MOD 1 - Building Height Increase

The whole project is a blight on the landscape and against any principles of democracy.it was done by blackmailing the press into believing jobs would be created. no jobs just cranes doing the work and adding to the congestion of Moorebank roads. Moorebank is a suburb for houses and people not an industrial area. Trucks avoid the M5 tolls and travel down Nuwarra Road and turn into Anzac avenue. The site has destroyed trees and wildlife.Nuwarra road is breaking up every day with the weight of the trucks. The site should have been in Goulburn. The site should be destroyed and revert back to an open space area.

Received SIMTA's August 2020 "community update" leaflet which again demonstrates that there is NO Genuine Consultation/Communication with the Community !

However, it is Misleading/Deceptive/Omitting MANY Facts including:

1. requesting an increase in the noise generation criteria during operations into the future 24/7. ( just a formality no doubt as this is process is so Corrupt/UN Democratic)

2. Dangerous goods are to be stored on the site if approved (mitigation measures will preclude a Beirut incident? – if you believe that !)

3 Net job losses are totally ignored – Woolworths will down size its work force by 1,600 overall because of robotics and automation. Other prospective employment opportunities will no doubt also lead to net overall job losses. (a far cry from the premise by which this project was approved of being a job creator)

4. The Moorebank Ave re route is probably pre approved ( no consideration given to the residents within 400mtrs, who will bear the brunt of the traffic noise 24/7 !).

5. on site and visiting locomotives will be spewing out their toxic fumes 24/7 for all to Children/Famililes/Child Care Centers/Schools to enjoy within a 3 km radius and beyond. Not to mention the hundreds of daily truck movements in addition to that.

6 110,000 tCO2-e annually is somewhere in the future IF EVER. Making your ISCA “Excellent” design rating a sham and a rort to be given a $150 million loan!!


7 SIMTA/Qube’s success demonstrates “ask and you shall be rewarded” to continually request amendments and be approved, to the detriment of the local communities who were here first and should have a much higher degree of consideration given to their social well being and amenities.

I demand that the above document be RE-published with the CORRECTED Facts and the Community be provided with 2 months to read all of the relevant corrected information so that they can make informed decisions and then submit their Submissions based upon the CORRECTED FACTS

Yours Sincerely,

From:
Sent: Monday, 17 August 2020 12:46 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'melanie gibbons' <[email protected]>
Cc: RAID Committee ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Tony Hadchiti ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Roy Carter' <[email protected]>; 'Liverpool Leader ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Liverpool Say ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'SKYnews ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Channel 7 ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Attention: Melanie Gibbons RE: unAustralian & AntiDemocratic & Prejudicial Interpretation of apparent Legislation which Excludes VOTERS from their Democratic Rights - 15 days to make a submission
Importance: High


17/8/2020

Regarding unAustralian & AntiDemocratic & Prejudicial Interpretation of apparent Legislation which Excludes VOTERS from their Democratic Rights - 15 days to make a submission
Formal Objection Moorebank Intermodal Stage 3 - SSD 10431


Attention: Melanie Gibbons (Representative for Voters) – Please advise what Action you are taking to fix this unAustralian and AntiDemocratic Mess




Dear Nathan (NSW Dept of Planning),

I am writing to formally object to the prejudicial interpretation of legislation which you seem to have applied by only allowing a 14 day exhibition period for modification applications (Concept and Stage 1 Modification 2 (SSD-5066-Mod-2) and Stage 2 Modification 1 (SSD-7709-Mod-1)).

If the goal is genuine engagement and robust community input, then exhibition periods must be 30 –45 days. It is not reasonable or feasible to expect the community to read all the material within a week and then compose a submission within a week. Assuming the notification is in fact noticed on or before the 1st day of exhibition. An unlikely proposition in the current climate [covid]. Moreover, the revised online submissions process is proving prohibitive for many in the community; particularly the older members [retired] and or the busy members [young families / parents]. The alternative postal option is equally prohibitive as it cuts the reading, comprehension and composition time down to approx. 10 days. But let us not fool ourselves; in the real world that means the bulk of the community will have just one weekend to tackle parallel mountains of planning material. Based on a decade of experience we can empirically say that the net result is generally a set of superficial objections that proponents have dismissed, or consent authorities have undervalued.

Again, if the goal of the Department is a democratic process and genuine engagement, then we emphatically suggest that the mark has been missed. In the parlance of archery that is a ‘sin’.

Therefore, please acknowledge this letter as a formal request on behalf of the community for an exhibition / submission extension to 21.09.2020, for both parallel modification applications.

Please confirm and advise at the earliest possible convenience.

From:
Sent: Monday, 17 August 2020 12:21 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: RAID Committee ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'melanie gibbons' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Tony Hadchiti ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Liverpool Leader ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Liverpool Say ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'SKYnews ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Channel 7 ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: unAustralian & AntiDemocratic & Prejudicial Interpretation of apparent Legislation which Excludes VOTERS from their Democratic Rights - 15 days to make a submission
Importance: High

17/8/2020

Regarding unAustralian & AntiDemocratic & Prejudicial Interpretation of apparent Legislation which Excludes VOTERS from their Democratic Rights - 15 days to make a submission
Formal Objection Moorebank Intermodal Stage 3 - SSD 10431


Attention: Mr Craig Kelly (Representative for Voters) – Please advise what Action you are taking to fix this unAustralian and AntiDemocratic Mess




Dear Nathan (NSW Dept of Planning),

I am writing to formally object to the prejudicial interpretation of legislation which you seem to have applied by only allowing a 14 day exhibition period for modification applications (Concept and Stage 1 Modification 2 (SSD-5066-Mod-2) and Stage 2 Modification 1 (SSD-7709-Mod-1)).

If the goal is genuine engagement and robust community input, then exhibition periods must be 30 –45 days. It is not reasonable or feasible to expect the community to read all the material within a week and then compose a submission within a week. Assuming the notification is in fact noticed on or before the 1st day of exhibition. An unlikely proposition in the current climate [covid]. Moreover, the revised online submissions process is proving prohibitive for many in the community; particularly the older members [retired] and or the busy members [young families / parents]. The alternative postal option is equally prohibitive as it cuts the reading, comprehension and composition time down to approx. 10 days. But let us not fool ourselves; in the real world that means the bulk of the community will have just one weekend to tackle parallel mountains of planning material. Based on a decade of experience we can empirically say that the net result is generally a set of superficial objections that proponents have dismissed, or consent authorities have undervalued.

Again, if the goal of the Department is a democratic process and genuine engagement, then we emphatically suggest that the mark has been missed. In the parlance of archery that is a ‘sin’.

Therefore, please acknowledge this letter as a formal request on behalf of the community for an exhibition / submission extension to 21.09.2020, for both parallel modification applications.

Please confirm and advise at the earliest possible convenience.

I OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:

I OBJECT to the application for Dangerous Goods Storage.

The proposed modification area is surrounded by highly a populated residential, commercial, educational, cultural and recreational parkland areas, this includes all the residents from Casula, Moorebank and Wattle Grove comprising from low density homes to high rise towers, childcare centres, schools, the Casula Parkland playgrounds, the Casula Powerhouse, the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club on the Georges River and many more local business.

This creates a huge risk to the wellbeing and safety of residents within the above mentioned vicinities, was there to be a mishandling that could lead to an explosion, a fire with toxic smoke/fumes or a leak into to the Georges ecosystem.

My living area and bedrooms are all easterly facing with large glass windows. I will be directly impacted if any of the above was to occur. I will not have peace of mind and will live in fear of such events.

I OBJECT to the application for Height Increase:

This will block the current horizon view not just for myself but for a large portion of residents. There are a large number of homes that will have their main living area facing large warehouse walls by day and affected by the light pollution by night. This will directly impact the quality of living and the value of property.

The Viewpoints for Casula Road and Canberra Ave. are not a true representation on how we are directly affected. Please see the attached pictures from my living area and bedrooms.

I OBJECT to the application for noise increase.

The increase of noise levels will directly impact quality of life for many residents and myself. The lower vegetation on the Georges river does not provide a buffer zone as the sound travels up to where the majority of dwellings are built along Casula Rd and Canberra avenue.

Already we are impacted by the noise generated by nightworks at the site and an increase of noise levels will cause stress, sleep disturbance and possible psychological problems.

I object to Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West SSD-5066-MoD 2 and SSD-7709-Mod-1. These applications constitute major and inappropriate changes to the approved plans and should be declined.

I make the following points:

The virtual writing out of an important NSW listed historical item, Glenfield Farm. We own the site, which is close to and overlooks MPW. The related issues of unlawful excessive noise, which the applicants seek to have made legitimate; and the proposed destruction of distant vistas and sightlines representing a major loss in terms of Glenfield Farm’s visual curtilage, and the historic views from the escarpment known locally to be of importance to indigenous people. I note that the applicants appear to deny the existence of these sightlines, which can be viewed any day of the week. Other issues of great concern to me are the request to have dangerous goods warehoused at MPW, and the dangerous implications of trucks on the highly congested Liverpool roads, ferrying these dangerous items to their destinations through heavy traffic and residential areas. There is a heightened risk, due to documented inappropriately high traffic levels, of a catastrophic accident. The further attempt to acquire even more ecologically sensitive land on a huge development site is inappropriate. If the MPW development is unable to turn a profit under existing conditions and on the existing site, the land could be productively uptaken by Liverpool City Council. LCC has an existing plan for the site comprising a landscaped technology park which would provide high local employment prospects, and also tie in with the developing Aerotropolis.

Historic Glenfield Farm and noise.

My husband and myself are the owners of Glenfield Farm, listed as being of exceptional importance to New South Wales heritage. Yet in these latest modification applications, it is difficult to even discern in the pale grey surrounding maps, the three acres comprising the Glenfield Farm holding which sits at the top of the Leacock Regional Park escarpment and directly overlooks the MPW site. The apparent omission of the Glenfield Farm complex means the early European and Aboriginal significance of the escarpment and its historic farm and surrounding parkland may be effectively left out of the planning process. Glenfield Farm is then treated as one “sensitive receiver” instead of as an important historic site, house, and farm buildings to be assessed and protected as a matter of importance to the state of NSW.

I protest this ongoing situation. A protracted community court case, RAID v Qube in the NSW Land and Environment Court, that dealt directly with with excessive and unlawful projected noise, particularly wheel squeal, in respect to the highly curved spur line built close to our property, under a different consent, resulted in the placing of conditions relating to noise specifically in respect to Glenfield Farm. I note that I have been recently approached with a view to placing noise monitoring equipment on Glenfield Farm to measure the spur line “wheel squeal” before the tight radius Southern spur line is actually in use by goods trains. Now the latest modification application attempts to raise the legal noise limits by a large margin. It appears to run against the conditions placed by the court in respect to another consent. Yet the applicants, in court, heard arguments that unlawful and excessive noise, 24 hours a day, places the long term viability of Glenfield Farm at risk. It seems to me that the continued feeding in to the system of modification applications for the Moorebank Intermodal development will result in a lack of clarity for residents such as myself, even if conditions have been imposed by the courts. It is not a viable option for residents to engage in multiple court actions dealing with essentially, the same issues, in this case, excessive noise impacts on Glenfield Farm.

As we have previously submitted, if the impacts of raising allowable noise limits cause the buildings to be uninhabitable, they will simply go the same way of many other historic places. The building is not able to be modified to mitigate noise impacts, because of the historically important fabric. The modification application regarding raising noise limits should be declined, as the issue of excessive noise has been extensively examined.

Warehouse height changes.

As discussed, the radical change in height of warehouses on MPW is a major transformational element that will be imposed on the historic curtilage of Glenfield Farm, and will also destroy for good the panoramic view from the top of the escarpment, which we do not need the book Dark Emu to tell us, represents thousands of years of indigenous peoples’ occupation and significance. I am aware of the importance placed on the site of Glenfield Farm by indigenous people, also the former presence of a destroyed important scar tree nearby, and even an early painting depicting the first settlers of Glenfield Farm with an aboriginal family camping in the front yard. Trees of the regional park do not obscure this rare panoramic view, as asserted. The loss of the highly locally significant escarpment views will just be another everyday heritage tragedy in Australia, but nevertheless, this increase in height should not be allowed. It does appear to make a travesty of the original consents, where heights were limited to preserve visual amenity. Warehouses in all areas of the development should comply with the existing height restrictions, which were placed with good reason, to protect the amenity of residents.

Dangerous goods.

The modification asks for a dispensation to allow the handling and warehousing of dangerous goods. The position of the MPW site in the heart of Liverpool, a densely populated residential and commercial area, make this a most inappropriate site for dangerous goods.
The blast pattern of the Beirut explosion should be placed over the Liverpool map to assess the consequences of such an accident, which would have heavy impacts for a 10 km radius. The Liverpool central business district is sited around five kilometres from the MPW site, and even closer are densely populated suburbs such Casula and Moorebank, which would also be in the zone for extremely destructive blast impacts. It would in my opinion be disingenuous to propose that Australian regulations would not allow such an accident to happen here - the Ruby Princess related system failures of apparently robust processes demonstrate the real risks to the Liverpool community of this proposal. Further layers of risk are added with the possibility of toxic gas escaping at a time of atmospheric inversion (a regular atmospheric occurrence in the area) and the risk of toxic spills ending up in the nearest drain (the ecologically sensitive Georges River). This proposal does not appear to me to proffer the high quality tenants that the Moorebank Intermodal initially mentioned. This modification application, which presents previously unforeseen serious dangers to the Liverpool community, should be declined. That this modification has been even suggested should bring home the potentially disastrous consequences of siting a huge and inappropriate industrial area, with all of the accompanying problems such as huge fleets of trucks overwhelming the road network, in the heart of a growing, densely populated residential and commercial area. Liverpool is on track to be the largest city in Sydney within the next ten years. Seen in this context, the modification applications should be declined, and the developers should be barred from making further such applications.


As a general comment I wish to emphasise that continual, relentless modification applications that are allowed to go on for years and years, wearying objectors and creating confusion around important matters, create a fertile environment for conditions that pose a major threat to public safety, amenity, and the environment of the affected area.

I moved to casula as it was a peaceful area, to bring my kids up in a place with nice greenery that was not too far away from the CBD. We all enjoy the horizon view from Marsh parade and this project will completely ruin that. Furthermore we do not want any light and noise pollution. Finally what would you possibly need to store in 45 storeys? This is rather concerning and we firmly object!

More public consultation and meetings are required to understand the need and the measures taken to prevent inconvenience and improve health and safety of the local population.

Please find the submission attached below.

Currently there is a 21 metre height allowance previously negotiated, this proposes a 43 metre ridge cap height of the building according to the elevation plans.

This structure is approximately equivalent to a residential 10 storey building. In the initial urban design and landscape report, there was an assessment of the width of screening corridor and bioretention swale of the development to minimise visual adaption, sensitivity, amenity and light spill. With the almost doubling of height for the would require a larger provision which is not indicated. It is unlikely that a structure of this size can be effectively "hidden" without a significant vegetative buffer under the assumption that topographical variation is insignificant or favourable. This is sadly not the case. This will be in stark contrast to the western bank of the Georges River interfering with visual amenity in a most displeasing and pollutive way. There are elevated receivers that will be negatively affected at direct and elevated positions nearer Liverpool Town Centre and at likely already approved residential developments in this area.

Will a subsequent future proposal aim to raise the ground level?

It is mentioned that as far as a proportion of the entire precinct, this proposal is a minor component of the 21 metre height cap of the existing facility, however, this proposed monolith will stick out like DOG'S BALLS. No amount of vegetation and green paint can hide this phallus. A stepped design in elevation is may reduce the starkness of visual contrast (e.g. Blum building in Len Waters Estate), however it does not hide the architecture given its disproportionate height.

This distribution centre will compound vehicular access and egress from the site and negatively affect the IMEX traffic flows and likely queueing of the MPW/MPE project even with provision for current road upgrades. Page 3 of the Transport Assessment admits that its figures require fine tuning and "refined with actual data" as the adjacent project rolls out, which to me indicates the figures that have been used are unreliable - rather a "wait and see" approach. It is modelled that incoming and outgoing truck and car flows will not be regulated from Woolworths given the variability of goods movement and staff attendance, so varied vehicle flows including the pre- and post-lunch peaks will have cumulative flow on effects, captured in Table 13 of the Traffic Assessment. Note that the Air Quality assessment and conclusion is based on the traffic figures directly form the basis for the Air Quality Assessment.

I don't wish to be all negative, so on the positive side, it will pale into insignificance the visual impact of the MPW project.

Sensitive receivers at the northern side of an exposed Casula will suffer noise from a 24 hour westerly oriented loading operation access is oriented in direct reception of the proposal. Much like the visual impact, the noise impact to receivers that are proximal and elevated will be significant.

I OBJECT to the application for Dangerous Goods Storage.

Section 4.55(2)-SSD 7709(MOD ) states in its Ammendment to Condition B176 "The total quantities of dangerous goods present at any time within the development and transport movements to and from the development must be kept below the screening threshold quantities and movements listed in the Department's Hazardous and Offensive Development Guidelines Applying SEPP 33 (January 2011)."
My concern is that not all 100% containers are screened for dangerous goods as it is physically impossible and economically too expensive to do so.
Chances are some containers containing unacceptable levels of dangerous goods will slip through without being noticed and therefore a Hazard Analysis to demonstrate compliance would not be able to be completed to keep below the screening threshold quantities and movements listed in the Department's Hazardous and Offensive Development Guidelines Applying SEPP 33 (January 2011)."

If there were to be an accident by means of mishandling or error of judgment that could eventuate in an explosion, a fire with dangerous toxic smoke/fumes or a leak into to the Georges River ecosystem and nearby populated areas. The Department of Defense Storage facility next door could also be compromised due to such events occurring.

This could create a massive health risk to the wellbeing and safety of the many nearby residents, employees of nearby businesses, children in educational and child care facilities and people using nearby recreational parklands
It may even threaten peoples lives.
The surrounding suburbs of Moorebank, Wattle Grove and Casula would be severely and unfairly threatened by the allowance of any of this activity should it be approved.
People will live their lives in fear of a dangerous goods accident occurring or even worse a catastrophic disaster occurring.

Bushfires remain a risk to the project and in turn to nearby residents of Wattle Grove, Casula and Glenfield.
At point 6.7 of the EIS prepared for SSD 7709 (MPW Stage 2) it notes that the dry forest toward the eastern and southern boundaries of the Subject Site and the vegetation of the riparian corridor present potential bushfire threats to the site.
It is noted, that there is a risk of bushfire occurring from sparks given off by rail cars traversing the site.

I OBJECT to the application for Height Increase:
My suspicions tell me that if the proponent had asked for these increased heights in the initial stages of planning and exhibition they may have been refused given the effects such heights would have on nearby residential areas with the spill of light, increase in noise and decreased values of properties given the views and aspect some would be faced with. This would have put a hault on operations. It's only now the proponents think they can get away it as they know the community is tired of making submissions and after all these years many have given up on writing submissions believing it is all too difficult.


I OBJECT to the application for noise increase.

The increase of noise levels will directly impact quality of life for many residents. The lower vegetation on the Georges river and the proposed 5m noise wall
do not provide a buffer zone as the sound travels up to where the majority of dwellings are built along Casula Road and Canberra Avenue as well as Glenfield Farm
These residents are currently impacted by the noise generated by nightworks at the site and an increase of noise levels will cause stress, sleep disturbance and possible psychological problems.
I am also concerned for any subsequent noise that may be generated from these proposals that will affect the nearby Wattle Grove community.

I object to the application SSD-5066-Mod 2 and SSD-7709 - Mod 1 for the following reasons:

I object to the application for dangerous goods storage.
The proposed area is surrounded by highly populated residential, commercial, educational as well as recreation areas, park lands and natural habitat, including the Georges River.
A dangerous goods facility would create an enormous risk to the community with the potential for mishandling of goods.
There have been two massive factory fires within a few blocks of the location in recent times, one which caused a horrendous and toxic lavender smell that made people in the area physically sick. And a recent fire at a car yard that raged out of control due to fuel on site.
The fact that both of these incidents caused considerable impacts in the local area is concerning, imagine if they had been allowed to house dangerous goods.
The risk of this type of storage is too dangerous in a highly populated area.

I object to the application for height increase.
The intermodal precinct has previously had height restrictions place upon it. These should be upheld. As such I object to this proposal.
I don't understand how the proponent can continue to come back to the Department time and time again to challenge restrictions that have been put in place. It is a waste of time for the Department and for local residents to have to continually object when the proponent is unhappy with the result of the original assessment.
Raising the height of this facility will have a big impact for local residents. The horizon view for all residents in the area will be impacted by a decision to raise the height of the facility.

I object to the application to increase noise levels
The intermodal precinct has previously had noise restrictions place upon it. These should be upheld. As such I object to this proposal.
As previously stated, I don't understand how the proponent can continue to come back to the Department time and time again to challenge restrictions that have been put in place. It is a waste of time for the Department and for local residents to have to continually object when the proponent is unhappy with the result of the original assessment.
Noise level increases will cause sleep disturbance in the local community which has been proven to impact the general health and well being of people.
In a residential area there are noise constraints put on everyone and when these are breached the police arrive to tell you to turn it down.... how does this work when a big business feels that they are entitled to be noisy 24/7?
In recent times I have reported, on a number of occasions, loud banging early in the morning - loud enough to wake me from my sleep. The departments response to me on each occasion was that I should leave my house at this time to try and locate the noise. This is completely unacceptable and proves to me that if this proponent decides to breach restrictions it is unlikely that the Department will do anything to stop them.
As such, all previously imposed restrictions should be upheld and the proponent should by now have reached its limit of trying to continually challenge them.

Name: Irene Tedjasaputra
Address: 28C Canberra Avenue, Casula NSW 2170
Re:
Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West – Concept Plan and Stage 1 – MOD 2 – Adjustment to Operational Boundary and Building Height (SSD-5066-Mod-2)
And
Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West – Stage 2 – MOD 1 – Building Height Incease (SSD-7709-Mod-1)

I OBJECT to the above applications.
Background:
The main living area (living room, main bedroom, and backyard) of my property at 28C Canberra Avenue is directly facing the development area, with the distance of approximately 500m. My property is of higher elevation from the development area.

Objections:
1. Application for amendment to Condition B176 to allow for Dangerous Goods to be stored on-site at relevant portions of the Site pertaining to Warehouse areas 5 & 6.
I OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:
a. The area surrounding the development is a rapidly developing area with increased population and activities. This means that more people and property are at risk was there to be a mishandling that could lead to incidents such as explosion, fire, or chemical leak.
The suburbs surrounding the proposed modification area – Casula, Moorebank, and Wattle Grove – is seeing a lot of urban development and rapid increase in population. There should be steps to minimise risk arising from industrial area as it will affect more people if that is to happen. The proposed modification is a move to the contrary – it is a risk increase rather than risk reduction.

The area is also directly adjacent to the Georges River, and is surrounded by conservation area. The proposed dangerous good storage will increase the risk of leak into the Georges River ecosystem, and increased danger to the surrounding conservation area.

b. The close proximity of my property to the proposed location poses a significantly increased risk and much increased anxiety.
Living so close to big warehouse(s) storing ‘substances that are corrosive, flammable, explosive, spontaneously combustible, toxic, and oxidising or water reactive, which can be deadly and can seriously damage property and the environment’ is certainly discomforting. Accidents do happen, and the fact that there were two large factory fires in the last 12 months in Moorebank area is a testament of that. I am certainly not comfortable living in such proximity to this potential ‘timebomb’

2. Application for amendment to the maximum building height established across the Subject Site from approximately 21 m up to and including 45 m with respect to future built form under MPW Stage 2;
I OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:
My backyard, my main bedroom and my living area is directly facing the proposed modification site . The building site is not obscured by greeneries.

While 21m buildings will appear as a low-laying building and still allow views to the greeneries behind them, doubling them in height will significantly impact our view. There is also a potential light pollution at night caused by this increased in hight. This will directly impact our quality of living and the value of the property.
Our property will not be the only one having this problem, as most houses around the area would be built with similar arrangement with the view towards what was initially green looking conservation area.
The visual analyses presented in the documents are not true representations since it was taken from non-relevant viewpoints. The Casula Road viewpoint was presented from the road and justified by mentioning minimal effect to motorists. There is no mention on the significant impact on the residents. Please see attached pictures from my living area/backyard and main bedroom.

3. Application for amendment to the noise criteria established under Condition B131 of SSD 7709
I OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:
My property, and quite a number of others along Casula Road and Canberra Avenue, is situated uphill from the location. The operational noise generated even at the moment (at lower level) travels up and is already noticable from our location. The lower vegetation on the Georges River does not provide a buffer zone as sound travels to where the majority of dwellings are built along Casula Road and Canberra Avenue. Any increase to this will add to the disturbances.

Declaration:
I declare that I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.

Too close to residents and homes!
Concerns about Traffic Congestion, Noise, Lighting, 24 Hour Operation, Height and Dangerous Good being
stored within close proximity of residential homes!

SSD-7709-Mod1 and SSD-5066-Mod-2
I OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:
I OBJECT to the application for Dangerous Goods Storage.
The proposed modification area is surrounded by highly a populated residential, commercial, educational, cultural and recreational parkland areas, this includes all the residents from Casula, Moorebank and Wattle Grove comprising from low density homes to high rise towers, childcare centres, schools, the Casula Parkland playgrounds, the Casula Powerhouse, the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club on the Georges River and many more local business.
This creates a huge risk to the wellbeing and safety of residents within the above mentioned vicinities, was there to be a mishandling that could lead to an explosion, a fire with toxic smoke/fumes or a leak into to the Georges ecosystem.
My living area and bedrooms are all easterly facing with large glass windows. I will be directly impacted if any of the above was to occur. I will not have peace of mind and will live in fear of such events.
I OBJECT to the application for Height Increase:
This will block the current horizon view not just for myself but for a large portion of residents. There are a large number of homes that will have their main living area facing large warehouse walls by day and affected by the light pollution by night. This will directly impact the quality of living and the value of property.
The Viewpoints for Casula Road and Canberra Ave. are not a true representation on how we are directly affected. Please see the attached pictures from my living area and bedrooms.
I OBJECT to the application for noise increase.
The increase of noise levels will directly impact quality of life for many residents and myself. The lower vegetation on the Georges river does not provide a buffer zone as the sound travels up to where the majority of dwellings are built along Casula Rd and Canberra avenue.
Already we are impacted by the noise generated by nightworks at the site and an increase of noise levels will cause stress, sleep disturbance and possible psychological problems.
I declare that I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous 2 years.

SSD-7709-Mod1 and SSD-5066-Mod-2
OBJECT to the above application for the following reasons:
I OBJECT to the application for Dangerous Goods Storage.
The proposed modification area is surrounded by highly a populated residential, commercial, educational, cultural and recreational parkland areas, this includes all the residents from Casula, Moorebank and Wattle Grove comprising from low density homes to high rise towers, childcare centres, schools, the Casula Parkland playgrounds, the Casula Powerhouse, the NSW Barefoot Water Ski Club on the Georges River and many more local business.
This creates a huge risk to the wellbeing and safety of residents within the above mentioned vicinities, was there to be a mishandling that could lead to an explosion, a fire with toxic smoke/fumes or a leak into to the Georges ecosystem.
My living area and bedrooms are all easterly facing with large glass windows. I will be directly impacted if any of the above was to occur. I will not have peace of mind and will live in fear of such events.
I OBJECT to the application for Height Increase:
This will block the current horizon view not just for myself but for a large portion of residents. There are a large number of homes that will have their main living area facing large warehouse walls by day and affected by the light pollution by night. This will directly impact the quality of living and the value of property.
The Viewpoints for Casula Road and Canberra Ave. are not a true representation on how we are directly affected. Please see the attached pictures from my living area and bedrooms.
I OBJECT to the application for noise increase.
The increase of noise levels will directly impact quality of life for many residents and myself. The lower vegetation on the Georges river does not provide a buffer zone as the sound travels up to where the majority of dwellings are built along Casula Rd and Canberra avenue.
Already we are impacted by the noise generated by nightworks at the site and an increase of noise levels will cause stress, sleep disturbance and possible psychological problems.
I declare that I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous 2 years.

I have opposed the concept of the Moorebank Intermodal since I moved to the area in late 2007. I can see that long term there could be deleterious effects on the health of nearby residents from pollution from particulates that can cause cancer and increase problems for asthma sufferers. The effects of the noise from the 24-hour movement of heavy vehicles and freight trains could cause stress and anxiety for the 9,000 residents in Wattle Grove.

Thank you for making this platform available for comments.
Would prefer not to use this platform as it stops many elderly and new immigrants from making their submissions.
My objections relate to the height of the warehouses being increased in size from 21m by 214% to approximately 45m.
The MPE and MPW projects have been on public exhibition many times and the public is getting tired of always having the rules changed.
MPE has a number of warehouses already completed and more under construction.
Woolworths has now requested an increase in the size of its warehouse to more than double the height.
This would give Woolworths a substantial financial advantage over the tenants of the other buildings already completed and under construction.
It effectively is doubling the warehouse and halving its costings. It should not be allowed such a substantial advantage over the Warehouses in MPE and would set a precedent and encourage all the other warehouses in MPW to also increase the size heights of all the other buildings in MPW.
If Woolworths wanted to increase the heights of its building it should have purchased warehouse in MPE where the additional noise being generated would have a far less effect t on the residential receivers of Casula. Woolworths should not be allowed to increase the noise generated on the housing surrounding their site and gain such a large financial advantage over the existing operators in MPE.
It has become increasingly difficult to estimate the noise effect on these receivers in Casula because the location of the noise logging devices keeps changing and the figures are never the same, weather it be for the SSFL rail line, The original MPE/MPW noise and vibration reports and now these Woolworths N&V reports.
For example in MPW2 N&V Impact assessment report No.15324 Version D page 24 table 6-1 , Page 28 Table 6-8figure 5-1page 23 and Operational Noise assessments 7 on page 30 of same document DO NOT AGREE with this reports figures. TL265-01F04 DA Acoustic Assessment N&V Impact Assessment.
The company making this assessment continuously reports that any increases in the N&V will be insignificant and if not then reasonable and feasible. As history shows during the construction and operation of the SSFL reasonable and feasible is not defined and has no costs nor levels which are defined.
During the SSFL design every noise and vibration report gave assurances that where reasonable and feasible noise mitigation would be introduced where levels were exceeded. However even though given instructions to provide further reports on the N&V levels during operations at 1years/5years no reports have been made available and SSFL has refused to provide reports because there is no money to do reasonable and feasible noise mitigation.
Therefore I do not believe that any reasonable and feasible measures would be undertaken to reduce excessive noise or vibration once the warehouse is operational.
See page 3 Noise Wall B.129 For some reason the report discusses the Noise wall and its construction height of 5m. as if this would have any effect on the reduction of noise from the Hibay warehouse which is above 45m. The reports does indicate that additional noise will be generated by the Hibay installation during normal 24hours/7days of operation and table 4 page 3 seems to be much lower than the original MPW2 table 6-8 levels.
The Noise Wall has no relevance because the building is so high above it.
AND IN THEIR OWN Report---The conditions that require noise monitoring (B139andB140) will not be directly addressed in this report as the monitoring can only be undertaken when the proposed development has been completed and in operation.
As the western access ring road is a shared road to all MPW users, mitigation measures reducing noise from the use of this road from a whole of MPW perspective. As such, noise from the use of the western access ring road by Woolworths’ Distribution Centre has been excluded from this NVIA, as it is subject to a whole of MPW review" In other words, they cannot assess and it will be the responsibility of others to mitigate.
Table 2.1 in section 2.3 talks about noise receivers R1 and R2. If one inspects the placement of the Noise logger it will be seen that R2 the Casula Precinct Arts Centre is blocking any noise generated by the Woolworths building and that R1 is within its shadow, therefore the CPAC is a very effective noise mitigation barrier for R1 9 Casula Rd. and therefore this is not a suitable site. Despite many request to SIMTA/Elton Consulting to conduct testing as per SSFL or original Moorebank Intermodal receivers residential sites the offer has not been taken up. If they had it would be a good case of comparing apples with apples and not with currents.
I would like to move onto the visual impact of the Woolworths Hibay building which will be much higher than any of the MPE buildings and possibly surrounding MPW buildings..45meters against 21meters. This is a massive increase and the report advises that its a 214% increase. I am not sure how they arrived at that percentage but I will go with that.
It will BLOCK OUT THE HORIZON for many Casula Homes. It will be and EYESOAR dominating the landscape. In the original MPE/MPW they proponents went for a maximum building height of 21m because they reported that it was in consultation with the community expectations and surrounding environment. The Community accepted that NO BUILDING would be higher than its recommendations of 21meters. Now at the 11th Hour Woolworths have come along and want to change all the rules. It wants to blot out the horizon, stopping the summer sunrise for many of the Casula residents and creating on blemish on the horizon. It is completely unreasonable to come into the project now and change all the rules and expectations of the community..
This is NOT A State Significant Project.. The State Significant Project is the Moorebank Intermodal Site.....NOT ONE PROPONENTS WANTS.
Another Developer may not want to go above the 21m maximum height requirement..ONLY WOOLWORTHS DOES to get an unfair Advantage over other Retailers.
Please see the attached picture of the Parklands from the rear of residents homes in Marsh Parade Casula
Picture DSCN 5443 shows the parkland and view of Moorebank Intermodal Woolworths site as the one of the two white dust bowls within the green trees. To the area just above the far left of the left construction area, can be seen one of the two cranes to be constructed on the MPE site. It can bee seen because part is painted a bright lemon green. A closer pictures can bee seen in DSCN 5444 and 5441
UNFORTUNATELY this Major Projects Subnission form does not allow Microsoft Word and JPEG Picture formations. It took many hours of research to figure out how to convert to PDF. This may be easy for NSW Government employees, not so good for average public jo-blow or the elderly and not computer literate members of the community.

In Summary
We are against the Proposal because Height is Excessive, Invasive, will be noisier for the residents and environmental vandalism.
We find that the N&V report is not substantiated by the earlier MPE/MPW N&V reports already approved and that levels and finding have been reported and conducted to meet predetermined goals.
It will give the proponent an unfair financial advantage over existing warehouse tenants
The proposal to move the building closer to the residents of Casula is also unacceptable because of noise and intrusions to the landscape views.
Please Consider the Many Casula Residents In Their Homes which will be Severely Disadvantage by the increase in height and background noise generated by the Operations of the Hibay warehouse
Thanking you sincerely

Michael and Leonie Russell and Family

The increased building height will adversely affect residents in surrounding areas. The large height of the site buildings will stand out as an eyesore for the neighbouring homes in an area which was previously predominantly residential buildings, low level buildings and bush land.
The extra building height will also increase the amount of light pollution being emitted from the site which will be detrimental to the surrounding residential areas.
As a local resident I have already noticed a large increase in noise due to the construction that has already been undertaken in the area of these sites. What was previously a quite, peaceful location is already disturbed by construction noise and with a significantly increased building height would come a significantly increased construction noise.
This project has already caused a great amount of stress and disturbance to the residents in the surrounding areas. This is a project which should never have been initiated in our area and would have been far better suited to another area. It is upsetting for residents to be facing further amendments to this project which will cause yet more ongoing disruptions to the local communities. In what has already been a horrific and stressful year with no end to the stress it is disgraceful to think that residents are potentially being subjected to even further stress.
If the original plans have now been found to be insufficient for the needs than this is another example of why this site was never appropriate for this facility.

The increased building height will adversely affect residents in surrounding areas. The large height of the site buildings will stand out as an eyesore for the neighbouring homes in an area which was previously predominantly residential buildings, low level buildings and bush land.
The extra building height will also increase the amount of light pollution being emitted from the site which will be detrimental to the surrounding residential areas.
As a local resident I have already noticed a large increase in noise due to the construction that has already been undertaken in the area of these sites. What was previously a quite, peaceful location is already disturbed by construction noise and with a significantly increased building height would come a significantly increased construction noise.
The proposal to include dangerous goods on site is extremely alarming for many reasons. How can the safety of local residents be assured when the site is so close to so many local homes. If an accident was to occur so close to so many residential areas surely it would have not only an immediate effect on thousands of residents but also an ongoing effect for possibly many, many years.
The area is also a bush fire zone with two major bush fires in the area in my 23 years as a local resident. As someone who was in the direct line of movement of the bush fire two and a half years ago and was directly involved in fighting the fire as part of a local community fire unit I witnessed just how quickly bush fires can move. The thought that a bush fire could spread to a site containing dangerous goods is frightening. I cannot see how a sufficient amount of appropriately prepared fire fighters could protect the site quickly enough in the case of a fast moving bush fire. To think that residents properties may not be protected by fire fighting personnel in the event of the next bush fire because they are otherwise occupied protecting dangerous goods at this site is extremely upsetting and dangerous.
This project has already caused a great amount of stress and disturbance to the residents in the surrounding areas. This is a project which should never have been initiated in our area and would have been far better suited to another area. It is upsetting for residents to be facing further amendments to this project which will cause yet more ongoing disruptions to the local communities. In what has already been a horrific and stressful year with no end to the stress it is disgraceful to think that residents are potentially being subjected to even further stress.
If the original plans have now been found to be insufficient for the needs than this is another example of why this site was never appropriate for this facility.