Moorebank Intermodal Precinct East - Stage 2

The residents have never had a vote if they want this intermodal. the land should be left as open space , parkland for the residents of Liverpool to enjoy. The trucks will still us the M5 getting to the site and leaving from the site. Move the intermodal outside Sydney .

The plan and the supporting documents does not consider the impact on the Cambridge Avenue and as such it does not consider any redevelopment of the same.

Cambridge Avenue is one of the key arterial roads that connects greater Liverpool and Campbelltown suburbs (& just not Glenfield and Macquarie Fields as suggested in the submissions).

Hence, the proposed pan is flawed unless Cambridge Avenue upgrade is not part of the project.

My name is Allan Corben of 13 Woolmers Court Wattle Grove 2173. I wish to submit the following submission on MPE Stage 2 application - SSD 7628, document 1 of 3. My objections are noted below in red font.
Need for proposal
Page 36. Job creation: The Proposal would result in the creation of approximately 200 construction employment opportunities during the peak construction period of the Proposal and 1,408 full time equivalent staff for the operation of the warehousing area. ??????? One minute the proponents are claiming that the that Moorebank will create 7,000 jobs then as can be seen above that number drops to a miserable 1600. Again, continual misinformation.
Proposal alternatives
Page 37. Consideration of other alternative sites: a number of alternate sites were considered as part of the MPE Concept Plan Approval. The assessment found the MPE Project presents an ideal location for the proposed facility in south-western Sydney due to the following factors:
* It is adjacent to existing industrial areas, and is in a central location relative to major freight markets in the west and south west of Sydney. This is a misleading statement as the existing industrial area is relatively small compared to the proper site for an Intermodal being Eastern Creek
* Buffer zones are provided between the facility and nearby residential areas. Absolute rubbish. The site is as close as 300 metres from the western side of Wattle Grove with no mitigation proposed for the south end of Wattle Grove.
* It is located a sufficient distance from Port Botany to make rail a commercially viable alternative to road for movements to and from Port Botany. There is no factual evidence to show that the very distance of rail transport will be commercially viable. Government departments are on record as to this issue.
Proposal description
* Page 38. Raising the vertical alignment by about two metres from the existing levels, including kerbs, gutters and a sealed shoulder. The need to raise Moorebank Avenue by two metres needs to be investigated. Both sites are currently very near to the level of the adjacent residential suburb of Wattle Grove., hence why the need to raise the current road level.
Key environmental issues
Traffic and transport
* Page 43. Overall, it is concluded that the Proposal (and cumulative scenario including the Proposal) would result in only marginal traffic impacts to the surrounding road network in the presence of mitigation and management measures. Unsure where these people obtain their information from. The local road network is already a nightmare let alone binging even additional heavy vehicles onto it. Has a solution yet been found to allow for the south bound M5 traffic to weave a blend between Moorebank Avenue and the Hume Highway off ramp? My understanding is that this issue even has Transport NSW scratching their heads to come up with a solution. The proponents are continually playing with the truth.
Noise and vibration
* Page 44. The Noise and Vibration Assessment also determined that the operational levels from the Proposal would comply with the relevant criteria, including relevant sleep disturbance goals, except at the most affected receivers in Wattle Grove where exceedances of the established screening criterion for sleep disturbance by 1 dB are anticipated, Any exceedance of the noise levels is unacceptable. As previously stated, many residential properties on the western side of Wattle Grove are as close as 300 metres from this predicted noise.
Air quality
Page 44. Totally disagree with the proponents claim that the increase in pollution will be minimal. The Liverpool local area is already at the higher end of the pollution scale and it is of record that Liverpool is one of the most polluted areas in Sydney, yet these people continue to claim that during both construction and operation, pollution levels will be acceptable, what BS.
Page 45.Measures to further mitigate air quality impacts would be implemented as per the Air Quality Management Plan, included in the Air Quality Impact Assessment (Appendix M of this EIS), and would be integrated into the OEMP. The following key measures would be included in the OEMP:
* Implementation and communication of anti-idling policy for trucks. How in hell are they going to police this???
* Complaints line for the community to report on excessive idling and smoky vehicles. This compliant contact area requirement should be multi lined, not one single line.
* Procedures to reject excessively smoky trucks visiting the site based on visual inspection. As above, how will the control this issue. In my opinion, the above is only a statement and nothing physical will happen. It's all about their bottom line as they will do and say whatever is needed to obtain approval.
Human health Page 45. I have great concern re the human health impact that this facility will have on the local community. I won't bother wasting time going into details as to date neither the Government, NSW departments or the proponents have taken any notice of what the people write. In reading a number of applications to do with MPE & MPW they both appear to be seeking approvals on singular basis rather that an accumulative, which is unacceptable. IE One site comes up with its own air quality predictions and then other with its own. One may meet the requirement, but if we combine the two together the outcome could possibly result in an unacceptable exceedance which places people's health at risk. It is the duty of care of NSW Planning and PAC to ensure that the claims made by the proponents are of an accumulative basis. It will be too late to address this issue once the facilities move into operation.
1.2.3 MPE Stage 2 Proposal
Page 77 Figure 2.2 Local context of the proposal. The site plan shows the residential areas that surround the sites. Note, the area north of what is identified as Wattle Grove isn't marked as residential, WHY
Page 110 Figure 4.2. Originally our community was advised that the MPE site warehousing would be sited on the eastern boundary of the site to act as noise mitigation for the suburb of Wattle Grove. The warehouse layout plan 4.2 now shows an internal road along the full length of the site and loading areas on the eastern boundary. I totally object to this layout, as again I remind the reader that Wattle Grove is as close as 300 metres from the site. There is no reason that warehouses 4 and 6 loading areas couldn't be located on the western side of the buildings and the eastern internal road done away with. Again no consideration of people. This layout supports the rumored plan by the proponents to divert Moorebank Avenue around the eastern side of the MPE site to allow them to use the road (Moorebank Ave) that runs between the two sites for their own purposes. Note, comment re "Subject to future application on the northern end of figure 4.2 layout. Again underhanded behavior on part of the proponents which is nothing short disgraceful. (Refer my email I sent your department on 4th January 2017)
4.2.3 Vehicle Movement and Access - Internal roads
Internal road 2 would provide for traffic movements along the entire eastern perimeter of the Proposal, and would have a cul-de-sac at both the northern and southern ends to allow vehicles to turn around. The internal roads would be two lanes wide (one lane in each direction) and would be wide enough to accommodate heavy vehicle turning movements, including B-doubles. Further supports my suspicions of the proponent's intention to divert Moorebank Avenue along the eastern side of their site. This diversion of Moorebank Avenue should never be allowed due to further impacts to those already obvious to the residential suburbs to the east.
4.2.4 Roadworks - Moorebank Avenue
The development is now at Stage 2, yet there is no mention as to any upgrade to the Moorebank Avenue/M5 interchange. This intersection is already a well-known congestion area and should be addressed under stage 2. No further approvals should be given till such time that a solution is found to ensure that merging of vehicles entering southbound M5 is achievable.
4.3.6 Construction Workforce and Hours
Table 4-10 Page 133. Construction hours for activities associated with bulk earthworks and the Moorebank Avenue upgrade. Again we have had with MPW an application to extend the working hours to cover overlooked work. I totally oppose any increase in working hours as I have in respect of the MPW Modification. The simple solution for this additional work is for the proponents to bring in additional staff and equipment to complete the work during those hours already approved. To keep moving the goal posts isn't acceptable.
Crushing machine. 4-10 Page 133.
Not only do we have both MPE & MPW wanting to extend their working hours, but both want concrete crushing plants. We already have a proposed crushing plant in the local area which is before the courts without an additional two. Why can't both sites use one machine at the hours set in Table 4.10.
My contact details are as follows, Email: [email protected] , Phone: 0451 998 774
Yours Sincerely,
Allan Corben

My name is Allan Corben of 13 Woolmers Court Wattle Grove 2173. I wish to submit the following submission on MPE Stage 2 application - SSD 7628, document 2 of 3. My objections are noted below in red font.
Table 7-22 Page 44. Comparison of intersection performance (LoS) of key intersections with and without the Proposal in 2019 during the AM peak and PM peak Show the delay time at many of the eleven intersections was virtually the same with or without the Intermodal. As a person who regularly experiences the traffic congestion in the studied area, the data offered appears to be understated. Examples of this are,
M5 Motorway/Hume Highway, delay without Moorebank 86 seconds compared with it 83.
M5 Motorway/Moorebank Ave, delay without Moorebank 24 seconds compared with it 22.
How do you put an additional 1000 to 3000 heavy vehicles on the local road network and reduce the intersection delay time without any intersection upgrades. These figure defy logic as even without the Intermodal traffic, delays time will naturally increase with the natural growth of traffic between now and 2019. I question the figures as being misleading or deliberately misquoted.
Who's checking the information being put forward by the proponents?????
Operation Page 50
Moorebank Avenue would be upgraded for approximately 1.4 kilometres from approximately 95 metres south of the northern boundary of the MPE site to approximately 120 metres south of the southern MPE site boundary. The following intersections would also be upgraded as part of the Proposal:
* Moorebank Avenue / MPE Stage 2
* Moorebank Avenue / MPE Stage 1 northern access
* Moorebank Avenue / MPE Stage 1 central access
* Moorebank Avenue / MPE Stage 1 southern emergency access.
The funding of these upgrades would be clarified through discussions with SIMTA, Roads and Maritime and Transport for NSW (refer to Section 19.2 for more information regarding developer contributions).
This now being a private development I object to any expectation by SIMTA for Government funding of what is no more that part of the property being developed.
7.5 Assumed Network Upgrades
Table 7-24 Pages 51 - 52 Assumed Road Network Upgrades and Timing
All the stated road upgrades will not be commenced before 2019. These intersections are currently (2016) struggling to coup with the current peak traffic. The majority of road upgrades (In particular ID 1.2, 1.3,1.4 & 1.5) need to be in place prior to commencement of operations.
8 NOISE AND VIBRATION
8.1 Concept Plan Assessment Page 56
* The Proponent shall consider locating buildings at or near the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site provide beneficial acoustic shielding to the nearest residences
* The Proponent shall consider locating less noise-intensive activities and operations at the north-eastern and south-eastern corners of the site where residences are closest. The stage 2 site warehouse layout Figure 4.2 clearly shows much of the warehouse operations areas on the eastern side of the MPE site with these operations exposing nearest residences to noise. The site layout plan also shows a misleading impression of an access road along the full distance of the eastern side of their site. As previously stated, the proponents want the people to believe this is an internal road which is nothing but a blatant lie as their intention in a later application is to apply to have Moorebank Avenue diverted around and along the eastern side of their site. This must not be allowed to happen as it will expose the nearest residences to increased noise levels from what will be a main road with a minimum of three entry points into the MPE site attracting an unknown number of heavy vehicles. Scrutiny of Figure 4.2 clearly shows their intent.

Page 56 The INP criteria was expected to be exceeded by 4dB(A) in the R3 catchment (Casula) when the MPE project is operating at an annual throughput of 1,000,000 TEU with a total warehousing GFA of 300,000 m2. Analysis of the modelling results indicated that operation of trucks within MPE is the major contributor to the noise levels in the R3 catchment. Subsequent modelling with a noise barrier in place along the western boundary of the site was shown to reduce operational noise levels by 4dB(A) within the R3 catchment and hence to a compliant level with the INP criteria. If the MPE site noise will exceed the INP criteria by 4dB(A) at Casula (900 metres), the same will apply to the residential suburbs to the east IE Holsworthy & Wattle Grove (390 metres), but at a higher noise level than the Casula scenario. This suggests that a noise wall must be installed along the full eastern boundary of the MPE site including down to the southern rail line. The reason for the wall to extend from southern end of the MPE to the southern rail line is as follows,
As the MPE site ends some 500 metres short of the southern freight line and there is no supposed warehousing (Only sparse bush land) to mitigate the noise created by wheel squeal, rail wagon coupling and locomotive noise. Note, this area mentioned is the closest part of Wattle Grove to the MPE site, yet the proponents have not addressed what will be high level noise impact on this area, which is unacceptable.
Table 8-3 Construction Noise Management Levels by works period Page 59
Table 8.3 shows the noise levels for Wattle Grove and Wattle Grove North, but nothing on the southern area of Wattle Grove. As stated previously, there is no proposed mitigation in place for southern area of Wattle Grove. Minimum required mitigation required would be a noise wall along the eastern boundary of the site as proposed for the western side of MPE.
Operational Noise Sources and modelling scenarios
8.4.2 Operation
Page 74 The dominant sources of noise associated with the operation of the Proposal comprise cars and trucks accessing the warehouses from outside the site, via the access roads, and a captive fleet of internal transfer trucks, used to transfer containers between the IMT and warehouses. The claim that the dominate sources of noise above is incorrect as it doesn't include one of the most noisiest activities of this type of operation being freight locomotives and rail wagons Wheel squeal would be one of the most intrusive noises in existence and must be mitigated prior to commencement of operations.
Modeled outcomes
Page 75 Regarding operational noise levels on sleep disturbance, the loudest LAmax noise source with potential to cause sleep disturbance impacts is pneumatic trailer brakes on trucks. The LAmax SWL of a truck trailer brake is up to 122 dBA. It should be noted that this is significantly louder than a tonal reversing alarm. Again the proponents appear to have overlooked the rail line noise again. Studies should include all noise creating activities, not just those that suit the proponent.
8.5.1 Construction
Page 80. Out of hours period 1 is 6:00 am - 7:00 am weekdays; out of hours period 2 is 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm weekdays; out of hours period 3 is 7:00 am - 8:00 am Saturday; and out of hour's period 4 is 1:00 pm - 6:00 pm Saturday. No afterhours work should allowed should that work infringe on the local residential suburbs.
9 AIR QUALITY
Dispersion modelling was undertaken using Ausplume to predict potential off-site impacts from the operation of the MPE Project. The results of the modelling indicated that operations for the MPE Project at maximum capacity (i.e. 1,000,000 TEU throughput) would not result in exceedances of the relevant impact assessment criteria for nitrogen dioxide, for all averaging periods and at all receptors. Particulate Matter (PM) modelling predictions were made based on the maximum operating capacity of the MPE Project compared against air quality indicators coarse particulate (PM10) and fine particulate (PM2.5). The modelling indicated that maximum predicted incremental 24-hour PM concentrations at sensitive receivers would be approximately 8 μg/m3, which equates to 16% of the impact assessment criteria for PM10 and 32% of the advisory reporting standard for PM2.5. Although I don't have qualifications in air quality it would appear that the above is not an accumulative study. To add the air quality created by MPW to that stated by MPE may well cause an exceedance. All studies should be published as an accumulative outcome to cover the full development, not just each on their own.
9.2.2 Assessment criteria for particulate matter and dust
Page 87. In consideration of the fact that both MPE & MPW intend to import a total of 2.2 million cubic metres of fill, I'm as yet not seen any comment on dust suppression. It obvious that dust will be an issue during delivery and placement. The proponent must advise on what mitigation will be in place.
My contact details are as follows, Email: [email protected] , Phone: 0451 998 774
Yours Sincerely,
Allan Corben

My name is Allan Corben of 13 Woolmers Court Wattle Grove 2173. I wish to submit the following submission on MPE Stage 2 application - SSD 7628, document 3 of 3. My objections are noted below in red font.
Table 20-18 Page 146. Potential operational impacts and mitigation on surrounding properties The noise modeling has predicted that operation of the warehousing and freight village and road traffic associated with the Proposal would not exceed the relevant noise assessment criteria, hence additional measures to mitigate noise impacts associated with these components of the Proposal are not proposed. Again I object to the wording "additional measures to mitigates noise are not proposed" Additional noise mitigation will need to be installed due to the fact that the southern area (Refer attached map) of Wattle Grove does not have any proposed mitigation to protect the residents from rail wheel squeal, Locomotive and rail wagon noise and as previously stated, noise wall installed along the full length of the eastern boundary of the MPE site should Moorebank ave be diverted.
We already have the situation at Port Botany where people living within a radius of three kilometres of the terminal are suffering sleep disturbance. In the case of Moorebank, we have many people living as close as 390 metres from the MPE site. What has happened at Botany must not in any circumstances be repeated at Moorebank, and to allow it to happen would be a failure of NSW Planning and PAC'S dereliction of duty.
My contact details are as follows, Email: [email protected] , Phone: 0451 998 774
Yours Sincerely,
Allan Corben

The SIMTA Proposal is to place a major transport hub within close proximity to an established housing estate at Wattle Grove NSW 2173 to justify the proposal the consortium has engaged professional services of consultants whom have assessed the proposal as benign.
I am a land holder resident of Wattle Grove NSW 2173 therefore am entitled to take issue with the proposal by this corporate entity which has the potential to introduce toxic materials in great quantity causing risk of exposure of my family and property to great danger or damage to health in a fire incident and even in normal operations not involving fire incident.
I do not believe containment of pollution emissions from introduced heavy vehicle traffic and rail diesel locomotives can be achieved. The community would bear the cost of health damage to the benefit of the SIMTA without recourse to recover funds not involving complex legal action and risk of failure in the courts. In addition the SIMTA proposal may produce the requirement for double glazing of Brick Veneer Homes which are more readily noise affected by unwanted emissions. Outdoor activities would be affected for residents reducing fitness of the community overall.
I believe the proposed Retrofitting of such a proposed land use with so many residents to be put at risk is an irresponsible proposition and as such should not be accepted by responsible government or officials.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
To place this type of infrastructure within the dormitory suburbs of Liverpool shows a total disregard for the well being of the residents of the area. We and our children are NOT expendable!

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
We don't want this in our backyard it should have been at the crossroads from day one,

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
This project will effect the M5 which i travel on daily. Its congested enough now and the funds would be better spent on upgrading the highway

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
It would have a devastating effect on the community, environment, businesses and homeowners.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
There is too much at risk in this community for this application to be approved. Numerous schools, aged care facilities, hard working men and women trying to secure there one asset, the family home, their one piece of property to bring up their families in this unique location, where the bush surrounds them and wildlife. This application will destroy this and impact on everyone. The M5 at Moorebank Ave, is a nightmare, risk your life now, with an influx of trucks there is no certainty of going anywhere on the most used road in Sydney. I strongly oppose this application.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
This will have a negative impact on the environment, traffic and health of the people living in the area

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
I do not want more trucks, pot holes on the roads and pollution in this area, there's already enough of all. I also think the government should not be paying any money towards the cost to build this project.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
The intermodal should not go ahead because of the devastating impact it will have on health, traffic and environment . The noise and pollution are other serious ramifications of a project such as this. The impact on a peaceful and village like community cannot be understated. It simply does not belong here.

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
Do not destroy the flora and fauna

I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.
The roads cannot no matter what upgrades of Moorebank ave are carried out- can cope with this additional traffic on local roads (10,000 trucks 5,800 small support vehicles- MICL figures)
Moorebank ave/ M5 entry and exit + weave cannot accommodate this increase in unnecessary traffic- the government should tgey approve this development directly or indirectly will be responsible for unnecessary road carnage
Logic must prevail

The plans for the Moorebank Intermodal must be stopped. Loss of land value, increased pollution and health risks and major traffic disruptions are just a few reasons why.
I agree that RAID Moorebank is also acting on my behalf and that of the community
I object to this application and the entire project at this location.