Further to the submission I lodged yesterday on behalf of Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc in relation to the proposed Light Horse Interchange Business Hub I lodge this addendum for consideration along with that which was lodged yesterday.

ESKDALE CREEK (further comment)

The proposal to realign Eskdale Creek to accommodate warehousing has greater environmental ramifications than the EIS addresses.

The NSW Government commissioned Urban Bushland Biodiversity Study, 1997, (UBBS) is a comprehensive scientific analysis of the state of the environment around Sydney and the threats leading to further destruction of that environment.

We defer to that part of the UBBS that is the summary of the fauna study.

Amphibians

Amphibian life is a key indicator of water quality and forms a most important part of sustaining aquatic life. A key threatening process to that is acknowledged in the UBBS is habitat loss and fragmentation. To quote the UBBS (page 45):

“The loss of habitat for both the adult and larval phases of the amphibian life cycle needs to be considered, including pond destruction, wetland drainage and artificial channelling of waterways, and loss of associated vegetation, rock and fallen timber cover for shelter and foraging sites. Ferraro and Burgin (1993) found a negative correlation between the amount of canopy cover and species diversity and numbers of individuals.”

To be excavating/bulldozing parts of Eskdale creek is to be destroying thousands of years of ecological profile including the removal of canopy which affords greater species diversity. Indeed, species will be lost altogether should engineering works remove parts of the existing water course.

That contention is supported in the UBBS where it states “In general species diversity was less in disturbed habitats than more pristine environments.” Surely, it goes without saying that to excavate/bulldoze part of Eskdale Creek is to adversely impact all of Eskdale Creek. We cannot accept that for humans to attempt to construct an artificial deviation of the creek elsewhere is to produce no net loss either in the short term or long term, even if the human effort works – based on many other observed attempts elsewhere the fail rate is high. Consider, for example, a former wetland on the western edge of the former Wonderland site immediately west of this Light Horse Interchange site which always had near full water content even in drought times. As part of development of the surrounding land the wetland was drained, excavated for enlargement, engineered for stone decoration and planted out. Since then it has never held water and look deplorable - a habitat wasteland!

The construction of warehousing and associated infrastructure and landscaping on what has been part of Eskdale Creek and close to the remaining part of Eskdale Creek impacts also on Reedy Creek and Eastern Creek. Stormwater run-off from the warehousing site will flow into one or more of the aforesaid water courses. No guarantees can be given as to what products and human activity will occur at locations within the warehousing complex which will not be swept into drainage lines going to the creeks. Scientific analysis in the UBBS states "Australian amphibians are often exposed to herbicides which are directly applied to their habitat via runoff and spraying of the litoral areas" (Johnson 1975) What can be added to that is spilt chemicals, fuels and oils hosed away into drains. A prime example of the level of destruction which can occur was the incident in year 2017 when spillage from a warehouse site in Dunheved resulted in pollutants entering South Creek wiping out amphibians and Australian Bass fish for several kilometres.

Reptiles

With respect to reptiles (actually, read all fauna) the UBBS says at page 70 “Prey items have been reduced through a loss of habitat for such prey and through the use of agricultural and horticultural chemicals.”

Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrates are also a key indicator of health of water courses and capacity to sustain native prey species. The UBBS recognises threats to diversity and survival of macroinvertebrates at page 118 “Riparian vegetation forms an important link between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. It provides a food source in the form of fallen wood, bark, leaves and fruits to a diverse array of lotic consumers such as fungi, bacteria, and macroinvertebrates. The removal of riparian vegetation can decrease the quality and quantity of allochthonous material entering waterways and consequently alter the composition of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities (Growns and Davis 1991).” [emphasis ours] Again, to excavate/bulldoze part of Eskdale Creek is environmental destruction and should not be entertained for quick dollars.

Under the heading of “Urban and Industrial Development” the UBBS at page 118 says”

“Urbanisation impacts on freshwater systems and their fauna primarily through direct habitat destruction, waste dumping, and inputs of stormwater, treated and untreated sewage and sullage, industrial effluents and leachate from refuse tips. Urban impacts on stream macroinvertebrates are generally more severe than those of agriculture (e.g. Campbell 1978: Lenat and Crawford 1994). Stormwater flows from urban areas are large in volume and delivered rapidly after rain, because of the increased proportion of impervious surfaces in urban areas. Thus hydrological variability and scouring are greatly increased in urban streams. Urban stormwater also carries a wide range of pollutants (Cordery 1977) and can substantially reduce the diversity and stability of macro invertebrate faunas in receiving streams (Pratt et al. 1981).”

In summary, we accept all the foregoing and implore the government to take its own scientific advice contained on page 122 of the UBBS, 1997, where it says:

“All streams on the Cumberland Plain and surrounding slopes with macroinvertebrate communities in approximately natural condition should be identified and classified. Rapid assessment methods such as those described by Chessman (1995) are appropriate for this purpose. High priority should be given to developing catchment and stream protection strategies and management plans for these streams, including catchment reserves, in cooperation with community groups and private landholders.”

and

“The strategy for the rehabilitation of riparian vegetation in the region developed by Benson and Howell (1993) should be implemented and the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust should be strongly supported in their initiatives to promote restoration of riparian zones.”

that means rehabilitating not the reverse which is destroying parts of the riparian vegetation and the whole creek line itself in that part.

Wayne Olling
Manager
Flora & Fauna
Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc
PO Box 207
Doonside NSW 2767
mob 0491 156 268
e: [email protected]

POSITION SUMMARY

Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc opposes the proposed development of land which the government (the former Premier Bob Carr MP) on 4 December 2004 said "It will really be the lungs of western Sydney, open space never to be developed, a great part of our environment," (refer Sydney Morning Herald)

PREAMBLE

The proposed development demonstrates that members of government, the bureaucracy, including the Western Sydney Parklands Trust, are liars and never to be trusted. Such is the degenerate state of society when government cannot be trusted. The morality is contemptible and will bear its natural fruit as society follows that lead.

Western Sydney Parklands Trust will point to its lawful right to develop lands originally announced for conservation by reference to a later Bill of Parliament permitting development of up to 2% of the Western Sydney Parklands land holding. However, this development resort is purely to keep Trust officers and other personnel well stipended as they find ways to turn natural environment into a landscape dotted with built infrastructure. The burgeoning expense bill for keeping Western Sydney Parklands Trust in this 'monetary clover' is estimated in the Environmental Impact Statement to be $20M per annum. What a disgrace!

All this at the expense of previous land owners having their family land inheritance resumed by the government on the pretence that the land on which their family had invested their lives was being resumed for the purpose “open space never to be developed”. Whatever interest and future capital gain those previous land owners were being denied for an ostensibly noble cause has become a lifeblood for parasites within Western Sydney Parklands Trust to feed upon for their own benefit.

BIODIVERSITY

The environmental impact statement hypocritically identifies “Cumberland Plain Woodland is a candidate community at risk for Serious And Irreversible Impacts (SAII) as defined under the BC Reg. The proposed development could result in a 0.95% decrease in area of this community within the 1,000 hectares surrounding the site and a 0.22% decrease within 10,000 hectares. ” but then endorses, in this proposed development, the “death by a thousand cuts” action which has been the historical means of reducing the ecological community to 3% of its original extent on the Cumberland Plain.

To 'smooth the conscience' the ecological consultant defers to biodiversity offset credits to offset various impacts and says “It is intended that WSPT will meet their offset requirements by retiring existing biodiversity credits generated under the BioBanking Scheme and the generation of suitable biodiversity credits by entering into a Biodiversity Stewardship Agreement.” To this we ask what is intended here?:

1. What credits and where were the WSPT existing biodiversity credits previously generated?

2. Were the credits derived from land that WSPT was obliged to conserve under its Plan of Management or, more broadly, land that was originally “never to be developed”?

3. Is not the whole NSW Biobanking Scheme corrupted by permitting the biobanking of already conserved lands and particularly conserved lands in public ownership?

4. Is not the NSW Biobanking Scheme corrupted by little or no compliance on the part of the NSW Government thus allowing on-selling of biobanked properties to environmentally insensitive buyers; use of unqualified bush regenerators; overuse of chemicals, insensitive bobcat and other machinery in management practices; creation of trail bike tracks within bushland, erecting built structures in allegedly protected bushland; shooting of native fauna in allegedly protected bushland? (all have been seen)

There has never been a worse time in the history of public office because of the emergence of corrupted behaviour within public office. Alleged biodiversity protection methods are introduced and promoted as viable for improving the environment but, nevertheless, lead to net loss of biodiversity. The alleged safeguards of denying offsetting or biobanking of already conserved land are soon subverted to allow offsetting of already conserved or biobanked land. Particularly does this apply to public land and Western Sydney Parklands Trust is a serial offender.

Biobank Assessment Certifiers manipulate credits for their own gain and have within their entity individuals who have acquired land for their own biobanking benefit. Even the government is not devoid of people (former or present) who use, effectively, 'insider trading' to derive benefit by acquiring properties on the cheap but which will attract sizeable biobank credits.

All who work within government who play a role in recommending or approving developments with biobanking as the offsetting means are complicit in this corrupt behaviour. You can't say you didn't know.

ESKDALE CREEK

Again, public office is on another verge. It, according the Environmental Impact Statement, has via the “Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR), indicated in-principle support for relocating parts of Eskdale Creek.” and, “Further consultation following the detailed surveys confirmed in-principle acceptance of the relocation of Eskdale Creek by NRAR.”

We are obliged to remind the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) of the Act 2017 No 64 Clause 10 Principle objectives of the Regulator which says:

The principal objectives of the Regulator are:
(a) to ensure effective, efficient, transparent and accountable compliance and enforcement measures for the natural resources management legislation, and
(b) to maintain public confidence in the enforcement of the natural resources management legislation.
How can the NRAR give prior assent to bring this matter to the present stage?
There has been no effective, efficient, transparent and accountable compliance and enforcement of natural resources management in this matter on what has occurred thus far.
Further, nothing in this matter so far maintains public confidence in the enforcement of the natural resources management legislation.
How can the public have confidence when certain individuals within government allow one rule for the public and another rule for 'fat cats' looking after their own pocket?
We remind you of the occasion a bit more than a decade ago when the then Minister for Natural Resources had to deal with a matter of Blacktown Workers Club seeking to realign Bungarribee Creek (no more than 3.6km from the Light Horse Interchange site) so that the Club could profit from the construction and leasing of warehouses on part of what is Bungarribee Creek.

There are similarities in the past and present matter. Both Eskdale Creek and Bungarribee Creek are the same Strahler Order Streams where realigning has been proposed and both flow into Eastern Creek, a creek in which a population of Australian Bass (Macquaria novemaculeata) has been recorded on at least two separate occasions in the past.

That, it seems, is where the similarities end. In the Bungarribee Creek matter there was concern within government about the environmental impacts of realigning the creek. In the Eskdale Creek matter there is no similar regard for the environmental impacts of realigning the creek. Also, in the Bungarribee Creek matter a disparity exists insomuch it was a community group wanting to realign the creek but in the Eskdale Creek matter it is government bureaucrats looking after 'their own'.

How can that be when all else is the same for the two creeks?

There is more about the Bungarribee Creek matter but we have said enough here.

Nothing in this proposal to realign Eskdale Creek does anything to engender, let alone, maintain public confidence in the enforcement of the natural resources management legislation.

The public must be let know what is on display here but we give opportunity for the government to undo what looks to be heading toward a shameful act of hypocrisy.

We ask to be informed of answers to questions we have raised in our submission and objections raised at certain points.

Wayne Olling
Manager
Flora & Fauna
Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc
PO Box 207
Doonside NSW 2767
mob 0491 156 268
e: [email protected]

The Department of Primary Industries has reviewed the EIS and has no comment.

Thank you for the opportunity for WaterNSW to provide comment on the exhibition of the Light Horse Interchange Business Hub at Eastern Creek. The subject site is located more than a kilometre northwest of Prospect Reservoir and the Warragamba Pipelines, and the risk to water quality, and WaterNSW land and infrastructure has been assessed as low. WaterNSW therefore has no particular comments or requirements.

We wish to submit an objection to the proposed DA application SD 8373.
The current EIS does not acknowledge our residential building (141-143
McEvoy Street Alexandria) as a residential building that will be
affected by this development. Our apartment is located on the south
side of the development and no consideration has been given to our
property. Our building, 141-143 McEvoy Street, has been assessed as a
commercial building which is incorrect - there are 17 apartments
located along the southern fence line of the school that will be
directly affected. We are particularly concerned about overshadowing
and the solar access to our property. No shadow diagrams have been
provided assessing the impact to the residential apartments at 141-143
McEvoy Street. There is no documentation evident to ensure that
overshadowing/loss of daylight will not impact on the current
residential apartments at 141-143 McEvoy Street. The proposed building
will be 3 storeys high, plus a connected rooftop playground and 2m
high glass surround, directly in front of our private balcony. A
building of this height will put our property in constant shadow. This
complete loss of light to our dwelling will cause significant loss of
amenity and impact on our physiological health and psychological
wellbeing. No consideration has been given to the issue of loss of
privacy with regards to the residential properties at 141-143 McEvoy
Street. We have a serious concern that the proposed new school
building will dominate the private open space at apartments at 141-143
McEvoy Street. Overshadowing, loss of skyline and privacy is
especially a concern considering the proposed height of the building
and additional rooftop space with a proposed rooftop canopy. My family
and I are concerned with the noise impact of a school of such a size
right on our fence line. The proposed outdoor amphitheater, playground
and classrooms are directly in front of our private open
spaces/balconies. The noise generated by the school during daytime
hours will cause significant loss of amenity. The proposed use of
rooftop space is of particular concern. All of the concerns listed
above were not addressed in the proposed development. In summary, we
object to this proposal based on the above, specifically the incorrect
classification of our building as a commercial dwelling, the building
height and loss of skyline, overshadowing/loss of solar access, loss
of privacy, noise impact and the positioning of the development and
mass. These issues will adversely affect the property my family and I
live in.

Objection letter to SSD9368 Alex Avenue Public School