Penrith Lakes - DA2 (DA86/2720) Modification 12 Penrith Lakes

As a long-term resident of 38 years in Farrells Lane Cranebrook, I am extremely concerned about the negative impact the huge amount of fill used in this project will have on the ability of stormwater runoff from the higher ground on the eastern side of Cranebrook village. we are already in a 1 in a 100 year flood zone and the proposal to build-up levels of fill on the western side of my Farrells Lane property, adding fill to the area west of Castlereagh Road at Cranebrook will effectively create a dam wall at the end of Farrells Lane, which will prevent runoff of storm water from the high ground to the east of Cranebrook village and cause flood waters to back up along Farrells Lane Cranebrook, and result in flooding of houses in the Farrells Lane / Sardam Avenue area.
A previous proposal to build up the land levels in the triangular land area behind my house, a piece of land that is bounded by Farrells Lane, Castlereagh Road, and to the rear of houses in Sardam Avenue, was rejected for the very same reasons I have listed above ... that any increase in land levels to the west of Cranebrook village will result in flooding of houses in the immediate area around Farrells Lane.
I have attached some pictures and videos of flooding along Farrells Lane in March 2022, if as proposed the land levels are built-up to the west of the area shown in the pictures, the flood waters will back up further along Farrells Lane and cause serious flooding to the many houses in the area.
Regards
Annette Dwight

As a long-term resident of 38 years in Farrells Lane Cranebrook, I am extremely concerned about the negative impact the huge amount of fill used in this project will have on the ability of stormwater runoff from the higher ground on the eastern side of Cranebrook village. we are already in a 1 in a 100 year flood zone and the proposal to build-up levels of fill on the western side of my Farrells Lane property, adding fill to the area west of Castlereagh Road at Cranebrook will effectively create a dam wall at the end of Farrells Lane, which will prevent runoff of storm water from the high ground to the east of Cranebrook village and cause flood waters to back up along Farrells Lane Cranebrook, and result in flooding of houses in the Farrells Lane / Sardam Avenue area.
A previous proposal to build up the land levels in the triangular land area behind my house, a piece of land that is bounded by Farrells Lane, Castlereagh Road, and to the rear of houses in Sardam Avenue, was rejected for the very same reasons I have listed above ... that any increase in land levels to the west of Cranebrook village will result in flooding of houses in the immediate area around Farrells Lane.
I have attached some pictures and videos of flooding along Farrells Lane in March 2022, if as proposed the land levels are built-up to the west of the area shown in the pictures, the flood waters will back up further along Farrells Lane and cause serious flooding to the many houses in the area.
Regards
Shane Dwight

Please refer to my letter attached

Please refer to comments in DA3, the same apply

As a resident of church lane, overlooking Penrith lakes. We strongly disagree with bringing in additional fill to DA3. If the area is to be made commercial or residential - we will have direct visual of the glare coming from the building roofs. Not to mention the dust that comes over the hill whilst the fill is being brought in. We have seen This already occur whilst they have been working close to DA3 this year!

We purchased the land from Penrith lakes with the knowledge that the land below would not be developed as it is prone to flooding. Currently, in high rainfall periods Penrith lakes (DA3) holds the brunt of the water and if you raise the RL level, Castlereagh rd will be too low and goes under water already at the crossing of the wildlife lake over Castlereagh rd from church lane escarpment. The traffic impact this has impacts residents greatly.

We are aware there is future developments of restaurants, shops and entertainment which we do not object to along “Penrith beach” But we strongly object to the commercial and residential areas along Castlereagh rd!

Penrith Lakes is suppose to be a water catchment and mitigate water to let the water in and the water out when the river subsides during a flood event which is currently not been used correctly.

As an ex employee that had worked at Penrith lakes (2006-2015) I have gathered a lot of photos and knowledge of the area. Part of DA3 near black clay Pitt was a tailings pond that we filled and is not supposed to be built on due to the instability of the ground. I witnessed many machines sinking while filling the tailings area, it is only capped to the RL level, top soiled and grassed on top. There are many photos and documents to support this statement.
How is this sufficient to now build infrastructure on??

Penrith lakes has a lot of history and should not be turned into a concrete jungle. It certainly seems like the shareholders of PLDC just want to fill and sell off the land to make money for themselves, not thinking of the land they are destroying. Penrith lakes is know for the parkland. Commercial or residential is not what the community want!

I, Domenic Young of 14 Sardam Avenue, Cranebrook NSW 2750, formally object to the proposed modifications under DA2 (DA86/2720) for the Penrith Lakes development. Given the area's existing flood risks, I believe that before 9.7 million tonnes of fill is imported across the Penrith Lakes DA2 & DA3 areas, significant upgrades must be made to the existing floodwater mitigation infrastructure on Farrells Lane and Sardam Avenue. The flooding experienced in 2022, which led several homes in Sardam and Farrells to seek government flood relief, demonstrates that the current infrastructure is inadequate to handle heavy rainfall.

Furthermore, the land between Sardam Avenue and Castlereagh Road currently acts as a lowland flood zone, quickly becoming overwhelmed with water runoff from the highlands to the east. Any development of this land without significant storm water infrastructure upgrades will guarantee direct and critical impacts to the residents of both Sardam Avenue and Farrells Lane.

I have received this letter of exhibition of state significant developlent modification application and to let me know to have my say.
I am not sure how much of " having my say " is going to affect the modification plan.
also who would know the details and how it will affect us.
what is really improtant that this project not to worsen the already increaed flood risk in our area! we are already paying hefty amount of money to insurances and cannot afford to pay any higher fees if this project is going to put us at more risk!

The other matter is risk of increased noise and traffice .

As a local resident for more than 40 years I have been watching the development of this site advertised as being for use by the residents of the local area for walking, cycling, fishing and swimming. So far we have only seen a part time swimming hole open for a very short period of the year.
We have had to put up with many years of large trucks and trailers regularly forcing their way out onto Castlereagh Road after dropping millions of tonnes of fill.
We were given the impression only 12 months ago that the land development was over and the site would be open to the public in the near future.
With this new DA I can only see more delays and more trucks that will see more generations of residents doomed to nothing for the public, and for what reason?
The stated function in the DA is to raise all of this area to the 0.2% flood level. But why? We can only foresee that this land will be rezoned for both expensive residential and commercial land.
Whilst this has been obvious for decades we also know that there will always be governments of all sides seeing dollar signs.
As we are to see these trucks for years to come please stop them from using McCarthys lane to enter Castlereagh road. This currently has several negative outcomes.
1. The famous Penrith Olympic Whitewater Centre uses that lane as its only driveway and the trucks cause surface damage and un-nerving effect on people attending the centre.
2. There is a school bus stop at that intersection.
3. People entering and leaving the Waterside estate opposite have to navigate around heavy vehicles entering from the "Lane" opposite.
If, this must go ahead it is obviously a money making exercise so surely the funds can be found to allow access via Old Castlereagh road or a fully formed intersection at another point along Castlereagh road. While that is being done the current laneway must be upgraded in honour of the fully fledged Olympic stadium that it is.

SUBMISSION – NOT FOR THE PUBLIC
Dear Chris,
As discussed, the proposal by PLDC is strongly rejected by us and for the silent resident for the following reasons:
1. Intentions: Why is this needed?
PLDC should be requested to provide a binding agreement to the Minister on is this intended to satisfy future levels for commercial/urban proposals. If so, the proposal should be clearly denied as based on the 1994 agreement with then State Government PLDC was required to simply rehabilitate the quarries with recreational areas and hand it back to the people. A binding agreement form the Minister to PLDC will clarify is now 9.7million tonnes to complete the 1994 agreement or is it something else with a hidden agenda.

2. Lack of direct consultation: Had it not been for your Department, PLDC have kept the residents in total darkness about this which is wrong. A decade ago, they had a community consultation committee for issues concerning a proposed Master Plan, yet this time, PLDC shows no effort to consult residents directly through impact studies, surveys, community conduits, etc.

This is very unprofessional by them versus the ex-CEO Patrice DERRINGTON in 2005 who clearly had the community at heart for the decade ago Master Plan to recreate the Suburb “Castlereagh”. This never eventuated due to the GFC.

The Minister should be aware for such a state significant development and in absence of Penrith Council now because PLDC has bypassed them to make this a state significant site, there is no community consultation anymore which is very disappointing by PLDC.

The Minister should request this occur from hereon and PLDC properly consult its community as some residents have been here locally longer than them.

3. Dangerous Dust flows across the area: The last 3.5 million tonnes introduced on windy days created very bad dust issues for acreage areas, Cranebrook and Waterside residents. PLDC did not do enough last effort to minimise the dust from the Scheme with water dust controls.

Instead, can you now imagine the terrible dust which will be created from 9.7 million dust of introduced fill with no sufficient or now greater water controls for dust suppression. Who checks the checkers? how were they monitoring when previously wind happened on a Sunday, yet no one is in that Scheme on a Sunday when that dust occurred… how have they thought about dust suppression when no employees are actually on site??

We have photos of our home that we can SMS to you if you would like to see what it can do when the Scheme’s dust blows our way.

They could have implemented a control by way having high visual CCTV that could have allowed through a portal for anyone to see then how much dust was throwing up from their works. Because they did not want to do this (even voluntarily), no assurances with dust control can be trusted. At minimum, they should be demanded to place in multiple CCTV cameras and in be publicly available across the Scheme to support 9.7 million tonnes of earth being introduced causing no dust as they claim. Transparency through this type suggestion is the key to allow the Minister maintain control of the dust issue and also enforce massive fines against PLDC where they breach any DA approval.

4. Traffic: Previously 3.5 million tonnes introduced created a lot of disturbance and road dirt from the trucks. As only Castlereagh Road is the main artery road, additional traffic will impede don existing residents. Instead, the trucks should be required to converse down Andrews Road then straight onto the old Castlereagh Road where the Cement Quarry was to remove the trucks form the main road. This will minimise traffic and noise to residents.

5. Biodiversity: Chris, the letter from Minster ELLISON is simply not good enough and does not pass the ‘pub test’. No technicalities here… no lawyers… common sense instead…

PLDC should be asked to provide proper detailed Biodiversity Reports given what residents have to experience with Penrith Council on their purple mapping of BC areas by State Government. Picture residents owning their own land versus PLDC who don’t ‘own’ the land thinking they are immune from biodiversity based on one legal advice letter. It doesn’t stack up.

It's not a good look that this large Scheme get around that on ‘technicalities’. Division 1 of Part 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 makes it quite clear of the illegalities to carry out actions that harm animals and plants. The Minister needs to protect the Scheme from biodiversity versus the legal opinion received and the NSW Attorney General could offer advice back to the Minister from the letter.

In the public interest test, PLDC should be made fully accountable for every plant, tree and animal that can suffer from 9.7m tonnes of introduced fill. If local residents are subject to this type of compliance by Penrith council as is occurring, so should PLDC.

They boasted on the north end of a wildlife lake to introduce vegetation and animals. With all these trucks flowing pass with the noise, how is that 'wildlife' lake not impacted? What a joke! on one hand PLDC boasted to all for years of this lake yet now choose not to do biodiversity reports where vegetation and endangered animals exist in the Scheme.

Additionally, the entire Scheme has no purple mapping like what residents have had to unfairly cop... why? The Minister needs to urgently have the entire Scheme assessed for biodiversity because it no longer is a quarry... that ended years ago.

6. Landowners Consent

We have reviewed Appendix D and again its simply not good enough. Where are the views and opinions of the Dharug Aboriginal Tribe though independent Muru Mittigar representatives?

Why are they not listed as an ‘entity’ on the Scheme given PLDC itself had a community office for these representatives on Andrews Road. How hypocritical is this…

What if aboriginal burial sites or relics are already known within those areas proposed… what respect is that showing to our indigenous community and to government?

The Minister should consider requesting PLDC or NSW Planning independently themselves consult with Muru Mittigar about this request. Inform PLDC you will do this because clearly PLDC failed to even acknowledge this issue about aboriginal and Dharug heritage in the Scheme.

Link: Muru Mittigar - Proud Dharug Aboriginal Social Enterprise and also see this…
Link: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/muru-mittigar-penrith-lakes-home-is-up-in-the-air-as-their-lease-on-the-site-comes-to-an-end/news-story/54e7a8e857b9b2fbe59b3404026fe145

Put simply, the application to us really shows no consent by any aboriginal land owner nor respecting it existed.

7. The math: 9.7 million tonnes requires a lot of trucks… lets go through the numbers. Say they want to do it over 2 years as you stated, which is 104 weeks or 730 days. Deduct the Sunday which is 104 days and we reasonably and quite still conservatively arrive to 626 days.

Think about it 626 days to now introduce 9.7 million not thousands of earths but millions.

Say each Dog and Trailer does 50 tonnes at the most, we then do 9.7m / 626 equals at least 154,952 tonnes of earth require to be done daily over 6 days a week for two years…

If say a Dog + Trailer can do 50 tonnes that’s 3,099 trucks daily… are they kidding!

In other words, from their previous VENM movements which created very bad traffic on one single artery road in and out, they now want at least a 200%+ increase in traffic on only one arterial same road used now by more new local residents and flow through traffic from and to Penrith. With deepest respect, this is single arterial road madness!

Recommendations:

A. If it is even considered, PLDC be requested to first build 2 new single lane roads on either side of Castlereagh Road specifically only for their trucks and on completion of the works can leave a legacy for the community with an extra lane on both side to also support any increased vehicular movements versus the disasters that will happened like on Old Windsor Road, we talked about. The math doesn’t add up Chris, and the Minister needs to direct them to first build upgraded roads as a priority for these trucks if they cannot receive a binding undertaking this earth is not to complete the 1994 agreement.

As the M7 is proposed to be extended such a new freeway (even a temporary path) could actually support this fill moving from the Metro this way and avoid congesting local roads… This requires strategic thinking here Chris to set up outer west roads/freeways for the future, not just moving 9.7m tonnes of earth for only PLDC’s self-interest.

B. Based on point 1, let’s clearly and slowly understand the intention behind this, the land if ever needs to be sold should per the 1994 agreement be handed back to the NSW Government for us (the community) to enjoy its recreational uses and be supported by the NSW community. It is not for these cement companies to profit from the Scheme as they achieved their contractual requirements in emptying the quarries for the sand and simply were required to now rehabilitate it back per the agreement. It is much appreciated what they did with Penrith Beach but our understanding was this was mainly funded by Government not PLDC so what have they done for people of NSW with this Scheme; the Minister should ask this of them… “what have you done before I even consider looking at these large numbers for a scheme you are suppose to hand back to us”. If PLDC want more than that Chris, then the Government through LANDCOM, etc should step in as those profits only go back to Government for the people not private interests as they have already profited from the sands in the Scheme.

Thank you for your time to receive this in-confidence submission.

I support the development modifications. However I have 3 points to make:
1. Why not fill up the area higher to improve flood resilience around the lake area.
2. Due to reduction over water storage capacity resulted from the increased fill, would you also consider increasing importation of fill on adjacent Cranebrook Rd properties to avoid flood damage to property?
3. Urbanise stormwater drainage along Cranebrook RD for flood resilience, community health and safety?

I am a resident in Sardam ave which is a part of a small number of residents sitting next to Cranebrook Park on the eastern side of Castlreigh Rd.
These residents fall within the focus zone but from what i can see do not appear to be directly attached to any area that is proposed to be subject to landfill.
As a resident of such close proximity to the proposed DA modifications i am seeking confirmation and clarity on a few points as set out below.
1, is the small grass area directly on the eastern side of Castlereagh rd and between Sardam ave and Farrells lane a part of the zone considered to be DA86/2720 modification 12.
2, if yes to point 1,. is this area proposed to have land fill.
3, Are the flood risk assessments taking considerations to run off from higher ground areas in Cranebrook that naturally run through Farrells Lane and Sardam Ave on the natural path towards Nepean River.
4, What steps have been put in place to prevent flooding from either river rise, torrential rain drainage and water run off from higher ground that may be or directly a result or impact of the raising of land within or around the lakes site due to the proposed landfill.
5, Can the lakes provide any guarantee the the proposed landfill will not cause flooding for residents within close or attached proximity to Lakes land.

Please refer to the attachments.