Glenfield Industrial Precinct - Precinct 1

As the owner of an important heritage item, Glenfield Farm, I object to the applicants appropriating the Glenfield name for this redundant, carpet warehousing intrusion into an important curtilage, or heritage landscape. Photos provided by the applicant were not taken from Glenfield Farm, but from the road adjacent. The view provided is not the viewpoint that will be affected by the development.
The development will seriously impact age old views from the escarpment and from the colonial era Glenfield Farm. It will create light spill, noise, and serves no useful purpose for South West Sydney. This development should not be a state significant development. The undersubscribed Moorebank Intermodal provides warehousing for the area, and to this day creates an unacceptable risk of traffic gridlock if all the trucks finally get on the road. To allow further warehousing with associated truck activity on the over-burdened local and wider road network is an unacceptable risk.
The applicants appear to hold the view that warehousing and driving jobs, and not even that many in an automated environment, are the pinnacle of achievement for South West Sydney residents. This is not the case. The land could be used in a far more appropriate way. The small riparian corridor proposed apparently can host paths, amenities, jetties, wharves, and boat storage facilities - and where do the koalas squeeze past?
Light spill and noise will also affect and may finally terminate the endangered grey flying fox colony which visits Glenfield Farm in smaller numbers each year, and will also affect the human residents, already highly impacted by the SSFL. Is it the view of planners that if residents already face high levels of industrial noise, a bit more doesn't matter?
The applicants optimistically state that the site does not contain a heritage item - yes it is a heritage item, part of a heritage curtilage, as above. It also states that "located directly West of the site is an existing residential dwelling which is surrounded by extensive vegetation." That presumably would be Glenfield Farm, surrounded by Leacock Regional Park, the area's large green space, and part of the developing environmental/heritage/recreation area being developed by Liverpool City Council.
To give this insensitive and indeed destructive proposed development a state significant development status is state irresponsibility. It opens the door to a parade of modifications as per the Moorebank Intermodal development, and ignores the history of the site.
The large adjacent area was long designated recreational land by Liverpool City Council, and the Council has rightly declined to change the zoning on this land, as recreational land is a priority of the rapidly developing South West Sydney residential area.
It has been suggested (by myself) to Council that this land could best be used as a much longed for stadium, or sports complex, or riverside moonlight cinema etc. I note that access to this valuable legacy site from the Glenfield passenger rail hub, would have to be through the Campbelltown site in question here, and the access issue is something in which the state planners should be taking an interest.
The application should be declined on the grounds of duplication of already under performing warehousing in the area, traffic impacts, extremely poor use of riverside land, and a potentially incompatible usage given the recreational zoning of the other half of the rubbish tip site on Liverpool City Council land.

I am a resident of Casula, and I object to the Glenfield Industrial Precinct – Precinct 1 proposal.

The proposed development does not adequately consider the enormous impact that it would have on the already strained surrounding roads, as well as the environmental impact on the Georges River basin area and surrounding bushlands. Instead the proposal relies on broad claims about jobs and investment while the long-term costs to nearby communities are treated as secondary issues.

The Liverpool area and its arterial roads already carry a large share of the impacts from freight, warehousing and major development – all which has increased with the Moorebank Intermodal. We already experience congestion, heavy vehicles, noise and pressure on a limited road network. This proposal would add another large warehouse and distribution development close to the Georges River and would operate around the clock. The development should not be approved on the assumption that major road upgrades may occur at some unknown point in the future. There has been planned upgrades to Fifteenth Avenue for almost 100 years, but still no upgrade has been delivered, and yet development has already moved ahead.

The traffic assessment should not rely only on selected peak periods or assume that vehicles will always use ideal routes. It must consider the full precinct, Moorebank freight traffic, residential growth, school traffic, weekend and overnight operations, crashes, flooding, road closures and the risk of trucks using unsuitable local streets. Every road and intersection upgrade needed to support the proposal should be identified, fully funded and completed before the related warehouse operations begin. These costs should be paid by the development, not shifted onto the community.

Precinct 1 appears to be the first part of a much larger proposed industrial precinct. It would be misleading to assess it as though it were a stand-alone development with no connection to future stages. Residents do not experience each project separately. We experience the combined truck movements, congestion, noise, lighting, air pollution, vegetation loss and pressure on infrastructure. The Department should assess the cumulative effects of the full Glenfield industrial precinct together with existing and proposed freight and warehousing activity at Moorebank, continuing residential growth and other major developments in the area. Approving the first stage may also make later stages much harder to refuse, even if their combined effects become unacceptable - the full precinct should be assessed before the first major stage is approved.

The proposal is close to the Georges River and would involve clearing vegetation and habitat of high ecological value. The community has already lost vast areas of ecological value to the Moorebank Intermodal, and this proposal will lead to further damage to the local environment. The Department should require a genuine investigation of alternative access routes and site layouts before accepting that environmental damage is unavoidable. Offsets should be a last resort, not a way of approving avoidable clearing.

The history of the land as a waste facility raises serious questions about contamination, landfill gas, leachate, ground settlement and long-term stability. These risks should be independently reviewed. The community needs confidence that construction will not disturb contamination or allow pollutants to reach the Georges River. There must also be clear and enforceable responsibility for long-term monitoring and rehabilitation, even if the land is later sold, subdivided or occupied by different businesses. Residents and taxpayers should not be left responsible for problems that may emerge many years after the development is approved.

I ask the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form. As a resident of Casula, I am not satisfied that the claimed benefits outweigh the likely long-term impacts on local residents, the road network and the Georges River environment.

Please record this submission as an objection.

I am a resident of Casula, and I object to the Glenfield Industrial Precinct – Precinct 1 proposal.

The proposed development does not adequately consider the enormous impact that it would have on the already strained surrounding roads, as well as the environmental impact on the Georges River basin area and surrounding bushlands. Instead the proposal relies on broad claims about jobs and investment while the long-term costs to nearby communities are treated as secondary issues.

The Liverpool area already carries a large share of the impacts from freight, warehousing and major development. We already experience congestion, heavy vehicles, noise and pressure on a limited road network. This proposal would add another large warehouse and distribution development close to the Georges River and would operate around the clock. The development should not be approved on the assumption that major road upgrades may occur at some unknown point in the future.

The traffic assessment should not rely only on selected peak periods or assume that vehicles will always use ideal routes. It must consider the full precinct, Moorebank freight traffic, residential growth, school traffic, weekend and overnight operations, crashes, flooding, road closures and the risk of trucks using unsuitable local streets. Every road and intersection upgrade needed to support the proposal should be identified, fully funded and completed before the related warehouse operations begin. These costs should be paid by the development, not shifted onto the community.

Precinct 1 appears to be the first part of a much larger proposed industrial precinct. It would be misleading to assess it as though it were a stand-alone development with no connection to future stages. Residents do not experience each project separately. We experience the combined truck movements, congestion, noise, lighting, air pollution, vegetation loss and pressure on infrastructure. The Department should assess the cumulative effects of the full Glenfield industrial precinct together with existing and proposed freight and warehousing activity at Moorebank, continuing residential growth and other major developments in the area. Approving the first stage may also make later stages much harder to refuse, even if their combined effects become unacceptable - the full precinct should be assessed before the first major stage is approved.

The proposal is close to the Georges River and would involve clearing vegetation and habitat of high ecological value. The community has already lost vast areas of ecological value to the Moorebank Intermodal, and this proposal will lead to further damage to the local environment. The Department should require a genuine investigation of alternative access routes and site layouts before accepting that environmental damage is unavoidable. Offsets should be a last resort, not a way of approving avoidable clearing.

The history of the land as a waste facility raises serious questions about contamination, landfill gas, leachate, ground settlement and long-term stability. These risks should be independently reviewed. The community needs confidence that construction will not disturb contamination or allow pollutants to reach the Georges River. There must also be clear and enforceable responsibility for long-term monitoring and rehabilitation, even if the land is later sold, subdivided or occupied by different businesses. Residents and taxpayers should not be left responsible for problems that may emerge many years after the development is approved.

I ask the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form. As a resident of Casula, I am not satisfied that the claimed benefits outweigh the likely long-term impacts on local residents, the road network and the Georges River environment.

Please record this submission as an objection.

To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct.

THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS CYNICAL IN ITS DEVELOPMENT
It is apparent that the environmental impact statement (EIS) process has been a cynical effort by the proponent to remain below the radar with respect to community awareness and input.
While it is acknowledged that the proponent has consulted with layers of government agencies about what is proposed, it has gone out of its way to signal to the community, those affected by the proposal, that it has no interest in the community’s views nor in obtaining a social licence or relationship with the community.
It is noted that “A newsletter was distributed to 127 residential properties in the Glenfield residential areas south of the Site via a letterbox drop”, just a small subset of those to be affected. This does not follow the Undertaking Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Projects (2021). This is not engagement – at the minimum, consultation – with the community. This is not even ‘tick-a-box’ consultation.
No, this is worse; it is merely information to a select few, disinterested in obtaining the community’s views.

DPHI HAS BEEN MISLEAD BY THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
The proponent has also shown similar cynicism in their endeavours when it comes to assessing the traffic impacts, not making the effort to understand the true context.
As a starting point, the EIS highlights a series of concerning statements:
• “A Transport Accessibility and Impact Assessment confirms that, while Cambridge Avenue currently carries high traffic volumes and the existing site access operates poorly, the surrounding network generally functions at acceptable levels and will be substantially enhanced by the staged Cambridge Avenue Upgrade and Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Road Access Strategy.”
• “It is acknowledged that the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct is forecast to generate additional vehicle movements during peak periods, though this is considered to be aligned with expectations for freight and warehouse-type land uses.”
The proposal will generate more than just vague “additional vehicle movements.” Greenhalgh (2018) in his conference presentation, “The Planning Challenges of Developing Urban Intermodals: The case of Moorebank in South West Sydney” observed that:
“The intermodal operations themselves generate considerable traffic. In addition, the planned commercial (warehousing) development component of the site is a significant traffic generator…”
That statement alone creates notable concern for something similar for Glenfield. Yet, this is exacerbated due to the current impact assessment made all the more inaccurate by its confidence in the instigation of the Cambridge Avenue Extension. While the extension specifically near Hurlstone Agricultural High School may alleviate in the medium term some of the expected increase in local traffic, there will still be significant concerns.
The extension westward along Cambridge Avenue from Moorebank Avenue, the community has been informed by Transport for NSW, will not be completed until 2050. That is a best-case scenario dependent on future funding. Despite the tragedy of deaths occurring on that high risk stretch over the Georges River, that has never been a catalyst for change and funding previously. So, the proposal will just add to huge volumes of traffic coming across the Georges River from the existing Moorebank Intermodal.

THE DESIGN PROPOSED IS (UN)SUSTAINABLE
From memory, 151 trees are proposed to be cleared on site, despite it being acknowledged that koalas are indeed present. The proposal risks harm to these while also affecting the local amenity.
The Moorebank Intermodal transformed an area with numerous mature trees to something akin to the visual appearance of Port Botany. No sensitive or sustainable design was factored into consideration of the local amenity. Likewise, no such proposal has been considered for this site.
Cut down the mature trees and then plant seedlings that won’t soften the impact for decades. Again, a cynical approach: social and environmental impacts from significant developments remain the very poor cousin to the economic considerations anticipated from the proposal.

THE SYSTEMIC BLINDNESS BY THE PROPONENT AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS NEEDS LEADERSHIP
There are anticipated to be several significant changes to Glenfield over the next 25 years; namely, impacts from the proposed Industrial Precinct will not be isolated from those related to:
- Construction of Glenfield West housing development site
- The population of Glenfield more than doubling
- Transport for NSW, potentially, treating Glenfield as a work site for the next few decades
- The rezoning of Glenfield East for higher density housing to change the look and feel of the area.
Each of these will create significant impacts. But, each of these changes are interconnected, compounding an array of impacts on Glenfield.
This has not been considered whatsoever by the proponent.
That also highlights a flaw in the planning system. From past experience in making submissions with these significant developments, no agency is interested in the contemplation of how these compounding impacts can be managed, holistically. A fragmented approach to Glenfield will be maintained because that is easier for government than considering those to be affected. No agency wants to take the leadership. Instead, every agency wants to be seen to be active and nod at reflection of the problem, but none is willing to step up and take leadership.
Therefore, I will leave you with this. Professor Glenn Albrecht coined the term “solastalgia” for situations like this. Solastalgia is an environmentally induced distress, a mental health issue, from people feeling a loss ‘of place’ in response to great change. Glenfield is about to have imposed on it significant change the likes of which it has not previously experienced due to the proposal and those described above.
How will the proponent and State Government confront this? A steering committee may be a simple mechanism to get the agencies and representatives of the community in one room at appropriate times to solve the significant problems and opportunities that will come Glenfield’s way. But who will take leadership?
Yours sincerely
David

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct.
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT IS FARCICAL
It is apparent that the environmental impact statement (EIS) process has been a cynical effort by the proponent to remain below the radar with respect to community awareness and input.
While it is acknowledged that the proponent has consulted with layers of government agencies about what is proposed, it has gone out of its way to signal to the community, those affected by the proposal, that it has no interest in the community’s views nor in obtaining a social licence or relationship with the community.
It is noted that “A newsletter was distributed to 127 residential properties in the Glenfield residential areas south of the Site via a letterbox drop”, just a small subset of those to be affected. This does not follow the Undertaking Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Projects (2021). This is not engagement – at the minimum, consultation – with the community. This is not even ‘tick-a-box’ consultation.
No, this is worse; it is merely information to a select few, disinterested in obtaining the community’s views.
DPHI HAS BEEN MISLED BY THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
The proponent has also shown similar cynicism in their endeavours when it comes to assessing the traffic impacts, not making the effort to understand the true context.
As a starting point, the EIS highlights a series of concerning statements:
• “A Transport Accessibility and Impact Assessment confirms that, while Cambridge Avenue currently carries high traffic volumes and the existing site access operates poorly, the surrounding network generally functions at acceptable levels and will be substantially enhanced by the staged Cambridge Avenue Upgrade and Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Road Access Strategy.”
• “It is acknowledged that the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct is forecast to generate additional vehicle movements during peak periods, though this is considered to be aligned with expectations for freight and warehouse-type land uses.”
The proposal will generate more than just vague “additional vehicle movements.” Greenhalgh (2018) in his conference presentation, “The Planning Challenges of Developing Urban Intermodals: The case of Moorebank in South West Sydney” observed that:
“The intermodal operations themselves generate considerable traffic. In addition, the planned commercial (warehousing) development component of the site is a significant traffic generator…”
That statement alone creates notable concern for something similar for Glenfield. Yet, this is exacerbated due to the current impact assessment made all the more inaccurate by its confidence in the instigation of the Cambridge Avenue Extension. While the extension specifically near Hurlstone Agricultural High School may alleviate in the medium term some of the expected increase in local traffic, there will still be significant concerns.
The extension westward along Cambridge Avenue from Moorebank Avenue, the community has been informed by Transport for NSW, will not be completed until 2050. That is a best-case scenario dependent on future funding. Despite the tragedy of deaths occurring on that high risk stretch over the Georges River, that has never been a catalyst for change and funding previously. So, the proposal will just add to huge volumes of traffic coming across the Georges River from the existing Moorebank Intermodal.
The EIS notes under section 6.1.1 Existing Traffic Conditions that traffic surveys were undertaken along Cambridge Avenue and its key intersections on 9 April 2025 to capture traffic volumes between 6:00am to 10:00am and 3:00pm to 7:00pm. One data point (one day) is not sufficient to understand the traffic volume (let alone the use of this data for future modelling) and the 9th of April 2025 was too close to the autumn school holidays to really reflect the volume of traffic on this road and its inherent daily congestion. Under degraded mode (For example, accident on the Hume Highway south of the Crossroads in a northbound direction) Cambridge Avenue does not currently cope with the diverted traffic coming through Ingleburn and Glenfield causing extreme congestion through the local roads.
THE DESIGN PROPOSED IS (UN)SUSTAINABLE
From memory, 151 trees are proposed to be cleared on site, despite it being acknowledged that koalas are indeed present. The proposal risks harm to these while also affecting the local amenity.
The Moorebank Intermodal transformed an area with numerous mature trees to something akin to the visual appearance of Port Botany. No sensitive or sustainable design was factored into consideration of the local amenity. Likewise, no such proposal has been considered for this site.
Cut down the mature trees and then plant seedlings that won’t soften the impact for decades. Again, a cynical approach: social and environmental impacts from significant developments remain the very poor cousin to the economic considerations anticipated from the proposal.
THE SYSTEMIC BLINDNESS BY THE PROPONENT AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS NEEDS LEADERSHIP
There are anticipated to be several significant changes to Glenfield over the next 25 years; namely, impacts from the proposed Industrial Precinct will not be isolated from those related to:
- Construction of Glenfield West housing development site
- The population of Glenfield more than doubling
- Transport for NSW, potentially, treating Glenfield as a work site for the next few decades
- The rezoning of Glenfield East for higher density housing to change the look and feel of the area.
Each of these will create significant impacts. But, each of these changes are interconnected, compounding an array of impacts on Glenfield.
This has not been considered whatsoever by the proponent.
That also highlights a flaw in the planning system. From past experience in making submissions with these significant developments, no agency is interested in the contemplation of how these compounding impacts can be managed, holistically. A fragmented approach to Glenfield will be maintained because that is easier for government than considering those to be affected. No agency wants to take the leadership. Instead, every agency wants to be seen to be active and nod at reflection of the problem, but none is willing to step up and take leadership.
Therefore, I will leave you with this. Professor Glenn Albrecht coined the term “solastalgia” for situations like this. Solastalgia is an environmentally induced distress, a mental health issue, from people feeling a loss ‘of place’ in response to great change. Glenfield is about to have imposed on it significant change the likes of which it has not previously experienced due to the proposal and those described above.
How will the proponent and State Government confront this? A steering committee may be a simple mechanism to get the agencies and representatives of the community in one room at appropriate times to solve the significant problems and opportunities that will come Glenfield’s way. But who will take leadership?
Yours sincerely
Pierre Rochecouste

Having already objected in writing to and having addressed (April) Liverpool City Council in, objection to RZ-6/2024, otherwise known as Planning Proposal 2024-2450 Glenfield Industrial Precinct, a further (denied) request has been made to attend and address the Sydney Western City Planning Panel regarding RR-2026-13. The proponent Glenfield Waste Services (GWS) has lodged a Rezoning Review on the basis that it PP-2024-2450 is a simple matter (90 days) and not a complex matter (115 days). When in fact, within its regional context and at that specific location it is an extremely complex matter, which a fuller submission (to be supplied) will attempt to elucidate.

Conjunctively, it is noted that the proponent GWS, has, via Rezoning Review, sought to silence the impacted communities, by side stepping Liverpool City Council (LCC), which duly resolved to seek community consultation and input in the performance of its legislatively mandated function to advocate to other levels of government and act in the “best interests of community.” Apparently, such democratic norms are anathema to the proponent and an unreasonable impediment to its project(s) which can only be adequately assessed in 10-15 years’ time—once Cambridge Avenue Upgrade and Extension is finally complete.

To be as plain and direct as possible the EIS and Appendices in assessment of SSD–89673472 Glenfield Industrial Precinct–1 (GIP) has not and cannot possibly satisfy the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) on pages 1 to 3 and part of page 4. Any technical, statutory assessment that may be satisfactory are rendered a nullity and ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ due to disqualifying particulars of strategic contexts, environmental harm and operational impacts which leaves the project(s) without the means of prerequisite assessment or without valid merits or foundation—period. By contrast when viewed in its setting and in the context stipulated by Campbelltown City Council (CCC) within Attachment 2, it is self-evident Glenfield Industrial Precinct at either 80,000 sqm or 280,000 sqm does not merely lack merit but represents demerit. In addition to environmental harm due construction and human hazard and harm due to operation, GIP would avoidably retard the local, regional and state road network and thereby undercut the strategic goals of the Glenfield Precinct and Place Strategy, while pushing Moorebank Intermodal Precinct (MIP) into noncompliance. NSW T-Corp is part owner of MIP and Landcom is developing housing in Glenfield. As such GIP would irrevocably diminish the strategic goals of two NSW State Owned Corporations (SOC).

Page 6 of the SEARs clearly states that one of its “must comply” requirements was to consult “local and regional community and environmental groups”. RAID Moorebank falls in this category but received no contact from either GWS or their consultant. The Planning Proposal only came to light as function of membership to the MIP Communty Consultative Committee and the SSD only came to light as function of an old portal inbox. Meaning it was a complete fluke. More alarmingly, regarding the parallel “must comply” requirement to consult “the surrounding local landowners, businesses and stakeholders” the property and heritage item known as Glenfield Farm, did not receive mail or email notification and the landowner was not consulted.

It is due to efforts taken to inform our neighbours for the past three weeks up to this very evening, that this submission by RAID Moorebank Inc. constitutes only a preliminary objection on behalf its Committee and the weirder Community across Glenfield and Casula, Wattle Grove and Moorebank. Because most all of which were not informed of the exhibition of SSD—89673472 Glenfield Industrial Precinct—1. Moreover, given that Glenfield Farm was not notified it is reasonable to question whether any of measly number of 174 other landowners we notified in any way.

In view of the broader context of nearby developments, including but not limited to the Moorebank Terminals (1,550.000 TEU) and Warehousing (1.220.000 sqm) and the Glenfield to Macarthur urban renewal area (17,800 dwellings). And in view of the fact that the relevant section of the Cambridge Ave Upgrade is at least 15 years away (2041) as confirmed by the Traffic & Transport Impact Assessment (TTIA) the EIS cannot and has not delivered the required SEARs.

Moreover, any deeper analysis, would merely engage Residents, Councils, Panels and Planning Officers in error. Specifically, a Category Error because all of the “must comply” task(s) can only be achieved by assessing the full and cumulative impacts of 280,000 sqm of warehousing not 80,000 sqm of warehousing or “Stage 1” as it is presented in the TTIA. Furthermore, rezoning land use does not constitute an approval of any kind least of all a Concept Application that would permit later Staged SSDAs.

Accordingly NSW DPHI must abandon any further assessment of this SSD and set aside any Rezoning Review and instruct GWS to submit a Concept Application for the entire 280,000 sqm.

Being a local resident this will have a further effect on our life adding to the issues we are incurring due to the intermodal.
Traffic for us is horrendous and we are always at a standstill trying to go anywhere. The amount of heavy vehicles around are unsafe and causing damage to the already damaged roads that never get fixed. We have noise carrying through constantly from the traffic and workings and this will make it worse. The area already has an increase in the amount of pollution smells and this will now increase further with the extra movement of traffic that is already well above what it should be.

it seems ironic that prior to the approval of the Moorebank Intermodal, both State and Federal govts spruiked the benefits it would bring by reducing Sydney's pollution and traffic problems by taking thousands of truck movements off the M5. Containers would be sent by rail instead of diesel trucks.

In April 2019, the then DP&E commmissioned Todoroski Air Sciences to conduct an Air Quality Review of the Intermodal.Their prediction of the Receptor Maximum 24 hour exposure to PM2.5 was 24.5 microgram/cubic metre during the construction phase of the Intermodal. However, in the months of July to Sept 2022, the 24 hour readings of PM2.5 at the Air Quality Monitor nearest to Casula residents were well above the Todoroski predictions such as 77.5 on the 29/8/22,103.1 on the 30/8/22 and 111.7 on the16/9/22 to name just a few. The data regarding the hourly PM2.5 exposures is even more alarming.

These figures are putting sensitive groups ie pregnant women, asthmatics, children and seniors with existing heart and lung conditions at significant risk over the long term. A High school is also close by. There was also the matter of no data being collected for PM2.5 at the respective Air Quality Monitor for 10 months.

As I understand it, the Glenfield Waste Disposal Development is not required to undertake any emissions monitoring.

The Liverpool area is now averaging ambient PM2.5 levels above the NEPM standards and is in excess of 8.5 micrograms/cubic metre per annum and that excludes bushfire events. The Moorebank Intermodal experience has demonstrated that emission modelling cannot be relied upon and that sensitive groups in areas adjacent are not being informed of the true extent of their exposure to PM2.5. PM10 and NO2.And with the semi trailer (a major source of PM2.5) volumes to the Intermodal standing at only 20 percent of the future 10,000 plus trucks per day, it will get significantly worse. By that time, these excessive PM2.5 levels will become normalised. The approval of the SSD Glenfield site will only increase the PM2.5 on an overburdened area.

It's so disappointing to see how straightforward it is for these type of developments to be waived through.

I don't want my peaceful quality of life Reduced to noisy trucks and pollution constantly, the removal of beautiful walking areas for myself and Dog. Our house value will go downhill, you're basically turning our area into a skuzzy slumtown. I'm 65 years old, worked all my life, paid taxes and don't sit around waiting for govt hand outs. I expect better. Why would you even consider this in a residential area, do any of you live here? Would you like it in your backyard?? I think not.

I am a Hammondville resident and I object to the Glenfield Industrial Precinct – Precinct 1 proposal.

I am not opposed to development or local employment. What concerns me is that this proposal appears to rely heavily on broad claims about jobs and investment while the long-term costs to nearby communities are treated as secondary issues.

Hammondville and the surrounding suburbs already carry a large share of the impacts from freight, warehousing and major development in the Liverpool and Moorebank area. We already experience congestion, heavy vehicles, noise and pressure on a limited road network. This proposal would add another large warehouse and distribution development close to the Georges River and would operate around the clock.

The application should not be approved in its current form.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY PROVEN

The promise of jobs should not be accepted at face value. The Department should establish how many jobs would exist only during construction, how many permanent jobs would actually remain once the site is operating, and how many of those jobs would be genuinely new to Western Sydney rather than moved from another location.

The assessment should also explain what kinds of jobs would be created, whether they would be secure and reasonably paid, how many would realistically be filled by local residents, and how warehouse automation may reduce employment over time.

A headline jobs figure is not enough. The number and quality of jobs should be compared with other possible uses of the land, including uses that may create more employment per hectare and cause less damage to the environment and local road network.

The claimed economic benefit must also include the public costs of the development. These include road and intersection upgrades, ongoing road maintenance, congestion, emergency services, pollution monitoring, stormwater works, biodiversity loss, site remediation and long-term rehabilitation.

If these costs are carried by taxpayers, councils or local residents, they must be deducted from any claimed benefit. Congestion, pollution, flooding risk, environmental damage and reduced residential amenity are all economic costs. They do not disappear simply because they are discussed in separate reports.

Before any approval is considered, the economic case should be independently reviewed and tested against realistic assumptions.

THE PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN ISOLATION

Precinct 1 appears to be the first part of a much larger proposed industrial precinct. It would be misleading to assess it as though it were a stand-alone development with no connection to future stages.

Residents do not experience each project separately. We experience the combined truck movements, congestion, noise, lighting, air pollution, vegetation loss and pressure on infrastructure.

The Department should assess the cumulative effects of the full Glenfield industrial precinct together with existing and proposed freight and warehousing activity at Moorebank, continuing residential growth and other major developments in the area.

Approving the first stage may also make later stages much harder to refuse, even if their combined effects become unacceptable. The full precinct should be assessed before the first major stage is approved.

TRAFFIC AND ROAD CAPACITY ARE MAJOR CONCERNS

Hammondville and nearby suburbs depend on a limited number of roads and intersections. Additional worker vehicles, delivery vans and heavy trucks would place more pressure on Cambridge Avenue, Canterbury Road, Glenfield Road, Heathcote Road and surrounding routes.

The traffic assessment should not rely only on selected peak periods or assume that vehicles will always use ideal routes. It must consider the full precinct, Moorebank freight traffic, residential growth, school traffic, weekend and overnight operations, crashes, flooding, road closures and the risk of trucks using unsuitable local streets.

The development should not be approved on the assumption that major road upgrades may occur at some unknown point in the future.

Every road and intersection upgrade needed to support the proposal should be identified, fully funded and completed before the related warehouse operations begin. These costs should be paid by the development, not shifted onto the community.

GEORGES RIVER AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

The proposal is close to the Georges River and would involve clearing vegetation and habitat of high ecological value.

The development should be redesigned to avoid clearing wherever possible, particularly where clearing is mainly required to provide road access. The Department should require a genuine investigation of alternative access routes and site layouts before accepting that environmental damage is unavoidable.

Offsets should be a last resort, not a way of approving avoidable clearing.

The Georges River corridor is already under pressure. The assessment should consider the cumulative loss of vegetation, habitat and open land across Glenfield, Moorebank and surrounding areas, not only the impacts within this individual site.

FORMER WASTE SITE AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

The history of the land as a waste facility raises serious questions about contamination, landfill gas, leachate, ground settlement and long-term stability.

These risks should be independently reviewed. The community needs confidence that construction will not disturb contamination or allow pollutants to reach the Georges River.

There must also be clear and enforceable responsibility for long-term monitoring and rehabilitation, even if the land is later sold, subdivided or occupied by different businesses.

Residents and taxpayers should not be left responsible for problems that may emerge many years after the development is approved.

NOISE, LIGHTING AND AIR POLLUTION

A warehouse and distribution precinct operating 24 hours a day can create noise from trucks, loading docks, reversing alarms, refrigeration equipment and vehicle movements. It can also cause lighting spill, diesel emissions, dust and overnight disturbance.

These impacts should be assessed using realistic worst-case operations, not an assumption that future tenants will operate quietly or at low intensity.

Any approval would need strict and enforceable limits on noise, lighting, truck idling, outdoor loading and heavy-vehicle routes, supported by independent monitoring and publicly available compliance information.

REQUESTED OUTCOME

I ask the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form.

At the very least, it should not proceed until:

• the full industrial precinct has been assessed as a whole;
• the claimed economic benefits have been independently reviewed;
• all road and intersection upgrades have been identified, funded and programmed;
• alternative access arrangements have been examined to avoid vegetation clearing;
• contamination, flooding and Georges River risks have been independently assessed;
• the development is required to pay the full cost of the infrastructure and mitigation it needs; and
• strong, enforceable protections are in place for surrounding residents.

I support genuine local jobs and appropriate development. However, jobs and investment should not be used to excuse uncertain benefits while congestion, infrastructure costs, pollution risks and environmental damage are transferred to the surrounding community.

As a Hammondville resident, I am not satisfied that the claimed benefits outweigh the likely long-term impacts on local residents, the road network and the Georges River environment.

Please record this submission as an objection.

1. Put the car park at the other side, North side of the proposed project
2. Why was no view taken for the proposal from the high ground per the EIS EE pg22, btwn postion 4 and 5?. The land holders along Fergusson street are on even higher ground than Goodenough st. If Goodenough street Vis Impact is Moderate to Low... Fergusson st residents with be moderate to high, which clearly is unacceptable
3. It seems Fergusson st resident didn't get much of a mention in the reports, which clearly favour the applicant Postion 4 and 5 are low ground. A review is in order
4. Plant large mature trees on the north side of Cmbridge Ave to reduce visual pollution and of noise and light spill
5. Plant large trees/ hedging on the south side of Cambridge Ave to further reduce the increase in road noise from site traffic and trucks all hours of the day and night and no doubt public hoidays

I would like to ask you NOT go ahead with this project as it will create less habitat for Koalas in the area. As a national icon (Koalas) we should be preserving habitat like this for future generations to see animals in the wild.

Where this development is taking place is home to Koala’s and other native wildlife that are already displaced in the Glenfield area. Further development will destroy their habitat.

This area should be listed a an area of wildlife conservation. Koalas and other wildlife will lose lives and This will be destructive to the future of koala populations
Open green spaces should be preserved and not built upon. I object to this development

I object to the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct (SSD 89673472) because it would permanently remove critical koala habitat and further fragment one of the remaining habitat corridors supporting the Campbelltown koala population, which is recognised as one of the most significant and genetically important koala populations in New South Wales.

The proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer's Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in South Western Sydney (2020), which concluded that maintaining broad, functional habitat corridors is essential for koala movement, gene flow and long-term population viability. The review recommended protecting and restoring wide habitat corridors rather than relying on narrow linkages. The corridor remaining under this proposal is substantially narrower than the widths recommended by the Chief Scientist and is therefore unlikely to maintain an effective ecological connection.

The proposed treetop crossing is also an inadequate mitigation measure. Koalas regularly travel on the ground when moving between habitat patches, making them vulnerable to roads, fencing and other barriers. A canopy crossing does not address these ground movements and cannot replace the ecological function of an intact habitat corridor.

The proposal is also inconsistent with the objectives of the NSW Koala Strategy, which seeks to protect existing koala habitat, improve landscape connectivity and avoid further fragmentation of koala populations. The Strategy recognises that conserving existing habitat and maintaining connected landscapes is more effective than attempting to compensate for habitat loss after it occurs.

Finally, the proposed biodiversity offsets do not satisfy the intent of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW). While offsets may compensate for some biodiversity impacts, they cannot replace the ecological value of mature koala habitat within an established movement corridor or sustain the existing local koala

I find this development will be positive outcome for the local community.

I am very concerned about the impact this project has on wildlife. In particular, on the very important koala population nearby. The impact of increased traffic and the encroachment onto koala habitat is going to reduce the population even further. Please stop the rampant construction in the area and maintain the bushland. Now.

I strongly object to this project due to the environmental impacts. There is enough other land to be used - there is no need to take this space. We need to protect what we can.

Too close to existing residential area and there is not enough adequate road infrastructure. Will put too much of a strain on residential area. Natural bushland must be preserved. There is still plenty of space across the river at Moorebank.

The proposed warehouse project is close enough to residential areas to be a significant disruption to normal day to day activities. There will be increased traffic due to freight transport, since an increase in heavy vehicles to transport freight in the area will severely disrupt traffic flow in the area. There will also be increased noise due to increased activity in the area. If activity at the site is planned all throughout the day, then this will also disrupt night time sleep due to the noise.