Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Stage 2

27th November 2016
My name is Allan Corben of 13 Woolmers Court Wattle Grove 2173 and I hereby submit the following submission on MPW Stage 2 EIS SSD 16_7709.
Having just completed reading the submission by Paul and Narelle Van Den Bos I'm absolutely shocked at the misleading information published in the MPW Stage 2 EIS. The contents of the Van Den Bos submission confirms my concerns noted in my previous submission at the deliberate misleading information being lodged by the proponent, SIMTA.
I have copied information from the Van Den Bos submission and applied my comments in red font.
XXXXXXX " the EIS saying it's "not false or misleading is a load of rubbish.
I'm of the opinion that the proponents are virtually pulling figures out of the sky to suit their direction. There are figures quoted that show that earlier study figures are now reduced, how can this happen or be allowed to happen.
SIMTA first identified that the M5 Bridge over Georges River as a traffic issue and even SIMTA's traffic auditors stated that SIMTA ignored future traffic growth.
The EIS reports the total crashes as 444, which is about 65% of the figures found in SIMTA's earlier EIS documents. One would consider this figure would increase not reduce.
Given that the Federal and NSW Government have proclaimed that Moorebank is ideally situated, this delay may surprise the reader. In the MICL's EIS, a delay of 845.2 seconds (14 minutes and 5 seconds) can be found for one right hand turning movement. I would not like to own a truck when they have to contend with this level of delay. Time is money.
MICL's EIS states that the M5 Motorway is a black spot, with a rate of accidents that is about 40 times higher than the RMS guidelines. (Figures are three years old, and were taken before the M5 Widening was completed). SIMTA's EIS states that about 75% of all their Intermodal vehicles will use this black spot. These figures are totally incorrect and are evident as misleading information.
SIMTA's earlier EIS stated that about 27% of their Intermodal Traffic will use Sydney's worst accident hot spot. SIMTA's EIS states that about 75% of all their Intermodal vehicles will use this black spot. Again misleading information.
To impress the innocent people SIMTA state that facility will employ 7,000 people. In reality, that number should be in the vicinity of 700. A large portion of the container handling equipment will be driverless. The figures they quote may include theory numbers on employees of warehousing, if they are successful in attracting business to the site.
In the earlier EIS SIMTA stated that the NSW Government agreed with SIMTA to use the 1.3% growth for the future scenarios.This agreement raises very serious professional, ethical and moral issues:
* Five years ago, SIMTA's own internal traffic auditors referred to the "existing capacity constraints under current road conditions". *
* Why has there been no traffic counts on the M5 Bridge since the 2010 count?
* The RMS web site has a 2012 count and the other links in the table have 2015 counts.
It is noted that since the 2010 count, that is 6 years old, the M5 Motorway has been widened to a 3-lane each way.
The table shows that between the two earlier EIS documents, the injuries and heavy vehicle crashes increased by 20%.
Misleading information.
* Why change the accident study area?
* In the first two EIS documents the crashes were 685 and 669.
In the new study area, the crashes were 444, about 65% of the earlier EIS documents
In closing I would like to say the following,
I would have thought that matters of the nature should be detected by NSW planning before any EIS is put out for exhibition.
When people read misleading information as contained in the Van Den Bos's submission, one can understand why our community has no trust or confidence in those involved in this development.
It's time that people signing off on these approvals need to use greater scrutiny on the information provided by the proponents.
In consideration of above, how XXXXXXXXXX the EIS is not false or misleading, please pull the other leg.
I hope the NSW Planning take notice of the issues raised by Paul and Narele Van Den Bos.
Regards,
Allan Corben

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because this sort of business does not belong here
Yours sincerely, Rob Wooden Mount Pritchard, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: It will disruption the natural habitat of the area and will also create more noise and air pollution. Let's not destroy a beautiful area by building this Moore bank Container terminal.

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because i worry about the potential increase in traffic once the project is finish.
Yours sincerely, Rony Radjasa Mount Pritchard, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
Location * The site is surrounded by residential development, this site should never have been selected due to the young families who have settled in this area; * This area is a quiet, leafy suburb with strong community connections, * This development will be detrimental to the area and depreciate its value; and * Other sites are preferable, such as Badgerys Creek, which does not have a residential development nearby.
Contamination
* The unloading of imported containers in this area will have the potential to destroy native flora and fauna; and * The unloading of imported containers in this area will have the potential to destroy the Georges River.
Yours sincerely, Christine czintos Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: of the lie that the terminal will reduce trucks on Sydney roads. What a lot of hogwash. It will increase truck movements on the roads radiating from Moorebank manyfold. It is dangerous enough now with at least one truck accident in the news each day. It will be horrendous with thousands more trucks on our local roads. And of course, with the increase in trucks will come an increase in diesel emissions to pollute the local environment. This terminal does NOT belong in a built up area. The State and Local Governments are promising to make Liverpool a true river city by developing the amenities and living conditions along the Georges River. WHERE DOES THE INTERMODAL FIT INTO THIS SCENARIO? It simply does not!
Yours sincerely, Robert Reynolds Moorebank, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: I have lived here for the past 30 years. Our area is already congested and polluted with not enough resources........ Hundreds upon hundreds of units have been added to this space and we cant function already! Have you been to the hospital lately? This is going to turn the liverpool area into a ghetto.....again!! WAWRICK FARM WAS DESTROYED AND NOW MOOREBANK TOO??????? NOT GOOD ENOUGH! !!!!
Yours sincerely, Magda Fornal Chipping Norton, South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
The blatant health and environmental risks associated with the proposed land use from both vehical exhaust and noise is being ignored and underestimated by all Government departments.
As seen on the Goverments own ABC internet page, http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2003/07/03/1835282.htm there are major health risks associated with road transport and diesel pollution.
World organisations are pushing to reduce pollution from diesel vehicles in residential areas, our govenment with so many environemtal Depts, should be leading the way not introducing an industry that has been linked to increase known health issues.
Further, with the urban sprawl along the M5 southwest corridor increasing by the thousands, to further congest the intersections of Hume hwy and Moorebank Ave would create traffic congestion unparralelled in Sydney.
Yours sincerely, Steve Williams Wattle Grove, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: it will affect thousands of family's and hundreds of thousands of commuters on a daily basis. Residents and young family's live in moorebank and surrounds because they like a quiet lifestyle. My home is my only asset, will the government reimburse me for any capital lost due to this development? Most politicians live on the northern suburbs, but I bet they wouldn't allow an intermodal to be built! Many residents have illnesses and a peaceful lifestyle with quiet and green surrounds aid recoveries and minimize symptoms. The government should think ahead to the future rather than coming up with bandaid solutions. Locate the intermodal closer to the new airport, in preparation for future growth instead of imposing it on existing residential areas. It is currently too close to family homes, meaning loud noise, dust, pollutants etc would affect residents. This would then lead to an increase in Medicare costs d
ue to the increased number of people visiting the doctor with intermodal inflicted illnesses. Putting the intermodal in the moorebank will only COST the government money, and community lives. DO NOT BUILD the intermodal in moorebank.
Yours sincerely, Ross Peverill Moorebank New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
We already have 1000s of trucks coming into our area where our homes are and all these trucks are all right near our infant schools Don't put it hear we are already congested with traffic Do the right thing and put it out towards Badgeris creek Where there is land as far as the eye can see
Yours sincerely, Bill Kerpiniotis Mount Pritchard, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
Wattle Grove is my home and i have a daughter that doesnt need to be brought up with the garage in our area when it can go next to the new airport which makes sense.
Moorebank and wattle grove is a family place that doesnt need or want this to happen. Take it somewhere else.
Yours sincerely, Dean Dunkerley Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because the amount of delivery vans and trucks that will be on already over congested roads will make travelling out of Wattle Grove impossible. Poor air quality due to exhaust fumes and pollution which can harm both children and adults suffering with asthma and other respiratory conditions.The fact that there are many child care centres and schools in the area will certainly effect the children. The close proximity of homes to the intermodal. The noise factor as the precinct will operate 24 hours per day.
Yours sincerely, Mirella Riga Wattle Grove, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location.
Yours sincerely, Matt Kostas Carnes Hill, New South Wales, 2171, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because of additional traffic, air pollution, destruction of bushland and the effect on bellbirds on casula side of Georges River.
Yours sincerely, David Llewellyn Moorebank, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: It destroys lives.
Yours sincerely, Deborah Williams Wattle Grove New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: It it's going to effect the health and welfare of me and my family. It's going incredibly increase traffic into an area that is congested and I'm concerned for the environmental concerns surrounding the river and the surrounding habitat.
Yours sincerely, Leanne Bullard Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

As you are probably aware of the stage 1 of the intermodal we don't want this big intermodal being build in a local suburb, we are going to fight this to the very end.
The submission I am corresponding now is this stage 2 as well, where are you going to get the money, the pollution you are going to cause the noise etc at Moorebank etc. the arterial roads contacted to this is going to be choked, Newbridge Road especially so don't tell me flat it is going to improve of traffic it is not it is going to make it worse if commuters all road so we are requesting to stop this rigdicilous and planning of this intermodal the feeling the community has we don't want it what does it take for your instructure people to keep going ahead and asking council.
This submission I don't approve of the intermodal at all so this submission I also don't approve at all, I do not support it all and either does the rest of the community either

Objection to the MPW Stage 2 proposal environment statement.
Peter Savidis
Resident Wattlegrove.
Aboriginal heritage.
I object to the mpw stage 2 works in particular the aboriginal heritage due to the fact that the forementioned area is that of the Gandangara peoples GLAC. During the whole process and hiring of third party archeologists 2010-2014, the GLAC at the time was run by a questionable CEO `Mark Johnson'. He is under ICAC investigation and has alleged a number of vested offshoot companies. Also the Thurawal TLALC people were involved as well and it is known during that time and now do not have an indigenous heritage officer nor did the GLAC. Therefore the whole process is flawed. A new inspection should be carried out by appropriate and real custodians of the land.
European heritage.
In regards to non-indigenous significance, there are mainly military and known local environment plans 2008 LEPs within and adjacent to the MPW. Places like `Kitcheners House' which apart from military significance housed a number of prominent families significant to the Liverpool area. The Casula station and footbridge opened in 1894 has a significance to the area as well as being listed under the relevant rail heritage is under threat from the proposed site as well as is the Casula viaduct (listed on the Campbelltown LEP). The Strarch and Cust buildings have significant military value and showcase army engineering artifacts. These together with other military items, the Dog Cemetary also possess significant social value. Altogether the whole site is not only significant to Moorebank/Liverpool but one of national identity.
Bushfire Threats.
The southern aspect of the proposed site will present bushfire threat as it also has a sloped indexed land which under the right temperature and direction could pose problems to the residents who then havemay be have to be evacuated through one main exit/entry point in Wattle Grove. The western side of MPW being bushfire prone contains valuable ecological significance in that it is a riparian corridor. Irrespective of planning and assesements made one has to ponder on the outcome. Also would the need for emergency vehicles to access these areas must be fast and safe for personel involved. One cannot see in the event of this outcome first attack veheicles having access and egress.as well as other threats like sparks from trains given off, there is a high risk of ignition. Management of vegetation to mainatain safe distances will only incur in loss of more natural vegetation and habitat of native species

A proposed container terminal at Moorebank, confined to the loop of the Georges River, is the wrong place for many reasons.
Huge expense to provide the infrastructure of roads, rail, warehousing and terminal buildings. Impossibly long delay times for traffic in the already busiest network in Australia. Pollution of smog, noise and visual with resulting erosion of property values.
It is unlikely that any investors in the project will profit even in the long term.
An already severely degraded environment will become non-existent killing thousands of flora and fauna.

submission attached