high street, randwick submissions...

CBD AND SOUTH EAST LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

STATE SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVAL (SSI-6042)

MODIFICATION SSI-6042 MOD 4 Stop changes – High Street, Randwick

SUBMISSIONS REPORT

FEBRUARY 2016

Transport for NSW i

Contents

Page number

Glossary and abbreviations v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 The CSELR Project 1

1.1.1 Project approvals 1 1.2 Overview of the proposed modification 1

1.2.1 Key features of the proposed modification 1 1.2.2 Key findings of the Modification Report 3

1.3 Purpose and content of this report 4

1.3.1 Purpose of this report 4 1.3.2 Structure of this report 5

2. Stakeholder consultation 7

2.1 Consultation undertaken during preparation of the modification 7

2.1.1 Letterbox drop 7 2.1.2 Door knocking 7

2.2 Consultation undertaken during public exhibition of the modifications report 8

2.2.1 Display of the proposed modification 8 2.2.2 Website 8 2.2.3 Advertising 8 2.2.4 Stakeholder briefings 8 2.2.5 Sydney Light Rail forums and reference groups 9

2.3 Ongoing consultation 9

3. Overview of submissions 11

3.1 Analysis process 11

3.1.1 Receipt of submissions 11 3.1.2 Handling and responses to submissions 11 3.1.3 Consideration of petitions and form letters 12

3.2 Summary of issues 12

4. Government agency and project partner submissions 15

4.1 Randwick City Council 15

4.2 University of NSW 23

4.3 Office of Environment and Heritage 35

4.4 Department of Primary Industries 36

CBD and South East Light Rail – Submissions Report – State Significant Infrastructure Approval (SSI-6042)

ii Parsons Brinckerhoff

5. Response to community and stakeholder submissions 37

5.1 Planning and approvals 37

5.1.1 Errors and omissions 37 5.1.2 Impact assessment process 38

5.2 Consultation 39

5.2.1 Adequacy of consultation 39 5.2.2 Ongoing consultation 40

5.3 Proposal design 41

5.3.1 Arthur Street access lane 41 5.3.2 Constructability 42 5.3.3 High Cross Park substation 42 5.3.4 Patronage 42 5.3.5 Proposal description 43 5.3.6 Proximity to sensitive receivers 44 5.3.7 Laneway road standard 44 5.3.8 UNSW stop 45

5.4 Alternatives 46

5.4.1 Arthur Street access lane 46 5.4.2 Bus stop locations – Clara Street 47 5.4.3 High Cross park substation location 47 5.4.4 High Street terminus 48

5.5 Need and justification 49

5.5.1 Cost 49 5.5.2 UNSW stop 49

5.6 Traffic, transport and access 50

5.6.1 Access for services (garbage, deliveries) 50 5.6.2 Access to Children’s Hospital 51 5.6.3 Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges 51 5.6.4 Bus operations 52 5.6.5 Impacts to cyclists 52 5.6.6 Impacts during operation 53 5.6.7 Parking impacts 54 5.6.8 Pedestrian impacts 55

5.7 Landscape and visual impacts 55

5.7.1 Visual impacts 55 5.7.2 General public domain and amenity 56

5.8 Planted trees 57

5.8.1 Impact to trees 57 5.8.2 Mitigation measures 58

5.9 Land use and property 58

5.9.1 Land take requirements 58 5.9.2 Loss of open space 59 5.9.3 Property values 60

5.10 Noise and vibration 61

5.10.1 Impact assessment process 61 5.10.2 Impacts during construction 63 5.10.3 Impacts during operation 64

Transport for NSW iii

5.11 Non-Indigenous heritage 64

5.11.1 Impact to Wansey Cottage 64 5.11.2 Superintendents Cottage 65

5.12 Socio-economic 65

5.12.1 Impacts to businesses 65 5.13 Electromagnetic interference 66

5.13.1 Potential EMI impacts and justification 66 5.14 Hazard and risk 67

5.14.1 Safety to childcare occupants 67 5.14.2 Security 68

5.15 Air quality 69

5.15.1 Impacts during construction 69 5.15.2 Impacts during operation 69

5.16 Soils, geology and contamination 70

5.16.1 Impact during construction 70 5.16.2 Impact during operation 70

5.17 Issues out of scope of proposed modification 71

6. Environmental management measures 73

6.1 Revised environmental management measures 73

6.1.1 Detailed design 73 6.1.2 Construction 82 6.1.3 Operation 104

7. Conclusion 111

8. References 113


iv Parsons Brinckerhoff

List of tables

Page number

Table 4.1 Response to Randwick City Council submission 15 Table 4.2 Response to University of NSW submission 23 Table 4.3 Response to Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Branch) submission 35 Table 4.4 Response to Department of Primary Industries submission 36 Table 5.1 Acceptable vibration dose values in mm/s1.75 (Assessing Vibration: a technical guide) 63 Table 6.1 Revised environmental management measures – detailed design 73 Table 6.2 Revised environmental management measures – construction 82 Table 6.3 Revised environmental management measures – operation 104

List of figures

Page number

Figure 1.1 Location of proposed design modification 2 Figure 3.1 Summary of all issues raised by the community 13 Figure 3.2 Summary of top five issues raised by the community 13

Appendices

Appendix A Key issue and sub issue categories Appendix B Table of issues per community submission

Transport for NSW v

Glossary and abbreviations ALTRAC Light Rail The appointed construction consortium for the approved Project

Approved Project The CSELR project approved, as previously modified, by the Minister for

Planning, 17 February 2015.

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

CBD central business district

CEMP construction environmental management plan

CNVIS Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statement

CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

CSELR CBD and South East Light Rail

CSELR EIS CBD and South East Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement

CTTAMP construction traffic, transport and access management plan

DP&E (NSW) Department of Planning and Environment

EP&A Act (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EMI electromagnetic interference

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

HAMU Heritage Archaeological Management Unit

LAeq The ‘energy average noise level’ evaluated over a defined time period. The LAeq

can be likened to a noise dose representing the cumulative effects of all the noise

events occurring in the relevant time period.

LAMax The maximum sound pressure level measured with sound level meter using the

‘A’ frequency weighting.

LRV light rail vehicle

MCoA Ministers Conditions of Approval

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

ONVR Operational Noise and Vibration Review

PA public address


vi Parsons Brinckerhoff

RFI radio frequency interference

SAQP Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan

SSI State Significant Infrastructure

UNSW University of NSW

VEMMP Vibration and Electro-Magnetic Management Plan

Transport for NSW 1

1. Introduction This chapter outlines the background to the approved Project, outlines a summary of the

proposed modification and the purpose of this Submissions Report.

1.1 The CSELR Project

The CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) Project was identified as a key priority transport

infrastructure project for the NSW Government in the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

Sydney’s Light Rail Future presents the NSW Government’s plan to expand light rail in Sydney.

The CSELR Project comprises the construction and operation of a new light rail service in

Sydney, including approximately 12 kilometres of new light rail track from Circular Quay to

Central, Kingsford and Randwick via Surry Hills and Moore Park. The approved Project

includes:

19 light rail stops

a pedestrian zone on George Street (between Hunter and Bathurst streets)

approximately 12 substations to provide power for the light rail vehicles (LRVs)

an LRV stabling facility in Randwick and a maintenance depot in Rozelle.

1.1.1 Project approvals

The CSELR Project was declared Critical State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) by the NSW

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (now Minister for Planning) on 25 June 2013. The CBD

and South East Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement (Transport for NSW, 2013a)

(CSELR EIS) was prepared and exhibited from 14 November 2013 to 16 December 2013.

A subsequent Submissions Report (incorporating a preferred infrastructure report) was

prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (now the Department

of Planning and Environment (DP&E)) in March 2014.

Planning approval was granted by the Minister for Planning under Part 5.1 of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) on 4 June 2014.

Following the approval of the Project on 4 June 2014, three modifications to the approval have

been submitted to, and approved by, the DP&E.

1.2 Overview of the proposed modification

1.2.1 Key features of the proposed modification

As described in Chapter 3 of the CBD and South East Light Rail Project Modifications Report –

Stop changes – High Street, Randwick (Transport for NSW, 2015) (High Street modification

report), Transport for NSW is seeking approval from the Minister for Planning to modify the SSI

approval for the CSELR Project (SSI-6042). The design modification that is proposed to the

approved Project includes the following elements:

relocation and re-design of the Randwick terminus stop

reconfiguration of the UNSW High Street stop arrangement


2 Parsons Brinckerhoff

provision of a new access lane from Arthur Street to properties on High Street as a result of

the new UNSW High Street stop configuration

changes to the local traffic network to accommodate the modification, including:

introduction of a one-way westbound section along High Street between Wansey Road

and Botany Street and introduction of a one-way eastbound section along High Street

between Clara Street and Avoca Street

minor changes to bus routes and bus stops, including extension of the afternoon

(southbound) peak period bus stop along Belmore Road and provision of a new

northbound morning bus stop zone on the western side of Avoca Street

removal of some parking along Arthur Street and installation of new traffic light signals

conversion of the existing roundabout at the intersection of Barker Street and

Botany Street to a signalised intersection

revised location and arrangement for the High Cross Park substation.

The proposed changes forming the modification offer greater benefits to the CSELR Project in

terms of reducing environmental impacts and providing improvements to the operation of the

proposed light rail network. The proposed changes are further described in detail in Chapter 3 of

this report and an impact assessment is included in Chapter 5 of this report.

The location of the proposed changes as part of the modification with respect to wider approved

Project is shown in Figure 1.1.

Note: Indicative only. Subject to detailed design

Figure 1.1 Location of proposed design modification

Transport for NSW 3

Administrative changes to the Minister’s Conditions of Approval

In addition to the above modification, ongoing development of the approved Project has identified

the need to modify two Minister’s Conditions of Approval (MCoA).

Transport for NSW is seeking to amend the existing MCoA Condition B59 to remove

reference to avoiding any direct impact or impacts to Wansey Cottage.

It is also proposed to amend MCoA B89(b) to correct an inconsistency with the approval

process for out-of-hours application that is provided in condition B4.

Further details regarding the proposed administrative changes being sought to the two existing

MCoAs is provided in Chapter 6 of this report.

1.2.2 Key findings of the Modification Report

The modification is expected to deliver a number of improvements over the approved Project.

These include:

reduction in traffic impacts at the Avoca Street and Belmore Road intersection due to the

reduced construction impacts at this location as the light rail would no longer need to cross

this intersection

beneficial visual and landscape character outcome in comparison to the approved Project,

in particular as a result of reduced impacts to High Cross Park

beneficial outcome to planted trees, in particular reduced impacts to High Cross Park

overall improvement to the retention of the heritage significance of High Cross Park due to

the relocation of the Randwick terminus stop to High Street

improved accessibility to existing businesses and services such as the Randwick town

centre and Prince of Wales Hospital

benefits to electromagnetic interference (EMI) impacts in comparison to the approved

Project, in particular with respect to potentially sensitive equipment associated with the

UNSW

improved passenger safety and loading/disembarking at the UNSW High Street stop.

Some potential negative environmental impacts have also been identified as a result of the

proposed design modification. These include:

traffic and transport changes such as:

modification to existing local traffic movements/network including removal of eastbound

traffic between Wansey Road and Botany Street and westbound traffic between Avoca

Street and Clara Street and increased traffic on surrounding streets

increased delays at some intersections within the Randwick precinct due to expected

local traffic movement changes

revised property access to four properties along High Street

removal of a net total of approximately 32 on-street parking spaces



potential impacts to an identified World War II air raid trench due to subsurface excavation

required in High Cross Park to allow for the substation to be placed below ground in High

Cross Park

noise and vibration impacts such as:

additional noise impacts during construction for receivers (including residential,

educational and a child care centre) along Arthur Street and adjacent to the proposed

access lane from Arthur Street

noise impacts to up to five additional properties along High Street between

Wansey Road and Botany Street due to the change in the alignment at this location

further to the north

slight increase in noise impacts to the Prince of Wales Hospital due to the decrease in

setback distance between the near track and the buildings to accommodate the revised

stop platform

vibration impacts to an additional receiver (medical imaging centre) along High Street

road noise impacts resulting from changes to local traffic changes, in particular along

Arthur Street.

impacts to existing properties to accommodate the access lane from Arthur Street, including

potential amenity, tree and noise impacts.

A full description of the potential benefits and impacts associated with the proposed modification

was presented in the High Street modification report (Transport for NSW, 2015).

1.3 Purpose and content of this report

1.3.1 Purpose of this report

This Submissions Report responds to submissions received from the community, government

agencies and project partners following the exhibition of the High Street modification report. This

Submissions Report provides:

summaries of issues raised in submissions

responses to these issues

any relevant new information concerning the proposed modification

identification of any relevant changes to the proposed modification and the potential impact

of these changes (where relevant)

confirmation of the proposed mitigation and management measures for the proposed

modification.

Transport for NSW 5

1.3.2 Structure of this report

The structure of this Submissions Report is as follows:

Chapter 1 — Introduction: Provides an outline to the background to the approved Project,

provides a summary of the proposed modification and identifies the purpose of this

Submissions Report.

Chapter 2 — Consultation: Provides an overview of consultation activities undertaken prior

to, and during, the public exhibition of the High Street modification report. Also includes a

summary of ongoing and proposed consultations and communications.

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 project partners.

Chapter 4 —Government agency and project partner submissions: Summarises the issues

raised in government agency and project partner submissions and Transport for NSW’s

response to these issues.

Chapter 5 — Response to community and stakeholder submissions: Details the key issues

raised in community and stakeholder submissions and Transport for NSW's response to

these issues.

Chapter 6 — Revised environmental management measures: Provides a revised set of

consolidated environmental management measures for the Project, including the proposed

modification, which have been amended in response issues raised in submissions received

during the public exhibition period.

Chapter 7 — Justification and conclusion: Concludes the submissions report and requests

determination by the Minister for Planning.

Transport for NSW 7

2. Stakeholder consultation This chapter summarises the community and stakeholder consultation activities that Transport

for NSW undertook during the exhibition of the High Street modification report.

2.1 Consultation undertaken during preparation of the modification

The CSELR Project team undertook consultation with a number of key agencies and

stakeholders during the preparation of the High Street modification report. This included

consultation with the following stakeholders:

Randwick Terminus Alternative Option Working Groups (including representatives from

Randwick City Council, Transport for NSW, Health Infrastructure, Roads and Maritime

Services, NSW Trains, UNSW)

UNSW

Randwick City Council

Tiggers Honeypot Childcare Centre

Kenvale College and Creston College

Australian Turf Club.

A summary of this consultation was presented in Table 4.1 of the High Street modification

report.

2.1.1 Letterbox drop

In addition to the key agency and stakeholder meetings a letter was delivered on 9 November

2015 to approximately 700 properties within the vicinity of the proposed modification. The

purpose of the letter was to inform residents about the changes as part of the modification,

provide them with high level information about the potential impacts and advise them of the

project contact details for more information.

2.1.2 Door knocking

Door knocking was also undertaken in the afternoon/evening of Monday 9 November 2015.

The project team door knocked 73 properties on High Street and spoke to 13 residents.

The purpose of the door knocking was to follow up on the letterbox drop, explain the

background to the proposed modification and the potential impacts it would have to the local

area. The exercise also provided the opportunity for residents to provide initial feedback and

raise potential concerns during the design development of the proposed modification prior to

exhibition of the High Street modification report.



2.2 Consultation undertaken during public exhibition of the modifications report

The High Street modification report was exhibited from 25 November until 11 December 2015.

During the exhibition period, government agencies, interest groups and organisations,

stakeholders and the community were invited to make written submissions regarding the

proposed modification. A summary of the engagement activities and tools that were used to

encourage community and stakeholder participation during the public exhibition period is

outlined below.

2.2.1 Display of the proposed modification

This High Street modification report was placed on public exhibition at a number of locations

including:

Department of Planning & Environment: Information Centre, 23–33 Bridge Street, Sydney

Transport for NSW: Community Information Centre, 388 George Street (corner King and

George Streets), Sydney

City of Sydney Council: One Stop Shop, Town Hall House, Level 3, 456 Kent Street,

Sydney

Randwick City Council: Customer Service Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick

Randwick TAFE: Customer Service Centre, Building A, Lower Ground Floor, Corner Darley

Road and King Street, Randwick

Leichhardt Municipal Council: Customer Service Centre, 7–15 Wetherill Street, Leichhardt

Nature Conservation Council: Level 2, 5 Wilson Street, Newtown.

During this time, display material and hard copies of the modification were made available to the

public.

2.2.2 Website

An electronic copy of the Modification Report was made available from the DP&E’s website

(http://www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/).

2.2.3 Advertising

The display of the High Street modification report was advertised in the Southern Courier

newspaper on 24 November 2015. Submissions during this period were invited from all

stakeholders.

2.2.4 Stakeholder briefings

Stakeholder briefings were offered with the following stakeholders during the public exhibition of

the proposed modification:


Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust

http://www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/

Transport for NSW 9

Australian Turf Club

UNSW

CBD Co-ordination Office

Health Infrastructure NSW

Kenvale College.

2.2.5 Sydney Light Rail forums and reference groups

The proposed modification was presented for feedback and discussion at the following forums:

the Project Community Reference Group on 26 November 2015

the quarterly Randwick, Kensington and Kingsford Community and Business Forum held by

ALTRAC Light Rail during the exhibition period on 30 November 2015

the Project Business Reference Group on 11 December 2015.

2.3 Ongoing consultation

Ongoing discussions with stakeholders and key project partners (including Randwick City

Council, City of Sydney, Australian Turf Club, UNSW and Centennial Parklands) would continue

throughout detailed design.

As part of the ongoing community consultation for the approved Project, the project team would

also communicate any proposed changes and the resultant potential impacts (should this

modification be approved) to local residents and businesses via:

door knocking

letter box drops

community newsletters

maps and diagrams

community and business forums

the Sydney Light Rail Website (http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/).

http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/

Transport for NSW 11

3. Overview of submissions This chapter provides an overview of the process that was used to analyse the issues raised in

submissions received for the proposed modification during the public exhibition of the High

Street modification report. This chapter also identifies the key issues raised in government

agency, project partner and community submissions.

3.1 Analysis process

3.1.1 Receipt of submissions

Submissions from government agencies and the community were received by the DP&E.

Submissions were received up until 31 December 2015. A total of 113 submissions were

received. Of these submissions, four were responses from government agencies and project

partners. These responses included the following:

project partners


UNSW.

government agencies

Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Branch) (OEH Heritage Branch)

Department of Primary Industries.

A total of 109 submissions were received from community and business stakeholders.

Each submission was assigned a reference number by the DP&E. These numbers are referred

to in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Submissions Report. Appendix B of this Submissions Report

shows where the issues raised in each community submission have been addressed within the

main body of this Submissions Report.

3.1.2 Handling and responses to submissions

Government agency and project partner submissions

Responses to issues raised by government agencies and project partners have been provided

to each individual submission. These are presented in Chapter 4 of this Submissions Report.

Issues raised by government agencies and project partners were not categorised as the issues

raised were largely dependent on each agencies technical discipline area.

Community submissions

Community and business submissions were considered separately to government agency and

project partner 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 of this Submissions Report.



To simplify similar issues raised in multiple submissions, issues were grouped together based

on their assigned key and sub-issue categories with a single, consolidated response provided to

each of these grouped issues.

Each issue is presented in this report 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 in Chapter 5 of this

Submissions Report.

3.1.3 Consideration of petitions and form letters

While no formal form letters were received as submissions during the exhibition period, a

number of submissions were received representing concerns of the Tigger’s Honeypot

Childcare which contained similar text. Whilst these submissions presented sections of shared

text, these respondents have been treated as individual submissions and the issues grouped as

discussed above.

3.2 Summary of issues

Support or opposition for the proposal

Of the 109 community and stakeholder responses received, 22 identified support for either the

proposed modification or the overall CSELR Project. This represented support for the project

from approximately 20 per cent of the total responses.

Analysis of identified issues

The five issues raised most frequently by community submissions were as follows:

design of the proposal (in particular the design for the proposed Arthur Street access lane)

noise and vibration

land use and property

air quality

soils, geology and contamination.

Of the key issues raised by the community, a majority of the issues were raised with respect to

the potential impacts associated with the design and operation of the proposed Arthur Street

access lane.

Figure 3.1 provides a breakdown of all of the issues identified in the submissions. Figure 3.2

shows a breakdown of the percentage of responses which identified to key five issues that were

raised in all submissions.


Figure 3.1 Summary of all issues raised by the community

Figure 3.2 Summary of top five issues raised by the community


4. Government agency and project partner submissions This chapter includes a summary of the submissions received from government agencies, local

councils and project partners regarding the proposed modifications. Responses to government

agencies and local councils have been provided in tabular format addressing comments raised

by each.

4.1 Randwick City Council

Randwick City Council provided a submission regarding the proposed modifications, dated

December 2015. Randwick City Council raised a number of issues regarding the proposed

modifications including:

general support of the proposed modification, in particular the proposed modifications to the

Randwick terminus and substation in High Cross Park

traffic and transport issues including impacts to Arthur Street and existing and proposed

cycle routes

visual, landscape and planted tree issues including potential impacts to High Cross Park

noise and vibration issues, including potential impacts along Arthur Street and for the

proposed demolition of Wansey Cottage

non-indigenous and Aboriginal heritage issues, including management of impacts to

Wansey Cottage and impacts to High Cross Park.

The issues raised by Randwick City Council and Transport for NSW’s responses to these issues

are detailed in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Response to Randwick City Council submission

Ref. Summary of issue raised Transport for NSW response

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Randwick City Council noted strong support for the proposed relocation of the Randwick terminus to High Street, and undergrounding of the substation in High Cross Park.

Support for the proposed modifications to the Randwick terminus and substation in High Cross Park is acknowledged.

2.0 Traffic and transport

2.1 Randwick City Council noted support for the positive impacts to parking, pedestrian accessibility and traffic flows around High Cross Park.

Support from Randwick City Council regarding the improvements to parking, pedestrian accessibility and traffic flows around High Cross Park is acknowledged.

2.2 Recommendation 1

Council requested that the design ensure any temporary adjustments to access of local facilities, businesses and dwellings as a result of construction impacts are safe for pedestrians. These provisions should avoid redirecting pedestrians across a road to reach their destination.

Access to local facilities during construction of the Project would be maintained at all times. Where temporary diversions of pedestrians are required, it would be ensured that these diversions would provide a safe path of travel. Where possible, this would include minimising the need to re-direct pedestrians across roads.





Council requested that consideration is given to using the southern light rail track at the Randwick terminus as the primary track, with the potential to allow access/egress from both sides of the LRV and closer proximity to the public plaza and inbound bus interchange.

Council proposed that this will also assist to maintain driveway access to existing properties on the north side of High Street, opposite the terminus.

The current design for the revised Randwick terminus stop provides for a central island platform arrangement. The final operational use of the tracks for the Project would be determined by the operator of the light rail. This would include track usage and LRV egress provisions at the Randwick terminus.

With respect to the potential to allow access/egress from both sides of the LRV, due to potential level differences at this location, egress onto the southern side of High Street may not be possible (subject to detailed design).

Discussion regarding access to properties along High Street within the vicinity of the proposed Randwick terminus is provided in Item 2.5 below.


Council requested that consideration is given to the existing effects of pedestrian movements, particularly on the Belmore Road pedestrian crossings on the overall traffic flow and the modelling of potential delays to the wider network. For example, it was considered that the reported delay to eastbound traffic on Alison Road may not occur when taking existing pedestrian movements into account.

As part of the detailed design of the revised Randwick terminus stop and relocated bus interchange along Belmore Road, Transport for NSW would consider the impacts of the proposal on existing pedestrian movements and pedestrian crossings, with the aim of minimising any impacts to the overall traffic flow or delays to the wider network.


It was requested that access to properties on the north side of High Street between Clara Street and Avoca Street is not restricted to light vehicles only.

Due to the revised location and design of the proposed Randwick terminus stop platform, access to a small number of properties opposite the Randwick terminus stop, on the north side of High Street between Clara Street and Avoca Street would potentially be retained, however it would be restricted to smaller/light vehicles only. The location of the platform for the revised Randwick terminus stop would require larger vehicles to cross the platform to access these properties. The final design of the stop platform and adjacent footpaths would result in differences in ground levels which would restrict access for larger vehicles.

Where possible, the detailed design of the revised Randwick terminus would seek to maximise vehicle access to these properties.


Clarification was sought by Council regarding the need for removal of kerbside parking spaces on the north side of Arthur Street opposite Clara Street as indicated on Figure 3.8 of Appendix B, and request retention if possible.

As stated in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, the potential impacts to kerbside parking would be subject to detailed design of the intersection works. The final design of the proposed intersection works along Arthur Street would seek to minimise any impacts to existing parking spaces. Additionally, MCoA B29 requires a parking offset and management strategy to be prepared, which would detail strategies for replacement of those spaces lost.


Council requested further discussions during detailed design stage regarding the parking impacts at signalised intersections to verify overall numbers of parking spaces affected.

The recommendation also requested clarification of the revised net loss of parking spaces as a result of the modification, excluding the parking impacts associated with signalised intersections at Arthur Street/Botany Street, and Arthur Street/ Belmore Road, as Council understands these intersections would need to be signalised as part of the approved project.

The anticipated net loss of parking along Arthur Street as a result of the proposed modification was presented in Table 5.3 of the High Street modification report. This report stated that as a result of the proposed modification, approximately 36 parking spaces would be potentially lost along Arthur Street.

Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with key stakeholders, including Randwick City Council, regarding the detailed design of the proposed works along Arthur Street. This would include seeking to minimise any impacts to existing parking spaces along Arthur Street.




Council requested consideration of dedicated cycle lanes along High Street, especially between Botany Street and Avoca Street. This may involve a slight off set of the light rail tracks to allow sufficient space. Consideration of a shared path on the southern side of High Street fronting UNSW is also requested, to facilitate cycle movements to the campus from the surrounding cycle network.

It is not proposed to provide a dedicated cycle lane along High Street between Avoca Street and Wansey Road.

As identified in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, cyclists would be required to divert to roads located north of High Street, in particular Arthur Street as part of the operation of the Project.

Further investigation of the most appropriate bicycle route alternative to High Street would continue to be undertaken during the detailed design of the Project. This would include the consideration of cycle connections to the Wansey Road shared path using Waratah Avenue and Writtle Park.

This investigation would be undertaken as part of the Pedestrian and Cyclist Network and Facilities Strategy, required by MCoA B33 and would be undertaken in consultation with Randwick City Council.


Further discussion with Council was requested to explore cycle connections to the Wansey Road shared path, as suggested in 4.5.2 of Appendix B.


5.1.3 of Appendix B notes closure of High Street between Clara Street and Avoca Street as the first stage in construction. This was not supported by Council and it was requested that signalised intersections at Arthur Street be completed prior to road closures.

A detailed construction plan for the works associated with the modification would be developed. The construction plan would include details regarding the proposed sequencing and staging of the proposed works and would consider both ALTRAC Light Rail’s preferred work methodology and the potential impacts which may result from different staging options. The final staging of the Projects’ construction would aim to minimise any adverse impacts.

The request that signalised intersections at Arthur Street are completed prior to road closures is acknowledged and would be considered as part of the preparation of the detailed construction plan. All construction works would be scheduled to minimise disruption to residents, businesses and the community.

3.0 Visual and landscape character

3.1 Council strongly supported the retention and preservation of High Cross Park and the undergrounding of substation.

Support for the retention and preservation of High Cross Park and the undergrounding of substation is acknowledged.


Council requested that:

detailed design ensures minimisation of impact to High Cross Park from excavation for the substation and maximise retention of soft landscaped area, including consideration of the opportunity to overlay the excavation/ construction footprint with a lane of Belmore Road and adjacent footpath.

design consideration be given to the underground and above ground infrastructure that will be required for the operation and maintenance of the underground substation and how this infrastructure will impact the usage and visual amenity of the park. In particular it is requested that vents and access ways for the substation are placed to avoid impact on soft landscaped areas.

the design for the reinstatement of the park at the underground substation location is developed in consultation with Council.

consideration of opportunities to transplant the seven trees identified for removal in the Park.

Detailed design of the High Cross Park substation would ensure that impacts to the park from excavation for the substation are minimised and that any areas of soft landscaped area are retained, where feasible.

Detailed design of the High Cross Park substation would minimise the impact of the aboveground infrastructure required for the operation and maintenance of the underground substation. Where possible, the siting of any infrastructure would seek to minimise impacts to the visual amenity of the park and maximise the useable area of the park (i.e. minimising impacts to existing grassed areas).

Transport for NSW would consult with Randwick City Council regarding the final design for the reinstatement of High Cross Park at the location of the substation location.

The final location of the substation would be optimised during detailed design to minimise potential impacts to significant trees, cultural and heritage items within the park. Where feasible, the opportunity to transplant impacted trees would be considered during detailed design. Where the removal of trees is considered to be unavoidable, replacement of the removed trees would be undertaken in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package required as part of the approved Project (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b).





Council requested the undergrounding of power and for the integration of stop infrastructure with the catenary poles.

Council also noted that design consideration should be given to the placement of street furniture along the southern footpath along the Randwick Terminus in relation to the footpath width reductions.

Council requested that the detailed design allows for a seamless transition and coordination with the Hospital site public plaza at the corner of High St and Avoca St. The integrated design should be consistent with Council’s Light Rail Urban Design Guidelines and developed in liaison with Council.

The design of the power supply system, including overhead wiring pole configuration, has been developed in accordance with relevant guidelines and standards. Where feasible, detailed design of the Project would consider the potential to integrate various stop infrastructure elements as part of the Stop Access and Design Plans (MCoA B27).

At this time, the approved Project does not propose to underground power lines; however in accordance with MCoA B82, the approved Project would not preclude the future undergrounding of electrical infrastructure by Randwick City Council.

The placement of street furniture as part of the Randwick terminus stop would be considered during the detailed design phase and would include consideration of footpath width at this location.

The design of the Randwick terminus would be undertaken in consideration of Randwick City Council’s Light Rail Urban Design Guidelines.


Illustrations of the revised stops on High Street indicate that overhead powerlines have been removed. Council strongly supported undergrounding of overhead powerlines along the High Street alignment, including at light rail stops.

A holistic design approach to poles and wires to minimise visual clutter and provision of street trees is requested, including the undergrounding of power and the provision of multifunction poles that can cater for street lights, traffic lights, catenary wires, banners and hanging baskets for plants.

Council requested that for street furniture, paving and street tree species that they be consistent with the Randwick City Council’s Light Rail Urban Design Guidelines Volumes 1 and 2.

Council requested that detailed design consider where there are new opportunities for Integration of public art in the public domain.

As part of the approved Project, and the proposed modification, it is not proposed to underground the existing power lines along High Street. As stated in the High Street modification report, the visualisations provided are indicative only. In line with MCoA B83, the proposed modification would not preclude undergrounding of any existing electrical infrastructure by Randwick City Council in the future.

A holistic design approach to poles and wires has been undertaken during detailed design in order to minimise visual clutter along the alignment.

With respect to street furniture and paving, detailed design of the Project would be undertaken in consideration of Randwick City Council’s Light Rail Urban Design Guidelines. Consideration of potential opportunities to integrate of public art would also be undertaken in consultation with Randwick City Council.


Council requested confirmation that the trees in front of the Lowy Cancer Centre will be protected and retained.

Council requested for service equipment to be located at the wide island platform (city-bound) to avoid constraints with pedestrian flow at the northern footpath.

Council requested that the design of the public domain and paving treatment to stops and surrounds is developed in liaison with Randwick City Council, NSW Health and UNSW, as part of a broader public domain/paving strategy for the health/education precinct that recognises the increased pedestrianisation of this location.

The trees in front of the Lowy Cancer Centre were identified as being impacted by the approved Project. As part of the proposed modification, it is anticipated that these trees would continue to be potentially impacted by the proposed modification.

Notwithstanding, in line with MCoA B48, an arborist has been be engaged to assess the impacts of the Project on trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the construction zone. The arborist’s assessment would recommend measures to avoid the removal of, or minimise damage to, existing trees. The arborist would also determine whether the impacted trees could be transplanted within the vicinity of their current location.

Where these trees cannot be retained, replacement would occur in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b). It is intended that any tree replacement would be undertaken in a similar location to the existing trees.




Council supported an additional mitigation measure to achieve a high quality urban design outcome at the new Arthur Lane.

Council requested for new trees and landscaping to be incorporated into the new design for the laneway to replace the 12 trees being removed with this proposal.

The detailed design of the new Arthur Street access lane would ensure that the design provides for a high quality urban design outcome. This is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure C.14 (refer to Chapter 6 of this report).

New trees and landscape would be incorporated into the design for the Arthur Street access lane to replace the trees being removed in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b).


Council supported the mitigation measure for the Wansey Cottage to be included in the next phase of interpretation planning for the project in consultation with Council.

Support for the mitigation measures proposed with respect to the proposed demolition of Wansey Cottage is acknowledged.

4.0 Planted trees


Council noted that there will be constraints in relation to the provision of trees or landscaped areas in the area above the substation and requests consideration at the detailed design stage for the provision and integration of these as part of the final design for this section of the park.

Council requested consideration of the opportunity to transplant the seven trees identified for removal in the Park.

The final location of the substation would be optimised to minimise potential impacts to significant trees, cultural and heritage items within the park. The opportunity to transplant impacted trees would be considered during detailed design. Where the removal of trees is unavoidable, replacement of the removed trees would be undertaken in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b).


Council requested for street trees to be incorporated in the vicinity of the Randwick Terminus where possible.

Any additional street tree planting undertaken as part of the Randwick terminus would be determined as part of the preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan for the Project (MCoA B51) and as part of the requirements of the Stop Access and Design Plans (MCoA B27(f)).


Council requested a coordinated public domain design that allows for regular street tree planting in consultation with Council, to improve the pedestrian experience and overall visual amenity of the street.

Any replacement or additional tree planting undertaken as part of the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) would be undertaken in consultation with Randwick City Council during the detailed design of the Project.

Any additional tree planting would also be determined as part of the preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan for the Project in consultation with key stakeholders, including Randwick City Council (MCoA B51).


Additional street tree planting should be considered for the northern combined footpath and platform where possible, in particular as the proposal is not intending to provide shelter at this side of the stop.

Council noted that they did not support removal of the row of existing trees fronting the Lowy Cancer Centre. Retention of this row of trees is considered a key benefit of the modification. Council is concerned about the realistic success of re-planting the existing trees following construction, and therefore seeks their protection and retention in situ.

Additional street tree planting would be considered for the northern combined footpath and platform as part of the detailed urban design for the UNSW High Street stop. This would be undertaken in consultation with Randwick City Council.

As noted above, any additional street tree planting would also be determined as part of the preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan for the Project in consultation with key stakeholders, including Randwick City Council (MCoA B51).

With respect to the removal of the trees in front of the Lowy Cancer Centre, refer to response Item 3.5 above.





Council requested new trees and landscape to be incorporated into the new design for the laneway to replace the 12 trees being removed with this proposal.

Any trees removed as part of the proposed modification would be replaced in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52), Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b) and the Urban Design and Landscape Plan MCoA B51 to ensure that any vegetation loss is appropriately offset through regeneration or replanting.


Wansey Cottage: Council requested new mature or advanced fig trees to be planted inside ATC land to reinstate the existing row of fig trees to be removed with the construction of the stop.

The removal of the mature fig trees in the vicinity of Wansey Cottage forms part of the approved Project. The replacement of these trees would be considered as part of the overall Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b).

5.0 Property and land use


While supporting the intended public laneway, Council noted that consideration should be given during detailed design stage to ensure the lane is not perceived or used as a public thoroughfare (i.e. no access to High Street), and incorporate CPTED principles.

Support for the public laneway is acknowledged.

The detailed design of the access lane would ensure the lane complies with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and is designed such that it is not perceived for use as a public thoroughfare.


Council requested an additional Condition of Approval requiring consultation with Council on the detailed design of the laneway, and compliance with relevant design, construction and operational standards for a public road. It is considered that the design of the laneway needs further resolution in order to inform boundary changes and subdivision plans.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Randwick City Council, as part of the ongoing design refinement for the proposed Arthur Street access lane through the preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan (MCoA B51) and the Development Agreement between Randwick City Council and Transport for NSW.

The detailed design of the access lane would be used to inform any required boundary changes and subdivision plans required.

6.0 Noise and vibration


Council requested further information on the noise and vibration impacts of the demolition of Wansey Cottage, and confirmation that the detailed design stage will ensure that the construction noise and vibration impacts of the demolition of Wansey Cottage are identified and appropriately mitigated.

The noise and vibration impacts of the demolition of Wansey Cottage would be incorporated into the relevant Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statement (CNVIS) (MCoA B5) to ensure that the construction noise and vibration impacts of the demolition of Wansey Cottage are identified and appropriately mitigated.

The CNVIS would be prepared in consultation with relevant government agencies, including Randwick City Council.


Council noted support for further investigation on the uses and sensitivities of the Nelune Cancer Centre building (currently under construction) fronting High Street to establish uses and relevant noise trigger levels.

Condition B1 requires a survey of receivers, sensitive to noise and vibration. Noise mitigation for any identified sensitive receivers along the alignment would be considered during the detailed design and appropriate mitigation measures would be identified, where feasible.


It was noted that road noise impacts on Arthur Street exceed trigger levels in both the approved and modified design. Council requested ongoing discussions during detailed design stage on the need for mitigation strategies, and suitable options.

In accordance with MCoA C11(h) an Operational Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be prepared to further outline impacts and mitigation of impacts resulting from increased traffic volumes.




Council noted support for a site specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statement in relation to the new laneway, including consultation with affected properties regarding measures to minimise impacts.

Support for a site specific CNVIS is acknowledged. This would be prepared the detailed design phase of the public laneway.

7.0 Non-indigenous and Aboriginal heritage


Council noted the new management measures for detailed design relate to either avoiding or mitigating impacts of the below ground substation in the heritage fabric of the park.

Council noted that if an alternative position within the park cannot be found for the substation, mitigation measures should include archaeological excavation and archival recording of the air raid shelter and significant trees, provision of an exclusion zone around significant elements and investigation of interpretative signage.

Council noted that archival recording of the park is to be prepared prior to commencement of works and impacts on the cenotaph and significant trees avoided.

The final location of the substation would be optimised during detailed design to minimise potential impacts to significant trees, cultural and heritage items within the park.

As described in the High Street modification report, a series of additional mitigation measures have been identified to manage the potential heritage impacts of the High Cross Park substation. These have been included as mitigation measure D.18 (refer to Chapter 6 of this report).

These mitigation measures include the requirement for archival recording of heritage items, consistent with MCoA B61 which requires the completion of archival recording for all heritage items directly and physically impacted by the Project.

No potential impacts on the cenotaph have been identified. Where the final design of the Project is identified to impact on significant trees within High Cross Park, the measures outlined in MCoA B61 would be undertaken prior to commencement of works.


Council noted the new management measures relate to archival recording prior to demolition, interpretative signage incorporated into the Wansey Road stop and salvage of building elements for future use in repair of other heritage items.

As described in Chapter 6, proposed additional mitigation measures D.18 identifies that as part of the proposed demolition of Wansey Cottage, the following measures would be implemented:

inclusion of the cottage in the next phase of interpretation planning

archival recording of the building (consistent with the requirements of existing MCoA B61)

where practical, salvage and recycle building elements of heritage significance suitable for the repair of other heritage items.


Council requested that modifications to the Superintendents Residence building to accommodate the proposed drivers’ amenities should be guided by a Conservation Management Plan in order to minimise adverse heritage impacts. Maintenance Schedules and an Interpretation Plan should also be prepared and implemented in conjunction with the proposed works.

The design for any modifications to the Superintendents Residence building to accommodate the proposed drivers’ amenities would aim to minimise any potential heritage impacts to this building in accordance with MCoA B55. This MCoA requires that impacts to heritage be minimised to the greatest extent practicable through both detailed design and construction.

Maintenance of the drivers’ amenities facilities, within the Superintendents Residence would be undertaken by the operators of the Project.

The requirements for interpretive management of any potential heritage impacts to the Superintendents Residence building would be considered as part of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan, in line with MCoA B51(g).





Council noted the heritage impact of the proposed enlarged bus stop in Belmore Road, adjacent to the Avoca Street corner, including extending awning coverage in this area, should be carefully considered to ensure a sympathetic design response.

It is acknowledged that there are a number of local heritage items within Belmore Road and Avoca Street. In accordance with MCoA B53, the detailed design of the relocated bus stop interchange along Belmore Road would consider nearby heritage items and the historical character of the immediate area aiming to deliver a sympathetic urban design treatment.

The development of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan (MCoA B51) in consultation with Randwick City Council would also ensure that the design of the bus stop maintains the historical character of the immediate area.


Council requested that the heritage impact of any required ventilation grilles for the below ground substation should be carefully considered. The placement of ventilation grilles may impact on the grassed areas of High Cross Park. It is suggested that as much of the substation as possible be located within the paved footpath area, rather than in the grassed area of High Cross Park in order to minimise impact of ventilation grilles and to reduce the impact on the air raid trench.

As stated in the High Street modification report, the final location of the substation would be optimised during detailed design to minimise potential impacts to significant trees, the grassed area of High Cross Park and heritage and cultural items within the park.

This would include designing of the required ventilation grilles to minimise any visual or physical impacts as part of the preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan for the Project (MCoA B51). Where impacts to the air raid trenches is unavoidable, the measures outlined in mitigation measure D.18 (Chapter 6 of this report) would be implemented and archival recording of the trenching would be undertaken prior to construction.

8.0 Socio-economic

8.1 Council supported the reduced impact to High Cross Park, and improved integration of the Randwick Terminus with the surrounding town centre and health facilities.

Support for the reduced impact to High Cross Park, and improved integration of the Randwick Terminus with the surrounding town centre and health facilities is acknowledged.

8.2 Council also considered that the increased property acquisition related to the UNSW High Street stop was reasonable, based on the benefits of the proposal, and that the land affected is owned by the University of NSW, a key stakeholder proposing this modification to the UNSW High Street stop.

Council’s response to the impacted land area is acknowledged. Notwithstanding, opportunities to reduce the overall land area required for the proposed Arthur Street access lane would be minimised where feasible during the detailed design of the Project.

9.0 Utilities


Council requested overhead power lines be located underground along the full length of High Street, consistent with Figures 3.4 and 3.5 of the modification report, and Figure 3.6 of Appendix B.

Refer to response item 3.4.


Council requested consultation at an early stage on the relocation of the existing Ausgrid substation near the corner of High Street and Botany Street.

Initial consultation between ALTRAC Light Rail and Ausgrid was undertaken in October 2015 which determined the need to relocate the electricity kiosk. The new position of the kiosk would be determined by Ausgrid, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including ALTRAC Light Rail and Transport for NSW.


Council requested that any utilities and access points to the underground substation at High Cross Park avoid impacting existing trees, and minimises impacts on soft landscaped areas.

Where possible, any utilities and access points to the underground substation at High Cross Park would avoid impacting existing trees, and minimise impacts on soft landscaped areas as identified in new mitigation measure N.4. This would be developed during the detailed design of the substation.



10.0 Electromagnetic interference (EMI)

10.1 Council supported the reduced impact of the UNSW High Street stop and sensitive receivers on the UNSW campus, and notes that the modification proposes that existing Conditions of Approval (MCoA B17, B18) relating to EMI are sufficient to manage any potential impacts.

Support for the reduced impact of the UNSW High Street stop on sensitive receivers within the UNSW campus is acknowledged.

MCoA B17 and B18 will be implemented prior to construction.

4.2 University of NSW

UNSW provided a submission regarding the proposed modifications, dated 18 December 2015.

The UNSW raised a number of issues including:

potential impacts to pedestrians and motorist safety

the risk of noise, vibration EMI and radio frequency interference (RFI) on sensitive teaching

and research environments

lack of consultation with UNSW

impact to traffic on the surrounding street network

impact of the proposed stop design on UNSW properties.

A summary of the UNSW submission and Transport for NSW’s responses is provided in

Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Response to University of NSW submission


1.0 Consultation

1.1 As the landowner, UNSW was unaware of the extent of the land take for the hammerhead in the Arthur Street laneway until receiving the modification. The hammerhead is not required because garbage trucks do not access private properties in the Randwick City Council area. This was advised to Transport for NSW at a meeting with UNSW and Randwick City Council.

As identified in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the High Street modification report, a range of consultation was undertaken prior to, during preparation of, and during exhibition of the proposed modification. This included various meetings and briefings with UNSW during August, September and October 2015. The consultation undertaken included presentation and discussion regarding the proposed design for the Arthur Street access lane as it is presented in the modification report.

The design of the access lane has considered the needs of all vehicles which may be required to access the affected properties.

Randwick City Council has confirmed that garbage trucks will need to access the new lane to collect garbage. Additionally, adequate access for other similar vehicles (such as removalist trucks and delivery vehicles) is still required to be maintained for the affected properties.




1.2 No process or consultation has occurred to

date on the stop safety audits, EMI criteria and limits, required before construction commences.

Transport for NSW has an ongoing program of consultation with all key stakeholders along the alignment of the Project. This included the establishment the Business Reference Group (MCoA A16) and routine meetings and briefings with key stakeholders including involvement by UNSW.

Specific consultation with UNSW regarding the project, including the results of safety audits would be undertaken as part of the development of the Stop Access and Design Plans, in line with MCoA B27. These plans will include stop safety audits. The results of these audits, where relevant, will be discussed with key stakeholders including UNSW.

Specific consultation with UNSW regarding EMI criteria and limits has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Vibration and Electro Magnetic Management Plan (VEMMP) in accordance with MCoA B18.

1.3 Two weeks is insufficient time to review and respond to the planning modification. As a key partner and landowner UNSW was not sent any Planning Modification information in advance.

DP&E is responsible for determining the EIS exhibition period. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (EP&A Regulations) identifies the required exhibition timeframes for the Modification Report. Under clause 241 of the EP&A Regulations, modifications are to be available for inspection for a period of at least 14 days. The High Street modification report was on exhibition from 24 November until 11 December 2015, meeting the required exhibition timeframe. All submissions received up until the end of December 2015 were considered as part of this submissions report.

1.4 Lack of consultation with UNSW

The issues raised in previous submissions and correspondence still have not been addressed as part of the Main Report as they relate to UNSW including:

safety and capacity

platform crowding

High Street pedestrianisation

protection of underground utilities.

Despite UNSW covering these issues in its previous submissions, these have still not been fully addressed in the current modification.

As part of the proposed stop arrangement, the eastbound and westbound platforms would be separated, providing increased capacity (providing a combined platform/footpath width of 10.5 metres across both platforms in comparison to the approved central island platform which provides a total platform width of approximately 6.4 metres).

The integration of the northern (eastbound) platform with the northern footpath for passengers to board and alight is considered to provide a superior outcome, in particular for alighting passengers arriving at UNSW. The revised arrangement would allow passengers to directly alight onto the common platform/footpath. The northern footpath would provide sufficient capacity for passengers to wait before safely crossing the street at the signalised intersection(s).

Stop Access and Design Plans required in line with MCoA B27 would include independent safety audits for all stops. This would include consideration of the capacity and platform sizing to accommodate the maximum number of passengers (MCoA B27(b)).

With respect to the pedestrianisation of High Street, as stated in response Item 3.1.3 above, this is not proposed as part of the proposed modification or the approved Project. The design of the UNSW High Street stop would not preclude the future expansion of the platforms should this section of High Street become pedestrianised in the future (as required by MCoA B43).



With respect to the potential impacts to utilities,

Transport for NSW would manage any utility impacts in accordance with MCoA B81. This would include consultation with utility authorities and relevant owners/ providers of services which may be impacted by the Project, including UNSW.

1.5 To achieve suitable and meaningful input into the detailed design phase, UNSW still seeks the preparation and implementation of a stakeholder liaison protocol and sign-off mechanism to address early works and main construction works. Particularly as UNSW owns and operates its own critical utilities, to date there has been no consideration or consultation with UNSW on these aspects.

As part of the development of the approved Project and the proposed modification, Transport for NSW has undertaken a range of formal consultation with UNSW, including as a member of the Business Reference Group (as required by MCoA A16) and routine meetings and briefings as a key stakeholder. Transport for NSW and ALTRAC Light Rail also currently engage with UNSW through other stakeholder activities such as representation on the Urban Domain Reference Group (MCoA A17). A Development Agreement between UNSW and Transport for NSW is currently being negotiated.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with UNSW on an ongoing basis throughout the Project. The Urban Domain Reference Group also provides opportunities for UNSW to be informed of and provide comment on early main construction work designs.

With respect to the concern that UNSW has not been consulted regarding potential impacts on the existing utility asset(s) that it owns and operates, this process is ongoing. Transport for NSW and ALTRAC Light Rail would consult with all utility owners/operators prior to construction, including UNSW.

1.6 UNSW proposes the following principles for the High Street stop design and for the corridors on Anzac Parade and on High Street as well as any service changes, utilities upgrades or relocations, bus stop relocations and other impacts on the Kensington Campus:

notice period of 13 business days for comment on any design changes

a clear rationale for any design changes with reference to UNSW’s priorities, the social impact objectives of the project and previous design drawings and concepts

engagement of an independent certifier should there be a dispute between Transport for NSW and UNSW on a design solution.

Existing mitigation measures as part of the approved Project are considered to reflect the desired principles identified by UNSW. UNSW is currently represented as part of the Urban Domain Reference Group (MCoA A17). As part of this reference group, UNSW has the opportunity to be involved in the detailed design process and provides the opportunity to comment on any design changes which may impact on UNSW to ensure that it meets their priorities and objectives.

With respect to dispute resolution, the Project team includes an independent certifier. One of the roles of the independent certifier includes the management of dispute resolution for elements of the Project design and development. If required, the independent certifier would assist in managing disputes between Transport for NSW and UNSW

1.7 UNSW are still seeking to be party to a Development Agreement as part of the Project and, as relevant, this will seek to address management and issues mitigation procedures and a range of development and construction matters in that agreement.

The Development Agreement between UNSW and Transport for NSW is being negotiated and would be finalised prior to commencement of construction on any UNSW land.

2.0 UNSW supports the Project

2.1 UNSW is an active supporter of the Project and is supportive of the revised light rail stop design located on High Street.

Support for the project by UNSW is acknowledged.




3.0 Key issues arising from the modifications report

3.1 Risk to pedestrian safety

3.1.1 Platform width

UNSW fully supports the intention to revise the design from a centralised platform to a split platform design with north and south platforms and a centralised railway alignment.

Support by UNSW for the redesign of the centralised platform to a split platform design is acknowledged.

3.1.2 In reviewing the application documentation, inconsistencies have been identified in the proposed platform width. Section 3.2.2 of the Traffic Report indicates that the southern platform will be designed to a width of 6 metres. However Figure 6.3 of the Traffic Report indicates a width of 4.1 metres. Concern is raised regarding the consistency of these figures.

It is requested that Transport for NSW appropriately confirm the platform capacities and set out of the proposed stop layout cross section prior to finalisation of the assessment.

With respect to the inconsistency between the High Street modification report and/or within associated technical papers, the High Street modification report should be considered to be the more accurate description of the proposed modification (e.g. platform widths for the UNSW High Street stop). As stated in section 3.2.2 of the modification report, the platform widths for the UNSW High Street stop would be approximately 4.5 metres for the combined northern platform/footpath and approximately 6 metres for the southern platform (subject to detailed design).

3.1.3 The UNSW Preferred scheme to fully pedestrianise High Street between Botany Street and Wansey Road indicates how platform widths can be readily expanded and pedestrian safety can be significantly improved by removing the westbound vehicle lane on the southern side of High Street.

The requirement to remove the westbound traffic lane along High Street is not anticipated in order to construct and operate the CSELR project. Transport for NSW does not propose to pedestrianise High Street between Botany Street and Wansey road as part of the CSELR project. However, the design of the UNSW High Street stop would not preclude the future expansion of the platforms should this section of High Street become pedestrianised in the future (as required by MCoA B43).

3.1.4 Stop and road safety audits

Whilst the split platform option is deemed safer, the outcomes of any Stop and Road safety audits have yet to be provided as required under SSI Approval Condition B27. These audits should be provided to UNSW as soon as possible to identify any safety issues and so that these can be appropriately addressed and integrated into the design.

Preparation of stop and road safety audits is ongoing as part of the detailed design process. Stop Access and Design Plans prepared in line with MCoA B27 will include safety audits.

3.1.5 Cycle path design and safety

Concern is raised over the proposed cycle route interface at the intersection of Wansey Road and High Street. Given the design of intersection, the Wansey Road southbound and northbound cyclists will move through the corner across the curved tracks, increasing the likelihood of accidents to cyclists and affecting the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.

As part of the approved Project, the intersection of Wansey Road and High Street will be signalised. Through signalisation of this intersection, cyclists travelling to UNSW using the Wansey Road shared path would be able to cross the light rail tracks and High Street under controlled conditions.

The location of the crossing points would allow cyclists to cross the light rail tracks at 90 degrees, minimising potential safety issues with crossing curved points in the track alignment. The design of Project elements such as cycle infrastructure would meet relevant design, engineering and safety guidelines, including Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice in accordance with MCoA B19.



3.1.6 The Traffic Report notes that further

investigation is recommended during detailed design to allow for a more efficient bicycle connection along Arthur Street, in consideration of increased traffic flows, however as part of the modification, the cyclist interaction and safety at the corner of High Street and Wansey Road is not considered.

As identified in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, cyclists would be required to divert from High Street to Arthur Street as part of the operation of the Project.

Further investigation of this cycle route would continue during the detailed design of the Project and would include consideration of the increased traffic flows as a result of the proposed modification. The detailed design would also investigate the safest and most appropriate connection for cyclists between Arthur Street and the Wansey Road shared path at the corner of High Street and Wansey Road. This investigation would be undertaken as part of the Pedestrian and Cyclist Network and Facilities Strategy, required by MCoA B33 and would be undertaken in consultation with Randwick City Council.

As described above, the design of proposal in relation to Project elements such as cycle infrastructure would be designed in accordance with the requirements of MCoA B19.

As identified in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, the proposed connection between Botany Street and the Wansey Road shared path is through the use of Arthur Street. The Stop Access and Design Plan (MCoA B27) for this location will include measures to deter cyclists using High street lanes or the light rail alignment if required.

3.1.7 Additionally, the Traffic Report identifies Botany Street as a key cycle route, but does not indicate any proposed connections between Botany Street and Wansey Road, nor where the shared path is to be constructed on Arthur Street.

3.1.8 UNSW requests that Transport for NSW and Randwick City Council develop a clear connection between Wansey Road and Botany Street so that cyclists do not use High Street lanes or the rail alignment, to access the campus or when intending to travel further west of the High Street stop.

3.1.10 Signalised intersections

UNSW supports the signalisation of intersections and pedestrian crossing locations surrounding the High Street stop, particularly across High Street itself.

Support for the signalising of intersections as part of the proposed modification is acknowledged.

3.1.11 There is no detail regarding the signal phasing of the proposed new intersections. The arrangement and length of each crossing is an important aspect in the maintenance of pedestrian safety, reliability and frequency of LRV service and potential impacts to traffic and bus operations along High Street.

It is also noted that there will be an increase in the average delay time at the Wansey Road/ High Street intersection. This again raises the concern of the reliability and on-time running of LRVs to and from the High Street stop.

Phasing of the traffic signals at each of the proposed new signalised intersections would be determined during the detailed design phase of the proposed modification. The signal phasing for each of the crossings would take into consideration all relevant aspects including maintaining pedestrian safety, reliability, frequency of LRV service and maximising efficiency of the wider traffic and bus operations network within Randwick.

Where there is an anticipated increase in the average delay at some intersections, the signal phasing of these intersections would be designed to minimise delay as much as possible as part of the development of the Network Management Plan (MCoA B26).

3.1.12 It was requested that details of the signal phasing and lengths be provided.

With respect to providing details of signal phasing, Transport for NSW would discuss the proposed signalling of the intersections between High Street and both Botany Street and Wansey Road and any other proposed signalised intersections with the relevant road authorities including Roads and Maritime Services and Randwick City Council.

3.1.13 The UNSW Gate 9 entrance vehicular crossing is not preferred by UNSW. UNSW are exploring the opportunity to restrict traffic/ vehicular access at this gate and potentially have an informal, non-signalised entry to the campus.

Final crossing and access to Gate 9 would be identified in the Local Access Plan.

Notwithstanding, to meet the operational and safety requirements of the approved Project, the intersection would need to be signalised as currently proposed.




3.1.14 Arthur Street/Botany Street

The Traffic Report identifies that traffic signals are to be proposed generally at the intersection of Arthur Street and Botany Street. However no detail is provided as to the arrangement or sequencing arrangement.

Refer to response Item 3.1.11 above.

3.2 Risk of noise, vibration, EMI and RFI impacts

3.2.1 Sensitive environments on the campus

The UNSW submission outlined a number of proposed and existing sites/buildings within the UNSW campus which are considered to be ‘sensitive receivers’. Additionally, it was noted that some other areas of the UNSW campus were considered to be sensitive during exam periods.

UNSW required that to ensure normal business continuation, careful consideration needs to be made to prevent construction impacts during exam periods etc. to preserve consistent amenity.

Management of noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction of the Project (including the proposed modification) would be managed through the development of a CNVIS (as required by MCoA B5) for the proposed works. As part of the preparation of the CNVIS, all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation strategies would be considered to minimise noise impacts on sensitive areas within the UNSW campus. Examples of potential measures which would be considered are provided in mitigation measure S.1 in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report.

UNSW would be informed of any expected impacts, and the timing and duration of any upcoming works. Consultation and liaison with UNSW would also be undertaken to schedule any particularly noisy work activities outside of sensitive times such as exam periods.

3.2.2 UNSW also noted that any disruption to published and timetabled bus services during construction will also affect students’ ability to arrive at the campus for classes and at exam locations.

Any anticipated disruptions to timetabled bus services during construction of the Project would be notified prior to impacts occurring to allow existing passengers sufficient notice to adjust their travel times to allow for potential delay.

3.2.3 Electromagnetic Interference and Radio Frequency Interference

Whilst the repositioning of the High Street Stop away from UNSW sensitive receivers to reduce the risk of EMI impact and address the requirements of SSI Approval Condition B18 are acknowledged, it is requested that the associated impacts of the modification need to be included in the Modification Report, so that the impacts can be fully understood and assessed by UNSW.

Pre-operational vibration and electro-magnetic field monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with MCoA B17. In addition, a VEMMP would be prepared in line with MCoA B18.

This plan and monitoring will be undertaken in consultation with UNSW.

3.2.4 UNSW reiterates the importance of SSI Approval Condition B17 and B18. These approval conditions require that pre-operation monitoring is to be undertaken prior to construction in consultation with UNSW. It is noted that these conditions have not yet been satisfied, not information been provided to UNSW. Critically, the Noise and Vibration Report submitted with the Modification does not make reference to or address these approval conditions.

MCoA B17 and B18 are currently being investigated in consultation with UNSW in this regard, including the ongoing preparation of the VEMMP.

Transport for NSW does not consider that the proposed modification changes the need or intent of MCoA B17 and B18 and would ensure that these are fulfilled in the delivery of the modified project.



3.2.5 Whilst UNSW agrees with the comments in

the Modification Report that the proposed modification will ‘potentially reduce conflict between the light rail and sensitive equipment utilised by the UNSW, in particular the Lowy Cancer Research Centre’, no further analysis of evidence has been carried out as part of the modification to support this assumption.

Additional information regarding analysis of potential EMI impacts as a result of the proposed modification was provided in section 5.10 of the High Street modification report.

The relocation of the stop to the north side of High Street was only one of the mitigation measures identified to reduce the impact on the UNSW sensitive receivers. The VEMMP will detail additional mitigation measures to be considered and implemented. This plan will also outline additional design solution(s) that will further mitigate the impacts of EMI beyond that of the increased distance of the stop.

Notwithstanding, where further information becomes available as part of the pre-operational vibration and electromagnetic field monitoring and preparation of a detailed VEMMP as required by MCoA B17 and B18 respectively, this would be considered as part of the detailed design of the UNSW High Street stop. UNSW would be consulted throughout this process.

3.2.6 Whilst the Lowy Building is stated in the reporting for the modification as being a sensitive use, the Wallace Wurth Building is also sensitive, and consideration should be given to sensitive equipment such as electron microscopes and/or animal research facilities in this building.

Consideration would be given to all sensitive receivers and facilities along the length of the proposed light rail alignment as part of the detailed design of the Project. Ongoing consultation with UNSW will assist in identifying sensitive receivers in line with MCoA B17. Facilities such as the Wallace Wurth Building would be considered as part of the pre-operational vibration and electromagnetic field monitoring (MCoA B17) and considered as part of the Vibration and Electro-Magnetic Management Plan (as required by MCoA B18).

3.4 High Street Traffic

3.4.1 As previously stated, UNSW supports the full closure (to vehicles) of east bound traffic on High Street between Wansey Road and Botany Street.

Support from UNSW for the closure of east bound traffic is acknowledged.

3.4.2 Traffix (submission appendix report) have indicated that the predicted westbound traffic volumes are similar to those in the eastbound direction and therefore, the proposed removal of the High Street westbound lane between Botany Street and Wansey Road is feasible and should be considered further.

UNSW requests that Transport for NSW model the closure of the westbound traffic lane on High Street to assess the potential impacts and look to pedestrianise this entire section of High Street.

Whilst it is acknowledged that UNSW’s long term master plan proposes the pedestrianisation of the section of High Street between Botany Street and Wansey Road, this is not proposed as part of the proposed modification or the approved Project. The final design of the UNSW High Street stop would not preclude the future expansion of the platforms (in line with MCoA B43).

Removal of the westbound traffic lane along this section of High Street is not considered necessary to construct and operate the CSELR Project.

3.4.3 Under the current proposal, UNSW recommends consideration be given to establishing a maximum speed limit of 30km/h for the westbound lane of traffic between Botany Street and Wansey Road to improve pedestrian safety.

As a part of the design process for the revised UNSW High Street stop arrangement, an independent road safety audit would be undertaken on the detailed design (as part of the Stop Access and Design Plans prepared in line with MCoA B27). Mitigation measures, such as speed limits, may be recommended as a part of this process.

Currently the speed limit along High Street between Botany Street and Wansey Road is 50 kilometres per hour. The road safety audit would verify if this speed is appropriate or if a lower limit should be recommended.




3.5 Utility impact

3.5.1 UNSW notes the proposed movement of the existing Ausgrid substation kiosk as part of the proposed modification. The new location of this substation may affect sensitive receivers or other sensitive uses/equipment in the area.

The Ausgrid substation should be relocated away from the UNSW campus perimeter on the other street frontages to minimise the risk to sensitive receivers, whilst still providing appropriate power supply to the proposal infrastructure.

The existing substation kiosk is not part of the power supply for the light rail Project. As described in section 5.9 of the High Street modification report, the relocation of the electricity kiosk (including the required approvals) would be undertaken by Ausgrid. The new position of the kiosk would be determined by Ausgrid in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

4.0 Impacts to UNSW

4.1 High Street stop design

4.1.1 The proposed split platform design indicated in the modification is a superior design solution to the currently approved central platform design and the new proposal should be adopted and enhanced further.

Support for the proposed modification is acknowledged.

4.1.2 Proposed platform capacities

UNSW have previously raised concerns around the safety implications of the approved central platform design. It is noted that the split platform design would increase the total platform width across both platforms.

It is requested that Transport for NSW appropriately confirm the platform capacities and set out of the proposed stop layout cross section prior to finalisation of the assessment.

The Stop Access and Design Plans required in line with MCoA B27 would include independent safety audits for all stops. These would include capacity and safety requirements for platform sizing to accommodate the maximum number of passengers (MCoA B27(b)).

4.1.3 UNSW Gate 9 Entrance

The UNSW Gate 9 entrance vehicular crossing is not preferred by UNSW. UNSW are exploring the opportunity to restrict traffic/vehicular access at this gate and potentially have an informal, non-signalised entry to the campus.

Refer to response in Item 3.1.13 above.

4.1.4 Footpath material selection

Paving materials on the High Street stop platform and around the High Street stop should be a high-quality pedestrian-grade granite paving to reflect the urban significance as a gateway location.

This should be consistent with the proposed paving to be used in the future upgrade of the UNSW campus to ensure consistency of materials.

Paving materials on the High Street stop platform would be outlined in the Stop Access and Design Plan as required by MCoA B27 and the Urban Design and Landscape Plan required by MCoA B51.

As part of the requirements of MCoA B27 and MCoA B51, Transport for NSW would consult with the Urban Domain Reference Group during the preparation of these plans.

As part of the Urban Domain Reference Group, UNSW would have the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed material selections to ensure consistency with future proposed upgrades.



4.1.5 Northern platform interface with existing

High Street properties

The private land between the northern High Street stop platform / footpath edge and the private properties immediately to the north should be fully considered and neatly integrated to create quality urban design outcomes, with appropriate levels for access, and falls for stormwater. Details of the final design interface in this area should be provided to UNSW and DP&E.

The interface between the proposed UNSW High Street stop platform(s) and the adjacent High Street properties would be considered as part of the detailed urban design for the stop. The detailed design, including preparation of a Stop Access and Design Plan (MCoA B27), would ensure that the stop provides a high quality urban design outcome for both the light rail project and adjacent properties.

Finalisation of the proposed urban design outcomes would also be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders such as UNSW through the Urban Domain Reference Group and preparation of the Urban Design Landscape Plan (MCoA B51).

4.1.6 Southern platform infrastructure design

The current modification indicates that only a single sided canopy with supporting posts will be provided. However, UNSW needs to ensure that full weather protection is adequately addressed. Any proposed canopy should cover the entire length of the platform.

As part of the approved Project, appropriate levels of weather and shade cover were proposed for each of the stops. The final extent of the canopy protection will be determined during detailed design; however, as indicated in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.7 of the High Street modification report, the proposed canopy is proposed to cover a majority of the southern platform for the UNSW High Street stop. Final requirements for the UNSW High Street stop would be determined as part of the preparation of the Stop Access and Design Plan for the UNSW High Street stop.

This is consistent with the overall urban design principles which have been established for each of the stops along the approved Project by the Urban Domain Reference Group for the Project and preparation of the Urban Design Landscape Plan (MCoA B51).

4.1.7 The safety rails that run beyond the platforms also need to be well integrated into the overall safety and stop design considerations to avoid retrofitting of safety elements post completion and delivering poor urban outcomes.

All stop infrastructure, such as seating, totems, and safety rails would be integrated as part of the overall urban design for the stops to ensure that they provide an integrated urban design outcome in line with the Stop Access and Design Plan for the UNSW High Street stop (MCoA B27).

4.1.8 The retention of trees, particularly along the southern side of High Street is considered to be of high priority and are not required to be removed in order to deliver the revised High Street stop design. It is considered important that these trees are retained.

The trees in front of the Lowy Cancer Centre were identified as being impacted by the approved Project. As part of the proposed modification, it is anticipated that these trees could still be potentially impacted.

Detailed design of the proposed modification would seek to minimise impacts to these trees. In accordance with MCoA B48, an arborist has been be engaged to assess the impacts of the Project on trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the construction zone. The arborist’s assessment would recommend measures to avoid the removal of, or minimise damage to, existing trees. The arborist would also determine whether the impacted trees can be transplanted within the vicinity of their current location.

Where these trees are not able to be retained, replacement would occur in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b). It is intended that any tree replacement would be undertaken in a similar location to the existing trees.




4.1.9 New bus stops

The existing UNSW bus stop currently located on the southern side of High Street will need to be relocated as part of the proposed High Street stop. The proposed location for this bus stop is on the southern side of High Street, adjacent to the Chancellery Building near Gate 8. The new stop will need to have shelters and appropriate lighting, on UNSW land. The final design must be submitted to UNSW for approval before the existing bus stop is removed or relocated.

The existing UNSW bus stop located on the southern side of High Street is proposed to be relocated as part of the approved Project. The proposed location for this bus stop is on the southern side of High Street, to the west of Wansey Road.

Detailed design of the new stop would ensure that it is designed to include appropriate shelters and lighting.

Transport for NSW is negotiating a Development Agreement with UNSW. Consultation requirements for work on UNSW land would be detailed within this Development Agreement.

4.1.10 Utility impact

UNSW notes that the existing Ausgrid substation kiosk located on High Street is required to be relocated. UNSW believes that the most appropriate location for this substation is well away from the UNSW campus on the other street frontages.


4.1.11 Preferred scheme is for a fully pedestrianised stop

The proposed split platform option is more conducive to the full pedestrianisation of High Street.

Traffix (submission appendix report) have indicated that the predicted westbound traffic volumes are similar to those in the eastbound direction and therefore, the proposed removal of the High Street westbound lane between Botany Street and Wansey Road is feasible and should be considered further by Transport for NSW.


4.1.12 Other UNSW properties

UNSW supports in principle the change in access to the affected High Street properties as a result of the modification, as well as the removal of any parking in front of our properties, however the design development of the new laneway and reinstatement of residual areas will be subject to UNSW consultation and approval.

Support for the proposed access lane from Arthur Street is acknowledged.

Ongoing consultation is proposed regarding the final design of the lane would be undertaken with key stakeholders, including UNSW.

4.1.13 Property access changes

The series of alternative access scenarios assessed were undertaken without full engagement of UNSW and the validity of the current proposal as shown is questioned. The proposal would benefit from further consideration of the following key principles:

confirmation of access and design vehicle assumptions – such as collection of garbage from road frontage, restriction of vehicle sizes

removal of vehicle access to 46 High Street

consider the functionality of the informal open space adjacent to the childcare.

As described in Chapter 4 of the High Street modification report, UNSW were consulted regarding the alternative access scenarios for the Arthur Street access lane as part of the development of these options.

With respect to the removal of vehicle access to 46 High Street, options were previously considered which included the demolition of this building. These were discounted as it was not considered necessary to achieve the approved (and modified) scope.

With respect to the open space adjacent to the childcare, this was considered as one of the key aspects for the revised access lane. Design development to maximise the available land for continued use by the childcare and the ongoing functionality of this land would be undertaken during detailed design in consultation with UNSW as the current landowner (refer to the proposed additional mitigation measure F.5 in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report).



4.1.14 Reinstatement

The Project will need to reinstate and remediate the affected areas to UNSW approval, particularly the information and formal open areas of the childcare centre, including:

replacing any structures

replacing any lost trees with mature trees

reinstating the garden areas

reinstating secure fencing.

As part of the detailed design of the Arthur Street access lane, Transport for NSW would work with UNSW to identify opportunities and available locations to reinstate and remediate the affected areas, particularly the following elements:

replacement of any structures impacted

replacement any lost trees with mature trees

reinstatement of the garden areas

reinstatement of any secure fencing removed.

Further details regarding the reinstatement of any impacts to this land is provided in section 5.9 of this submissions report.

4.1.5 Utilities and services

A full stormwater assessment and design will need to be undertaken for the proposed laneway which also suits future UNSW master planning and development proposals, including installation of provisional service conduits under the laneway to UNSW approval.

As part of the detailed design of the Arthur Street access lane, consideration of all required utilities and services associated with the Project would be undertaken, including the need for, and design of, any stormwater assets. This would be undertaken in accordance with MCoA B66 which requires the preparation of a Soil, Stormwater and Flooding management Plan for the Project and relevant design standards for stormwater management.

It is not currently proposed to provide any provisional services or service conduits under the laneway for future master planning of the precinct.

4.1.6 Construction hours

The approved construction hours for the Project correspond almost exactly with the operating hours of the childcare centre. UNSW requests that alternative construction hours be approved specifically for the proposed laneway works to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project.

The construction of the Arthur Street access lane would be completed during standard construction hours as identified in MCoA B2.

As required by MCoA’s B5 and B89, management of noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction of the Project (including the proposed Arthur Street access lane, if approved) would be managed through the development of a CNVIS and a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP). As part of the preparation of the CNVIS and CNVMP, all reasonable and feasible noise mitigation strategies would be considered to minimise noise impacts on sensitive areas, including the child care centre (MCoA B89(ii)).

4.1.7 Subdivision and title matters

It was requested that a draft plan of subdivision be prepared that fully reflects the proposal (and that on the lower campus at Anzac Parade).

As stated in section 3.2.3 of the High Street modification report, in seeking approval for the proposed modification, approval would be sought for a revised subdivision arrangement for the proposed lane. A detailed Deposited Plan of the subdivision layout would be prepared and lodged at Land and Property Information NSW for the subdivision of such land.

During preparation of the subdivision plan, and prior to lodgement with Land and Property Information NSW, Transport for NSW would consult with UNSW in order to identify the extent of land required to deliver the Project.




5.0 Issues remaining for UNSW (outside of the modifications report)

5.1 Student and staff access

5.1.1 In order to continue operations, sufficient access points and capacity for each of these modes (private vehicles, buses, walking and cycling) need to be managed and maintained throughout construction. Any changes to arrangements need to be coordinated and communicated well in advance to avoid confusion and disruption to UNSW business and operations.

As identified as part of the approved Project, in accordance with MCoA B89(c), a Construction Traffic Transport and Access Management Plan (CTTAMP) would be prepared by ALTRAC Light Rail which would address the access requirements for businesses and properties along the Project alignment.

The CTTAMP would assess the potential traffic and transport impacts during construction of the CSELR and outline management and mitigation measures to reduce any potential adverse impacts. The CTTAMP would also include measures to maintain property access along the overall alignment, including at UNSW.

Any anticipated disruptions to the existing traffic network, (such as anticipated road diversions, bus services changes etc.) during construction of the Project would be made available to all key stakeholders and the wider community prior to impacts occurring. This would allow existing passengers sufficient notice for commuters to adjust their travel times to allow for any potential delays. Methods for communication of any changes would be outlined in the CTTAMP in accordance with MCoA B89(c)(iv) and MCoA B89(c)(xvi).

5.2 Operations and delivery

5.2.1 Daily campus delivery requirements and campus specific construction traffic must be considered and managed during construction and delivery phases of the Project (including catering for oversized deliveries to the UNSW).

As stated in response Item 5.1.1 above, as part of the approved Project a CTTAMP would be prepared which would address the access requirements (in line with MCoA B89(c)). In addition, the preparation of a Local Access Plan (MCoA B24) would establish the means of maintaining access points for heavy vehicles to the UNSW campus for deliveries. Where works would impact on existing arrangements, the CTTAMP and Local Access Plan would identify suitable temporary access arrangements. The temporary access arrangements would be determined through ongoing consultation with UNSW.

5.3 UNSW Construction Program

5.3.1 UNSW is currently undertaking two major construction projects. To assist in resolving routing and construction access impacts, UNSW seeks to work proactively with Transport for NSW to formulate a construction program that is mutually acceptable to both parties.

Transport for NSW, in conjunction with ALTRAC Light Rail would work proactively with UNSW to identify appropriate interfaces between the construction of the Project and any construction project(s) being undertaken by UNSW. This would be undertaken as part of the requirements of the overall CEMP for the Project (MCoA B89) and existing mitigation measure W.3 (refer to Chapter 6) which identifies that the CEMP would account for cumulative impacts of construction given concurrent works along the alignment.



5.4 Frequency of services

5.4.1 UNSW continues to be concerned with the service frequency (and capacity of the LRVs) on the stop operation, capacity and safety which have not been adequately addressed. UNSW’s estimated patronage is anticipated by UNSW to be much high than Transport for NSW’s predictions.

UNSW is concerned that although additional services may be provided to cater for the additional growth in patronage over time, the size of the stops have not been designed to cater for this expected growth.

The proposed services frequency for the approved Project is outside the scope of the current modification. The change in peak hour services frequency was approved by the Minister for Planning in February 2015 following the assessment of the proposed change in December 2014 (Transport for NSW, 2014).

The impacts of the revised frequencies were considered as part of the previous modification (Transport for NSW, 2014) and identified that the proposed changes would result in an overall beneficial outcome for the Project. Additionally, as stated as part of the previous modification, there would be provision for future capacity for the service frequency to increase (to 6 minutes on the branch lines) which would be available in response to increases in patronage demand, where necessary.

Additionally, it should be noted that the capacity of the light rail system will be higher than that of the existing buses and would be more capable of meeting future demand. One light rail vehicle with a capacity of 466 people would provide approximately 7 times greater capacity thank a standard bus.

With respect to the size of the stops catering for any expected growth, the previous modification (Transport for NSW, 2014) included increasing the size of the previously approved platforms from 45 metres to 67 metres to take into account potential increases in patronage and services frequencies.

5.4.2 The approved change in LRV capacity (from 300 to 466) and change in peak hour services frequency (from 10 vehicles to less than 8 at opening) will significantly affect the patronage of the UNSW stops at High Street and Anzac Parade. Further consideration of the impacts of this on the operation of the two stops is required.

4.3 Office of Environment and Heritage

The OEH (Heritage Branch) provided a submission regarding the proposed modification, dated 4

December 2015. A summary of the OEH (Heritage Branch) submission and Transport for NSW’s

responses is provided in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 Response to Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Branch) submission


1.0 Heritage impacts

1.1 The OEH (Heritage Branch) have reviewed the documentation provided and find that the existing conditions adequately address state heritage concerns.

Comment acknowledged.

1.2 Regarding the demolition of locally significant Wansey Cottage, Randwick City Council should be consulted it being the consent authority for works to items listed on the Local Environmental Plan.

Transport for NSW would consult with Randwick City Council regarding the demolition of Wansey Cottage in line with the requirements of the Construction Heritage Management Plan (MCoA B89(e)) which will be prepared in consultation with the Heritage Council of NSW, OEH and Randwick City Council.

1.3 If demolition of Wansey Cottage is considered to be unavoidable, it is recommended that conditions of consent be imposed to give effect to the mitigation measures proposed in “Wansey Cottage Heritage Report” prepared by GML Heritage.

The mitigation measures recommended in the Wansey Cottage Heritage Report prepared by GML Heritage have been incorporated into the revised mitigation measures associated with the proposed modification (mitigation measures D.19 and D.20).



4.4 Department of Primary Industries

The Department of Primary Industries provided a submission regarding the proposed

modification, dated 11 December 2015. A summary of the Department of Primary Industries

submission and Transport for NSW’s responses is provided in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Response to Department of Primary Industries submission


1.0 Groundwater impacts

1.1 Details are not provided on the depth of the proposed underground connection, nor does the Modification Report indicate if groundwater is likely to be intercepted, or if dewatering is likely to be required.

Details regarding the depth of the proposed underground connection between the High Cross substation and the Randwick terminus stop would be determined during detailed design. Additionally, further investigation of the potential for the proposed modification to impact groundwater would be investigated during detailed design.

Any works with the potential to intersect groundwater, would be managed in accordance with the requirements of existing MCoA B67 and B68 which would include the consideration of any further monitoring or dewatering requirements.

1.2 It is recommended monitoring piezometers are established in advance. Dewatering will require management, and relevant management plans for the project should be revised to accommodate this modification.


5. Response to community and stakeholder submissions This chapter details the issues raised in community submissions received during the public

exhibition of the High Street Modification Report and Transport for NSW’s response to these

issues. The order of the issues in this chapter is generally designed to reflect the order of the

modification report (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.

5.1 Planning and approvals

5.1.1 Errors and omissions

Summary of issues raised

Two submissions identified potential errors in the High Street modification report. These included:

Kenvale College was not present at the meeting with Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare

the main report quotes loss of 32 parking spots on Arthur Street while Appendix B states at

least 52.

Submission number(s)

13, 109

Response

With respect to the submissions received, it is acknowledged that Kenvale College was not

present at the meeting with Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the

Modification Report.

It is also acknowledged that there was an inconsistency between the main body of the High

Street modification report and the Traffic, Transport and Access Impact Assessment

(GTA Consultants, 2015) (Appendix B) in the number of parking spaces potentially impacted by

the proposed modification. This was an error in the Transport and Access Impact Assessment.

The anticipated net loss of parking along Arthur Street as a result of the proposed modification

was correctly presented in Table 5.3 of the High Street modification report. This stated that as a

result of the proposed modification, approximately 32 additional parking spaces would be

potentially lost.

With respect to any additional inconsistencies identified between the High Street modification

report and the associated technical papers, the High Street modification report should be

considered to be the more accurate description of the proposed modification.



5.1.2 Impact assessment process


Concern was raised in five submissions that the assessment of the proposed modification did not

adequately take into account all environmental issues associated with the construction and

operation of the modification. Specifically, it was stated that the assessment did not take into

account potential noise, dust and vibration impacts on human health (including consideration of

children at the child care centre who may have specific health conditions), or potential impacts to

flora, fauna, Aboriginal heritage, traffic and transport and access.

One submission also stated that there was very little detail provided in the High Street

modification report and that the claimed benefits of relocation of the Randwick terminus were

overstated with respect to elements such as improving accessibility to the Randwick shopping

centre along Avoca Street and to the Prince of Wales and Children Hospitals.


13, 24, 26, 28, 109

Response

The High Street modification report was completed in accordance with all relevant environmental

and planning legislation and other relevant procedures and guidelines required by government

agencies, in particular the requirements set out under Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act.

Throughout the development of the proposed modification and associated documentation, the

potential impact of the modification on all potential impacted receivers was considered. This

included consideration of a range of environmental and social impacts which were anticipated to

be impacted by the proposed modification. These issues were considered throughout Chapter 5

of the High Street modification report and included the following impacts:

traffic and transport

visual and landscape character

planted trees

property and land use

noise and vibration

Aboriginal and non-Indigenous heritage

socio-economic

EMI

utilities

hazards and risks.

Other issues as described in section 5.1 of the High Street modification report, such as air quality,

and biodiversity were considered to be consistent with the impacts identified as part of the

approved Project and as such would be able to be suitably managed in accordance with the

MCoA’s for Project. Supporting technical specialist reports were also prepared for key impact

issues including traffic and transport, noise and vibration and heritage. These supporting reports

were included as appendices to the modification report.

The revised location of the Randwick terminus was identified in response to concerns raised by

key stakeholders (including Randwick City Council and Prince of Wales Hospital) informed by

further assessment and investigation of customer movements within the vicinity of the Randwick

terminus stop. Providing the Randwick terminus to the eastern end of High Street would locate it

closer to the Randwick shopping centre along Avoca Street and to the Prince of Wales and

Children Hospitals along High Street.


This location would also require less movement by customers across Avoca Street to access

these facilities, and would substantially reduce land use and visual impacts on High Cross Park.

It is considered that the stated benefits of the proposed modification are sufficient to justify the

proposed modification. Overall, the revised location would provide a more balanced solution for

interchanging and destination customers.

5.2 Consultation

5.2.1 Adequacy of consultation


A series of submissions stated that they felt there had been a lack of consultation given the

significant changes proposed to the UNSW stop. Some submissions stated that they had not

been consulted (such as not receiving newsletters) regarding the proposed changes, or that they

had been informed late in the process and felt that they should have been consulted earlier in the

process. Concern was also raised regarding the adequacy of the consultation period as the

exhibition period for submissions was two weeks.

One submission also stated that the Infrastructure Approval SSI-6042 indicates that residential

receivers would be consulted and this has not occurred with us (B13, B15).

One submission also stated disappointment that Randwick City Council did not contact the

residents who are directly impacted by the proposed change.


5, 13, 24, 26, 109

Response

As identified in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the High Street modification report, a range of

consultation was undertaken prior to, during preparation of and during exhibition of the proposed

modification. This included meetings with key stakeholders and project partners, letterbox drops

and door knocking at immediately affected properties and display of the modification report for

review and comment by the community and other stakeholders.

With respect to the submissions noting that they had not been received newsletters or other

information prior to the exhibition period, distribution of the newsletter was provided by

Transport for NSW to all available mailboxes within the identified area. Information included in the

letterboxed materials was also placed in newspaper advertisements and online.

DP&E is responsible for determining the EIS exhibition period. The EP&A Regulations identifies

the required exhibition timeframes for the Modification Report. Under clause 241 of the EP&A

Regulations, modifications are to be available for inspection for a period of at least 14 days.

The High Street modification report was on exhibition from 25 November to 11 December 2015,

meeting the required exhibition timeframe. All submissions received up until the end of December

2015 were however considered as part of this submissions report.



With respect to the submission which stated that the Infrastructure Approval indicates that

residential receivers would be consulted and this had not occurred, these conditions of approval

do not directly apply to the proposed modification. MCoA B13 relates to the provision of any noise

mitigation required for the Randwick Stabling Facility to mitigate operational noise should be

implemented prior to construction to reduce construction noise impact. Additionally, MCoA B15

relates to the identification of vibration-sensitive receivers along the Project alignment. This

process is currently ongoing. Where identified receivers along the alignment are identified to be

impacted, Transport for NSW would consult with these properties prior to construction.

Notwithstanding, ongoing consultation with the wider community is proposed to continue to occur

throughout the detailed design and construction of the approved Project in accordance with

MCoA’s B90 to B93.

With respect to the submission noting that Randwick City Council had not contacted residents

regarding the proposed modification, notification of the proposed changes was managed by

Transport for NSW and DP&E through the activities described in Chapter 4 of the modification

report.

5.2.2 Ongoing consultation


A number of submissions requested that the Tigger’s Honeypot Parent committee be considered

a major stakeholder and consulted at the concept and detail design and at the construction

stages of the Project. It was requested that a one month notice be provided to the Director of

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare Centre and the Tigger’s Honeypot Parent Committee before either

construction of the access road or the relocation and upgrading of the current garden assets start.

One submission also requested to be closely consulted during the construction phase in order to

minimise the impact on their business.

Additionally, one submission expressed concern about the lack of information that has been

made available to members of the public, noting that many elderly people do not have access to

the internet which is where most of the information is currently made available.


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53,

56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,

87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

Transport for NSW is committed to community and stakeholder engagement beyond the planning

phase and through detailed design, construction and commission of the approved Project and the

proposed modification. In line with MCoA B90, Transport for NSW has prepared a Community

Communication Strategy for the Project which includes requirements for the regular

dissemination of information to the community and relevant stakeholders. This plan also includes

the identification of mechanisms for through which the community and stakeholders can discuss

or provide feedback in relation to the environmental management and delivery of the Project.


Consistent with the approach for all tenants in UNSW-owned properties, all consultation with

respect to the potential impacts associated with the proposed Arthur Street access lane will be

co-ordinated through UNSW. In line with the current approach, all consultation with the Tigger’s

Honeypot Childcare will be co-ordinated through UNSW representative(s) as land owner of the

site. Transport for NSW would continue to develop the design of the access lane through close

consultation with UNSW. This is identified as a proposed additional mitigation measure for the

proposed modification (refer to mitigation measure F.4 in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report).

With respect to the submission expressed concern about the lack of information that has been

made available to members of the public, Transport for NSW has provided, and will continue to

provide, information regarding the project in line with the Community Communications Strategy

developed for the Project (MCoA B90). This includes ongoing provision of information via a range

of media (including face-to-face, written and digital) such as:

door knocking (as required for affected stakeholders)

regular letter box drops and community newsletter updates

regular community and business forums

maintenance of a community enquiries telephone number (1800 775 465)

updates to the project website.

5.3 Proposal design

5.3.1 Arthur Street access lane


Three submissions raised an expectation that the design of the proposed Arthur Street access

lane ensure that two trucks can drive on this lane simultaneously. The submissions stated that

whilst the affected properties (Creston and Kenvale Colleges) currently have one lane access,

they noted that they have a parking bay and can control entry and access of vehicles. Concern

was raised that loss of the parking bay and the provision of the revised access would result in

loss of this control and therefore two way traffic would be required.


5, 23, 28

Response

The design of the proposed Arthur Street access lane would ensure that two trucks could utilise

the lane simultaneously. With the exception of the common section of the proposed Arthur Street

access lane, the existing parking area to the north of the Creston and Kenvale Colleges buildings

would be maintained for use by these facilities to allow for the control of entry and access of

vehicles (through use of the gated access from the existing laneway).



5.3.2 Constructability


Concern was raised that the proposed modification did not consider the level difference between

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare and the adjoining properties as part of the design of the Arthur

Street access lane.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,

93 ,105, 106, 107, 108

Response

The level difference between Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare and the adjoining properties was

considered as part of the design of the Arthur Street access lane. As a result of the identified

levels differences, the need for a retaining wall adjacent to the childcare centre was identified as

part of the access lane, as shown on Figure 3.8 of the High Street modification report.

Further consideration of the ground level differences between the proposed access lane and the

adjacent properties would be undertaken during detailed design, including accurate surveying of

all affected parcels of land.

5.3.3 High Cross Park substation


One submission stated disappointment that the proposed modification would still result in long

term impacts to High Cross Park due to the retention of the substation at this location.


16

Response

The proposed retention of the substation underground within High Cross Park is consistent with

the requirements outlined in MCoA B27(f)(ii) for the approved Project which states that

consideration be given to the undergrounding of substations where this is reasonable and

feasible. Whilst it is acknowledged that the construction of the substation in this location would

result in some temporary impacts to the park during construction, following construction the site

would be rehabilitated and the park reinstated, minimising any long term impacts.

5.3.4 Patronage


Concern was raised in one submission that no calculations were provided regarding the number

of people that the revised platform design for the UNSW High Street stop and whether it is able to

accommodate the required number of passengers before it results in congestion to the northern

footpath. The submission stated that any overflow of passengers onto the footpath would block

the entrance to the college premises and affect their access.



13

Response

As identified in section 3.2.2 of the High Street modification report, the northern platform for the

UNSW High Street stop would be integrated as part of the existing pedestrian footpath with a

combined width of approximately 4.5 metres. The revised platform design would have the

capacity to accommodate the anticipated number of passengers without resulting in substantial

congestion. It is anticipated that the alighting passengers would not congregate at this location

and would instead travel to their intended destinations, limiting the potential for ongoing

congestion to occur at this location.

As the anticipated patronage for the stop has not changed from that identified for the approved

Project no additional calculations were undertaken as part of the proposed modification. As the

proposed modification would provide increased capacity for the stop (through a larger overall

platform footprint), it is considered that the revised platform arrangement would provide sufficient

capacity to meet the anticipated passenger demand for the stop.

It is considered that the movement of alighting passengers from the light rail stop to their intended

destination (such as UNSW) would not substantially impede access to the college premises.

5.3.5 Proposal description


Concern was raised in one submission that the description of the proposed modification has not

been provided in sufficient detail. In particular, concern was raised that the descriptions of critical

project elements such as land dimensions and distances for the Arthur Lane access, and platform

widths for the UNSW High Street stop were inadequate and stated only ‘approximate’ distances.


13

Response

The level of assessment and description of the proposal is considered to be appropriate given the

level of design and the purpose of the report. The report was prepared to provide information to

DP&E, the community and other stakeholders regarding the proposed changes to the design of

the approved Project and to allow the Minister for Planning to make a decision on the approval of

the proposed modification and any conditions required. Should the proposed modification be

approved, further design development of the proposed modification in consultation with key

stakeholders would provide greater detail regarding the overall design of specific project

elements.

As identified in the MCoA’s for the Project, a number of plans are being prepared for the Project

to provide additional details regarding the Project. These include plans such as Local Access

Plans (MCoA B24); Stop Design and Access Plan(s) (MCoA B27), and an Urban Design and

Landscape Plan (MCoA B51). Each of these plans will address the design of specific project

elements (including proposed elements such as the Arthur Lane access, subject to approval).

These plans will be prepared in consultation with relevant affected parties and stakeholders

during detailed design.



5.3.6 Proximity to sensitive receivers


Concern was identified in a number of submissions that the modification is too close to the

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare building, in particular the babies’ room of the facility (6 weeks to 18

months) which is the closest point to the proposed works.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

In accordance with MCoA B89 (b)(ii), specific liaison and consultation would be undertaken with

UNSW as the land owner and operator of the childcare centre (refer to discussion in section

5.2.2. above), including consideration of the child care centre as a sensitive receiver. Children at

the childcare centre would likely be most impacted by the anticipated construction noise and

vibration during daytime rest periods.

Consultation with UNSW during detailed design of the access lane would be undertaken to more

fully understand the most noise sensitive parts of the child care centre and the potentially noise

sensitive time periods. This would be used in order to plan the construction works so that the

expected highest noise and vibration intensive works can be carried out outside of times where

sensitive receivers are utilising the facility, wherever possible. Where this is not possible,

mitigation measures (such as the use of noise blankets) would be identified and the childcare

centre operator would be notified of ongoing activities so that additional precautionary actions can

be taken to minimise potential impacts.

5.3.7 Laneway road standard


It was stated in a number of submissions that the proposed access road, currently identified to be

designed to a local road standard, should be downgraded to a driveway. It was stated that this

would reduce the space and design criteria for the proposed access needs for residential

properties 42 and 44 High Street.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

Through agreement with Randwick City Council (as the relevant managing authority for the new

access lane following construction), the Arthur Street access lane is proposed to operate as a

formal public road and not as a private driveway. As such, the lane would be designed and

constructed in accordance with relevant design criteria and standards to meet the proposed

function of this road.


5.3.8 UNSW stop


General objection to the modification of the UNSW High Street stop was provided in five

submissions. Objection was raised to the following specific elements of the modification:

reconfiguration of the stop design from one island platform to two separate platforms

movement of the stop to the northern side of High Street instead of the south side.

It was stated in the submissions that one of the main reasons for the proposed reconfiguration of

the platform was the significant volume of people using this stop and that a southern alignment

alternative for the UNSW High Street stop would provide greater safety for this increased number

of passengers going to and from UNSW.

One submission also stated that Transport for NSW consider moving the two proposed platforms

for the UNSW High Street stop approximately 40 meters to the east so the platforms were not in

front of their property.


5, 13, 23, 42, 104

Response

Whilst the proposed modification to the UNSW High Street stop would result in some

reconfiguration to the arrangement of the platforms, the overall location and function of the stop

would be consistent with the approved Project.

With respect to the proposed configuration of the platforms and concern regarding capacity of the

revised northern platform, the reconfiguration of the approved island platform to two separate side

platforms would provide an overall increased capacity (providing a combined platform/footpath

width of 10.5 metres in comparison to the approved central island platform which provides a total

platform width of approximately 6.4 metres). The increased overall area available for passengers

to board and alight is considered to provide a superior safety outcome, in particular for alighting

passengers arriving at UNSW (eastbound). This would allow passengers to directly alight onto

the footpath without the need to wait on the platform prior to crossing High Street.

With respect to the objection to the proposed location of the platforms to the northern side of

High Street, one of the objectives for the proposed modification to the UNSW High Street stop

was to minimise the potential impact of EMI from the approved Project on sensitive receivers,

such as the Lowy Cancer Centre, in accordance with MCoA B17 and B18. Therefore, in order to

minimise the potential EMI impacts of the Project on UNSW, only options which allowed for an

increase in separation between the identified sensitive receivers and the Project were considered

suitable to meet this objective. Options which provided for a southern platform alignment were

considered with respect to alternative designs for traffic arrangements (i.e. High Street lane

configurations); however as these options did not meet the objectives regarding reducing EMI

impacts they were not considered to be preferred options.

With respect to the request to consider moving the stop to the east, it is considered that there is

insufficient space to move the stop to the east without impacting on the operational and safety

requirements of the Botany Street/High Street intersection. Additionally, movement of the stop

would increase the distance between the stop and the main entrance to UNSW at this location.



5.4 Alternatives

5.4.1 Arthur Street access lane


A number of submissions described a design for an alternative access lane which was requested

to be considered by Transport for NSW. The alternative design proposed that the lane be moved

as far as possible to the west leaving as much of the existing garden space associated with the

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare centre unaffected. As part of the alternative design, it was identified

that that the existing building at 26 Botany Street should be demolished to maintain access for

46 High Street and that the remaining space on the land be used as UNSW parking facility.

It was request that the revised design be assessed and that new options be developed, with the

aim of preserving the current use of the land, namely as an active and integral part of a day care

centre for a large number of children.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59,

60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,

91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

The alternative design provided in the community submissions has been considered by Transport

for NSW. Whilst the alternative design presented would reduce overall impacts to the Tigger’s

Honeypot Childcare, it would not meet all of the objectives or identified site constraints required to

provide the revised access.

Specifically, the following elements of the alternative design are not considered to meet the

desired outcomes for the proposed Arthur Street access lane:

The driveway access would not provide adequate ability for larger vehicles (such as

garbage trucks, removalist vehicles, delivery vehicles) to enter and leave the site in a

forward direction.

As identified in Appendix A of the High Street modification report, an alternative design

which considered use of providing access from Botany Street was considered, however this

option was discounted as it was not considered suitable to demolish an existing building in

order to provide access to 46 High Street. The retention of existing access to residential or

commercial buildings was a key criteria of the design for the revised access lane.

Additionally, this option would not provide vehicular or parking access to the underground

parking area associated with 46 High Street.

A key design principle of the proposed Arthur Street access land was to not impact on

private property outside of land currently owned by UNSW. The alternative access design

proposed would impact on the rear of two parcels of private property, being 42 and 44 High

Street.

The proposal to utilise the private land between 42 and 44 High Street as public access for

shared pedestrian use is not considered to be appropriate.


One of the principles for the approved Project and proposed modification is to limit the

provision of parking along laneways. The intent of this design principle is to discourage the

use of these parking spaces for general commuters and to remove the potential for storage

of equipment such as trailers etc. and to maintain traffic flows along access lanes.

As a consequence, it is considered that the design would not present a suitable alternative.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with UNSW as the land owner of the impacted site

(refer to discussion in section 5.2.2. above) regarding the detailed design of the access lane.

The design of the access lane would ensure that all existing facilities, such as existing play

structure(s), gardens and vegetation are replaced in order to meet the ongoing needs of the

childcare centre (refer to proposed additional mitigation measures F.4 and F.5 as described in

Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report). Further discussion of the replacement of the existing

facilities currently utilised by the childcare centre is provided in section 5.9.2 of this Submissions

Report.

5.4.2 Bus stop locations – Clara Street


One submission objected to the proposed relocation of two bus stops from High Street to

Clara Street noting that alternative locations for these stops should be identified.


24

Response

As stated in section 3.2.5 of the High Street modifications report, the existing westbound bus stop

outside the Prince of Wales Hospital would be removed as part of the modified design due to the

removal of the westbound lane along High Street.

In order to maintain a westbound bus stop which provides appropriate access to local facilities

such as the Prince of Wales Hospital and the Children’s Hospital and maintaining adequate

spacing between adjacent bus stops along the bus route, limited alternative locations were

identified for the proposed stop other than Clara Street.

5.4.3 High Cross park substation location


A series of submissions requested that the proposed substation in High Cross Park be relocated

to an alternative location as part of the proposed modification in order to further minimise impacts

to High Cross Park. It was suggested that the substation be located under the revised Randwick

terminus stop in High Street.


9, 11, 14, 17, 21



Response

Siting of the substations for the approved Project, including the High Cross Park substation, was

undertaken based on consideration of a range of requirements such as proximity to the

alignment, ease of access to power supplies, locations within open space and accessibility for

maintenance purposes. Based on these criteria, the current location of the High Cross Park

substation was identified as the preferred location as part of the approved Project.

The placement of the substation underground within High Cross Park as part of the proposed

modification is consistent with the requirement outlined in MCoA B27(f)(ii) which requires that

consideration be given to the undergrounding of substations where this is reasonable and

feasible. Whilst is it noted that this would still result in some impacts to the park during

construction, during detailed design, further consideration would be given to avoid any trees and

other areas of the park as identified in proposed additional mitigation measure D.18 (refer to

Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report).

With respect to the placement of the substation under the revised Randwick terminus stop in

High Street, given the ongoing requirements for access, and potential replacement (should this

be required in the future), the placement under the revised Randwick terminus stop is not

considered feasible.

5.4.4 High Street terminus


Two submissions objected to the proposed relocation of the stop out of High Cross Park to the

eastern end of High Street. One submission stated that the stop should be moved to Coogee Bay

Road whilst the other submission stated preference for the currently approved location of the

Randwick terminus within High Cross Park.


58, 109

Response

As part of the proposed modification, an options assessment was undertaken to consider various

options for the location of the Randwick terminus stop, including retention of the stop in High

Cross Park and relocation of the stop to the eastern end of High Street.

The relocation of the stop to High Street was identified as the preferred option for a number of

reasons including:

reduced impacts to High Cross Park

enhanced ability to incorporate the design with the public domain

improved access to the hospital precinct and Randwick town centre

improved traffic safety for eastbound traffic

reduced impact on the Belmore Road and Avoca Street intersection.


Relocation of the terminus stop to Coogee Bay Road is not considered to provide the same

benefits as the proposed location for the Randwick terminus stop, such as accessibility to the

existing shops within the Randwick town centre, medical facilities (including the Prince of Wales

and Children’s hospitals) and bus interchange options.

5.5 Need and justification

5.5.1 Cost


One submission raised concern regarding the additional costs associated with the proposed

modification.


109

Response

There is no foreseen reason why the proposed modification would result in any additional cost to

the approved funding available for the Project.

5.5.2 UNSW stop


Concern regarding the adequacy of the justification to modify the arrangement of the UNSW High

Street stop was raised in two submissions. It was stated in one of the submissions that there was

no evidence to support the justification that the proposed modification to the UNSW stop would

improve the safety for customers during peak periods.


5, 13

Response

One of the aims of the proposed modification was to identify potential opportunities to improve the

design of the approved Project with respect to safety, capacity and operation of the UNSW High

Street stop. The revised design would allow all arriving passengers (travelling eastbound) to

alight onto a widened footpath/platform zone without the need to wait between traffic lanes and

light rail tracks on a centre island platform prior to crossing to their intended destination.

This would provide an increase amount of passenger storage capacity than the approved Project.

The increased area available for passengers is considered to provide a superior outcome to the

approved Project.

The proposed modification would also result in benefits including:

reduced impact to the main UNSW campus to the south of High Street

improved compatibility with the overall UNSW campus masterplan for the precinct

reduced conflict between the light rail and sensitive equipment utilised by the UNSW, in

particular the Lowy Cancer Research Centre.



5.6 Traffic, transport and access

5.6.1 Access for services (garbage, deliveries)


Concern regarding the collection of garbage for Creston and Kenvale Colleges was identified in

five submissions. Specifically, concern was raised as to whether garbage and other waste service

vehicles would access the Arthur Street lane to collect the rubbish of 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 High

Street or whether it would be required to have a designated spot on Arthur Street. It was stated

that some services (such as grease trap servicing for the colleges) require direct access to

collection points within the college property.

Concern was also raised by the colleges that due to revised property access arrangements, there

would be difficulties associated with deliveries to the colleges (due to use of the access lane by

residents of the adjoining properties) as well as security issues associated with this.


5, 13, 19, 20, 28

Response

The design of the access lane has considered all vehicles which may be required to access the

affected properties. Randwick City Council has confirmed that garbage trucks will need to access

the new lane to collect garbage. Adequate access for other similar vehicles (such as removalist

trucks and delivery vehicles) is also required to be maintained for the affected properties.

Transport for NSW would continue to consult with Kenvale College regarding potential alternative

arrangements for grease trap servicing. It is anticipated that ongoing access to the grease trap

collection point could be maintained through allowance for collection to take place from High

Street (on the light rail track alignment) outside of the operational hours of the Project.

With respect to the concern that the revised property access arrangements would result in

difficulties and security issues for the colleges, the detailed design of the access lane would

ensure the lane complies with the principles of CPTED and is designed such that it is not

perceived for use as a public thoroughfare through use of security gates and fencing. This would

be considered as part of the development of a Local Access Plan in line with the requirements of

MCoA B24. Access between the colleges and adjacent private properties would therefore be

minimised as part of the operation of the laneway. Additionally, the existing separated gate

access from the revised access lane (utilising the existing gate) would be maintained to allow for

separated access to the college sites. This plan would be prepared in consultation with affected

parties, including Kenvale and Creston colleges.

With respect to the concern that due to revised property access arrangements, there would be

difficulties associated with deliveries to the college sites, the new Arthur Street access lane would

be approximately six metres wide (subject to detailed design) which would allow for two trucks to

pass side by side along the access lane.


5.6.2 Access to Children’s Hospital


One submission objected to the proposed changes to the Children's Hospital identified as part of

the modification. It was noted that the entrance to the Children's Hospital is required from both

directions along High Street rather than the proposal to limit High Street to one direction for the

eastern-most section.


95

Response

As stated in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, the existing emergency vehicle

area of the Sydney Children’s Hospital on High Street would continue to be accessible from

various directions, as per the approved Project. Whilst the closure of the eastbound traffic lane on

High Street between Wansey Road and Botany Street may potentially restrict some movement of

general traffic in this area, emergency vehicles would continue to be allowed to use the light rail

corridor (when no LRVs are stopped at the Randwick terminus stop). Where LRVs are occupying

the light rail tracks, emergency vehicles would be required to use Arthur Street and Clara Street

in order to access the hospital.

In order to minimise the risk of emergency vehicles being held up by LRVs, alternate access

routes which avoid the affected traffic lanes would be identified (such as the use of Arthur Street

and Clara Street) and communicated to emergency service operators.

5.6.3 Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges


Concern regarding the loss of street access for the colleges on High Street was raised in a

number of submissions as it was considered that this would confuse suppliers, couriers, and

other visitors, and their ability to find the college campuses. The submissions also objected to the

need for educational institutions to share road access with private property owners or rental

tenants.

Additionally, a number of submissions requested the proposed Arthur Street access lane not

connect to 36 to 38 High Street (Kenvale College) on existing childcare centre land, but that it

provide access via the current access driveway to Tigger’s Honeypot community garden (existing

car park to the rear of the childcare centre).


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54,

56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,

88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108



Response

The proposed Arthur Street access lane would allow for the maintenance of access to Kenvale

and Creston colleges during the operation of the Project for all existing suppliers, couriers, and

other visitors. Transport for NSW would liaise with Kenvale and Creston colleges during detailed

design to ensure that appropriate wayfinding is provided to ensure that access to the colleges is

readily identifiable from Arthur Street during construction and operation. This would be

considered in the development of a Local Access Plan in line with the requirements of MCoA

B24. The Local Access Plan would be prepared in consultation with affected parties which would

include Kenvale and Creston colleges.

With respect to the objection regarding the need for educational institutions to share road access

with private property owners, the purpose of the access lane is for use as a public laneway and is

not intended to provide private access to individual properties. As part of the proposed

modification, access to Creston and Kenvale Colleges would continue to be restricted through

use of a new gate to the car park at the rear of the Creston and Kenvale colleges. The only

section of common use would be the public lane between Arthur Street and the new gate.

With respect to the submissions that noted concern regarding providing access to 36 to 38 High

Street via land currently used by the childcare, the proposed design as described in the High

Street modification report is intended to reinstate access to these properties.

5.6.4 Bus operations


One submission questioned whether Clara Street, between High Street and Blenheim Street, is

long enough for a bus bay to accommodate two buses.


24

Response

The proposed bus stop located on Clara Street, between High Street and Blenheim Street, has

been designed to relevant standards and is considered to be sufficient to allow for a bus bay at

this location.

5.6.5 Impacts to cyclists


Three submissions raised concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed modification on

cyclists and existing and proposed cycling routes. Of particular concern was the proposed

removal of cyclist access at the eastern end of High Street would force cyclists to use Belmore

Road and Avoca Street. It was requested that cyclists be allowed to continue to use the full length

of High Street as an access route between Avoca Street and UNSW.

Concern was also raised that the proposed modification would undermine the proposed use of

Arthur Street as the cycle route in this area due to the increased traffic along this roadway.

Two submissions also noted that a proper bicycle path should be provided along and integrated

into the overall Project.


One submission identified concern that the proposed use of Arthur Street would require cyclists to

travel directly across the non-traffic-controlled intersection with Botany Street.


1, 96, 109

Response

As identified in section 5.2.2 of the High Street modification report, cyclists would be required to

divert to roads located north of High Street, in particular Arthur Street as part of the operation of

the Project. Given the proposed design and location of the Randwick terminus stop, maintenance

of a cyclist path along the full length of High Street is not able to be accommodated.

Further investigation of the most appropriate cycle route alternative to High Street would continue

to be undertaken during the detailed design of the Project including the consideration of cycle

connections to the Wansey Road shared path using Waratah Avenue and Writtle Park.

This investigation would be undertaken as part of the Pedestrian and Cyclist Network and

Facilities Strategy, required by MCoA B33 and would be undertaken in consultation with

Randwick City Council.

With regard to the provision of dedicated cycleways, this is not proposed as part of the project

along High Street or Arthur Street. Consideration of the overall cycle network and associated

infrastructure is managed by Randwick City Council.

With respect to the concern regarding the non-traffic-controlled intersection crossing of Botany

Street when travelling along Arthur Street, section 3.2.4 of the High Street modification report

notes that this intersection is proposed to be signalised as part of the overall modification.

5.6.6 Impacts during operation


One submission stated that improvement to the operation of one intersection at Avoca Street and

Belmore Road would be offset with major disruption to other intersections and construction of

additional intersections.

The submission also stated concern regarding the proposal to make traffic at the eastern end of

High Street one way.

One submission also stated that as a consequence of the proposed light rail route in High Street,

the only traffic lanes will be 24 hour clear ways. This would prevent vehicles from stopping in the

vicinity of medical centres and prevent patients from alighting from ambulances.


45, 109

Response

As part of the detailed design of the works associated with the proposed modification, Transport

for NSW would continue to consider the impacts of the proposal on existing traffic and pedestrian

movements, with the aim of minimising any impacts to the overall traffic flow or delays to the

wider network in accordance with the CTTAMP for the approved Project (MCoA B89(c)).



The proposed design and location of the Randwick terminus stop is not able to accommodate two

lanes of traffic at the eastern end of High Street. Appendix A of the High Street modification report

identified the options considered for different traffic lane configurations at this location and

identified that the retention of an east bound traffic lane at this location was considered preferable

as it presented a safety outcome for general traffic at this location.

With respect to the concern that the proposed light rail route in High Street creating 24 hour clear

ways preventing vehicles or ambulances from stopping in the vicinity of medical centres, the

proposed modification would not remove any additional parking spaces along High Street in

comparison to the approved Project. Parking will continue to be available in adjacent side streets

to allow patients (or ambulances as required) to park and access medical centres.

5.6.7 Parking impacts


Objection to the loss of approximately five car parking spaces associated with Creston and

Kenvale Colleges was raised in six submissions.

Concern regarding the loss of parking associated with the new bus stops on Clara Street was

also raised in two submissions.


5, 13, 23, 24, 27, 29, 42, 54

Response

Based on the indicative design for the proposed Arthur Street access lane as shown in

section 3.2.3 of the High Street modification report, it is acknowledged that there may be

some minor car parking impacts to Creston and Kenvale Colleges as a result of the proposed

modification, including removal of one space along the High Street frontage. Based on the

current design for the access lane, it is not anticipated that the proposed access would impact on

any additional car parking spaces at the rear of the college site. Should it be determined during

detailed design that additional parking spaces would be impacted, further consultation would

be undertaken with Creston and Kenvale Colleges regarding opportunities for replacing any

impacted parking including the identified off-street parking space which is currently available

adjacent to High Street.

With respect to the proposed loss of parking associated with the new bus stops on Clara Street, it

is acknowledged that there would be some minor local parking impact as a result of the proposed

modification. However, in line with MCoA B29, a parking offset and management strategy will be

prepared for the approved Project which will lead to improved management of local parking.

As such, the loss of the small number of parking spaces at this location is considered to be

acceptable as the overall benefits of the modification would outweigh the minor impact to these

parking spaces.


5.6.8 Pedestrian impacts


One submission stated that there would be considerable difficulty accessing their medical facility

due to the location of the new bus stops in Clara Street as patients in wheelchairs or on crutches

would be affected by congestion from passengers waiting at the bus stop.

One submission stated that it would not be practical to decrease the width of footpaths in

High Street in order to create zones that enable patients to alight from vehicles at the Prince of

Wales Hospital.


24, 45

Response

The proposed relocation of the bus stop from High Street to Clara Street would not significantly

impact the ability for mobility impaired pedestrians to access any medical facilities along this

street. The footpaths along Clara Street would not be reduced from their current width as part of

the approved (or proposed modified) Project. The existing footpath is considered to be sufficient

to meet the requirements of these pedestrians in addition to the anticipated bus passengers that

would utilise this stop.

As part of the approved Project and the proposed modification, it is not proposed to decrease the

width of footpaths in High Street in order to create zones that enable patients to alight from

vehicles at the Prince of Wales Hospital. Pedestrian paths on both the northern and southern side

of High Street for the length of this street would be maintained as part of the approved (and

proposed modified) Project. Patient access to medical facilities along High Street and Clara

Street wold be maintained as part of the approved (and proposed modified) Project.

5.7 Landscape and visual impacts

5.7.1 Visual impacts


One submission raised concern that there would be additional visual impacts on Creston and

Kenvale Colleges as a result of the modified stop design at UNSW.


13

Response

As described in section 5.3 of the High Street modification report, the proposed changes to High

Street and the adjacent areas as a result of the proposed changes to the UNSW High Street stop

are considered to be comparable to the approved Project, resulting in a negligible change to the

visual impact of this stop overall.



Whilst the integration of the new side platform with the northern footpath along High Street,

including the section in front of Creston and Kenvale Colleges would require some modifications

to this side of the street, these changes would generally include the replacement of the existing

footpath with new paving consistent with the urban design objectives of the stop (subject to

detailed design) resulting in an overall improved visual outcome for this area.

The final urban design for the footpath would be undertaken in consultation with relevant

stakeholders such as UNSW through the Urban Domain Reference Group and preparation of the

Urban Design Landscape Plan (MCoA B51). The visual impacts of the UNSW High Street stop

would also be considered as part of the preparation of a Stop Access and Design Plan for the

UNSW High Street stop. This will include stop elements such as hard and soft landscaping, street

furniture, stop canopies, lighting, fencing/pedestrian barriers, signage and identification of

measures to minimise the impact of these elements, particularly with respect to the impacts on

adjoining properties.

5.7.2 General public domain and amenity


Two submissions stated that the revised proposal did not appear to show any seating or shade as

part of the modified UNSW High Street stop.

Concern was also raised regarding the potential impacts to general amenity as a result of food

and rubbish generally left at bus shelters and this would be similar for the UNSW High Street

stop.


16, 24

Response

As part of the approved Project, appropriate levels of seating and shade cover was proposed for

each of the stops which would continue to be provided as part of the proposed modification.

Final requirements for the amount of seating and other stop infrastructure would be determined

during detailed design and would be outlined in the Stop Access and Design Plan for the UNSW

High Street stop in accordance with the requirements of MCoA B27. An indicative example of the

extent of the proposed weather shading structure to be provided as part of the modified UNSW

High Street stop is shown in Figure 3.7 of the High Street modification report.

With respect to the concern regarding the potential impacts to general amenity as a result of food

and rubbish being left at the UNSW High Street stop, general waste rubbish bins would be

provided at each of the stops along the Project alignment, which would continue to be provided

as part of the proposed modification. Collection and maintenance of the stops would be managed

by the operator of the light rail.


5.8 Planted trees

5.8.1 Impact to trees


A number of submissions raised opposition to the removal of existing planted trees as part of the

proposed modification including the following:

the 7 trees which are still to be removed in High Cross Park

the 12 new trees to be removed in the block bounded by Wansey Road, High Street, Botany

Street and Arthur Street as a result of changes to the UNSW High Street stop to

accommodate the Arthur Street access lane

the additional 2 trees to be removed near the Randwick terminus stop on High Street.

It was stated that the Project should make a commitment, as per their Development Agreement

with Randwick City Council, to retain as many trees as possible.

One submission was also opposed to any removal of the pine trees in High Cross Park.


6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 21, 24, 62, 100

Response

As described in Section 5.4 of the High Street modification report, proposed modification would

result in an overall net retention of 12 trees, taking into account trees saved in High Cross Park

and additional trees to be removed in High Street and for the Arthur Street access lane. Of the

trees to be retained, the trees that would be retained would include a number of significant trees

within High Cross Park, including the five Cook Pines, Moreton Bay Fig and Port Jackson Fig.

During detailed design, further consideration to avoid any trees currently proposed to be removed

would be undertaken, in particular with respect to the detailed siting of the substation within

High Cross Park and the design of the Arthur Street access lane. Where the removal of trees is

considered to be unavoidable, replacement of the removed trees would be undertaken in

accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package required to be implemented as part of

the approved Project (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation Offset Guide (2013b) to

ensure that any vegetation loss is appropriately offset through regeneration or replanting. In

accordance with MCoA B52, the Revegetation Compensation Package is required to be prepared

in consultation with the relevant council(s) and approved by DP&E prior to the removal of any

vegetation.

In accordance with MCoA B48, an arborist has been be engaged to assess the impacts of the

Project on trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the construction zone. The arborist’s

assessment would recommend measures to avoid the removal of, or minimise damage to,

existing trees. The arborist would also determine whether the impacted trees could be

transplanted within the vicinity of their current location.



5.8.2 Mitigation measures


One submission stated that the replacement of the existing garden associated with the Tigger’s

Honeypot Childcare should use mature trees of a similar size to those currently on the site and

that they be located in a similar location given extent of development over past decade of this

area by the childcare.

Given the daily use in the curriculum of the childcare, the rapid replacement of this garden to

same level as existing should be undertaken as soon as possible.


28

Response

As stated in section 5.8.1 above, detailed design would seek to avoid any trees currently

proposed to be removed as a result of the construction of the Arthur Street access lane.

Proposed additional mitigation measure F.5 (refer to Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report),

identifies that investigations during detailed design would consider appropriate vegetation to

replace that removed to accommodate the Arthur Lane access. Where feasible, this would

include consideration of mature trees of a similar size to those currently on the site.

Where the removal of trees is considered to be unavoidable, replacement of the removed trees

would be undertaken in accordance with the Revegetation Compensation Package required to be

implemented as part of the approved Project (MCoA B52) and Transport for NSW’s Vegetation

Offset Guide (2013b) to ensure that any vegetation loss is appropriately offset through

regeneration or replanting. Any replacement planting would consider the existing maturity of the

existing vegetation, and where possible, replace this vegetation on a like-for-like or similar basis.

Where possible, revegetation of the existing garden and other vegetation associated with the

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare would be undertaken as soon as practicable following completion of

the access lane (or during construction where this is considered to be feasible).

5.9 Land use and property

5.9.1 Land take requirements


A number of submissions raised concern that the proposed modification utilises too much of the

Tigger’s Honeypot community garden space and facility.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108


Response

Transport for NSW has considered a range of options for the provision of a new access lane from

Arthur Street in order to public road accesses for impacted properties along High Street. The key

options which were considered as part of the proposed modification were outlined in section A.3

in Appendix A of the High Street modification report.

As identified in section A.3, opportunities to provide alternative access to the impacted High

Street residents were limited due to a range of constraints including the following requirements:

maintaining access to all affected properties

minimise impacts to existing residences

maintaining access for suitable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction

(including medium sized trucks such as delivery and removalist vehicles)

minimising impacts to private properties by limiting the proposed access land to properties

owned by UNSW only (as a key stakeholder and Project partner).

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed access lane would impact on some portions of land

utilised by the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare under an informal agreement with UNSW, including

the community garden space, significant consideration was given to minimising the land area of

land impacted by the design of the access lane. In order to minimise potential land take, the

alignment for the existing rear boundary fence to the Tigger’s Place Childcare Centre and

Honeypot Childcare Centre would be designed to avoid reduction of the outdoor space (refer to

proposed additional mitigation measure F.4 included in Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report).

As committed to in additional mitigation measure F.5 for the proposed modification (refer to

Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report), Transport for NSW would continue to work with UNSW as

the land owner of the site to replace areas of impacted open space area between the proposed

access lane and the childcare centre. Further details of this are provided in section 5.9.2 below.

5.9.2 Loss of open space


A number of submissions raised concern regarding the loss of Tigger’s Honeypot Community

garden and its impact on the learning and development of children who attend the Tigger’s

Honeypot Childcare. It was identified in the submissions that the final design of the proposed

Arthur Street access lane should have:

no impact to the eastern section of garden and building (Lot 1 DP 60283) and that the land

to be maintained for use by Tigger’s Honeypot as a garden space

minimal impact to the western section of the garden (Lot 1 DP330632).

It was also requested in a number of the submissions that any impact to the Tigger’s Honeypot

community garden be replaced with like for like or better in the remaining garden space and

within the licenced childcare area. It was noted that the focus of any replacement should be on

the development and maintenance of the community garden space over the need for additional

outdoor areas.

The Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare centre also requested that they be consulted throughout the

development design process.




2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,

51 ,52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,

83 ,84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

The overall loss of space associated with the proposed access lane and the request for the

proposal to not impact the eastern section of the garden and minimise impacts to the western

section is discussed in response Item 5.9.1 above.

As committed to in additional mitigation measure F.5 for the proposed modification (refer to

Chapter 6 of this Submissions Report), Transport for NSW would continue to work with UNSW as

the land owner to replace the existing open space area between the proposed access lane and

the childcare centre affected by the proposed modification. This would include identification of

suitable locations to reinstate and remediate the affected areas and facilities, including the

community garden, within the residual land to the east of the proposed access lane as part of the

detailed design of the access lane. In particular, the following elements would be replaced or

reinstated as part of the proposed works:

replacement of any structures impacted

replacement any lost trees with mature trees

reinstatement of the garden areas

reinstatement of any secure fencing removed.

An indicative layout of the proposed reinstatement of the existing facilities currently utilised by the

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare would be developed by Transport for NSW during the subsequent

phases of design. This would include identification of locations for a new cubby house, new

chicken coop, new compost box, and new landscaping and grassed space. Prior to finalisation of

the layout this layout would be further refined in consultation with UNSW.

Where possible, these facilities would be replaced on a like-for-like or better outcome than is

currently available to the childcare centre. Transport for NSW would continue to work with UNSW

(as the land owner of the site) during the detailed design of the proposed modification to

investigate any potential additional opportunities for reducing and minimising the land take

requirements for the access lane.

5.9.3 Property values


One submission raised concern regarding the proposal's impact on the value of their property (on

which Creston and Kenvale Colleges operate), noting that the proposed modification to the

UNSW High Street stop would reduce their property value by:

obscuring the street frontage

limiting existing access to the property via car and foot

increasing noise and result in a dirty environment due to the use of the stop

resulting in the loss of at least five car parking space.



13

Response

Specifically, with respect to the concern regarding obscuring of the street frontage, as noted in

section 5.6.3 above, Transport for NSW would liaise with Kenvale and Creston colleges during

detailed design to ensure that appropriate wayfinding is provided to ensure that access to the

colleges is readily identifiable from Arthur Street. This would be considered as part of the

development of a Local Access Plan in accordance with the requirements of MCoA B24.

With respect to the concern that existing access to the property via car and foot would be limited,

the revised access via Arthur Lane is considered to provide comparable vehicle access in

comparison to the existing arrangement. Transport for NSW would continue to work with both

Kenvale and Creston colleges, as part of the development of the Local Access Plan to ensure

that ongoing access to the colleges is maintained.

With respect to the concern regarding increasing noise, refer to response Item 5.10.3 of this

Submissions Report.

With respect to the concern regarding the location of the stop resulting in a dirty environment, the

operators of the light rail would be required to maintain each of the stops in a tidy state in

accordance with the maintenance requirements outlined in MCoA C14.

With respect to the loss of parking, refer to response Item 5.6.7 of this Submissions Report.

5.10 Noise and vibration

5.10.1 Impact assessment process


It was stated in one submission that no consideration had been given regarding the impact of

noise during the construction of the Arthur Street lane access on the educational functions of

Kenvale College. Additionally, it was stated that whilst the expected vibration levels on the college

were stated in the High Street modification report as being anticipated to be below the prescribed

trigger levels, no evidence of this was provided.

One submission also raised concern regarding the potential for increased night time noise at their

property associated with the relocated rail crossover point on High Street.


13, 24

Response

Construction noise

The assessment of noise impacts during construction of the Arthur Street access lane was

discussed in Section 5.6.1 of the modification report. This assessment misidentified 38 High

Street as a residential receiver, with a corresponding daytime average Noise Management Level

of 53 dBA (external).



However, it is noted that this property is an educational college and would therefore fall within the

definition of an educational institution. Therefore, the appropriate Noise Management Level would

be 45 dBA (internal), when the facility is in use, which corresponds to a Noise Management Level

of 55 dBA (external).

As identified in section 5.6.1 of the High Street modification report, consistent with MCoA B5 for

the approved Project, a site specific CNVIS would be prepared during detailed design stage to

quantify the likely noise and vibration impact during various stages of construction and the

timeline of the construction stages. In particular, the most impacted receivers would also be

further consulted and informed of the full details of the proposed construction and to ensure that

all feasible and reasonable mitigation strategies are applied to minimise or shorten the potential

noise and vibration impact.

Operational noise and vibration

Similar to the operational noise assessment, the receiver at 38 High Street was misidentified as

residential in the submitted report. The receiver at 38 High Street is an educational receiver and

the applicable trigger level for light rail noise is LAeq,1hr 40 dBA (internal) when the facility is in use.

Based on the assessment of light rail noise levels in Section 2.4 of the noise and vibration report,

noise levels at properties on the north side of High Street are expected to increase by +1.5 dB

based on the change in distance between the approved and proposed project rail alignments

(noting that this increase is for all properties on the north side of High Street, regardless of the

land use type identified in the High Street modification report). A change in noise level of 2 dB or

less is not likely to be perceptible to the human ear.

Noise levels from the proposed project would be expected to exceed the educational receiver

type criteria at 38 High Street.

The property at 38 High Street was identified to require mitigation as part of the Noise and

Vibration technical report and the change of receiver type would not represent additional

impacted receivers above those previously identified. Similar to other identified receivers, further

assessment and consideration of mitigation for 38 High Street would be included in the Operation

Environmental Management Plan (MCoA C11(f)(ii)), Operation Noise and Vibration Management

Plan (MCoA C11(h)) and the ONVR (MCoA C12), which would be submitted prior to

commencement of operations.

Any mitigation measures proposed to mitigate noise to Kenvale College would be determined

with consideration of the lower trigger level limits applicable to educational land uses during times

of use. Vibration impacts would still meet trigger levels as a result of identifying 38 High Street as

an educational type receiver.

It should be noted that the vibration trigger levels for educational receivers are higher than that for

residential receivers (comparison provided in Table 5.1 below). The calculation of the Vibration

Dose Value was primarily based on the vibration source levels provided in the United States

Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment (FTA, 2006) and procedure described in the NSW Assessing Vibration guideline.

Vibration dose values from the project would be confirmed as part of the ONVR.


Table 5.1 Acceptable vibration dose values in mm/s1.75 (assessing vibration: a technical guide)

Location Daytime (7am-10pm) Night time (10pm-7am)

Preferred value Maximum value Preferred value Maximum value

Residential dwellings 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.40

Offices, schools, educational institutions 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80

Source: Assessing Vibration: a technical guide

Notwithstanding the above, as identified in section 5.6.2 of the High Street modification report,

consistent with MCoA B5 for the approved Project, a site specific CNVIS would be prepared

during detailed design stage to quantify the likely noise and vibration impact during various

stages of construction and the timeline of the construction stages. In particular, the most

impacted receivers would also be further consulted and informed of the full details of the

proposed construction and to ensure that all feasible and reasonable mitigation strategies are

applied to minimise or shorten the potential noise and vibration impact.

5.10.2 Impacts during construction


A number of submissions raised concern that the construction of the proposed Arthur Street

access lane would impact the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare with respect to additional noise and

vibration impacts during construction. It was noted that impacts resulting from this work should be

addressed specifically to take into account the specialised needs of a childcare facility.

A series of submissions also raised concern regarding the potential for impacts to occur on the

Kenvale College and Creston College facilities due to increased noise and vibration impacts

associated with the construction of the Arthur Street access lane and movement of the UNSW

High Street stop further to the north. In particular, concern was raised regarding the impact on the

working environment of staff and students while at colleges.

Two submissions also noted concern regarding increased noise and vibration impacts during

construction on residential properties along High Street.


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48,

49 ,50, 51, 52 ,53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81,

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

As noted in response Item 5.10.1 above, consistent with MCoA B5 for the approved Project, a

site specific CNVIS would be prepared prior to construction stage to quantify the likely noise and

vibration impact during various stages of construction and the timeline of the construction stages.

Preparation of the CNVIS would take into account the specialised needs of a childcare facility and

consider potential impact mitigation strategies to specifically address these potential impacts.

Similarly, the CNVIS would take into account the specific requirements of other properties along

the alignment including Kenvale College, Creston College and any properties identified as being

impacted along High Street as part of the proposed works. Any specific mitigation measures

identified as being required for these facilities/properties would be detailed in the CNVIS.





A number of submissions raised concern that the construction of the proposed Arthur Street

access lane would impact the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare with respect to additional noise and

vibration impacts during operation. It was noted that impacts resulting from this work should be

addressed specifically to take into account the specialised needs of a childcare facility.

A series of submissions also raised concern regarding the potential for impacts to occur on the

Kenvale College and Creston College facilities due to increased noise and vibration impacts

associated with the operation of the light rail, in particular from passengers alighting from the

stop.

A series of submissions also stated concern regarding increased and/or noise and vibration

impacts during operation on residential properties along both High Street, Arthur Street and

Clara Street, in particular due to the revised traffic arrangements.


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49,

51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,

85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

Response

As discussed above in Section 5.10.1, noise levels from the proposed project would be

expected to exceed the educational receiver criteria at 38 High Street. This property was

consequently identified to require further consideration for mitigation during detailed design and

the ONVR required by MCoA C12.

The ONVR is required to be prepared in order to confirm and verify the predicted operational

noise and vibration impacts at affected receivers. The ONVR would also consider the

requirement for any noise mitigation options which may be required to be implemented in order

to mitigate or limit potential noise impacts associated with the Project. In addition to the

approved Project, the preparation of the ONVR would include consideration of the potential

impacts on the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare and the Kenvale College and Creston College

facilities (subject to approval of the proposed changes).

Operational noise and vibration compliance monitoring will also be undertaken (as required by

MCoA C13) once the Project is operational to assess the adequacy of noise mitigation measures

and to identify further reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to

acceptable criteria, if required.

5.11 Non-Indigenous heritage

5.11.1 Impact to Wansey Cottage


Two submissions objected to the proposed demolition of Wansey Cottage.


9, 16


Response

As identified in section 6.1.2 of the High Street modification report, a total of eight options were

assessed for the proposed works required within the vicinity of the cottage in order to complete

the approved Project at this location whilst ensuring that the works are undertaken in a safe

manner and which met specified safety in design and design life requirements.

Of the eight options identified, five were deemed to be potentially feasible. Of the five feasible

options, all options were identified to result in demolition, partial demolition, or impacts to the

curtilage of Wansey Cottage. As such, an assessment of the potential impacts with respect to

demolition of the cottage was undertaken which identified that, whilst contributing to the

cumulative heritage impact on the Royal Randwick Racecourse heritage conservation area

resulting from the overall approved Project, the impacts would be minimised through the

application of a series of mitigation measures including:

inclusion of the cottage in the next phase of interpretation planning

undertaking an archival recording of the building

where practical, salvaging and recycling building elements of heritage significance suitable

for the repair of other heritage items

5.11.2 Superintendents Cottage


One submission stated that the Superintendents Cottage is of great heritage significance and that

this building should be allowed to have some other purpose(s) as part of the Project.


16

Response

As identified in section 3.2.6 of the High Street modification report, the driver’s amenity facilities

would be relocated from its approved location within High Cross Park to within the

Superintendents Cottage building. Further repurposing of this building would be subject to the

requirements of the Prince of Wales Hospital as the owners of the building.

5.12 Socio-economic

5.12.1 Impacts to businesses


Three submissions raised objection to the conclusion of the High Street modification report that

the proposed modification would not result in any substantial changes to those already identified

for the approved Project. In particular, Creston and Kenvale Colleges noted the following

concerns:

The loss of the High Street driveway access. It was noted in the submissions that the

change of property access would result in have negative socio-economic impact for the

colleges.



The position of the light rail stop would result in the colleges being hard to find as the stop

would obscure of existing signage impacting on the identity and competitiveness of the

college. Concern was also raised as to the location that additional signage would be able to

be placed on Arthur Street at the revised access lane entrance location.


5, 13, 19

Response

As described as part of the modification, a revised access driveway would be provided from

Arthur Street which would maintain ongoing access to Creston or Kenvale College. It is

considered that the retention of access to the Creston and Kenvale Colleges sites would minimise

any potential socio-economic impacts associated with the operation of the Project, including the

ability for Creston and Kenvale Colleges to continue to operate their businesses.

With respect to the potential obscuring of existing signage associated with the colleges, Transport

for NSW would consult with Creston and Kenvale Colleges regarding opportunities for relocation

of any existing signage which is considered to be obscured by the UNSW High Street stop.

Transport for NSW would also work with Creston, Kenvale Colleges and Randwick City Council to

identify suitable locations for signage along Arthur Street associated with the revised access lane.

This would form part of the development of a Local Access Plan in accordance with the

requirements of MCoA B24.

5.13 Electromagnetic interference

5.13.1 Potential EMI impacts and justification


Concern was raised in four submissions regarding the justification to move the UNSW High Street

stop based on potential EMI impacts. It was stated in the submissions that the justification for

moving the UNSW High Street stop was based on preliminary data and survey and stated

potential rather than actual sensitive equipment which may be impacted. Greater evidence

regarding EMI impacts was requested to be provided to justify the relocation of the stop.

It was also stated in some submissions which raised EMI impacts that it would be preferable to

compensate UNSW to mitigate the potential EMI impacts on sensitive equipment (such as

through further insulation) rather than undertake stop design changes which required the

reconfiguration of vehicle access for properties on the northern side of High Street.

Additionally, one submission stated that there would be potential EMI impacts to sensitive

equipment that they use to perform electrophysiological studies as part of their medical practice

along High Street and that the cumulative effect of the new light rail and existing buses along

High Street had not been considered.


5, 13, 24, 74


Response

In accordance with the MCoA B17 and B18, ongoing consideration of EMI has been undertaken

by Transport for NSW to further identify and confirm potential impacts and sensitive receivers,

including the preparation of a VEMMP. As part of the preparation of the VEMMP, further

consultation was undertaken with key sensitive receiver stakeholders including UNSW.

While EMI impacts were not the only consideration for the relocation of the UNSW High Street

stop, consultation with UNSW has identified that relocation of the stop to the north of the

approved location would assist in further reducing the potential for EMI impacts between the

Project and critical equipment identified within the UNSW campus. As such, it is considered that

the relocation of the UNSW High Street stop to the north of its current location was the most

feasible option in order to meet the requirements of MCoA B17 and B18.

With respect to the potential to compensate UNSW to mitigate the potential EMI impacts on

sensitive equipment rather than relocate the stop, this had been considered but was found not

to be a feasible option as alternative mitigation measures where considered to provide improved

project outcomes. The compensation which would be required was of a high monetary value

which was not considered feasible considering that relocation of the stop, and further mitigation

measures (which are yet to be finalised through the ongoing preparation of the VEMMP) are

likely adequately mitigate potential impacts.

In order to mitigate EMI impacts, it is preferable to mitigate potential impacts at the source

rather than at the receiver. Appropriate mitigation measures would be identified as part of the

VEMMP which would seek to reduce the overall EMI impacts at their source (such as the

overhead wiring) in comparison to the approved Project.

With respect to the submission which noted that there would be potential EMI impacts to

sensitive equipment that they use to perform electrophysiological studies, further consideration

of all sensitive receivers as part of the ongoing design of the Project would be undertaken as

part of the requirements of MCoA B17 and B18.

5.14 Hazard and risk

5.14.1 Safety to childcare occupants


A number of submissions raised concern that the proposed design for the Arthur Street access

lane would bisect the Tigger’s Honeypot community garden, rendering the remaining garden in

the western section of the garden space inaccessible for the children due to safety concerns.

It was stated that a series of procedures would be required to ensure the safety of children and

staff crossing the proposed access road (if the western portion of the garden was retained), and

that budget for associated costs of extra staffing requirements would be required (to maintain the

required staff-to-child ratio) for excursions across the access road to conduct activities in the

garden.




2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59,

60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,

91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

The remaining land to the west of the proposed Arthur Street access lane is not currently

proposed to be utilised as a formal outdoor space by the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare.

As described in section 5.9.2 above, Transport for NSW would also work with UNSW to identify

opportunities to reinstate and remediate the affected areas within the residual land to the east of

the proposed access lane (refer to proposed additional mitigation measure F.5). It is therefore not

anticipated that there would be a need for children and staff to cross the proposed access road to

access this area of land. Opportunities for the ongoing use of the surplus land to the west of the

proposed access lane would be considered, including revegetation or use as an offset site for the

overall Project.

5.14.2 Security


A series of submissions objected to the proposed modification to the UNSW High Street stop

noting that the privacy of both Kenvale College and Creston College would be compromised as a

result of access into the property being allowed from both High Street and Arthur Street. It was

stated in the submission that these premises are currently enclosed with the only access being

from High Street which is currently gated and which can be monitored for traffic coming in and out

of the colleges.

The security and privacy of the colleges was also considered to be affected for the following

reasons:

the proposed modification would expose the college buildings to the tenants of the adjacent

residential units due to the shared nature of the access lane

security would be compromised due to the large volume of people alighting the light rail at

the front of the property onto the northern footpath.


5, 13, 19, 20, 23, 27

Response

It is proposed that secure access to the Creston and Kenvale College sites would continue to be

maintained as part of the proposed access lane. Whilst the design for the access lane would

provide a common access way for the initial section of the laneway, the existing gate at the rear

of the Creston and Kenvale College sites would be maintained. This would provide a secure

access from the access lane to the college properties. The retention of gated access would also

allow for the ongoing monitoring of traffic coming in and out of these sites. Further refinement of

the access requirements would be determined during detailed design through consultation

between Creston and Kenvale College and Transport for NSW as part of the development of a

Local Access Plan (in line with MCoA B24).


With respect to the concern that the revised property access arrangements would result in

difficulties and security issues for the colleges, the detailed design of the access lane would

ensure the lane complies with the principles of CPTED and would design such that it is not

perceived for use as a public thoroughfare. Access between the colleges and adjacent private

properties would therefore be minimised as part of the operation of the laneway.

5.15 Air quality

5.15.1 Impacts during construction


A series of submissions raised concern that the operation of the proposed access lane would

impact the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare with respect to dust during construction and that the

impacts should be specifically addressed to take into account the specialised needs of a childcare

facility. Some submissions also raised concern that the relocation of the UNSW High Street stop

would result in increased impacts from dust impacting on the Kenvale and Creston College

facilities.

One submission also stated that the extra buses proposed to use Clara Street as a result of the

modification, as well as the stopping and starting of these buses at the relocated bus stops, would

pose a health hazard to staff and patients of the local medical facilities.


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,

87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

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 would be managed using

standard environmental management measures. These measures would be included as part of

the overall CEMP for the approved project as required by MCoA B88. It is not expected that the

minor route change for existing bus services would result in any substantial changes to the

overall air quality for the local area.



A series of submissions raised concern that the operation of the proposed access lane would

impact the Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare with respect to dust during operation and that the impacts

should be specifically addressed to take into account the specialised needs of a childcare facility.


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56,

57, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,

89, 90 91, 92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108



Response

As the proposed Arthur Street access lane is intended to provide access only to those properties

affected by the proposed modification, and not provide for through traffic, particulate emissions

associated with the proposed access lane are anticipated to be relatively minor. It is not

anticipated that the access lane would result in any substantial changes to the existing local air

quality or impact on the use of outdoor facilities by the childcare centre.

5.16 Soils, geology and contamination

5.16.1 Impact during construction


Concern was raised that the construction of the Arthur Street access road would impact the

Tigger’s Honeypot Childcare with respect to contamination (such as lead or asbestos).


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ,77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

Potential contamination impacts associated with the construction of the Arthur Street access lane

would be managed in accordance with the overall Project CEMP. Should potential contaminants

be identified during construction of the Arthur Street access lane, these would be managed in

accordance with the standard measures identified in the Project CEMP, relevant guidelines and

applicable legislation.

5.16.2 Impact during operation


Concern was raised that the operation of the Arthur Street access road would impact the Tigger’s

Honeypot Childcare with respect to contamination.


2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60,

61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ,77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,

92, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108

Response

Potential contamination impacts associated with the operation of the Arthur Street access lane

are not considered to present a risk. Contamination arising from the operation of the access lane

would be unlikely and would be expected to be typically limited to minor run-off of fuels and oils

associated with the operation of the access lane. The management of any potential

contamination would be identified as part of the detailed design of the access lane.


5.17 Issues out of scope of proposed modification

A series of issues outside the scope of the proposed modification were raised in a number of

submissions. These issues included the following:

With work due to continue on Alison Road from January, limited information has been made

available regarding the potential tree impacts along this section of the alignment

Construction of the light rail should initially only be undertaken in the city. Once the light rail

in George Street is successfully operational, work on the eastern suburbs portion should

then commence.

The tunnel at Surry Hills should be extended to come out at Devonshire Street near

Nickson Street. Additionally, the tunnel should be designed so there can be at least one

lane where cars can drive through next to the light rail.

Light rail services should run every 5 minutes to Kingsford or Randwick instead of every

7 to 8 minutes. City services should run every 2 to 3 minutes instead of every 3 to 4

minutes.

The LRVs should not be designed as 5 and 5 coupled vehicles.

Will bikes be able to use light rail lines or will they have a separate one? Will it be possible

to take bikes inside the light rail?

Is there an independent, and/or Randwick Council, environmental consultant as part of the

work to ensure that care is taken with the construction of the Project?

We strongly object to the light rail route in High Street as it will have a major adverse impact

on the patients who are being treated in medical facilities located in High Street.

A number of proposed project extensions were identified including the following extensions:

Maroubra Junction and Eastgardens

Parramatta Road to Ashfield Station and/or Strathfield

Continuation of the current line into Avoca Street and continuing until Anzac Parade

A number of alternative stop locations were identified for the Project including:

A stop near Addison Street

Relocation of the Kingsford stop should be moved to end directly at The Nine Ways bus

stop.

The stop on Alison Road next should be placed at middle of the road.

The Kingsford terminus should be in the Median strip near Storey Street, Maroubra

(opposite the French School).

The Randwick branch line should terminate at the intersection of Wansey Road and High

Street with a light rail/bus interchange located at the intersection of Wansey Road and

Alison Road, adjacent to George Dan Reserve.




16, 44, 45, 63, 97, 99

Response

The issues identified above are considered to be out of scope of the proposed modification to the

UNSW High Street and Randwick terminus stop. Further information regarding issues such as the

current design of the approved Project, potential extension options, and wider impacts of the

approved Project, is available on the Sydney Light Rail Website (http://www.sydneylightrail.

transport.nsw.gov.au/).




6. Environmental management measures This chapter presents the environmental management measures that are proposed to be

implemented to reduce the identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed

modification.

6.1 Revised environmental management measures

Chapter 7 of the High Street modification report documented a range of (updated)

environmental management measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified

environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of

the CSELR Project.

Whilst a majority of the previously identified mitigation measures and existing MCoA would be

suitable to manage the potential impacts associated with the proposed modification, a series of

additional measures have been identified to manage specific impacts. These measures are

intended to complement the existing measures and MCoA and are provided in Table 6.1 to

Table 6.3.

New measures that were proposed as part of the proposed modification are denoted with

underlined text, while any environmental management measure proposed to be removed (or

amended to have text deleted from the measure) has been shown with strikethrough text.

Further changes to any environmental management measures identified as a result of the

submissions received have been denoted with red underlined text.

Note the measures provided in the following sections is a consolidated list of all current

mitigation measures for the approved Project and the proposed modification. It should be noted

that, due to consolidation and removal of some measures as part of the approved Project (and

previous modification) that some ID numbers may not be continuous.

6.1.1 Detailed design

The revised environmental management measures to be implemented during the detailed

design phase of the Project (including the proposed High Street modification) are listed in

Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Revised environmental management measures – detailed design

ID No. Environmental management measure – detailed design and pre-construction phase

Traffic, transport and accessibility

A.1 Opportunities to consolidate the existing taxi zones along Devonshire Street (between Chalmers Street and Elizabeth Street) and Chalmers Street (adjacent to the Foveaux Street and Elizabeth Street intersection) into one location adjacent to Central Railway Station in Chalmers Street (south of Devonshire Street, as per the functional road network changes proposed for the operational phase of the CSELR proposal) would be investigated during detailed design in consultation with the City of Sydney.

A.2 The detailed streetscape design of the George Street pedestrian zone would include defined areas for pedestrians and light rail vehicles through visual cues, such as changing pavement types.




A.3 The key actions specified in the detailed access plans for each of the proposed light rail stops, included in section 7.3 of Technical Paper 1 (Transport Operations Report) of the EIS (addressing potential multimodal access, customer safety, or to improvements to access) would be further considered during detailed design.

A.4 Opportunities to relocate impacted loading and taxi zones from George Street to the additional kerb provided at the cross streets (for example, converting obsolete turning bays for movements onto George Street into parking) would be further investigated during detailed design (consistent with other changes proposed as part of the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy), in consultation with City of Sydney.

A.5 Parking management measures to improve the future balance between car parking supply and demand and to maintain effective spare capacity to meet varied demands would be investigated during detailed design. Transport for New South Wales would work through implementation of these measures to manage kerbside activity with City of Sydney and Randwick City Council.

A.6 For the Kingsford sub-precinct, controls on remaining parking spaces (to restrict parking to key uses and removing unrestricted parking) would be investigated during detailed design with the aim of maximising the benefit of available parking capacity for high priority users (including disabled, servicing and loading, short stay parking for local business and long stay for residents). Transport for New South Wales would work through implementation of these measures to manage kerbside activity with Randwick City Council.

A.7 Opportunities to relocate existing disabled parking space on High Street (between Clara Street and Hospital Road) to Clara Street (at the intersection with High Street) would be investigated during detailed design, in consultation with Randwick City Council.

A.8 Permanent changes to access arrangements and local traffic movement would be minimised during the detailed design phase, including the maintenance of existing accesses where possible.

Any access restrictions required for the CSELR proposal would be subject to further consultation between the affected parties, Transport for NSW and the appropriate local council (City of Sydney or Randwick City Council). A case by case consideration of each affected property access would be undertaken during detailed design (in consultation with the affected parties) to determine the access restrictions required along the proposed CSELR route.

A.9 Parking permit schemes would be considered, particularly in predominately residential precincts surrounding the CSELR corridor. These would be designed to afford priority to local residents to park in the vicinity of their home with an allowance for short-term parking for visitors and for vehicle access to commercial land uses and other short-stay trip generators.

A.10 Opportunities to stage construction works on the Anzac Parade and Alison Road corridors would be investigated during detailed design to provide additional capacity during construction and reduce increases to travel time.

A.11 Opportunities to signpost and promote alternative road corridors in the south-eastern suburbs of Sydney would be investigated during detailed design and/or construction phases with the aim of lowering traffic volumes along the proposed construction corridor.

A.12 Tidal flow operation on Anzac Parade during construction would be considered, to provide a bus priority lane in the peak direction and protect bus journey time reliability along the corridor during construction works. This would involve further review by RMS, including traffic modelling, to assess the impacts and feasibility in more detail.

The final bus priority measures to be implemented would be determined in consultation with Randwick City Council and Roads and Maritime Services.

A.13 A single lane would be retained along the entire length of the existing Anzac Parade Busway and complementary bus priority measures on Alison Road.

Potential mitigation measures would be developed to allow bus priority lanes in the peak direction during peak hours together with bus priority measures at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Alison Road. These priority measures would be explored as part of the Traffic Management Plans in consultation with the bus operators and the relevant Road Authority.

A.14 Opportunities to implement time-restricted loading zones on Holt Street, Waterloo Street and Riley Street would be investigated during detailed design, in consultation with the City of Sydney, to facilitate access to the adjacent retail and commercial businesses.



A.15 Opportunity to relocate the existing taxi rank from Anzac Parade (south of the Nine Ways intersection and adjacent to the South Sydney Junior Leagues Club) to the Wallace Street frontage of the South Sydney Juniors Club would be investigated during detailed design, in consultation with Randwick City Council.

A.16 To further reduce the extent of queuing on Belmore Road, the final design of the Belmore Road and Avoca Street intersection would be reviewed to determine if an additional short approach lane is required and can be incorporated on Belmore Road to manage traffic at this intersection.

A.17 The location north of the University of NSW where express buses would re-join the general traffic lanes along Anzac Parade would be determined during detailed design following further traffic and intersection modelling.

A.18 The Anzac Parade/High Street and the UNSW Mall/Anzac Parade traffic signals/crossings would be designed to ensure a light rail vehicle can be safely stored between each set of signals without blocking traffic entering and leaving the side roads.

A.19 The length and design of the right turn bay into Day Avenue from Anzac Parade would be investigated during detailed design.

A.20 Opportunities for alternative locations of the pedestrian/cycleway path adjacent to Martin Road (including the western side of Martin Road) would be examined during detailed design to with the intention of minimising impacts to the existing trees in this location.

A.21 The final design of the proposed intersection works along Arthur Street and Botany Street would seek to minimise any impacts to existing parking spaces.

Noise and vibration

B.1 The predicted noise and vibration levels in the EIS, and the determination of as-required noise and vibration mitigation, would be verified during the detailed design phase of the proposal. An Operational Noise and Vibration Review would be prepared to determine the final design of mitigation measures.

B.2 Where exceedances of ‘other’ (non-residential) sensitive receiver noise trigger levels have been predicted in the EIS (refer Table 14 in Technical Paper 11 (Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment)), this would be verified in the detailed design stage, including further investigation of whether these receivers have fixed glazing and do not rely on open windows for ventilation.

B.3 The final trackform design and associated operational ground-borne noise and vibration mitigation measures would be addressed in the detailed design of the track. Standard trackform would be employed through the majority of the George Street pedestrian zone and at other locations removed from particularly sensitive receptors. High-resilience trackform may be required to minimise ground-borne noise impacts at locations where sensitive receptors line the alignment. Very high attenuation track may be required at some locations, such as near the Randwick health precinct.

Consultation with the receptors identified in Table 23 in Technical Paper 11 (Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) of the EIS would be required during the detailed design phase to confirm the sensitivity of these locations to ground-borne operational noise. Investigations would establish the internal noise level achieved by these buildings at present, the location of sensitive spaces within each building and the level to which any theatres or recording studios are isolated.

More detailed investigations would be conducted including measurement of existing internal and external noise and vibration levels, including ground-borne noise and vibration levels due to the existing road traffic and light and heavy rail in the CBD. These investigations would inform the required resilient trackform design in these locations and confirm the appropriateness of the ground-borne operational noise design goals.

B.4 Where potential exceedances of ground-borne operational vibration criteria have been identified in the EIS at locations with vibration sensitive equipment (refer to Chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the EIS), ongoing consultation and collaboration with the owners and operators of vibration sensitive equipment along the proposed CSELR alignment would be undertaken throughout the detailed design stage to achieve appropriate vibration outcomes at the affected facilities.

B.5 Operational noise from new electrical substations would be controlled by inclusion of shielding or enclosures to comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy at all locations.




B.6 The detailed design of public address (PA) systems at light rail stops would include noise mitigation measures to minimise potential noise impacts at the nearest receptors to the stops to comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

B.7 During the detailed design stage, alternative noise mitigation options would be investigated for the Randwick stabling facility (refer measure AI.4 in Table 8.3) before determining the final solution to meet the NSW Industrial Noise Policy noise criteria.

B.8 The design of the maintenance building/workshop and mechanical equipment at the Rozelle maintenance depot would include noise mitigation measures (as required) to comply with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy criteria at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

B.9 At the Rozelle maintenance depot, all audible alarm systems would be designed to be non-tonal and maintenance hard stand areas and turning spaces would be designed such that vehicles do not need to reverse unnecessarily. Alarm systems would be designed to meet the noise goals for the facility.

B.10 During the detailed design stage, construction ground-borne noise impacts would be revisited during preparation of the more detailed site-specific Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Statement for locations listed in Table 64 of Technical Paper 11 (Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) of the EIS. This would include further assessment of the likely construction noise levels at the most affected recording rooms of all recording studios along the CSELR alignment and to establish receiver-specific noise goals, taking into account the type of recordings undertaken, and the existing external to internal noise insulation. Consultation with the owners/operators of these facilities would be undertaken as part of this process.

B.11 Additional assessment of construction road traffic noise impacts of night-time truck movements (if required) would be undertaken at detailed design stage when the finalised traffic plan is determined.

B.12 During detailed design, further assessment of the operational noise impacts on sensitive receivers would be undertaken in accordance with the NSW Road Noise Policy. This assessment would be limited to roads that result in increased traffic due to road closures or diversions directly as a result of the CSELR proposal.

Visual and landscape

C.1 Detailed design would consider opportunities for siting mature Fig trees within the Royal Randwick racecourse grounds in the vicinity of the intersection of Wansey Road and Alison Road, and in the Wansey Road nature strip (between Arthur and High streets) to recreate the canopy of the lost street trees on the western side of Wansey Road in consultation with the Australian Turf Club.

C.2 Detailed design would consider the opportunity for a central pole catenary system to minimise visual impacts, in addition to consideration of opportunities to rationalise and/or group services, poles and wires to minimise visual clutter. The design of the overhead wiring system, including pole configuration would take into account, stakeholders views, operational requirements, best practice from other light rail systems, design and engineering constraints and environmental considerations.

C.3 Detailed design would consider opportunities to incorporate substations into other uses (such as shade structures or built development), as well as opportunities to locate and/or design the substations to reduce their visual prominence and amenity impacts, in consultation with City of Sydney and Randwick City Council. Impacts would be minimised by:

Identifying opportunities to locate substations below ground level would be investigated (where appropriate) during detailed design

locating the substations away from sensitive receivers where possible (e.g. within existing buildings)

planting appropriate vegetation (or other screening such as appropriate cladding) around the above ground substations to minimise visual impacts for adjoining properties and/or parkland settings.

C.4 The Surry Hills stop would be designed to incorporate a new frontage to Devonshire Street for Ward Park to replace the existing landscaped seating area and new tree planting that would be removed by the CSELR proposal. More detailed concepts for this interface would be developed during detailed design in conjunction with the City of Sydney.

C.5 Detailed design would consider opportunities for incorporation of public art into treatment of the site hoarding and enclosure, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

C.6 The light rail tracks and paving near the Federation Place forecourt, located south of Lang Road, would be designed to integrate with the existing paving.



C.9 Detailed design would consider urban design and public domain improvements for the alignment and areas that would be impacted by construction of the CSELR. This would include reinstatement of parks and open space, for example Wimbo Park and High Cross Park and the associated war memorial, as well as creation of new open spaces where available, including at Olivia Gardens.

C.10 Ongoing consultation with the City of Sydney, Randwick City Council, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and other relevant stakeholders would continue to be undertaken throughout the detailed design phase to identify opportunities for revitalisation of existing public spaces and the public domain and to determine the most appropriate form or revitalisation for these areas.

C.11 The detailed design of the Anzac Parade pedestrian bridge would be referred to the Urban Domain Reference Group for the CSELR proposal to ensure best practice urban design principles are applied.

C.12 The detailed design of the Eastern Distributor bridge would be referred to the Urban Domain Reference Group for the CSELR proposal to ensure to ensure best practice urban design principles are applied.

C.13 Appropriate architectural and urban design treatments would be undertaken to minimise the visual impact associated with noise mitigation structures for the proposed Randwick stabling facility and achieve an appropriate design outcome for this facility and local residents. The principles for development of the noise mitigation would include minimising overshadowing and maximising the retention of boundary trees to properties along Doncaster Road. The design process would include consultation with landowners.

C.14 Urban design opportunities would be investigated to minimise the potential impacts associated with the proposed access lane from Arthur Street. This would include the consideration of appropriate landscaping, surface treatments for the access lane and retaining wall and provision and replacement boundary of fencing which is of a similar style to that currently provided for adjacent properties.

Built and non-indigenous heritage

D.1 The detailed design of the proposed construction worksite in Circular Quay would minimise potential visual impacts on the setting of the Sydney Opera House. The construction compound would also be planned to retain significant elements of the park, including plantings, monuments and landscape features.

D.2 The detailed design of works in Regimental Square would aim to retain and conserve the memorial and associated significant plantings.

D.4 The proposed shelter at the Rawson Place stop would be designed to minimise impacts on key views of the façade of Daking House and would be set back as far as possible from its awning. The regrading of the road and pavement levels would be detailed to avoid adverse impacts on the fabric of Daking House at ground level, and maintain the integrity of entry doors and shopfronts.

D.5 Detailed design of the Eddy Avenue alignment would retain and conserve the significant fabric of Central Railway Station and its underbridges.

D.6 Any fixings proposed to be attached to the underbridges of Central Railway Station would be to the concrete structure, not the sandstone.

D.8 The section of the CSELR alignment between Eddy Avenue and Chalmers Street would aim to minimise impacts on the Elizabeth Street Gardens.

D.9 The location and design of the Rawson Place stop would aim to minimise impact on key views of Central Railway Station east along Rawson Place.

D.10 The following measures would be implemented for the Randwick Precinct Heritage Conservation Area:

Detailed design of the CSELR alignment and the associated Royal Randwick racecourse stop would aim to retain (if possible) and avoid or minimise impacts on the significant built elements including the former racecourse gates and landscaping of the Racecourse Precinct Heritage Conservation Area.

Detailed design of the light rail stabling facility in the north-western corner of the racecourse would investigate retention of remnant historic tram infrastructure to be integrated into the new stabling facility, where feasible.

A photographic archival recording of the Alison Road and Wansey Road boundaries, the north-western area and the Swab Building would be undertaken prior to works commencing. Significant trees and structures to be demolished or altered would be recorded.




D.11 The detailed design of the CSELR would aim to retain as many as practicable of the significant trees along the route, where feasible without compromising rail safety, in particular at the Royal Randwick racecourse.

D.12 The following measures would be implemented for High Cross Park, including the High Cross Heritage Conservation Area and Significant Trees within High Cross Park:

Detailed design of the proposed stop, the canopies, substation and associated infrastructure, would aim to minimise the land take in the reserve. The detailed design would aim to retain significant trees.

Where feasible, the proposed above ground substation would be changed to a below ground facility to reduce the extent of additional built infrastructure.

Reinstatement of the remnant reserve landscaping.

A photographic archival recording of the reserve would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

D.14 The Rozelle maintenance depot would be designed to minimise impacts on the Historical Archaeological Management Units (HAMU) identified in Technical Paper 5 (Heritage Impact Assessment) in Volume 4 of the EIS.

D.15 Further investigation of the design of the relocated Wansey Road stop would be undertaken during detailed design with the aim of reducing or avoiding impacts on Wansey Cottage and significant trees in the racecourse.

D.16 The detailed design of the Anzac Parade pedestrian bridge would seek to retain the former bear pit in the grounds of the Sydney Boys High School, as well as minimise the number of significant trees to be removed along Anzac Parade. If the bear pit can be retained, it would be protected during construction works. The pedestrian bridge would be designed to provide an appropriate aesthetic design to minimise its impact on the setting of the Anzac Parade significant trees.

D.17 The significance of the former radio workshop at Central Station (refer to section 6.14 of the Submissions Report) would be assessed to determine the impact of the proposed substation location at Central Station, and to guide the detailed design of works to install the substation. If the existing radio workshop structure is found to be significant, the early/original form and fabric would be retained as far as practicable. Archival recording of the building would be undertaken prior to any works commencing.

D.18 The following measures would be implemented for High Cross Park:

where feasible, the final location of the substation would be optimised during detailed design to avoid impacts on the heritage fabric of the park and the WWII air raid trenches

if an alternative position within the park cannot be determined mitigation measures associated with heritage archaeological management zone 2 (as detailed in the approved CSELR Project EIS) would be implemented. These would include:

archaeological excavation and archival recording of archaeological remains of the WWII air raid shelter would be undertaken

investigation of options for WWII air raid shelter interpretive signage following works

archival recording of items within the park and significant trees

provision of an exclusion zone surrounding the significant elements of heritage significance within the park

any proposed impacts to the park area would avoid significant trees and the cenotaph area

a photographic archival recording of the reserve would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

D.19 The Wansey Cottage would be included in the next phase of interpretation planning for the project where feasible. Information on the former cottage would be incorporated into the Wansey Road stop during detailed design.

D.20 Archival recording of the Wansey Cottage building would be undertaken consistent with the requirements of the project prior to work being undertaken. This archival recording would include the interiors of the residence once it is vacated.



Safety and security and hazard and risk

E.1 Detailed design would incorporate the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). This would include, but not be limited to, a full review and assessment in accordance with the CPTED principles of the each of the proposed stops and the proposed pedestrian bridge over Anzac Parade.

E.2 Monitoring of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) would be undertaken at both the UNSW and the Randwick Hospitals precinct prior to commencement of CSELR operations. The monitoring requirements for EMF would include:

Establishing monitoring points pre-construction to create a baseline for existing EMI emissions.

Designing a system that does not materially impact equipment operated by the UNSW and Randwick Hospitals precinct.

Measuring EMI emissions during pre-revenue operations (commissioning) to ensure no material adverse effect.

E.3 The detailed design for the proposed relocation of the Sydney Coach Terminal bays would include the provision of safe and suitable loading/unloading area(s) in addition to safe crossing from the coach stops to the pedestrian footpath on the southern side of Eddy Avenue.

Pedestrian access to the proposed Eddy Avenue coach station island platform would be provided via the existing Eddy Square pedestrian crossing at the eastern end. A new crossing at the western end would be provided to allow pedestrian movement between the existing coach booking office and the coach platform.

E.4 Transport for NSW would review potential options during detailed design to enhance the safe crossing of the light rail tracks by students at the Moore Park stop. This would include the use of the proposed subway in the morning and afternoon school peaks and other operational measures.

Regional land use and community outcomes and property acquisition

F.1 Where property acquisition is required, it would be acquired in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. A Property Acquisition Plan would be prepared as part of detailed design.

F.2 Transport for NSW would consult with directly affected land owners during the detailed design of the CSELR proposal.

F.3 Transport for NSW would continue to liaise with users of the Moore Park facilities in relation to design and construction of the CSELR and potential impacts in relation to these facilities and their usage.

F.4 The alignment of the existing rear boundary fence to the Tigger’s Place Childcare Centre and Honeypot Childcare Centre would be designed to avoid reduction of the outdoor space in order to retain that of the existing licensed area for either childcare centre. The location for the realigned boundary fence would be determined in consultation with UNSW as the land owner of the childcare centre site.

F.5 Where feasible, o Opportunities to replace the existing open space area between the proposed access lane and the childcare centre affected by the proposed modification would be investigated. Investigation would include consideration of appropriate vegetation (including consideration of mature trees of a similar size to existing vegetation), relocation of the existing shed and playhouse structure, and relocation of an existing vegetable garden currently used by the childcare centre. The final use and layout for this area of land would be determined through consultation with the UNSW as the land owner of the childcare centre site.

Hydrology, drainage and surface water quality

G.1 For flood affected locations, the CSELR would be designed to ensure compliance with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual which includes a requirement to not increase flood levels above existing levels. Flood mitigation measures that could be considered include:

increasing downstream drainage capacity

diverting upstream flows around or under the track formation

providing stormwater detention under or adjacent to the track formation.




G.2 All additional flow diversions and new drainage would not exceed the capacity of the existing downstream drainage network and receiving environments. This would be achieved by a range of the following methods:

diverting the existing drainage and crossing the track formation at a location that allows it at a point up slope of the alignment

providing new drainage parallel to the CSELR alignment and crossing the track formation at a location that allows it at a point down slope of the alignment

providing new drainage to discharge to an alternative outlet downstream without crossing the track formation

recycling of wash-down water at the Rozelle maintenance depot and Randwick stabling facility.

These measures would aim to prevent increased flood risk and hazard for property and infrastructure.

G.3 Operational protocols would be developed to address CSELR operation and passenger safety in the event of flooding occurring along the alignment.

Groundwater

H.1 Additional investigation/assessment of dewatering requirements for the construction of the Moore Park tunnel would be undertaken during detailed design and in consultation with the NSW Office of Water. Groundwater modelling would be undertaken to determine the potential impacts from the permanent interruption of groundwater flow, including the extent of the drawdown and the potential for settlement.

H.2 A dewatering system for excavations proposed in the Botany Sands aquifer would be developed. This could comprise the reinjection of groundwater back into the same aquifer to minimise the spatial extent of drawdown (and therefore settlement).

H.3 A field survey would be undertaken to confirm the existence, usage and condition of any bore located within the construction footprint of the CSELR proposal, or potentially affected by the CSELR proposal (e.g. those located in the vicinity of proposed excavations). This would cover an area appropriate to identify potential dewatering impacts.

H.4 The design of embankments would incorporate adequate drainage to reduce compaction and/or sealing of the underlying aquifer.

H.5 Adequate drainage and runoff management would be incorporated into the design of the Rozelle maintenance depot and the Randwick stabling facility.

Aboriginal heritage

I.1 Information gathered from geotechnical investigations would be reviewed to further refine the areas of potential Aboriginal archaeological deposits identified in this EIS and the extent of impact on such deposits. This review would be undertaken for all areas of the CSELR corridor that have been designated as archaeological potential zones 1, 2 and 3.

I.2 A program of targeted test excavations would be undertaken for all areas of the CSELR corridor that have been designated as archaeological potential zones 1 and 2. This would follow on from the desktop review and site inspections of the CSELR proposal area which were completed for this EIS to assist in accurately determining areas of Aboriginal archaeological potential, and more accurately inform the impact assessment. This in turn would refine the nature and distribution of further mitigation measures, such as salvage excavation.

I.4 Where required, local Aboriginal stakeholders would be involved and consulted with during Aboriginal archaeological works.



Greenhouse gas

J.1 Transport for NSW would revise and update the greenhouse gas assessment undertaken for the CSELR proposal as part of this EIS during the detailed design phase. This would include the further identification of mitigation measures to reduce the volume of emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of the CSELR proposal. Evaluation and reporting on the feasibility of these mitigation measures would also be undertaken during detailed design as part of the greenhouse gas assessment.

J.2 Opportunities to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions would be investigated during detailed design. These opportunities could include 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, the use of photovoltaic powered lighting at stops and undertaking a traction power assessment. The sustainability initiatives documented in Table 7.5 of the EIS (refer to Chapter 7 of the EIS) would be regularly reviewed, updated and implemented throughout the design development, construction and operational phases.

J.3 Undertake AS14064-2 (greenhouse gases – project level) compliant carbon footprinting exercise in accordance with Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guide for Construction Projects (Transport for NSW). The carbon footprint would be used to inform decision-making in design and construction. Use standard carbon coefficient values for construction material and fuel usage. Monitor and report the carbon footprint every six months during construction.

Utilities and services

K.1 The proposed 12 substations for the CSELR proposal would be located so that they minimise amenity impacts along the CSELR alignment.

K.2 The extent of utility impacts and any works required to protect, relocate or replace services (including funding arrangements) would be confirmed during detailed design in consultation with the relevant utilities providers, including the City of Sydney and Randwick City Council. This consultation would also ensure that appropriate measures are taken regarding the potential integration of future utilities requirements along the alignment and to ensure that the CSELR proposal does not preclude the development or installation of these proposed utilities.

K.3 Should the location of any utilities be identified to be in conflict with the proposal, a review of the proposed works at these location(s) would be undertaken in consultation with the construction contractor. An alternative design or arrangements would then be determined to provide the most feasible and beneficial outcome for the community, service provider and proposal in terms of safety and constructability.

K.4 Consultation with services operators such as emergency services and other community services such as garbage collection services, would continue to be undertaken throughout the detailed design of the proposal in conjunction with the City of Sydney and Randwick City Councils.

Sustainability

L.1 The detailed design of the CSELR proposal would aim to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating under the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) infrastructure rating tool. Table 7.5 in Chapter 7 of the EIS outlines initiatives applicable to achieve a rating level of ‘excellent’.

L.2 Sustainable design and construction of the CSELR proposal would be in accordance with the Sustainable Design Guidelines V3.0 (Transport for NSW 2013d). Table 7.5 in Chapter 7 of the EIS (Volume 1A) outlines applicable initiatives to achieve a rating level of ‘Gold’.

Climate change

M.1 Climate change risk and opportunity assessments would be undertaken during detailed design and would include identification and mitigation of the key climate change risks for the proposal.




Planted trees

N.1 Proposed construction methods would be reviewed to reduce the construction footprint, where feasible.

N.2 The large mature Figs adjacent to Anzac Parade, Alison Road, Wansey Road, and within the George Dan Reserve and within the proposed Randwick stabling facility would be reviewed by a suitably qualified arborist during detailed design to confirm if these trees could be retained and/or relocated. This review could include root zone mapping of potentially impacted Figs to determine the likely extent of their tree roots adjacent to and beneath the road surface (This would be undertaken in conjunction with the mitigation measure identified in mitigation measure C.1).

Where feasible semi-mature Figs directly impacted by the construction of the CSELR proposal would be transplanted to an alternative suitable location, in consultation with Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust and Roads and Maritime Services (where Fig trees are proposed to be planted within the Anzac Parade road corridor). A detailed relocation and maintenance strategy for the impacted trees would be developed during detailed design, in consultation with Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust, Randwick City Council and the Australian Turf Club where required.

N.3 Qualified arboricultural advice would be employed during detailed design and construction to confirm the expected impacts of the CSELR proposal on planted trees and to identify appropriate mitigation measures for such impacts. The advice would include root zone mapping of potentially impacted trees to determine the likely extent of their roots. This assessment would employ the most recent methods for assessing trees and impacts. The aim of this additional assessment would be to reduce the number of planted trees that would be impacted by the CSELR proposal.

N.4 The location of the substation within High Cross Park would ensure that the works would not impact on any significant trees within High Cross Park.

Stakeholder engagement

AN.1 Local business and community reference groups would be established and comprise independent representatives from the community to advise the proposal on community concerns related to the proposal.

An Urban Domain Reference Group would be established to allow key partner stakeholders such as City of Sydney and Randwick City councils to review and comment on the proposed urban design elements.

A Utilities Reference Group would also be established, which would comprise independent representatives from the utility owners to advise on utility concerns related to the proposal.

6.1.2 Construction

The revised environmental management measures to be implemented during the construction

of the Project (including the proposed High Street modification) are listed in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Revised environmental management measures – construction

ID No. Environmental management measure – construction phase

General environmental management measures

O.1 Construction would be undertaken in accordance with Transport for NSW’s ISO 14001 accredited environmental management system.

O.2 A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) would be prepared prior to construction, which would outline the construction conditions and temporary environmental protection measures to manage the impact of construction activities. The CEMP would be consistent with the environmental management measures documented in this EIS, conditions of approval and the conditions of any licences or permits issued by government authorities.

O.3 The CEMP would identify the auditing and inspection requirements and determine the framework for the management of key environmental issues for construction. To address site specific conditions, the CEMP would delegate particular management measures to be incorporated in discrete Environmental Control Maps.



O.4 The location of sensitive areas (e.g. heritage items and trees to be retained) would be clearly identified on Environmental Control Maps, which would be supplied to construction managers and workers.

O.5 All workers would be provided with an environmental induction prior to commencing work on-site. This induction would include information on the following:

Environmental protection measures to be implemented to protect the quality of the surrounding environment, including weed control, erosion and sediment control, and water quality management and penalties for breaches.

Noise and vibration management, including good working practices and measures for reducing the source noise levels of construction equipment by construction planning and equipment selection where practicable.

Basic training in the recognition of Aboriginal cultural heritage material. This training would include information such as the importance of Aboriginal cultural heritage material and places to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community, as well as the legal implications of removal, disturbance and damage to any Aboriginal cultural heritage material and sites.

O.6 A waste management plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP. Construction waste would be managed through the waste hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Recovery Act 2001. All waste requiring off-site disposal would be classified in accordance with the OEH’s (2009) Waste Classification Guidelines prior to disposal.

O.7 Procurement of materials would be undertaken on and ‘as needed’ basis to reduce over-ordering and wastage, and exploring opportunities to reuse materials, where applicable.

O.8 The CSELR proposal would aim to achieve a diversion rate for construction waste from landfill of 95 per cent of waste by volume, with a minimum target of 90 per cent of waste by volume. The proposal would also aim to reuse 100 per cent of paving and other reusable materials or facilitate reuse of such materials.

O.9 Opportunities to minimise the use of potable water would be investigated during construction planning. These opportunities could include the use of alternative water sources, such as recycled water and/or rainwater capture.

O.10 The CEMP would include measures to manage the potential impacts of construction compound operations. This would include inputs into the traffic management plan to minimise impacts associated with vehicle movements to and from construction compounds on surrounding receivers.

O.11 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the Circular Quay construction compound:

No trees within First Fleet Park would be removed by the proposed construction compound. Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting the underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.

Only light structures such as site sheds and light loads would be used in this area to prevent damage to subsurface archaeology. Where appropriate, ground surface protection measures such as geotextile would be considered. The advice of an appropriately qualified archaeologist would be sought in relation to measures to protect subsurface archaeology.

No excavation would be undertaken within First Fleet Park to minimise the risk of impacting on potential subsurface archaeology.

Potential opportunity to temporarily remove plantings under the Cahill Expressway to facilitate construction vehicle access to the construction compound would be further investigated during detailed design, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Any removed plantings would be reinstated at the completion of construction.

Adequate measures would be implemented to minimise the visual amenity impact of the construction compound on the surrounding area.

Adequate water quality controls would be implemented to reduce the risk of chemical spills/leaks reaching Sydney Harbour (due to the small offset distance to this waterway).




O.12 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the Belmore Park construction compound:

No trees within Belmore Park would be removed by the proposed construction compound. Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable buildings) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting on underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.

Pedestrian access through Belmore Park would be maintained for the duration of construction.

O.13 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the Ward Park construction compound:

The layout of the construction compound would be designed to minimise impacts to significant trees within Ward Park. Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to be retained to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting on underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.

Vehicle access would be designed so as to avoid significantly impacting on trees that would not already be impacted by the proposed permanent works (e.g. light rail stop and substation).

O.14 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the Wimbo Park construction compound:

The proposed construction vehicle access to Wimbo Park would be designed to avoid impacts to significant street trees along Bourke Street that would not already be removed to accommodate the proposed permanent works (e.g. light rail track and associated overhead wires).

Opportunity to provide construction vehicle access to Wimbo Park via South Dowling Street (rather than via an extension of Devonshire Street) would be investigated during detailed design, in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services.

The construction compound boundary would be rationalised to allow for the early provision of alternative car parking provisions for the Langton Centre along the southern side of Nobbs Lane (to mitigate impacts associated with the acquisition of the Langton Centre car park).

O.15 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the associated construction facilities east and west of Anzac Parade (at Moore Park):

The final layout of the construction compound would be configured so as to retain as many of the sporting fields as possible.

The construction compound boundary would be designed to avoid impacts to significant trees within Moore Park that would not already be impacted by the proposed permanent works (i.e. the cut-and-cover tunnel). Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to be retained to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting on underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.

The Moore Park construction compound would not impact on the Korean War memorial or children’s play area, located towards the north-western corner of Moore Park.

A temporary footpath would be provided through Moore Park, to maintain current pedestrian access during the construction of the Moore Park tunnel.

Exclusion fencing would be installed around the drip lines of any tree fringing the proposed staff car park (with the potential to be adversely impacted) to avoid impacts to the viability of these trees.

Where feasible, staff car parking at the site would not be permitted during special events at Moore Park, to avoid impacting on special event parking at this venue.



O.16 The following environmental management measures would be implemented for the High Cross Park construction compound:

The construction compound boundary would minimise impacts to significant trees within High Cross Park that would not already be impacted by the proposed permanent works (i.e. the Randwick stop the High Cross Park substation). Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to be retained (and with the potential to be adversely affected) to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting on underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.

Where possible, the construction compound at High Cross Park would be constrained to the northern portion of the park to maintain access to public open space and the war memorial.

The High Cross Park construction compound would not impact on the war memorial.

The opportunity to remove on-street parking on Belmore Road would be investigated during detailed design to reduce the extent of High Cross Park that would be required for the construction compound.

O.17 Opportunities to reduce the size of the construction compound required at High Cross Park would be investigated during the detailed design, including the option of a smaller satellite construction compound in the vicinity of the Wansey Road light rail stop.

O.18 The Randwick stabling facility temporary construction compound would be configured so as to retain the large Moreton Bay Fig at the western end of the site, where feasible.

Stakeholder engagement

P.1 A Community and Stakeholder Involvement Plan would be established prior to construction commencing. The Plan would identify:

key stakeholders including each affected council

methods to inform the community of the progress and performance of the proposal and issues of interest to the community

processes to receive and manage complaints

processes to consult with affected property owners, including property inspections, where appropriate

protocols to notify stakeholders of relevant activities (e.g. out of hours work and traffic disruptions) and any incidents should they occur (e.g. unscheduled service interruptions).

P.2 Newsletters and other communication tools (such as the Sydney Light Rail website) would be distributed to keep the community informed of construction progress, activities and impacts. This would especially outline the need to undertake out of hours works and the process for the community to register complaints and enquiries in relation to the works.

P.3 Complaints during construction would be managed in accordance with Transport for NSW’s Community Engagement Policy. A 24 hour toll free complaints and enquiries number would be established for the duration of construction (1800 775 465).

P.4 Place managers would continue to function in each of the identified proposal precincts including the CBD, Surry Hills, Moore Park, Randwick and Kensington and Kingsford and Rozelle. Place managers would provide a single point of contact for all residents and businesses in the area.

P.5 One on one stakeholder briefings and community information sessions would be held when appropriate to support the rollout of the program of works. The Transport for NSW Community Information Centre would also continue to operate Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm.

P.6 Where the construction of the CSELR in the George Street pedestrian zone affects existing awnings, (including clearances below awnings, pavement levels or access to properties) affected property owners would be consulted. Should any construction works be required to modify awnings, these works would be undertaken, or costs would be met, by the CSELR construction contractor.




Traffic, transport and accessibility

Q.1 A construction network management plan would be developed during detailed design to identify key management measures during construction to minimise impacts to journey times and congestion levels. The plan would also establish a framework for coordinating the implementation of such management measures during the construction of the CSELR proposal.

The construction network management plan would seek to align the peak period travel demand with the traffic capacity available during construction.

The construction network management plan would comprise a live document that would be updated as a greater understanding of the required construction staging is developed and as new management measures are identified in response to unforeseen events during construction and light rail operations.

Q.2 Site specific traffic management plans would be prepared for the construction of the CSELR in accordance with RMS construction specifications and RMS Traffic Control at Work Sites Manual Version 4.0.

Q.3 The contractor would comply with the relevant roads authority procedures in applying for road occupancy licences.

Q.4 An application to the NSW Roads and Maritime Services would be made for any proposed adjustment to speed limits whether they are temporary (such as those required for short-term road occupancies), longer term (such as for the duration of a construction stage) or permanent. No adjustments to speed limits would be undertaken without an approved speed zone authorisation.

Q.5 The indicative planned traffic management measures described in section 3.9.4 of Technical Paper 2 (Construction Traffic and Transport Management Plan) of the EIS would be considered and, where appropriate, implemented to manage a reduction in traffic capacity along the CSELR corridor. The traffic, transport and access management strategies described in section 6.10 of the EIS would also be adopted during the construction of the CSELR proposal.

Q.6 Where possible, existing longitudinal pedestrian movements (i.e. pedestrian movements running parallel to the CSELR alignment) would be maintained along the footpaths. Similarly, where possible, transverse pedestrian movement (i.e. pedestrian movements crossing the CSELR alignment) would be maintained at existing pedestrian crossing facilities either at signals or controlled by traffic controllers.

Clearly defined pedestrian paths and fencing would be provided to separate the pedestrian path from the worksite and prevent random crossings.

Q.7 Where appropriate, traffic controllers would be used when undertaking construction works adjacent to footpaths with high volumes of construction vehicle movements to manage the conflict between construction vehicles and pedestrians.

Q.8 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirements would be adopted (e.g. with drop kerbs, etc. provided at crossings). Footpath widths would allow two-way pedestrian traffic, with sufficient space provided to accommodate pushchairs and wheelchairs. Where high numbers of vulnerable users utilise a footpath, special provision and design consideration would be undertaken to minimise impacts to these pedestrians.

Q.9 Consideration would be given in design to the layout of any hoarding/fence lines to maximise sight lines for pedestrians, and design out hiding places and blind spots to improve pedestrian personal security. Any gantry arrangements or tunnels would have internal lighting. Any hoardings, or other fixed site boundaries would have lighting if required by current standards.

Q.10 Consideration would be given to relocating or supplementing existing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras if the worksite creates unacceptable blind spots.

Q.11 Footway lighting would be provided, where required. Any barriers and pedestrian screens adjacent to pedestrian footways would be designed so as to permit observation from the worksite and opposite footway.



Q.12 Emergency evacuation requirements would be agreed with emergency service providers (Fire Brigade). Depending on the stage of work this may require:

temporary road plates to permit crossing of the work zone

assistance of traffic controllers in restricting public access to the street block and facilitating access for emergency service vehicles

protocols for managing emergency response, which would need to be agreed with service providers prior to the start of work

protocols to manage the evacuation of occupants adjacent to the worksite, which would need to be agreed with the building owners and service providers prior to the start of work.

Q.13 Where required, alternative cycle routes would be reviewed by the local authority with input from local bicycle user groups.

Q.14 Existing cycle paths located within the construction corridor but not occupied by the worksite would be maintained during construction, where feasible.

Q.15 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.

Q.16 During project inductions, all heavy vehicle drivers would be provided with the emergency response plan for construction traffic incidents. An emergency response plan would also be developed for construction traffic incidents and provided to drivers as part of the induction.

In the event of an emergency occurring during the construction of the CSELR proposal, Roads and Maritime Service’s Incident Response Plan Manual would be consulted to determine the appropriate procedure and responses required to address the emergency.

Q.17 Heavy vehicles would be restricted to specified routes, with the aim of avoiding local streets, high pedestrian areas and school zones. Where feasible, route markers would be installed for heavy vehicles along designated routes.

Q.18 Off-site construction vehicle parking would be limited to designated areas. Areas of temporary on-street parking during peak construction events would be identified in the traffic management plans to minimise the impact on surrounding properties and businesses.

Q.19 The queuing and idling of construction vehicles in residential streets would be minimised.

Q.20 A pre and post construction assessment of road pavement assets would be conducted in areas likely to be used by heavy construction vehicles.

Q.21 Public communications would advise the community and local residents of vehicle movements and anticipated effects on the local road network relating to site works in accordance with the CEMP.

Affected stakeholders, such as local government authorities, emergency services, utility providers, local schools, public transport operators, public transport users, road users, local businesses, local employees and residents, would receive advance notification of scheduled construction works to allow for planning of required journeys.

Q.22 Construction vehicle traffic movements would be undertaken outside of peak road traffic periods and outside of school peak periods where feasible.

Q.23 Appropriate information, road and traffic signage, pavement markings and line markings would be implemented to advise commuters, pedestrians and road users of changed conditions.

Q.24 The end state transport arrangements for the City Centre Precinct (e.g. traffic environment during the operational phase of the CSELR proposal, as described in section 12.3.3 of the EIS) would be implemented prior to construction, where appropriate and compatible with construction requirements. This could include the diversion of bus services in accordance with the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, closure of minor side road junctions and laneways (where access is proposed to be permanently removed), and enhancements to the east-west capacity of cross streets within the CBD (where possible).

Q.25 Intersection works within the City Centre Precinct would be undertaken on weekends and at night during weekdays.




Q.26 Works at major intersections within the City Centre Precinct would be staged to maintain key traffic movements (e.g. Grosvenor Street/Bridge Street and Pitt Street/Eddy Avenue). Works at other intersections would be undertaken during weekend and weekday night intersection closures, with traffic diverted to alternative routes. The closure of these intersections would be conditional on the alternate route remaining open (e.g. Hunter Street westbound would remain open while Bridge Street westbound is closed).

Q.27 Major disruptive works would be scheduled to occur during times of lower traffic movement (e.g. during the Christmas/New Year period). Measures required to manage pedestrian movements during such works would be reviewed to determine their adequacy in coping with increased pedestrian activity during the public holiday period.

Q.28 Property access within the City Centre Precinct would be maintained, based on the following hierarchy (corresponding to the current frequency of use) and subject to agreement with the affected property owners and business operators:

properties with infrequent access requirements would be managed through the use of traffic controllers on an ad hoc basis and/or the scheduling of deliveries to occur outside of work hours

access to properties with frequent deliveries (e.g. the Westfield loading dock) would be maintained via an access track

where feasible, a lane would be retained for 24 hour property access. Where this is not feasible, a 24-hour traffic controller would manage property access.

Q.29 The local road network changes outlined in Table 12.17 of the EIS would be implemented to manage impacts to traffic.

Q.30 The coordination of construction activities at redevelopment sites without access to alternate street frontages to George Street would also need to be negotiated with the building owners and contractors prior to the start of work.

Q.31 Local bus diversions outlined in Table 12.19 of the EIS would be implemented to manage the CSELR proposal’s impact on bus operations at Chalmers Street, Eddy Avenue, Rawson Place, and the Park Street/Druitt Street/George Street intersection. An assessment of bus stop capacity would be undertaken for those stops located on high-activity corridors to confirm that they do not exceed capacity during construction.

Q.32 Access to the key heavy rail interchange hubs of Wynyard, Town Hall and Central would be retained, with existing controlled crossing points through worksites being maintained.

Q.33 Traffic signal operation would be reviewed to identify turning movement conflicts with pedestrians crossing at intersections and vehicles on access lanes and accessing worksites.

Q.34 The number of traffic changes would be minimised (where possible) to maintain the legibility of the network for the public, businesses and emergency services to simplify network operations.

Q.35 Access corridors for emergency services would be maintained along the George Street worksite. Pull-off areas (between gaps in barriers) would be provided to allow construction vehicles to stand clear of the access lane. Where this is not feasible and delivery requirements dictate vehicles to stand for an extended time (e.g. while unloading track sections) these deliveries would be made outside business hours. Through traffic would be discouraged by public education, signs, traffic controllers and enforcement.

Q.36 The Elizabeth Street, Crown Street and Bourke Street intersections with Devonshire Street would remain open to traffic for the duration of construction. Construction works at these intersections would be staged to allow traffic to pass adjacent to the worksites and thus ensure property and network accessibility is maintained.

Q.37 Construction across South Dowling Street and the Eastern Distributor would be undertaken as staged night works and night works with some road closures.

Q.38 Vehicles access to all adjacent properties would be maintained during the closure of Devonshire Street. Waterloo Street and Riley Street would remain open during the closure of Devonshire Street. Traffic controllers would be used to guide private vehicles between their driveway and Waterloo Street when works are undertaken adjacent to Waterloo Street.



Q.39 Where feasible, all construction vehicles would be contained within the Ward Park worksite, while staff would utilise potential parking facilities located within designated construction compounds at Moore Park and the proposed Randwick stabling facility.

Q.40 Existing pedestrian footpaths along Devonshire Street would be retained and protected from the worksite with barrier protection, with the exception of during works undertaken adjacent to Ward Park, where pedestrians may need to be diverted to the northern footpath.

Q.41 During intersection staging works, pedestrian crossing facilities would be maintained either by providing an alternate crossing opportunity adjacent to the work zone or maintaining the existing pedestrian facilities.

Q.42 During construction, the reconfiguration of Randle Street would allow for two-way cycle movements, providing a connection from Cooper Street through to Prince Alfred Park (inner south) and Belmore Park (southern CBD).

Q.43 Construction of the CSELR proposal across Lang Road would be undertaken during night works over an approximate two week period. The proposed construction activities would avoid periods when major events are scheduled within Moore Park. Construction of the CSELR proposal across Lang Road would be undertaken during complete closure of the Anzac Parade/Lang Road intersection with traffic directed to the alternate access point of Driver Avenue and Moore Park Road, as shown in Figure 14.4 of the EIS.

Q.44 The proposed construction compound, bentonite plants and laydown facility proposed within the Moore Park Precinct would be positioned so as to minimise the effect on land use and parking provisions during special events, as negotiated with the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust.

Q.45 Construction activities and traffic movements to and from the staff car park at the Moore Park construction compound would be minimised during major events to ensure that there is minimal construction traffic within the local area, to minimise the impact on the road network and in particular the localised congestion within the Moore Park Precinct.

Q.46 To ensure safety of the workers on-site, separation barriers would be installed along the borders of the worksites in the vicinity of the off-road busway, in locations where there is high speed traffic on adjacent lanes.

Q.47 Construction at the southern Gregory Avenue intersection with the busway would be undertaken in a staged manner to facilitate one directional bus movements at this location at all times, as far as practicable.

Q.48 An alternate path would be provided for pedestrians and cyclists at the location where the proposed CSELR route crosses over the existing shared pedestrian and cycle path located adjacent to the busway within Moore Park. This alternate path would be provided within the same segment of the intersection and would not require crossing of Anzac Parade or Alison Road.

Q.49 During intersection works at Lang Road, all existing pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities would be maintained either by providing an alternate crossing opportunity adjacent to the work zone or maintaining the existing pedestrian facilities.

Q.50 A single traffic lane would be maintained in each direction along High Street within the Randwick Precinct at all times.

Q.51 The construction of the CSELR across Alison Road in the Randwick Precinct would be undertaken in stages to maintain a minimum of two lanes of travel in each direction during each works stage.

A minimum of two traffic lanes would be retained along Anzac Parade in each direction within the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct. Where achievable, an additional city-bound lane would be provided which would operate as a peak period bus only lane and off-peak parking zone.

Q.52 Construction works at the Alison Road/Doncaster Avenue intersection would be staged, with works scheduled to occur during weekends when no major events are planned at Royal Randwick racecourse.

Q.53 Works at the intersections of High Street with Wansey Road and Botany Street would be undertaken in stages during off-peak periods (i.e. either during weeknights and/or weekends).

Q.54 The Belmore Road intersection works within the Randwick precinct would be staged during the weekend and nights.




Q.55 Where possible, only on-street parking spaces that would be permanently removed to accommodate the CSELR proposal would be impacted during the construction phase (other than those spaces required for construction compounds).

Q.56 Bus priority measures would be explored during detailed design at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Alison Road.

Q.57 A permanent bus diversion would be established for the bus routes 357, 400 and 410 via Blenheim Street, as shown in Figure 15.8 of the EIS. As part of this diversion, the affected High Street bus stops would be relocated to Clara Street (north of Blenheim Street), consistent with the changes proposed as part of the operational phase of the CSELR proposal.

The existing taxi zone on High Street (outside of Prince of Wales Hospital) would be relocated to Clara Street, opposite the existing taxi zone (and adjacent to the bus stops), in consultation with Randwick City Council.

Q.58 Temporary passenger set-down and pick-up areas for special event buses and coaches accessing Royal Randwick racecourse would be established along Darley Road, adjacent to the TAFE Randwick campus, as shown in Figure 15.10 of the EIS, or nearby as feasible.

Q.59 During events scheduled at Royal Randwick Racecourse, construction activities adjacent to the main entrance to the racecourse on Alison Road would be reviewed so as to not significantly impact on the roundabout operation at the intersection of Ascot Street and Doncaster Avenue, and to maintain safe pedestrian access across the worksite.

Q.60 The proposed signalisation of the Wansey Road/Alison Road intersection would be implemented as part of the early works so that pedestrians can safely cross Alison Road during the construction phase.

Q.61 During construction, to reduce any conflict between the bus operations associated with the bus stops outside the UNSW, adjacent to Gate 9, and construction activities, a westbound bus stop would be provided west of Wansey Road, as shown in Figure 15.9 of the EIS, as required.

Q.62 The existing bus stops located adjacent to Central Railway Station that currently service the university express services would remain operational throughout the construction phase.

Q.63 Alternate on-road cycle routes would be signposted during the construction phase to maintain suitable cycle access to UNSW and the southern Randwick Precinct. Existing Randwick City Council on-road cycle routes would be encouraged through signposting and line marking.

Furthermore, directional signs would be installed at key locations to direct cyclists to the cycle route.

Q.64 Pedestrian crossing opportunities would be maintained during intersection works at Botany Street and Belmore Road either by maintaining the existing pedestrian facilities or providing alternate crossing opportunities at adjacent locations.

Q.66 CSELR construction works at the Alison Road/Anzac Parade intersection and within the wider Kensington/ Kingsford Precinct would be undertaken during week nights and weekends to minimise the impact on adjacent properties and the road network.

Q.67 Construction works at locations with proposed light rail stops in the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct would be undertaken during staged night and weekend works (where required) with traffic controls. Traffic controls would be removed before the morning peak.

Q.68 The closure of the median gaps at Abbotford Street, Carlton Street and Ascot Street in the Kensington/ Kingsford Precinct would be implemented during the construction phase.

Q.69 Multiple construction activities occurring concurrently at multiple sites along Anzac Parade would be managed so that accesses to adjacent properties are maintained.

Q.70 The High Street intersection works in the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct would be staged during the weekend and nights. Construction activities at the intersection would be avoided, wherever possible, during special events at the racecourse or the university during the weekends. The staging of the High Street intersection would maintain all existing movements at the intersection; however, the existing dual right turn from High Street would need to be restricted to a single lane during these weekend closures.



Q.71 The right-turn movement from Anzac Parade south to Rainbow Street would be permanently banned at the commencement of construction. Right turn movements would be accommodated at the downstream intersection at Barker Street or earlier upstream at adjoining roads and accessing Avoca Street.

Q.72 Overhead wiring works and changeovers between the intersection layouts at the Nine Ways intersection (to facilitate installation of signals, line marking, removal of kerb blisters and paving) would be undertaken during nightshifts and weekends to minimise the impact on traffic.

Q.73 End-state (i.e. during the operation of the CSELR proposal) right-turn opportunities along Anzac Parade intersections would be maintained wherever possible. Where such opportunities cannot be maintained during construction, alternative access routes would be provided, in conjunction with Roads and Maritime Services, to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained.

Q.74 Construction activities at Todman Avenue and Doncaster Avenue would be undertaken at separate times to minimise impacts to access.

Q.75 Intersection works at Strachan/Middle Streets and Borrodale/Meeks Streets in the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct would not coincide with works at Barker Street to minimise impacts to access.

Q.76 During construction, suitable alternative parking for the Langton Centre would be provided within the general vicinity of the Langton Centre. Access to this facility would be maintained at all times.

Property and land use

R.1 Consultation would be undertaken with agencies such as the City of Sydney, utilities providers and other potential stakeholders (such as stakeholders associated with future developments within the vicinity of the CSELR proposal) throughout construction of the proposal to identify measures to minimise potential conflicts, potential land use impacts to community facilities such as Ward Park and Wimbo Park and opportunities for minimising impacts to existing land uses.

R.2 Consultation would be undertaken with the Centennial and Moore Park Trust as the key land holder for a majority of the land uses impacted by the CSELR proposal within the Moore Park Precinct.

R.3 For the Randwick precinct, consultation would be undertaken with agencies such as Randwick City Council, utilities providers and other potential stakeholders such as the UNSW, the ATC and the Prince of Wales Hospital throughout construction of the proposal to minimise ongoing impacts to existing land uses.

Noise and vibration

S.1 A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) 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. In general this would include some or all of the following measures:

For construction concentrated in a single area, such as at the stops, worksites, substation construction-sites, bridge sites and stabling / maintenance facility locations, 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 receptors, 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).

Noise generating night works should be programmed to minimise the number of consecutive nights work impacting the same receptors.

Consultation would be undertaken with nearby local schools 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 to be undertaken to potentially avoid noisy works during rest periods at the centres.

Where feasible, simultaneous operation of noisy plant in close proximity to sensitive receptors would be avoided.

Equipment which is used intermittently is to be shut down when not in use.




Where possible, the offset distance between noisy plant items and nearby noise sensitive receptors should be as great as possible.

Where possible, equipment with directional noise emissions should be oriented away from sensitive receptors.

Regular compliance checks on the noise emissions of plant and machinery regularly used to determine whether such plant comply with predicted noise emissions or are higher than predicted. Compliance checks would also be used to identify defective silencing equipment on the items of plant.

Ongoing noise monitoring during construction at sensitive receptors during critical periods to identify and assist in managing high risk noise events.

Reversing of equipment should be minimised so as to prevent nuisance caused by 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 all feasible and reasonable practices have been applied and noise would be more than 5 dB above the noise affected level, the proponent should negotiate with the community to determine the schedule for the works or provide respite to occupants where sleep disturbance is likely to occur.

S.2 Wherever reasonable and feasible, construction work on the proposal would be undertaken in the recommended standard hours for construction work:

Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 6.00 pm

Saturday 8.00 am to 1.00 pm

No work on Sundays or public holidays.

S.3 Site specific CNVMPs would be developed. These would provide a detailed assessment of potential noise levels and site specific measures to control potential noise impacts and minimise the potential for disturbance at affected receptors. A range of feasible and reasonable construction noise mitigation measures would be provided.

Within the Randwick Precinct, the CNVMP would include communication with the owners of the horse stables near the proposed works to clearly explain the timing, duration and likely noise levels for the works.

S.4 In the event of predicted exceedances of the noise goals (particularly during out of hours works), additional noise mitigation measures in the Transport for NSW Construction Noise Strategy would be included in the CNVMPs where reasonable and feasible. As noted in section 12.5.1 of this EIS, the option of alternative accommodation during highly intrusive noise impacts at night-time is unlikely to be reasonable and feasible in the City Centre Precinct. For other precincts, offers of alternative accommodation would only be considered in the event that more than two consecutive nights of highly intrusive noise works are required in any particular location.

S.5 For sensitive receptors that operate outside standard construction hours, for example hospitals which operate on a 24 hour basis, reasonable and feasible noise mitigation options and measures would be developed in consultation with the receptor.

S.6 During construction, attended measurements would be undertaken at the commencement of rockbreaking activities in the vicinity of the premises listed in Table 64 of Technical Paper 11 (Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) of the EIS, to assist in evaluating and managing construction ground-borne noise impacts in conjunction with the premises operators. Alternative construction methods such as smaller rockbreakers, rock saws or respite periods would be considered if required to minimise noise impacts. In the event that lower impact equipment cannot be substituted, all efforts would be made to reschedule work to less sensitive times in consultation with affected communities.

S.7 Where vibration intensive construction activities are proposed within 100 metres of sensitive receptors, 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 CNVMPs. In general, mitigation 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 rockbreaker hammers).

Minimise consecutive works in the same locality (if applicable).

Use dampened rockbreakers and/or ‘city’ rockbreakers to minimise the impacts associated with rockbreaking works.

If vibration intensive works are required within the safe working distances, vibration monitoring or attended vibration trials would be undertaken to ensure that levels remain below the cosmetic damage criterion.

Building condition surveys would be completed both before and after the works to identify existing damage and any damage due to the works.

Measurements of existing ambient vibration levels would be undertaken at receptors with vibration sensitive equipment during the detailed design phase. This information would be used to inform the site-specific CNVMPs for works near these locations.

Planted trees

T.1 Trees that would not be directly impacted by the proposed CSELR permanent works (e.g. overhead wires, substations, light rail stops, kerb realignments, service relocations, etc.) — or significantly impinge on required clearances to such infrastructure, such that the tree would need to be removed to allow for the safe operation of the CSELR — would be retained.

All trees to be retained would be protected prior to the commencement of construction in accordance with AS4970 the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites and Adjoining Properties.

Some trees would require one-off or ongoing maintenance, for example pruning of low branches that would interfere with the overhead wiring. Where pruning of trees is required, a qualified arborist would be engaged to assess the health and condition of the tree and to plan and undertake any pruning works.

T.2 Exclusion fencing would be established around the drip lines of each tree to be retained to minimise the risk of impact to the viability of the trees. Where impact to the drip line area cannot be avoided (due to space constraints), opportunities to raise construction facilities (e.g. demountable) above the ground level would be investigated so as to avoid impacting on the underlying tree roots, in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

T.3 Where the loss of trees is unable to be mitigated, trees removed as a result of the CSELR would be offset in accordance with the Transport for NSW Vegetation Offset Guide (Transport for NSW 2013a), which includes a principle of replacing ‘the amenity/visual landscape value of vegetation removed’ even if the vegetation may not have significant ecological value. Replacement plantings would be agreed in accordance with the CSELR Landscape Strategy (Appendix F of the EIS) and consultation with relevant stakeholders. Replacement plantings would be maintained by the Operator (or as otherwise agreed with any relevant stakeholders) for a period no greater than two years.

T.4 Construction techniques that minimise impacts to tree root zones would be employed where practicable. This would include consideration of compaction and root bridging techniques, permeable paving, tunnel boring of services, hydro-excavation and careful root pruning). The use of low impact construction techniques (on existing tree roots) for installation of new services would also be considered, where appropriate and feasible.

T.5 The trees in Martin Place would not be impacted during the construction of the CSELR proposal. Design and siting of the underground substation in Martin Place would be undertaken so as to provide adequate clearance of the structure from the root zone of these trees. Exclusion fencing would be erected around these trees during construction.

T.6 Opportunities to translocate the four mature trees on Rawson Place to a suitable new location would be investigated during detailed design, where feasible. Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) trees are also proposed in Rawson Place as part of landscaping.

T.7 Fig species (consistent with existing plantings) and Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) would generally be used along Anzac Parade as replacement trees.




T.8 Potential impacts to the large mature Figs adjacent to Anzac Parade would be reviewed by a suitably qualified arborist during detailed design, once the final tunnel construction technique has been determined.

To minimise the potential impacts associated with dewatering activities on the viability of the surrounding Figs, an irrigation strategy would be developed for any Fig that is deemed to be at risk of being affected by a potential lowering of the water table.

T.9 The health of Fig trees within Moore Park would be monitored by a suitable qualified arborist both during and post construction. Appropriate management responses would be developed by a suitably qualified arborist, in consultation with Moore and Centennial Parks Trust so as to minimise impacts to any potentially affected trees.

T.11 The impacts associated with at High Cross Park the Randwick stop would be managed through the development of a detailed landscape strategy for High Cross Park, which would incorporate improvements such as new tree planting, a public plaza and new landscaping. New trees would provide shade and would partly compensate for the loss of existing trees.

T.12 Where possible, trees would be planted within the same locality from which they are removed.


U.1 Where feasible and reasonable, the elements within construction-sites would be located to minimise visual impacts e.g. materials and machinery would be stored back behind fencing.

U.2 Lighting of compounds and works sites would be restricted to agreed hours and security needs and in accordance with the CEMP.

U.3 Visual mitigation would be implemented as soon as feasible and reasonable, and remain for the duration of the construction period.

U.4 Minimise light spill from the light rail construction corridor into adjacent visually sensitive properties by directing construction lighting into the construction areas and ensuring the site is not over-lit. This includes the sensitive placement and specification of lighting to minimise any potential increase in light pollution.

U.5 Regular maintenance of site hoarding and perimeter site areas would be undertaken, including the prompt removal of graffiti.

U.6 On completion of construction, work sites and other land occupied temporarily would be reinstated to their existing condition.

U.7 Work sites and site access would be away from the forecourt of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) and the Circular Quay area, where possible.

U.8 The CSELR proposal would be constructed in such a way that would avoid any negative impacts to the heritage listed Tank Stream Fountain in Alfred Street plaza.

U.9 Schedule works to minimise impacts on special events, such as Anzac Day, New Year’s Eve and Vivid Festival events, where possible. This should include staging works to minimise impacts on areas including Circular Quay, Martin Place (Cenotaph), High Cross Park and Belmore Park where those works would clash with special events, where feasible.

U.10 Identify opportunities the incorporation of art, colours and materials that complement the surroundings as appropriate (for example parkland or University of NSW surroundings) to treatment of the site hoarding and enclosure, in consultation with councils and potentially local community groups and schools. This should include consideration of day and night time activation of the exterior of the site. Privacy considerations for adjacent residential properties or other sensitive receivers as a result of site hoardings would also considered.

U.11 At Circular Quay, identify opportunities for an artistic/historic harbour side narrative approach to the treatment of the site hoardings and enclosures, in collaboration with Customs House.

U.12 Position-site compounds and construction areas to avoid direct impacts on the structure or use of the Martin Place Cenotaph.

U.13 Position equipment and site access away from the Queen Victoria statue and Ibero-American Statue Plaza as far as practicable.



U.14 Consolidate site equipment and facilities to maximise the area of useable public green space, and maintaining pedestrian permeability where reasonable and feasible.

U.15 Maintain permeability or identify an alternative pedestrian route within Moore Park (to replace the key pedestrian route between Parkham Street and Driver Avenue affected by construction) by minimising encroachment onto the existing playing fields.

U.16 Reinstate planting, where removed for construction purposes, on the periphery of Centennial Park in the Randwick Precinct in accordance with the Centennial Parklands Conservation Management Plan.

U.17 Locate site equipment and facilities to minimise impact to the Parklands Sports Centre, maintaining access or providing alternative access to the existing sports facilities.

U.18 Where possible, site equipment and facilities would be consolidated to minimise the intrusion into the University campus grounds.

U.19 Maintain access or provide alternative pedestrian access to all existing University campus facilities.

Built and non-Indigenous heritage

V.1 The mitigation measures for Historical Archaeological Management Units (HAMUs) listed in section 6.2.2 of Technical Paper 5 (Heritage Impact Assessment) of the EIS would be implemented, in accordance with the HAMU zones documented in Figures 4.4 to 4.12 of Technical Paper 5 (Heritage Impact Assessment) of the EIS.

V.2 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for the Tank Stream:

Physical protection would be provided through construction of bridging structure to retain integrity of the Tank Stream, as required.

Management would be implemented in accordance with policies in Sydney Water’s Tanks Stream Conservation Management Plan.

Consultation would be undertaken with Sydney Water, City of Sydney and NSW Heritage Division of OEH.

V.3 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for Alfred Street/Herald Square:

Implementation of an archaeological testing program.

Open area excavation and archival recording during site works.

V.5 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for First Fleet Park:

The potential historical archaeological resource would be managed in accordance with the policies outlined in the First Fleet Park Conservation Management Strategy.

Consultation would be undertaken with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

No excavation would be undertaken within First Fleet Park to minimise the risk of impacting on potential subsurface archaeology.

Services, if required, would be above ground or installed within existing service trenches.

The subsurface archaeological remains within First Fleet Park would be protected from compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface.

The scope of appropriate ground works within First Fleet Park HAMU would be developed in consultation with a suitably qualified archaeologist and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority to ensure the impact on the archaeological resource is as minor as possible.

A photographic archival recording of First Fleet Park would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

V.6 Works in George Street north HAMU, Ward Park HAMU, Devonshire Street Central HAMU (particularly in the location of the proposed substation), Devonshire Street East HAMU, Kensington/Kingsford HAMU and the University of NSW HAMU are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, and post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation. Advice from an archaeological specialist would be obtained where these areas are affected.




V.7 In respect of HAMUs within the Surry Hills Precinct, in the unlikely event that remains associated with unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates are identified and assessed as of State significance, this archaeology would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 mitigation measures

V.8 Within the Olivia Gardens HAMU, mitigation measures for areas outlined as Zone 3 within the basement footprint of the Olivia Gardens building would apply.

V.9 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for the Moore Park West HAMU and Moore Park East HAMU:

Works in this HAMU where air raid shelters were located are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post excavation analysis and reporting (limited to the extent of the area affected by the CSELR proposal). The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

Areas with nil archaeological potential would be managed in accordance with the outlined Zone 4 mitigation measures.

V.10 Mitigation measures, as outlined for Zone 2 in section 12.8.4 of the EIS, would be implemented for the Rozelle maintenance depot HAMU.

V.11 If human remains were to be discovered during any phase of works associated with the CSELR proposal, works would cease immediately in the surrounding area. Any finding would need to be reported immediately to the NSW Coroner’s Office and/or the NSW Police. If the remains are suspected to be Aboriginal, the Office of Environment and Heritage would also need to be contacted. A specialist would also be consulted to determine the nature of the remains.

If skeletal remains are identified at Town Hall, Eddy Avenue or Chalmers Street they would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 strategies and, at a minimum, managed in accordance with the Heritage Division guideline Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains, and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. If identified, consultation with the NSW Heritage Division of OEH would be required.

V.12 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for Belmore Park:

The subsurface archaeological remains within Belmore Park would be protected from compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface.

Significant trees and landscaping to be retained within Belmore Park would be protected from damage by vehicular or machinery movement.

Significant landscape elements (such as sandstone kerbing) that are to be removed from Belmore Park for the construction compound would be salvaged, catalogued and stored for reinstatement following completion of construction works.

A photographic archival recording of Belmore Park would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

V.13 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for Martin Place, the Cenotaph and General Post Office:

The detailed design of any works in Regimental Square would retain and conserve the memorial and associated significant plantings.

The memorial and significant associated landscaping would be retained and protected during construction works.

A photographic archival recording of Regimental Square would be undertaken prior to any works commencing in this area.

No new permanent above ground structures would be introduced into Martin Place, particularly in the vicinity of the Cenotaph.

The size and material of any required access hatches for the below ground substation in Martin Place would minimise visual impacts on the ground plane of Martin Place.

The design of necessary substation ventilation shafts, access hatches, and other infrastructure would minimise visual impacts on the Cenotaph.

The condition of the Cenotaph would be assessed prior to commencement of construction works for the proposed substation and monitored during construction.



The planning of the works compound would ensure that access is provided to the Cenotaph for the groups who use the memorial.

V.14 A photographic archival recording of the principal elevations of Daking House would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

V.15 Significant fabric of the Elizabeth Street Gardens that is to be removed, such as the edging and the palms, would be salvaged, catalogued and stored for possible reinstatement (or partial reinstatement) following completion of construction works.

V.16 A photographic archival recording of the parts of Central Railway Station to be affected by the CSELR works, including the Elizabeth Street Gardens and the Chalmers Street boundary wall, would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

V.17 Replanting of trees would be undertaken along Devonshire Street where possible following completion of construction works in accordance with the Landscape Strategy (Appendix F of the EIS).

V.18 The mosaic mural and sandstone monument in Wimbo Park would be retained where feasible and conserved. If they cannot be retained in situ, relocation of these elements within the proposed new landscaping would be undertaken in accordance with a management plan or other approved document.

V.19 The design of necessary substation ventilation shafts, access hatches, and other infrastructure in Ward Park would minimise impacts on the spatial quality of Ward Park.

V.20 The following mitigation measures would be implemented for Centennial Park, Moore Park, Queens Park and the Moore Park Conservation Area:

The area required for excavation would be minimised to reduce the impact of the works on Moore Park.

The size and form of the tunnel portal structures would be as recessive as possible to reduce permanent visual impacts on the landscape of Moore Park. Any new structures/infrastructure would be recessive and allow the broader landscape to remain the dominant feature.

The location and design of the Moore Park stop would minimise impacts on significant views of the Sydney Cricket Ground and former RAS buildings from Anzac Parade and within Moore Park.

Where feasible, areas excavated for construction of the CSELR would be reinstated to the current condition on completion of construction. This includes areas to be used for construction compounds/laydown areas.

A photographic archival recording of the areas of Moore Park that would be subject to impacts from construction of the CSELR, including the Anzac Parade avenue of trees, would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

Works in this HAMU may require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post excavation analysis and reporting (limited to the extent of the area affected by the CSELR proposal). The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

V.21 Where significant trees must be removed in the Martin Road Conservation Area suitable replacements would be made, where possible, to screen the conservation area from the CSELR.

V.22 During demolition of Wansey Cottage, where practical, salvage and recycle building elements of heritage significance suitable for the repair of other heritage items, including roof tiles, joinery (windows, doors, architraves, skirting) and any other fabric.

Socio-economic

W.1 Alternate routes to public areas and open spaces areas and community facilities impacted by the construction of the proposal would be identified including The Rocks, Belmore Park, the Sydney Dental Hospital and other community services (churches, schools etc.).




W.2 The following mitigation measures would be implemented regarding safety and security:

The CEMP would identify risks to safety and security on a site-by-site basis and provide appropriate mitigation measures.

Detailed design would incorporate the principles of CPTED.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirements would be adopted.

Construction lighting standards would be met with the aim of minimising lighting impacts outside the construction corridor.

Hoarding/fence lines would be erected to maximise sight lines for pedestrians and avoid hiding places and blind spots to improve pedestrian personal security.

Any gantry arrangements would have internal lighting.

Safety and security impacts would be addressed as part of the CEMP.

W.3 The following mitigation measures would be implemented regarding health and wellbeing, in addition to measures to manage noise impacts (refer measures S.1–S.7) and air quality impacts (refer measures AC.1–AC.24):

The CEMP is to identify risks to health and wellbeing on a site-by-site basis and would include appropriate mitigation measures.

The CEMP would account for cumulative impacts of construction given concurrent works in the precinct.

Health impacts would be addressed as part of the CEMP, including watering exposed areas to minimise dust impacts, using non-tonal reversing indicators, and fitting construction machinery with appropriate muffling devices.

W.4 Access management plans would be prepared in liaison with businesses and landowners to understand their servicing and delivery requirements. These plans would then identify and implement means of maintaining (and where possible enhancing) access to businesses for deliveries and servicing during both the construction and operational phases of the CSELR proposal.

W.5 A business landowner and engagement management plan would support the preparation and effective implementation of the access management plans. It would also identify and implement means by which to keep businesses informed of the CSELR proposal and methods to proactively support businesses through the construction phase.

W.6 Place managers would assist with ensuring needs of disadvantaged residents are accounted for, particularly as some residents may not have access to telephone or email facilities or may not speak English comfortably or as a first language.

Hydrology, drainage and surface water quality

X.1 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 would include the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (2000) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and Landcom’s (2004) The Blue Book – Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction.

X.2 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.

X.3 During construction, the potential for localised flooding of excavation-sites would need to be managed. Water pumping facilities may be required at specific locations along the alignment to remove any water that would pool within or adjacent to construction areas. Temporary drainage pipes or channels would also be provided to drain any open excavation areas.



Land stability, soils and contamination

Y.1 Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel across Moore Park would employ construction techniques aimed at minimising the risk of settlement.

Y.2 Precondition surveys of building and structures in the vicinity of the Moore Park tunnel would be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction of the structure. Monitoring would continue for identified baseline buildings and structures throughout the construction period.

Y.3 As part of the detailed design, a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would be undertaken to further characterise the nature of potential contamination along the proposed CSELR alignment. The Phase 2 ESA would focus on the following:

General contamination along the route. This would be assessed through a program of conventional field testing involving groundwater wells, soil cores and test pits and lab testing of collected samples. Test locations would be derived from a Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan (SAQP) which would be developed based on the Phase 1 ESA discussed in Section 10.3.2 of the EIS.

Building contamination (including asbestos and lead paint). This would include areas where demolition works are proposed (e.g. Olivia Gardens and at the Rozelle maintenance depot).

Contamination from existing underground services (e.g. pits, pipes and substations). This would involve a review of existing detailed utilities data including ‘Dial-Before-You-Dig’, survey and data provided by asset owners (e.g. hazard logs) to categorise the likelihood of contamination, followed by field testing to confirm the presence of contaminated materials.

Y.4 A remediation strategy would be developed (as part of the CEMP) based on the results of the Phase 2 ESA. This strategy would outline any measures required to manage contaminated materials during construction. The strategy would also include a protocol to manage any unexpected disturbance of potentially contaminated material (which was not identified during the Phase 2 ESA).

The remediation strategy would identify opportunities for remediation of affected areas prior to or during construction where the Phase 2 ESA confirms the presence of contaminated materials in concentrations above the intended land use criteria, as specified in the following guidelines:

Contaminated Site Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites (EPA 2004)

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1) (NEPM) (National Environment Protection Council (NEPC, 2013)

Waste Classification Guidelines (DECCW 2009).

Y.5 All contaminated materials disturbed during construction would be managed and either re-used or disposed of appropriately in accordance with all relevant legislation and guidelines, including the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC 2009a) Waste Classification Guidelines and the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC, 2013) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1) (NEPM).

Y.6 Segregated materials would be inspected and sampled, with samples submitted for analytical testing for contaminants of concern. Results would be compared to relevant assessment criteria to assess whether there is any potential health or environmental risk posed by re-using the material on-site. Where concentrations of contaminants are above the intended land or appropriate human/ecological health criteria, the assessment would identify opportunities for remediation of affected areas.

Y.7 Attempts would be made to re-use material on-site where assessment indicates that there is no risk, or where materials can reasonably and feasibly be remediated.

Y.8 Areas requiring remediation would be validated to confirm that the surrounding soil meets site land use criteria requirements.

Y.9 In the event of any previously unidentified contaminated materials being identified on-site during construction, works in the affected area would cease and would not recommence until sampling and remedial actions are instigated. This would be undertaken in accordance with the applicable EPA guidelines and statutory requirements. Work health and safety requirements and appropriate management measures would be followed for works that have the potential to contain contaminated soil.




Y.10 Fill material would remain on-site where possible and where contaminant concentrations meet the site assessment criteria.

Y.12 A hazardous material inspection would be undertaken of any areas where historical infrastructure is to be disturbed and/or demolished to assess the material to be disturbed for the presence of asbestos and/or lead paint.

Appropriate management plans would be developed to outline the management and handling of hazardous materials during construction.

Y.13 Where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials to be disturbed, for example during demolition activities or excavation of underground services, the works would be monitored by an occupational hygienist.

Y.14 An Asbestos Management Plan would be developed in accordance with the Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos Contaminated Sites in Western Australia (Western Australia Department of Health 2009) and included as part of the CEMP.

Y.15 Where suspected asbestos and/or lead paint containing materials are identified, work in the affected area would cease, and an investigation would be undertaken to determine the nature, extent and degree of contamination. A report would be prepared which would include a methodology for the removal, handling and disposal of the contaminated material. Works would only recommence upon receipt of a validation report from a suitably qualified occupational hygienist that the contaminated materials had been removed.

Y.16 Erosion and sediment control plans would be prepared for each worksite in accordance with Volume 2D of Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (DECC 2008). 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 the construction phase. Clean water would be diverted around the work site in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (DECC 2008).

Y.17 Stabilised surfaces would be reinstated as quickly as practicable after construction.

Y.18 All stockpiled materials would be stored in bunded areas and kept away from waterways to avoid sediment entering the waterways.

Y.19 Sediment would be prevented from moving off-site and sediment laden water prevented from entering any watercourse, drainage line or drainage inlet.

Y.21 Erosion and sediment control measures would be regularly inspected (particularly following rainfall events) to ensure their ongoing functionality.

Y.22 Erosion and sediment control measures would be left in place until the works are complete and areas are stabilised.

Groundwater

Z.1 A construction groundwater management plan would be prepared prior to construction, and would detail the control measures that aim to minimise potential impacts to groundwater resources and receiving environments during construction. The purpose of the plan is to provide practical impact mitigation principles and measures for the design and construction of the proposal consistent with relevant legislation and standard guidelines.

Z.2 The construction groundwater management plan would include details of a groundwater monitoring program, which would be implemented prior to construction to identify changes in groundwater quality and levels during the construction. The monitoring program would be developed in consultation with the NSW Office of Water.

Z.3 Excavation techniques would be adopted to minimise impacts on aquifers.

Z.4 Groundwater encountered during the construction of the proposal would be tested, managed and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (DECC 2009) and Transport for NSW’s (Transport for NSW 2012a) Water Discharge and Re-use Guideline. Groundwater would be disposed to ensure it does not cause the pollution of waters in accordance with Section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.



Z.5 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.

Z.6 Construction techniques would aim to reduce the volume of dewatering required at the deeper sections of the tunnel.

Aboriginal heritage

AA.1 All contractors would receive a Heritage induction advising and informing them of the archaeological potential and actions to be implemented in the event of any unexpected remains.

AA.2 A qualified archaeologist would be nominated and available to attend in the event that unidentified archaeological remains are discovered during construction.

AA.4 Should Aboriginal objects or other archaeological evidence be identified in these areas during works, works would cease in the immediate area and the archaeologist contacted to assess the evidence. Additional investigation, such as salvage excavation, may be required.

Biodiversity

AB.1 The location of the hollow-bearing trees identified in this EIS would be confirmed to inform and plan procedures for the removal of these habitat features.

AB.2 Nearby suitable habitat would be identified for the release of any fauna that may be encountered during the pre-clearing or habitat removal processes.

AB.3 The presence of flora and fauna species and habitat on-site would be checked before clearing begins such as the presence of bird nests or trees that contain hollows.

AB.4 An appropriate level of emergence survey would be undertaken to confirm absence of microbats in any buildings or structures likely to be directly impacted by the works.

AB.5 Prior to construction, site personnel would be adequately informed of environmental management procedures including, but not limited to, issues related to flora and fauna management, disease prevention, erosion and sediment control.

AB.6 Implementation of mitigation measures (refer measures T.1 to T.12) to ensure protection and management of all trees identified to be retained.

AB.8 Noxious weeds within the study area would be managed in accordance with the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

AB.9 The potential for the introduction or spread of plant diseases would be managed. Management techniques may include ensuring that equipment is clean prior to commencement of earthworks, disease free certification of landscaping materials, and disposal of pathogen-contaminated soils at appropriate weed disposal facilities.

Air Quality

AC.1 Dust minimisation measures would be developed and implemented prior to commencement of construction.

AC.2 Methods for management of emissions would be incorporated into project inductions, training and pre-start talks.

AC.3 Activities with the potential to cause significant dust emissions (such as bulk earthworks or demolition works) would be identified in the CEMP. Work practices which minimise emissions during these activities would be investigated and applied where reasonable and feasible.

AC.4 Vehicle movements would be limited to designated site entrances/exits, haulage routes and parking areas. Site exits would be fitted with hardstand material, rumble grids or other appropriate measures to limit the amount of material transported off-site (where required). Site speed limits of 20 kilometres per hour would be imposed on all construction vehicles at the site; although lower speeds may be required on unsealed roads.




AC.5 Work sites and exposed areas would be screened to assist in capturing airborne particles and reduce potential entrainment of particles from areas susceptible to wind erosion.

AC.6 Visually monitor dust and where necessary implement the following measures:

Apply water (or alternative measures) to exposed surfaces that are causing dust emissions. Surfaces may include any stockpiles, hardstand areas and other exposed surfaces (for example recently graded areas and those areas recently scraped).

Regular watering would ensure that the soil is moist to achieve 50 per cent control of dust emissions from scrapers, graders and dozers.

Appropriately cover loads on trucks transporting material to and from the construction-site. Securely fix tailgates of road transport trucks prior to loading and immediately after unloading.

Limit vehicle speeds along unsealed construction access routes.

Apply water to internal unsealed access roadways and work areas. Application rates would be related to atmospheric conditions (e.g. prolonged dry periods) and the intensity of construction works. Paved roads would be regularly swept and watered when necessary.

Promote and maintain awareness of weather forecasts to support anticipation of unfavourable conditions.

AC.7 Dust generating activities (particularly clearing and excavating) would be avoided or minimised during dry and windy conditions. Street sweeping of the CSELR alignment would be undertaken where an excessive build-up of material has occurred.

AC.8 Minimise drop heights during loading and unloading of bulk materials.

AC.9 Exposed areas and stockpiles would be limited in area and duration. For example, stage vegetation stripping or grading where possible, cover unconsolidated stockpiles, or apply hydro mulch or other revegetation applicant to stockpiles or surfaces left standing for extended periods.

AC.10 Revegetation or rehabilitation activities would proceed once construction activities are completed within a disturbed area.

AC.13 Construction plant and equipment would be well maintained and regularly serviced so that vehicular emissions remain within relevant air quality guidelines and standards. Where feasible, construction plant and equipment with lower emissions and higher energy/fuel efficiency would be selected.

AC.14 Emissions from trucks would be regulated in accordance with the requirements prescribed in National Environment Protection Council’s (2001) In Service Emission Testing – pilot study, fault identification and effect of maintenance (diesel vehicle emissions).

AC.15 All construction vehicles would be tuned so as to not release excessive level of exhaust smoke, and would be compliant with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Smokey Vehicles Program under the NSW Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 and associated regulations.

AC.16 All on-road trucks would comply with the latest emission standards.

AC.17 All new off-road construction equipment would meet, at a minimum, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 3 emission standards for non-road diesel engines.

AC.18 All chemicals and fuels would be stored in sealed containers as per appropriate regulations and guidelines.

AC.19 The onsite storage of fuel would be kept to a minimum.

AC.20 Unloading of fuels (diesel or liquefied nitrogen gas) would be vented via return hoses that recirculate vapours from delivery to receiver.

AC.21 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).

AC.22 Strategies would be investigated to reduce the usage of chemical and fuels in addition to using alternative fuel technologies as recommended in the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Action for Air – 2009 Update (DECCW 2009a). Particular focus would be on those products with the potential to release high levels of air toxics.



Utilities

AD.1 Services or utilities that may be impacted by the CSELR would be protected and/or relocated using the following hierarchy:

Utilities within Zone 1 (as shown in Figure 10.8 of the EIS) are likely to require relocation due to the physical clash with the structural rail slab (including its construction).

Utilities crossing Zone 2 (as shown in Figure 10.8 of the EIS) would be protected where feasible.

Utilities crossing Zone 3 (as shown in Figure 10.8 of the EIS) may require protection but have the potential to remain undisturbed, subject to accurate identification and consultation with the relevant utility authorities.

AD.2 All appropriate service utility providers (e.g. electricity, communication, water and other utility services) would continue to be consulted throughout construction.

Greenhouse gas

AE.1 Methods for management of greenhouse gas emissions would be incorporated into site inductions, training and pre-start talks.

AE.2 Activities with the potential to cause substantial greenhouse gas emissions (such as material delivery and loading and bulk earthworks) would be identified. Work practices which minimise greenhouse gas emissions during these activities 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 with the latest technology.

AE.3 Construction services and materials would be procured locally, where practicable, to minimise the distance travelled and therefore greenhouse emissions from vehicles accessing the site.

AE.4 During construction planning, deliveries would be managed in an efficient manner to minimise the number of trips required and therefore reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

AE.5 Energy-efficient work practices would be implemented, such as switching off construction plant, vehicles and equipment when not in use to minimise idling.

AE.6 Regularly monitoring, auditing and reporting on energy, resource use and associated greenhouse gas emissions would be undertaken as part of the environmental reporting requirements specified within the CEMP.

AE.7 Selection of materials during construction planning to ensure products that reduce embodied carbon are considered and used.

Hazards and risks

AF.1 Hazards and risks associated with construction activities would be identified prior to construction. Management measures for each identified hazard/risk would be developed. A process for regularly reviewing work practices/procedures would be implemented throughout construction to identify, report and respond to any new environmental hazards/risks.

AF.2 Construction worksites located adjacent to public areas would be screened (where required) to minimise risks of injury as a result of unsecured debris, tools and other objects.




Regional cumulative impacts

AG.1 The following construction management plans would incorporate measures, where required, to manage cumulative construction impacts:

construction traffic management plan

construction noise and vibration management plan

air quality and dust management plan

construction compounds and ancillary facilities management plan

earthworks management plan – which would include measures to manage water quality.

6.1.3 Operation

The revised environmental management measures to be implemented during the operation of

the Project (including the proposed High Street modification) are listed in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Revised environmental management measures – operation

ID No. Environmental management measure – operational phase

Traffic, transport and access

AH.1 A network management plan would be developed for the CSELR proposal during detailed design to identify key management measures that would be implemented to minimise impacts to journey times and congestion levels. Transport for NSW would be responsible for developing and maintaining the network management plan in consultation with stakeholders.

AH.2 Transport for NSW would work alongside the relevant road authorities to develop appropriate demand management strategies for the construction and operational phases of the CSELR proposal. These demand management strategies would be integrated with network optimisation measures being developed as part of the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, to ensure their maximum effectiveness.

AH.3 In conjunction with the demand management measures, targeted traffic management upgrades would be undertaken to improve general traffic circulation in the vicinity of the CSELR proposal. Within the CBD, these measures would also form part of the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy which identifies the priority traffic routes shown in Figure 9.12 of the EIS and the redesign of the city centre bus network.

Outside of the CBD, Transport for NSW would continue to work with local councils and the Roads and Maritime Services to mitigate the local traffic impacts and potential increased traffic flows that may occur on local roads as a result of the CSELR proposal.

AH.4 Key road network changes to accommodate the introduction of light rail within the CBD and South East, as described in section 5.2.7 of the EIS, section 9.2 of the EIS and the relevant sections of the precinct chapters of the EIS (sections 12.3.2, 13.3.2, 14.3.2, 15.3.2, 16.3.2) would be implemented as part of the CSELR.

AH.5 Transport for NSW would continue to work with City of Sydney, Randwick City Council and Roads and Maritime Services to mitigate the local traffic impacts and potential increased traffic flows that may occur on the road network as a result of the CSELR proposal.

AH.6 The following intersections would be signalised as part of the CSELR to manage light rail conflicts with pedestrian and traffic movements:

Devonshire Street/Marlborough Street intersection.

Devonshire Street/Bourke Street intersection.

South Dowling Street southbound and northbound traffic lanes at the CSELR crossing point.

Wansey Road/Alison Road intersection would be signalised (on all arms) to provide pedestrian access from the residential catchments in the north and east to the Wansey Road stop.

High Street/Hospital Road intersection.

High Street/Clara Street intersection.



High Street/Wansey Road intersection would be signalised to accommodate pedestrians and the light rail turning movements between Wansey Road and High Street. Pedestrian crossings would be provided across Wansey Road and the eastern arm of High Street as a minimum, which would replace the existing zebra crossing on High Street.

Arthur Street/Botany Street intersection.

Arthur Street/Belmore Road intersection.

Botany Street/Barker Street intersection.

The existing Nine Ways roundabout would be reconstructed and upgraded to incorporate traffic signals.

AH.7 All existing property accesses along the CSELR would be maintained during the operational phase of the CSELR proposal; however, certain restrictions are likely to apply which would be implemented by the relevant road authority and could include:

Access restrictions on George Street implemented by the City of Sydney to provide for appropriate safety and amenity for pedestrians. These measures would be determined by City of Sydney, in consultation with Transport for NSW.

Left-in, left out-out limitations on driveway access along the proposed CSELR corridor, where feasible.

Property accesses along Devonshire Street would be maintained; however, access arrangements to some properties may change. Ongoing consultation would be undertaken with owners of properties with direct access onto the CSELR corridor to determine specific access arrangements.

Property access along High Street between Wansey Road and Botany Street would be maintained; however, access arrangements would be revised to be provided from a new access lane from Arthur Street. Consultation would be undertaken with owners of properties with direct access onto the CSELR corridor to determine specific access arrangements.

AH.8 General traffic access to the pedestrianised section of George Street (between Bathurst Street and Hunter Street) would be restricted through the introduction of appropriate vehicle restrictions. However, exceptions to this control would be provided for local access, service delivery and emergency vehicles to access driveways and loading zones (at a maximum speed of 10 kilometres per hour).

AH.9 Within the George Street pedestrian zone, signalised pedestrian crossing facilities would be provided on all arms of existing signalised intersections to provide controlled crossing points of the light rail alignment.

AH.11 The existing access to the Sydney Trains car park located opposite Devonshire Street would be integrated with the new traffic signals proposed at this location.

AH.12 Loading dock access on the southern side of Eddy Avenue would require management across the light rail alignment through time restricted access and/or audio visual warnings. Suitable treatment measures to address this issue would be identified during detailed design.

AH.13 Access for emergency vehicles would be maintained at all times along the length of the CSELR.

AH.14 Existing City of Sydney bicycle routes crossing George Street would be maintained, however George Street would no longer be promoted as a bicycle route, with cyclists being directed to alternate existing north-south corridors such as Pitt, Castlereagh and York Streets.

AH.15 The existing provision of short and long stay parking available along Chalmers Street south of Devonshire Street would be retained.

AH.16 Replacement parking to offset parking spaces removed at the Langton Centre as a result of the CSELR would be provided nearby, most likely along the northern side of the new Wimbo Park open space on the site of the Olivia Gardens apartment complex, as shown in Figure 6.5 of the Submissions Report. The final location and number of replacement parking spaces would be determined in consultation with the Langton Centre and City of Sydney. Access to this facility would be maintained at all times.

AH.17 The existing pedestrian/cyclist bridge and associated crossings located adjacent to Parkham Street would be relocated to the proposed light rail bridge structure.




AH.18 The existing pedestrian and cycle crossing linking Arthur Street to Moore Park would be retained to provide a continuous cycle link between Moore Park and Central Railway Station through Surry Hills. Appropriate signposting would be provided to direct cyclists from the crossing location at Devonshire Street and Bourke Street.

AH.19 Light rail vehicles would be given priority over other traffic along Devonshire Street to ensure traffic and pedestrians are not adversely affected by the queuing of longer light rail vehicles at traffic signals during special events (which could block adjacent intersections).

AH.20 Adoption of appropriate parking management measures (parking controls) to balance supply and demand would be considered. Local area parking management in the precincts surrounding the CSELR should primarily provide:

For residents — local area residential parking schemes. To provide for residential parking, particularly during the pre-morning and post-afternoon peaks.

For businesses — short-term timed parking to encourage turnover, trade and increase capacity for customers.

Transport for NSW would work with City of Sydney and Randwick City Council to refine these measures. These councils would lead the development and implementation and management of general parking displaced by the CSELR and the relocated special uses. Council would be responsible for the implementation of any changes to the function and management of on-street kerbside activity within the area of influence of the CSELR proposal.

AH.22 The following changes to bus stops would be implemented as part of the CSELR to allow for bus services to service the Prince of Wales Hospital, Children’s Hospital and University of NSW:

An indented bus bay for westbound buses on High Street would be introduced adjacent to the adult wing of the Prince of Wales Hospital.

The westbound bus stop on High Street adjacent to the Children’s Hospital emergency entrance would be relocated to Clara Street, with access to the hospital via a signalised intersection.

An indented bus bay for westbound buses would be provided on High Street between Botany Street and Wansey Road (within the UNSW site).

AH.23 The off-road shared pedestrian and cyclist path between Darley Road and Wansey Road would be reinstated between the proposed CSELR route and Royal Randwick racecourse.

AH.24 Sufficient car parking provisions would be provided at the proposed Randwick stabling facility, so that there would be no requirement for CSELR employees to use existing on-street parking when accessing this facility.

AH.25 A 3.5 metre wide shared bus and light rail running lanes would be provided on Anzac Parade between the Kingsford interchange and a location to the north of UNSW (the location where the express buses would re-join the general traffic lanes along Anzac Parade would be determined during detailed design).

AH.26 One existing signalised pedestrian crossing of Anzac Parade south of Goodwood Street would be relocated to be adjacent to the Carlton Street stop.

AH.27 Within the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct, physical separation would be provided between light rail and general traffic, particularly at locations where right turns off Anzac Parade were previously permitted but would be prohibited in the future.

AH.28 The existing on-road shared path along the eastern kerb of Anzac Parade between Moore Park Road and Alison Road in the Kensington/Kingsford Precinct would be retained.

AH.29 Cycle storage facilities would be provided at key bus interchanges such as Rawson Place, Randwick and the Kingsford stop, providing opportunities for cyclists to change mode onto the light rail.

AH.30 Pedestrian crossing facilities across Anzac Parade would be provided to permit safe access to the proposed light rail stops situated within the central median of Anzac Parade.

AH.31 Pedestrian access to the Kingsford stop would be provided via signalised crossings on all approaches to the Nine Ways intersection.



AH.33 The Operator would develop detailed contingency measures to address issues such as flooding, fallen trees/branches and LRV breakdowns which could impact on the operation of CSELR services, LRVs, customers, infrastructure and/or other modes of transport. These contingency measures would be developed prior to the commencement of CSELR operations. An outline of the preliminary operational contingency measures that would be implemented in the event of such incidents occurring on the CSELR network have been outlined in Appendix J of the EIS.

AH.34 At the Rozelle maintenance depot site, vehicle access to the facility and adjacent commercial properties within the rail corridor would be maintained via the existing driveway located on Lilyfield Road, east of Catherine Street, and the existing internal site access road.

AH.35 Parking for staff vehicles at the Rozelle maintenance depot would be accommodated internally, with approximately 50 parking spaces provided for both staff and visitors. Parking provisions at the depot would be sufficient to accommodate all traffic generated by the maintenance depot to minimise impact on adjacent on-street parking provisions.

AH.37 All impacted special kerbside uses (e.g. disabled parking and loading zones) along the CSELR corridor would be replaced on a ‘like for like’ basis within the local vicinity of existing provision. The detailed implementation of this replacement is being worked through with the two local councils, City of Sydney and Randwick City Council.

AH.38 The CSELR alignment would be designed so as to not preclude the opportunity for on-street parking to be provided (during periods of low traffic demands) within the kerbside lane of the road, where sufficient road space is present, in consultation with RMS, City of Sydney and Randwick City Council.

Noise and vibration

AI.1 For locations where the Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (RING) (EPA 2013) operational noise trigger levels are predicted to be exceeded by more than 2 dB, a detailed investigation of feasible and reasonable noise mitigation measures would be undertaken to minimise the worst-case predicted noise levels. As detailed further in Technical Paper 11 (Noise and Vibration) of the EIS, potential measures to be considered include:

more stringent specification of LRV noise emissions in the procurement process, which would only be recommended following consultation with rolling stock providers to establish whether more stringent noise specifications could feasibly be achieved

higher absorption track forms, including those described in the EIS

speed restrictions to 30 kilometres per hour during the night-time between the Central Railway Station and the Surry Hills stops (with the exception of during special events)

minimising wheel and rail roughness through specifications for CSELR operations, such as maintaining the rail surface (via rail grinding) and train wheel conditions (via a wheel lathe) in accordance with defined acceptance standards

individual property treatments, in the event that the above alternatives are determined as not feasible or reasonable.

The final form of the proposed mitigation measures would be documented in the Operational Noise and Vibration Review, as required as part of mitigation measure B.1.

AI.2 Warning bells on LRVs would only be used in the event of emergencies or where the driver considers there is a danger to public safety. Warning bells would not form part of normal rail operations (i.e. they would not be used on approach or departure from stations, or at level crossings).

AI.3 Noise from PA systems at the light rail stops would be controlled to minimise potential impacts at the nearest receptors to the stops. The need for announcements at stops in residential areas would also be reviewed, particularly during the more sensitive night-time period.




AI.4 For the Randwick stabling facility, operational noise mitigation measures would be implemented to meet the NSW Industrial Noise Policy criteria. The range of alternative measures to be considered would include:

an acoustic shed across the site, including a six metre noise barrier at the site boundary – which would only be implemented if considered feasible considering potential cost, visual and overshadowing implications

operational measures, such as changes to pre-start practices

changes to times of use of areas/noise sources, for example the wash plant

increased noise attenuation targeting particular sources, for example the wash plant

use of barriers within the site (not just at the site boundary), for example between stabling roads or nearer to other noise sources, such as the site access roads, wash plant and sand plant

use of a partial roof enclosure, potentially in conjunction with a combination of other options.

AI.5 At the Rozelle maintenance depot, the LRV entry doors would be closed at night-time to mitigate operational noise during the night-time period.


AJ.2 Where possible, catenary should be located with consistent pole types and even spacing.

AJ.3 Use semi-mature to mature tree specimens, in accordance with the Transport for NSW ‘Vegetation Offset Guide’ (2013d) and the Landscape Strategy (Appendix F of the EIS) to replace the character of those lost on a ‘like for like’ basis, in consultation with the City of Sydney and Randwick City Council.

AJ.4 Where necessary, reconstruct the Ibero-American Statue Plaza to incorporate all statues and restore its setting in consultation with the City of Sydney.

AJ.5 Incorporate tree planting within the Northcott Estate’s northern boundary to reinforce the green edge and filtering effect of trees lost in consultation with Housing NSW.

AJ.6 Redefine the northern edge of Ward Park through a new plaza and tree planting in consultation with the City of Sydney and in accordance with the Transport for NSW ‘Vegetation Offset Guide’ (Transport for NSW 2013a) and the Landscape Strategy (Appendix F of the EIS).

AJ.7 Enhance the northern edge of Devonshire Street with tree planting (to mitigate the character of those lost within the Devonshire Street road corridor) in consultation with the City of Sydney and in accordance with the Transport for NSW ‘Vegetation Offset Guide’ (Transport for NSW 2013a).

AJ.8 Recreate Wimbo Park, together with the new Olivia Gardens, as a high quality open space. Enhance these areas with mature tree specimens to mitigate the character of those trees proposed to be removed, in consultation with the City of Sydney.

AJ.9 Provide appropriate landscape treatment to the surroundings of the Moore Park tunnel portal in consultation with the Centennial and Moore Parks Trust and City of Sydney.

AJ.10 Provide a boulevard of street trees along Anzac Parade to improve the streetscape and extend the ceremonial avenue of street trees.

AJ.11 Ensure lighting contributes to a safe and legible streetscape. In particular, the lighting required for the proposal would be mitigated as follows:

all lights would be located at a similar level to the overhead catenary system so to minimise the light spill onto adjacent areas

all lights would be directed downwards, with the exception of feature lighting that would always be capped by a surface material

light colour would be designed in response to the surrounding context and be selected to complement the surrounding lighting colour

Australian Standard levels for public safety and CCTV would be used, so no unnecessary lighting would be required to be provided.



AJ.12 Where possible any areas of direct light intrusion (glare and spill) from LRV headlights should be identified and managed.

AJ.13 At stops and stabling areas, cut off and directed light fittings (or similar techniques) should be used to minimise glare and light spill onto private property. The design of street lighting along the route would also consider the sensitive placement and specification of lighting to minimise any potential light spill into residential properties.

Air Quality

AK.1 Ancillary maintenance service vehicles and equipment would be maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturers requirements.

AK.2 Operational practices at the Rozelle maintenance depot and Randwick stabling facility would seek to minimise emissions of air pollutants.

Hazards and risks

AL.1 Targeted road safety campaigns would be used in the lead up to the opening of the CSELR and during operation to raise awareness around the operation of LRVs and to promote the safe operation of the proposal. This would focus on raising awareness and promoting safe behaviours in shared zones and at key CSELR crossings.

AL.2 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).

AL.3 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 CSELR proposal to minimise potential for impacts associated with chemical spills and leaks. These procedures would adequately address activities at the proposed Rozelle maintenance depot and Randwick stabling facility, as well as other general maintenance facilities that would occur along the CSELR alignment (such as storage of chemicals for operation and maintenance of LRVs in line with EPA guidelines and legislative requirements).

Socio-economic

AM.1 Light rail stops would incorporate a high quality urban design that would reflect the precinct in which they would be located to assist in minimising impacts to visual amenity resulting from the provision of the CSELR proposal.

AM.2 Transport for NSW would continue to work with stakeholders to identify potential opportunities to integrate CSELR public domain improvements with other city planning strategies (such as the City of Sydney’s other public square projects) to improve access to local community services and further enhance the public domain along the route.

AM.3 Where feasible, the CSELR would incorporate features to maintain the safety of passengers, CSELR employees and the general public. Stops would be designed to be safe and attractive places to wait for CSELR services and would (where feasible and appropriate) incorporate light emitting diode (LED) lighting technology, emergency calling capabilities and CCTV.

AM.4 Within the George Street pedestrian zone, the light rail tracks would be highlighted by either a different material colour, finish, texture or size of paving, so that pedestrians can visually and texturally distinguish between the pedestrian zone and the light rail track zone.

AM.5 Special event organisers would be consulted to determine the nature and extent of existing and planned future events that would require the use of George Street and, thus, would be affected by CSELR operations.

AM.6 Access to local community services and open spaces would be maintained during operation of the CSELR proposal. Consultation with the operators of community services (including local childcare centres and places of worship) would be undertaken to minimise impacts to the access of these facilities.

AM.7 Public open spaces directly affected by the CSELR proposal would be reinstated as soon as possible after construction.




AM.8 Revegetation of the CSELR corridor through the Moore Park Precinct would be undertaken (where required) to assist with integrating the light rail into the parkland vista. Visual connectivity would be maintained across the Anzac Road corridor and the existing AFL training field.

AM.9 Pedestrian movements, signage for passengers, and changes to intersection signalisation associated with accessing the Moore Park stop would be considered during detailed design. This would be undertaken in consultation with relevant property owners and stakeholders.

AM.10 Parks and playing fields within Moore Park would be reinstated to their former condition as soon as possible after construction to minimise disruptions to community activities.

AM.11 CCTV would be used to monitor the Moore Park tunnel.

AM.12 Where possible, urban design measures, such as revegetation along the corridor, would be adopted to neutralise or enhance any impacts to the existing median strips and reinstate the visual amenity characteristic of Anzac Parade.

AM.13 A targeted communication strategy would be developed for University of NSW staff and students to allow for a smooth transition to light rail operations.

AM.14 A targeted communication strategy would be developed to maintain access for businesses in the Kensington and Kingsford town centres.

AM.15 The light rail and stops would be designed to promote interaction with, and facilitate access to/from, neighbouring areas.

AM.16 Informational material advertising the commencement of CSELR operations would be prepared in multiple languages widely spoken by the affected community.


7. Conclusion The High Street modification report provided an assessment of the likely environmental impacts

of a proposed modification to the approved Project (SSI-6042) in High Street. This included an

assessment of issues raised by project partners, government agencies and the community

following exhibition of the modification as well as Transport for NSW’s response to these issues.

The High Street modification report was publicly exhibited from 25 November until 11 December

2015. The High Street modification report was made available for information and comment on

the DP&E website, and at a series of public display locations including the DP&E, relevant

councils and other publically available locations.

Submissions from government agencies, project partners, and the community were received by

the DP&E. A total of 113 submissions were received. Of these submissions, 2 submissions

comprised responses from project partners and 2 responses were received from other

government agencies. These responses included the following:


UNSW

Office of Environment and Heritage (Heritage Branch)

Department of Primary Industries.

A total of 109 submissions were received from the community, community groups and/or

businesses. The top five issues raised by community submissions were as follows:

design of the proposal (in particular the design for the proposed Arthur Street access lane)

noise and vibration.

land use and property.

air quality

contamination.

Of the key issues above which were raised by the community, a majority of the issues were

raised with respect to the potential impacts associated with the design and operation of the

proposed Arthur Street access lane and the potential for the access lane to impact on the

operation of the adjacent childcare centre.

Based on the assessment undertaken and in consideration of the submissions received

regarding the proposed modification, the changes to the approved Project proposed would

result in an improved overall project outcome. The modification is expected to deliver a number

of improvements over the approved Project. These include:

reduction in traffic impacts at the Avoca Street and Belmore Road intersection due to the

reduced construction impacts at this locations as the light rail would no longer needing to

cross this intersection

beneficial visual and landscape character outcome in comparison to the approved Project,

in particular as a result of reduced impacts to High Cross Park

CBD and South East Light Rail – Modification Report – State Significant Infrastructure Approval (SSI-6042)


beneficial outcome to planted trees, in particular reduced impacts to High Cross Park

overall improvement to the retention of the heritage significance of High Cross Park due to

the relocation of the Randwick terminus stop to High Street

improved accessibility to existing businesses and services such as the Randwick town

centre and Prince of Wales Hospital

benefits to electromagnetic interference impacts in comparison to the approved Project, in

particular with respect to potentially sensitive equipment associated with the UNSW

improved passenger safety and loading/disembarking at the UNSW High Street stop.

As described in the High Street modification report and this Submissions Report, a series of

additional mitigation measures have also been proposed to minimise the potential impacts

associated with the proposed modification which were identified as part of the environmental

assessment and which were raised in submissions received during the exhibition periods.

These include additional commitments to:

investigation of urban design opportunities to minimise the potential impacts associated with

the proposed access lane from Arthur Street, including the consideration of appropriate

landscaping, surface treatments for the access lane and retaining wall and provision and

replacement boundary of fencing which is of a similar style to that currently provided for

adjacent properties

ongoing consultation with UNSW (as the land owners) regarding the ongoing design for the

access lane from Arthur Street

identification of opportunities to replace the existing open space area between the proposed

access lane and the childcare centre affected by the proposed modification including

consideration of appropriate vegetation, relocation of the existing shed and playhouse

structure, and relocation of the existing vegetable garden currently used by the childcare

centre.

inclusion of the Wansey Cottage in the next phase of interpretation planning for the project.

A full list of the proposed additional mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 6 of this

Submissions Report.

It is recommended the proposed modifications, as described in the High Street modification

report, and supported by this Submissions Report, should be submitted for determination by the

Minister for Planning.


8. References GTA Consultants 2015, Traffic, Transport and Access Impact Assessment (Appendix B of the

CBD and South East Light Rail Project – Project Modification Report – Stop Changes,

High Street)

Transport for NSW 2013a, CBD and South East Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement

Transport for NSW 2013b, Vegetation Offset Guide

Transport for NSW, 2014, CBD and South East Light Rail Project Modifications Report

(Modification 1)

Transport for NSW 2015, CBD and South East Light Rail Project – Project Modification Report –

Stop Changes, High Street, Transport for NSW, December 2015

Appendix A

Key issue and sub issue categories

Transport for NSW A–1

Key issue and sub-issue categories Table A.1 Key issue and sub-issue categories

Key issue Sub issue

Planning and approvals Errors and omissions

Impact assessment process

Consultation Adequacy of consultation

Ongoing consultation

Proposal design Arthur Street access lane

Constructability

High Cross Park substation

Patronage

Proposal description

Proximity to sensitive receivers

Laneway road standard

Alternatives Arthur Street access lane

Bus stop locations – Clara Street

High Cross park substation location

High Street terminus

UNSW stop design

Need and justification Cost

UNSW stop

Traffic, transport and access Access for services (garbage, deliveries)

Access to Children’s Hospital

Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges

Bus operations

Impacts to cyclists

Impacts during operation

Parking impacts

Pedestrian impacts

Landscape and visual impacts Visual impacts

General public domain and amenity


A–2 Parsons Brinckerhoff

Key issue Sub issue

Planted trees Impact to trees

Mitigation measures

Land use and property Land take requirements

Loss of open space

Property values

Noise and vibration Impact assessment process

Impacts during construction


Non-Indigenous heritage Impact to Wansey Cottage

Superintendents Cottage

Socio-economic Impacts to businesses

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) Potential EMI impacts and justification

Hazard and risk Safety to childcare occupants

Security

Air quality Impacts during construction


Soils, geology and contamination Impact during construction

Impact during operation

Issues out of scope Issues out of scope of proposed modification

Appendix B

Table of issues per community submission

Transport for NSW 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 Withheld Traffic, transport and access Impacts to cyclists 5.6.5

2 Community member

Consultation Ongoing consultation 5.2.2

Proposal design Constructability 5.3.2

Proximity to sensitive receivers 5.3.6

Laneway road standard 5.3.7

Alternatives Arthur Street access lane 5.4.1

Traffic, transport and access Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges 5.6.3

Land use and property Land take requirements 5.9.1

Loss of open space 5.9.2

Noise and vibration Impacts during construction 5.10.2

Impacts during operation 5.10.3

Hazard and risk Safety to childcare occupants 5.14.1

Air quality Impacts during construction 5.15.1


Soils, geology and contamination Impacts during construction 5.16.1


3 Community member
















B–2 Parsons Brinckerhoff


4 Community member
















5 Kenvale College

Consultation Adequacy of consultation 5.2.1

Ongoing consultation 5.2.2

Proposal design Arthur Street access lane 5.3.1

Constructability 5.3.2



UNSW stop 5.3.8

Need and justification UNSW stop 5.5.2

Traffic, Transport and access Access for services (garbage, deliveries) 5.6.1

Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges 5.6.3

Parking impacts 5.6.7



Socio-economic Impacts to businesses 5.12.1

Electromagnetic interference Potential EMI impacts and justification 5.13.1

Hazard and risk Security 5.14.2



6 Community member

Support Support for the Project -

Planted trees Impact to trees 5.8.1

7 Community member


















8 Community member



9 Community member



10 Community member
















11 Community member


Alternatives High Cross park substation location 5.4.3


12 Community member


















13 Foundation for Education and Training Limited

Planning and approvals Errors and omissions 5.1.1

Impact assessment process 5.1.2


Proposal design UNSW stop 5.3.8

Traffic, transport and access Access for services (garbage, deliveries) 5.6.1



Noise and vibration Impact assessment process 5.10.1


Socio-economic Impacts to businesses 5.12.1



14 Community member




15 Community member


















16 Community member


Landscape and visual impacts General public domain and amenity 5.7.2


5.17

17 Community member




18 Community member
















19 Community member


Noise and vibration Impacts during operation 5.10.3


20 Community member





21 Community member



22 Community member



23 Community member

Proposal design Arthur Street access lane 5.3.1

UNSW stop 5.3.8

Traffic, transport and access Parking impacts 5.6.7






24 Community member

Planning and approvals Impact assessment process 5.1.2



Pedestrian impacts 5.6.8




25 Community member

Land use and property Loss of open space 5.9.2

26 Community member



27 Community member




28 Community member







29 Community member



30 Community member


31 Community member


32 Community member


















33 Community member


34 Community member
















35 Community member
















36 Community member


37 Community member


















38 Community member
















39 Community member


















40 Community member
















41 Community member
















42 Community member

Proposal design UNSW stop




43 Community member


















44 Community member


5.17

45 Community member



5.17

46 Community member



47 Community member
















48 Community member


















49 Community member
















50 Community member




51 Community member


















52 Community member
















53 Community member
















54 Community member

Traffic, transport and access Access to Kenvale/Creston colleges



55 Community member


56 Community member


















57 Community member
















58 Community member

Alternatives High Street terminus 5.4.4

59 Community member


















60 Community member
















61 Community member
















62 Community member


63 Community member


5.17

64 Community member




65 Community member


Proposal design Proximity to sensitive receivers 5.3.6













66 Community member
















67 Community member


















68 Community member
















69 Community member
















70 Community member




71 Community member
















72 Community member
















73 Community member

















74 Community member

















75 Community member
















76 Community member


















77 Community member
















78 Community member

Land use and property Loss of open space

79 Community member


















80

Community member
















81 Community member
















82 Community member


















83 Community member
















84 Community member


















85 Community member
















86 Community member
















87 Community member


















88 Community member
















89 Community member
















90 Community member


















91 Community member
















92 Community member


















93 Community member
















94 Community member


95 Community member


96 Community member


Traffic, transport and access Impact to cyclists 5.6.5

97 Community member


5.17

98 Community member


99 Community member



5.17

100 Community member




Traffic, transport and access Impacts during operation 5.6.6







Proposal design UNSW stop 5.3.8


























Planning and approvals Errors and omissions 5.1.1

Impact assessment process 5.1.2


Alternatives High Street terminus 5.4.4

Need and justification Cost 5.5.1

Traffic, transport and access Impacts to cyclists 5.6.5



This document has been prepared by:

high street, randwick submissions...

Documents