As the owner of an important heritage item, Glenfield Farm, I object to the applicants appropriating the Glenfield name for this redundant, carpet warehousing intrusion into an important curtilage, or heritage landscape. Photos provided by the applicant were not taken from Glenfield Farm, but from the road adjacent. The view provided is not the viewpoint that will be affected by the development.
The development will seriously impact age old views from the escarpment and from the colonial era Glenfield Farm. It will create light spill, noise, and serves no useful purpose for South West Sydney. This development should not be a state significant development. The undersubscribed Moorebank Intermodal provides warehousing for the area, and to this day creates an unacceptable risk of traffic gridlock if all the trucks finally get on the road. To allow further warehousing with associated truck activity on the over-burdened local and wider road network is an unacceptable risk.
The applicants appear to hold the view that warehousing and driving jobs, and not even that many in an automated environment, are the pinnacle of achievement for South West Sydney residents. This is not the case. The land could be used in a far more appropriate way. The small riparian corridor proposed apparently can host paths, amenities, jetties, wharves, and boat storage facilities - and where do the koalas squeeze past?
Light spill and noise will also affect and may finally terminate the endangered grey flying fox colony which visits Glenfield Farm in smaller numbers each year, and will also affect the human residents, already highly impacted by the SSFL. Is it the view of planners that if residents already face high levels of industrial noise, a bit more doesn't matter?
The applicants optimistically state that the site does not contain a heritage item - yes it is a heritage item, part of a heritage curtilage, as above. It also states that "located directly West of the site is an existing residential dwelling which is surrounded by extensive vegetation." That presumably would be Glenfield Farm, surrounded by Leacock Regional Park, the area's large green space, and part of the developing environmental/heritage/recreation area being developed by Liverpool City Council.
To give this insensitive and indeed destructive proposed development a state significant development status is state irresponsibility. It opens the door to a parade of modifications as per the Moorebank Intermodal development, and ignores the history of the site.
The large adjacent area was long designated recreational land by Liverpool City Council, and the Council has rightly declined to change the zoning on this land, as recreational land is a priority of the rapidly developing South West Sydney residential area.
It has been suggested (by myself) to Council that this land could best be used as a much longed for stadium, or sports complex, or riverside moonlight cinema etc. I note that access to this valuable legacy site from the Glenfield passenger rail hub, would have to be through the Campbelltown site in question here, and the access issue is something in which the state planners should be taking an interest.
The application should be declined on the grounds of duplication of already under performing warehousing in the area, traffic impacts, extremely poor use of riverside land, and a potentially incompatible usage given the recreational zoning of the other half of the rubbish tip site on Liverpool City Council land.

This is a conservation area. Sydney should have a variety of residential densities, with some areas being higher and others lower. Residents in this suburb have paid a premium to enjoy the benefits of low-density living. We do not want this project to ruin the character of our suburb.

Submission attached

Prity Cleary,
Senior Planning Officer, Affordable Housing Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Dear Prity,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SSDA 82899468 for a proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Rd., Lindfield.
I believe that this application is incomplete and inaccurate, and may also contravene the planning controls in place at the time of application. I also believe the reason for this is that the application was rushed, as evidenced in communications from the developers planner (attached). As such, it should be assessed and rejected for further refinement. A design that is the result of consideration of heritage, biodiversity, stormwater management and privacy for surrounding residents would be acceptable and I welcome a re-submission that takes these and other issues into account.
These are the main impacts on me, and I have detailed these in the attachment titled, "SSD-82899468 Response from David Walker.pdf".
In addition to this document, nearly all owners of the properties adjoining the proposed development site have contributed to a document which lists all the errors and inadequacies that are relevant to us. As such, this document should also form a part of their submissions, where they have referred to it. This document, attached, is titled, "Errors and Inadequacies.pdf".
Other attachments are referred to within the documents above.
I welcome any contact if anything in this submission needs clarification or further details. Thanks again and I look frward to hearing the determination of this application.
Kind regards,
Dave.