Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure


M12 Motorway

Fairfield City, Liverpool City, Penrith

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

A new dual-carriageway motorway to connect the M7 Motorway with the Western Sydney Airport and The Northern Road. The motorway will be initially two lanes in each direction, with capacity for an additional future lane in each direction.

Attachments & Resources

Application (2)

Scoping Report
Project Location Map

SEARs (2)

20181030 M12 Motorway SEARs
20181030 M12 Motorway SEARs letter to RMS

EIS (31)

EIS Chapters 1 - 4
EIS Chapters 5 - 6
EIS Chapter 7 and 7.1 Biodiversity
EIS Chapter 7.2 Traffic and Transport
EIS Chapter 7.3 LCVIA & urban design
EIS Chapter 7.4 Socioeconomic, land use & property
EIS Chapter 7.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
EIS Chapter 7.6 Non-Aboriginal Heritage
EIS Chapter 7.7 Noise and Vibration
EIS Chapter 7.8 Flooding
EIS Chapter 7.9 Surface water
EIS Chapter 7.10 Groundwater
EIS Chapters 8 - 12
Appendix A Project Synthesis
Appendix B SEARs Checklist
Appendix C EP&A Regulation Checklist
Appendix D EPBC Regulation Checklist
Appendix E Biodiversity
Appendix F Traffic and Transport
Appendix G LCVIA & Urban Design
Appendix H Socio-ec Property & Land Use
Appendix I Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Appendix J Non-Aboriginal Heritage
Appendix K Noise and Vibration
Appendix L Flooding Part 1
Appendix L Flooding Part 2
Appendix M Surface Water
Appendix N Groundwater
Appendix O Soil and Contamination
Appendix P Air Quality
Appendix Q Proponent Environmental Record

Response to Submissions (5)

Biodiversity Addendum
EIS Submissions Report
Amendment Report Submissions Report
Request for RTS
Request for RTS

Agency Advice (7)

EPA advice on RtS
Penrith City Council RtS
Comments from Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District for Public Consultations
WaterNSW Response to Submissions and Amendment Report
SSI 9364 - M12 Motorway - Heritage Council advice
HNSW ACH comments
EES response - SSI9364 - RTS -6 Nov 2020

Amendments (35)

00 Main Report - All chapters consolidated
01 Main Report-Table of Contents_
02 Main Report-Executive Summary
03 Main Report-Ch1&2 Introduction
04 Main Report-Ch3 Proposed design changes
05 Main Report-Ch4&5 Construction, Consultation
06 Main Report-Ch6-1 Biodiversity
07 Main Report-Ch6-2 Transport and traffic
08 Main Report-Ch6-3 UDLCVA
09 Main Report-Ch6-4 SocioEc, land use, property
10 Main Report-Ch6-5 Aboriginal heritage
11 Main Report-Ch6-6 Non-Aboriginal heritage
12 Main Report-Ch6-7 Noise and vibration
13 Main Report-Ch6-8 Flooding
14 Main Report-Ch6-9 Surface water
15 Main Report-Ch6-10 Groundwater
16 Main Report-Ch6-11 Soils and contamination
17 Main Report-Ch6-12 Air quality
18 Main Report-Ch6-13 Health and safety
19 Main Report-Ch6-14 Sustainability
20 Main Report-Ch6-15 Waste
21 Main Report-Ch6-16 Climate change risk and GHG
22 Main Report-Ch7,8,9 REMMS, Conclusion
Appendix A Biodiversity
Appendix B Traffic and Transport
Appendix C Urban design, landscape and visual
Appendix D Socioeconomic, land use, property
Appendix E Aboriginal Heritage
Appendix F Non-Aboriginal Heritage
Appendix G Noise and Vibration
Appendix H Flooding
Appendix I Surface Water Quality and hydrology
Appendix J Groundwater Quality and hydrology
Appendix K Soils and Contamination
Appendix L Air Quality

Determination (4)

Assessment Report - SSI 9364
Instrument of Approval - SSI 9364
Notice of Decision - SSI 9364
Independent Peer Review - Flooding

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (31)

A24 Gas Protection EWEMP (rev H, 5 Aug 2022)
A24 Temporary Roundabout EWEMP (rev G, 12 Nov 21) - Approval Letter (dated 24 Nov 21) and Plans
A9 Staging Report (Rev E, 23 Jun 22)
A16 Central SEMP (rev E) - Approved 22 Jul 22
E37 Out of Hours Work Protocol (rev H, 6 Jul 22)
E68 PDLP App A Central Landscape Plans 2/2
E68 PDLP App A West Landscape Plan 1/2
E68 PDLP App C East Landscape Plans
E68 PDLP App B Central Landscape Plans 2/2
B3 Communications Strategy (rev 4, 1 Jul 21)
E68 PDLP App D, E, F, G and H
E68 PDLP Chapters 6-7
E68 PDLP Chapters 4-5
E68 PDLP Chapters 1-3
E91 Sustainability Strategy (rev C, 10 May 2022)
E68 PDLP App B Central Landscape Plan 1/2
E27 Aboriginal HIP (rev 4, 19 Apr 22)
E27 Non-Aboriginal HIP (rev 3, 15 Apr 222)
E7 Credit Report - Letter April 2022
A24 Elec & Water EWEMP (rev I, 15 Feb 22)
C4(g) B7 CAQMP (rev G, 2 November 2021)
C4(e) B4 CSWMP (rev G, 10 December 2021)
C4(f) B6 CCHMP (rev G.02, 15 November 2021)
C4(d) B8 CCLMP (rev G, 10 November 2021)
C4(b) B3 CNVMP (rev H, 16 December 2021)
C4(a) B1 CTTMP (rev G, 16 December 2021)
C4(c) B2 CFFMP (rev G, 12 November 2021)
C1 CEMP (rev G, 21 Nov 2021) and Approval Letter dated 21 Dec 2021
M12 Credit Retirement Reports April 2022
A16 West SEMP (rev 00, 16 Aug 22).pdf
E72 PDLP (rev C, 17 Mar 22) - Ack Letter 5 July 22

Community Consultative Committees and Panels (1)

E68 Approval of PDLP Practitioners (14 Sep 2021)

Notifications (3)

Early Work Commencement Notification
Independent noise specialist - support change akn letter dated 11 Feb 2022
Independent noise specialist - support personnel change

Other Documents (5)

A49 Signage for haulage vehicles
Arch Salvage LIW - Approved 16 Nov 21
A31 Approval of ERs (3 May 2021)
E8 Pimelea spicata survey report (28 June 2021)
Appointment of Experts_09122021_114434

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.



Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 92 submissions
Name Withheld
Condell Park , New South Wales
Concern about road safety at western end of project with motorway conditions and 100km limit ending at signalised intersection. Suggest road safety initiatives are used until grade separation is built at some point in future such as red light speed camera to enforce reduced speed limit approaching this intersection or rumble strips such is used on the M1 approaching Hexham.
Shannon Kerr
CAMPBELLTOWN , New South Wales
To whom it may concern,
After reading and viewing the exhibition for this project, I find it hard to believe that a planning department cannot plan and action a plan for the realistic traffic volumes that will travel this proposed motorway.
The M7 is 2 lanes in each direction and every day it is a parking lot for thousands of motorists. The M5 was 2 lanes in each direction and was expanded to 3 lanes in each direction and is a parking lot.
This submission has a 2 lane motorway with 2 lanes meeting an already at capacity M7 2 lane motorway. 2 + 2 = ?
This submission has the possible addition to further link ups to other roads creating more traffic load.
This submission has a set of traffic lights which does not allow for smooth traffic transition between M12 and The Northern Road. The Northern Road is under construction currently, why do we waste tax payer money and do things twice?
This submission has a multi billion dollar international airport for passengers, freight and staff to commute to. As the airport proposal only has a northern link rail line for commuters, staff and travelers from the south and south west all need to drive. Freight is all driven to the airport, fuel supplies for aircraft all needs to travel on this roadway. If there is 1 accident, 1 breakdown or 1 moment of trauma on this road, this will mean every supply chain, passenger, staff member will be delayed significantly.
The cost of adding an additional lane in the future is 4 fold of what the cost is upfront. There is far less disruption to motorists, there is no risk to construction crews working near active roadways, there is no risk of F.O.D. to aircraft that are taking off and landing.
Planning is looking to the future. Planning is making sure it will do the intended task properly and efficiently, Planning is doing things once, properly.
Western Sydney Airport is looking at supporting 28000 potential jobs, and 10 million, YES, 10 million passengers and growing in the future to approx. 86 million passengers. (Western Sydney Airport Page) These passengers have to travel to there destinations. These passengers potentially have to transfer to Sydney airport for connecting flights. Delays would cost airlines and passengers, all because of poor planning.
The area around the airport has been slated for new community hubs, commercial zones, industrial zones, a university has been mentioned in the press. A massive population influx is expected to arrive in and around this area. It has always proven to be costly and problematic to expand a piece of infrastructure after the area is settled. If the road is planned correctly, and rail links are completed to the south prior to settlement, this would be proper planning. Planning for the future, Planning for the density of population and industry requirements for the future.

The M12 MUST INCLUDE minimum 3 lanes in each direction for general traffic.
The M12 MUST INCLUDE a transit way for buses/rubber wheeled trams/public transport.
The M12 MUST INCLUDE flyovers at The Northern Road end to prevent serious traffic delays and increase traffic flow.

At a predicted motorway speed of 100k/hr, with 2 lanes, and maintaining a 3 sec gap (safe distance for speed excluding trucks 4 to 5 sec gap), this would mean 1008 cars could travel over the entire 14klm (approx.length) of this motorway. Providing that all vehicles move at this speed and there is no slow moving cars/trucks. We all know thats not possible.
Scenario- Accident closes 2 lanes city bound. Concrete barrier down the divide people stuck on motorway with nowhere to go for hours. Happy campers NOT. Contra Flow crossovers that costs millions to install on motorways that don't get used due to the inability for people to make decisions quickly and put actions in place to keep traffic at least passing an incident place.

Has a CFD traffic flow analysis been carried out including incident, slow traffic and other scenarios?
Has the M7 to M4 link section been looked at as a traffic snarl area?
Has the M7 to M5 link section been looked at as a traffic snarl area?
Has public transport links to parking stations, residential and commercial hubs been investigated?

Thankyou for taking the time to read my submission.

"A vision for the future extends past the now. Planning for the now is not planning at all."
Shannon Kerr


Jackson Hurst
I support the M12 Motorway because it will connect Western Sydney International Airport to both the Northern Road and the M7 Motorway.
Name Withheld
ABBOTSBURY , New South Wales
I support the project however I note from the information provided it indicates "4 lanes (up to 6 in the future)". Why not just construct it with 6 lanes now? We see this all the time when a highway or motorway goes in that it's only 4 lanes wide only to widen it later. The cost involved in constructing it with 6 lanes now is insignificant as all plant, machinery and workforce is on site. Whereas not only is the cost involved in doing it later substantially more, but it also causes extreme disruption to the public.
Lorraine Isaac
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
I live parallel to Elizabeth Drive at Cecil Hills. My house is the last house at Cecil Hills, just under the overhead cycle way. My concerns about this project are listed below:
(1) The traffic noise has increased considerably along Elizabeth Drive and we cannot open our bedroom window due to the build up of traffic in the morning from 5am. Myself and a number of residents along Elizabeth Drive submitted a petition when they brought Elizabeth Drive closer to our homes to have a concrete wall erected along this part of the road to reduce the noise but this was rejected and a timber fence was erected to appease us. This fence is falling apart and needs to be replaced with a concrete wall. I'm sure the noise from trucks and cars will increase even more once the airport is being built and also after with so many new jobs being created.
(2) I have a view of the cycle pathway from my front entrance and there were trees planted many years ago which blocked the bridge but last summer the Fire Brigade came and cut some of the trees down. I would ask that more trees be planted so that they will block the bridge view and try to curtail the noise of bike riders who shout to their fellow cyclists from early morning. The noise carries all the way down to our house.
(3) I also request that signs be put on Elizabeth Drive from under the cycle way to ask truck drivers not to use their air brakes as a number of them use them so they can cruise down Elizabeth Drive. I was told previously that there were signs there but I can't find any along this section of road.
(3) It looks like I will also have a view of the new M12 motorway from my home, as per the interactive video I was shown at one of your display locations. If so, I would also like to request more trees be planted to block this view.
We have lived in Cecil Hills for the past 17 years and hope to live here many more years to come. I ask that you consider my requests and pass them on to the appropriate departments for approval. Thank you
Nicholas Pospischil
ABBOTSBURY , New South Wales
I support the project with the caveat that the road needs to be built to a 3-lane each way capacity from the outset.

The documentation I have read indicates that the motorway will be 2 lanes in each direction initially with space for an additional third lane to be built at a later date.

This is not good enough.

So many major motorways around Sydney (M5, M2 being prime examples, with traffic on the M7 already providing evidence that the road should've been built wider from the outset) are not built to provide enough capacity from their outset, and require additional works to expand the motorway, requiring additional funding when built at a later date (as the cost of building and materials is constantly rising year by year) and contributing to unnecessary increases in traffic and travel times as the road is expanded (all motorways being a case in point here).

Building a wider road with a minimum of three lanes each way from the outset will eliminate these two problems.
Name Withheld
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
We reside at Rene Place Cecil Hills. Our property and the majority of our living and sleeping zones back onto the Western Sydney Parklands, where the M12 off ramp onto the M7 southbound will be built. When we attended the EIS exhibition on 24/10/19 at Kemps Creek Public School we were able to view on your 3D modelling software where the offramp is going to be constructed. We are absolutely disgusted and appalled that the offramp is going to be seen from our home, and also by the Northern residents in Cecil Hills. Infrastructure is going to be cut into the Parklands so far that we will have a clear unobstructed view of the ramp, traffic and lighting on the road from our home. Not only will this have a negative impact on our lifestyle due noise, but we believe it will substantially negatively affect the value of our property and other properties surrounding ours.
As our dwelling is built on the boundary line of our land, we are unable to create any noise buffer zones via planting trees or constructing walls etc. In order to create a buffer with trees or walls, we would need to do so on Western Sydney Parklands property. We propose that the Western Sydney Parklands allow us to occupy a small parcel of this unused land to create a buffer for us and our neighbours to use for planting trees to offset the adverse affects the M12 off ramp will have on our properties. We propose a sliver of land running parallel with the existing boundary.
We note that the Western Sydney Parklands have already sold land to the M12 project on the opposite side of the M7 (Western side where the parklands have their communications tower) for construction of the on ramp to the M12 from the M7 Northbound. Why did the project not consider having all infrastructure on this side of the M7 to avoid impact on Cecil Hills residents?
We understand that the Western Sydney Parklands have this area earmarked for future developments. Why are future developments given priority over the existing development of Cecil Hills? This project is going to have such a negative impact on the whole of Cecil Hills, especially considering the off ramp is at the top of a hill and all noise will run downward into the whole suburb. We already have substantial noise from the existing M7 traffic and Elizabeth drive with truck compression braking etc. The off ramp onto the M7 South bound is designed on a down hill, sweeping bend, where trucks will need to compression brake the whole distance. It seems this impact on residents has not been considered.
Unfortunately, no matter what type of bitumen or road surface the project specifies, this cannot limit noise from truck compression braking. Based on the noise map on your portal, our property and neighbouring properties along the Rene Place/Parklands border are going to be substantially affected by noise.
We believe that this issue of noise disturbance can be avoided, if the properties that border the Western Sydney parklands impact zone are given the space available to create a realistic buffer area that can be accessed and maintained by the land owners. This area could be used for planting of trees, or could be used to construct a man made barrier. This additional buffer zone would also act as compensation for the decrease in property values that this project will undoubtedly have on existing residents on the Rene Place/parklands boundary.
Name Withheld
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
The most significant factor for the objection is the location of the M12 off ramp to the M7. This 80km off ramp has been placed directly behind properties that will be affected by noise and pollution irrespective of what the predicted decibel readings have indicated. This is a fact and unfortunate that the non residential side of the M7 has NOT been considered during the planning process. Has consideration been given to reduce the speed limit and expand the off ramp to lower its positioning from the residents of Cecil Hills? As an alternative could the non residential side of the M7 be considered for the location of this ramp as the impacts would be reduced to the residents of Cecil Hills? Additionally the noise pollution that will be generated from the Elizabeth Drive ramp will increase the current noise pollution experienced by residents towards Isabel street and the surrounding streets. Currently the noise travels from Elizabeth drive via the open corridor that remains with no barriers or soundproofing along the top end of Elizabeth Drive before Wallgrove Road. The natural environment impacts are significant as this space is used regularly for walkers and cyclists however the construction of the ramp will deter locals and visitors to the area which will be extremely disappointing and detrimental to the area. Consideration for residents and their investments are paramount and it is quite concerning that the department has not provided more detailed sessions with the residents of impacted residential areas as outlined in the documentation. By simply placing a coloured brochure in letterboxes should not be considered as consultation and more care and detail should be provided to residents that have chosen Cecil Hills as their choice of living.
martin vella
Luddenham , New South Wales
THE M12 finishing at the Northern Rd should be closer to the Elizabeth Drive near the honey shed 250 metres away not 300 metres therefore the future M9 does not effect Luddenham pet meats and the Market Garden which is my farm that I rely for income 59 Galaxy Rd I strictly suggest that if the M12 finishes as mentioned, the businesses will not get affected for future Development and therefore traffic noise is keeped to a minimum
Nathan Hagarty
GREEN VALLEY , New South Wales
While I support the M12 in principle, I have two specific objections to the current proposal:
1. Southern off ramp with M7. The proposed location of the south bound off-ramp connecting with the M7 encroaches across and above the ridge-line. This will cause unacceptable visual and sound pollution to the suburb of Cecil Hills. Given the height of the off ramps, noise will travel down and across the entirety of Cecil Hills. The ramp needs to be moved closer to the M7 to maintain the ridge-line as a physical barrier for both light and sound pollution.
2. No eastern non-tolled on and off ramps. The Premier made a commitment that the M7 would not be a tolled road. It has become a tolled road by stealth by forcing drivers on to the M7. This is unacceptable and the M12 must have non-tolled entry and exit points at the eastern end.
Leigh Filipakis
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
I am providing feedback on concerns of the noise and visual pollution that the M12 ramp will make all around the Cecil Hills area. By the looks of the current proposal, the ramp which will be seen from all over Cecil Hills will not only look atrocious but the sound will carry all the way over Cecil hills with no ability to stop it once it is built and no sound barrier wall will stop that from being a problem.

I am all for growth but not to ruin suburbs with pollution and to have this visually ruining an area.

I strongly oppose the placement of the ramp and would possibly recommend a tunnel as this would have no or very little impact on the surrounding homes.

Just something to think about.

Many thanks for your time.

Leigh filipakis.
Name Withheld
HINCHINBROOK , New South Wales
I wish to submit the following comments:
- The intersection of the M-12 and Northern Road needs to be reviewed. It is not international practice to have a motorway end in a T-intersection controlled by traffic lights. With the Northern Rd being upgraded to divided road standards, the M-12 must link up with it via the use of dedicated exit/entry ramps or a clover-leaf style intersection. As it stands now, the current design only lends itself to congestion occurring, in all directions, which will only be exacerbated should the traffic lights fail in operation.
- The lane design of having 2 lanes each way needs to be reviewed. The design should be upgraded to 4 lanes (plus breakdown lane), each way. The benefit of building the motorway this standard now, greatly outweighs the disadvantages of future expansion via cost, inconvenience for road users and safety for those working on the expansion of that road. If the funding is not currently available, can consideration be given to the issue of Government Bonds or via that of a lottery to aid in providing a financial platform for the building of that roadway?
- I have been advised that the roadway will be constructed using concrete with the surface being of bitumen, to aid in noise reduction. It is a well known engineering fact that bitumen will not adhere to concrete which will necessitate in the ongoing maintenance of the road surface - not to mention the hazard(s) being created by the loosening/missing road surface(s) as well as corresponding damaged inflicted upon those vehicles using the road. Could it be considered that the road surface be laid in concrete only and profiled accordingly to provide for good levels of vehicle adhesion, drainage and wear and tare?
I thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit my thoughts on this project. I would be grateful if some or all of my thoughts might be considered in the implementation and construction of this motorway.
Name Withheld
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
The proposed location of the south bound off-ramp connecting with the M7 encroaches across and above the ridge-line. This can cause unacceptable visual and noise pollution to the suburb of Cecil Hills. Given the height of the off ramps, noise will travel down and across the entirety of Cecil Hills and our community where we have young families living in the area and this will impact majorly on the ramp been built causing both light and sound pollution.
Name Withheld
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
In addition to the previous submission and following the consultation session would like to identify the following for consideration and to support why we object to the current location of the M12 off and on ramps:-
1. Relocate the M12 off ramp to the M7 to a location which least impacts residents of Cecil Hills and focus on the non residential opportunities
2. Lowering of the M12 off ramp to the M7 aligned with the current cycle way - this will reduce noise and pollution impacts to the residents of Cecil Hills. This should not encroch across and above the current ridge line
3. Camber design the M12 off ramp to the M7 to reduce noise and pollution impacts to the residents of Cecil Hills
4. Challenge the design to incorporate a tunnel - this design definitely mitigates many of the obvious impacts eg noise, visual and natural environment pollution
5. The visual and noise impacts to the residents of Cecil Hills to be considered in particular as there are several other viable options with less impacts to residential areas
6. Noise impacts to the suburb of Cecil Hills and neighboring suburbs travelling down and across the suburb
7. The current ridge line must maintain the current physical barrier for both light and sound pollution
8. Thorough consideration to any sound proofing/barriers to be installed (if applicable)
9. Review and consult mitigation options to the residents closest to the proposed off and on ramp in Cecil Hills
10. Natural environment and impacts to local species and wildlife
11. Consideration to the traffic congestion (particularly at the Elizabeth Drive intersection) on the M7 at peak times and the impact this will have to larger vehicles and the braking compression pollution when the on coming traffic impacts the off ramp speed and transition on to the M7.
13. Consideration should be given to areas where the traffic maybe less congested at peak times and consider locating an off ramp from the M12 in that position
14. Confirming objection to the location of the off and on ramps at Cecil Hills for the M12 on/off the M7
15. Look forward to a positive response to our submission
Division of Resources & Geoscience
MAITLAND , New South Wales
Division of Resources & Geoscience advice attached.
Endeavour Energy
HUNTINGWOOD , New South Wales
Endeavour Energy wish to advise the following in relation to the M12 Motorway Project: -

There are multiple locations along the route of the proposed M12 motorway that clash with Endeavour Energy’s existing electricity network assets.

The proposed M12 project covers a large area which includes significant Endeavour Energy electricity distribution and sub-transmission infrastructure comprising mainly high and low voltage overhead power lines and distribution substations which provide the low voltage electricity supply to customers in this area.

Due to this project’s large footprint and its expected impact on Endeavour Energy infrastructure, Endeavour Energy has been engaged by the RMS to complete a feasibility study to look at treatment options for the electrical infrastructure as well as to provide information on future electricity supply requirements that will service the growth of the Western Sydney Aerotropolis.

Endeavour Energy’s process for managing infrastructure relocations is defined under the NSW Contestable Works framework. In this case the RMS or their representatives will engage with Accredited Service Providers to design and construct alterations to Endeavour’s infrastructure. Endeavour’s process typically includes detailed environmental assessment based on individual project packages ensuring construction environmental management plans are appropriated considered and established during the design phase and implemented at construction.

In relation to this project, it is expected that Endeavour Energy’s processes and procedures will be followed when application is made for connection to Endeavour Energy’s electricity supply network and these will apply to projects such as this, which is classified as being State Significant Infrastructure. These procedures require the submission of a Summary Environmental Report (SER) incorporating an environmental management plan with each electrical design submitted to Endeavour Energy’s Network Connections Branch for Certification. Endeavour Energy is a Determining Authority under Part 5 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and under the auspices of the Code of Practice for Authorised Network Operators (the Code) as prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment in 2015.

Should you require further information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Pat Woodbury Network Environmental Assessment Manager on phone 9853-6552 or via email [email protected]
Name Withheld
CECIL HILLS , New South Wales
The proposed location of the south bound off-ramp connecting with the M7 encroaches across and above the ridge-line. This will cause unacceptable visual and noise pollution to the suburb of Cecil Hills. Given the height of the off ramps, noise will travel down and across the entirety of Cecil Hills. The ramp needs to be moved closer to the M7 to maintain the ridge-line as a physical barrier of both light and sound pollution.
Celestino Developments SSP Pty Limited
GIRRAWEEN , New South Wales
Refer attached letter.
Bicycle NSW
Sydney Olympic P , New South Wales
Our CEO Mr Alistair Ferguson has written a submission attached
Population Health, SWSLHD
WARWICK FARM , New South Wales
Please refer to attachment.


Project Details

Application Number
EPBC ID Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Road transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Fairfield City, Liverpool City, Penrith
Determination Date

Contact Planner

Lauren Rose