Waste Classification Guidelines, and would be disposed of to a waste management facility licensed to accept the waste type (refer to mitigation and management measure WM-2).

1.10 All waste transported from the site that is required by the Protection of the Environment (Waste) Regulation 2005 to be tracked, must be tracked using the EPA’s on-line tracking system or an alternative tracking system approved in writing by the EPA.

All waste to be transported from the site that requires tracking under the Protection of the Environment (Waste) Regulation 2005 would be tracked using the EPA's online tracking system or an alternative system approved by the EPA.

1.11 Given the breadth of the project area and the multiple identified and potential contaminated sites within the project footprint, it is recommended that a site auditor accredited under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 be engaged to endorse the contamination assessment and remediation through a staged approach.

The site auditor should be engaged to provide Site Audit Statements at completion of the remediation works to confirm works have been completed appropriately and that the land is suitable for its intended use.

The project's approach to contamination assessment and remediation is based on the staged approach defined in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC, 2013), with sites within the project area to be assessed on a site-specific basis to determine the need, or otherwise, for remediation.

Where investigations and assessments at specific site(s) determine that significant remediation is required, mitigation and management measure CM-2 identifies that a NSW EPA-accredited Site Auditor would be engaged to confirm the appropriateness of the remediation works and the suitability of the site for its intended land use, through provision of a Site Audit Statement.




2.0 Noise

2.1 The EPA believes that the proponent has not provided in the EIS adequate justification in accordance with 2.3 of the Interim Construction Noise Guideline, for construction work proposed outside standard hours. Any approval should limit construction to standard hours, based on the information provided.

As described in section 8.2 of this Submissions Report, a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed during detailed design and would be included as part of the overall CEMP for the project (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-1).

As identified in the EIS, construction works would be required outside standard construction hours, due to the need to minimise impacts on the road network, ferry operations and certain utilities (depending on asset owner requirements). Section 6.16 of the EIS described the proposed construction hours and the likely locations where out-of-hours works are likely to be required. The noise and vibration impacts of anticipated out of hours works were assessed in sections 11.6, 12.6, 13.6, 14.6 and 15.6 of the EIS (for each precinct) as a worst case. The specific requirements for out-of-hours work would be considered during detailed construction planning.

As described in the EIS, the detailed out-of-hours works protocol would be developed at a later stage when more information is available regarding specific details of how the project would be constructed. The protocol would also detail the consultation requirements and approval process to be followed prior to carrying out those works. It is anticipated the protocol would include as a minimum the following items: » The applicable legislative requirements. » Specification of noise management levels applicable to out-of-hours works. » Justification for out of hours works. » Details of how to prepare an out of hours works application. » Assessment of the potential noise and vibration impacts. » Identification of appropriate management measures.

» Procedures for carrying out consultation with the affected community and relevant stakeholders. » Procedures for community notifications. » Details of the project Environmental Representative. » Details on when monitoring and auditing is required to be completed. » Details regarding how complaints are to be made and how they would be managed.

» How non-conformance would be managed and reported.


C-165


Transport for NSW would continue to consult with the EPA regarding the development of the proposed out-of-hours works protocol during detailed design to ensure that the requirements of the Interim Construction Noise Guideline are met for construction work proposed to be undertaken outside of standard hours.

2.2 The proponent must commit to implementing all feasible and reasonable noise mitigation and management measures to minimise impacts associated with construction noise and vibration that exceeds the noise management levels, in accordance with a construction noise and vibration management plan. The commitment should be confirmed with appropriate conditions in any approval.

Subject to project approval, Transport for NSW would be required to comply with all mitigation and management measures outlined in the EIS as part of the project conditions of approval.

Transport for NSW are committed to minimising potential noise and vibration impacts of the project during both construction and operation and will ensure all feasible and reasonable noise mitigation and management measures are implemented to minimise impacts associated with the project.

Several mitigation and management measures have been identified to manage potential noise and vibration impacts including development of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) (refer to revised mitigation and management measure NV-1).

The various measures proposed to manage noise and vibration of the project during construction and operation are summarised in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report.

2.3 There is potential for operational noise and vibration impacts (including ground borne) from the Parramatta Light Rail and it is appropriate that there is further consideration of mitigation during detailed design. The proponent’s proposed operational mitigation strategy and compliance assessment should be included as a condition of any approval, to ensure appropriate outcomes.


Mitigation and management measure NV-9 outlines that an operational management strategy would be developed for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation. This would be implemented prior to operations and then validated once the project is complete. This strategy would include consideration of potentially feasible and reasonable management for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational management strategy.




3.0 Water quality

3.1 The EPA identified that in a highly disturbed waterway, a reduced level of protection may be appropriate as a pragmatic short-term goal, with the aim of eventually restoring it to the status of ‘slightly to moderately disturbed’. However, it is not acceptable to allow poor environmental management or water pollution simply because a waterway is currently degraded.

The approach adopted in the EIS is inconsistent with:

1 The ANZECC (2000) Guidelines methodology for deriving site-specific trigger values

2 NSW Government policy regarding the NSW Water Quality Objectives

3 Policies and principles in the National Water Quality Management Strategy.

Contemporary, good practice guidelines would be followed throughout the construction of the project to ensure stormwater runoff from the project area receives adequate water quality treatment, where required. A series of mitigation and management measures have been identified to specifically manage water quality during construction (mitigation and management measures HY-1 to HY-10) and operation (mitigation and management measure HY-11).

Section 2.3 of the Water Quality Working Paper (Technical Paper 6, Volume 4) discussed the legislative and policy framework which the water quality assessment considered. This included relevant NSW legislation and other relevant guidelines and policies (section 2.3.2) including the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) water quality guidelines (2000) and the National Water Quality Management Strategy.

The ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) National Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality were also applied as part of the assessment to understand the current health of the waterways in the study area and the ability to support nominated environmental values, particularly the protection of aquatic ecosystems. The Guidelines provided recommended trigger values which were applied to the assessment to understand the existing water quality and key indicators of concern. As outlined in section 4.3.5 of the Water Quality Working Paper, site-specific trigger values would be developed as part of the project’s environmental management plans. The site-specific trigger values would be based on the primary water management goal for the project which is to not worsen the existing condition of surface water and groundwater within the project area.

Overall the approach undertaken as part of the impact assessment is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the policies identified.


C-167


3.2 While it is unclear at this stage whether the proponent will discharge to receiving waters during construction, the EPA recommended a condition requiring that an appropriate impact assessment is conducted prior to any discharge, including: » Identification and estimation of the quality and

quantity of all pollutants that may be introduced by source and discharge point, including residual discharges after mitigation and management measures are implemented.

» Assessment of the significance of any identified impacts including consideration of the relevant ambient water quality outcomes. Demonstration of how the proposal will be designed and operated to:

• protect the Water Quality Objectives for receiving waters where they are currently being achieved.

• contribute towards achievement of the Water Quality Objectives over time where they are not currently being achieved.


As identified in section 5.1 of the Water Quality Working Paper (Technical Paper 6, Volume 4), during construction, the key potential impacts to water quality would be sedimentation, runoff, and accidental spills or releases of pollutants. Surface waters at most risk are those in close proximity to site compounds, track works, road works, excavation sites, spoil placement, vegetation removal, worksites and other locations where significant earthworks might occur, including the construction and removal of built features.

Mitigation and management measure HY-1 identified that a water quality management program would be established prior to construction to ensure compliance with identified water quality objectives and enable potential impacts on surface and groundwater to be identified, controlled and reported. This would include targeted baseline monitoring of receiving waters and shallow groundwater prior to construction to identify baseline water quality conditions.

The water quality management program would also include, as part of the identification of potential impacts, identification and estimation of the quality and quantity of all pollutants that may be introduced by source and discharge point, including residual discharges after mitigation and management measures are implemented.

With the implementation of the proposed management measures, the estimated quantity of residual sedimentation and uncontrolled pollutant runoff would be minimal and therefore are unlikely to present a significant environmental impact.

4.0 Disturbance of contaminated land

4.1 The EPA recommends a condition requiring that as part of a Soil and Water Management Plan the applicant should:

» Include soil erosion and sediment control measures appropriate for contaminated land that ensure stormwater from contaminated areas are not permitted to contaminate clean areas or discharge to waters.


Mitigation and management measure SG-3 identifies that erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for each worksite in accordance with Volume 2D of Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004). The preparation of these plans would include the consideration of managing soil and erosion from potentially contaminated sites along the project alignment.




5.0 Bridge construction and modification

5.1 The EPA notes that no commitment was made on the proposed mitigation and management measures for in-channel sediment disturbance associated with bridge construction/ modification activities.

The EPA recommends a condition requiring that as part of a Soil and Water Management Plan the applicant should include specifications and design details of the mitigation and management measures for in-channel sediment disturbance associated with bridge construction/ modification activities and contingency actions for risk factors.

Section 17.2.6 identified that the soil and water sub-plan would develop and implement adequate water quality control measures prior to the carrying out of significant earthwork or bridge construction activities.

In-channel sediment disturbance associated with bridge construction/modification activities would be minimised wherever possible. Mitigation and management measure BI-1 noted that measures would be investigated during detailed design to minimise potential biodiversity impacts including:

» Minimising the need for new instream structures. » Appropriate design and alignment of new instream structures with existing conditions to minimise

turbulence, erosion and scouring.

In addition, mitigation and management measure BI-4 also identified a range of measures to be implemented to mitigate impacts on aquatic habitats during construction including (with reference to in-stream works): » Use of platforms/temporary wharfs in preference to weirs for instream construction works. » Use of floating booms around work zones. » Use of silt curtains around new piers during piling to restrict turbidity.


C-169


6.0 Issue requiring clarification – Stabling and maintenance facility

6.1 The EIS states that two water quality basins (3,000m2 total surface area for the two basins) will be located at the facility. No information is provided on the purpose of these basins (i.e. what water is captured), the sizing of the basins or how the water in the basins will be managed (i.e. treatment, reuse of water and/or disposal). There is also potential for the water quality basins to be impacted by the remaining contaminated soil and/or groundwater onsite.

The EPA recommends Department of Planning and Environment seek clarification on the design, operation and management of the proposed water quality basin at the stabling and maintenance facility. Information should also be sought to demonstrate that the water in the water quality basins will not be impacted by any contaminated soil or groundwater on site.

The proposed water detention basin was identified in section 5.13 of the EIS and shown on Figure 5.33 of the EIS. The intention of the basin is to capture and detain stormwater run-off from the stabling and maintenance facility site during operation for flood mitigation purposes.

Where stormwater/surface water is captured by the detention storage, this water would be disposed of to the local stormwater network in a controlled manner consistent from the site. As described in section 6.2.1 of the Water Quality Working Paper (Technical Paper 8, Volume 4), the detention storage would include a gross pollutant trap.

With respect to the potential for water in the detention storage to be affected by underlying contaminated soils, the design of the detention basins would be non-permeable so as to prevent migration of existing contaminants into the proposed basins. The detention storage would also as far as practicable be located within the filled depth to minimise the extent of disturbance of existing material. The storage would be lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent ingress of groundwater and seepage of stormwater.

Ongoing development of the final layout of the stabling and maintenance facility during detailed design would also continue to refine the location, arrangement, treatment and alternative solutions with respect to the proposed stormwater detention.



NSW DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES The NSW Department of Primary Industries provided a submission regarding the project on 29 September 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.7.

Table C.7 NSW Department of Primary Industries


1.0 General issues

1.1 The proponent should ensure all works within or around the Parramatta River are undertaken in accordance with Department of Primary Industries Water Guidelines for Controlled Activities (2012) and the Policy And Guidelines For Fish Habitat Conservation And Management (2013).

Transport for NSW would ensure that all works associated with the project within or around the Parramatta River are undertaken in accordance with relevant legislative requirements and guidelines. With respect to the identified guidelines: » Although a controlled activity approval is not required for the project (under Part 5.1 of the EP&A

Act), the design and construction of works in or near watercourses would consider the Guidelines for Controlled Activities (2012).

» The project would be undertaken with consideration of the Policy And Guidelines For Fish Habitat Conservation And Management (Department of Primary Industries, 2013).

1.2 The proponent should consult with Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries on the design of bridge crossings and any associated construction plans for works within or adjacent to the waterway, and on the development of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

As part of the detailed design of the project, Transport for NSW would undertake consultation with Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries with respect to the identified bridge crossings and associated management plans for works within or adjacent to existing waterways along the project alignment.


C-171


2.0 Riparian Lands

2.1 The Biodiversity Assessment report indicates that the Parramatta River requires a 20 metre wide riparian buffer. However, as the Parramatta River is a fourth order watercourse, a 40 metre wide riparian zone should be provided. The proponent should undertake an assessment on the potential impact of the project on riparian land along the river assuming a 40 metre set back.

It is acknowledged that the Parramatta River is a fourth order watercourse, and as such a 40 metre wide riparian zone should be provided in any assessment of impacts. Section 8.6.3 of the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 5, Volume 3) provided a detailed assessment of the project impacts on the riparian corridor. The use of a 20 metre buffer as presented in the EIS was an error.

A revised assessment correctly identifying a 40 metre corridor has been undertaken which identified no change/additional impact in the extent of the projects including impacts to 0.116 hectares of native vegetation within the riparian buffer (40 metres) of the Parramatta River, or the 0.083 hectares in relation to the project’s proposed crossings.

2.2 DPI considers that Option 2 of the four proposed locations for the stabling and maintenance facility to be the preferred option as it presents the lowest impacts to riparian land.

NSW Department of Primary Industries comment regarding their preference for Option 2 for the stabling and maintenance facility site is acknowledged. This site is noted in section 3.6.9 of the EIS as the preferred option for the project.

2.3 Some mangroves are situated in the vicinity of the proposed works near the Parramatta River crossing at Camellia. Avoidance and minimisation of harm of these mangroves should be a priority for the proposed works. DPI Fisheries request that the proponent confirm whether any mangroves will be harmed as a result of the proposal. Any proposed harm of mangroves will need to address the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects – Aquatic Biodiversity Fact Sheet, in minimising the harm of mangrove and designing appropriate aquatic habitat offsets.

As part of the project it is proposed that the Transport for NSW would provide offsets for impacted mangroves as part of the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (under terrestrial offsets). As such, it is not considered necessary to offset the same impacts twice under the NSW Major Project Offset Policy.

The project has, where possible, avoided impacts on the Parramatta River and its associated vegetation, including mangroves. However, there is potential for residual impacts on an area of up to 0.03 hectares of PCT Mangrove Forests in estuaries of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion. This PCT contains a small number of mangroves, so some mangroves may be harmed as a result of the project (refer to section 10.2.2 of the EIS).

The project includes provision of a Biodiversity Offset Strategy that would provide offsets for all residual impacts to vegetation in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (OEH, 2014b). Any residual impacts on the PCT ME024 Mangrove Forests in estuaries of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion would be provided in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (OEH, 2014b) and is currently proposed as payment through the BCT as a supplementary measure.




3.0 Groundwater

3.1 The proponent should provide evidence to demonstrate the potential impacts on groundwater.

Groundwater impacts associated with the project were outlined in section 10.5 of the EIS and detailed further in the Water Quality Impact Assessment (Technical Paper 6, Volume 4). This included a desktop groundwater assessment, which identified the existing regime for groundwater resources along the project alignment including reliance by users and other sensitive receivers. The assessment was based on available groundwater information and searches of existing databases, such as registered bores (NSW Pinneena database) and known contamination sources (NSW EPA databases). The assessment also identified the potential impacts which would be expected to occur during both construction and operation of the project.

While the final depth of all excavations would be determined during detailed design, it is likely that most of the excavation required would be up to a depth of around 1.5 metres below ground level. The groundwater levels shown in Appendix A of the Water Quality Impact Assessment show that only two bores have a water level shallower than 1.5 metres below ground level. Bore GW102249 has a water level of around 1.49 metres below ground level and bore GW102250 has a water level of 0.25 metres below ground level. It should however be noted that bore GW102250 monitors the confined underlying shale, which does not start until around 6.5 metres below ground level therefore excavation shallower than 6.5 metres would not be expected to intercept groundwater in that location.

Further groundwater assessment would also be undertaken during detailed design. Transport for NSW would liaise with the Department of Primary Industries, as required, on its requirements for this assessment.

3.2 Crown Lands and Water Division supports the recommendation to undertake baseline groundwater monitoring, but considers that four sampling events is not sufficient. Transport for NSW should provide justification for proposed groundwater monitoring and should consult with the Department of Industry – Crown Lands and Water on the development of the groundwater monitoring strategy.

A technical assessment of potential groundwater impacts was undertaken as part of the preparation of the EIS (Water Quality Working Paper, Technical Paper 9, Volume 4).

A monitoring program would be prepared in consultation with Department of Industry – Crown Lands and Water prior to the commencement of construction. The monitoring program would document a justification of the proposed frequency and duration of monitoring.


C-173


3.3 There is below-ground excavation required for basement structures proposed as part of the Stabling and Maintenance Facility at Camellia. Whilst it is acknowledged that earthworks at the Stabling and Maintenance Facility site will include filling it is not clear how this relates to the basement substructures which are illustrated in Figure 5.35. The proponent should provide details of the depth of construction, as well as excavation, in comparison with groundwater levels beneath the site is required.

The sub-surface of the stabling and maintenance facility at Camellia would be remediated under a separate planning approval process from the EIS. Transport for NSW determined the REF in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act in December 2017.

Excavations at the stabling and maintenance facility, including basement structures such as the maintenance pits within the central maintenance building, would occur within the engineered fill that would be placed above current ground level. As limited excavation of the existing ground surface would occur, potential risks regarding contacting groundwater and other contamination is minimised.



SYDNEY WATER The Sydney Water provided a submission regarding the project on 23 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.8.

Table C.8 Sydney Water


1.1 Sydney Water assets impacted by the project will require relocation, adjustment, protection and upsizing to accommodate future growth. The Project needs to meet Sydney Water’s Asset Adjustment Process or other requirements agreed to under the Sydney Water and Transport for NSW Interface Agreement.

Transport for NSW commits to meeting the requirements of Sydney Water’s Asset Adjustment Process as separately agreed with Sydney Water, and would cover upsizing of any assets.

1.2 If any Sydney Water assets outside of the project boundary require change, Transport for NSW will need to obtain environmental approval to cover these works.

Flexibility provisions identified in Section 5.1 of the EIS allow for utilities works beyond the project boundary in certain circumstances. Where works are required to Sydney Water assets outside of the project boundary that fall outside the flexibility provisions, Transport for NSW would work with Sydney Water to obtain any required environmental approvals for these works.

1.3 The project includes the construction of a new Stabling Yard at Camellia. The Stabling Yard will need a connection to Sydney Water’s water and wastewater system. Transport for NSW will be required to obtain a compliance certificate from Sydney Water for connection to our system.

Transport for NSW would obtain all relevant compliance certificate(s) from Sydney Water for connection of the proposed stabling and maintenance facility (and other relevant facilities such as the proposed driver amenity facilities) to the existing Sydney Water system.

1.4 Transport for NSW must ensure Sydney Water’s requirements for access to our infrastructure are met through the design, construction, operation and maintenance if the project. This includes access to operational sites such as Sydney Water’s Sewage Pumping Station No. 67 at Camellia and ensuring access to our network assets is available from outside the project corridor.

Sydney Water’s operational requirements during both construction and operation of the project would be considered as part of detailed design. Ongoing maintenance and access arrangements would also be separately agreed with Sydney Water. This would include access to operational sites such as Sydney Water’s Sewage Pumping Station No. 67 at Camellia.

Where adjustments are required to be made to utilities, the design of these adjustments would also ensure that Sydney Water maintains appropriate access for operational and maintenance purposes.


C-175


1.5 Sydney Water’s Sewage Pumping Station No. 67 is also a State Heritage listed item. Transport for NSW must consult with Sydney Water throughout the project in relation to any works taking place which may impact on the pumping station site.

As discussed in section 4.4 and Table 4.4 of the EIS, Transport for NSW has undertaken initial consultation with Sydney Water regarding the potential impacts of the project on the Sydney Water’s Sewage Pumping Station No. 67.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Sydney Water throughout the ongoing detailed design and construction of the project with respect to any potential works which may impact on the pumping station site.



PARRAMATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce provided a submission regarding the project on 23 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.9.

Table C.9 Parramatta Chamber of Commerce


1.1 The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce expressed disappointment that the project seemed to be aimed at supporting considerable urban growth in the east of the LGA, noting that Parramatta is currently a major service centre for much of Western Sydney as people travel to Parramatta to: work; seek professional, medical and educational services etc.; to shop; and to enjoy recreational activities.

The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce raised concern that the proposed route may result in increased difficulty in accessing the Parramatta CBD both during construction and operation.

The view of the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce is acknowledged. However, as described in the EIS, the overall vision for the project is to deliver an integrated light rail service that supports the NSW Government’s vision for the GPOP priority growth area, including supporting considerable urban growth. The light rail route is largely within the central part of the LGA, with the Westmead terminus being the western extent and the Carlingford terminus being the eastern extent. Toongabbie and Epping are the respective western and eastern extents of the LGA.

A key consideration for defining the vision was to balance the specific scope of the project, having light rail services at the core, integrated with other transport services, and supporting the significant land use outcomes envisaged for the study area (including both residential, commercial/retail and recreational development).

As recognised throughout the EIS, the project would provide a catalyst for urban renewal along its corridor, providing connections to various areas of Western Sydney that will be transformed through significant NSW Government and private investment. By providing a reliable, frequent and convenient new public transport service, the project would offer an attractive alternative to private vehicles, assisting in minimising car dependence for intermediate trips in the GPOP priority growth area, in particular within the Parramatta CBD.

Construction work within the Parramatta CBD would result in some temporary impacts to traffic performance on the surrounding road network due to construction vehicles, temporary road closures, loss of parking spaces and loading zones, bus route diversion, relocation of bus stops, and temporary closure or diversions of pedestrian and cyclist access. This would result in a slight increase in difficulty in accessing the Parramatta CBD. As outlined in section 17.2.2 of the EIS, these impacts would be managed through the preparation of site-specific construction traffic management plans and site-specific traffic control plans would be prepared for the project and reviewed by the Department of Planning and Environment.


C-177


1.2 The Parramatta Chamber of Commerce raised concern regarding the potential loss of up to 800 parking spaces.

As noted in the EIS, Transport for NSW would continue to work with Council regarding the potential impacts associated with the removal of parking along the project alignment. Specifically, mitigation and management measure TT-5 notes that Transport for NSW would continue to work with Council in the context of its long-term strategy for car parking in the local government area to identify appropriate parking mitigation and management measures (e.g. parking controls) to balance supply and demand for parking.

In addition, critical on-street parking (including disabled spaces, loading zones and, where possible, short-stay parking) would be replaced on a ‘like for like’ basis within the local vicinity of existing parking such as in adjacent side streets. The remainder of the displaced parking would be absorbed in the surrounding parking provisions. The detailed implementation of this replacement would also be worked through with Council prior to commencement of construction.

1.3 Other recent decisions by the State Government have also added to the accessibility difficulties for the people of Parramatta, including the decision to impose tolls just after the Church Street exit off the M4, dramatically increasing congestion around this area.

Comment acknowledged. Changes to other infrastructure such as tolling for the M4 is outside the scope of the project.

The project would develop and implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (refer to section 17.2.2 of the EIS), with the aim of reducing impacts associated with movements to and within the Parramatta LGA as a result of light rail construction. This would include maintaining road access, public transport services, providing replacement buses for trains along the Carlingford Line and ensuring appropriate pedestrian movements. Access to Parramatta in its current forms therefore would be maintained with minimal impacts. The main impacts associated with access to Parramatta would include slight increases in travel times and reduced parking in the CBD.

1.4 The Chamber of Commerce raised concern regarding the possibility that some businesses will be displaced out of Parramatta for the long term, particularly along Eat Street, which may be impacted during the construction period.

As noted in section 13.9.3 of the EIS, construction would impact on businesses and facilities (including cafes and other outdoor venues) along Eat Street, George Street and Macquarie Street that rely on the existing amenity within Parramatta CBD. Construction impacts would include noise, access, changes to traffic conditions and removal of outdoor seating for some businesses along Church Street. Amenity impacts are anticipated, such as visual intrusion impacts from construction activities within close proximity to businesses. These impacts would be minimised as far as practicable at all times throughout construction of the project.

To support businesses a Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared as detailed in section 5.19.1 of this Submissions Report.




Transport for NSW has employed four place managers for Parramatta Light Rail who have been regularly talking to potentially impacted businesses across the alignment, including undertaking surveys, to gain a better understanding of how businesses operate so this can be addressed through construction plans and schedules. In addition, the project team held seven information sessions to answer questions about the EIS, including a dedicated information session for businesses. This engagement will continue throughout the construction phase. Regular information will be provided to businesses and property owners during construction of light rail so that any issues are identified quickly and solutions implemented. Place Managers would work with businesses to understand their needs and work with construction teams to identify signage, parking, access and other measures to avoid disruption for customers and deliveries (revised mitigation and management measure SE-1). The communication of construction works to minimise business impacts would be a part of the Community Engagement Plan.

Section 17 of the EIS included numerous mitigation and management measures to minimise construction impacts, and require that a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan be prepared to manage impacts.

1.5 The Chamber requested the following regarding the light rail development:

» Underground utility services should be relocated along the route into an accessible trench to reduce the long-term disruption.

Consultation with utility service providers would be carried out during detailed design to ensure that appropriate measures are taken regarding the potential integration of future utilities requirements along the project alignment and to ensure that the project does not preclude the development or installation of proposed utilities.

1.6 Hoardings are used that minimise impacts on businesses, particularly by reducing the visual impact, impact on sight lines and better dust and noise amelioration.

Section 17.2.10 of the EIS identified that to minimise visual and socio-economic impacts hoardings may feature: » Artwork, graphics and images to enhance the visual appearance of temporary works in high visibility locations. » Project information to raise awareness on benefits, explain the proposed works at each site and provide updates on

construction progress. » Community information, including contact numbers for enquiries/complaints. » Signage and information to mitigate impacts on local businesses which may be obscured by the construction site.

1.7 Signs are used to direct pedestrians to listed commercial premises, including the placement of simple maps or diagrams in high traffic areas.

Support to businesses potentially impacted by the project would be identified through the development of a Business Consultation and Activation Plan as outlined in section 5.19.1 of this Submissions Report.

Appropriate signage would be provided around construction sites to provide visibility to retained businesses, where required (revised mitigation and management measure SE-8). Signage would be included on hoardings in certain areas as identified above in item 1.6 of this table.


C-179


1.8 A whole of city approach is used for planning new routes for construction, delivery and waste services (in light of the many developments that will be happening at this time) and this information is readily available in real time.

As identified in the EIS, the cumulative impacts during construction have been a particularly important consideration given the potential overlap with a considerable number of projects in the Parramatta North and Parramatta CBD precincts. As outlined in section 9.2 of the EIS, cumulative increases in construction vehicle traffic on public roads result in a series of impacts including:

» Potential disruption to access and circulation routes to properties along the project alignment. » Additional noise/vibration and air quality impacts on sensitive receivers. » Increased localised congestion from higher numbers of heavy vehicles navigating through the area.

Access for waste services and deliveries would be maintained in construction and operation.

Mitigation and management measure RC-1 noted that the project team would manage and coordinate the interface with projects under construction at the same time. This would occur through coordination and consultation between Transport for NSW and other relevant stakeholders such as Department of Planning and Environment; other Transport for NSW agencies (Roads and Maritime; Sydney Trains; Sydney Buses etc.); Sydney Water; Council; UrbanGrowth NSW; Western Sydney University; emergency service providers; utility providers; and relevant construction contractors.

1.9 A single point of contact is available for businesses to help navigate the many contractors and agencies that are involved with the disruption across the city.

Transport for NSW has also employed four place managers for Parramatta Light Rail who have been regularly talking to potentially impacted businesses across the alignment, including undertaking surveys, to gain a better understanding of how businesses operate so this can be addressed through construction plans and schedules. Each place manager is dedicated to a particular area providing a single point of contact.

This engagement will continue throughout the construction phase and the dedicated place manager is available for businesses to contact at any time. Regular information will be provided to businesses and property owners during construction of light rail so that any issues are identified quickly and solutions implemented.

1.10 Appropriate compensation is given where business is adversely affected, through rent relief or a simple reimbursement for loss of revenue as a result of the project.

Transport for NSW recognises that there would be disruption for businesses during construction of the project and that this needs to be carefully managed. Financial compensation and rent relief is not proposed to be provided to businesses impacted during construction of the project, with the exception of those that would be acquired. However support for businesses would be provided as outlined in section 5.19.1 of the EIS, including via place managers and through the implementation of the Business Consultation and Activation Plan.

1.11 Construction times are fast and activities need to be well planned.

The construction program provided in Chapter 6 of the EIS provided a realistic timeframe to complete the construction of the project. The construction program aims to provide a balance between the efficient completion of construction and minimising impacts to adjacent receivers. Efforts would be made to expedite construction of the project where possible.




1.12 Penalties are imposed on construction contractors who go over time and compensation provided to impacted businesses.

As discussed in Item 1.10 of this table, financial compensation and rent relief would not be provided to businesses impacted during construction of the project. Specific contractual arrangements between the construction contractor and Transport for NSW would be commercial in confidence. However, all efforts would be made to ensure that the construction program is met, and where possible expedited.

1.13 Businesses are informed well in advance of times when construction will be taking place.

A Community Engagement Plan would be prepared to guide community engagement during the construction phase of the project. Communication would be with the local community, stakeholders (including businesses) and the wider region (revised mitigation and management measure SE-1). Regular information would be provided to businesses and property owners during construction of light rail so that any issues are identified quickly and solutions implemented, with place managers providing a single point of contact for businesses. Consultation with and provision of information to businesses regarding the construction program would continue prior to and during the construction of the project, refer to item 1.4 of this table.

Further information regarding consultation prior to and during construction is provided in Chapter 2 of this Submissions Report.

1.14 Any promotional activity should be for the benefit of affected businesses rather than external vendors.

A Business Consultation and Activation Plan would be prepared to support businesses impacted by the project as outlined in section 5.19.1 of this Submissions Report.

1.15 Consideration should be given to running the light rail along Marsden Street to keep the main routes into Parramatta open and retain the Royal Oak Hotel.

Construction of the light rail alignment on Marsden Street rather than Church Street was considered during the initial route assessment but was not progressed as the alignment would not provide the socio-economic benefits of a direct light rail connection to restaurants and cafes along Eat Street.

Additionally, a light rail stop on Marsden Street would be too close to the new Western Sydney Stadium to allow safe crowd dispersal. During consultation, Venues NSW recommended that any light rail stop serving Western Sydney Stadium be at least 450 metres from the stadium entrance to maintain a safe environment following sporting events.

More detailed discussion regarding the impacts to the Royal Oak Hotel is provided in section 5.11.4 of this Submissions Report.


C-181


1.16 The light rail is interconnected with the ferry service.

Parramatta Ferry Wharf would be accessible from Prince Alfred Square and Harris Street stops. Harris Street stop would have the shortest walking distance (500 metres) to the ferry wharf, via Argus Lane, George Street and Charles Street. Prince Alfred Square stop may offer a shorter journey time for customers approaching the Parramatta CBD from the north/west.

An alignment on Phillip Street was not considered for the project as it would not meet the project objectives, would prevent integration with Parramatta Station and would not provide adequate access to a large portion of the CBD.

1.17 During construction other parking is made available which is free and secure outside the CBD and serviced by buses to bring people into the city.

During construction, buses and trains will continue to service the Parramatta CBD, with some bus route diversions and relocation of bus stops required, as outlined in the EIS (refer to section 6.14.4 and 8.2.2.7 of the EIS). Rail replacement services from the T6 Carlingford line would terminate at Parramatta Interchange in the CBD providing a direct service to Parramatta and an interchange to fast trains to Strathfield, Redfern and Central Stations. No park and ride facilities are proposed for the construction period.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with the Council in the context of its long term strategy for car parking in the local government area to identify appropriate parking mitigation and management measures (e.g. parking controls) to balance supply and demand for parking.

1.18 The Chamber of Commerce stated that they understand the Department of Transport has entered into a contract with TAFE to contract all of the vocational training services to the exclusion of the private sector.

The project’s Environment and Sustainability Policy identifies that Transport for NSW will work with the community and our stakeholders to develop workforce skills and diversity.

Mitigation and management measures SU-3 and SU-6 identified that a workforce development and industry participation strategy would be developed and implemented during construction and operation. The development of this strategy would consider any existing programs, such as the Parramatta Skills Exchange program involving a partnership between Council and TAFE, which may be applicable to the project. On other projects, Skills Exchange programs have been successful in responding to training needs and improving workers’ literacy, numeracy and computer skills.

1.19 The Chamber of Commerce stated they would like a commitment from the NSW Government that local businesses will have an opportunity to secure business resulting from this development.

The procurement process for the project, through which private sector participants are procured to manage and perform the design, build, operation and maintenance of the Project, commenced in late 2017. The registration process is facilitated through the Tender for NSW website which is publicly accessible https://tenders.nsw.gov.au/.

https://tenders.nsw.gov.au/



FIRE AND RESCUE NSW Fire and Rescue NSW provided a submission regarding the project on 11 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.10.

Table C.10 NSW Fire and Rescue


1.1 Of interest to Fire and Rescue NSW was the potential for first responder access to installed fire protection of buildings situated on the proposed corridor where restricted access would be imposed.

The development of the light rail corridor and associated infrastructure has potential to restrict Fire and Rescue NSW personnel from operating fire safety systems critical to safe and efficient management of fire incidents. Therefore, the project’s development, design and configuration of the light rail corridor should consider critical building fire systems and the need to position fire appliances in the immediate vicinity of fire booster connection points.

Access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along the project alignment in construction and operation. Emergency services would be advised of all planned changes to traffic arrangements prior to applying the changes. Advice would include information about upcoming traffic switches, anticipated delays to traffic, extended times of work, locations of road possession or any likely major disruptions.

Measures to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles through work sites would be outlined in the work site specific traffic management plans. These measures may include the establishment of clearways adjacent to work sites and/or the installation of road plates. » During operation of the project, emergency vehicles would retain access to all areas of the light rail

corridor and pedestrian zones 24-hours a day. » In addition, detailed design of all light rail infrastructure would ensure that the project does not

impede existing building fire systems or the need to position fire appliances in the immediate vicinity of fire booster connection points.


C-183

URBANGROWTH NSW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation provided a submission regarding the project on 26 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.11.

Table C.11 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation


1.0 Overview

1.1 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation supports the project which runs through the UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation’s Parramatta North Growth Centre.

Support for the project from UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation is acknowledged.

2.0 Inter-dependency and coordination

2.1 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation noted that the current Parramatta North Growth Centre DA (DA1) seeks approval for demolition of a number of buildings the light rail construction is currently dependent upon being demolished to accommodate the project corridor.

It was proposed by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation that Transport for NSW incorporate into the approval for the Stage 1 project the works required for the demolition of the buildings required for delivery the light rail project.

Following display of the EIS and ongoing discussion with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation, Transport for NSW proposes to include the demolition of a number of buildings within the Parramatta North Urban Transformation area as part of the project approvals for Stage 1 of the project.

Further discussion regarding the additional works is provided in section 6.5 of this Submissions Report.

2.2 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation propose to deliver as part of DA1 major utilities infrastructure works, some of which would be transverse to, and in some areas run parallel to the ‘hazard zone’ and within the PLR corridor.

It was proposed by UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation that Transport for NSW incorporate into their activity works to future proof/space provision and delivery coordination for utilities that will cross or run parallel with the light rail corridor.

As part of the ongoing detailed design of the project, Transport for NSW would continue to work with UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation regarding the detailed design and layout of the light rail project to ensure that sufficient space is provided for utilities associated with the Parramatta North Urban Transformation Area.




3.0 Design outcomes

3.1 UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation noted that they are confident that the NSW Government’s vision for the Parramatta North precinct will be achieved by working with the light rail project team in the Development Agreement for Parramatta North Growth Centre and via the light rail project team’s work with the Council to create and agreed set of Urban Design Requirements that define the desired place-making outcomes.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW. This document is intended to establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during the detailed design phase.

As discussed in section 5.12 of the EIS, the Urban Design Requirements handbook was prepared in close collaboration with a range of key stakeholders including Council and UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation (including participation in a Joint Urban Design Working Group). The development of a vision for the Parramatta North precinct would continue to be developed as part of the finalisation of the Urban Design Requirements.


C-185

WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY The Western Sydney University provided a submission regarding the project on 23 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.12.

Table C.12 Western Sydney University


1.0 Rydalmere stop location options

1.1 Western Sydney University stated that the proposed Rydalmere stop does not offer direct access to the Rydalmere campus and links between the campus and the Rydalmere industrial estate fails to provide appropriate connection for the students and staff of Western Sydney University and the continued development of the Rydalmere industrial estate.

The University recommended the project team reconsider the position stated in the EIS and commit to an additional stop in the south-eastern corner of the Rydalmere campus as part of Stage 1 of the project.

As described in section 3.6 of the EIS, based on feedback from Western Sydney University and the Council, the opportunity to provide an additional light rail stop adjacent to the Rydalmere campus, south of the single stop location at Rydalmere Station was investigated.

While it was considered that the additional stop would provide some benefits, including improved public transport connections to the Western Sydney University Rydalmere campus (referred to in the EIS as the Parramatta campus though referred to in the submission as Rydalmere) and potential improvements to the Rydalmere industrial area, the additional light rail stop was also identified to have the following disadvantages: » Minor increase in the cost of project construction, ongoing

maintenance and operation due to the construction of a second stop.

» An overall increase in travel times for the operation of the project, reducing identified project benefits and therefore reduced patronage of the system.

» Additional vegetation impacts, including potential impacts on endangered ecological communities in this location.

The provision of a single, consolidated stop at the location of the existing Rydalmere Station was therefore considered to be the preferred option. The proposed active transport link running adjacent to the light rail would offer direct access to Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus).




The project alignment would not preclude a future additional stop serving the Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus), to the southern edge of the campus, should demand provide an opportunity for this. The proposed access arrangement to the Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus) has been refined as part of the ongoing design of the project following public display. The improved access arrangement is described in greater detail in section 6.12 of this Submissions Report and includes three access points between the proposed active transport link and the university campus.

1.2 The submission provided additional detail regarding their concern about the rationale for not providing a second stop at Rydalmere. The issues raised included:

Increased construction costs The costs of building and maintaining a second stop at Rydalmere have not been provided by the project team.

Costings associated with the construction of the project were estimated as part of the Strategic Business Case. These costs are commercial in confidence and unfortunately cannot be provided to Western Sydney University.

1.3 Travel times and patronage The claim that patronage would be reduced by the creation of a second stop located at the University due to an increase in travel times is not substantiated. It was noted that usage of the current heavy rail stop is poor, suggesting that the use of the existing rail stop will not encourage students to use the project to access the university campus.

The existing underutilisation of Rydalmere Station is associated with the infrequent rail services provided along the T6 Carlingford Line due to the single track and the requirement to transfer at Clyde Station. The existing underutilisation is not associated with the location and integration of the existing Rydalmere Station with Western Sydney University.

The project will provide a convenient and frequent service that allows students, staff and visitors to the Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus) to simply turn up and go from key destinations including Westmead, Parramatta North, Parramatta CBD and Carlingford. By increasing travel times through the inclusion of an additional stop, the project would be a less desirable mode of transport overall and could result in a decrease in patronage.


C-187


Options for an additional stop in Rydalmere at Western Sydney University were investigated, however it was concluded to have an overall negative outcome, as it would: » Marginally reduce journey times for some customers accessing the

campus. » Increase the project’s capital and ongoing

maintenance/operational costs. » Increase in travel times compared to the preferred project design. » Increase the journey time for a majority of customers. » Result in a negligible increase to total patronage demand.

1.4 Our experience is that students travelling from west and south of Parramatta choose to use a combination of public transport and shuttle bus services to access our Rydalmere campuses. The project’s short-term success depends on it capturing most of these students. However, when the project is compared to the (existing) University shuttle service, it is unlikely that passengers will utilise the project.

When compared with the existing shuttle bus service provided by Western Sydney University between the Parramatta CBD campus and the Rydalmere campus, the new light rail would: » Operate twice as frequently with services every 7.5 minutes during

peak periods compared with the shuttles services every 15 minutes. » Have a shorter travel time, taking approximately 10 minutes to

between Parramatta Square compared with 15 to 20-minute shuttle travel time.

» Provide additional capacity to cater for high demand periods. Currently during these periods, the shuttle buses often cannot fit all students queuing and students are required to wait for the subsequent service.

Further, it was identified during consultation with Western Sydney University prior to the exhibition of the EIS that students strongly support a round-the-clock turn-up-and-go service that would not only connect them to Parramatta Station but also the Westmead campus and the Parramatta CBD campus. The project would provide this type of service.




1.5 The submission noted that the active transport link between the Rydalmere stop and the university campus lacked passive surveillance and created poor perception of student safety.

Safety is a key consideration of the project design and has been considered for all project elements, including access and connectivity facilities. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) refers to the application of a range of design initiatives to a site, location or area to maximise crime prevention and minimise the potential for that site to facilitate and support criminal behaviour. The consideration of CPTED is based on four key principles: surveillance (both active and passive); access control, territorial reinforcement; and space management.

CPTED principles have been, and will continue to be, applied throughout the design of the project, in particular in the design of the active transport link.

An appropriate level of lighting would be provided to maximise passenger safety (at each stop, along access paths and the active transport link) and to enable the operation of CCTV. The final lighting design for the active transport link would be developed in accordance with Australian Standards and would consider the use of motion sensors to adjust the levels when in use. Lighting levels would balance the need to provide a safe environment while minimising potential light spills to the adjacent residential properties.

As described previously, the proposed access arrangement to the Western Sydney University (Rydalmere campus) has been refined as part of the ongoing design of the project following public display, including additional access points which improve passive surveillance of the area.

1.6 The submission stated the project’s service to Rydalmere should not be compared only to the existing heavy rail service. It was noted the University’s (existing) free shuttle buses offer a safer, more convenient service that is equally fast and frequent. Students will continue to use the University’s free shuttle service unless a better stop option is provided.

A summary of the benefits of the project in comparison to the existing shuttle service is provided above (refer to Item 1.4 of this table).


C-189


1.7 Reduced potential vegetation impacts Western Sydney University questioned the statement in the EIS that providing a second stop would result in increased vegetation impacts.

It was noted that a Rydalmere stop to the south of proposed stop would remove the necessity for an extensive active transport link into campus from the proposed stop including clearing of remnant bushland around Vineyard Creek.

Construction of an additional light rail stop south of the Rydalmere stop would require the clearing of a section of vegetation on the eastern side of the existing T6 Carlingford Line.

Construction of the active transport link adjacent to the light rail project is not specifically being undertaken to provide access to Western Sydney University and would be constructed regardless of whether a second stop was to be provided. The proposed active transport link is an important component of the project and would provide a new regional cycling route, linking with other existing and proposed cycling routes. The active transport link would also provide safe and convenient access to the light rail alignment and stops.

1.8 Parramatta Light Rail: Stage 2 Western Sydney University noted that the proposed Stage 2 alignment announced in October 2017 was not previously proposed for consultation alongside the previous options for Stage 1 of the project. The submission also noted the proposed alignment for Stage 2 seemed to connect with Stage 1 at the point favoured by the University for a second Rydalmere stop location.

Western Sydney University noted that the project team should revisit a second Rydalmere stop considering the proposed junction location of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 alignments and that the University be involved in consultation on this matter.

In October 2017, the NSW Government announced the preferred route for Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2, which would connect to Stage 1 and run north of the Parramatta River through the rapidly developing suburbs of Ermington, Melrose Park and Wentworth Point to Sydney Olympic Park. Specific details relating to the proposed route for Stage 2 are still being developed. Stage 2 would also consider the option of extending the alignment east through Camellia before crossing the Parramatta River to Rydalmere.

Transport for NSW acknowledges Western Sydney University’s preference for the alignment to run along the northern side of Parramatta River with an additional stop at the Western Sydney University campus. Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 would be further developed through consultation with the community and stakeholders including Western Sydney University.




1.9 Visibility of the proposed stop Western Sydney University acknowledged the proposed Rydalmere stop is intended to serve the Rydalmere campus however noted the stop does not provide a line of sight to the campus.

It was noted that while the project anticipates that urban uplift will evolve around the light rail stops over time, there is no existing sense of place at the Rydalmere stop.

As outlined in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, the project is committed to achieving urban design excellence and is developing an Urban Design Requirements handbook. This document will establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during the detailed design phase.

The design principles of the Rydalmere stop would: » Locate the Rydalmere light rail stop to facilitate access to and

growth of the Western Sydney University Rydalmere campus, emerging urban neighbourhoods and adjacent employment lands, facilitating a new direct path to Western Sydney University Rydalmere campus.

» Improve underpass conditions at Victoria Road, which connects the Rydalmere stop and existing and planned dwellings north of Victoria Road.

» Support improvements to native vegetation adjacent to Vineyard Creek near the stop.

Whilst there may not be a line of sight between the stop and the Rydalmere campus, an active transport link with appropriate wayfinding would be developed as part of the project to provide convenient connections between these areas. The design of the active transport link would ensure safety is considered appropriately and that an efficient link is provided.

As identified throughout the EIS, the project is designed to provide a catalyst for increased urban development. As such, the project would support future development in the Rydalmere area such as Council’s plan to transform Rydalmere into a high-tech and knowledge precinct so that businesses in this sector may benefit from being close, and having ties to Western Sydney University. These changes (to be undertaken by others) would further help to promote a sense of place around the Rydalmere stop.


C-191


1.10 The submission noted student safety is a major concern for the University. While it was noted that the project team is committed to incorporating safety into the design, it was stated that any active transport link into the University from the Rydalmere site will provide poor passive surveillance along a less intensively used side of the university campus.

Transport for NSW is committed to providing a safe environment along the active transport link for staff and students at Western Sydney University, as well as for the wider community.

As discussed above in Item 1.5 of this table, CPTED principles have been, and will continue to be applied throughout the design of the project, in particular in the design of the active transport link.

2.0 Rydalmere: access, site works and impacts

2.1 Construction of the light rail may have an impact on sensitive equipment housed in the north-east of the campus. Further consultation on this matter is requested.

As described in section 15.6 of the EIS, the construction of the project has potential to produce emissions (including noise, ground borne noise, and vibrations) which can result in impacts to certain sensitive equipment.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with Western Sydney University to ascertain if project impacts are likely to affect the proper operation of equipment.

Further analysis would be carried out during detailed design. If any unacceptable impacts are identified, mitigation strategies would be implemented. Examples include:

» Minimisation of emissions through applying good engineering design and installation mitigation.

» Increasing the separation distance between the source and the equipment.

» Applying shielding mitigations to reduce the interaction between the source and the receiver.

If mitigation is required at the receiver (building or the equipment itself), Transport for NSW would work with the Western Sydney University to resolve the potential impact.




2.2 The University requested more detail and consultation concerning the proposed compound arrangements on its Parramatta campus. In particular, the retaining and fill work to create a flat site adjacent to the Camellia bridge may be extensive and disruptive due to the slope of the site.

Specific details relating to the construction compounds at Western Sydney University Rydalmere campus would be developed once a construction contractor has been engaged and during detailed construction planning. This would be undertaken in consultation with Western Sydney University.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult and work with Western Sydney University to minimise disruptions associated with the use of the construction compound where possible.

2.3 The University identified that regular vehicle traffic associated with the university occurs between 7am and 7pm on the Rydalmere campus ring road identified as the access road to the two construction compounds. The University strongly recommended that the transfer of large plant and materials be conducted outside of these times, and requested further discussion for how disruptive heavy vehicle traffic can be minimised.

Transport for NSW acknowledges Western Sydney University’s concern regarding the impacts of construction vehicle movements on the operation of the university and would endeavour to minimise these impacts where possible. This may include scheduling the delivery of large plant and materials outside of peak periods. Transport for NSW would consult with Western Sydney University as part of the detailed construction planning regarding any works that would have potential to result in a significant impact on traffic and access within the university.

Construction traffic movements, including heavy vehicles, would be managed through a Construction Traffic and Transport Management Plan and would include access and timing considerations to ensure impacts are minimised. The management plan would be developed in accordance with relevant consultation and would consider stakeholder requirements. The Department of Planning and Environment would review the final management plan and construction would be carried out accordingly.


C-193


2.4 The University noted that the construction compounds would require provision for worker parking. The University noted campuses at both Rydalmere (Rydalmere campus) and Westmead have significantly constrained parking availability.

As outlined in section 6.15.11 of the EIS, workforce parking provisions for light vehicles within, or near to, construction compounds would be required. Where possible, the construction workforce would be encouraged to use public transport to further reduce the impact of construction parking, particularly in areas with constrained parking availability. Alternatively, workers could be transported to their work sites using minibuses so as to minimise parking requirements for the project, as well as to reduce impacts on the local traffic conditions. A traffic management plan would be prepared to provide further details on workforce car parking arrangements and minimise impacts on the surrounding network during construction of the project.

3.0 Parramatta CBD: changed traffic conditions

3.1 The University noted the planned traffic changes to Macquarie Street and, in particular, the plans for car park access to Parramatta Square. The University requested ongoing consultation with the project team to resolve any difficulties that may arise with the Macquarie Street traffic changes, including:

» Any difficulty in turning in to the One Parramatta Square vehicle access. » The provision of safe sightlines while exiting if the light rail stop is in use. » Managing increased pedestrian movement.

Safe access to the One Parramatta Square car park at 169 Macquarie Street would be preserved during construction and operation of the project and would not be impacted by the Parramatta Square stop. Where temporary closures are required during construction, this would be negotiated with the relevant stakeholders, including Western Sydney University, to minimise disruption to their operations. If required, temporary traffic control would be established to ensure safe movements in times of construction vehicle movements or diminished sight lines.

Pedestrian access through the area would be maintained and any changes would be clearly marked at locations convenient to pedestrians, for example at pedestrian lights if a road crossing is required. Design standards have been incorporated into the project which includes a minimum footpath width to ensure pedestrian movements and safety is maintained.




In addition, in accordance with mitigation and management measure RC-1, coordination and consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and the following stakeholders would occur at the appropriate project stages: » Department of Planning and Environment. » Other Transport for NSW agencies (including Roads and Maritime;

Sydney Trains, Sydney Buses). » Sydney Water. » City of Parramatta Council. » UrbanGrowth NSW. » Western Sydney University.

» NSW Health (and its construction contractors). » Emergency service providers. » Utility providers. » Construction contractors. » Other stakeholders as required, as advised by Transport for NSW.


C-195


Coordination and consultation with these stakeholders would include: » Provision of regular updates to the detailed construction program,

construction sites and haul routes. » Identification of key potential conflict points with other construction

projects. » Developing mitigation strategies in order to manage conflicts.

Depending on the nature of the conflict, this could involve:

• Adjustments to the project construction program, work activities or haul routes; or adjustments to the program, activities or haul routes of other construction projects.


The final design of the project, including the Parramatta Square stop and works along Macquarie Street, would ensure pedestrian safety is maintained. The design would ensure that adequate sightlines would be achieved to maintain the safety of vehicles exiting from the Parramatta Square car park. Mitigation and management measure TT-2 identified that road safety audits for construction and pre-operation would be completed during detailed design and would include measures to manage pedestrian safety and property access.



WESTERN SYDNEY LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT (NSW HEALTH) Western Sydney Local Health District (NSW Health) provided a submission regarding the project on 16 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.13.

Table C.13 Western Sydney Local Health District (NSW Health)


1.0 Social, health and environment benefits

1.1 The Centre for Population Health supports the introduction of new public transport options with connectivity to existing transport interchanges.

Support for the project from the Western Sydney Local Health District is acknowledged.

1.2 As part of the project, the Western Sydney Local Health District provided several recommendations with respect to the proposed stops including that: » Hubs/stations have appropriate infrastructure supporting active

travel (such as clear wayfinding, seating, shade, water refill stations etc.).

» Safe, clean and attractive points of interest (such as public art) are located nearby and that walking and cycling paths are provided to transport hubs/stations.

» The availability of health food options is encouraged at transport hubs/stations.

» Consideration on how to provide places at or nearby to the transport hubs/stations that will encourage social interaction to promote a sense of community in the area.

As described in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW in conjunction with Council. This document is intended to establish the desired urban design and public domain outcomes for the project at varying scales, and would guide the urban and landscape design during the detailed design phase.

The Urban Design Requirements handbook includes details on key infrastructure at stops such as wayfinding, seating, shade and landscaping works. The location of these features would be determined during detailed design.

The Urban Design Requirements handbook will provide for integration with the existing urban environment and potential future development opportunities (by others) to further enhance the urban domain (such as public art). Opportunities for public art would be identified in the Urban Design and Landscape Plan in consultation with key stakeholders (mitigation and management measure VL-2). The requirements would also include urban design principles to guide the development of active transport opportunities that could connect with the light rail and other active transport links in the local government area.

There would not be any retail options on the light rail stops. However, the development of the project would not preclude the potential for future developments to incorporate elements such as healthy food options or areas for increased social interaction or connection.


C-197


2.0 Air quality and contaminated land

2.1 It is noted that the review of regional air quality monitoring shows that the project area could be expected to be impacted by poor regional air quality and any increase in emissions by this project into the local air shed should be avoided as far as possible.

The project is expected to result in a net benefit to local air quality in the operational phase due to associated reductions in bus and car combustion engine emissions (including CO2, oxides of nitrogen and SO2). By delivering an alternative mode of public transport, the project would assist in facilitating a mode shift from road to light rail. This has the potential to reduce air pollution emissions from road transport and congestion within the Greater Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula priority growth area (when compared to the emissions that would otherwise occur if the project were not delivered).

During construction the primary risk to local air quality would be the generation of dust. Airborne particulate matter has the potential to cause adverse health effects (such as respiratory effects) or nuisance impacts if not properly managed. Section 10.8.4 of the EIS outlined a number of mitigation and management measures which would be implemented during construction in order to minimise potential local and regional air quality impacts as far as practicable (summarised in Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report).




2.2 Of concern is the volume of excavated soil to be extracted and moved to be used as fill in other areas. It is difficult to assess the incremental impact of this project on local or regional air quality on sensitive receptors as air quality modelling was not provided.

While no specific air quality modelling was undertaken for the project, assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of the project was undertaken in accordance with the air quality requirements identified in the project SEARs. In addition, the assessment of impacts was completed with reference to the following guidelines: » Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW,

(NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016). » Approved Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Air Pollutants in NSW,

(NSW Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC], 2007). » Technical Framework – Assessment and Management of Odour from

Stationary Sources in NSW, (DEC, 2005).

It is acknowledged that there would be a temporary increase in dust and particulate emissions from the handling and haulage of spoil, the movement and use of on-site machinery, and emissions from construction vehicles during construction. These issues are typical of infrastructure projects and would be managed using standard environmental management measures. Measures that Transport for NSW proposes to implement to manage construction air quality impacts are listed in revised mitigation and management measure AQ-1.

2.3 A range of dust control measures to be implemented during construction were proposed as part of the submission. It was recommended that all feasible and reasonable measures to minimise the exposure of those negatively impacted should be considered. In particular, it was recommended that: » Monitoring of dust be implemented near sensitive receptors during

the construction stage and appropriate response actions to adverse conditions be included in the management plan.

As identified in revised mitigation and management measure AQ-1, a range of dust control measures would be implemented during construction are proposed to effectively control dust and other air quality issues during the construction of the project.

All reasonable and feasible mitigation and management measures would be considered as part of the development of the dust management plan, including monitoring of dust near to sensitive receivers during the construction stage of the project (as outlined in revised mitigation and management measure AQ-1).

2.4 An appropriate asbestos management plan should be implemented during any excavation or movement of known or potentially contaminated soils.

As outlined in revised mitigation and management measures AQ-1 and WM-5, where asbestos materials are identified, the disturbance, movement and disposal of this material would be undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation including the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

These requirements would be included in the overall CEMP for the project.


C-199


2.5 A system to enable residents and/or road users to register complaints about air quality or other impacts during construction stage should also be provided and appropriate responses should be taken and recorded.

Transport for NSW will operate a construction response line (1800 775 465) and a project info-line throughout the detailed design and construction stages of the project (refer to mitigation and management measure NV-3).

These contact numbers will provide a dedicated 24-hour contact point for any complaints regarding construction works and for any project enquiries. This would include opportunity for the residents and/or road users to register complaints about air quality or other impacts during construction stage.

3.0 Nosie impacts

3.1 With respect to potential noise impacts, it is recommended that: » Noise impacts during both construction and operation on sensitive

receptors are reduced as far as is feasible.

Construction noise

A number of mitigation and management measures (measures NV-1 to NV-8) were identified as part of the EIS which would aim to manage and, where feasible and reasonable, reduce noise impacts during construction. In particular, a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed to document all necessary measures to manage and mitigate potential noise and vibration levels during standard daytime and out of hours construction activities (NV-1). Additional mitigation and management measures would be determined on a site specific basis where particular sensitive receivers are identified and/or where potential exceedances of the identified noise goals are predicted. Additional mitigation and management measures which would be considered include: » Periodic notifications including newsletters, letterbox drops or advertisements

in local papers to provide an overview of current and upcoming works and other topics of interest.

» Project info-line and construction response line providing a dedicated 24-hour contact point for any complaints regarding construction works and for any project enquiries.




» Signage on construction sites to provide notification to stakeholders of project details and project emergency or enquiry information.

» Specific notifications including letterbox drops or hand distribution to nearby residences and other sensitive receptors no later than seven days ahead of construction activities that are likely to exceed the noise objectives.

» Individual briefings to inform stakeholders about the impacts of high noise activities and mitigation and management measures that would be implemented.

» Ongoing noise monitoring during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events.

» Project specific respite offer. The purpose of such an offer would be to provide residents with respite from an ongoing impact. An example of a respite offer might be pre-purchased movie tickets. The provision of this measure would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

» Alternative accommodation would be considered in the event that highly intrusive noise impacts are predicted during the night-time period (between 10 pm and 7 am).

Operational noise A strategy would be developed during detailed design for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation (mitigation and management measure NV-9). Potentially feasible and reasonable mitigation for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including: » Minimise LRV source noise levels via specifications. » Low noise trackforms such as vegetated trackforms or absorptive paving. » Speed restrictions.

» Minimise wheel and rail roughness. » Property treatments.


C-201


3.2 A system to enable residents and/or road users to register complaints about noise or vibration impacts during construction stage should also be provided and appropriate responses should be taken and recorded.

Refer to response in Item 2.5 of this table.



NSW HEALTH – WESTMEAD PRECINCT PARTNERS The NSW Health – Westmead Precinct Partners provided a submission regarding the project on 25 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.14.

Table C.14 NSW Health - Westmead Precinct Partners


1.0 Support for the project

1.1 The Westmead Precinct Partners endorse Parramatta Light Rail – Stage 1 as a significant infrastructure project that will help position Western Sydney as a vibrant place to live, work and play.

Support for the project from the Westmead Precinct Partners is acknowledged.

2.0 Recognition of collaborative working

2.1 The Westmead Precinct Partners commend the Parramatta Light Rail program team on their community and stakeholder consultation process to date and the effective working relationship that has been established with our representatives.

Westmead Precinct Partners commendation regarding the community and stakeholder consultation process undertaken to date is acknowledged.

2.2 The Westmead Precinct Partners are committed to continuing to work with the Parramatta Light Rail program team to ensure that it is successfully delivered.

We are confident that this collaborative partnership will continue and that this will enable any identified adverse impacts to be mitigated and the full range of potential benefits of the Parramatta Light Rail project to be realised.

As identified in section 4.5 of the EIS and section 2.3 of this Submissions Report, Transport for NSW is committed to effective ongoing community and stakeholder engagement for the project throughout all phases of the project’s design and delivery.

Transport for NSW will work closely with both the nominated construction contractor for the project to ensure the consistent delivery of accurate information on the project to the community, businesses and stakeholders such as the Westmead Precinct Partners throughout the life of the project in order to manage and mitigate identified adverse impacts where possible.


C-203


3.0 Support for the proposed Light Rail alignment

3.1 The Westmead Precinct Partners support the proposed alignment set out in the EIS, as developed in the subsequent Definition Design.

We are also confident that the proposed alignment and ongoing collaboration will ensure effective integration with the ongoing master-planning process for the Westmead Innovation District.

Support for the proposed alignment of the project from the Westmead Precinct Partners is acknowledged.

As described above, Transport for NSW will continue to work with all relevant stakeholders to ensure effective integration with future developments (such as the ongoing development of the Westmead Health Precinct) and other development precincts along the project alignment.

4.0 Support for the proposed urban design proposal for Hawkesbury Road

4.1 The Westmead Precinct Partners also support the urban design proposals developed by Parramatta Light Rail for Hawkesbury Road and its integration with the Westmead redevelopment.

Support for the proposed urban design as part of the project from the Westmead Precinct Partners is acknowledged.

Transport for NSW is committed to ongoing development of a final urban design outcome for the Westmead precinct including ongoing input from relevant stakeholders as part of the Urban Design Working Group and development of the Urban Design Requirements for the project (refer to section 7.1 of this Submissions Report).

5.0 A pproach to exploring further options and requirements

5.1 The submission noted that the Council has identified a number of alternate alignment options, including reconfiguring the Westmead interchange with heavy rail and extending the alignment to run along Hainsworth Street.

Westmead Precinct Partners noted they were open to exploring the potential benefits and risks of these and other options with the Parramatta Light Rail team and Council.

The alternative alignment options identified by the Council are acknowledged and have been addressed in greater detail in Table C.1 above.

If proposed in future, any change to the project alignment would be undertaken in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.




6.0 On-going collaboration

6.1 The Westmead Precinct Partners requested ongoing collaboration with the project team on the following key focus areas: » Ensuring the continued effective access and safety of

patients, staff and visitors in and around Hawkesbury Road and Hainsworth Street, through Cumberland Hospital, during construction and operation of Parramatta Light Rail.

As identified in section 11.3.2.1 of the EIS, maintaining pedestrian, general traffic and emergency vehicle access to Westmead Health Precinct was a key consideration of the project.

Specifically, mitigation and management measure TT-8 (refer to Chapter 8 of this Submissions Report) states that, during detailed construction planning, ongoing liaison would be undertaken with Council, NSW Health, emergency services, hospitals and other facilities within the Westmead Health Precinct (including Cumberland Hospital (east and west)) to ensure construction staging of the project does not result in unacceptable access to the hospital precinct (or safety impacts), and is coordinated with other developments underway within the Westmead Health Precinct.

Transport for NSW would also continue to consult with key stakeholders during detailed design to ensure that measures are developed to maintain appropriate access to the Westmead Health Precinct and Cumberland Hospital during operation.

6.2 Creating integrated light rail stops that effectively serve the precinct, supported by safe and attractive pedestrian routes and cycleways to promote active transport to, from and throughout the precinct.

As discussed in section 17.4.1 of the EIS, to achieve an integrated urban design between the project and surrounding areas, an Urban Design Requirements handbook has been prepared by Transport for NSW in conjunction with Council. As part of the Urban Design Requirements, the document will outline urban design and landscape principles to guide how each stop would integrate with the surrounding environment as well as providing principles regarding the integration of the following elements into the overall project design: » Pedestrian amenity. » Active transport. » Landscape design.

The development of this document is continuing and is being informed through ongoing collaboration with Council, relevant NSW government agencies and key stakeholders including the Westmead Precinct Partners.


C-205


6.3 Maintaining vehicle access from Darcy Road down Hawkesbury Road and across Parramatta River for emergency, operational and public access to Westmead Hospital, The Children's Hospital at Westmead and Cumberland Hospital during construction and operation of the project.

As discussed in section 6.14.8 of the EIS, access for patients and emergency vehicles to all three hospitals and staff/internal movements within the Cumberland Hospital would be maintained at all times during the construction of the project (similar to existing restricted access arrangements). Emergency services and relevant Westmead Precinct Partner stakeholders would be consulted with and advised of all planned changes to traffic arrangements prior to applying the changes.

Advice would include information about upcoming traffic changes, anticipated delays to traffic, extended times of work, locations of road possession or any likely major disruptions. Specifically: » Access to Westmead Hospital and The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be

maintained at all stages of construction. The northbound lane approaching The Children’s Hospital at Westmead would be open to traffic at all times (for hospital and local traffic only).

» Access within Cumberland Hospital, particularly access to the bridge over Parramatta River, would be maintained wherever possible during the construction of the project with a new Parramatta North Bridge to be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge on the south side. To achieve improved integration with the future Cumberland precinct Master Plan, the project may also seek, in consultation with the Western Sydney Local Health District, an alternate access solution across the Parramatta River during construction, which may include short-term closures of the existing Bridge Road access. This access would be further investigated during the detailed design and construction planning for the project.

Measures to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles through work sites would be outlined in the work site specific traffic management plans.

6.4 Maintaining operational vehicle access for the service zones of the hospitals and research institutes from Hawkesbury Road and connecting road network.

The design of the project would ensure that access for patients and emergency vehicles to all hospital campuses and staff/internal movements within the Cumberland Hospital are maintained at all times during the operation of the project. Transport for NSW would continue to work with the Westmead Health Precinct and Cumberland Hospital to ensure that these accesses are maintained in accordance with the requirements of each hospital.




6.5 Mitigating the impact of noise, vibration and electromagnetic fields on sensitive health, research and education receptors.

Noise and vibration mitigation The EIS identified a range of measures (NV-1 to NV-8) to manage anticipated noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction of the project. Particularly, NV-8 identified that specific mitigation and management measures to address potential noise and vibration impacts to facilities within the Westmead Health Precinct would be implemented during construction. These measures would be determined in consultation with the relevant facility operator/owner and informed by the sensitivity of impacted spaces prior to the commencement of construction. Mitigation and management measures outlined included: » Consultation with the affected facilities to determine periods when noise and/or

vibration intensive works can occur with least impact. » Relocation of vibration sensitive equipment to less impacted locations within the

facilities. » Vibration isolation of sensitive equipment predicted to have potential impacts. » Unattended noise and vibration monitoring within the facilities to ensure noise

and/or vibration levels are within acceptable levels.

An operational mitigation strategy would be developed during detailed design for the management of noise and vibration impacts during operation (mitigation and management measure NV-9). Potentially feasible and reasonable mitigation for reducing the impact of operational noise at receivers would be considered as part of the operational mitigation strategy including: » Minimise LRV source noise levels via design specifications » Low noise trackforms such as absorptive paving or vegetated trackforms. » Speed restrictions.

» Minimise wheel and rail roughness. » Property treatments.

Consultation with potentially impacted receivers would be undertaken in developing the mitigation strategy.


C-207


Electromagnetic field mitigation Mitigation and management measure HR-3 identified that targeted consultation with identified sensitive receivers for EMI (such as the Westmead Health Precinct and the Western Sydney University) would be carried out to inform the detailed design. Any issues identified would be resolved on a case by case basis with the relevant facility operator. Solutions to be considered would include monitoring and, if necessary, protective screening at the site of the sensitive equipment.

6.6 Future proofing to support the development of the precinct in the context of the Westmead Research Zone Master Plan, the establishment of a major university presence at the precinct, and/or other health, education and research developments master-planned along Hawkesbury Road.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with key stakeholders, including the Westmead Precinct Partners during the detailed design phase of the project. The detailed design would seek to ensure that the light rail alignment and stop locations would not prevent the future implementation of developments associated with: » The Westmead Research Zone Master Plan. » The establishment of a major university presence at the precinct. » Other health, education and research developments master-planned along

Hawkesbury Road.

6.7 Constructability to ensure minimal impact on existing precinct operations, the Westmead Redevelopment and future development. This includes early reconfiguration and widening of Hawkesbury Road and installation of sub-surface retention structures prior to commissioning of the new Central Acute Services Building, entry Plaza and emergency zone in 2020.

To allow for future-proofing of the Westmead Hospital, in particular for the development of the new Central Acute Services Building, entry Plaza and emergency zone (the development of which is proposed to be undertaken by others outside the scope of the light rail project), additional piling works are proposed to be undertaken by Transport for NSW to enable early reconfiguration and widening of Hawkesbury Road and installation of sub-surface retention structures prior to commissioning of the new Westmead Hospital development.

Further discussion regarding the proposed piling works is provided in section 6.4 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report).

Transport for NSW would also continue to consult with relevant stakeholders including Western Sydney Local Health District and Westmead Hospital.



AUSTRALIAN TURF CLUB The Australian Turf Club provided a submission regarding the project on 22 October 2017. A summary of the comments and issues raised in the submission is provided in Table C.15.

Table C.15 Australian Turf Club


1.0 Support for the project

1.1 ATC is a major supporter of the Parramatta Light Rail, and we commend the NSW Government on their commitment to addressing the need for critical transport infrastructure in this precinct.

Support for the project from the Australian Turf Club is acknowledged.

2.0 Decommissioning of the heavy rail corridor

2.1 Australian Turf Club questioned what the intended future use of the current heavy rail corridor between Camellia and Parramatta Road including was.

As discussed in section 14.7.3.2 of the EIS, following the completion of works within the corridor, this section of the rail corridor would be returned to the existing land owner (RailCorp). This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the GPOP.

As discussed in section 6.13 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report), Transport for NSW propose to decommission the section of the T6 Carlingford Line between Parramatta Road and Camellia and provide an additional footpath to the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse. Decommissioning would provide an opportunity to improve existing level crossings and / or provide additional permeability. The final design of the new pedestrian path would be undertaken in consultation with the Australian Turf Club.

2.2 Australian Turf Club identified that they would like further consultation with Transport for NSW regarding the proposed objectives and intended scope of works in relation to the future use of the current heavy rail corridor.

Australian Turf Club would be consulted regarding the design of infrastructure in the corridor near to their facility at Rosehill, as well as potential impacts of the proposed rail corridor decommissioning.

This section of the existing rail corridor would also continue to be considered as part of future overall transport planning for the GPOP.


C-209


3.0 Methodology and programme for decommissioning of the heavy rail corridor

3.1 Australian Turf Club questioned whether Transport for NSW had developed a methodology and programme for the decommissioning of the corridor.

Australian Turf Club also requested clarification regarding the proposed scope of works contained in this methodology for the decommissioning works.

An outline of the typical activities associated with the proposed decommissioning of the corridor between Camellia and Parramatta Road is discussed in section 6.10.2 of this Submissions Report. Subject to development of a detailed construction methodology by the nominated contractor for the works (still to be appointed), these activities would include: » Disconnection of the infrastructure from the existing Sydney Trains network. » Removal of the overhead wiring and associated cabling using a hi-rail vehicle with

personnel lift basket (or similar). » Collection of overhead wiring and associated cabling on drum rolls and removal for

recycling or general waste disposal. » Determination of access to and maintenance of footbridge. » Removal of existing overhead wiring structures, typically using hand tools and a crane(s).

The detailed program for undertaking the decommissioning works would be determined during detailed design, however it is expected that these works would be undertaken during the overall construction period for the Stage 1 project between mid-2018 and 2023.

3.2 Australian Turf Club requested further consultation with Transport for NSW regarding the proposed decommissioning works.

Transport for NSW would work with Australian Turf Club (and other affected stakeholders) regarding the proposed decommissioning works, as required.




4.0 Contamination and remediation

4.1 Australian Turf Club questioned whether Transport for NSW had developed a methodology for the remediation of contaminated material identified in fill beneath the current rail alignment and associated infrastructure.

Assessment of potential contamination impacts associated with the project were described in section 10.7 of the EIS. This assessment identified a series of low, medium and high risk areas of environmental concern. The existing rail corridor was identified as being of medium risk. As such, the proposed mitigation and management methodology for this area was identified (in section 10.7.4 off the EIS) to manage potential issues through normal construction practices as part of the overall project CEMP.

As part of this methodology, visual inspections would be performed during excavation activities to monitor for indicators of contamination such as the presence of fill materials, stained soils, odours or asbestos-containing materials. If suspected contamination is encountered, the materials would be subject to sampling and analysis to determine management requirements and suitability for reuse, recycling or remediation.

4.2 Australian Turf Club requested further consultation with Transport for NSW in relation to the proposed impact of works within the disturbance footprint and impacted archaeological site as they relate to Australian Turf Club properties.

Transport for NSW would continue to work with Australian Turf Club in relation to the proposed impact of works within the disturbance footprint and impacted archaeological site as they relate to Australian Turf Club properties, as required.


C-211


5.0 Continuity of public transport to Rosehill Gardens Racecourse

5.1 Australian Turf Club requested further information on the planned alternate public transport provisions to ensure employees and patrons are provided with safe and timely modes of transport, to and from Rosehill Gardens Racecourse, during race days and other events.

Australian Turf Club questioned whether Transport for NSW have developed a plan to maintain a similar level of transport services to and from Rosehill Gardens Racecourse from major local transport nodes during the construction of the project, and post completion of decommissioning the Rosehill Station.

Currently race days are served by shuttle buses from Parramatta Station, regular Carlingford Line train services and supplementary shuttle trains which run direct services between Clyde and Carlingford.

During construction Following closure of the T6 Carlingford Line to allow for construction of the project, replacement bus services would operate every 10 minutes in the peak and interpeak periods on weekdays, and every 30 minutes in the off-peak and evenings. The 10 minute interpeak service is proposed instead of the existing hourly services to mitigate the loss of convenience to train customers along the whole of the T6 Carlingford Line.

To supplement these rail replacement services, the Transport Management Centre would develop a transport plan for major event days. As is currently the case, it is anticipated that special shuttle bus services between Parramatta Station and Rosehill Gardens would be a component of the event day transport services. Transport for NSW would work with Australian Turf Club regarding management of the potential impacts regarding the planned alternate public transport provisions during construction.

During operation As discussed in section 8.2.5.6 of the EIS, Rosehill Station and the railway line between Grand Avenue and Clyde Station would be decommissioned. As described in the EIS, alternative public transport options for customers that currently use the Rosehill Station for special event access or commuting to and from the residential area west of James Ruse Drive would include the provision of Camellia and Tramway Avenue light rail stops.

As discussed in Section 8.2.7.2 of the EIS, once the project is opened, patrons attending events at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse could use light rail services alighting at the Camellia stop. Additional light rail services could be operated for events at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse when necessary. Customers attending events at the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse would be able to access the northern end of the racecourse and entertainment venue from the Camellia stop via the new pedestrian pathway from (refer to section 6.10 of this Submissions Report (Chapter 6 – Preferred Infrastructure Report). Special event planning would be undertaken by the operator in consultation with the Transport Management Centre.

February 2018

Parramatta Light Rail

Documents

Transcript of Parramatta Light Rail