Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

St Marys Intermodal

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

The construction and operation of an Inland Container Terminal with a 301,000 TEU annual throughput operating capacity, including associated container handling operations from the eastern side. Container transportation would be via train or road.

Consolidated Consent

SSD7308_MOD6_Consolidated Consent

Archive

Request for SEARs (1)

Revised Preliminary Environmental Assessment

SEARs (1)

SEARs SSD 7308

EIS (26)

St Marys Freight Hub EIS
Plan 1 - Engineering Drawing Set
Plan 2 - Wash Bay Drawings
Plan 3 - Site Layout
Appendix 2 - Secretarys Environmental Assessment Requireme
Appendix 3 - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report
Appendix 4 - Traffic and Transport Assessment
Appendix 5 - Landscape Plans
Appendix 6 - Train Plan
Appendix 7 - Construction Program
Appendix 8 - Waste Management Plan - Construction
Appendix 9 - Waste Management Plan - Operation
Appendix 10 - Hazardous & Offensive Development Risk Screen
Appendix 11 - Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation
Appendix 12 - Supplementary Contamination Assessment
Appendix 13 - Remediation Action Plan
Appendix 14 - Desktop Flood Study & Flood Imapct Assessment
Appendix 15 - Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix 16 - Bushfire Assessment
Appendix 17 - Groundwater Level Investigation
Appendix 18 - Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix 19 - Air Quality Impact Assessment
Appendix 20 - Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix 21 - Statement of Heritage Impact
Appendix 23 - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Repo
Appendix 1 - Capital Investment Value

Response to Submissions (17)

Request RTS_08072019_043830
Appendix 16 - Construction Program (Updated)
Appendix 15 - Extended Work Hours Statement
Appendix 13 - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (U
Appendix 12 - Interim Environmental Management Plan
Appendix 11 - Remediation Action Plan (Updated)
Appendix 10 - Further Asbestos Investigation
Appendix 9 - Stockpile and Railway Corridor Investigation
Appendix 8 - Flood Impact Assessment (Updated)
Appendix 7 - Dam Dewatering Plan
Appendix 6 - Stormwater Management Plan (Updated)
Appendix 5 - Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Updated
Appendix 4 - Traffic and Transport Assessment (Updated)
Appendix 3 - Consultation Strategy (Updated)
Appendix 2 - Concept Layout and Staging Plans (Updated)
Appendix 1 - Response to Submissions Matrix
191004 17-103 STM rp St Marys Freight Hub RTS_1H_LODGED

Additional Information (20)

Appendix 5 - Road Safety Audit
Appendix 4 - Offsite Transport Route Air Quality
Appendix 6 - Entry Concept Design & Swept Paths
Appendix 2 - Heavy Vehicle Route Options
Appendix 3 - Truck Route Noise Impact Assessment
RFI - EESG Comments
RFI - Crown Lands and Water Comments
RFI - Response to Submissions
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment - Post RtS
Heavy Vehicle and Transport Analysis Report - Post RtS
Preliminary Construction Staging Strategy
Attachment 1 - DPIE and Applicant Response
Attachment 2 - PCC and Applicant Response
Attachment 3 - EPA and Applicant Response
Attachment 4 - TfNSW and Applicant Response
Applicant Response to Heavy Vehicle RFI
RFI Response - PCC Letter to DPIE
RFI - Applicant's Response to PCC Letter
RFI - Investigation of Southern Noise Barrier
60593074-LTNV-1_F

Determination (3)

Notice Of Decision
Development Consent
Assessment Report

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (35)

FERP - Approval Letter - SIGNED
B12 Air Quality and Noise Tech Reports and Approval Letter 11 Sep 21
B7 Construction CCS FINAL Rev 1
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_26022021_023222
B7 Construction CCS FINAL Rev 2
Approval of Community Consultation Strategy
Other_05112021_021803
211018-034-SM-D7 WPTP v4
Approval of Construction Waste Management Sub-Plan
B15 St Marys Intermodal CWMSP Rev1 2020_07_02
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_28102021_034630
210910-034-D8 OTAMP v2
Updated CEMP and Sub Plans - Approval Letter
Updated CEMP and Sub Plans - Approval Letter
Updated CEMP and Sub Plans - Approval Letter
Updated CEMP and Sub Plans - Approval Letter
B15 CWMSP St Marys Intermodal 210317
B13 CTPMSP St Marys Intermodal 210317
B14 CNVMSP St Marys Intermodal 210317
B18 Flood Emergency Response Plan Rev 4
B16 CSWMSP St Marys Intermodal 210317
Updated CEMP and Sub Plans - Approval Letter
Approval of Construction Biodiversity Management Sub-Plan
B17 St Marys Intermodal CBMSP 210317
B17 CBMSP St Marys Intermodal 2020_07_13
Approval of CTPMSP
Updated Construction Environment Management Plan and Sub Plans - Approval Letter dated 1 April 2021
B13 CTPMSP St Marys Intermodal 2020_07_27
Construction Environment Management Plan (rev 8, dated 10 March 2021)
Approval of CNVMSP 20082020_010737
Approval of CSWMP 17082020_030948
B14 CNVMSP St Marys Intermodal 2020_07_30
CSWMSP St Marys Intermodal Rev 4
Approval of CEMP 21082020_010430
B11 CEMP St Marys Intermodal 2020_08.05

Reports (1)

200713-034-Compliance Report Program

Independent Reviews and Audits (2)

C34 Ind Audit Program St Marys Intermodal final
Approval Independent Auditor

Other Documents (21)

D13 Noise monitor update - December
220125-034-D13-DPIE Noise monitor
D16 Noise barrier Monthly Update - January
200610-PCC-Response to Condition B16
20200615 - TfNSW Response - SSD-7308
EPA Site Audit Statement
D17 Fire Safety Certificate Terminal
Site Audit Report
20-134_St Marys Hub Site Boundaries_07
20-134_Lee Holm Road_06
20-134_Forrester Road_01 LR
Approval Letter - condition D14
Timeframe extensions to Conditions D13 and D19 - Approval Letter dated 10 November 2021
210721-034-D14 TNM Location
Other_10062021_093825
210917-034-Request for extension
210510-SM-PN Letter to DPIE w attachments
Letter of Approval - Interim Noise Barrier - 23-AUG-2121
210726-034-SM-D16 Noise barrier FINAL v2
320321 - Retirement of Biodiversity Credits
Other_10082021_115941

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.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

28/4/2021

29/03/2022

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 15 of 15 submissions
Emmanuel Stratiotis
Comment
SOUTH HURSTVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I support the project but believe that the heavy vehicles should not be exiting back in to Lee holm Rd.
Lee Holm Rd supports the use of the entry of vehicles , however it would be dangerous to have heavy vehicles exiting back onto Lee Holm Rd as it is not wide enough as a carriageway to support such traffic and would be dangerous to have heavy vehicles turning right back on to Lee holm Rd when exiting the site.
The alternative would be to have Lee Holm Rd as an entry point only and the exit should be back on to Forrester Rd via the road adjacent to the rail line. That way there is continuity of traffic and Forrester rd is wide enough to be facilitate heavy vehicle movements.
This would in turn allow heavy vehicles to turn right into Glossop st using traffic lights already in situ , and provide access to Boronia Rd and Christie St using the existing roundabout thus making heavy vehicle movements safer and not endangering light vehicle traffic.
Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc
Object
LEURA , New South Wales
Message
Firstly, I lodge my objection to the bureaucratic introduction of a changed process that requires a person or entity to register through a convoluted system should that person wish to lodge a submission on a matter on exhibition.

What was wrong with the former process?

You are doing exactly what the government wants to achieve and that is make it difficult for the public and thus discourage community consultation in planning matters. You are a disgrace to open government and community engagement. You all play your part in making this a closed, behind-the-scenes, structured/organised State.

Having said that I don't expect any favourable consideration to the content of my submission but that then does not make me wrong in what I say. The problem is you road blocks to open government and a better environment.

Blacktown & District Environment Group Inc objects to the loss of remnants of ecological communities on the site of the proposed Intermodal at St Marys. Offsetting off site through biobanking or other means still results in a net loss and continued reduction of extent of ecological communities and species overall and in representation within the proposed development site.

We are also concerned about the impact of the development on the wetland and Little Creek at the northern end of the proposed Intermodal site. We note the site footprint includes a portion of the wetland.

It is not clear to us what it means to the wetland by having a boundary line for the Intermodal transecting part of the wetland. The wetland would be of importance for habitat and foraging for fauna. The recording of presence of the Southern Myotis, a BC Act listed species, is consistent with the species use of the wetland for foraging. The wetland must be protected intact and without hindrance to gliding approach and over the wetland.

The NSW Government commissioned Urban Bushland Biodiversity Study,1997, identified the ecological value of rural dams. This wetland falls sits within that category.

One need not look too far away from this site and a little further downstream along South Creek to an incident a few years ago of human error which caused the poisoning of native fauna including the Australian Bass species in great number. This error came from an industrial site in St Marys.

It is important to redress that human failing which involves the hosing or pouring of toxic substances into drains within domestic but more so within industrial and commercial premises. We note that the site drains to the north and therefore into the wetland and Little Creek. A site proposed to store large quantities of storage containers with almost any sort of contents as well as a site being a hive of truck activity is a potent recipe for contaminants and pollution beyond the site. Trucks are notorious for leaking fuel and oil.

All drains on site should drain to in-site storage areas which will be pumped out periodically for waste matter to be taken away to suitable toxic substance disposal venues. Stormwater run-off into drains and then into in-site storage areas generally emptied of toxic substances will not then be such a hazard to fauna within the wetland, into Little Creek and further downstream into South Creek and the Hawkesbury River as overflows occur. The wetland should not become, over time, a reservoir of toxic waste.
Con Diakos
Comment
ST MARYS , New South Wales
Message
Whilst I support this project in principal and location, I am very concerned with the access roads surrounding the St Marys site, in particular at Lee Holm Rd.
I understand that the new facility is proposed to cater 300,000 containers pa, which relates to 34 containers per hour, or approx. a container every 1.75 minutes.
This is an enormous volume to transport onto existing roads.
I note the new traffic signals at the end of Lee Holm Rd & Christie St which will improve that intersection. However no upgrades of Lee Holm Rd itself or at other intersections with Lee Holm Rd seem evident.
Currently Lee Holm Rd is very congested and only wide enough for 3 vehicles. More significantly, Hi-Quality Group's Land Fill / Recycling facility, just barely 200m from the proposed entry / exit point, will be a major traffic management problem. Dump trucks bank up along Lee Holm Rd from both directions waiting to enter the Hi-Quality site. Also, they have very poor dirt removal processes on site, so trucks exiting the site carry a large amount of dirt onto the road. So they have engaged road cleaners and street sweepers to continually wash down the road all day long. This creates a highly localised precarious section that every truck entering and exiting the proposed Freight Hub facility must pass through.
Should the truck drivers wish to avoid this section, they must drive in the opposite direction along Lee Holm Rd towards Wordoo St / Forrester Rd intersection. This intersection is not currently proposed for an upgrade. It is already heavily congested, especially during afternoon peak times when factory workers finish work. Traffic banks up at Wordoo St and along Forrester Rd down to the Glossop St intersection.
So with a container every 1.75 minutes, this will become an extremely volatile area. Please consider tired workers leaving their jobs after a long day only to be hit with traffic as soon as they leave their work.
Please review the overhead power lines along Lee Holm Rd near the entry / exit location, which seem too low and require a major upgrade. They are located right along the edge of the kerb increasing risk of an accident with high volume truck movements.
Upon reviewing the Traffic & Transport Assessment Figure 7.4 showing the required swept path at the proposed entry / exit location it appears that every single truck that enters and leaves the facility must go onto the other side of the road. Given the high volume of road transport through the proposed facility, this would result in excessive interference and stoppage of other vehicles using Lee Holm Rd. It would create traffic build up. Also, given that this is near a blind bend (only 100m away) there would inevitably be a rear end accident as vehicles come around the bend to be met with a traffic jam, waiting for the truck to enter / leave the proposed facility every 1.75 minutes!
I also find it dangerous that the proposed "Heavy Vehicle Access Rd" leading from Lee Holm Rd to the facility just misses a very big steel electricity transmission tower.
It seems evident to me that the location of the entry / exit is not ideal and that there must be better alternative.
By "better" I mean one that does not impact the local workers and businesses so heavily. Does not heighten safety risks along Lee Holm Rd at numerous locations. Does not require every single truck to go onto the other side of the road and impact all other users of Lee Holm Rd. Does not have adverse flow on effects to other ends of Lee Holm Rd as an avoidance consequence of the area.
To mitigate all the above-mentioned issues, I propose that entry / exit for the facility be relocated to run along the Existing Siding and come out at Christie St, with new traffic lights installed. At this point it is far away from existing businesses and facilities, there is sufficient space to widen the driveway and allow low impacting truck swept paths. The proposed duplication of Christie St may even be brought forward (at Werrington Rd intersection).

In summary, I support the proposed St Marys Freight Hub to cater for the growing Sydney metropolis, with the whole basis of this facility being to relieve "the regional and state road network of heavy vehicle and container traffic" as stated on page v of the EIS. Whilst relieving other areas throughout Sydney of this traffic, the offset it seems is that Lee Holm Rd will be burdened with the increased heavy vehicle and container traffic. There are way too many local adverse effects with the current proposed entry / exit at Lee Holm Rd. A safer, more efficient, less impacting alternative must be sought. Hopefully, with further analysis, my proposal may prove suitable.
Charter Hall
Object
North Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Based on the matters discussed in the attached, it is recommended that SSD 7309 not proceed in its current form. Given the construction and operational impacts which would occur for the Charter Hall landholding at 10 Forrester Road, St Marys (2220 DP1172926), it is considered that the assessment prepared so far for SSD 7309 is lacking in some respects.

These concerns of Charter Hall primarily relate to consistencies with the quoted Construction Program and timeframe, the lack of consideration given to Medium-Sensitive Receptors to dust generated during the construction of SSD 7309, lack of transparency regarding potential construction-period traffic impacts, the lack of consideration to human discomfort impacts during the use of vibration-intensive equipment during construction works, the validity of conclusions made in the Flood Impact Assessment about SSD 7309 not increasing flooding impacts to surrounding properties, and the suitability of locating a Dangerous Goods store so close to the Charter Hall site.

It is considered prudent for DP&E to request the matters identified in this Objection be addressed so that a decision can be made in the public interest.
Attachments
NSW Ports
Support
Port Botany , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached submission letter.
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
NSW Environment Protection Authority
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Airservices Australia
Comment
Tullamarine , Victoria
Message
Attachments
NSW Rural Fire Service
Comment
Granville , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Roads and Maritime Services
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Transport for NSW
Comment
Haymarket , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Environment, Energy and Science Group (EES) (former OEH)
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Crown Lands & Water, and Department of Primary Industries
Comment
newcastle , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Penrith City Council
Comment
Penrith , New South Wales
Message
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-7308
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Intermodals
Local Government Areas
Penrith
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Executive Director
Last Modified By
SSD-7308-Mod-6
Last Modified On
13/08/2021

Contact Planner

Name
Dominic Crinnion