Too close to existing residential area and there is not enough adequate road infrastructure. Will put too much of a strain on residential area. Natural bushland must be preserved. There is still plenty of space across the river at Moorebank.

I strongly object to this project due to the environmental impacts. There is enough other land to be used - there is no need to take this space. We need to protect what we can.

I am very concerned about the impact this project has on wildlife. In particular, on the very important koala population nearby. The impact of increased traffic and the encroachment onto koala habitat is going to reduce the population even further. Please stop the rampant construction in the area and maintain the bushland. Now.

I find this development will be positive outcome for the local community.

I object to the proposed Glenfield Industrial Precinct (SSD 89673472) because it would permanently remove critical koala habitat and further fragment one of the remaining habitat corridors supporting the Campbelltown koala population, which is recognised as one of the most significant and genetically important koala populations in New South Wales.

The proposal is inconsistent with the recommendations of the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer's Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in South Western Sydney (2020), which concluded that maintaining broad, functional habitat corridors is essential for koala movement, gene flow and long-term population viability. The review recommended protecting and restoring wide habitat corridors rather than relying on narrow linkages. The corridor remaining under this proposal is substantially narrower than the widths recommended by the Chief Scientist and is therefore unlikely to maintain an effective ecological connection.

The proposed treetop crossing is also an inadequate mitigation measure. Koalas regularly travel on the ground when moving between habitat patches, making them vulnerable to roads, fencing and other barriers. A canopy crossing does not address these ground movements and cannot replace the ecological function of an intact habitat corridor.

The proposal is also inconsistent with the objectives of the NSW Koala Strategy, which seeks to protect existing koala habitat, improve landscape connectivity and avoid further fragmentation of koala populations. The Strategy recognises that conserving existing habitat and maintaining connected landscapes is more effective than attempting to compensate for habitat loss after it occurs.

Finally, the proposed biodiversity offsets do not satisfy the intent of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW). While offsets may compensate for some biodiversity impacts, they cannot replace the ecological value of mature koala habitat within an established movement corridor or sustain the existing local koala

This area should be listed a an area of wildlife conservation. Koalas and other wildlife will lose lives and This will be destructive to the future of koala populations
Open green spaces should be preserved and not built upon. I object to this development

Where this development is taking place is home to Koala’s and other native wildlife that are already displaced in the Glenfield area. Further development will destroy their habitat.

I would like to ask you NOT go ahead with this project as it will create less habitat for Koalas in the area. As a national icon (Koalas) we should be preserving habitat like this for future generations to see animals in the wild.

1. Put the car park at the other side, North side of the proposed project
2. Why was no view taken for the proposal from the high ground per the EIS EE pg22, btwn postion 4 and 5?. The land holders along Fergusson street are on even higher ground than Goodenough st. If Goodenough street Vis Impact is Moderate to Low... Fergusson st residents with be moderate to high, which clearly is unacceptable
3. It seems Fergusson st resident didn't get much of a mention in the reports, which clearly favour the applicant Postion 4 and 5 are low ground. A review is in order
4. Plant large mature trees on the north side of Cmbridge Ave to reduce visual pollution and of noise and light spill
5. Plant large trees/ hedging on the south side of Cambridge Ave to further reduce the increase in road noise from site traffic and trucks all hours of the day and night and no doubt public hoidays

I am a Hammondville resident and I object to the Glenfield Industrial Precinct – Precinct 1 proposal.

I am not opposed to development or local employment. What concerns me is that this proposal appears to rely heavily on broad claims about jobs and investment while the long-term costs to nearby communities are treated as secondary issues.

Hammondville and the surrounding suburbs already carry a large share of the impacts from freight, warehousing and major development in the Liverpool and Moorebank area. We already experience congestion, heavy vehicles, noise and pressure on a limited road network. This proposal would add another large warehouse and distribution development close to the Georges River and would operate around the clock.

The application should not be approved in its current form.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY PROVEN

The promise of jobs should not be accepted at face value. The Department should establish how many jobs would exist only during construction, how many permanent jobs would actually remain once the site is operating, and how many of those jobs would be genuinely new to Western Sydney rather than moved from another location.

The assessment should also explain what kinds of jobs would be created, whether they would be secure and reasonably paid, how many would realistically be filled by local residents, and how warehouse automation may reduce employment over time.

A headline jobs figure is not enough. The number and quality of jobs should be compared with other possible uses of the land, including uses that may create more employment per hectare and cause less damage to the environment and local road network.

The claimed economic benefit must also include the public costs of the development. These include road and intersection upgrades, ongoing road maintenance, congestion, emergency services, pollution monitoring, stormwater works, biodiversity loss, site remediation and long-term rehabilitation.

If these costs are carried by taxpayers, councils or local residents, they must be deducted from any claimed benefit. Congestion, pollution, flooding risk, environmental damage and reduced residential amenity are all economic costs. They do not disappear simply because they are discussed in separate reports.

Before any approval is considered, the economic case should be independently reviewed and tested against realistic assumptions.

THE PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN ISOLATION

Precinct 1 appears to be the first part of a much larger proposed industrial precinct. It would be misleading to assess it as though it were a stand-alone development with no connection to future stages.

Residents do not experience each project separately. We experience the combined truck movements, congestion, noise, lighting, air pollution, vegetation loss and pressure on infrastructure.

The Department should assess the cumulative effects of the full Glenfield industrial precinct together with existing and proposed freight and warehousing activity at Moorebank, continuing residential growth and other major developments in the area.

Approving the first stage may also make later stages much harder to refuse, even if their combined effects become unacceptable. The full precinct should be assessed before the first major stage is approved.

TRAFFIC AND ROAD CAPACITY ARE MAJOR CONCERNS

Hammondville and nearby suburbs depend on a limited number of roads and intersections. Additional worker vehicles, delivery vans and heavy trucks would place more pressure on Cambridge Avenue, Canterbury Road, Glenfield Road, Heathcote Road and surrounding routes.

The traffic assessment should not rely only on selected peak periods or assume that vehicles will always use ideal routes. It must consider the full precinct, Moorebank freight traffic, residential growth, school traffic, weekend and overnight operations, crashes, flooding, road closures and the risk of trucks using unsuitable local streets.

The development should not be approved on the assumption that major road upgrades may occur at some unknown point in the future.

Every road and intersection upgrade needed to support the proposal should be identified, fully funded and completed before the related warehouse operations begin. These costs should be paid by the development, not shifted onto the community.

GEORGES RIVER AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

The proposal is close to the Georges River and would involve clearing vegetation and habitat of high ecological value.

The development should be redesigned to avoid clearing wherever possible, particularly where clearing is mainly required to provide road access. The Department should require a genuine investigation of alternative access routes and site layouts before accepting that environmental damage is unavoidable.

Offsets should be a last resort, not a way of approving avoidable clearing.

The Georges River corridor is already under pressure. The assessment should consider the cumulative loss of vegetation, habitat and open land across Glenfield, Moorebank and surrounding areas, not only the impacts within this individual site.

FORMER WASTE SITE AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

The history of the land as a waste facility raises serious questions about contamination, landfill gas, leachate, ground settlement and long-term stability.

These risks should be independently reviewed. The community needs confidence that construction will not disturb contamination or allow pollutants to reach the Georges River.

There must also be clear and enforceable responsibility for long-term monitoring and rehabilitation, even if the land is later sold, subdivided or occupied by different businesses.

Residents and taxpayers should not be left responsible for problems that may emerge many years after the development is approved.

NOISE, LIGHTING AND AIR POLLUTION

A warehouse and distribution precinct operating 24 hours a day can create noise from trucks, loading docks, reversing alarms, refrigeration equipment and vehicle movements. It can also cause lighting spill, diesel emissions, dust and overnight disturbance.

These impacts should be assessed using realistic worst-case operations, not an assumption that future tenants will operate quietly or at low intensity.

Any approval would need strict and enforceable limits on noise, lighting, truck idling, outdoor loading and heavy-vehicle routes, supported by independent monitoring and publicly available compliance information.

REQUESTED OUTCOME

I ask the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form.

At the very least, it should not proceed until:

• the full industrial precinct has been assessed as a whole;
• the claimed economic benefits have been independently reviewed;
• all road and intersection upgrades have been identified, funded and programmed;
• alternative access arrangements have been examined to avoid vegetation clearing;
• contamination, flooding and Georges River risks have been independently assessed;
• the development is required to pay the full cost of the infrastructure and mitigation it needs; and
• strong, enforceable protections are in place for surrounding residents.

I support genuine local jobs and appropriate development. However, jobs and investment should not be used to excuse uncertain benefits while congestion, infrastructure costs, pollution risks and environmental damage are transferred to the surrounding community.

As a Hammondville resident, I am not satisfied that the claimed benefits outweigh the likely long-term impacts on local residents, the road network and the Georges River environment.

Please record this submission as an objection.