Mod 5 - Importation of VENM and ENM

Thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback.

I have generally read the Submission put forward by ARUP and make the following comments for action/review.

(i) The plan to add an additional 5M (from 3M) of VENM represents a 166% increase, hence, I am very disappointed that the RMS did not respond to ARUP which should have been included in the ARUP submission.

For this, I would like the RMS Minister be informed about this as a formal complaint given the significant concept of Penrth Lakes and the amount of additional VENM movement required to support this proposal.

Hence, can a RMS Minister's Representative contact me about this.

(ii) Given an additional 238 trucks are required to utilise the Cranebrook Road access routes, I respectfully ask NSW Planning/RMS seriously discuss with PLDC to consider a dual lane carriageway (like between Andrews Rd and McCarthys Lane) continue from McCarthy's Lane and 'Gate 3'.

I believe, this will seriously reduce accident risk between humans, bikes/vehicles and the large tonnage trucks needing access to/from Gate 3.

Again, the RMS should have provided a response to this important issue...

(iii) Although the majority of importation trucks are expected to occur outside commuter peak hours. The ARUP submission should indicate specific movement times... You cannot just say over 15hrs (7am to 10pm)... Hence, I strongly believe that the hrs between 7am and 9am and 4pm to 6pm should be more restrictive given the pressure that already exists on Castlereagh Road as an access route to/from Andrews Road.

I disagree with the ARUP Submission (Page 39) that the impact of the traffic modification is considered to be low...

238 Trucks per day creates alot of traffic and risk... again the RMS should have been an independent body to have commented about this risk level..

(iv) If the submission is approved, I (and many residents in agreement) would strongly like NSW Planning ensure that Cranebrook Village and Boundary Road is not allowed to be utilised for this truck movement.

(v) Years ago, PLDC had a community body (Penrith Lakes Community Advisory Committee) regarding proposed re-development of Penrith Lakes. The Body was disbanded, yet, major decisions are still occuring and the local community is unsure what is happening with Penrith Lakes.

Continued silence, will continue to cause concern amongst residents so can PLDC re-consider a community gorup to be informed about major decisions (like this modification submission) to allow community representatives offer honest community feedback. We are just asking to be more included about what is happening and things like this not be surprised upon us....

An additional 5M tonnes of VENM is not a small thing... Whats it being used for ?? is the submission (page 69) now confirming by PLDC its only for creation of landform for future parkland areas ???

Does this imply no residential Penrith Lakes development from hereon ?? I'm an ex-Penrith Lakes community member and I'm even confused... imagine the local community/residents...

(vi) As earlier stated, lack of a dual carriageway, presents clear risk also to bicycles and joggers versus one lane for existing traffic and trucks. Again, I would like the RMS Minister require RMS provide a documented submission to NSW Planning about this concern and whether they reject/support concerns for a dual carriageway between McCarthy's Lane and Gate 3.

(vii) Does this proposal have any connection to the Penrith Lakes subdivision proposals ? Can NSW Planning request PLDC provide documented commentary about this i.e. what is the future intended outcome for Penrith Lakes i.e. recreation, mix use, etc.. ??

Previously, we were mailed annousmously about these DA applications and a leaflet was observed at Cranebrook Shops.

This is not good and PLDC should be out there trying to explain the purpose of Penrith Lakes DA applications and confirming Penrith Lakes outcomes and will it relate to recreational space platforms, potential re-development, etc...

(viii) I could not access Penrith Council's response (page 20), can I have this emailed to me at [email protected]


In summary, I support PLDC's and its leadership team efforts to rehabilitate the site, however, am very concerned:

(a) the RMS offered no response (and given the proposal
clearly relates to vehicular movement/risk) - I would like the RMS Minister and local member, Stuart Ayres be informed about this.

(b) about lack of any dual carriageway between McCarthy's Lane and Gate 3 to support 8 million VENM movement.

(c) the modification impact on traffic and access risk level offered by ARUP without independent (RMS) review stated as low.

and

(d) seek PLDC clarify to NSW Planning the intended outcome for Penrith Lakes given this proposal and subdivision applications lodged with Penrith Council. Even PLDC have its internet site updated to reflect current events (what it has submitted, to whom and the purpose of the submissions, etc..)

I thank you for reading these thoughts and look forward to a RMS Minister representative also contacting me. Until RMS can provide independent commentary to the ARUP submission, I unfortunately cannot support it (but add this is not PLDC's fault given RMS' failure)...

The RMS Minister has a right to know how the Department operates and communicates on very important issues like this that affect the community in terms of safety, risk and our way of life. The Premier/Prime Minister themselves have stated traffic jams are a thing we need to consider when planning for the future (hence my comments why a dual carriageway be considered)..

I won't even comment on further issues about local flooding from Penrith CBD (under Railway Bridge) which requires road closures and massive vehicle pressure onto Castlereagh Rd after Andrews Road... can you imagine adding 238 trucks.... Check Facebook and local press for pictures that proves this..

8 million VENM movement on one road with 200+ trucks daily (Mon to Sat) over several years deserves a better RMS response...

Re: Submission to Department of Planning and Environment: Ref No. 10/2465 - Section 75 W Modification Applications for the Importation of Additional Fill

I refer to the notice of exhibition (covering email dated 17 October 2010) for the importation of 5 million tonnes of additional fill associated with the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

Please find attached Council's submission on the proposal.

Specific concern is raised with the quality of the information submitted as part of the application, the intentions of the applicant for the fill and the indicated absence of site monitoring over the last decade.

It would be appreciated if confirmation of submission receipt could be provided, and that any additional information submitted to address these concerns is forwarded to Council for further review.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached