Horsley Park Industrial Facility - Stage 1

Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc calls on the NSW Government to honour the content of the Urban Bushland Biodiversity Study (1997) wherein it recognises the ecological value provided by rural dams.

We note two rural dams exist on the subject property. It appears that the largest of the two dams affords the greater ecological and habitat function. At the very least we ask that this dam be retained.

It is disappointing, even obscene, that the proponent is developing expansive tracts of land in Western Sydney with almost no commitment to conservation of our natural heritage. Engagement of the 'developer preferred' Whelan InSites (formerly Guninah) is no commendation of the proponent.

Many, many million of dollars windfall from land development with negligible commitment to conservation and will the NSW Government keep giving over?

Despite the developer friendly assessment by Whelan InSites it could not avoid noting a broad diversity of native birds in and around the rural dams. What vertebrate and invertebrate fauna is under the surface of the water is not
indicated. Thus the assessment is incomplete.

Surely the larger of the two rural dams can be retained?Surely the alignment of buildings and infrastructure can be modified slightly to accommodate retention of the larger rural dam and thus retain the habitat and foraging function it has performed for some time?

Such a realignment will result in only a miniscule reduction in the multi million dollar profit the proponent will derive from the land. Surely, this conservation measure is better than having to slowly drain the dam, have qualified people present to carefully translocate vertebrate fauna to a suitable alternate habitat?

Or is the intention of the proponent and the NSW Government to inhumanely drain and crush with bulldozers whatever vertebrate fauna dwells under the water surface? We hope those involved in the matter are not as debased as that.

As indicated already, NSW Government documents demonstrate the ecological value of rural dams. We ask that this be honoured in this matter through retention of at least the larger of the rural dams on the site and that the dam be fenced off during construction with stipulation that contractors are not to use water in the dam for dampening excavated ground or for other purpose.

Wayne Olling
Secretary
BDEG

Project Application Number (10_0129 and 10_0130)

The development is clearly incompatible with the rural landscape and integrity of Capitol Hill and Horsley Park. Apart from this , the development will have the potential to adversely affect the interest of residents in Capitol Hill in the following ways :

1. Visual Impact , At current we have beautiful views which will totally ruined by having views of large factories.

2. Warehouses will be clearly visible from Capitol Hill Drive

3. My family moved to capitol Hill estate to enjoy the pleasure of the Rural environment and peacefulness, which i am sure other families have made the change to live here .

4.Impact of noise not only during the course of construction, but through the emissions from the operation of the development during both day and night. While this Concept plan leaves open the nature of the use of any particular warehouse, noise is likely to be generated through the use of semi trailers, forklift, roof fans , reversing alarms and mechanical plants. The increase in transport vehicles on nearby roads.

5. Air Pollution and other pollutants,

6. The likely devaluation of properties in the area.

As a resident of Centennial Court Mt Vernon, I am lodging a submission objecting strongly to the concept plan

Wanting to know more about the application and how it will affect the residents in the street.Have not been able to see any setout on the web site and due to the fact I cannot get to the Council Chambers during work hours.I would therefore request an outlining proposal be posted on the web or a directory of were it may be found.
Are there any traffic proposals to be instigated that will affect the access to the sites,is there any future thought being considered on access to and from the freeway as it is only just coping with the extra lane that has been made available @ old Wallgrove and Wallgrove Road.
Proposing a Business Park already within a busy industrial park with only one way in and out and expecting it to cope with increases in traffic and no upgrade to access,
If there is an accident at this intersection,as there has been in the past,the only way to get out is to fly out .

Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc calls on the NSW Government to honour the content of the Urban Bushland Biodiversity Study (1997) wherein it recognises the ecological value provided by rural dams.

We note two rural dams exist on the subject property. It appears that the largest of the two dams affords the greater ecological and habitat function. At the very least we ask that this dam be retained.

It is disappointing, even obscene, that the proponent is developing expansive tracts of land in Western Sydney with almost no commitment to conservation of our natural heritage. Engagement of the 'developer preferred' Whelan InSites (formerly Guninah) is no commendation of the proponent.

Many, many million of dollars windfall from land development with negligible commitment to conservation and will the NSW Government keep giving over?

Despite the developer friendly assessment by Whelan InSites it could not avoid noting a broad diversity of native birds in and around the rural dams. What vertebrate and invertebrate fauna is under the surface of the water is not indicated. Thus the assessment is incomplete.

Surely the larger of the two rural dams can be retained? Surely the alignment of buildings and infrastructure can be modified slightly to accommodate retention of the larger rural dam and thus retain the habitat and foraging function it has performed for some time?

Such a realignment will result in only a miniscule reduction in the multi million dollar profit the proponent will derive from the land. Surely, this conservation measure is better than having to slowly drain the dam, have qualified people present to carefully translocate vertebrate fauna to a suitable alternate habitat?

Or is the intention of the proponent and the NSW Government to inhumanely drain and crush with bulldozers whatever vertebrate fauna dwells under the water surface? We hope those involved in the matter are not as debased as that.

As indicated already, NSW Government documents demonstrate the ecological value of rural dams. We ask that this be honoured in this matter through retention of at least the larger of the rural dams on the site and that the dam be fenced off during construction with stipulation that contractors are not to use water in the dam for dampening excavated ground or for other purpose.

Please inform us of the intention with vertebrates in the rural dams. This is an issue of public interest because of sensitivity as to how our society deals with animals.

Wayne Olling
Secretary
BDEG

I strongly disapprove of such a devaluing, ugly and polluting
Feature in this pristine and beautiful
Rural area, I have paid a a lot if money to evade
Industrial area, and this was never in the plans
When I purchased this property.
I believe this will heavily devalue my property
And I strongly disapprove such a ugly development

After reviewing the proposal I find that this development will be detrimental to residents of Horsley Park. The continuing encroachment of industry on the semi-rural outlook of Horsley Park needs to stop.

Increased noise and air pollution will further add to the decline in the quality of life.

There has been no regard given to the local residents at all. It's like we don't even exists.

There would appear to be undue haste to develop employment lands south of the Sydney Water pipeline without an adequate approved road network to service the area into the future. This is especially the case as the same company has ample appropriately zoned land north of the pipeline available for development within the easy catchment of the already approved Erskine Park Link Road (EPLR) project.

In the Director General’s Environmental Assessment Report which is part of the EPLR Concept Plan it recommended, among other things,:
“-the deferral of the upgrade to Old Wallgrove Road (where acting at the second southern connection) pending further detailed consideration on the appropriate location of the second northsouth link as part of the work being conducted for the Western Sydney Employment Area;” [Executive Summary Page i]

Thus the network roads south of the pipeline were expressly omitted from the approved EPLR Concept Plan and were to be subject to a further Environmental Assessment and public scrutiny at some time in the future.
“2.3 South-West Precinct Connections
The proposed Erskine Park Link Road Network originally included areas north and south of the pipeline, with a southern road corridor running parallel to the Sydney Water pipeline connecting to a new interchange with the M7. This was removed from the proposed concept plan prior to the lodgement of the Environmental Assessment on the grounds that further investigations would be required before the final alignment and scope of works could be determined. This was particularly influenced by the presence of the Western Sydney Employment Lands Investigation Area and the need to ensure that any influence this may have on the final road alignment was appropriately considered.
However, in recognition that the southern road would require connections to areas north of the pipeline, two connections have been indicated in the concept plan (refer to Figure 4).
This issue is currently being progressed as part of the Department’s consideration of the WSEA SEPP amendment and the Western Sydney Employment Lands Investigation Area (WSELIA). This may result in the relocation of these connection points.” [ERLR Concept Plan DG’s Environmental Assessment Report Page 5]

Since the approval of the EPLR Concept Plan there have been a variety of maps displayed variously showing roads south of the pipeline as “strategic road corridors”, “future connections to be investigated” and probably the worst being “proposed roads” which is how it has been described in the Jacfin project. Furthermore it is disturbing to read that:
“The two RTA Erskine Park Link Road assessment reports established that, when fully developed, the entire Hub area west of Wallgrove Road would need to be served by the Erskine Park Link Road and connections as described above plus by a major east west road south of the pipeline on an alignment that connected Bakers Lane in the west with the M7 Motorway in the east. The RTA is currently investigating an alignment for this new road in the eastern section but the most likely connection point would be via Chandos Road which has a grade separated crossing of the M7 Motorway.” [Jacfin Transport Report Appendix I1 Page 3].

As a resident in the path of this potential connecting road I find it most upsetting that these projects can progress to what would appear to be a final stage without the affected residents being advised of the activity to say nothing of what would appear to be RTA ignoring the requirement for a new Environmental Assessment for such projects south of the pipeline.

The Jacfin project, and to a lesser extent the Oakdale Central project, are making assumptions that all of these so called SEPP roads are going ahead in the areas designated. By drawing them into their plans of their developments they are effectively determining the route of roads which is not only not within their power but not within the power of the RTA or the approval authority as these possible roads have not yet had the benefit of a public environmental assessment as was required under the EPLR Network approval.

It is also unclear from the Jacfin proposal as to what contributions that they may make to whatever SEPP roads are finally approved. Surely, given the fact that they will benefit from such expenditure they should pay a substantial amount for the provision of these roads which is required at Concept Plan stage and not left to the suffering NSW taxpayers to foot the bill.

Overall I think that it is an opportunistic development application which is endeavouring to maximize the returns to the developer at the expense of the local residents and, if no contributions are received, at the expense of all NSW taxpayers.

As per attachment

As per attachment

Please see our attached comment.

Please see attachment

Please see attachment

Please see attachment

Please see attachment