7.5 Responding to early feedback

Ideas provided by government agencies, local government and the community were recorded and considered during the preparation of this EIS and throughout the development of the project.

A range of commitments have been made in relation to the project in response to early feedback (see section 7.2). In addition, the EIS provides an assessment of matters raised during consultation. Table 7-8 and Table 7-9 summarise the feedback provided by government agencies and raised at meetings with the relevant councils and indicates where in the EIS this topic has been addressed.

Table 7-10 provides a summary of feedback received up until July 2017 from the community, community groups (including pedestrian and cyclist user groups), businesses and adjoining and affected landowners during the preparation of this EIS. Table 7-10 consolidates feedback from the community for the purpose of this EIS and provides a response or indicates where in the EIS this topic has been addressed. Detailed summaries of feedback received from the community can also be found in the Community Feedback Report published in November 2016 and available on the WestConnex website.

Table 7-8 Feedback from government agencies

Stakeholder	Feedback	Where addressed in EIS
Transport for NSW	Integrated design and cumulative impact  The project needs to integrate with the broader transport plans for Sydney  Other projects underway need to be considered in developing the M4-M5Link design  Steps should be taken to allow for bus lanes on Victoria Road.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport). Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need) for an explanation of WestConnex in the context of other transport project. A discussion of the potential interfaces with other transport projects is provided in Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts). The project design has allowed for bus lanes on Victoria Road.
Sydney Local Health District	Air quality and human health  University of Sydney (Camperdown campus) is a sensitive receiver  Concerns over the proposed ventilation facility at Broadway  The needs of the RPA Hospital to be considered, including underground car parking, nuclear medicine facilities and laser equipment sensitive to vibration.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) which describes the removal of the Camperdown interchange from the project and the impacts avoided on the University of Sydney and the RPA Hospital. A discussion of air quality and human health impacts is provided in Chapter 9 (Air quality) and Chapter 11 (Human health risk).
Sydney Local Health District	Heritage  Consideration of the RPA Hospital heritage items.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) which describes the removal of the Camperdown interchange from the project and the impacts avoided on the RPA Hospital. Refer to Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage) and Appendix U (Technical working paper: Non-Aboriginal heritage).
NSW Health	Land use and socio-economic  Encourage emphasis on public transport.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description) and Chapter 12 (Land use and property).
NSW Health	Soil and water  Consideration of contaminated soil  The EIS should detail the methods to remove any contaminated material and spoil.	Refer to Chapter 15 (Soil and water quality) and Chapter 16 (Contamination).

Stakeholder	Feedback	Where addressed in EIS
UrbanGrowth NSW	Traffic and transport  Potential for future public transport at Rozelle Rail Yards, Camperdown and Parramatta Road needs to be considered  Consideration for the provision of active transport (pedestrian and cyclist) in and around the Rozelle Rail Yards, in particular connecting to White Bay and the future the Bays Precinct.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description), Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport), Chapter 12 (Land use and property), and Appendix N (Technical working paper: Active transport strategy).
	Land use and socio-economic  Need to consider the creation of high quality urban environments and public amenity – playing fields, open space provision at Rozelle  A desire for contiguous land parcels that maximise usable remaining project land  UrbanGrowth’s preference is for the Rozelle interchange to be predominantly underground.	Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property) and Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).
	Heritage  White Bay Power Station needs to be considered.	Refer to Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage), Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity), Appendix U (Technical working paper: Non-Aboriginal heritage) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).

Table 7-9 Feedback from local government

Stakeholder	Feedback	Where addressed in EIS
City of Sydney	Traffic and transport  Extent of the study area needs to be increased to address broader impacts, including transport impacts, in context of constrained urban areas  Consideration to be given to the opportunities for growth of active transport  Assessment timeframes in the EIS need to be sufficient – eg longer term assessment post-2031.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport). Refer also to Appendix N (Technical working paper: Active transport strategy).
City of Sydney	Air quality and human health  Study area needs to be considered  Air quality impacts along surface routes need to be assessed  Forward planning for residential buildings that may be affected by air quality Parramatta Road – community health needs to be assessed, not just tunnel and portals* Noise is a human health factor, and more cars on Parramatta Road would generate additional noise and have impacts on residents and future planning for the area.	Refer to Chapter 9 (Air quality), Chapter 11 (Human health risk), Appendix I (Technical working paper: Air quality) and Appendix K (Technical working paper: Human health risk assessment).

Stakeholder	Feedback	Where addressed in EIS

	Noise and vibration and traffic  Concerns about noise impacts in relation to the Camperdown interchange and its potential to increase traffic along Parramatta Road at Camperdown*.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description) and Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport).
	Land use and socio-economic  CBD impacts on local communities*  Victoria Park (Camperdown) – heritage and open space considerations*  Concerns over noise and other impacts that may trigger the need for zoning changes  Concern over impacts of the project on land values and future development*  Concern on impacts on community groups.	Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property), Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity), Chapter 14 (Social and economic) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).
	Urban design  Increasing open space and active recreation. It is not appropriate to plant superficial landscaping to try and hide the motorway; the landscaping needs to be suitable for its location  Need to maximise value around excess land and expectation that any future use of excess land is assessed appropriately.	Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property), Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).
	Heritage  Need to consider Heritage Conservation Areas including properties/items facing Parramatta Road*.	Refer to Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage) and Appendix U (Technical working paper: Non-Aboriginal heritage).
Inner West Council	Integrated design and cumulative impacts  Consideration and co-ordination with other plans and projects in the area such as The Bays Precinct, the proposed future Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link and the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy.	Meetings with key stakeholders to co-ordinate on other projects within or near the project footprint have been held and would continue to be held should the project be approved. See section 7.3.2 for details of meetings with relevant stakeholders. Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need) for an explanation of WestConnex in the context of other transport and infrastructure projects, plans and strategies. A discussion of the potential interfaces with other projects is provided in Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts).

Stakeholder	Feedback	Where addressed in EIS

	Construction work  Concern about the potential use of Reg Coady Reserve as a temporary construction employee car park and the associated impact on residents. Suggestion to use the Cove Street depot site as an alternative  Request that where possible impacts on council assets such as roads and parks should be avoided.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description) and Chapter 6 (Construction work).
	Design  Concern about the impact on residents of a tunnel dive site at Leichhardt and a preference to have no dive site at Leichhardt.	During February and March 2017 there were numerous key stakeholder meetings regarding the proposed mid-tunnel construction site in the Leichhardt area and notifications were distributed to local residents and businesses. Consultation on the draft design, including the proposed location for a mid-tunnel dive site, would continue through the public exhibition of the EIS and during the detailed design phase, should the project be approved. The potential impacts of the construction ancillary facilities proposed for the project have been assessed throughout this EIS and are described in Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description) and Chapter 6 (Construction work).
	Consultation  Request for more information and certainty around the project  Establishment of a WestConnex Community Reference Group is an important priority for Council to allow residents to have a forum for their concerns related to WestConnex.	In November 2016, expressions of interest were sought from community members and stakeholder groups to join the WestConnex Community Reference Group.
	Active transport  Consideration to be given to the opportunities for growth of active transport.	Refer to Appendix N (Technical working paper: Active transport strategy).

Note:
* This feedback was relevant to the Camperdown interchange and this design feature has been subsequently removed from the design.

Table 7-10 Feedback from the community

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS
Camperdown interchange	 Concerns about the proposed Camperdown interchange including impacts on traffic and community.	Following community and stakeholder consultation and subsequent design changes, the Camperdown interchange was removed (refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives)).
Camperdown interchange	 Concern that Roads and Maritme and SMC have given too much weight to the views of Sydney University and the RPA Hospital in reaching a decision to remove the Camperdown ramps  Concern that the impacts on the road network associated with the removal of the Camperdown ramps would not be assessed in the EIS.	A traffic assessment of the impacts of removing the Camperdown ramps has been carried out. Refer to Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport). Refer also to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) for more details on the removal of the Camperdown ramps.
Active and public transport	 Suggestions that improved public transport would reduce traffic congestion and remove need for project  Requests for additional public transport including heavy rail, light rail, additional buses, ferries, metro, trams  Requests for dedicated bus lanes on surface roads  Concerns about whether the toll road operator contracts have clausesprohibiting competing public transport  Comments and suggestions regarding existing public transport services  Question if the project would help to introduce more buses on Victoria Road and Anzac Bridge.	Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need), Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport). Some of this feedback is outside the scope of the project.
Traffic	Community feedback on the topic of traffic includes:  Queries and concerns about integrating the project with the surface road network and local road access  Concern that traffic modelling has not taken into account induced traffic, local rat running and changes in technology such as driverless cars and electric cars  Concerns motorists and trucks would use local roads to avoid tolls  Concerns that the project would worsen traffic conditions on local roads particularly those surrounding the Rozelle and St Peters interchanges and suggestions that upgrades to key surface road would be required  Concern that King Street, Newtown, would be made a 24 hour clearway. Responses from the businesses surveys highlighted that traffic management was important including:  Avoiding bottlenecking near tunnel entry and exit ramps Suggestions that removing construction spoil outside of peak hours would help to minimise further traffic congestion on main roads Preventing construction workers from using customer parking spots during business operational hours.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport). Roads and Maritime has no plans to change the existing clearways on King Street.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Requests for specific details about the traffic modelling including:  Who is conducting the traffic modelling for the project and would the model be made available to the public  How have travel times through the tunnels been calculated and are there differences between different tunnel sections  What are the estimated speeds within each section of the tunnel and how long would a driver typically spend underground  What difference does the removal of the exit at Camperdown mean to the volumes of traffic flowing north at Euston Road.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport).
	Questions about how the project would improve existing congestion on Anzac Bridge, particularly for citybound buses during peak hour.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport).
	Concern that traffic congestion on Anzac Bridge might lead to drivers spending extended periods in the tunnel.	Refer to Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport) and Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport).
Rozelle interchange	Concern about the Rozelle interchange and potential impacts on the local area.	The Rozelle interchange would be located primarily underground below Lilyfield and Rozelle. Tunnel portals and entry and exit ramps would be constructed within the Rozelle Rail Yards. Works along City West Link, The Crescent and Victoria Road for connection to the interchange tunnel portals would also be required. By locating the interchange primarily below ground in tunnels, and using the Rozelle Rail Yards for the construction of tunnel portals and entry and exit ramps, total land acquisition required for construction and operation of the interchange would be minimised. Refer to Chapter 5 (Project description).
	Concern about the location of three ventilation outlets at Rozelle near a recreation area.
	Various suggestions regarding the design of the Rozelle interchange including:  Locate most of the interchange underground  Double-stacked tunnels  Use the existing City West Link as part of the interchange  Keep Victoria RoadCity West Link intersection separate from the rest of the interchange, and develop it first  Consider that not all combinations of routes need to be prioritised at the interchange  Use the Iron Cove Link portal to run a tunnel under Rozelle to Anzac Bridge and Western Distributor Parking should be included in the design of the Rozelle interchange.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concern that the masterplan shown in the concept design for Iron Cove Link raises an expectation for landscaping in the middle of Victoria Road which is unlikely to be completed.	The options for use of remaining project land would be developed in consultation with the community and stakeholders. Details of remaining project land are described in Chapter 12 (Land use and property) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).
	Questions about the costs of constructing the Rozelle interchange.	The estimated cost of the M4-M5 Link project is around $7.2 billion ($2015), and this includes the cost of the Rozelle interchange.
Design	 Various questions regarding the design including:  Where vehicles that use the project would park  Requests for information about the tunnel route and depth as well as the location of the surface connections  Why the tunnel would not be built underneath Parramatta Road  The height of the ventilation outlets and concern for the associatedvisual impacts  Whether sustainable design and improvements in technology had been considered in the design  Various suggestions regarding the design including:  Colour-coding the tunnel interior so that drivers can identify thetunnel  Continuing the tunnel through to Gladesville Bridge at Drummoyne  Changing the route of tunnels to reduce property impacts  Moving the M4-M5 Link tunnel slightly south  Moving the M4-M5 Link portals to the west end of the Rozelle Rail Yards  Starting the sub-entrance portals at the west end of the Rozelle Rail Yards  Requests to change arrangements at existing roads, including but not imited to:  City West Link  Hartley Street, Rozelle  Springside Street, Rozelle  Manning Street, Rozelle  Clubb Street, Rozelle  Lilyfield Road, Rozelle  Victoria Road, Rozelle  Concern that local roads would be closed.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives), Chapter 5 (Project description), Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport), Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity) and Chapter 27 (Sustainability).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

Walking and cycling	 Requests to improve pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, including connected cycleways and dedicated cyclist lanes in Rozelle and Camperdown  Concerns about the potential impact of the project on the Bay Run  Suggestion to make a new footbridge at the University of Sydney  Suggestions to re-open Glebe Island Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists  Comment that steel plates on the road pose a hazard for cyclists.	Refer to Chapter 5 (Project description), Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport), Appendix H (Technical working paper: Traffic and transport) and Appendix N (Technical working paper: Active transport strategy).
Engagement process	Suggestions that community consultation should have been conducted at an earlier stage of project development.	During consultation for the M4 East and New M5 projects, the community provided feedback that they would have liked to have been consulted sooner. As a result, for the M4-M5 Link, consultation began soon after the SSIAR was lodged with DP&E. The design was in its early stages and there was limited detail available on the project. This has provided the community with more opportunity to provide feedback and ideas to inform the development of the design (see section 7.2).
	Questions on the consultation process and timing of the public exhibition of the EIS.	The consultation process is described in this chapter. See section 7.1 for an overview of the consultation process. See section 7.3.3 for a summary of key consultation activities and communication tools for the project and for the wider WestConnex program of work. See section 7.6.1 for details of the public exhibition of the EIS. The EIS would be available for viewing for a period of at least 30 days. See section 7.6.1 for details of the public exhibition of the EIS. A range of activities are planned to support the display of the EIS and provide opportunities for discussion with community and interested parties. This includes five community sessions and an EIS summary document with details of the key information contained in the EIS (refer to Appendix A (Project synthesis)).
	Comments on the location of feedback sessions, how they were advertised and how the contact lists are organised. Questions around how much time the community will have to make a submission on the EIS. Concern about the scale and complexity of the EIS documentation and the limited time available during public exhibition to fully comprehend the information contained in it.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Seeking confirmation on consultation undertaken with the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora Nation.	The Gadigal and Wangal people have been consulted through the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC). The MLALC’s boundaries include the language group areas of the Eora, Dharug, Darkinung and Kuring-Gai, as defined by Horton on the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Map of Indigenous Australia. Refer to Chapter 21 (Aboriginal heritage) and section 7.3.8.
	Questions on how feedback from the community is being collated and if this will be published.	During the preparation of the EIS, feedback has been sought from community, local government and government agencies. Feedback collected during the preparation of the EIS has been used to develop the EIS and concept design. This table provides a summary of feedback from the community, community groups, businesses and adjoining and affected landowners during the preparation of this EIS. Roads and Maritime is required to respond to all submissions received during the exhibition of the EIS in a submissions report and this may result in changes to the design.
	Suggestions for future communication and engagement activities such as community ideas sessions, public meeting, online survey, easy to read version of EIS, emails and Q&A sessions.	Ongoing communication and engagement activities would include forums like the ideas sessions, meetings with community groups, emails, online information and newsletters. See section 7.6.1.
	Concern about the format and the amount of information available at the ideas sessions, as well as feedback on the display material at the sessions. Concern that the community information sessions were not adequately publicised and not enough notice was given.	M4-M5 Link consultation started soon after the SSIAR was lodged with DP&E. The design was in its early stages and there was limited detail available on the project. The community ideas forums were promoted via a number of channels including:  Letter box drops between 2 and 4 August 2016 to 130,000 residents and businesses in the local area  An email to more than 2,200 subscribers on 1 August 2016  On the WestConnex website from 1 August 2016  In posts on the WestConnex Facebook page on 1and 9 August 2016  Advertisements in the Inner West Courier on 2, 9 and 16 August 2016.Community members can receive regular project updates by subscribing at: http://www.westconnex.com.au/subscribe.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concern about the level of engagement and how information is provided to the community. Various suggestions about the format of communication material such as the concept design including the size of files for download and the size of the text when printed.	The format and type of communication material continues to be developed in response to feedback received. The Project synthesis (Appendix A) would be a standalone report that the public would be able to download. Hardcopies would also be provided at consultation venues during exhibition of the EIS. The EIS is divided into key chapters detailing the project and the specific environmental assessments. The EIS would be available for viewing for a period of at least 30 days. Refer to section 7.6.1 for details of the public exhibition of the EIS. A range of activities are planned to support the display of the EIS and provide opportunities for discussion with communities and interested parties. This includes communication services that cater for those persons whose first language is a language other than English and material accessible for disabled persons.
	Comments that the concept design is indicative and lacked detail such as:  Number of tunnel lanes  Depth of tunnels  Traffic speed limits  Visualisations of surface infrastructure for example ventilation outlets  Visualisations or details around traffic light and line marking arrangements at proposed road intersections.	The concept design was released early for community feedback. This was in response to feedback from communities requesting to be consulted earlier in project development. The design shown has been informed by the results of technical investigations and community feedback up to the date of release. Roads and Maritime continues to develop and refine the design of the M4-M5 Link. Technical investigations are continuing and the extended consultation period on the concept design would result in further changes and improvements to the design. Pending project approval, the final M4-M5 Link design would be confirmed when a preferred contractor has been appointed. This is expected to be in 2018.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concern around how the design might change once a construction contractor is engaged and whether community will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the detailed design.	Refer to section 7.6.2.
	Question about why St Peters is not shown on maps during early consultation.	The engagement activities and ideas sessions held between 21 July and 31 August focused on gaining ideas and feedback on the Rozelle interchange and new design features. Individuals and stakeholders were able to provide their feedback on St Peters using the online collaborative map. A comprehensive engagement program with the St Peters area, relating to the St Peters interchange specifically, was undertaken as part of the New M5 project between 2014 and July 2016, when that project received planning approval.
Air quality	Requests that the ventilation outlets be filtered. Questions on filtration of ventilation outlets including if filtration reduces air pollution and why the project is proposing unfiltered ventilation outlets. Also clarity on what is meant by unfiltered ventilation outlets ‘providing value for money’.	Refer to Chapter 9 (Air quality), Chapter 11 (Human health risk), Appendix I (Technical working paper: Air quality) and Appendix K (Technical working paper: Human health risk assessment).
	Queries and concerns about the location of ventilation outlets and proximity to residential areas. Suggestions for where the ventilation outlets should and should not be located.
	Requests for detailed explanations of the air quality modelling for the project including where air quality monitors have been placed and when and for how long they were collecting data. Also questions on which pollutants were monitored. Questions related to the safety limits for PM2.5 and smaller particles and how fine particle risks are assessed.

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Questions on how the NSW air quality guidelines compare to World Health Organisation guidelines and other international best practice.
	Concerns about health impacts from ventilation outlet emissions and air quality within the tunnels. Questions around how these impacts will be managed and prevented including how contaminated air will be removed. Questions on whether additional ventilation infrastructure not currently included in the project design would be constructed to allow for removal of emissions if air quality in the tunnel decreases. Also questions on whether this additional infrastructure would require further property acquisition.
	Request to gather and publish air quality data before project approval.
	Will air quality be measured after project completion? Will the results be published and how regularly?
Open space	 Requests for additional landscaping and open space in the inner west, specifically around Rozelle, Camperdown and St Peters  Suggestion for a dog water park in Camperdown  Suggestions for features/facilities in the new Rozelle ‘parkland’.	Refer to Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).
	Concern about the potential for significant redevelopment of residual land particularly at Rozelle, Iron Cove, Darley Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road.	The options for use of remaining project land would be developed in consultation with the community and stakeholders. Details of residual land are described in Chapter 12 (Land use and property) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).
Water use and treatment	 Request to reuse groundwater to irrigate parks  Question on where the water treatment plants would be located.	Refer to Chapter 23 (Resource use and waste minimisation). Refer to Chapter 5 (Project description).
Construction	Concerns about tunnelling and the impact of vibration on heritage-listed and other homes and buildings including settlement and ground-borne vibration impacts. Questions around the processes to measure the effect of vibration and how residents can make a complaint. Also questions about the length of time after tunnel completion that claims may be accepted. Suggestions that building condition surveys should be conducted by an independent specialist not associated with Roads and Maritime, SMC or the contractor.	If the project is approved, during construction, vibration would be monitored to ensure that the levels are in accordance with construction standards and codes, including Roads and Maritime’s Construction Noise and Vibration Guideline, British Standard BS7385: Part 2 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings and German Standard DIN 4150-3: Structural vibration – effects of vibration on structures. Refer to Chapter 10 (Noise and vibration), Chapter 12 (Land use and property), Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage), Appendix J (Technical working paper: Noise and vibration) and Appendix U (Technical working paper: Non- Aboriginal heritage).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concerns and questions about construction noise impacts and the duration and level of construction noise.	Refer to Chapter 6 (Construction work), Chapter 10 (Noise and vibration) and Appendix J (Technical working paper: Noise and vibration).
	Suggestion that construction noise be capped at 5 dBA above background.	Refer to Chapter 10 (Noise and vibration) and Appendix J (Technical working paper: Noise and vibration).
	Concerns about dust created during construction and the removal of spoil from sites.	Refer to Chapter 9 (Air quality) and Appendix I (Technical working paper: Air quality).
	Questions regarding how construction excavated material (spoil) would be reused.	Refer to Chapter 6 (Construction work) and Chapter 23 (Resource use and waste minimisation).
	Suggestions to use port facilities to bring construction materials in and out.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives).
	Questions about where construction sites and tunnelling dive sites would be located and distance between construction sites and residences.	Refer to Chapter 5 (Project description).
	Concern about proposed mid-tunnel construction sites at Darley Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road including that the reasons for selecting these locations has not been adequately explained and that alternative sites have not been considered.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) and Chapter 5 (Project description).
	Concern about the impacts on residents who may experience construction of more than one stage of WestConnex. Questions on the social impact assessment for residents currently experiencing construction at St Peters and Haberfield.	Refer to Chapter 11 (Human health risk), Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts), Appendix K (Technical working paper: Human health risk assessment) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).
	Concerns about construction impacts on parks and open spaces, including:  Blackmore Park  Bridgewater Park  Easton Park  King George Park  Barnwell Park Golf Course  Bicentennial Park  Callan Park  Sydney Park  The University of Sydney.	Refer to Chapter 6 (Construction work), Chapter 12 (Land use and property) Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity) and Appendix L (Technical working paper: Urban design).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concerns about traffic impacts on local roads and the wider arterial road network during construction from construction traffic (including spoil haulage) and local road closures. Questions around the location of construction sites and the proposed truck movements at each site. Also questions on the differences between each construction site. Comments that the Pyrmont Bridge Road site may not be large enough to accommodate queueing trucks and therefore surrounding streets would be used for parking. Comments that the proposed truck marshalling facility at White Bay is too remote to be useful alternative for the proposed sites at Pyrmont Bridge Road and Campbell Road.	Refer to Chapter 6 (Construction work) and Chapter 8 (Traffic and transport).
	Questions about the hours of construction. Concerns about tunnelling construction activities out of normal daytime working hours eg night time and weekends.	Refer to Chapter 6 (Construction work), Chapter 10 (Noise and vibration) and Appendix J (Technical working paper: Noise and vibration).
	Seeking a commitment to maintain access to public transport during construction.	Access to public transport would be maintained during construction. Work may require the temporary relocation of some public transport facilities (eg bus stops). However, this would be done in consultation with Transport for NSW and the community to ensure any changes retain adequate access for local people. Refer to Chapter 5 (Project description) and Chapter 6 (Construction work).
	Question regarding whether construction would include the use of sustainable building/construction materials.	In 2015, SMC published the WestConnex Sustainability Strategy. This outlines the sustainability vision, objectives and targets for the WestConnex program of work. Refer to Chapter 27 (Sustainability).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS
Property	Concerns about the impact on property values  especially those adjacent to the project.	Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property), Chapter 14 (Social and economic) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).
	Concerns about the fairness of the property acquisition process and requests for fair and appropriate acquisition compensation for directly impacted and adjacent properties. Questions on how the property acquisition process compares to other WestConnex stages.	Information on consultation with affected landowners is provided in section 7.3.6. Also refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).
	Questions regarding the number of properties that would be acquired for the project.	The project has been designed to minimise the impact on properties, with over two thirds of the project being constructed as underground tunnels. The owners of residential properties which need to be acquired at Rozelle have been informed. Several commercial sites and land owned by councils as well as NSW Government are being considered for use during the construction and operation of the project. Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property).
	Concerns that more properties would be acquired at Haberfield, near Easton Park, Glebe, Forest Lodge, and for construction sites.
	Suggestion that additional support be made available to directly impacted landowners.	Roads and Maritime would provide additional support to landowners through its community and stakeholder engagement team, including relocation assistance, and would also facilitate access to counselling and other support services. See section 7.3.6 for more details of consultation with directly impacted landowners and residents and recent changes to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.
Geotechnical investigations	Requests for detail on the geotechnical investigations. Questions on the timing of further geotechnical investigations. Questions around why no geotechnical investigations have been carried out on the eastern side of King Street, Newtown.	Refer to Chapter 15 (Soil and water quality) and Appendix E (Technical working paper: Geological long-sections).
Environment and heritage	Concerns about impacts on heritage items, including stone retaining wall, fence, palisade and buildings at Glebe.	These items would have been potentially impacted by construction of the Camperdown interchange. This interchange is no longer proposed as part of the project. Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives). In addition, an assessment of heritage has been undertaken in Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage), Chapter 21 (Aboriginal heritage), Appendix U (Technical working paper: Non-Aboriginal heritage) and Appendix V (Technical working paper: Aboriginal heritage).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Request to relocate disused railway carriage at Rozelle Rail Yards to a rail museum for restoration and display.	Refer to Chapter 20 (Non-Aboriginal heritage) and Chapter 13 (Urban design and visual amenity).
	Concerns about the management and treatment of acid sulfate soils.	Refer to Chapter 15 (Soil and water quality) and Chapter 16 (Contamination).
	Concern about protecting animal and bird habitat including fairy wren/blue wren.	Refer to Chapter 18 (Biodiversity) and Appendix S (Technical working paper: Biodiversity).
	Requests to reduce impact on trees and concern about the loss of trees in the public domain.
Environmental Impact Statement process	Question about the independence of the authors of the EIS.	Roads and Maritime is the government client agency for the WestConnex program and is the proponent for the project. AECOM Australia Pty Ltd has been engaged to prepare the EIS on its behalf. The EIS would be independently assessed by DP&E and work can only proceed if the project is approved by the NSW Minister for Planning. Information on the assessment process is outlined in Chapter 2 (Assessment process).
	Question about whether the recommendations of the EIS will be implemented.	This EIS identifies environmental management measures for the project to reduce its potential impacts. If the project is approved, final measures identified would be incorporated into construction management plans and the operational plans for the project. These measures may also be included as conditions of approval for the project. The DP&E would regulate adherence to the measures to ensure they are being implemented. A summary of mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 29 (Summary of environmental management measures).
	Comments that the EIS should have been completed as an initial stage of WestConnex.	WestConnex is being delivered as six component projects, which would link together to form a continuous motorway. Each of the projects are assessed separately. This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act). Information on the assessment process is outlined in Chapter 2 (Assessment process).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Questions on why the acquisition of property started prior to the selection of construction sites.	There are a limited number of sites that can be used for construction. The project footprint is within an existing urban environment and construction sites need to be near tunnel portals, close to the road network and away from community facilities such as parks and schools. Wherever possible, government owned land or vacant land has been selected. However, the concept design guides the location of construction sites. Discussions with landowners about acquisition started as early as possible to give people time to prepare.
Project alternatives	Various suggestions and questions around project alternatives have been received including public transport initiatives, active transport as well as ideas on improvements to existing road networks.	Refer to Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives).
Funding and project financing	Suggestion to introduce a congestion tax. Question regarding whether a betterment levy would be introduced.	Congestion tax and betterment levies are not in accordance with current government policy, and are therefore not being considered for the project.
	Request to disclose cost details.	The estimated cost of the overall WestConnex motorway project is about $16.8 billion ($2015). The estimated cost of the M4-M5 Link is around $7.2 billion ($2015). This nominal outturn cost includes contingency. These figures were included in the WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case (SMC 2015), which was published on the WestConnex website in November 2015. Details of the benefit cost ratio for WestConnex and specifically for the project, are provided in Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need).
	Question about project funding.	WestConnex is being financed through a strategy that involves asset recycling and private sector debt financing. The people of NSW would receive more than $20 billion in economic benefits and the total upfront cost to taxpayers is a third of the total value of the project. The NSW Government is currently exploring a range of options to fund the M4-M5 Link. The government’s investment would be returned, to be used on other critical infrastructure projects, including public transport. Ultimately, people using the motorway and paying tolls would fund the project. Motorists would only pay for the section of motorway they use, and tolls would be capped. Details on project funding are described in Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need) and information on tolling is provided in Chapter 14 (Social and economic).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Question on which organisation takes the risk on the cost overrun.	Pending project approval, the detailed design and construction of the project would be undertaken by a private contractor. Subject to contract terms and conditions, the construction contractor would be liable for cost overruns.
	Questions about tolling of the tunnel.	WestConnex would have a capped, distance-based tolling system, which means motorists would only pay for the section of motorway they use. The Iron Cove Link would not be tolled. Further information on tolling is provided in Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need) and Chapter 14 (Social and economic).
	Concern that the proposed sale of SMC would mean that commitments in the EIS would not be met. Concern around who would take responsibility for ensuring commitments were met.	Roads and Maritime has commissioned SMC to deliver WestConnex, on behalf of the NSW Government. However, Roads and Maritime is the proponent for the project. The M4-M5 Link would be operated as part of the combined WestConnex program of works.
Social impacts	Concern regarding impacts on local businesses. Questions on how businesses are compensated if their operation is interrupted or they are forced to vacate. Questions on how many businesses may be impacted by the project.	Refer to Chapter 14 (Social and economic) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).
Social impacts	Concerns about impact on communities around surface infrastructure.	This EIS explores and assesses all potential impacts on the community and details mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Refer to Chapter 14 (Social and economic) and Appendix P (Technical working paper: Social and economic).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

Flooding and drainage	Questions on the methodology for the flooding assessment. Have the flooding issues such as those around Glebe/Camperdown been considered?	Refer to Chapter 17 (Flooding and drainage) and Appendix Q (Technical working paper: Surface water and flooding).
	Comment that the Rozelle interchange should be designed to cope with storm events without flooding.
	Concern about groundwater related subsidence and impacts on property.	Refer to Chapter 12 (Land use and property), Chapter 19 (Groundwater) and (Appendix T (Technical working paper: Groundwater).
Business case	Requests for a business case.	The WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case (November 2015) is available on the WestConnex website at http://www.westconnex.com.au.
Strategic justification	Comments that the WestConnex program of works will not address traffic congestion and would rather create further traffic problems.	Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need) and Chapter 30 (Project justification and conclusion).
Other projects	Requests for information on the proposed future Western Harbour Tunnel and predicted impacts.	The NSW Government has allocated $32 million in the current state budget to investigate possible future links to the Sydney motorway system, including a proposed future Western Harbour Tunnel (SMC 2016). Roads and Maritime is currently carrying out early planning and investigation work for the potential project. A description of potential cumulative impacts of the M4-M5 Link and the proposed future Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link project is provided in Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts).
	Concern about the scale of construction impacts associated with the M4 East and New M5 projects and requests to see complaint records from these projects.	The construction impacts for the M4 East and New M5 projects have been assessed under separate EIS’s. A description of potential cumulative impacts with the M4-M5 Link are provided in Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts). The complaints records for the M4 East and New M5 projects are managed by the contractors for these projects. DP&E receives, registers and investigates complaints, and reports on these on a monthly basis.
	Question about how cumulative impacts of this project and other projects would be assessed. Question about who would be responsible for damage to properties affected by multiple projects. Question about how the impact onHaberfield and St Peters communities in particular would be assessed.	Cumulative impacts have been assessed and are presented in Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts). Details on the cumulative impact assessment methodology are presented in Appendix Y (Cumulative impact assessment methodology).

Feedback	Detail	Response or where addressed in EIS

	Concern that the project would impact on The Bays Precinct development. Questions regarding the coordination between the project and UrbanGrowth NSW.	Meetings are held regularly with UrbanGrowth NSW to ensure the design of the project integrates with emerging plans for The Bays Precinct.
	Questions and concerns about the potential impacts of the project on the light rail and a future extension of the light rail network.	The project does not impact on the current Inner West Light Rail line. The project has considered the development of future light rail projects. Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need), Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) and Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts).
	Question on the potential impacts of the project on the New Parramatta Road proposal.	By reducing traffic on Parramatta Road, the project plays a positive role in enabling the long-term aspirations of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy. Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need).
	Questions about high rise development on Glebe Island.	UrbanGrowth NSW is currently preparing a business case for the future of Glebe Island as part of The Bays Precinct Urban Transformation program. The Ports Authority is working closely with UrbanGrowth NSW to determine the future of port operations at Glebe Island.
	Concern about how the project at Rozelle might affect the NSW Government’s proposed West Metro project.	The project has considered the development of future public transport projects. Insufficient information is publicly available on the Sydney Metro West project to be considered in any detail. Refer to Chapter 3 (Strategic context and project need), Chapter 4 (Project development and alternatives) and Chapter 26 (Cumulative impacts).
	Comments and suggestions regarding other WestConnex projects.	These have been passed on to the relevant WestConnex project teams for consideration.
	Questions on the scope and objectives of the King Street Gateway project including when is it planned, will it entail construction work or only road realignment and will it include further work on the Princes Highway?	A brief description of the King Street Gateway project is provided in Appendix C (Cumulative impact assessment methodology).

7.6 Future consultation

7.6.1 Consultation during the exhibition of the EIS

Display of the EIS

Once the EIS is complete, copies would be available for viewing for at least 30 days at the following locations:

 Council offices:

 City of Sydney Council: Town Hall House, Level 2, 456 Kent Street Sydney NSW 2000
 Inner West Council

o Ashfield Customer Service Centre: 260 Liverpool Road, Ashfield NSW 2131
o Leichhardt Customer Service Centre: 7-15 Wetherill Street, Leichhardt NSW 2040 o Petersham Customer Service Centre: 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham NSW 2049

 Redfern Neighbourhood Centre: 158 Redfern Street, Redfern NSW 2016
 Nature Conservation Council of NSW: Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
 Roads and Maritime (Head office): 20-44 Ennis Road, Milsons Point NSW 2061
 Libraries: Ashfield Library, Balmain Library, Emanuel Tsardoulias Community Library, Five Dock Library, Glebe Library, Haberfield Library, Leichhardt Library, Marrickville Library, Newtown Library, St Peters Library, Stanmore Library and Ultimo Library.

Electronic copies of the EIS would be made available for viewing and download from the DP&E and WestConnex websites. In addition, for people without a home internet connection an electronic copy of the EIS would be available for viewing at local NSW Service Centres.

Community drop-in information sessions

A series of community drop-in information sessions would be held during the public exhibition period to describe the project and the assessment of impacts and mitigation measures identified during the assessment process. During these sessions community members would have the opportunity to discuss the EIS with technical specialists and learn about the submissions process.

Sessions would be held as an informal drop-in style and scheduled at different dates and times during and after business hours to allow community members and interested parties opportunities to attend at a time convenient to them. The timing and location of these sessions would be promoted via advertisements in local and metropolitan papers, published on the WestConnex website, detailed in a community update and sent via an email to registered stakeholders.

Other consultation during exhibition of the EIS

A range of activities are planned to support the display of the EIS and provide opportunities for discussion with community and interested parties. These activities include:

 A project overview document (refer to Appendix A (Project synthesis))
 Community update newsletter and notifications to residents and businesses near the project footprint
 Email blast to registered stakeholders to notify them that the EIS is on display
 Targeted stakeholder briefings and meetings
 Advertisements to promote the exhibition of the EIS and community consultation opportunities
 Project fact sheets
 Project email and information phone line to manage enquiries and provide information on the EIS.

Submissions

During the EIS exhibition, the community, government agencies and other interested parties may make written submissions on the project to the Secretary of DP&E.

The Secretary of DP&E would provide copies of submissions to Roads and Maritime as the project proponent. The Secretary of DP&E would then require the proponent to prepare a submissions report to respond to the issues raised in submissions and a preferred infrastructure report to outline any proposed changes to the project. If the Secretary of DP&E considers that significant changes to the project are proposed, the Secretary of DP&E may make the preferred infrastructure report publicly available in accordance with section 115Z(7) of the EP&A Act.

DP&E would prepare the Secretary’s environmental assessment report and provide it to the Minister for Planning. The Minister for Planning would then decide whether to approve the project and, if approved, identify a set of conditions of approval for Roads and Maritime to adhere to during construction and operation of the project.

Roads and Maritime would continue to engage with the community and stakeholders during the assessment process. Further details, including a flow chart outlining the assessment and approval process following EIS submission, can be found in Chapter 2 (Assessment process).

7.6.2 Consultation during construction of the project

If the project is approved a construction contractor would be engaged to undertake the detailed design and construct the project. Together with the proponent, the construction contractor would be responsible for communication and consultation with stakeholders and the community during construction.

Communication and consultation with stakeholders and the community during construction would focus on providing updates on construction activities and program, responding to enquiries and concerns in a timely manner and minimising potential impacts where possible.

During construction, a dedicated community relations team would deliver:

 A detailed Community Communication Strategy (identifying relevant stakeholders, procedures for distributing information and receiving/responding to feedback, and procedures for resolving stakeholder and community complaints during construction and operation)
 Notification letters and phone calls to residents and businesses directly affected by construction works, changes to traffic arrangements and out of hours works
 Face-to-face meetings with landowners as needed
 Regular community updates on the progress of the construction program
 Regular updates to the WestConnex website
 Media releases and project advertising in local and metropolitan English language and non- English language newspapers to provide contact information for the project team
 Site signage around construction ancillary facilities
24 hour, toll-free project information and complaints line, a dedicated email address and postal address.

A Complaints Management System will be in place for the duration of construction. This system will include the recording of complaints and how the complaint was addressed (within a Complaints Register). A Community Complaints Commissioner, who is an independent specialist, would oversee the system and would follow-up on any complaint where the public is not satisfied with the response.

Further details on the approach to community consultation are provided in Appendix G (Draft Community Consultation Framework).

7.6.3 Ongoing consultation during operation of the project

Community liaison would continue during the operational phase of the project. A Communications Plan would be developed to support maintenance and operations of the motorway as a key part of the Operational Environmental Management Plan framework.

This would include protocols for:

 Ongoing management of community complaints and enquiries during operations
 Community notifications prior to major maintenance activities
 Wider notifications of major maintenance activities that require full tunnel carriageway closure
 Notifications and communication with emergency services during an emergency.