Douglas Park Memorial Park - Concept Plan and Stage 1

To the Assessors,
Douglas Park is a place to which I am a frequent visitor, having close friends that reside in this small rural village. I am aware of the high level of distress it is causing the residents and have looked closely at some of the documents pertaining to the SEARS in my capacity as construction manager. In my opinion, the Geotechnique Assessment has not been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential development. It does not contain all available information relevant to the geotechnical assessment of the development and some of the information may be considered false or misleading in my view. It fails to identify and address the relevant SEARS, namely 14.0. S. 13, Suitability of ground conditions for proposed development/16.0 S.12 Suitability of ground conditions for proposed development.
Attachment II, on page 5, The Executive Summary makes the statement: “The depth to bedrock is generally less than 2.0m from existing ground surface except in the southern portion of the site or Stage 1. This is false. Review of the Bore and Test Pit Locations graphic on page 38 reveals depth to bedrock in each of the pit numbers for this “southern portion of the Site or Stage 1” are all less than 2 metres to bedrock:
TP17 1.5m, TP18 1.0m, TP19 0.8m, TP20 0.6m, TP21 0.4m, TP22 0.6m, TP23 1.8m, TP24 1.5m
TP25 1.1m, TP26 1.0m, TP27 0.9m, TP28 0.7m, TP29 1.3m, TP30 1.5m, TP31 1.0m, TP33 1.7m,
TP34 0.7m, BH1 1.1m, BH2 1.7m, BH3 1.5m, BH4 1.2m

Test pits 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 with depths ranging from 0.7- 1.5 m to bedrock, fall in Burial zone A slated to be all triple layer plots with an excavation depth of 2.85 metres. It is stated on page 6 that the depth to medium to very high strength bedrock across stage 1 starts from about 1.0m so this would likely mean excavation of multiple hectares of high strength bedrock for a depth of 1.85m.
Excavating 1.85 metres of high-strength sandstone bedrock across the area of burial zone A is a huge industrial mining operation that is unviable for this Site. If the burial A area spans three acres or 12,140 square metres, excavating that area to a depth of 2.85 metres, with up to 1.85 metres being medium to very high strength bedrock requires carving approximately 22,000 cubic metres of medium to high-strength rock out of the ground. High-strength sandstone cannot be dug with standard construction equipment. To cut down 1.85 metres uniformly across multiple hectares, the proponent will need a 30 to 40-tonne heavy excavator equipped with hydraulic rock-hammers (breakers), heavy ripping tines, or rotary rock-saws. Progress in high-strength rock using heavy hammers can be slow—sometimes averaging only 15 to 30 cubic metres per machine per day. Hydraulic rock-breakers operating on high-strength sandstone generate a piercing, low-frequency impact noise that travels for some distance. The sound levels will easily exceed 90 to 120 decibels at the source. Because the site is constrained, this industrial noise will shatter the peace of the local area, specifically the residents of the adjacent Mitchell Place and visitors to the Nepean River and St Mary’s Retreat Centre. The local fauna will disappear. Because a 30-tonne rock hammer outputs up to 122 dB(A) at the source, acoustic distance attenuation math dictates that the noise will remain well above the 75 dB(A) "strong community reaction" for some distance as per the following table from Transport NSW.

According to the NSW EPA Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) a 30-tonne excavator operating a hydraulic rock hammer or rotary rock saw is classified as Highly Noise Intensive Plant generating a continuous Sound Power Level of 115 to 122 dB(A). A rock hammer generates an impulsive, repetitive thumping noise and the NSW EPA requires planners to add an automatic +5 dB(A) "modifying factor" penalty to the calculation to account for the disruptive nature of the specific sound profile to human hearing. The Worst-Case Scenario applies to residents along Mitchell Place who have a direct line-of-sight around 60 metres away from the source using the following calculations:
• Source Noise with EPA Penalty: 123 to 127 dB(A)
• Distance Loss at 60m: Minus 44 dB(A)
• Perceived Noise Level at the Property Line: 79 to 83 dB(A)


These decibel levels are highly intrusive and not a mere background construction hum. For example, 80 dB(A) is the same as standing next to a running lawnmower, food blender, or heavy freight traffic right outside your window. It is impossible to have a conversation outside without shouting with this level of noise; 70 dB(A): is the same as a loud vacuum cleaner running inside your living room or being inside a crowded and noisy restaurant. Residents in this zone will not be able to comfortably watch television, sleep, or work from home.
Under NSW planning law, when construction noise hits 75 dB(A), the residents are legally classified as Highly Noise Affected. This project easily breaches that threshold. Residential zones in outer Sydney or regional areas typically have a daytime background noise level of 35 to 45 dB(A). The introduction of 70 to 83 dB(A) represents an increase of 30 to 40 decibels above background levels. NSW EPA guidelines state that any noise increases greater than 10 dB(A) above background is considered a significant intrusive noise impact likely to provoke strong community opposition.
It is surprising then, that page 26 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (table 12, below) significantly underestimates the effects on the nearby residents of months of a hydraulic hammer breaking medium to high strength bedrock. It’s also essential to consider that Stage two is a much larger area and will require the same bulk excavation in the future and possibly for the life of the project.


The effects on the visitors to St Mary’s Retreat centre on the other side of the Site are underestimated as well:

According to their website, St Mary’s Towers offer silent retreats lasting from six to thirty days. The community protects its environment of absolute quiet to the point where casual visits are by appointment only. The Retreat centre would really struggle with the extensive bulk earthworks proposed to remediate this Site.
In my opinion, the geotechnical risks are severe and difficult to mitigate. The constant, violent impact of 30-tonne rock hammers will send huge acoustic and structural shockwaves through the ground. This presents an extreme risk to the adjacent conservation zone, subject of an EPBC according to the NSW portal. Fracturing the root zones of protected vegetation is an almost certainty, as is likelihood of driving wildlife away. The jointed sandstone has likely already been weakened by mine subsidence micro-fractures. Forcefully hammering 1.85 metres deep into a fragile ecosystem risks triggering localized rock shifts or opening fissures that will drain groundwater out of the protected conservation zone.
The Environmental Impact Statement states that “[c]oncept approval is sought for the use and operation of the site as a cemetery with a maximum staged capacity of up to 37.107 burials”. (p 18) Also, “The works relating to the Concept Masterplan will be carried out incrementally to meet the continuing need for burial space, gradually expanding the cemetery’s footprint as necessary. The works subject to the concept masterplan extent will be carried out in a similar manner to those within Stage 1 and described in Section 4.12, as per below” (p 37), however there is no 4.12 in the report.
Concept approval for further 21, 660 plots as part of stage two (many of them triple layer into high strength bedrock), is sought - the noise pollution and disruption from bulk excavation work to the environment, ecology and residents will begin all over again in the future, conceivably multiple times. The extent of this threat is so egregious yet unaddressed in the assessment, approval should not be granted for an unfeasible concept on the promise of future detail delivery. According to locals, these were the circumstances under which the initial approval was granted, with many of the fatal flaws left unaddressed, the viability of the project so flimsy, that the project is yet to commence six years after approval.
The Earthworks Depth table on page 138 of the report appears to have the minimum and maximum depth values back the front.
Point 11 of the Executive summary outlines plans to crush the sandstone rock to “sizes finer than 75mm” but for crushed rock to be considered a functional, flowable, and diggable fill material the nominal maximum aggregate size should be 20mm to 25 mm maximum. Page 4 of the report states: “Infiltration rate of subsurface soils across the site is estimated to be in range of 9.5X10-4 m/s to 9.5X10-4 m/s." (This is not a range, as the values are exactly the same).
When the depth for burial cannot be achieved between bedrock and ground, concrete vault structures or engineered encasements are required via a suite of workplace safety codes, public health mandates and civil asset guidelines. This prevents dangerous shifting against the rock and stops leachate from running straight onto the bedrock face. The proponent is attempting to avoid the extra cost (millions) to install the pre-placed crypt grid – an essential measure to ensure the stability and safety of the huge quarry-like undertaking on fractured sandstone rock (under which future mining will eventually take place), and the prevention of leachate into the water table and offsite.
There are plans to “[p]lace about 150mm thick layer of impermeable clay liner on the surface of the backfilled compacted controlled fill to prevent infiltration of surface water into compacted backfilled materials”, but this is not viable. When a small excavator punches a 1.2m x 2.4m hole through the clay sheet to create a plot, the integrity of the hydraulic seal will be broke

To Whom It May Concern,

I frequent the Douglas Park area very often and will be adversely affected if the cemetery and crematorium development is passed. I would like to register my objections to the DA based on my reading of the Traffic Assessment. I’ve assessed its many shortcomings and highlighting the ways in which it is in breach of relevant legislation.

There are several parts to the document which fail to comply with the SEARS contravening the EP&A Act and the EP&A Regulation (2021) and even though state law overrides local, relevant LEP instruments they should still be considered in my opinion. The report must provide a lawful, accurate assessment of localized environmental and infrastructure impacts and it has failed to meet this objective.

Claims that the development is compliant with the Greater Macarthur 2040 regional plan and the Wollondilly Development control plan are false as there is no public transport to the site, nor is there pedestrian or bicycle access.

Traffic counts during peak hours at nearby intersections were carried out on a single Tuesday and Saturday during the July school holidays in 2024, during the AM and PM peak hour periods. This is in breach of Section 10.6(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which clearly states that a person must not provide information in connection with a planning matter that the “person knows, or ought reasonably to know, is false or misleading”. By using a holiday period where regional traffic can drop by up to thirty percent, a non-compliant EIS has been submitted, because projections for future vehicle counts will not be representative of normal conditions. There is a general failure to account for the pattern or platoon of vehicular arrivals and departures for cemetery clientele and instead 24-hour traffic counts feature as sufficient to convey the traffic volume of the surrounding network. This method is utterly inadequate in addressing the most critically affected road leading to the Site – the Douglas Park Nepean River causeway. Estimates for up to “six services per day with an average of 60-80 visitors per service” are given, projecting a maximum of 202 vehicles per day, using a 3-visitors-per car calculation. This does not align with the projections which feature in other reports, namely the Social Impact Assessment which projects a possible “up to 300 people” for an Islamic service and this particular faith is seeking 40% of the burial capacity at the facility.

One hundred and thirty-one car spaces vastly underestimate the required amount when considering the above potential numbers. Visitors will be forced to circle the nearby streets, and up and down the 80km Douglas Park Drive trying to find a spot to park. Very unsafe.

Section 2.121 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 requires a full evaluation of traffic efficiency and safety. However, this report offers scrutiny of only three intersections, two of them inconsequential, while the one-way hairpin bends of the gorge were entirely omitted, as was the similar Broughton Pass gorge that is negotiated if travelling from Appin. A large funeral attracting visitors from Sydney arriving at once, at any hour of the day, much less peak hour, will completely block the gorge, leading to frustration and altercations as people miss a farewell service for loved ones. It is an absurd proposition to locate a business of this nature in this location. The planner tries to indicate that the Hume Highway is in close proximity and will remedy any of these problems but doesn’t mention the fact that it is a nearly 12km journey from the turn off to Picton Road, with this juncture being an infamous bottleneck as well, operating at a Los E or F during peak hours. Considering the above, the author’s judgement that the Site is “convenient…to the local road network serving the region is false and an abdication of his responsibility to provide a true and accurate assessment.

The planner assumes that no traffic will use the gorge to get to the Site. Not one car. This is really a puzzling attempt at modelling the traffic flow with no reason given to explain it. It also makes the statement that “all vehicles will be entering from the south on Douglas Park Drive…” This contravenes the tNSW Austroads Guide to Traffic Management (Part 12), which insists that realistic distribution modelling must be provided. Omitting roads entirely from a traffic assessment violates Chapter 2, Part 2.3, Division 17, Subdivision 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 Omitting key roads constitutes a failure to provide the essential data required for the consent authority and tNSW to perform their statutory assessment. Section 2.119 Development with frontage to a classified road, is also relevant. This section states that a consent authority must not grant approval unless it is satisfied that it will not put at risk the safety and efficiency of the classified road and by ignoring the north-bound section of Douglas Park Drive, the developer denies the consent authority the ability to assess this.

The Social Impact Statement sources clientele from all over the Sydney metropolitan area, particularly mentioning Parramatta and Lakemba. This plan contravenes SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) which requires developments that generate extensive travel that they be easily accessed by public transport, which reduces the number and length of private vehicular trips. With no public transport to the proposed Site, the developer can’t possibly meet the requirements of this legislation. The “Green travel Plan” suggested relies on carpooling by staff. This is grossly inadequate in terms of claiming to provide any relief or compensation for the massive amounts of long-distance car travel this development will generate. Navigation apps will guide visitors taking the M5 corridor through the fastest travel route which involves the Nepean River causeway from a north-easterly direction when they attend a service and again when they return home. This is planned for up to six times a day for up to 300 people, as stated may be the case for at least one of the faith community targeted, claiming almost half of the burial space.

The report does not address the dangerous u-turn that visitors will negotiate at the intersection of Mitchell Place and Douglas Park Drive when, after they exit the Site using the 'Left-Turn Only' sign GPS apps lead them back over the Douglas Park River as the fastest route home. This creates a dangerous safety hazard in my opinion.

A 'courtesy bus’ from the Douglas Park train station is offered as the solution to the absence of public transport in breach of Sections 115 and 144 of the Roads Act 1993, which specifies a 3-tonne limit on the single-lane causeway, making yet another mitigation measure impractical.

I have looked at conditions for the recently approved Macarthur Memorial Park and found that this can be accessed from three separate locations on St Andrews Road by the public. This high level of public access was able to be noted by the IPC as was the accessibility of the Hume Highway and the closeness of the T2 and T8 railway lines and bus services.
“No adverse impacts” is the deeply flawed conclusion drawn by the author of this assessment which is based on manipulated and misleading data and suggestions in my view. It does not meet the requirements of the SEARS or the standards set by the LEP and should be rejected outright by consent authorities.

Yours sincerely,

1. Drainage will be a problem and it will spill on the neighbouring residents and causes pollution to the neighbouring lands and to the river at the gorge
2. Traffic infrastructure in the area cannot support such development and it will cost the council to provide suitable infrastructure
3. The gorge at Douglas Park cannot support the resulting traffic flow. The Picton road-Almond St intersection is very dangerous for existing traffic
4. The area has black cockatoos which will be affected
5. The area is rural with many residents. The development is unsuitable for such area and it will lower the value of the properties in the area.
6. There is no need for additional cemetories as others exist in neighbouring areas.

I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant cemetery and crematorium development at Douglas Park on environmental, planning, public health, traffic, and social equity grounds.

The proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the ecological sensitivity, rural character, and infrastructure limitations of the Douglas Park area and should be refused.

The proposal is inconsistent with the Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan. Approximately 9.63 hectares of endangered forest are proposed to be impacted, including Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest. The operation of a cemetery and crematorium facility inherently involves ongoing soil disturbance, water contamination risks, atmospheric pollution, and destructive “edge effects” that threaten not only impacted areas but also surrounding retained vegetation communities.

Further concern arises from the developer’s documented history of bushland destruction on the site, which undermines confidence in the effectiveness of any proposed mitigation or environmental management measures.

The proposal also places the Nepean River catchment at unacceptable risk. The site is characterised by a shallow sandstone rock shelf with average soil depths of only approximately 0.7–0.9 metres. Coffins buried above fractured sandstone geology create a substantial risk that decomposition fluids may leach into tributaries flowing into nearby waterways.

The developer cannot guarantee that historical mine subsidence and associated micro-fracturing beneath the site will not facilitate contamination of groundwater systems. Repeated excavation activities are likely to increase these risks over time.

Importantly, the proposal fails to satisfy six out of the ten site suitability guidelines established by Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW. Specifically:

The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas.

The site is not easily accessible to cemetery visitors due to the absence of public transport and the severe traffic constraints associated with Douglas Park Drive, the gorge crossing, and the M31/Picton Road interchange.

The site is subject to significant noise impacts from adjoining major roads, particularly the Hume Highway.

The site is located within a high bushfire risk zone.

The site has insufficient soil depth to ensure the required minimum burial depth of 900mm beneath natural surface level. 

Also, please note the water table level compared to the burial depth proposed. The bodies with be below the water table and therefore contaminate the local water ways and my place, opposite the site.

The site contains threatened ecological communities, including Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest.

Previous concept approval by the local planning panel specifically prohibited the use of the site for a crematorium “in the interests of the public” and to preserve the amenity of the neighbourhood. This position remains entirely valid.

Crematoriums are industrial-scale facilities that emit toxic pollutants and should not be situated near residential communities or environmentally sensitive conservation areas. The topography of the Douglas Park Gorge, including an elevation drop of approximately 70 metres, creates a heightened risk of temperature inversions and “valley trap” effects that may concentrate pollutants within surrounding residential and ecological areas.

The industrial scale of the proposed State Significant development and the traffic volumes it would generate are also inconsistent with the objectives of the Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011, which seeks to preserve and protect the rural character of the Shire.

Traffic and accessibility impacts have been significantly understated in the proposal documentation. The development lacks public transport access, creating inequitable access for elderly residents, low-income earners, and young people, and disadvantaging vulnerable members of the community.

The proposed shuttle bus solution is impractical and fails to adequately address the limitations of the surrounding road network. The report does not properly acknowledge the three-tonne limit associated with the gorge crossing, the approximately 14-kilometre distance from Picton train station, or the severe congestion already experienced at the M31/Picton Road interchange.

The traffic modelling also fails to adequately account for the reality that funeral attendees arrive concurrently, resulting in concentrated traffic movements and significant bottlenecks. This is particularly problematic for funeral corteges and would create unacceptable impacts on local residents and road users.

For all the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed Douglas Park cemetery and crematorium development and respectfully request that the application be refused.

Objection to SSD-68287712: Douglas Park Memorial Park (Concept Plan and Stage 1) – Cemetery and Crematorium Proposal at 430-490 Douglas Park Drive, Douglas Park, NSW. 
Submission to: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (via Major Projects Portal). Exhibition closes 9 June 2026. 
I strongly object to the approval of this State Significant Development (SSD) for a large-scale cemetery, crematorium, chapel, vaults, and associated infrastructure. The proposal (revised to ~37,000 burial plots overall, with Stage 1 ~15,000) is unsuitable for the site due to fundamental conflicts with environmental, planning, infrastructure, safety, and community laws and policies. It should be refused or relocated. 
1. Biodiversity and Conservation Impacts – Inconsistent with Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan
The site impacts endangered ecological communities and habitat in an area protected under the Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan (CPCP). Reports indicate ~9.63 ha of endangered forest at risk, despite proponent claims of retaining >95% of trees. 
• This conflicts with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and the CPCP, which prioritises protection of the Cumberland Plain’s remaining vegetation for housing growth offsets and biodiversity corridors to 2056. 
• The project is a controlled action under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act, ID 2025/10343), requiring rigorous assessment. Clearing, fragmentation, and edge effects on koalas, arboreal mammals, reptiles, and birds violate avoidance and mitigation hierarchies. 
• Even with buffers, long-term operations (burials, maintenance, visitors) and potential crematorium emissions will degrade habitat. This fails the “avoid, minimise, offset” principles in the BC Act and SSD guidelines.
Request: Independent peer review of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and refusal if impacts are not fully avoided.
2. Unsuitable Geology, Soil, and Groundwater Risks
The site is a “sandstone rock shelf” requiring rock whipping/milling to create burial depth, which is impractical and risky. 
• Groundwater contamination and leachate risks from embalming fluids (formaldehyde), decomposition byproducts, and stormwater runoff. This threatens local aquifers and downstream waterways (Nepean River catchment). It contravenes Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) water quality objectives and Water Management Act 2000.
• Inadequate soil depth and rock excavation generate silica dust, erosion, and sedimentation, breaching Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) requirements for suitable land capability.
• Stormwater and wastewater management claims (roof capture, etc.) are insufficient for a site without sewerage. 
Cemeteries must demonstrate long-term containment; this site fails basic site suitability tests under NSW cemetery guidelines and environmental laws. 
3. Traffic, Access, and Infrastructure Deficiencies
No public transport; reliance on Douglas Park Drive and winding river causeways for processions (potentially hundreds of daily visitors for large multi-faith services up to 200-300 people). 
• Significant increases in traffic, noise, and safety risks on inadequate rural roads, conflicting with State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 and Austroads standards.
• Lack of sewerage, gas, and reliable services. Claims of on-site management do not meet Public Health Act and council infrastructure standards for high-visitation facilities. 
• Parking (~130 spaces) is inadequate for peak events.
This creates unacceptable cumulative impacts on the local road network and emergency access.
4. Bushfire Risk
The area is bushfire-prone. A cemetery/crematorium with public access, vegetation management challenges, and potential fuel loads (or reduced buffers) heightens risks to life, property, and firefighters. 
• Fails Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 (PBP) and Rural Fires Act 1997 requirements for Asset Protection Zones (APZs), access, water supply, and evacuation in a high-risk interface area.
• Operations during total fire bans or emergencies would be problematic.
5. Visual Amenity, Social, and Cultural Impacts
The development would industrialise a rural residential area, imposing a constant visual reminder of mortality on nearby homes and reducing amenity/property values. It conflicts with Wollondilly Shire’s character and local planning controls. 
• Aboriginal heritage (Dharawal/Gundungurra Country) and European history require proper assessment under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Heritage Act 1977. Claims of “honouring” history do not substitute for full due diligence.
• Social Impact Assessment (SIA) must address community opposition, mental health, and sense of place per the Social Impact Assessment Guideline for State Significant Projects.
Wollondilly Shire Council and the community have consistently opposed the project. 
6. Planning and Procedural Concerns
• Inconsistency with local zoning and strategic plans: Cemeteries require careful siting; this overrides community expectations and prior council objections. 
• Scale (even reduced) and SSD classification appear designed to bypass local input. Previous approvals were rushed; revisions do not resolve core flaws. 
• Crematorium emissions (air quality, odours) raise POEO Act and EPA licence issues.
• Long-term perpetual care and renewable tenure raise questions under the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013, especially on unsuitable land. 
Conclusion and Requested Outcomes
This proposal fails multiple tests under the EP&A Act (s 4.15 evaluation), BC Act, EPBC Act, POEO Act, bushfire planning, and infrastructure standards. It is not in the public interest. Greater Sydney’s burial needs should be met on more suitable sites with better access, services, and lower environmental sensitivity.
I request:
• Refusal of the Concept Plan and Stage 1.
• Full independent review of all technical reports (biodiversity, geotech, traffic, hydrology, bushfire, heritage).
• Public hearing and extension of exhibition if needed.
• Consideration of alternatives or relocation.
The community deserves protection from this incompatible development. Thank you for considering this objection.
Craig Butler
Sydney, NSW
References/Sources: NSW Planning Portal (SSD-68287712 documents), ABC reports, proponent site, community groups, relevant NSW legislation (EP&A Act, BC Act, etc.), CPCP, and cemetery guidelines. Additional objections from Wollondilly Council and residents should be given significant weight.

To Whom It May Concern,
RE: Objection to Proposed Douglas Park Memorial Park Cemetery and Crematorium Development.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Douglas Park Memorial Park cemetery and crematorium development currently being assessed under the State Significant Development pathway.
I have lived in Douglas Park for 19 years and have seen firsthand the increasing pressure already placed on our local roads and infrastructure. Traffic in the area is bad enough as it is, particularly during peak times, and the proposed cemetery and crematorium will only make these problems significantly worse.

Douglas Park does not have immediate or direct access to the highway, and local roads are simply not designed to handle the volume of traffic this development would generate. Funeral processions, visitors, maintenance vehicles, and future crematorium operations will create constant congestion and traffic jams throughout the area. Access routes including The Gorge and surrounding rural roads are narrow, winding, and already struggle to cope with existing traffic from surrounding developments in Wilton and Appin.
I am extremely concerned that emergency services access and evacuation during bushfire events could also be negatively impacted by increased traffic congestion. Douglas Park is a bushfire-prone rural community, and adding a major development of this scale is irresponsible and unsafe.

The proposed site is also unsuitable due to poor infrastructure. The area lacks adequate sewerage, public transport, and other essential services required to support a development of this size. The rural character and peaceful lifestyle of Douglas Park will be permanently damaged if this project proceeds.
I am also concerned about the environmental suitability of the land itself. Community concerns have consistently highlighted that the site largely consists of sandstone rock shelf, requiring significant excavation and artificial soil preparation to allow for burials. This raises serious environmental and long-term sustainability concerns.

Furthermore, the crematorium component is inappropriate given its close proximity to residential homes. Many residents, including myself, believe this is incompatible with the surrounding rural residential environment and would negatively affect the amenity and wellbeing of the community.
Although the developer has reduced the proposed burial capacity, this does not resolve the major issues associated with the proposal. The development remains far too large and unsuitable for Douglas Park.

After nearly two decades living in this community, I strongly believe this development is in the wrong location and should either be relocated to a more suitable area with proper infrastructure or rejected entirely.

I respectfully ask the Department to seriously consider the overwhelming community opposition, traffic concerns, bushfire risks, environmental issues, and the long-term impact this development will have on Douglas Park residents before making any decision.

Thank you for considering my objection.
It's a hard pass.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed cemetery development in Douglas Park, NSW.

As a resident and community member, I have serious concerns regarding the suitability of this proposal and the long-term impacts it may have on Douglas Park, surrounding rural communities, local infrastructure, and the natural environment.
My concerns include the following:

• Traffic and road safety impacts
The proposed cemetery is likely to generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements, including funeral processions, heavy vehicles, maintenance traffic, and visitor traffic on a regular basis. Roads in and around Douglas Park are already limited in capacity, with many being narrow rural roads that are not designed to accommodate significant additional traffic volumes. Increased congestion at intersections and on local roads could create serious safety risks for residents, school buses, cyclists, pedestrians, and emergency service vehicles. Large funeral gatherings and peak visitation periods may further worsen traffic conditions and parking issues in surrounding areas. Although the train station is close by, it is not in walking distance and there are no other forms of public transport that would take people to the cemetery.

• Environmental and groundwater concerns
Douglas Park contains environmentally sensitive land and waterways, and there are serious concerns regarding the potential impact of cemetery operations on groundwater systems, drainage patterns, soil stability, and nearby creeks and watercourses. Cemeteries can create long-term contamination risks through burial practices, chemicals, and disturbed soil conditions, particularly where groundwater tables are high or where flooding may occur. There are also concerns regarding the removal of native vegetation, impacts on wildlife habitat, increased erosion, and the long-term environmental consequences of developing large areas of currently undeveloped or rural land.

• Flooding and drainage issues
Parts of the Douglas Park region are already subject to drainage challenges during heavy rainfall events. Large-scale land alteration associated with cemetery construction, roads, car parks, and associated infrastructure may worsen stormwater runoff, flooding, and erosion both on-site and downstream. There is concern that existing drainage infrastructure may not be adequate to manage these impacts safely over the long term.

• Incompatibility with the rural-residential character of Douglas Park
Douglas Park is valued for its semi-rural character, open landscapes, low-density living, and peaceful environment. A major cemetery development, including funeral services, traffic increases, lighting, signage, and ongoing commercial activity, would significantly alter the character of the area and may negatively affect the lifestyle and amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This proposal appears inconsistent with the existing character and intended planning outcomes for the locality.

• Insufficient infrastructure and servicing capacity
There are concerns that the local road network and supporting infrastructure are not equipped to accommodate a development of this scale. Questions remain regarding water management, waste management, traffic handling, emergency access, long-term maintenance obligations, and whether local infrastructure upgrades would be required at public expense. The proposal may place additional pressure on already limited community infrastructure and council resources. We don’t even have sewer infrastructure in the area. If this proposal were to proceed, I believe there would need to be a significant developer contribution to upgrade the Douglas Park Gorge Road to enable appropriate access to the cemetery.

• Impacts on nearby residents and property amenity
Residents living near the proposed site may experience ongoing impacts from increased traffic, noise associated with funeral services and maintenance operations, lighting, public visitation, and changes to the visual landscape. Frequent large gatherings and associated activity could reduce the quiet enjoyment of nearby properties and alter the existing residential and rural amenity of the area. There are also concerns about potential impacts on property values and the attractiveness of the area for existing and future residents.

• Long-term planning and cumulative impacts
A development of this nature would permanently change the use and future planning direction of the area. Once established, the cemetery and associated infrastructure could expand over time or encourage further incompatible development nearby. Residents are concerned about the long-term cumulative impacts on Douglas Park’s identity, environment, infrastructure, and future land use planning.

Given the significant concerns outlined above, I respectfully request that the NSW State Government and the relevant planning authorities reject this proposal. At minimum, I believe the traffic impacts require a comprehensive assessment if approval is considered as I don’t not believe the provided reports express the current traffic constraints. I also request that the State Government give proper consideration to the strong community opposition and whether more appropriate alternative locations exist for a development of this scale.

Thank you for considering the concerns of local residents and the wider community.
Kind regards,
Douglas Park Resident

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed cemetery development in Douglas Park. The scale, location, and environmental risks associated with this proposal are fundamentally incompatible with the character, safety, and wellbeing of our rural village.

1. Misleading Use of the Term “Memorial Park”

The proposal repeatedly refers to the development as a “memorial park”, which is misleading and minimises the true nature and scale of what is being proposed. This is not a park in any sense that the community understands the term. A park is a freely accessible public space used for recreation, play, exercise, and community gathering. What is being proposed is a cemetery and crematorium complex - a land use with a completely different purpose, impact, and community perception.

Using softened terminology does not change the reality that this is a large scale cemetery intended to service metropolitan Sydney. Calling it a “memorial park” attempts to sugar coat the proposal and obscure the significant environmental, social, and infrastructure impacts it will impose on Douglas Park. The community deserves transparency, not rebranding.

2. Traffic Impacts, Safety Risks, and the Vulnerability of Douglas Park Drive

The proposed cemetery would dramatically increase traffic volumes travelling from Sydney and surrounding metropolitan areas, funnelling large numbers of vehicles through Douglas Park and across the gorge via Douglas Park Drive. This includes funeral processions, visitors, contractors, service vehicles, and heavy vehicles associated with cemetery operations. The existing road network is already strained, and the gorge road in particular is in a fragile condition.

The Douglas Park Gorge is a known weak point in the local transport network. It already requires significant upgrades simply to remain open, yet Council has publicly acknowledged that it does not currently have the funding required to undertake the necessary works. Any increase in traffic - especially sustained, high volume traffic from outside the region - will accelerate the deterioration of Douglas Park Drive.

If the road were to fail or be closed for safety reasons, Douglas Park would effectively be split in half. Residents would face long detours, emergency services response times would increase, and the social and economic functioning of the town would be severely disrupted. Approving a development that places additional pressure on an already vulnerable piece of infrastructure is irresponsible and contrary to the long term interests of the community.

The cemetery proposal would not only worsen existing traffic and safety issues but also heighten the risk of a major infrastructure failure that would isolate parts of the town and significantly impact daily life for residents.

3. Overshadowing of the Rural Village and Loss of Amenity

Douglas Park is a small rural town with a strong sense of identity, open landscapes, and a lifestyle centred around peace, space, and connection to the natural environment. A large metropolitan servicing cemetery would dominate the landscape and overshadow the character of our village.

The scale and intensity of the proposal are entirely out of proportion with the surrounding land uses. It would significantly diminish the rural lifestyle that residents value and have chosen to invest in. Property values are likely to be negatively affected due to the industrial scale nature of the development, increased traffic, visual impacts, and the loss of the quiet rural setting that defines Douglas Park.

4. Geotechnical Concerns: Shallow Soil Depth, Bedrock, and Groundwater

The proposed site is geologically unsuitable for a cemetery. The area is known for shallow soils, limited depth to bedrock, and complex groundwater pathways. These conditions raise serious concerns about the ability to safely manage burial practices without risking contamination.

The proximity to the Nepean River - one of the region’s most important waterways - makes this risk even more unacceptable. Inadequate soil depth and shallow bedrock reduce the natural filtration capacity required to protect groundwater. Any leachate or contamination from burial sites could migrate toward the river system, posing long term environmental and public health risks.

5. Crematorium Emissions and Unsuitable Topography

The inclusion of a crematorium is particularly inappropriate for this location. The site sits above the gorge, where the topography naturally channels air movement downward. Smoke, ash, and particulate pollution from cremation processes would settle into the gorge, the Nepean River corridor, and the village of Douglas Park.

This is not a suitable environment for dispersing emissions. Instead, the geography increases the likelihood that pollutants will accumulate in low lying areas, affecting air quality for residents, local wildlife, and the river ecosystem. The health and environmental implications of this cannot be understated.

6. Resubmission of a Previously Rejected Proposal

It is also important to acknowledge that a similar proposal has already been rejected by both the community and Council. The developer has simply rebranded the project, made minimal changes, and resubmitted it under a new name in an attempt to bypass local opposition and secure approval from higher level decision makers who may have little understanding of, or regard for, the residents of Douglas Park.

This pattern of resubmission shows a clear disregard for the community’s previously expressed concerns. It undermines the integrity of the planning process and places local residents in the position of having to repeatedly defend their town against a development they have already rejected. The proposal remains fundamentally unsuitable, regardless of how many times it is repackaged.

7. Incompatibility with the Community and Local Planning Intent

Douglas Park is not designated for large scale metropolitan infrastructure of this nature. The proposal is inconsistent with the established planning vision for the area, which prioritises rural character, environmental protection, and community wellbeing. A development of this magnitude would fundamentally alter the identity of the town and impose long term impacts that residents do not support.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above - the misleading presentation of the development as a “memorial park,” the traffic and safety risks, the vulnerability of the gorge, the loss of rural amenity, environmental and groundwater concerns, unsuitable topography for crematorium emissions, the resubmission of a previously rejected proposal, and the incompatibility with the character and planning intent of Douglas Park - I strongly oppose the proposed cemetery development.

This proposal is not appropriate for our community, our environment, or the long term health and safety of residents and the Nepean River.

To Whom It May Concern,
I have close associations with the township of Douglas Park and the people that call it home, regularly residing nearby to the proposed site with family members for the past twenty-eight years. It is a lovely, close-knit and small community that prizes the surrounding bushland setting, particularly the wildlife that we all enjoy siting at dawn in the gullies or on a late-night trip home, frolicking along in amongst the bushes in and out of their burrows. The gullies leading to the river are teeming with wallabies, wombats, echidnas and possums to name a few of the not-so-shy ones that are treasured and harboured and make up an irreplaceable part of this little town. Their loss as a result of this monstrous proposal will be utterly devastating to us all.
In relation to the viability of the project, in my opinion consent authorities must evaluate the suitability of the site and the social and economic impacts on the locality under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. I believe examination of the project under these provisions will demonstrate that the proposal is incompatible with the aims of this legislation.
There is a distinct imbalance in terms of spatial injustice and an inequitable distribution of cumulative impacts of this development proposal. A tiny rural town is being asked to carry one hundred percent of the burden in terms of environmental and infrastructure versus the benefits claimed by stakeholders who live in locations far remote from the Site.
The principles of inter-generational and intra-generational equity apply because the very long-lasting impacts of this development will be disproportionality laid at the feet of a specific community group for generations to come. Where a developer effectively utilizes a small regional village as a disposal site for high-impact infrastructure, adopting a justification that he is providing a public service when he is in fact visiting enormous damage upon those in the locality, the equity test has not been met in my opinion. While there may be a shortage of cemetery space in major cities, attempts to remedy the situation should not involve destroying the fabric of an unrelated rural locality. If the proponent cannot prove a geographic and strategic link between the site and the clientele the proposal claims to serve, those charged with judging the viability of the proposal should surely view the site choice as a commercial convenience rather than a strategy to provide needed infrastructure.
This looks like a huge project that will overshadow the town demonstrating an “unacceptable change in land-use character”. A funeral cortege of up to 100 vehicles will clog the roads and provide further challenges for the community already behind in road network upgrades. A developer cannot expect the local government to pick up the bill for the extra strain while he profits from out-of-town clients.
Most apparent from my perspective is the qualitative concept of a community's "sense of place." The negative psychological and social displacement commensurate with the transformation of a rural, rustic corridor into a transit zone for funeral traffic from metropolitan Sydney areas fundamentally changes why people have made the decision to live there to begin with. The developer’s business model relies on a profound spatial inequity involving a sacrifice of visual amenity, health and local traffic safety issues for the locals to address problems harboured by communities far remote from the location.
I hope my voice will make a valuable contribution towards the decision to stop this proposal progressing any further and look forward to updates going forward.

I am a resident of the Wollondilly Shire and strongly object to the proposed Douglas Park Memorial Park development.

While I understand the need for additional burial and memorial facilities across Greater Sydney, I do not believe this proposal is appropriate for Douglas Park or the wider Wollondilly region. My concerns relate to traffic and infrastructure, site suitability, environmental impacts, noise, loss of rural character, and the continued approval of major developments before essential infrastructure has been delivered.

Traffic and Road Infrastructure

My primary concern is the impact this development will have on local roads and infrastructure.

Wollondilly is already experiencing significant growth, yet many roads throughout the region remain inadequate, congested, or in need of upgrades. Residents are continually being asked to absorb additional development while infrastructure struggles to keep pace.

This proposal is not a small local cemetery. It is a large regional facility that will attract visitors from across Sydney and beyond. Funeral services, visitors, staff, contractors, maintenance vehicles and future crematorium-related traffic will all contribute to increased vehicle movements.

Approving developments of this scale before major improvements are made to existing road networks is backwards planning. Infrastructure should be delivered first, not promised after the fact.

Inappropriate Scale and Character

Douglas Park is valued for its rural character, open space and relatively low-density lifestyle.

This proposal introduces a large-scale regional memorial park including thousands of burial plots, a chapel, visitor facilities, administration buildings, parking areas, a café and future crematorium infrastructure.

The scale of the development is excessive for the locality and is inconsistent with the character that attracts people to live in Douglas Park and surrounding communities.

Residents should not be expected to continually sacrifice the rural nature of their area through the approval of increasingly large developments that primarily service populations outside the local community.

Site Suitability Concerns

I have concerns regarding the suitability of the site for long-term burial operations.

The Douglas Park and broader Wollondilly area is known for sandstone geology and rocky terrain. Given the scale of the proposed cemetery, I question whether this site represents an appropriate location for extensive burial infrastructure over the long term.

I am concerned about excavation requirements, land disturbance, groundwater impacts, drainage issues and the long-term suitability of the site.

Any geotechnical and environmental assessments should be subject to rigorous independent scrutiny before any approval is considered.

Environmental Impacts

The proposal is located within an area that currently supports native vegetation and wildlife.

The development will inevitably increase vehicle movements, human activity, noise and disturbance across a substantial area.

I am concerned about:

* Increased wildlife road strikes resulting from higher traffic volumes.
* Impacts on native vegetation and habitat connectivity.
* Disturbance to local wildlife.
* Potential impacts on drainage systems and groundwater.
* The cumulative environmental impacts associated with ongoing expansion and development throughout the Wollondilly region.

Environmental protection should be prioritised, particularly where existing natural values remain intact.

Noise and Amenity

The proposal will introduce ongoing operational activity into an area that is currently characterised by rural living.

Funeral services, visitor traffic, maintenance operations, landscaping works, deliveries and future crematorium activities will all contribute to increased noise and activity levels.

The peaceful nature of the area is one of its defining features. Residents should not be expected to accept a permanent reduction in amenity as a consequence of a development that serves a regional rather than local function.

Development is Outpacing Infrastructure

A recurring issue across Wollondilly is that development approvals continue to outpace the delivery of supporting infrastructure.

Residents are repeatedly told that growth is necessary, yet road upgrades, transport improvements and essential infrastructure often lag years behind development approvals.

Many existing issues remain unresolved, yet additional large-scale projects continue to be proposed.

The planning system should prioritise investment in infrastructure and community needs before approving developments that create further demand.

Conclusion

I do not support the Douglas Park Memorial Park proposal.

The development is inappropriate for the locality due to its scale, likely traffic impacts, pressure on existing infrastructure, concerns regarding site suitability, environmental impacts, increased noise and the loss of rural character.

Wollondilly residents should not be expected to continually absorb the impacts of major developments while infrastructure remains inadequate and existing concerns remain unresolved.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning refuse the application.

Thank you for considering this submission.

The establishment of a cemetery in Douglas Park, a community of some 1300 residents that spread across and divided by the Nepean river, southern railway line and the M5 motorway seems like a bad planning proposal. Within close proximity to our town there are 6 currently operational cemeteries and 3 crematoriums within 40km of Douglas Park. The proposal would mean that a significant number of burials, families, friends and residents from outside of the Wollondilly and surrounding council areas coming to the area thus creating daily congestion.
Douglas Park a small community in Wollondilly shire is near the M5 southern expressway and the main southern rail line. Although very close to the proposed cemetery site, neither of these access ways contributes to this proposal. There is no access off the M5 and none planned to the site thus only putting significant traffic on our already congested local road system, a local road system, it is used as a major thoughafare to the south coast. A road system that would have hundreds of extra vehicles using Douglas Park Drive with a section of this road listed historically significant threatened by embankment instability along the Harris Creek and Nepean River cliff lines. The causeway and local roads with traffic volumes on Douglas Park Drive heavily constrained by gorge slope instability and 3 ton weight limits, a narrow one-way under traffic lights road, narrow causeway, traffic banking up on dangerous hairpin corners as their way to access the site and a road closed during wet weather and predicted rainfall triggers. Funeral corteges that can be off 100 cars traveling these roads will cause significant congestion as GPS guides motorists this way. This congestion will also impact emergency vehicles that travel the area as well as volunteer community service personnel attending the bushfire brigade trying to get to their station to respond to an emergency call.
The rail system, although a train station at Douglas Park with a infrequent service, there is no connection to public transport to access the cemetery site, however some people do walk down to the causeway and beyond, which is extremely dangerous due to the lack of a physical buffer, speeding vehicles, blind corners, and poor visibility both with shadows of the narrow road and sandstone walls.
How is a burial site going to be a burial site if a hole cannot be dug? The sandstone rock in this area is shallow some 700 – 900mm below ground level with burial hole to be 1200 plus mm deep, depending on a single, double or triple stack, yes it can be dug out, mulched up or quarried using excavators, saws, drill rigs and rock blasting but this is considered a very noisy operation that will have significant effect on the road system with machinery coming and going, local community, wildlife and ecology. The sandstone is porous and once broken up even more so and seepage off decaying bodies, Necroleachate is highly phototoxic and poses a significant environmental hazard to local plant community and waterways and with the nearby Nepean River only a short distance away it would affect the water quality and plant material in its path.
Necroleachate contains high concentrations of biogenic amines, particularly cadaverine and putrescine. Studies show that these compounds are highly toxic to plant cells and their growth. The raw liquid also alters the physicochemical and biological makeup of the soil, although in this case a very shallow sandstone base soil. It can introduce heavy metals, pharmaceutical residues, and a high volume of mineral salts, leading to long-term soil degradation and high salinity that plants cannot tolerate. As the fluid percolates into the groundwater, it acts much like raw sewage. It spreads pathogens, viruses, and elevated levels of compounds like ammonium and nitrates. This contaminated groundwater can be poisonous downstream to vegetation and aquatic life, all within the Nepean River catchment area. The Biodiversity and Conservation within the state environmental planning policy requires development to be carried out only with development consent and consideration to whether the development will maintain and enhance the structure and floristics of native vegetation in the catchment.
So how does contaminated water enhance plant growth and then provide scenic quality of the locality?
The site is within the Cumberland plain, a significant soil and vegetation type in south west Sydney. The site does have grassland and is part of a critically endangered ecological community. This community is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the future. The proposal will only significantly ensure that the ecological community is irreparable and gone forever. Several nearby properties have already been listed a seed back areas thus protecting what we have left of the Cumberland plain plant community.
The proposed cemetery development does not have links to improving the local infrastructure, council roadways and intersections, the development only lists work occurring for the proposal to the site. Future local housing development in surrounding areas of Wilton, Appin and Menangle, will also increase traffic along Douglas Park Drive and across the narrow causeway. There are no plans for a new crossing of the Nepean River to allow future higher traffic volumes in the area.
For motorist that would attend the site from the Appin area, to the east of the proposed site, they also have a narrow, steep, one lane weight limited road with a hairpin corner that is prone regular accidents to travel through.
The area is listed under Wollondilly’s Shire Council Bushfire prone land register and has links to adjacent fire prone areas. This creates a high dangerous situation should there be a fire as the only road in / out is Douglas Park drive and the congestion, panic and confusion of visitors in an unknown area could be horrific.
The structures within the proposed site that will supposably be concealed by vegetation however many established trees would be removed thus creating a greater impact to facilitate the proposal. Replacement trees take along time to grow and the impact is not felt for many many years and will do nothing to hide the fact that there still cemetery opposite residential properties. The site next to residential area to the east will be highly visible from their properties. To the west of the proposed site is the main southern motorway linking Sydney to the southern areas of the state, a very busy roadway. These residents would have to view a cemetery and its structure constantly reminded by mortality, suffering reduced property values as high as 10% and significant increase in noise and traffic. Daily maintenance activities including mowing, excavation work, the funeral cortege and deliveries will also significantly impact the adjoing residents.
This proposal will have significant changes to the street scene, pedestrian passages, transport usage and parking along with noise and public views will affect the immediate locals adjacent to the proposal and would loose the rural impact of the area, something that Wollondilly Shire Council promotes.
An alternative of “doing nothing” or considering other options that do not effect the local waterways, flora and fauna, environment and residents of the community and those adjacent to the site could result in the use of an underutilised site better. This case as viewed by the New South Wales government but the significance of the fauna and flora and the community as a seed bank linking the Cumberland plains is more value long term.
I strongly support the refusal to the development
Thank You

As a local resident of Douglas Park ,I object to this proposed submission,Douglas Park Memorial Park, for the following reasons.
The proposed location is in Mitchell Place a residential area, Douglas Park ,20+ homes have been long established in this street and the proposed cemetery will be very obvious to these neighbouring homes and the disruption to the home life that these residents enjoy .The egress entrance, frontage ,burial zones and vaults are directly opposite these homes , homes in Dredge Ave and Douglas Park Dr will be also impacted by this proposal ( eg increased traffic ,noise, pollution ,loss of native flora and flora)
The proposal will effect traffic flow throughout the township, The Gorge and the causeway .The only realistic assess to the location is via private vehicle, navigation apps will and does direct through the township. Funeral corteges will increase traffic and congestion throughout the township and down the gorge .Funeral corteges can be up to 100 cars long and multiple times throughout the day. The township has one o main local road access, Camden Road on this road is, a rail crossing (the main southern line), a primary school main entrance ,a preschool entrance, shops ,homes ,and 30+ units presently being built which all feed into this road ,a road which is increasing busy . This road also leads to 'the gorge',a narrow, one way ,under traffic light control down to a cause way , 3tonne limit, which is often closed due to flooding or road works as this road is requiring continual maintenance due to the increased instability from heavy rain ,increased traffic and topography of the area. The congestion will have impact on the local community and emergency services including bush fire brigade, trying to get through town and the gorge .
Douglas Park is a bush fire zone as documented on Wollondilly Shire Council bushfire prone land register.

The Location is within the Cumberland plains and shale sandstone transitional forest an area that is critical endanged and is protected by the Cumberland Plains Conversation Plan.An area the flora and fauna need to be protected and grow, this proposal will destroy the area ,stripping the land of its natural growth and habitat. Any vegetation that remains will struggle to survive due to construction and long term operation of the proposed cemetery ,by way of impacting of soil, interruption and polluting groundwater,disrupting stormwater /rainfall for water supply .There is no avoidance biodiversity or corridor of endanged species, especially for the koalas.The koalas which are present in this area of Wollondilly ,are known to travel over land and require travel corridor, to keep them safe ,along with another animals in the area .
Increased traffic will also be of detriment to the animals due to road strike .

The land is predominately sandstone with inadequate soil depth to dig graves ,therefore digging into sandstone which is difficult and rare , the depth required in NSW single depth 1.5m double depth 2.1 m ,? triple depth as noted in proposal, digging of graves will be very noisy ongoing process for local residents ,wildlife and general community , as heavy machinery is needed.Burial will occur 7 days a week 10am til 4pm also as noted in proposal ,more disruption to the local residents and the community in general . Sandstone being porous will not contain the bodily fluids as the bodies decompose, these toxic fluids leak and will eventually drain via grondwater into our waterway, the Nepean River ,located behind the proposed site . The Nepean River is within the water catchment for Sydney Water. The river is also use for recreation and home to flora and fauna, including platypus .

The proposed crematorium also presents issues, the potential emissions into air are great including, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxides, mercury, amongst many pollutants .These pollutants adding to the air ,which can cause breathing difficulties for local people, Wollondilly already exceeds NSW state average for recorded asthma rates . Polluntants will also interfere with the flora and fauna and the ecosystem of the river. Let alone the chimney stack being a visible pollutant to the community .

The proposal suggests up to 37000 burial plots ,at present in the south west area there are approximately 10 cemeteries and 3 crematoriums ,Douglas Park has a small population of 1300 people ,this area as well as being unsuitable in the issues discussed above ,this proposal is unwarranted .To"do nothing" as suggested in the proposal is very much considered the right and obvious outcome to protect Country , the land ,the flora, the fauna ,the river , our drinking water and the air we breath and the community of Douglas Park and surrounding villages.
I for the reasons above ask the department to reject this submission
thank you
Jan Miller

It is unreasonable that local residents who purchased property and lived in a rural community setting should be subject to a commercial development of this type.
The devaluation of our properties resulting from the development is outrageous. How is it reasonable that a developer (clearly already financially secure) makes a substantial additional financial gain at the expense of normal, working-class people living in a rural community? I doubt this would pass any "pub test".
The local roads cannot sustain the ongoing heavy vehicle movements required to construct the planned development. Douglas Park Drive (which already has a maximum load limit) north of the mine regularly falls into disrepair following periods of wet weather. Heavy vehicle movements will destroy the road. Relying on the developer to maintain the road is not realistic, as it is an additional expense they are not likely to want to deal with, at least not to a reasonable standard.
The local road network is not designed for the substantially increased vehicle movements associated with operating the cemetery and crematorium. The Douglas Park Gorge is already operating with vehicles lining up at traffic lights waiting to use the road. A significant increase in traffic volume will cause a traffic blockage where northbound vehicles lining up across the single-lane causeway would prevent southbound vehicles from crossing. In peak times, this is likely to result in an immovable traffic jam that cannot be cleared.
Furthermore, the Douglas Park Gorge is already subject to significant deterioration issues. Increased traffic volumes will only serve to exacerbate the deterioration of a critical local community road link.
Any suggestion that visitors to the cemetery/crematorium would be diverted away from using the Douglas Park Gorge is naive. By nature, people will always use the shortest route; furthermore, their navigation apps always recommend the shortest route.
The Douglas Park Gorge is a local recreation area, with families needing to cross the road. The significantly increased traffic volumes pose a real safety concern.
In Respect to the Actual Development:
The geology of the area is sandstone. I understand the proposal is to excavate the sandstone and presumably import soil to facilitate the burial sites. The excavation of sandstone will cause significant dust, including silica dust. Dust created from cutting, grinding, or drilling sandstone is extremely hazardous because natural sandstone is composed of about 70% to 95% crystalline silica.
Any suggestion that the developer can adequately suppress the silica dust to prevent harm to local residents is unrealistic. The developer cannot guarantee that safety protocols will be adequately maintained over the entire duration of the development.
The ongoing noise from excavation works and heavy vehicle movements over the lifetime of the proposed development is a substantial burden to local residents who made a decision to live in a rural community, not near a commercial establishment.
The natural effluent resulting from the burials must end up in the groundwater, which naturally drains into the Nepean River, thereby causing contamination to the river system.
Final Comments:
This development has arisen from a developer who purchased a plot of land in a rural setting solely seeking to make a financial gain. It is my understanding that several proposals have been submitted to the council, all of which have been denied because they were not in the best interest of the community.
The developer subsequently sought to override the local council by pursuing this development via the State Government, with no consideration for the local community's best interest, which the proposed development will impact the most.
It is disappointing when those who have the most, and stand to make significant additional financial gain, do so at the expense of normal, working-class residents living their lives in a rural community.
This development was declined by the local council because it was not in the best interest of the community. The development remains entirely conflicted with the best interests of the community and should not proceed.

I am writing in regard to the proposed cemetery and crematorium at 430-490 Douglas Park Drive, SSD-68287712, also the subject of EPBC referral 2025/10343.
I have lived in this street for 42 years and found it a great place to settle and raise a family. I would class it as a rural location away from any infrastructure.
The nearest shops are 3 klms away and this requires crossing the Nepean river causeway. This is a narrow twisty road with traffic lights to regulate traffic due to the narrow one lane conditions on the shops side. There are weight and length restrictions for this road for all traffic. There is no walking track down or up this road, it is for vehicles only. There is major concerns for the condition of this road and talks for closing it for a lengthy period for major repairs. There is a railway station near the shops but with limited services. There is no bus or taxi services from the railway station.

As per the guidelines set by Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW in establishing a new cemetery six out of the ten guidelines fail in this instance

1. Site is not next to residential areas or highly visible from neighbouring areas – there are 25 residential homes that run the length of Mitchell Place which border the site.

2. Site is accessible to cemetery visitors – access is available through the causeway which has issues with local traffic. There are no public transport to the site. All access is by personal vehicle.

3. Site is not affected by significant noise from adjoining main roads, airports, industrial sites or similar – The main Sydney to Melbourne highway runs next to the site. This generates road noise 24 hours a day. It also exceeds the governments average noise limits for 60db.

4. Site does not have a high bushfire or flood risk – the area is classified as a bush fire zone by the RFS. Due to the steep nature of the land, a 70 metre drop to the river, stopping a fire in there conditions would not be an easy task.

5. Site has sufficient soil depth to allow the top of a coffin to be not less than 900mm below the natural surface -not shallow rock or groundwater – the land is an area of floating sandstone. Any attempts to dig a single depth grave site would strike sandstone usually in large areas.

6. Site does not contain heritage sites, threatened species or heavy vegetation – site has had an EPBC referral activated for Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest.

The installation of a crematorium on this site would have a high pollutant output which would spread over a large area affecting not just homes in Mitchell Place but in nearby Dredge Ave, the St Mary’s Towers monastery, and the township. This is an industrial setup which should not be allowed in a rural area.

The Green Travel plan submitted by Traffix has some items that need mentioning. The Douglas Park railway station is 2.7 klms distance not 1.8. this low distance seems to taken as a straight line not the road distance. The report states that Douglas Park there is no pedestrian, cycling or bus access through the gorge and due to the nature of the road it is not a viable solution for staff or visitors.
The Action and Strategies plan mostly rely on other people doing what they think is right.
An EV charging bay would have to setup with extra power coming in to run it. How far this comes from is unknown and has Endeavour Energy been consulted on this?
Douglas park has no taxi or ride share service that we know of. Campbelltown or Picton would have both but a 23 klms minimum distance would be very costly. Plus the return journey would mean organising pickups.
Staff car pooling out here would be a bit presumptuous as this would rely on most staff living close to each other and working same hours.
Shuttle buses would have to come from Picton railway stations which is a minimum journey of 23 klms or Campbelltown railways which would be a 36 klms journey
The conclusion in the Green Travel Plan states to reduce reliance on private vehicle trips but will encourage On-site Passenger drop-off / pick-up area which would mean two trips to the site for one funeral. More travel times and more traffic on local roads.
The setup of EV charging facilities does not reduce private vehicle trips. An EV or normal car is still a private car.
The item to Maintain an open channel of communication with Council to maintain / improve existing
sustainable infrastructure in the local area seems to be a way of off loading everything to the local council to fix the issues they are having.
The setup of a Travel Plan Coordinator position seems to be something that would be implemented but what would happen if it gets abolished​? Would it be a government policy to have this running always?
It also states that the subject site is not presently accessible by pedestrian and cycling facilities but states that cycle tracks and parking will be provided.
In conclusion it would be a travesty to allow something as this to proceed. It does not meet the main criteria for a cemetery due to its location which would have issues with roads, environment and the health of the local population.
Guy Howard

Attn: Teresa Gizzi, Department of Planning and Environment
Objector: Long-Term Resident of Douglas Park
Status: Objection

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objections to the proposed Douglas Park Memorial Park Concept Plan (SSD-68287712).

As a resident who has lived in Douglas Park for many years, I have a deep understanding of and connection to this local environment, its landscape and its community spirit. While I recognise the broader regional need for cemetery and crematoria facilities, I firmly maintain that Douglas Park is entirely unsuitable for a development of this nature, scale and emotional gravity.

The fundamental physical characteristics of the chosen site present severe environmental risks that have not been adequately reconciled. The local topography and geology of Douglas Park are heavily defined by dense shale, intractable clay structures and underlying sandstone rock formations. This specific soil and geological profile is notoriously poorly draining and highly resistant to deep excavation. Introducing a large-scale cemetery into a landscape dominated by these clay and rock layers poses a substantial threat to local hydrology. During heavy rain events, which our region experiences cyclically, the impermeable nature of the clay will prevent proper filtration, leading to surface runoff, waterlogging, and the highly concerning potential for groundwater contamination. The structural realities of this ground make it an scientifically flawed choice for interments.

Our local infrastructure is currently strained and was never designed or scaled to support a major regional facility like a memorial park, chapel and crematorium. The surrounding rural road network consists of narrow, localised thoroughfares that already face safety challenges from existing traffic and heavy vehicles. Forcing hundreds of additional vehicle movements per week—including slow-moving funeral processions, heavy construction equipment and visitors unfamiliar with our narrow, winding roads presents an unacceptable risk to road safety. Furthermore, the local area lacks the robust utility services, stormwater management networks and public transport infrastructure required to sustainably absorb a State Significant Development of this magnitude.

Douglas Park is a unique, historic semi-rural enclave. Its identity is built upon its open green spaces, peaceful agricultural landscapes and a sense of quiet sanctuary. A massive, formalised commercial enterprise encompassing crematoria, vaults and chapels will fundamentally alter the visual and social fabric of our town.

This proposal represents an overdevelopment that clashes directly with the Wollondilly Shire’s commitment to preserving rural lands and keeping distinct village identities intact. It is an industrial-scale operation being forced into a quiet residential and agricultural haven where it simply does not belong.

Beyond the tangible environmental and structural impacts, there is a profound human cost to this proposal that cannot be overlooked by planners. To put a massive reminder of mortality at the gateway of our community is to fundamentally change how we interact with our home. As a long-term resident, Douglas Park has always been a place of life, growth and natural beauty. It is deeply distressing to face a future where every single daily commute, every trip to the local shops and every glance out across our landscape serves as a stark, unavoidable reminder of death.

A community should not have a shadow of perpetual mourning cast over its daily life. The psychological weight of this facility will heavily impact the well-being and peace of mind of the families who live here.

The Douglas Park Memorial Park proposal fails to respect the physical constraints of the land, the limitations of our local infrastructure and the emotional right of long-term residents to enjoy their homes without the oppressive presence of a regional crematorium and cemetery footprint.

For the reasons detailed above, I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this application in its entirety and seek a more appropriate, geologically sound and logistically viable location elsewhere.

Sincerely,
H.
Long term Douglas Park Resident

This might be the most classic example of the issues with our planning system. The fact this location is being considered at all is absurd.

Cemeteries of this scale are not simple planning matters and are multigenerational decisions in the vein of stadiums, aquatic centres, or quarries.

The site if approved will likely remain a cemetery for hundreds of years. While effective permanence is not an issue, decisions of this nature must be made more cautiously and alternatives must be considered.

If it were any government agency putting this in you would be required under treasury guidelines to submit a business case that clearly shows the value of this site over others in the context of local and regional planning.

Now I understand the landowner and developer dont have that luxury which is the why the impetus on the government to make informed, considered decisions.

So i'll do the pub test assessment for you. You have new Wilton going up with an estimated 40,000 residents. You've got all the expansion in the Macarthur corridor down towards Appin. You've got Menangle Park kicking off that will all increase demand for cemetery space.

This immediate fact hides the planning consideration that most of the surrounding area is being currently masterplanned or rezoned from rural to residential. The opportunity to consider genuine alternate sites is now.

Let's look at this site. Bounded by a river, the Hume Highway and a complete lack of infrastructure on terrain not conducive to to development. Serviced by a one lane road, and a single lane causeway that routinely floods and leads to a single lane road up into Douglas Park which is currently being considered for close due to safety concerns and the cost of remediation.

You've got reports of environmental issues, buried bodies leaching into the water table, and endangered species.

I invite one of any of the planning staff involved to drive down these roads before making a decision. The scale of the site and traffic impact alone should make this untenable.

If the government is so hellbent on destroying the character of this area, while making local roads untenable at least commit to genuine infrastructure upgrades. The Moreton Park industrial precinct and proposed new on and off ramps from the Hume Highway will do nothing to alleviate impact. The Picton road interchange will do nothing. The issue is local roads and their interaction with the sites unique geography.

The only solution would be a complete disregard of everyone who already lives here, making all main roads through town 2 lane, building a genuine 2 lane bridge at the gorge and even then with all that said an done, it would still be in one of the worst locations available.

Make it conditional on any new masterplanned suburbs for new Wilton along the picton road corridor.

I object to the proposed Douglas Park Memorial Park on the basis that the surrounding road network is not suitable to support a State Significant Development of this scale.

The proposal relies heavily upon access via Douglas Park Drive, Broughton Pass and the Douglas Park Causeway. These roads are not major transport corridors. Rather, they are local roads that are already subject to significant physical constraints, including bridge and road infrastructure with weight restrictions, limited road widths, steep grades and constrained vehicle manoeuvrability.

The existence of weight restrictions is itself evidence that elements of the road network have recognised capacity limitations. This raises concerns regarding the suitability of these routes for ongoing construction traffic, service vehicles, maintenance vehicles, funeral-related traffic and other increased vehicle movements associated with a major cemetery, chapel and crematorium.

Of equal concern is the susceptibility of the road network to flooding. Local residents are well aware that access across the Douglas Park Causeway and surrounding routes can be disrupted during periods of significant rainfall. The proposal seeks approval for a development intended to operate for many decades and serve a large catchment population. Reliable all-weather access should therefore be a fundamental requirement.

The combination of flood-prone crossings, constrained road geometry, weight-restricted infrastructure and limited alternative access routes creates a road network that lacks resilience. Should a flood event, motor vehicle accident, bushfire, bridge closure or road maintenance activity occur, access to and from the site may be significantly affected.

This concern extends beyond visitor convenience. Funeral services are time-sensitive events involving large groups of people travelling together. Emergency services, maintenance contractors, staff and visitors must also be able to access the site safely and reliably. A development of State significance should not be dependent upon infrastructure that is regularly affected by flooding and already subject to operational restrictions.

Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Statement should assess not only average daily traffic volumes but also the cumulative effect of funeral processions, peak visitation periods, construction activities and long-term operational traffic on a road network that already experiences recognised constraints.

In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that the existing access infrastructure possesses the capacity, reliability and resilience necessary to support a development of this scale. Until these concerns are satisfactorily addressed, the proposal should not be approved

I am writing to register my strongest possible objection to the Douglas Park Memorial Park proposal. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fundamentally fails to account for the catastrophic structural risks posed to nearby residential properties by the proposed excavation methods.
The development requires extensive "rock ripping" into Hawkesbury sandstone bedrock across a massive 16-hectare footprint, penetrating to depths of up to 3 meters. This heavy industrial activity will generate sustained, low-frequency ground vibrations and seismic shockwaves that travel directly through the continuous bedrock shelf to surrounding homes.
I object to this development based on the following critical impacts:
• Foundation and Pier Failure: My home relies on structural piers anchored into the local strata. Continuous, high-energy rock ripping will destabilise these piers, causing structural shifting, differential settlement, and catastrophic foundation failure.
• Brickwork and Chimney Collapse: Low-frequency vibrations will cause severe masonry cracking in brick walls and load-bearing chimneys. This poses an immediate, severe safety hazard to my family from potential structural collapse.
• In-Ground Pool Failure: The immense hydraulic and mechanical forces transmitted through the bedrock will crack my swimming pool shell . This will lead to major water leakage, subterranean erosion, and complete structural failure of the pool.
• Inadequate Geotechnical Assessment: The applicant’s current assessments heavily underestimate the proximity of residential receptors to the excavation boundaries. They fail to provide a localized, vibration-attenuation model for continuous rock-ripping across 16 hectares.

The scale of bedrock excavation required for this cemetery is entirely incompatible with a residential buffer zone. The risk of permanent, costly structural damage to my home, chimney, and pool is unacceptably high.

This Cemetery is not a necessity to this community given the approval of large scale operations at Wallacia, Varroville and the smaller council owned cemeteries in the surrounding villages. This cemetery will service communities travelling from hours away by vehicles only (given the lack of public transport) making it virtually impossible for me to travel to work or return home. I am a shift worker, therefore the construction noise (over years) and the cemeteries daily operations will have a direct impact on my ability to function in my current employment. Simple planting and some type of fence will not prevent the many visitors viewing my property which will affect my families and visitors' enjoyment of my own front yard. The proposal lacks any desire to protect the immediate neighbour's from a visual of activities on this site. A six meter high solid sound wall such as the RMS use along the whole length of Mitchell Place may still not reduce the visual impact.

There will also be an unacceptable risk of microbiological and chemical contamination (including formaldehyde and heavy metals) leaching into local groundwater. In times of ongoing rain the overland flow from this property runs directly into both my and my neighbours properties in torrents, into the Cataract Creek at the rear of our properties and any proposed dam overflow would exacerbate this issue.

I am also deeply concerned for the welfare of my family living meters away from a crematorium and the health impacts this will have. Should this be approved, it would set a dangerous precedent for crematorium construction and operation within residential areas, as they are currently and appropriately located within industrial areas. I believe Wollondilly Council have recognised this and are seeking to amend the LEP.

Those that live near cemeteries have made that choice. If approved this colossal development will diminish the rural appeal, liveability, and overall value of what we have worked so hard to achieve. I implore the Department to refuse consent of this SSD application.

Firstly, I am very concerned about the state of our roads in the Wollondilly Shire, especially those around Douglas Park. Wollondilly council has the most roads to look after with minimal funding. The road across the gorge from Douglas Park to the proposed site is most certainly not built to accommodate the traffic that would arrive from families of those who would be buried there and the burial services proposed during burials or cremations (once this facility has been built). Most people use navigation maps and would no doubt try to use this shorter route, despite assurances from the Douglas Parks Memorial Park website that they would advise of best routes to customers.
We are expecting many more cars anyway due to all the new housing estates and schools that have been approved already (due to start building works soon).
Secondly, I am concerned about the pollution that would come from having smoke stacks at a level that means the smoke would drift over the gorge and the ash would land on the other side on our washing. We already have to contend with the black dust from the railway line on one side and the freeway on the other side. At peak hours (7 to 9 am and 5 to 6 pm) the exhaust fumes from the freeway are very strong and smelly. I do not want to have to smell burning from bodies added into the mix!
Once the Badgerys Creek International Airport commences commercial flights in 2027 we will also have the pollution from those aircraft (noise and dumping fuel exercises). We also must put up with the mines drilling underneath our homes and the extra noise pollution from that during the night as the rail corridor must be constantly monitored for movement underneath the railways. This also means more dust.
Thirdly, I don't think it is a very peaceful place right next to a freeway and we often have low flying aircraft, including helicopters flying overhead. The thought of all those dead bodies being buried over there does not fill me with delight. Although I'm not usually a spiritually aware person, I don't really think the spiritual beings would be very happy there.
Please consider other spots that are further away from the suburbs out in the country where there are less people where it is more peaceful and not in an area that is already dealing with numerous industrial impacts. Douglas Park residents have to put up with a lot. Please find somewhere else for the Memorial Park.
Thankyou.

We write to express our firm, unequivocal and deeply held objection to the proposed “Douglas Park Memorial Park – Concept Plan and Stage 1” at 430 Douglas Park Drive (Lot 2 DP 250359). This objection is submitted on behalf of all members of our household.
We have lived at 31 Mitchell Place for over 24 years. We chose Douglas Park for its rural lifestyle, peaceful environment and strong community identity—values we have built our lives around. This is where we raised our three children, built deep community connections, and created a home that reflects decades of hard work and sacrifice. This proposal threatens to dismantle everything we have invested in—emotionally, financially and personally. Our objections are as follows
1. Incompatibility with rural residential character
A cemetery of 37,107 burial plots, a crematorium, administration buildings, internal road networks, water storage infrastructure and extensive earthworks is a major metropolitan scale development, not a rural one. The inclusion of a crematorium makes this even more inappropriate. Crematoriums are industrial facilities that produce emissions, odour, noise and visual impacts that have no place in a quiet rural residential community.
This development would permanently and irreversibly change the character of Douglas Park and offers no benefit to the people who live here.

2. Severe traffic impacts on roads already in critical condition
The surrounding road network is already failing under current conditions. The Gorge (Douglas Park Drive Causeway) has been repeatedly damaged by major weather events and now operates under traffic light control. It is frequently closed, heavily congested and unsafe during heavy rain. It cannot support the increased traffic generated by funeral processions, daily visitors, staff, contractors, heavy trucks and crematorium related operations.
Mitchell Place is a narrow rural road with no footpaths. Increased traffic will accelerate deterioration, increase safety risks and funnel unfamiliar drivers into a quiet residential street. This is dangerous and unacceptable.

3. Long term construction impacts: Noise, Vibration and Emotional Harm
The scale of excavation and construction required is enormous. Continuous excavation of rock and stone poses a real risk of structural damage to homes. Residents would be subjected to constant heavy machinery noise, dust pollution, truck movements and early morning and late day disruptions.
The emotional toll of living beside a major construction site—and later beside a crematorium—cannot be overstated. The peace and privacy we have worked for over two decades to protect would be destroyed. Our home would no longer feel like a sanctuary, but a place of constant disturbance and anxiety.

4. Water catchment risks and threats to property safety
The proposed water storage and catchment system raises serious concerns. Altered land contours will redirect natural water flows, and overflow during heavy rainfall could send large volumes of water toward existing homes.
The crematorium adds further risk: emissions and particulate matter can settle into soil and water systems, compounding contamination concerns. There is a real risk of flooding, property damage and threats to life.

5. Environmental contamination risks from burials and crematorium emissions
A cemetery of this scale poses significant environmental contamination risks.
Burials introduce embalming chemicals, decomposition by products, pharmaceuticals and heavy metals into the soil. With 37,107 burial plots, the cumulative contamination load is enormous.
The crematorium introduces additional hazards, including:
• Fine particulate emissions
• Mercury and heavy metals
• Combustion by products
• Odour and smoke drift
• Ash residue settling on surrounding land
These pollutants threaten air quality, soil health, water catchment areas, wildlife and the wellbeing of nearby residents.

6. Daily impact on a family of five working adults
Our household consists of five working adults, each with demanding schedules and responsibilities. This development would have a devastating impact on our daily lives.
Years of construction noise, machinery, rock excavation, truck movements and dust pollution will:
• Interrupt sleep
• Disrupt remote work and study
• Increase stress and fatigue
• Reduce our ability to perform in our jobs
• Create constant tension and anxiety within the home
Our home is the only place where we can rest, recover and support one another. Turning it into a construction zone for years—and then placing a crematorium beside it—would fundamentally damage our wellbeing.
With five adults commuting daily, increased congestion will add significant delays, increase fuel costs and create uncertainty around travel times. The stress of simply leaving and returning home each day will increase dramatically.
Impact on pets
Our pets are part of our family. They rely on the quiet, stable environment we currently enjoy. Prolonged noise, vibration, heavy machinery, unfamiliar vehicles and constant movement will cause them significant distress.
The crematorium adds further concerns: animals are sensitive to odours, smoke and environmental changes. These disruptions can lead to anxiety, behavioural issues and stress related health problems. This adds further emotional strain to our household.

7. Significant reduction in property value
This is one of the most devastating impacts of all.
Our home is our primary financial asset—the result of decades of work, sacrifice and planning. It represents our future security, our retirement, and our ability to support our children as they build their own lives.
A large scale cemetery and crematorium directly adjacent to our home will:
• Severely reduce our property value
• Limit future resale opportunities
• Undermine our financial stability
• Impact our ability to support our children
• Compromise our retirement plans
• Trap us in a home we may no longer feel safe or comfortable living in
We have invested our lives into this property. We should not be forced to watch its value collapse because of a development we did not ask for, do not benefit from and strongly oppose.
8. Environmental and community impacts
This development will destroy natural landscapes, disrupt wildlife habitats, increase noise and light pollution, erode the rural character of Douglas Park and offer no meaningful benefit to existing residents.
The crematorium intensifies these impacts through emissions, odour, industrial activity and increased traffic.

9. Strong community opposition
We have spoken extensively with our neighbours, and there is widespread, consistent and informed opposition to this proposal. We fully support the detailed objections submitted by other residents.
We strongly oppose this development—now and at any time in the future. It is incompatible with the rural character of Douglas Park, poses unacceptable risks to residents and threatens the well being, safety and financial security of our family and community.
We respectfully request that this proposal is rejected in full.
Yours sincerely,
Julie Corr
Brendan Corr
Ryan Corr
Cameron Corr
Veronica Corr
All residents of the household 31 Mitchell Place Douglas Park NSW 2569