Recent comments on applications from NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments, NSW

  1. In Sydney Olympic Park NSW on “Pod B, Part of P5 Carpark -...” at Hill Road & Holker Busway, Sydney Olympic Park, NSW:

    Alex de Jesus commented

    Fantastic, Great News for all of us, is an amazing project that is going to boost the sport in this Area of Sydney, will generate a great number of jobs, will bring Life, Colour and Brightness instead of a dark asphalt unused " land spot".
    Well done to all involved in this project.
    Can't wait to get in the water and learn how to surf...
    Alex de Jesus

  2. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Bec commented

    I received a letter today, 3/7/17, from First Solar stating that a Submissions report would be available to view on the Dept of Planning and Environment website from the 30 June however it is not available and the website is still showing "Proponent Reviewing Submissions". When will this report from First Solar be available?

  3. In Coleambally NSW on “Coleambally Solar -...” at Kidman Way, Coleambally, NSW:

    Robert Adams commented

    Eagle Energy Pty Ltd wishes to object to SSD 8208 by Neon Energy. The proposed development includes Lot 78 in DP750896. Eagle Energy owns Lots 79 and 80 in DP750896 which is adjacent to the proposed development.

    Eagle Energy has a Part 3A approval for a large ethanol and dairy which includes Lot 78 DP750896.

    As Eagle Energy hold an existing approval on Lot 78 we object to the proposed solar farm on this land.

  4. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Rebecca and Luke commented

    I would also like to note that we had always been informed that the farm would produce a noise level of 79dB but I have since read the Noise Assessment and it states there will be 66 inverters which will be spread evenly across the farm and run at 88dB!!!!

  5. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Candace Smith commented

    I live nearby and my children travel this road regularly on the school bus. I'm concerned not only about the noise, water and visual impacts but also about the access and maintainence of the roads around the proposed solar farm. As it is this road is regularly closed due to weight limits on damaged sections, with additional solar farm traffic I fear this road may become a goat track, unsafe for the school bus, farmers transporting stock and residents.
    The consultation with the community has been vague and intermittent leading to feelings of unease and deciept among locals, clearer and more ongoing consultation could assist in coming up with solutions to this issue rather than just forcing it upon those who live here and will gain nothing from this development.

  6. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    rebecca commented

    just to add to my above comments, I would also like to understand the Noise Assessment document. How can background noise levels from receiver 2 which were measured at L1 – 5 Holleys Lane Gulgong 28dB/day 30dB/evening 29dB/night, yet the predicted noise for this location according to this document be 27dB/calm conditions 32dB/gentle breeze 32dB/moderate temp. Are you saying that it will actually reduce noise?

  7. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Luke and Rebecca commented

    This is what Luke and I submitted today on the NSW Dept of Planning website:

    We, Luke and Rebecca O’Connell, would like to put forward some of our concerns regarding the proposed Beryl Solar Farm.
    On the 2nd of May we had a meeting with First Solar’s Senior Manager, Tom Best. Many of our concerns we addressed during this brief meeting. During this meeting Tom Best informed us that the Solar Farm would produce a constant noise of 78dB from sun up to sun down, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Our land will be devalued and our lifestyles will be compromised due to the constant intrusive and annoying noise and also by the visual impacts created by the proposed Beryl Solar Farm.
    As you would be aware, the location we are talking about is reasonably flat land. Noise travels exceptionally well here as there is very minimal background noise in the area, one of the main reasons we enjoy living here. The constant intrusive and annoying noise created by the Beryl Solar Farm will no doubt devalue our land as well as impact on ours and our young children’s lives, as we will live less than 1km from the proposed site. Tom Best tried to assure us that our sleep will not be impacted by the noise but, as we pointed out to him, most of the main income earners in the area (include ourselves) are miners who work shift work so noise created during daylight hours are just as intrusive. The peacefulness of the area is another reason we chose this location to live and not in town as we wanted somewhere quite knowing that Luke would need to be able to sleep through the day.
    The land on which the Solar Farm is proposed, according to NSW Planning and Development website, has a double zoning of R5 Large lot Residential and RU1 Primary Producer, with surrounding and neighbouring lots zoned R5 Large lot Residential. Mid-Western Regional Council’s zone objectives for these zones clearly states
    • To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving and minimising impacts on environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.
    • To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and within adjoining zones.
    • To maintain visual amenity and landscape quality of Mid-Western region by preserving the area’s open rural landscape and environmental and cultural heritage values.
    • To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.
    We don’t believe any of these zoning objectives will be upheld if the proposed Beryl Solar Farm is approved for this location. State Government should not be allowed to contravene local governments zoning objectives.
    Other concerns we have are facts that, according to Tom Best, no local Aboriginal Lands Council participated in a cultural study of the site. Tom Best, told us that only a Wellington Indigenous group participated. When we asked who conducted the environmental flora and fauna studies he was unable to provide us with that information at the time.
    Also there are errors in the areas temperature on First Solar’s Site Development Plan. It states that the Project Climatic Conditions Extreme Max (50 year) Temp is 43.1 °C. This is completely false as I have photos to prove that this January temperatures reached up to 50 ˚C. The Site Development Plan also shows that the sites Annual Cooling Design Temp is 34.7 °C. This is an average summer night’s temperature for the area, does that mean the cooling system will run all day and all night?
    We believe the land will be change dramatically especially with the requirement to put in internal roads with in the Solar Farm. This, un doubtedly, will affect the water runoff and how will this affect the local water ways considering the close location of the proposed farm to the Cudgegong River?
    Another major concern of ours is the effect of the increased traffic during construction and the location of the proposed entrance of the solar farm. We have been informed that there will be approximately 180 contractors plus trucks and other heavy vehicles required to travel on Beryl Rd, a road my family must travel on each day. This road is on a school bus route and one which my children often use. Beryl road is only a 2 lane road, any extra traffic especially heavy vehicle traffic would cause a severe increase in the likelihood of an accident. This increase of traffic on Beryl Rd will also produce a further noise and pollution disturbance on my family’s lifestyle.
    One other major concern of ours is what would the approval of the Solar Farm mean to Essential Energy, who own the Beryl Sub-station? Would there be any future upgrades to the Sub-station? There is already an annoying noise created from the existing sub-station that can be heard from our home. I know this sub-station is much quieter than the proposed solar farm so I know there will be an impact created if you allow this project to go ahead.
    The location of the proposed Beryl Solar Farm is less than 5km from the centre of Gulgong, a historical town that featured on the original 10 dollar note. No other solar farm in Australia has been approved so close to a residential town.
    When we asked Tom Best about the impact the farm could have on our land value he told us there was not enough data to compare it to. Well I took it upon myself to contact real estate agents in the Royalla area, where Royalla Solar Farm is only 23km from Canberra. I asked if there had been an impact on the land value around the solar farm and I was told that yes there had been a negative effect.
    We are asking that you reconsider the location of the proposed Solar Farm. What about the land State Government bought for the failed Cobbora Mine? Would this not be a more suitable site as it would not affect as many people?
    We believe the land value and the value of our and our young children’s lifestyle will be dramatically and negatively impacted if the Beryl Solar Farm is allowed to go ahead.

  8. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Peter & Joy Adams commented

    Peter & Joy Adams 115 HOLLEYS lane GULGONG 2852
    We also wish to express our disapproval of a SOLAR FARM being constructed on our back door. The existing little sub station and all overhead lines in our area are a necessary evil that we live with. The humming that the sub station produces now is often continious and annoying. The existing sub station and overhead power lines are already subjecting all of us in our area to EMF radiation adults , children and livestock. Why should we have to be subjected to an increased risk just because the proposed site is a perfect spot for First Solar to turn into a higher danger level than it already is.We also would like to point out that we live out of gulgong township because we love the situation of our small property and surrounds and do not wish to be inundated with never ending rows of solar panels and major upgrades to the sub station.It seems that the only ones to benefit from this would be the sellers of the land and First Solar. We wonder why with all the unusable land available for A Solar Farm they find it quiet in there rights to want to construct it here at Beryl when it could be located in an area of little value and without purpose.Beryl has always been an area that produced an income for the land holders { beef, lamb, crops, fodder,orchards,} and still is producing to this day. A Solar Farm here at Beryl we say no thanks. The Sub Station is enough.Please consider how we feel about the area we all call HOME.

  9. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Adam O'Neill commented

    I submitted this on the Department's site today:

    My property is located in the area classed as ‘foreground’ due to its proximity being within ½ km from the proposed site. I purchased this property due to a number of factors which will be directly affected by the construction of the proposed solar farm. My key issues are below:

    Visual: Expansive views of the area. My home is located on a ridge overlooking the area where the site is proposed to be built. The front of the house and property face the site. I am concerned that the construction of power poles, overhead power lines and towers, and the array itself will negatively affect the visual amenity which I hold in high regard and was a major contributing factor to my purchase of the property. The suggested “screening” is not a solution ie sparse plantings to break up the view is unacceptable. Due to seasonal effects and soil quality in the region, vegetation screens are an unreliable method for screening. Any night-lighting is also of concern, as currently there is no lighting in the area due to the rural nature of the site. I disagree with the finding that the scenic quality has been deemed to have only ‘medium impact’. My family and I did not purchase this property to have the beauty of the region adversely affected by this construction.

    Noise: Quiet rural residential area. A major contributing factor to the purchase of my property was the low level of noise compared to living in a town or a city. During construction of the site, the increase in noise will be substantial. Heavy and oversized vehicles have a noticeable impact which residents along Beryl road already experience due to the nearby quarry. An increase of those types of vehicles over the construction period and possibly ongoing, is unacceptable for my family and I. I did not purchase a property in a rural area to be affected by this noise, nor do I wish to be subjected to noise from the substation. There is already a hum from the electrical substation on Beryl Road, so any noise from the solar farm would cause an accumulative effect and increase the level of noise across the area. In times of increased power usage, the level of sound increases from the substation and this is already a concern for my family and I.

    Biodiversity: Native fauna. The Preliminary Environmental Assessment in the Scoping Report identified 6 threatened ecological communities, 29 threatened species and 8 migratory species of fauna living in this local area. I do not wish for these to be adversely affected. The local fauna is an integral part of the countryside. It is imperative a positive outcome is received from the Biodiversity Assessment Report otherwise in my opinion, the cost to the local native fauna is too high and would suggest a different site for construction is necessary.

    Electro Magnetic Field (EMF): I am concerned with the lack of data on public exposure to and any adverse effects from EMFs. I would expect as part of an EIS that this data would be made available. Any adverse effects to human adults, let alone children who reside in the area, are of utmost importance.

    Air quality: The choice to live in this rural area and enjoy the fresh country air is a factor in my choice to live here. We already endure dust and debris which comes from Beryl Road, with the current amount of traffic. How would the impact on air quality be mitigated during construction? The suggestion of ‘visual cues’ to assess the level of dust or debris is not a reliable method. Often the dust can’t be seen but it finds its way into the home and into water troughs and dams, affecting the quality of water. Will residents need to cover their animal’s water troughs and dams to ensure water quality with the increased traffic and dust from construction?

    Roads and traffic: I have already outlined concerns about the heavy vehicles, but what construction and upgrades to nearby roads will be needed as suggested. I would require estimates be provided of the increased traffic on Beryl Road and the Castlereagh Highway during construction and ongoing. The speed limit is currently 100km/h and often the road is dangerous for residents exiting and entering their driveways, for stock crossing and for the school bus picking up and dropping off children. The proposal suggests 12 months of heavy and oversized vehicles on Beryl road and compacted unsealed gravel roads on the site. These factors will have a negative impact on residents and I am concerned for the children and animals who may be close to or on the road. I have had my rescue dog hit and killed by a truck travelling at speed along the road from the quarry. The road is already dangerous at times and an increase of this type of traffic will be hazardous and pose undue and unnecessary risk to myself and my family, as well as other local residents and their children.

    I recognise that this project has been deemed “State Significant” however in my opinion the residents of this area will be negatively affected by the construction of the solar farm at this site and I would hope the consultation with residents will prove that this site is not the best place for it. Personally I do not wish for such a site to be constructed so near to my property. I purchased this property for my family and I to enjoy due to the factors above and many more. It is of great concern to me and would hope that the farm be moved to an area where there are no residents in such close proximity. Gaining the social license to operate is paramount and I do not believe this can be achieved in Beryl.

  10. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Vicki Walsh commented

    My name is Vicki Walsh i came to live in a nice quiet rural ,picturesque ,historic town . so when i discovered that a huge slice of good arable farming land near me was to be made into a solar farm i was to say the least very upset .IS THIS TO BE THE NEXT WHITE ELEPHANT FOR THE TAX PAYERS TO FUND? I have looked into the basics of the fact that the solar farm needs clear days to generate energy so why in a place of 247.8 cloudy or partly cloudy days per year on average.( B.O.M ) average over 40 years.I feel that the sound testing was NOT properly conducted .We already have a load buzz from the sub stn .What will we have to put up with if it goes ahead.This is a major eyesore for us and our poor neighbours who will have to look at ugly panels instead of rolling hills .This project has been VERY poorly advertised.
    .Use some useless land that is not on the doorstep of a historic tourist destination .

  11. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Maxwell george Walsh commented

    I am opposed to the Beryl solar farm for a number of reasons my wife and I purchased a rural residence 117 Holleys lane for the purpose of retiring in a quiet rural setting where it is in close proximity to a lovely historic town with most medical services ,shops ,clubs etc.
    I had had recent treatment for cancer ( surgery,chemotherapy,radiotherapy and hyperbaric treatment) and felt that i needed to be in an environment such as Holleys lane
    We have horses and this locality is (or was) perfect for a relaxing horse ride .
    We then purchased another property 85 Holleys lane 120 acres where we intend to live
    reside in the future this property looks directly down onto the proposed solar farm and will
    completely lose its beautiful rural vista of gently rolling hills etc.
    The noise levels are certain to increase as will the increased traffic .
    the value of both our properties will certainly decrease .
    our retirement lifestyle will be totally thrown out the door.
    this project is too close to HISTORIC Gulgong a major tourist attraction all traffic heading south to Gulgong will have uninterupted views of solar panels and nothing else.
    the majority of people living in close proximity have all voiced their concerns to me and
    most will be conciderably worse affected than us as they are mostly young families wanting to raise their children in a rural environment and not an INDUSTRIAL complex
    I feel that projects such as solar farms should never be erected on good rural farmland
    whilst there is acres and acres of unproductive land that could be used.
    Sandy lane, has been closed off why and by whom? which most of us living along Beryl Rd and Holleys lane enjoy our horse riding and Sandy Lane was the only through road
    safe access to Gulgong without riding along the busy Castlereigh Highway
    I hope that this proposed Solar farm is not given the go ahead certainly not at this location
    as so many people will be inconvenienced mentally,physically and last of all financially.
    The nsw state government should give some consideration to land that it already has at the failed Cobbora project instead of allowing the solar farm on good rural residential land and causing hurt to so many people.

  12. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    TORI commented

    I also will live within 500 meters of this 79 decible solar farm proposal. This is so close to so many family homes with young families including mine, sleep will be a big issue along with child safety as most of our children in this area ride up and down this road on horses.
    This is a large scale solar farm of 900,000 + panels is one of the biggest proposed, yet planned to be placed so close to so many disagreeing residents.
    So much work has gone into this beryl area, we have fire fighters, mine workers, teachers, youth, war veterans, builders, farmers all have given to this community and surrounding areas hopefully the community, councial and planning members give back by supporting the relocation of this huge heart throb affecting us all and our historical area.
    PLEASE dont let the people of this community suffer.

  13. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Tajinda Le Breton commented

    I own a property near to this proposed site. I also have big concerns of the environmental impact, visual impact on our beautiful countryside, water usage and noise contaminating the serenity we have here in the country. It's why we live here and why we love it.

  14. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Casey Deryk commented

    I am apposed to the Beryl solar farm as not only will it be an eyesore to the area which is why myself and my son and the surrounding communities chose to live in this area because of the great rural lifestyle, but also the impact it will have to the value of our properties and to surrounding areas. This needs to be further investigated and taken very serious not only by those concerning but also by the local politicians who are supposed to be here for all and not just ignoring the concerns of all involved

  15. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Myf commented

    I beleive there are more suitable sites nearby that will not impact on the residential members who live within the area.
    The beryl community is tight knit and this proposed solar farm is in the middle of all of these neighbouring residents. The proposed site is also in a lower area where the houses on the surrounding higher grounds will suffer from immediate glare and the beautiful outlooks that they currently have, which will be destroyed if this goes ahead.
    These residents already suffer a substantial amount of noise pollution from the quarry, located in beryl, with it's machines and trucks roaring up and down the road, and this added traffic will only add to noise pollution, add further safety concerns due to the increased traffic and speed up the deterioration of the road.
    I highly recommend reevaluating the project to either reloacting the site, which i believe is the better alternative, or compensating all residents who will be affected.
    Councillors, please use full empathy when finalising this decision and ask yourself "How would i feel if this project was at my front door?"

  16. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Adam & Lois O'Neill commented

    Adam/Lois O'Neill
    We do not want this project to go ahead. Our property is extremely close to this proposed site, just about at our front gate... what will our beautiful scenery be if this goes ahead, acres and acres of solar panels... just so wrong to build this close to so many residents in our little area of peaceful bliss. Our property was purchased as it was close to the township of Gulgong and for the peace and quiet that it offers overlooking the countryside
    at its best ...... so now what will we have ?
    Noice, traffic, glare, long term health issues... how about the valuation of all our properties...no views no peacefulness ... No Compensation.... WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN OUR AREA ...

  17. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Donna Rouse commented

    As far as I am aware this is a done deal...they have purchased the land and everyone knows they have already have offered the owner employment for this venture.
    Our member is too busy to talk about it and i feel this has been very underhanded. The neighbours are not happy about this and no-one will give them the time of day.
    Disgraceful the way this has been handled not to mention the noise this will make and devalue hard working peoples home and lively hoods near by.

  18. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Luke, Rebecca O'Connell commented

    Luke and Rebecca O'Connell. We live approximately 500 meters from the proposed beryl solar farm, we chose this area to raise our young children and to build our family home in because of the peace and quiet and close location to Gulgong. We both feel the lifestyle that we love is about to be destroyed by the solar farm. Not to mention property values will fall and the increased noise up to 79 db will generate.

  19. In Gulgong NSW on “Beryl Solar - Development...” at Beryl Road, , NSW:

    Ruddie Malone commented

    I live on a residential farm directly to the north in close proximity to the proposed site, and strongly do not want this project to go forward. This that worry me include,
    -the value of my residential property value being decreased
    -no compensation being offered
    -I will have a 160degree view from my front door, of rural outlook ruined. Why have zoning? To get changed for commercial needs.
    -lifestyle ruined, recreational assets, public infrastructure roads
    -79 decibels of continuous noise, cooling fans, road usage
    -shift workers trying to sleep
    -radiation
    -brown field
    -fragmenting habits
    -long term health effects
    -glare (not refection)
    -privacy
    -magnetic fields
    -water hydrology
    -the towns historic character, impacted
    -conflicts of interest
    -lack of cancellation
    - the maps sent out are wrong
    -Max temp in area 43 degrees Celsius, I don't think so

  20. In NSW on “Brandy Hill Quarry -...” at Clarencetown Rd, Seaham, NSW:

    Max and Robyn Crouch commented

    We have coexisted with the quarry for over 17years in a beautiful rural residential area.To extend operations to 24hours including a concrete plant and concrete recycling I fear will be detrimental to our health ,safety,lifestyle.
    The roads used by truck movements are predominantly council maintained roads with two of these routes cross historic one lane bridges.Currently council has difficulty maintaining road pavement,how will they possibly be able to with the expected growth and expansion.
    There are no slow passing lanes,overtaking lanes until reaching RMS maintained roads at Raymond Terrace,East Maitland or Maitland.
    There is currently no provision for pedestrian safety along BrandyHillDrive.
    Inadequate bays for buses to collect school children.
    Extending the mining area to existing boundaries will remove the existing buffer area, drastically increasing noise and dust pollution.

  21. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Steve Brancatisano commented

    The proposed development represents poor planning and a failure of government. To spend $300 million to add 10,000 seats to a venue which averages two-thirds capacity doesn't constitute good-faith public expenditure. And to do so at the expense of our War Memorial Pool is an embarrassment to our so-called "Next Great City". Parramatta is one of the fastest growing areas of Sydney, and it is frankly absurd for the area to be without a pool for 3-5 years.

    The proposal is of added concern for two further reasons. First, the incursion into Crown Land on both the new proposed stadium footprint and the proposed replacement pool site at Mays Hill is further evidence of the erosion of public space in Sydney. Second, the use of the proposed 20,000 sqm of future ancillary development has thus far remained undefined. At best, residents could be expected to impute incompetence. At worse, malevolence.

    The War Memoral Pool and new stadium can co-exist. Parramatta deserves better.

  22. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Sarah Nguyen commented

    #saveparrapool ! Leave the pool where it is until there is a replacement. Benefit all instead of a few. This Liberal state government will be history if you don't listen to the people, just like WA today.

    Have respect for the people of Parramatta and compromise! Stadium and pool can co-exist. Do your job properly and there will be no complaints.

  23. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    George Gittany commented

    "complementary uses"
    One would think a pool would be considered as a complementary use.
    Why do Parramatta locals need to drive to Homebush or Ryde Aquatic Centres when a works class aquatic centre could be incorporated in the stadium design. Are we not meant to move forward and process. Since when does one step back in time to meet the demands of our community for today, tomorrow and beyond? Take a leap forward dear government and think like yesteryears Sir Bradfield and the likes.

  24. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Dianne Cowderoy commented

    It is outrageous to demolish Parramatta Pool merely to accomodate a football stadium. The pool not only provides a place for people to cool off and enjoy a swim but it is an important community facility for schools, social and sporting groups. Where will schools hold their swimming carnivals? Where will children learn to swim? This war memorial pool is a community asset that should not be sacrificed for redevelopment of a stadium. The stadium architects and planners must find another way to make the stadium work without destroying the pool. Parramatta Parkland and heritage land should also be fiercely protected from use by developers. It was set aside for the people from the earliest days of European settlement, not to be carved up in order to accomodate developments. Of course progress must occur in growing Parramatta into a 21st century city. However, Parramatta Pool is, for many locals, a sacred place, a place of significant historical and community importance. Save our pool.

  25. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    greg temme commented

    BUILD A NEW POOL . the old one is past the use by date

  26. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Janelle Singleton commented

    As Parramatta and it's surrounding areas is of high density and there is little recreational areas for families and schools who would like to enjoy the outdoors rather than go to the Stadium, it would be more advantageous for all involved to keep the pool and the Stadium. There are a lot of families who do not know how to swim and the pool is a place where they can learn these much needed survival skills. Imagine the lives that can be saved in the future, if people had the opportunity to learn how to swim at their local pool.

  27. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Anne Jaumees commented

    I object strongly to the proposed stadium in its current format which means the Parramatta War Memorial Pool is lost to become a car park with no foreseeable replacement. After the hottest January, and the hottest summer and the hottest year on record ( that means lots of days of 40 degrees plus) why are we sacrificing our pool to the stadium when there is a viable plan by well recognized architect that would allow us to have both. This current plan is disrespectful to all those who live and work and go to the school in the area who use this pool for their physical and mental health. This pool is used by schools for lessons and carnivals, by 100s of children for swim lessons, by swim clubs, Olympic diving teachers (1 of inly 2 in Sydney) and the general public. Parramatta is growing enormously and many people live in apartments . This is their out door space. The government is campaigning to reduce obesity in children and is taking away a very important place for exercise.
    The alternative plan for the stadium that allows a bigger stadium and KEEPING the Parramatta War Memorial Pool is what we should be having.

  28. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Leon Rizos commented

    Incorporate the pool into the development of the Stadium. It is possible to do and the plans proposed but the people of parramatta would be fantastic it implemented. The NSW Government and Parramatta Administrator still have time to rethink the plan and same the pool and create a sporting complex that we can all be proud of and show other councils what can be done when we all work together.
    The old and the new can co-exist and work together. All that is required is people to think outside the square.

  29. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Peter Hales commented

    It is completely wrong to build the new stadium with no plans or funding at all to relocate and rebuild Parramatta Swimming Pool. Several prominent architects have pointed out that it is in fact, with minor modification, possible to retain Parramatta Pool in its same location and for the new Parramatta stadium to be built as planned. Please do not close Parramatta Pool.

  30. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Melinda Kane commented

    Parramatta residents and schools need the current pool to stay. My school has used Parramatta Pool for many years to host our school swimming carnival. It provides plenty of room, shade, equipment and is overall, an outstanding facility for local schools.

    Parramatta pool also has an excellent outdoor diving pool which is rare these days. Many groups use the various pools for learn to swim classes, training, recreation and is perfect for seniors.

    Please reconsider demolishing the pool. A new and improved stadium can coexist with our lovely, well maintained facility.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts