Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Stage 3

I live on leacocks Lane directly across from said development proposal.

My concerns are:
- What hours will the trains be running, if they are arriving in late at night I highly believe this cannot happen due to being a high residential area and I already hear sydney rail trains but they are a lot quieter then freight trains.

- being of the age of 28 years old I have finally broke into the Australian dream of owning my home. I don’t obviously as yet but I am worried as to how this development would affect my house price in the foreseen future.

- I would like to also stress on the hours the warehouse will be working? 24 hours a day? I think this is u acceptable of the rate payers of the local area.

- I believe this industrial area is a great way of removing the trucks from the Sydney roads I just feel the location has been rushed and harshly thought of for the locals here in Casula.

I would like to see times of when the trains will be running when said development is complete and I would like to see restrictions put in place for the trading hours for those trains and businesses.

I would also like to see proof on how this development won’t affect the property prices in the area as we look out over what is currently bush land. With it changing to an industrial area I believe it will.

Please find our objection to this modification

The Environment, Energy and Science Group have no comments on this proposal.

Submission attached.

See written submission

I object to the subdivision of the MPW site into nine allotments as the proposal does not comply with the Liverpool LEP minimum plot size, and there is no reason that an exception should be made for this project that would not also apply to other commercial projects. The proposal should be declined.
The issue of traffic: the proposal should not be determined until any litigation in respect to traffic has been resolved. Given that the Moorebank facility is considered to be "the best location for an intermodal freight facility to service the industrial areas of South West Sydney," it should be made a condition that no trucks are to return from the Intermodal location to Sydney City, using the M5, Hume Highway, or any other road routes. There is also no provision apparently made for checking of roadworthiness or loads from the thousands of trucks that will move out from the subdivided MPW land. There should be a heavy vehicle inspection condition applied.
Traffic levels at Liverpool and the surrounding South West Sydney are already at or very close to capacity. The approval of this proposal is likely to create a traffic crisis in the Liverpool area, impacting on residents and commercial interests, as well as essential services. The very major traffic impacts of the Moorebank Intermodal project have been the subject of a number of reports given to consent authorities. These reports are publicly available.
The fill level proposed for the MPW site is excessive and will affect the downstream flooding profile, and will also create increased light spill to sensitive receivers.
Koala habitat and flying fox habitat will be removed, an action that is made more inappropriate given the loss of habitat during the bushfires. The proponents should undertake more studies and make more provision for maintenance of wildlife habitat on the site. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to cover such a massive site with fill and concrete.
The proposal states that rail construction and operation impacts are not relevant to this proposal, but in my opinion noise generated by the curved rail link is relevant to the proposal, which is to subdivide the land for warehousing. The warehouses may store some freight coming in from the South, on the curved spur line, and this may generate as yet unquantified noise in operation. The outstanding and unresolved issue of potentially excessive wheel squeal generated by the access curved spur lines therefore remains a matter of serious concern to me. I believe the issue of wheel squeal should be taken into account, and the subdivision proposal approval deferred until such time as the issue has been further examined and assessed.

Re: Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West – Stage 3 (SSD-10431)
DPI Fisheries has reviewed the EIS prepared on behalf of Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) for the proposed state significant development (SSD-10431) at Moorebank Precinct West (MPW), Stage 3 (Lot 1 DP 1197707 & Lot 100 DP 1049508).
DPI Fisheries is responsible for ensuring that fish stocks are conserved and that there is no net loss of key fish habitats upon which they depend. To achieve this, DPI Fisheries ensures that developments comply with the requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) (namely the aquatic habitat protection and threatened species conservation provisions in Parts 7 and 7A of the Act, respectively), and the associated Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (2013). DPI Fisheries is also responsible for ensuring the sustainable management of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal cultural fishing, aquaculture, marine parks and aquatic reserves within NSW.
DPI Fisheries has reviewed the proposal in light of these provisions and has no objections.
Please contact me if you required any further information.
Regards,
Josi Hollywood
Fisheries Manager – Coastal Systems Unit (DPI Fisheries)

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

See attached letter

I am objecting to the Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West Stage 3

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest.
I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long-standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the public interest.
I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site’s suitability and of it being in the public interest. I, and my local community, expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair , open and accountable way.
Thank you.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest. I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest. I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest. I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest.
I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest.
I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

The spread of 1,600,000 cubic metres of earth fill over whole site is something I disapprove of. After all who is going to be able to check every single one of the 650 daily earth fill trucks for contamination in the soil? Arriving and then leaving through East Liverpool and beyond local road system - creating 1300 truck trips a day with a maximum 20,000 m3 a day. The nearby roads will not cope.

This fact and that of the dangerous mix of heavy container trucks with daily congested traffic are sure signs that the site is not suitable for the development of a Warehouse Estate and attached rail terminal.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest. I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. I expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest. I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.

I support the long standing argued and exhibited case by local citizens and Liverpool City Council that the site is not suitable for the purpose and as such is not in the Public Interest.
I understand the NSW Planning Law under S4.15 of the EPA Act requires specific and proper evaluation of this proposal as to the site's suitability and of it being in the Public Interest. We expect the planning authorities to apply the law in a fair, open and accountable way.