MOD 2 - Boundary Adjustment and Basin 9 Design Adjustment

I would like to object to MPE Stage 2_SSD 7628 Mod 2. This appears from documentation provided to involve a 1.5hectare land encroachment on and development by the Moorebank Intermodal applicants, of part of an area they are in my opinion inappropriately calling the "Butchers Knife" when it is highly ecologically sensitive buffer zone land for the fully protected "boot land" Cumberland Plains woodland. They want to put batters for a water detention basin OSD2, which presumably could have been designed within their vast development footprint. There will be impacts (destruction) to threatened flora on the 1.5 hectares, and also impacts (weeds, hydrology impacts, pollution etc) on the adjacent boot land woodland. It is a radical transformation of their approved plans, and the modification should be refused. It is unclear why a different design could not be used in order to preserve this irreplaceable ecologically important land.

The proposed changes to the southern boundary of MP East is unacceptable as removing the highly sensitive buffer zone will cause long term damage to the fully protected Cumberland Plains Woodland (Boot Land). This additional proposal after approvals had been completed to ensure this area remains protected is totally unacceptable by the company and shows they have no interest in working with the local community or showing any regards for the local environmental issues and surrounds.

With the project nearing commencement where receipt of Containers will take place, the first trucks carrying containers away from the Intermodal site will begin to impact our local roads. To this point, there has still been no options for a solution to the M5 Weave & Merge for both East and West Directions, currently listed as being one of the worst black spots in the state. The increase of trucks, both departing and travelling to the Intermodal site, into this already congested area will only increase the major issues being experienced and no doubt, increase the number of accidents and most likely, also fatalities. For the Department of Planning to allow this project to proceed and the trucks to start rolling without proper solutions in place, let alone even identified and thus endangering the lives of the South West Community is a severe oversight for all those involved.

Any modification to the current approval covering the Hibbertia
Puberula should not be allowed.

I find it disturbing and immoral that this request for more land is in a highly ecologically sensitive buffer zone land for the fully protected "boot land" Cumberland Plains woodland which was previously saved in a court case.
There will be impacts (destruction) to threatened flora on the 1.5 hectares, and also impacts (weeds, hydrology impacts, pollution etc) on the adjacent boot land woodland.

I am confused and angry that
this developer obtains an approval and then requests a modification, increasing the impact that that this inappropriate operation will have
on the local residents and environment. When will the proponents cease making changes to their development and give nearby residents peace of mind?

I have attached the details of my objection in the attached document

How nice these people are again making a mockery of themselves through poor planning, poor modelling, a multitude of project amendments and incompetent management.

Suitable provision for detention structures is more than adequately available in the land that sits to the south east boundary of the already allocated site (to the east of the proposed acquisition). Sufficiently large parcel(s) of land have been gifted to the proponents presently to undertake appropriate drainage and holding of water within the boundary of the current site without extension. Sufficient time has been gifted to the proponents for accurate assessment, modelling and concept amendment for a hydrological plan (or SMP) considering all relevant factors (flow volumes, velocity, gradients, basin volumes, catchment areas, treatment requirements, etc).

There has been sufficient time to adjust this well within the relatively early phases of construction. With successive amendments to the original plans, due diligence on environmental impact and potentially a review of a fire risk assessment including the detention and discharge of runoff (surface) waters within the catchment boundary should well have been accurately and precisely (give or take) planned, openly consulted and incorporated into the previous plan. Not now through an amendment with a land grab application. Unacceptable! Stage 2 had approved the expansion of land uses and did not explore the requirement for storm water provisions from runoff.

And what of the detention of water in a basin on the margins of a development in a wet weather event? Once water overflows from infrastructure and is transported off site, what then? Has the whole PFAS mess disappeared? Good.

Section 4.55 of the EP&A Act indicates "modifications involving minor error misdescription or miscalculation. Is this what we are dealing with? If so, is this the "get out of jail free" card for the proponents on a number of calculations and projections that they have provided, such as traffic? I digress, but here we are.

Page 11 of the MPE Concept Plan Approval Mod3 states:

"The initial stage of the amended SMP, MPE Stage 2 Warehouse 1 Precinct Stormwater Management Plan (SMP W1P) (Arcadis Australia, 2018), was approved by DP&E on 2 July 2018. SMP W1P applies to the area known as the Warehouse 1 Precinct (W1P), located in the north-west corner of the MPE site (shown in Figure 5), and is currently being implemented.
The second stage of the SMP, the MPE Stage 2 Stormwater Management Plan – Balance of Site (SMP BoS), prepared by Costin Roe, was submitted to DP&E on 23 October 2018. The SMP BoS includes an amended stormwater development layout and design in response to the requirements of CoC B40. The design of the amended stormwater system comprises: • a reduction in the size and number of OSDs at the site, i.e. replacement of central linear basins with underground tanks and redesign and relocation of OSD 1 to include 1V:4H batters; and • inclusion of 1V:4H batters for the revised OSD 2 in an expanded location into the land described as the “Butcher’s Knife” to the south of the MPE site (Lot 4 DP 1197707) "

Do the proponents intend upon having a whole precinct plan considered and delivered holistically as one project? They have failed. Now they ask for more land? Is PAC to reward the proponent's tardiness, lack of detail and incompetence by gifting this land for an oversight? Outrageous! NO! Why this project design adjustment has been made this late in the game again exposes the inadequacies of the proponent frequently amending project design and infrastructure through "ad nauseum" staging modifications, reflects tardy projections and modelling, and exposes management incompetence to appropriately plan and execute a project of this complexity, dynamic nature and magnitude. They continue on page 12 of the MPE Concept Plan Approval Mod3 to concede that provision for the above did not account for any spatial requirement for compliance required in the Stage 2 modification. This proposal to land grab is ultimately not the solution for the required amendment to the Stormwater Management Plan. Batter slopes from Mod2 could be modified within existing boundaries or margins of approval, not extend them, and there are other solutions most achievable with the margins of the land within which they have approved use of and intend to operate within.

Sufficient land has been gifted to the proponents. Sufficient chances and opportunities have been given to plan appropriately and in a timely fashion. The storage and remove the safe surface gradient modifications (1v:4h) at an area beyond the defined boundary indicates at this point in time, truly poor planning. The review of the site plan should well have had the "detail" alarm bells ringing to contain the warehousing, hardstand, green and development areas within currently defined margins, not to compromise them. Unacceptable request! They have failed to plan appropriately and request that the Commonwealth to pay, the PAC supplicate their failure and the fragile environment to yield - again and again. I sternly say nay to this proposal. 83 hectares is enough. Any of Lot 4 DP 1197707 is an injustice. No more.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.