Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Stage 2

With regards to noise levels affecting wattle grove, there is no mention that I can find covering safety warning buzzers fitted to all industrial plant. These need to be considered as they piece through all forms of sound proofing by design. Also as wattle grove is historically very quite even during the day, considering needs to be give to the shift working community based in Wattle Grove when considering day time acceptable noise levels, failure to recognise this may result in increased fatigue to shift workers as a direct result of this project and may lead the operator and government open to future litigation. I Would like feedback on these issues please.

In accordance with the notification as a local land owner I am pleased to provide a submission opposing the proposed development.
The proposed development if approved will in my opinion lead to vast dislocation of surrounding residents due to the negative impacts involving sound levels inevitable from such large scale operations in an area lacking absorbing topography.
The current traffic conditions surrounding the proposed development would face considerable set backs from heavy vehicle break down, accidents and sheer numbers of trucks that would be required to support such operations.
Heavy vehicle break downs, accidents and congestion are already a noticeable problem on the M5, M7 and surrounding roads producing high levels of delay for commuters depending upon the motorways to reach the city of Sydney including essential major city maintenance support staff.
The current military airfield emissions of sound and sounds from general military activity are already accepted affectations of my land as mentioned in the purchase contract when we purchased land in Wattle Grove however the addition of intermodal activity noise would produce excessive combined sound levels.
Wattle grove at this juncture receives noise pollution from Railway, Motorway, Army and Defence, Kingsford Smith Airport Operations, Bankstown Airport Operations the addition of intermodal development and activities would exceed reasonably expected levels of noise and air pollution affecting negatively the amenity of my property in my opinion. The proponent has made no offer of compensation to me though such a development would negatively impact my land and is seeking to profit by developing the proposal without my agreement. Please do not approve the proposal.

As a community memebr residing nearby the proposed Freiggt Terminal. I hold great concerns for the local flora and fauna that will be removed from the site. I am also quite distressed about the additional car and truck, trains movements in the vincinity and surrounds. The hazardous carcinogenic emmisions caused by the heavy movements of vehicles, trucks and trains deeply concerns me. Wattle Grove as the name of the suburb suggests i was first drawn to this 5years ago. Best described as beautiful leafy( golden wattle trees, red gum, grey gum, squiggly gum trees just to name afew making it a peaceful, clean, unpolluted suburb, unspoilt place to raise a young family will no longer be that. Please dont ruin our beautiful Wattle Grove!

Having purchased property at one of Moorebank's new developments, I have been excited to see the progress our area has undergone. However, amongst all this improvement, NO improvement has been made to traffic, which is absolutely ludicrous. This intermodal will only increase already horrendous traffic making it impossible for residents to get around and perform their basic daily duties.

Futhermore, the hard work put in by developers to create beautiful new green space and facilities for residents of Moorebank and the wider area to enjoy will surely see a negative impact as a result of the terminal being placed here. It has already been proven that an intermodal in Moorebank is in the WRONG place, far too congested, and that it will already be out of date when it is built. Considering these points, it seems obvious that this is a matter of politicians patting each other on the back and filling each other's pockets - what other explanation could there be?

Badgery's Creek is the obvious location for a multitude of reasons - the land available, and of course the future development of the airport to name a couple. The intermodal does not belong near our estates, our suburbs, to pollute our air and our children's futures. Positive changes to the area need to be enjoyed and protrected, We are all looking forward to the greening of our streets, and our river, and projects such as the paper mill and the Georges Cove Marina, NOT being the dumping ground for destruction such as this proposed intermodal and the proposed concrete recyclers. We have become a bright and vibrant community full of young families living in the west because we WANT to, not because we HAVE to, and it's about time politicians realised the West can no longer be treated as the dumping ground it has been treated as in the past.

When will the government realise this proposal will create chaos on roads (they can't cope with the volumes even now); cause major environmental impact ! Why have these facilities built so close to suburban life?

This is an appeal from a grandmother. Has the massive turmoil due to traffic congestion been taken in consideration as it stands now the roads are already at maximum capacity. The container trucks that you say will be taken off the road will be tripled by smaller trucks that have to be used to disperse the freight from the terminal to the place of destination. The fact that the Georges River is in such close proximity should be taken into consideration, why turn this beautiful area into virtually a dump. How about the noise of the trains, the noise from the site being in use 24 hours per day. Do you realise that there are homes only a short distance away, namely Wattle Grove and Casula, not to mention the schools and the many day care centers.

I have been involved in the protest against the Moorebank Intermodal freight hub for eight years and have always believed the EIS documents have not adequately reveales the impact on the area and the cost w8ill be at least 10 billion dollars.The area where it is proposed to build on contains many endangered species and plants and on the Georges River the clearing of the land must make the flood prone area more extreme with the Georges River one of the most flood proned areas in NSW this uis madness.Also the area contains 1000 aboriginal sites which I believ hasnot been adequately researched.RThe South west of Sydney is one of the most gridlocked areas in Sydney and it would be impossible to put the many of extyra behicles on our roads as I see gridlock 24/7.Also nobody seems to take into account the extra 450000 extra residents that will come into the area in the next 25 years .Liverpool council is against the project and they have commissioned Carno to put in sevsral submissions which are all being dammimg about the project and they state that the false assumptions does not make the EIS viable.Also the pollution by the project must add negatively against the local residents some who live within 400 metres of the site and the area once considered a environmental buffer zone for Sydney will be greatly impacted.Also I know the area has a huge population of koalas who have very sensitive noses and they will not be able to be relocated as they live in a area where their are many unexploded devises as the area had been a firing practise for many years

It is ridiculous to think a development of this size is suitable for this residential area. It will bring more trucks onto our streets with increased traffic to and from the site. It is obvious that there has been no consideration for the residents who purchased in this area well and truly before any type of development had been proposed.
What about our quiet neighbourhood? It will be noisy and dirty.
What about our children and the health impacts? The construction of this site will bring increased dust and pollution to the area alone!
What about the flora and fauna? It will be destroyed and so will the health of the river that is being regenerated!
Property values will drop and people's life long battle to get ahead will be lost.
Take a hard look at yourselves! Would you like to live next to this? I think not!

I object to the Moorebank Precinct West-Stage 2. I have major concerns over noise pollution it will produce. I live in the Glen Regent Estate in Casula off Leacocks Lane. It is currently very peaceful and leafy area. With the west development proposal I believe the noise will travel easily to my area which is only 600mtrs from the site. I also have concerns with the train access as where the trains leave the main southern line rail corridor it will be within 750mtrs from my house with little noise barrier in between. We already have to deal with the noise since the freight line was completed. Also the current outlook from the ridgeline off Leacocks Lane and nearby walking tracks where you can see trees and the Georges river will be ruined with buildings, trains and noise. I strongly recommend this this proposal not to proceed.

TRAFFIC/CONGESTION
The following is from the Moorebank Intermodal Company > Annual Report 2016.......

"MIC has promoted three major road projects to
support the terminal's successful operation:

1. Cambridge Avenue extension- this would
create a new link to the M7 and M5 Motorways
to help accommodate future traffic growth that
will be generated by the residential growth
and economic development expected in the
region, particularly in the Campbelltown local
government area.It would also provide an
alternative road access to the terminal and
allow future re-allocation of traffic patterns.

2. A solution to the M5 `weave'- located on
the M5 Motorway between Moorebank Avenue
and the Hume Highway - would resolve a
significant source of congestion currently
affecting broader road network performance
and potentially adversely affecting truck
access to and from the Moorebank intermodal
terminal. This solution will be required as
background traffic continues to grow.

3. Hume Highway upgrade- this would upgrade
poorly performing intersections along the
Hume Highway between the M5 Motorway and
Orange Grove Road. Some of these upgrades
are required now. RMS is also assessing the
Brickmakers Creek Bypass - an alternative that
would provide a new road parallel to the Hume
Highway."


My concern is that if all of these road projects do not go ahead it would make the Moorebank Intermodal unworkable as there would be too much congestion, accidents and incidents on the roads surrounding the area.
For such large costly road projects to gain approval would also take a long time. For such infrastructure projects to proceed and complete construction of would take an even longer time. Meanwhile if the Moorebank Intermodal was up and running before and during construction of such infrastructure it could create all sorts of problems for the surrounding roads.
The ultimate question is who will pay for such infrastructure anyway? Private venture or Government?
Such necessary infrustructure should be completed BEFORE the Intermodal is in operation if approved.
While on the subject of roads, I'd like to add my concern for the local roads of Liverpool which will be adversely affected by way of damage from the large number of truck movements as a result of the Moorebank Intermodal. Who will pay for the road repairs as a result of this? The rate payers or the private company contracted to manage the Intermodal? I do hope my rates are not increased as a result of the extra funds that will be required to maintain the roads of Liverpool heavily used by trucks going in and out of The Moorebank Intermodal. Liverpool has nothing to gain from such a monstrosity of a project.

The traffic required to service the project will wreck all hope for the area from an air pollution and sound pollution perspective and the potential traffic accidents, breakdowns of trucks and congestion would be a no go for businesses to situate here in Liverpool.



NOISE

I live in Tusculum Court Wattle Grove and have measured the approximate distance from the rail link as the crow flys and it is about 1.3km from the rail link. Worse still this part of the rail link is where the trains turn a corner. I anticipate a lot of wheel squeal from the trains having to travel this part of the rail line. I anticipate this will cause a disturbance, especially at night and especially when the wind is blowing my way.
I anticipate there will be times when the train will be approaching the warehousing area and it has to remain idling somewhere on the rail line causing ongoing disturbance by way of noise and air pollution to my family. This might happen as the train is not quite ready to be received and processed for one reason or another, such as accidents, emergencies, human behaviour, equipment/facility failure etc. etc.
Can you provide me 100% guarantee that such occurrences will either not happen or that if they do that they will not cause disturbance or unacceptable scenarios for my family and other nearby residents?

AIR QUALITY

From the EIS
"If and when construction phase is started the standard dust controls for construction will be outlined in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), prepared by the construction contractor prior to commencement of
work. The minimum proposed construction dust control measures are listed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) presented in Appendix 6, which also outlines:
*Procedures for controlling / managing dust.
*Roles, responsibilities and reporting requirements.
*Contingency measures for dust control where standard measures are deemed ineffective.
Vehicle movements would be limited to designated entries and exits, haulage routes and parking areas."

Will the CEMP be made available to the public and how can we be guaranteed that correct procedures according to the CEMP are being practiced?

Will there be a 24 hour phone help line for residents to complain to about their daily experiences should they be experiencing air pollution and noise pollution as a result of the construction and operation of the Intermodal? An active website, facebook page and email address would also be helpful to residents should they need to contact someone with regards to any problems they are experiencing as a result of the Intermodal's construction and operation. It is of course most effective if someone is available to talk to on the phone there and then to resolve any issues there and then rather than wait a day or 2 for an email response.
As a man with sinus issues I need to be made aware of any dust or other air pollutants around each day so that I can take measures to avoid further health complications. How will I be made aware on a daily/hourly basis when situations arise?

I do not agree with the concept of having a concrete crushing plant onsite. This will create more noise and air pollution for me and those residents in nearby Casula, Glenfield and Wattle Grove.

The extended operating hours of the terminal and concrete crushing plant will be a burden on these residents too.

I DO NOT give permission for my property to be negatively impacted so if necessary I can take legal action or join a class action should this proposal ruin the amenity of my property.

I am writing this objection and I am lost for words and with huge disappointment what is happening to my suburb and the City of Liverpool. I am a resident of Leacocks Lane Casula. I am disappointed in the leadership and your vision and the worst plan that I have ever heard to simply destroy Liverpool and surrounding areas. We (YOU) need seriously to sit and question the type of Leadership that you are providing to this City, you need to question our Planning Leadership (I have strongly question that).
Dumping this proposal to Liverpool will be devastating to the community and future generation.
There is no point even for me listing the details of the objection as we already know what a disaster it will be. From pollution, dust, fuel emissions, noise, air quality which is already an issue in the WEST and especially gas uses for container cleaning / fumigating etc...
Dumping this in the middle of the city it's simply shocking. We must question your planning skills and vision. I am so disappointed that you are going to ruin the WEST. You are creating a huge problem instead of finding solution to the existing problem at Botany.
Move this outside Sydney how dare you are going to ruin Liverpool City by dumping this huge devastating disaster to us and future generation.
The pollution the noise the emission of gas, fuel is the worst environmental disaster that I have ever heard. I am simply ashamed that "is this type leadership and vision and qualified leaders" we have.
Lost for words
Elizabeth

The residents of Glenfield will be in for an almighty shock if this proposal proceeds. The community consultation in that area has been avoided. See page 19 of 19 in the "Consultation Outcomes Report Moorebank Precinct West
(MPW) - Stage 2 Proposal" to discover the map which outlines the areas where communnity consultation newsletters where distributed. Perhaps sneakily avoided because they are one of the closest neighbours to the site. Quoted from the EIS "Glenfield, located approximately 820 metres from the Proposal site and 1,100 metres from the Rail link connection to the south-west. The Rail link is approximately 750 m to the east of Glenfield at its closest point."
I'd be surprised if many of the Glelfield resiidents knew what sort of proposal is proposed so close to their homes and local roads.

Do not want the trucks noise pollution

We do NOT want the thousands of additional trucks on our local roads!
We do NOT want the diesel emissions that will pollute our local air!
We do NOT want the devastation this project will cause to our river!
We do NOT want the destruction of habitat for many of our local species, including the massive Koala population we have in our area.
We do NOT want the natural habitat almost the size of the Sydney CBD to be destroyed for ever.
Our community representatives through local government, State and Federal representatives have sent a very clear message to the NSW Dept of Planning and other bodies that this is the wrong location for an intermodal. Why is the DOP not paying heed to this?
Why do the DOP insist on destroying our life and of the generations to come?

We do NOT want the thousands of additional trucks on our local roads!
We do NOT want the diesel emissions that will pollute our local air!
We do NOT want the devastation this project will cause to our river!
We do NOT want the destruction of habitat for many of our local species, including the massive Koala population we have in our area.
We do NOT want the natural habitat almost the size of the Sydney CBD to be destroyed for ever.
Our community representatives through local government, State and Federal representatives have sent a very clear message to the NSW Dept of Planning and other bodies that this is the wrong location for an intermodal. Why is the DOP not paying heed to this?
Why do the DOP insist on destroying our life and of the generations to come?

I want you to know that we all oppose the above project


Dear Sir/Madam,

Please treat this email as a formal submission to report my concern & comments of the planning of number Intermodals within the Sydney Basin.

Intermodals within 40 Km of each other are financially unviable. Enfield is only 12 Km from the Port and Moorebank will only be 28 Km from the Port.

The Moorebank Avenue sites "Government Intermodal " plus SIMTA Intermodal plus Warehouse Zone will no doubt overflow its capacity in a few years, taking into consideration the population growth which we all know about and with the south west being one of the areas where the growth is expected to increase at a higher rate. Then a new location will need to be looked at (patching) and the story will continue.

We urge the government and the planning department to have real long term planning, instead of quick wins and patching, it is not the cheap option either as the re location will cost the government half a billion dollars (tax payers money).

I do not think any analysis or investigation on the suitability of the location from its proximity to residential areas was done & if it will be done.
The location is within very close proximity to houses, how anyone would expect our lives to be with all the air pollution that would be generated, the noise and the light 24/7. Not discussing the rail impact, our streets are already very congested and as it stands now it is almost impossible to go on the local roads during peak hours let it be with 2000 trucks more. The M5 is already over full capacity during peak hours and it takes us now double the normal time if we travel on it during peak hours, let it be with 2000 trucks more, even if it has been widened.
The M5 and surrounding roads and intersections at Moorebank will not be able to cope with the extra 3 million trucks per year movements coming and going from the freight precinct, this too will impact the cost of doing business in Sydney via the Moorebank Intermodals.


The project will have a huge impact on our lives, health and wellbeing. It's our health and kids health we are talking about. Noise, Light, Vibration, Diesel Fumes 24/7; and all what's being considered by the project offices and owners are mitigation strategies, how can one mitigate these impacts? End result our health will be damaged, our life will be damaged, and our quiet residential suburbs will be turned into industrial zones. You cannot mitigate deadly impacts; you need to eliminate root causes.

In the UK with very limited land, the nearest intermodal is 100K south of the city, and here in Australia with all the land we have, its less than 1K away from our homes. So having our terminals built meters away from residential suburbs MUSTBE WRONG. With our huge land, we definitely can look at selecting the appropriate location away from residential areas, even if it will cost more to establish a supporting network to it (rail and roads).

I know every project emerges of good proposals and I know the key factors are always time and money, however with infrastructure projects, quick wins and patching, doesn't provide solutions, but more nuisance and issues.
In General, Freight can be delivered direct from Port Botany to final destination within the Sydney Basin far cheaper and quicker than the proposed detour via the Moorebank Intermodals.
The Freight Infrastructure Charge will push up prices immediately when introduced by the government.
Time in transit determines cost. Freighting containers to Moorebank and then 80% onto Western and North Western Sydney will increase the delivery time frame considerably, impacting costs.

If real planning is done by our governments and not planning based only on quick wins, such a huge infrastructure projects will NEVER be built in a very populated city like Liverpool and only meters away from homes.

Dominic Scutella

Dear Sir/Madam,
I formally advise that I oppose this proposal as a complete waste of tax payers money which will create enormous future costs to taxpayers

kind regards,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to advise that I object to this foolish white elephant of a proposal which will damage the community and create massive pollution.

Best Wishes

I am against the proposal for an Intermodal at Moorebank for many reasons:

* The EIS should be completed on the total number of projects proposed for the area, i.e. Federal Government Intermodal on the Australian Army Engineers site, SIMTA proposed intermodal as well as the SSFL since the effects will be felt of the total projects that are proposed not just the SIMTA proposal. Anything less does not give an accurate picture of the outcome.

I could not find any information that referred to the cumulative effects on air quality, noise and traffic that would occur from both the SIMTA proposal and the widely known about Moorebank Project Office proposal operating simultaneously.
By splitting the projects, it is is misleading and unfair to the people of Liverpool and to anyone that uses this area whether to travel through it , provide serices or use services provided by the area.


ROADS AND TRAFFIC

-Impacts to Traffic should be considered including the exiting and entry of trucks to and from the site and the deadly impact this will have as these trucks attempt to merge onto the M5 with traffic travelling at 100kph. Trucks merging from Moorebank Ave onto the M5 travelling towards the M7 will inevitably cause accidents as those already on the M5 travelling in the same direction swerve to avoid them or simply crash into the back of them. Also as cars travelling in that same direction on the M5 try to merge into the far left lanes in order to get onto the Hume Hwy whilst trucks from the intermodal are merging from Moorebank Ave onto the M5 travelling towards the M7, accidents are inevitable. For these scenarios to be mitigated would possibly mean lowering the speed limit on the M5 for that area or building complexed and expensive underpasses, overpasses or tunnels. Not enough information has been provided in EIS regarding mitigating or providing solutions to such matters. Any information provided is vague and does not display who would be responsible implementing for such action.

- What will you do to implement procedures to prevent trucks from using local streets? How will it follow through, monitor and carry out these these procedures? What are the so called local streets specifically? Please name them specifically?

- there will be a huge impact to the residents living close by as well as a significant impact to all people living within a 10km radius of this site. The location is within very close proximity to houses. How would anyone expect our lives to be with all the air pollution that would be generated, the noise and the light 24/7. Not discussing the rail impact, our streets are already very congested and as it stands now it is almost impossible to go on the local roads during peak hours let it be with 2000 trucks more. The M5 is already over full capacity during these peak hours and roads in the surrounding areas of the proposed Intermodal would become gridlocked.

- I am glad that 3300 trucks are taken off the road from Botany to
Moorebank Avenue. But how wrong is it to put 3300 trucks back on the
road from Moorebank Avenue in an existing pollution basin. The truth behind this simple fact has been hidden by SIMTA as well as the Moorebank Project Office from the beginning of these proposals.
With up to one million trucks expected to enter and depart Moorebank Ave to and from the SIMTA terminal annually, many of them using the M5....How is this NOT due to freight terminals???
How can they say that this number of trucks they intend to bring to the Liverpool area will not increase truck movements on the M5? It may be on a different section of the M5 ie between Moorebank Ave and the M7 junction but the same number of trucks and more will still be using the M5 due to the fact that goods must be delivered from Moorebank to the warehouses in the west and south west of Sydney.
I feel the Liverpool community are being fed lies to avoid conflict with residents on their proposal.

-

AIR QUALITY AND PEOPLE'S HEALTH
Air Quality is really important. Australia has one of the worlds highest incidents of Asthma. Residents suffer from many other lung complaints as well. Any degradation in air quality will make these conditions worse. Every truck that they take off the road at Port Botany will have to start at Moorebank, queuing with its engine running, pushing pollution into the air.

Air Pollution has really serious health effects. Studies show the following:
* Air Pollution from busy roads shortens life expectancy
* Asthma symptoms (and childhood hospitalisations) caused by truck exhaust
* Babies are more likely to be premature or have low birth weight if mum lives near high traffic areas
* Respiratory symptoms in two year olds linked to Traffic
* Asthma more common in children who live near freeways
* Children (and people generally) who live near busy roads are more likely to develop cancer
* Air Pollution causes more traffic related deaths than accidents
This link has an index of relevant studies from the San Diego Earth Times.

Another study http://www.ehjournal.net/content/6/1/23 talks about the Cardiac and Pulmonary effects of living in close proximity to pollution.

Specific questions to be addressed in the terms of reference should include;
a) what increases in PM10 and PM2.5 will occur at different locations in the local environment, arising from all sources related to the proposed Moorebank
Intermodal Terminal Facility
b) what increases in PM10 and PM2.5 will occur at different locations in the local environment, arising from the combined effects the proposed Moorebank
Intermodal Terminal Facility and the Department of Finance Intermodal
terminal project.
c) Will the increases in PM10 and PM2.5 arising from the Intermodal developments push the levels of PM10 and PM2.5 (in any location) above the guidelines set by the World Health Organization.
d) What, if any health effects are likely to occur in the local population resulting from increases in PM10 and PM2.5 levels associated with the Intermodals.
e) What are the economic costs (loss of productivity, cost of health care, etc) of any adverse health effects.
f) If the proposed Intermodal facility was to be located in another area of Sydney,what PM10 and PM2.5 levels would result in these other local areas.


- The proponents of the massive terminal complex at Moorebank say that residents won't be impacted by noise, but residents are not convinced.

Overseas, authorities acknowledge the noise impacts on local residents. The Port of Houston Authority in Texas has offered $US40,000 "mitigation payment" per house for houses as far as 920m (Baywood Ave Shoreacres) from the Bayport Container Terminal so home owners can install soundproofing.

You can read all about it here.
http://www.bayportmitigationsolution.com/

- In 1997 the Holsworthy Airport proposal was scrapped, one of the reasons being that the air pollution would adversely affect the region. 15 years later that population is now substantially bigger and more people would be affected by a much bigger proposal. The location is the wrong place for such an operation


- Since pollution in the area is already high compared to a lot of areas in Sydney any increase in pollution must be considered to be dangerous and must be monitored in full and in all conditions. Any adverse findings must be reported and remediated including fines and/or criminal penalties where applicable.

- There has been a mountain of research from all over the world that diesel emissions cause great problems to residents even short term exposure.It effects the brain lungs diabetes child birth weight hearts as diesel contains 40 toxic chemicals. And still it appears the ones deciding on these freight terminals are choosing to ignore the facts and the resident's concerns. It is unbelievable that governments and companies can be so short sited when planning such infrastructure in residential areas. Or is it simply neglect?

OTHER ISSUES

- The threat of terrorist attack on the Intermodal site including freight and infrastructure. With only 3% of containers currently being checked for illicit and illegal goods how can we be certain that terrorists will not attempt to attack and cripple Sydney's Freight flow, particularly as it seems that the Government is concentrating all of the freight flow into 1 or 2 narrow freight corridors.


- The potential for an accident with unknown container contents spillage or leaking into the George's River, local watertables, soil or air is of concern


- The potential for an explosion resulting from an accident or careless handling of containers resulting in damage to resident's homes and other surrounding infrastructure.



-Most of the 13,000 families within 2km of the container terminal are paying off a mortgage and they are worried about the effect of having a huge container terminal appear next to their house.
Houses next to terminals drop in value, a lot. Local residents don't deserve a slug like that.
What compensation will be on offer for residents within the 2km zone from the Intermodal?




- Why is the Crime and statistics of the suburb of Moorebank studied so heavily when in fact the planned intermodal lies closer to the residential areas of Wattle Grove and Casula than it does to the predominant residential area of Moorebank? It seems Wattle Grove and Casula have not been considered in the planning and the social and health requirements of these suburbs will not be considered by SIMTA.


- Nowhere in the planning for Moorebank complex has there been any mention of compensating residents so they can insulate themselves against noise or top up their mortgage so the drop in property value doesn't leave them with negative equity.


- I have to remind the planners of these Intermodals both Federal and Private that flooding of the Georges River is of great concern.
There have been numerous times flooding has occurred along Newbridge Rd near Flower Power and heavy rain in a short period can cause flooding along Newbridge Rd which has the Georges River at 2 points near the area.
With heavy rain recently part of the area has been flooded and to believe you could operate a freight hub with such uncertainty beggars belief and if the flooding occurred it would cause great damage and inconvenience to the SSFL freightline and the transport of diesel trucks along Newbridge Rd , Moorebank Ave and other heavily patronised roads.

Can you please listen to these concerns and reply with a personal response?

Our community would appreciate the chance for your group to meet with us to discuss these and other concerns.

Kind Regards,

Please find below my official submission. I object to these proposals.
The supposed consultation process is deeply flawed and does not comply with the legislation.
For example, translated materials have not been provided to significant numbers of affected stakeholders/residents. Consequently, it seems likely that the consultations regarding the proposed Intermodal(s) at Moorebank/Wattle Grove are illegal. According to the 2011 Census, Wattle Grove's population included 27.8 % of people who did not speak English, however the consultations (both the limited posted material and the limited in person meetings) have not included any translated material or provided any interpreters. Specifically, other languages spoken included 4.1% Arabic, 3.0% Other, 2.5% Language spoken at home not stated, 2.4% Hindi, 1.6% Tagalog, 1.5% Tamil, 1.3% Greek, 1.3% Cantonese, 1.3% Bengali.

Yours Sincerely,
Dominic Scutella