Mod 1 – Concept Proposal Changes

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because the extent of change, interruption and impact on the surrounds and community for a project that is not yet fully approved is unacceptable.
The traffic around the area has become worse during 2016 and the original numbers would be out of date as on the majority of days the westbound afternoon peak on the M5 has become a bottleneck with traffic crawling all the way back from past Casula & M7 exit to Fairford Rd. At the beginning of the year, on the majority of days this traffic would have a reasonable flow.
Any thoughts of using Anzac Rd for the trucking of dirt onto the site is a total disrespect for the local community as with the Intermodal submissions - local roads are out of bounds for the trucks.
This whole concept lacks in financial benefits where as has a great impact on the local community.
The LGA is happy to have this project in its boundaries, but at a much suitable and profitable area.

Submission on modification request on Moorebank Intermodal Stage 1 SSD-5066 (Early Works)
Submission provided by Allan Corben

Firstly I must place on record my amasement that such a large remediation issue was totally overlooked during the original studies. These people are supposed to be professionals yet they obviously failed to observe that the site wasn't level, or was the failure deliberate??? It also questions the validity of the overall studies

3.1 Page Proposed Modification, 13 & 14: Shows the requested modification of working hours. I totally oppose any modification to the working hours with the exception of 6.00 to 7.00am week day mornings. The reason: (1) Many people start their working day early and to have this operation going till 10.00pm weeknights is unacceptable. (2) For most people weekends are exactly that, time for people to relax and recharge for the forthcoming week. It's selfish of the proponents to even consider extending the Saturday workday from 1.00pm to 6.00pm

3.2.3 Construction Methodology, Page 22: The commitment to the suppression of dust is very vague. Reason: (1) There is no advice as to suppression of dust from the crushing facility, which I note has two to three crushing processes. (2) Virtually no haul roads. People living in the suburbs surrounding the site should not be expected to contend with dirt floating or blowing over their properties or impacting on their health (This needs to be a watertight condition)

3.2.8 Construction traffic movements, Page 25: (1) States that the daily truck movements will be 1,490. My concern is that when the calculation is done based on proponents figures the result will be during the 6 to 9 month period there will be between 232,440 and 357,600 truck movements into the local road network during that period. I have great concern at this number of heavy vehicles coming into the area as there will be no road upgrades in place to cope with this additional volume. Time and time again our community has raised this issue with both the Government and the proponents of the fact that the local road network is near capacity as it is, yet they keep rambling on down the track in ignorance of the facts (2) Its obvious that the proponents are only interested in getting their vehicles in and out of their premises. They have absolutely no interest in impact this traffic will have on the local network road, IE not their problem. Monitoring of the total road network , not only the site entry point must be carried out by an independent body.

5.1.2 Impact assessment, Page 35: Shows those 16 daily trips to Glenfield Waste Facility will be required. Due to the narrow causeway the risk of a potential accident involving passing on the causeway exists. As such strict conditions need to be applied to ensure the number of trips aren't exceeded.

5.4 Noise & vibration, Pages 48/49/50: No mention is made to noise level of the crushing plant. The crushing plant will potentially create high levels of noise and dust and as such should be assessed under a separate development application and not approved as a modification

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because of the negative impact it will have on the surrounding environment. I live in moorebank and I already experience traffic noise, pollution and delays in my usual commute. I expect the introduction of the intermodal will increase this significantly. I worry about the health of myself and my family and the value of my property should this go ahead.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because of the impart on the local roads, the liverpool area is already choked with traffic, eg Heathcote Rd, nuwarra rd and Brickmakers drive is at a stand still in peak hour traffic.
Also im afraid of the air quality for my children, as Liverpool already had the worst air Quality in Sydney. The old diesel trains ejected a lot of carbon emissions in to the atmosphere.
We do don't need this in Moorebank.

I object to parts of the Modification Request on the basis of SIMTA being either untruthful or incompetent in their submission. I have no objection to those parts of the work with have a practical necessity of the project: removal of non-protected vegetation, installation of sediment and erosion control works, establishment of internal roads and construction/parking compounds. I do object to the importation, stockpiling, crushing and screening of materials additional to those materials listed in those parts of the project approved. SIMTA has had 3 years in which to submit, have endorsed by Federal Government , be subject to Planning and Environment determination and largely ignore the life changing and threatening issues raised by immediate neighbours, affected bodies and a number of expert groups. After all these processes, and on the eve of the commencement of works, SIMTA now requests significant modifications. Either SIMTA has been untruthful in its original documentation or simply incompetent to now find they forgot about the need for 1.6 million cubic metres of fill for ground works to be bought to site, crushed in an installed plant, to be stockpiled in an operation to be ongoing for 6 to 9 months and involving of some 30,000 truck loads. I cannot read that Environmental and Community Impact Studies and Statements have been prepared in regard to this notification, but obviously these assurances will be forthcoming before any decision will be made I expect? No doubt SIMTA by either this process or other means will 'get what they now discover they need', but the community receives nothing in return. There is no deterrent to SIMTA finding they have forgotten to, or simply have not been honest enough, so will submit other modification requests. As a minimum the movement of any such additional materials should not occur during peak traffic times for the Moorebank/Liverpool area and should attract a $5,000 per load impost with all funds used exclusively by the affected Councils to in-part finance some of the impact on ratepayers for road upgrades, noise abatement, and traffic management measures as a result of the building and operation of the Moorebank Terminal. For indeed, SIMTA makes no financial contribution to the community for this commercial and profitable, to them, operation, unlike the surrounding businesses, ratepayers and all other commercial are required to do through rates, chargers and taxes. In conclusion the operation of this facility should be conducted within the same rules governing all building projects as to their hours of construction

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because as a local resident with a young family I am seriously concerned about the excessive pollution a significantly increased number of trucks will bring to this small area. Additionally roads in this area are already at capacity, adding yet more trucks to the congested M5 corridors will create chaos.
The poor road quality and inability for the current infrastructure to withstand medium levels of rain fall, brining gridlock to this community makes it outrageous to consider an oversized terminal places here...Especially given that the freight will need yet further trucking to destinations.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because community don't deserve it.

I object to this modifications, on merit and on principle because...
It will impact our area make it more crowded that how it's. The are doesn't cob with the current traffic, our are roads need improvement not more traffic and pollution of all sorts.

The proposed filling operation is extra to the scope of works to which extensive public debate was invited by the proponents on earlier exhibition and public information sessions. The additional scope is so large and potential impacts so great the community has not been given the opportunity to be informed as to the compound affects on both pollution, heat sink and traffic perspectives.
It can be argued that had the proponents revealed the full scope of works earlier more extensive community opposition and government reconsideration of the suitability of the location would have presented
The effects of the Georges River would be extensive increasing flood risks down stream and damaging the natural ecology. The additional fill would raise the property making value increases to heat sink effect on surrounding populations. The surrounding environment may receive temperature increases of 4-6 Degrees Celsius in summer heat waves making ambient 35-40 degree current achievable and experienced temperatures to achieve dangerous to health elevated levels due to the combined effect of compacted levels and the intended preparations purpose for steel container storage. In my view the project lacks sheer logic.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because...well, where does one start.
1. Pollution
2. Traffic congestion
3. Noise
To name a few, More bank and surrounds is a relaxing family friendly area. Why have we been targeted for this monstrous infrastructure? Once again, infrastructure is a 20 year afterthought. Why not think to the future and relocate to an area that won't be medium density residential housing for many years to come or near an airport ie badgerys creek? Much smarter. My house is my home, my home is my investment. My only investment, and my only children's investment. Are you going to commensurate me when my house price drops $300,000 or more because of freight infrastructure that has been put in the wrong place? Just because it was easy? The intermodal needs to be relocated.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because...
I live in the area and this would absolutely destroy our community, the traffic congestion and most importantly the health of our kids and family.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because of the additional pollution and traffic congestion this project will cause the local community. There are a later number of schools and Childcare facilities nearby and our children should not be exposed to this under any circumstances. This project will lead me to relocate from a suburb I grew up and and intent to live in for the rest of my life.

This development is absolutely not appropriate for this residential area it is absolutely not fair or right for all the residents of this community to be dumped with this huge burden, which will affect local health and huge disruptions to our local roads, including enormous increase in noise and our local traffic.
The decision makers have not adequately taken into consideration the views of local families, which the majority have young children and have chosen this area to raise their families in a quiet and clean environment, before this rubbish has been dumped up on, almost disrespecting the views and opinions of this community.
We sincerely urge you to reconsider this unfair project, and find another place, which is more appropriate!

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because...We live in a Retirement/Aged Care village of 170 residents which is going to be affected by noise, dust, lorry traffic etc in the MOOREBANK & nearby ara which will undoubtedly be adversely affected by the construction & operation of this Terminal, thus reducing our quality of life.

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because...
- pollution
- traffic
- noise
- air quality
- roads can not take all that amount of trucks

I object to these modifications, on merit and on principle because the conditions set out in the original application have been ignored and modified them on the assumption that later applications will be approved!!!
This is blatant and sneaky attack on the Moorebank residents and therefore should not be allowed to proceed with any development whatsoever!!!

This inland container terminal is in the wrong place. It will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars which is not necessary due to location. The facility if built will increase the incidence of health problems within a community which is as close as 300 meters The introduction of 1.6million m3 of fill to level this site is yet another unneccesary imposition on our community The PAC commissioners were presented the facts which proved the facility should not be approved they chose to believe erroneous figures presented by MICL and SIMTA and now piece by piece these large businesses are moving forward even before development is approved on the entire area, With preparation for building.
Preparation which will be dangerous to our health with the excessive dust pollution Dangerous to our mental health through lack of quiet and ability to rest due to extended working hours crushing stone and rock etc on site to produce fill
The community must be recognised and supported in their fight for a fair go, a community who want to live and raise their families in a quiet, clean, safe environment We also do not want our tax dollars wasted on this monstrosity

Stop the go forward of this facility

See attached

Please include this information file re HEAT factors potential for heat radiation to surroundings from hard stand/container storage as Liverpool gets so hot in summer and cold in winter.
The file whilst a study on refrigerated container performance reveals remarkable and considerable heat stress on the container when exposed to extremes of temperature indicating an extrapolation to excessive surrounding environmental disturbance by the large hard stand creation proposed in the modification as it is to be performed to facilitate the specific purpose of container handling and storage and will add to this heat sink load.

Please see attached