RE: SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION TO SSD 9522 PROPOSED

30 June 2021 REF: WTJ20-525

Bianca Thornton

NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment

4 Parramatta Square

12 Darcy Street

Parramatta NSW 2150

RE: SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION TO SSD 9522 – PROPOSED WAREHOUSE, LOGISTICS AND

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES HUB – SSD 9522 MOD 1

PROPERTY AT: 657-769 MAMRE ROAD, KEMPS CREEK (LOT 34 DP 1118173, LOT X & Y DP

421633, LOT 1 DP 1018318 AND LOT 22 DP 258414)

Dear Bianca,

Reference is made in relation to the subject State Significant Development (SSD) Application – SSD 9522 –

that was approved by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on 21 December

2020 for a Warehouse, Logistics and Industrial Facilities Hub at the Subject Site – 657-769 Mamre Road,

Kemps Creek (Lot 34 DP 1118173, Lots X & Y DP 421633, Lot 1 DP 1018318 and Lot 22 DP 258414).

Following a review of the NSW DPIE’s request for the Response to Submissions (RtS), dated 14 May 2021,

the matters raised have been taken into consideration and are accurately addressed in the response matrix

that is attached this letter. Clause 82 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A

Regulation), permits the Planning Secretary of the NSW DPIE to request the Applicant to provide a written

response in relation to the issues raised within the submissions following public exhibition. This RtS aims to

fulfil the request from the Planning Secretary.

Furthermore, following ongoing consultation with both the NSW DPIE and Transport for NSW (TfNSW), an

agreement has been reached in relation to modifying Sequence 1A pertaining to road infrastructure

upgrades concerning the development approved under SSD 9522. For completeness, a synopsis concerning

the proposed modifications to Sequence 1A is outlined below.

SSD9522 Approved Changes to

suit TfNSW

Request

Current Concept Designs

Submitted to TfNSW for approval

to move to WAD process (detailed

design)

Sequence 1A Sequence 1B Modified

Sequence 1A

Sequence 1B

Refer to sketch

attached as ‘Sequence

1A’

Refer to sketch

attached as ‘Sequence

1B’

Refer to sketch

attached as

‘Modified Sequence

1A’

As per sketch

attached as

‘Sequence 1B’

Intersection Mamre

Rd/Bakers Lane:

▪ One southbound

right turn lane

Intersection Mamre

Rd/Bakers Lane:

▪ Second

southbound right

TfNSW have

requested to

minimise

interruption to

the public from

Intersection Mamre

Rd/Bakers Lane:

▪ Two

southbound

North and South

of Mamre

Rd/Bakers Lane

Intersection -

single lane

Section 4.55(2) – SSD 9522 MOD 1

Warehouse, Logistics and Industrial Facilities Hub

657-769 Mamre Road, Kemps Creek (Lot 34 DP 1118173, Lots X & Y DP 421633, Lot 1 DP 1018318 and Lot

22 DP 258414)

2

added

▪ One northbound

left turn lane

added

▪ Through the

intersection only -

one lane each

direction changed

to two lanes

turn lane added

▪ Third eastbound

Bakers Lane

added

▪ North and South

of Intersection

single lane

increased from

one lane to two

lanes in each

direction

roadworks. As a

result we have

consolidated the

roadworks at

the intersection.

right turn lane

added

▪ One

northbound left

turn lane added

▪ Third eastbound

Bakers Lane

added

▪ Through the

intersection

only - one lane

each direction

changed to two

lanes.

increased from

one lane to two

lanes in each

direction for our

development

frontage

An annexure (refer to Appendix 10 of this Submission) has been collated to support the modifications

proposed to Sequence 1A. Accordingly, the following modifications are proposed to SSD 9522 to capture

the revisions proposed, including:

Definitions:

Sequence 1A intersection works

Sequence 1A upgrade to the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection, as described in the Traffic Impact Assessment included with the RtS, prepared by Ason Group and dated 30 July 2020

Proposed Modifications

Modified Sequence 1A intersection works

Modified Sequence 1A upgrade to the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection, as described in the Concept Road Design Traffic Impact Assessment included with the RtS, prepared by MU Group (2021) – Registration No. 2020_8_CD_002 Ason Group and dated 30 July 2020

Sequence 1B intersection works

Sequence 1B upgrade to the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection, as described in the Traffic Impact Assessment included with the RtS, prepared by Ason Group and dated 30 July 2020


Modified Sequence 1B intersection works

Modified Sequence 1B upgrade to the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection, as described in the Modified Sequence 1B Traffic Impact Assessment included with the RtS, prepared by MU Group (2021) – Registration No. 2020_8_CD_001 Ason Group and dated 30 July 2020

Condition B3:

Prior to the completion of Sequence 1A works, all construction traffic must only access the site in a left in and left out movement at an interim access point as prescribed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (see condition B1).


It is requested that Condition B3 be amended by way of wording to suit the following, “Prior to the

completion of the Modified Sequence 1A works, all construction traffic must only access the site in a left in and left out movement at an interim access point as prescribed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (see condition B1).”




22 DP 258414)

3

Condition B10:

Prior to the occupation of any warehouse, the Applicant must complete the construction of the Sequence 1A upgrade at the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection to the satisfaction of TfNSW.


It is requested that Condition B10 be amended by way of wording to suit the following, “Prior to the occupation of any warehouse, the Applicant must complete the construction of the Modified Sequence 1A upgrade at the Mamre Road and Bakers Lane intersection to the satisfaction of TfNSW.”

It is considered, that this information now provides the NSW DPIE with all the necessary facts and relevant

particulars related to the proposed modifications subject to this Modification Application (SSD 9522 MOD

1); thereby, enabling the assessment to be finalised and the Proposal determined.

We look forward to the NSW DPIE’s feedback on the information provided and look forward to progressing

with the assessment of this Modification Application.

Should you wish to discuss further, please contact the undersigned.

Yours Faithfully,

Andrew Cowan

Director

Willowtree Planning Pty Ltd

ACN 146 035 707

Enclosed:

▪ Appendix 1 – Planning Report

▪ Appendix 2 – Architectural Plans

▪ Appendix 3 – Masterplan

▪ Appendix 4 – Stage 1 Subdivision Plan

▪ Appendix 5 – Stage 2 Subdivision Plan

▪ Appendix 6 – Overlay Plan

▪ Appendix 7 – Landscape Plans

▪ Appendix 8 – Costin Roe – EES Letter of Support

▪ Appendix 9 – Civil Engineering Letter of Support and Drawings

▪ Appendix 10 – Modified Sequence 1A Package

▪ Appendix 11 – WaterNSW Correspondence

▪ Appendix 12 – Traffic Impact Assessment

▪ Appendix 13 – Modified Sequence 1B



657-769 Mamre Road, Kemps Creek (Lot 34 DP 1118173, Lots X & Y DP 421633, Lot 1 DP 1018318 and Lot 22 DP 258414)

4

Table 1: Response Matrix

Relevant Entities Response to Submissions

Formalised Response

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

1. Description of the Modification

▪ The SEE must provide a clear description of all components of the proposed modification. For example, section 3.2 should describe any changes to the location of the North South Distributor Road (NS Road), changes to access points

off the NS Road or any reduction in landscaped setbacks (i.e. proposed Lot 6).

Section 3.2 of the Planning Report prepared by Willowtree Planning has been updated to

include the following additional modifications to the Masterplan, noted as follows:

▪ The NS Road has moved east;

▪ Additional slip included for access to Lot 5 (as identified under the scope for the Stage

1 Subdivision Plan);

▪ Amendments to Conditions B3 and B10 as a result of modified Sequence 1A;

▪ Access to the allotments to the north of Bakers Lane is being dealt with separately to

satisfy B18 of SSD 9522;

▪ The landscape setbacks are proposed to be amended to 3.75 m in accordance with the

Instrument of Approval and consistent with Mamre Road Precinct DCP; and

▪ Changes to the Mamre Road/Bakers Lane intersection works by replacing Sequence 1A

with Modified 1A intersection works.

The amended Planning Report has been updated and attached to this RtS for consistency and

completeness.

▪ The Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) asked for the ‘identification of conditions to be modified and proposed wording of any new or modified conditions.’ The Department later reiterated this requirement and provided examples. However, these examples were not an exhaustive list. You are requested to

confirm whether all conditions to be modified have been identified.

It is noted that Section 3.2 of the Planning Report considers the relevant modifications required

in relation to the subject Modification Application, with respect to proposed modifications to

Appendix 1, Condition A6 and Condition B7.

Following review of Condition A7, the Proponent has made an amendment to the site-specific

DCP to remain consistent with the Instrument of Approval for SSD 9522, as well as the Draft

Mamre Road Precinct DCP pertaining to the landscape setbacks within the estate access roads

to the amount of 3.75 m. It is noted, that the site-specific DCP was approved at a minimum of

4 m; however, for consistency and completeness this has been updated to reflect the

Instrument of Approval. Notwithstanding, the formal amendment to the site-specific DCP will




5

be dealt with as a separate request directly with Penrith City Council. This should not influence

the proposed 3.75 m landscape setbacks, noting that the Instrument of Approval for SSD

9522 allocates and allows for such landscaping to be undertaken on the Site.

▪ Further clarification on the need and justification for the modification is requested. Part D largely re-uses text from the EIS which has already been considered as part of the original SSD. Part D also states the modification would reduce travel times and generate new employment opportunities. It is unclear how these are related specifically to the modification and no evidence is provided to support these statements.

Part D of the Planning Report prepared by Willowtree Planning has been updated for

consistency and completeness which now satisfactorily addresses DPIE’s concerns.

1. Traffic

▪ Further information is requested on the second access point to Lot 5 along the NS Road (south of the proposed slip lane), including justification for its inclusion and consideration of any road network function and safety impacts.

The second access point is noted to be an egress point only, which will cater for emergency

vehicle access to satisfy BCA requirements, which would not compromise the road network,

including the internal estate road network as a result of its future functionality. Further

consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.

▪ Clarification is sought on the largest intended vehicle to access the site. Section 3.2 of the SEE states the Applicant proposes to amend condition A6(d) to increase the largest vehicle permitted to access the site from a 26 m B-Double to a 30 m super B-Double. However, section 7.3 of the SEE states the 30 m super B-Doubles were used as a simulation vehicle. Similarly, section 8.2 of the Traffic Impact

Assessment (Appendix 11) states the Design Vehicle adopted is a 30 m Super B-Double, however internal estate roads and warehouse hardstand areas should be designed to accommodate movements of a 26 m B-Double (PBS Level 2). These statements suggest the 30 m B-double was selected for modelling purposes only.

The simulation and the actuality of the Site has been designed to cater for 30 m super B-

Doubles. All investigations undertaken from a traffic modelling perspective are consistent with

the provisions outlined in Section 3.2 of the Planning Report, as well as Appendix A of the

Traffic Impact Assessment issued with the Modification Application package, for which further

consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.

2. Design and Visual Impact

▪ The proposed modification requires an additional 31,100 m3 of fill to be imported to the site and increases the gross floor area of the development by 23,768 m2. Furthermore, proposed Lot 5 is considerably larger than the currently approved warehouse buildings. Some parts of the site will be elevated up to three metres from the ground level under the

The pad levels are noted to be the same as approved under SSD 9522. No further filling is

proposed under the subject Modification Application which would require further consideration.




6

approved SSD. However, it is unclear whether the photomontages within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment demonstrates the extent of this fill. Viewpoints 9 and 19 do not appear to show the change in ground level at the southern site boundary.

▪ Table 5 of the SEE states the modified site plan complies to the site-specific DCP for all setback types. However, it appears that lots 5, 6 and 8 do not comply to the landscape setbacks set out in the site-specific DCP. Please address.

It is noted, that the Instrument of Approval allows for landscape setbacks of 3.75 m, which is

less than the Site-Specific DCP and consistent with the Draft Mamre Road Precinct DCP.

Accordingly, for consistency and completeness the Proponents have amended the landscaping

treatment to be consistent with the Instrument of Approval pertaining to 3.75 landscape

setbacks, for which the Proponents will undertake a separate application with Council to

formally amend the site-specific DCP requirements to ameliorate any further ambiguity in the

future.

Email Correspondence Dated 25 June 2021

Mamre Road / Bakers Lane intersection sequencing: The proposed definition for the ‘Modified Sequence 1A intersection works’ still refers to the TIA prepared in July 2021. The reference should be amended to refer to a document which clearly describes the amended sequencing.

The Definitions in both this RtS and the Planning Report (refer to Appendix 1) have been

amended accordingly.

The definition for ‘Sequence 1B intersection works’ may also need to be amended.

The Definition pertaining to Sequence 1B intersection works has been amended in both this RtS

and the Planning Report (refer to Appendix 1).

Description of the modification: From reading the RtS response matrix, it's my understanding that the second access to the NS Road shown in the master plan (shown in yellow on the figure below) is for emergency vehicle

access only. Is that correct? If so, this hasn’t been included in the description of the modification in Appendix 1.

The description within the Planning Report (refer to Appendix 1) has been updated

accordingly to note that the secondary access to Lot 5 is for emergency access only. As noted

above, the second access point is noted to be an egress point only, which will cater for

emergency vehicle access to satisfy BCA requirements, which would not compromise the road

network, including the internal estate road network as a result of its future functionality.

Further consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.

Traffic: On page 5 of the RtS (under item 1 in the response matrix) states: 'The simulation and the actuality of the Site has been designed to cater for 30 m super B-Doubles. All investigations undertaken from a traffic modelling perspective are consistent

Yes, this is correct. The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Ason Group (refer to

Appendix 12) has been updated to reflect all swept paths as proposed under the subject

Modification Application.




7

with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2 of the Planning Report, as well as Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Assessment issued with the Modification Application package, for which further consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.' In short, the modification seeks to change the largest intended vehicle permitted to access the site to a 30m super B-double from a 26m B-double (as currently approved). Is that correct?




8



Formalised Response

Penrith City Council (Gavin Cherry – Development Assessment Coordinator)

Planning and Design Considerations

The landscape setbacks approved within the previous application should not be diminished as a result of this modification. Council has maintained that minimum 6m landscaped setbacks are necessary to achieve the aims and objectives within the draft Mamre Road Precinct DCP despite the suggestions

that 3.75m setback are possible. This results in poor streetscape outcomes that does not sufficiently screen or ameliorate the mass and scale of the developments being pursued in this precinct which are large scale warehouse and industrial buildings with extensive hard stand parking areas in front setback. The minimum setbacks to local internal roads as approved in the preceeding determination was 4.0m and this must be maintained. Refer to the approved Landscape Plan Cross Sections (notably Section B-B) for confirmation of the 4.0m setback requirement.

It is noted that Condition A7 allows for landscape setbacks up to 3.75 m as proposed

under the subject Modification Application. This is consistent with the Architectural

and Landscape Plans provided with the Submission package. Furthermore, the site-

specific DCP approved under SSD 9522 applies to the subject Modification

Application, for which the controls of the Draft Mamre Road Precinct DCP do not

apply. Notwithstanding the Draft Mamre Road Precinct DCP is consistent with the

Conditions of Consent under SSD 9522 pertaining to landscaping setbacks of 3.75

m. Further consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.

The architectural plans submitted have identified the draft DCP setback standard of 3.75m on various lots however the approved setbacks are 4.0m in the preceding determination and this 4.0m setback should be reinforced with the applicant as the minimal allowance. It is however noted that the 4.0m setback line is correctly reflected for the allotments north of Bakers Lane and the future Southern Link Road.

As mentioned above, Condition A7 allows for landscape setbacks up to 3.75 m as

proposed under the subject Modification Application. Further consideration is not

considered to be required in this respect.

There are proposed landscape setback non compliances with Warehouse Lot 6 at corner points of car parking spaces which is only acceptable if the majority of the landscape setback significantly exceeds the approved minimum 4.0m in depth. There are also proposed non compliances with

hardstand areas around the pump room, rainwater tank and hard stand areas which are only setback 3.75m from the road property boundary. This must be amended to be no less than 4.0m as was approved and established as the minimum setback for this estate.




The proposed setback of Warehouse Lot 8 car parking / hard stand to the rear internal road is only 3.75m which is unacceptable, contrary to the






9

previous approval and must be amended to reinstate the required and approved 4.0m setback between car parking and the property boundary.


Concern is raised with the lack of architectural design and articulation relief for the proposed building form on Proposed Lot 5. Given the length and overall scale of building form is substantially greater than that proposed on all other allotments, this built form must be designed to achieve design quality over and above what is expected for a small / medium scale industrial warehouse building. Council has been involved in pre-lodgement discussions on a future proposed data centre on the southern most allotment in this estate which is of size and scale similar to what is proposed on lot 5 however the building form has demonstrated substantially greater address and consideration to landscape setbacks, external colours and materials and

design. The built form and materiality as proposed in this application is considered inadequate to ameliorate the mass and scale of the development and further design amendments are necessary to improve the built form as viewed from the future link road and Mamre Road. Note: Warehouse 3 & 4 has a building design with greater consideration to colours and materials than what is suggested on proposed lot 5.

The built form proposed is recessive, conducive and appropriately articulated

throughout its design to provide a supportive development outcome that

compliments the built form approved under SSD 9522. Combined with exemplary

landscaping along both the Mamre Road frontage and the wider estate setbacks, the

built form proposed on Lot 5 will demonstrate architectural merit and represent a

sophisticated and modernised industrial development. Furthermore, the Architectural

Plans have been updated to provide a further breakdown of bulk and scale on the

western elevation through a combination of colours utilised (refer to Appendix 1).

Traffic Management and Road Design Considerations

Access to Proposed Lot 1, 4 & 11

The Masterplan by Altis Frasers (drawing No SSD-MRM-MOD-001, revision K, dated 06.04.2021) and the Overlay Plan by Altis Frasers (Job MP-MRM-FS-052, revision A, dated 17.02.2021), conflicts with the Functional Layout Plan by Costin Roe (drawing No C013362.01-SK28, issue A, dated 09.04.2021) with regards to access to Lots 1, 4, & 11. The Masterplan and Overlay plan depicts a central median around the bend in the road between Bakers Lane and the Public Access Road with access to Lots 1, 4 & 11 being left-in and left-out. The Functional Layout Plan by Costin Roe shows a dedicated, part sheltered, right turn bay into the various driveways of Lots 1, 4 & 11. The

sheltered median has four breaks and small median ‘nibs’ to permit right turn access into the four separate driveways to access Lots 1, 4 & 11. The right turn bay on the bend with four breaks and small median ‘nibs’ along the sheltered median is not supported on safety grounds as a means for access into the subject lots. Alternative access for these lots, such as a roundabout at the internal ‘T’ intersection further to the south, is considered necessary and should be addressed via revised plans which are resubmitted and

It is noted, that functional layout does not alter the built form outcomes of approved

development across the Site. Ongoing consultation is being undertaken with TfNSW

in accordance with Condition B18 for which will ameliorate this submission item.




10

notified to Council for further comment. Cul-de-sac Arrangement with Access Road 2

Regarding Council’s previous request for a central median within Access Road 2 (Teardrop cul-de-sac), the applicant has advised that a median can be accommodated however the 300mm wide median as proposed is not supported as it does not comply with the minimum standard of 1.2m wide. Council requires a minimum 1.2m wide median with widening of the road reserve from 24m (pavement of 15m) to 25.2m with a 16.2m wide pavement (includes the 1.2m median). The median should be widened to 2m at the intersection with Access Road 1 to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

The Applicant agrees to the Submission item and has amended the Masterplan and

both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Subdivision Plans for completeness (refer to

Appendix 3-5).

Landscape Design Considerations

The following species are considered unsuitable because they do not perform well in this region. Alternative species should be nominated that are climate and contextually appropriate to replace the following:

▪ Angophora costata – costal species, unsuitable for Western Sydney ▪ Westringia fruticose – proposed for carpark and office tree planting –

this is a shrub not a tree ▪ Elaeocarpus reticulatus – susceptible to frost in Western Sydney

Habit8 note the following:

1. The proposed plant list outlined within the Landscape Plans were taken

directly from Penrith City Council’s website.

2. The Habit8 overall masterplan report revision P (refer to Appendix 7) has

deleted Angophora costata and Westringia fruiticosa from the planting

strategy diagram but no changes to the plant list as these species are not on

the overall site planting list.

3. Elaeocarpus reticulatus has been deleted from the planting list as per

Council’s recommendations.

Boundary setbacks as shown in sections are dominated by shrubs with minimal medium sized trees. Large trees are required to maximise canopy cover and achieve shading and cooling objectives. The planting palette and landscape design should be amended to address this.


1. A mixture of large trees and shrubs have been shown clearly on the sections

provided under Issue P of the Landscape Masterplan document (refer to

Appendix 7 of this Submission). Habit8 note, that the sections are

conceptual at this stage; therefore, there is no detailed planting description

offered, although the section graphics show trees over 10 m in height.

2. Detailed plans will be included for each warehouse as built form evolves into

the detailed design and will show the detailed planting arrangement for the

boundary setbacks.




11

The proposed Mamre Road setback also requires larger trees for improved canopy cover. It is recommended that 50% of trees nominated should each an effective height of 15m at maturity and species could include E. moluccana, E. tereticornis, A. floribunda. Ideally 100% canopy cover is recommended for the boundary setback and Mamre Rd setback with canopy extending beyond these zones to provide shade onto internal and external road and pedestrian pavements. The planting palette and landscape design should be amended to address this.

Habit8 note, that the proposed planting list pages call up numerous large scale

Eucalyptus sp. trees. (taken from Penrith City Council’s guidelines). Habit8 show

indicative species on a tree planting strategy page. Habit8 has added larger endemic

Eucalyptus sp. trees species to the tree planting strategy page to match the

proposed planting list and council’s comments.

Detailed typical plans should be provided as a minimum to demonstrate the density of trees and extent of canopy coverage, which cannot be expressed in typical sections or colour coded tree strategy plans.

Detailed planting plans and sections are currently being prepared for the Estate

infrastructure works (footpaths and street trees) and plans are being prepared for

each individual warehouse (setbacks and carparks) as part of the CC documentation.

Design of roads should consider the Western Sydney Street Design Guide to maximise shade and cooling in the public domain. Road cross sections should also reflect position of path in the verge being closer to the boundary and increasing the area / width for tree planting

Extensive tree planting in the public domain will provide shade and cooling. Path

closest to the boundary (Section AA) increasing the canopy cover and cooling.

From a landscaping perspective, section AA (sheet 6) should include a shared path rather than separated path to increase the planting width for large trees. A 2m width is unsatisfactory and will likely result in damage to path infrastructure.

The design of the SLR has not been completed. Habit8 has deleted this from the

section AA and amended the section to show the site conditions that are able to be

controlled based on the approved Estate design under SSD 9522.

Section BB (sheet 7) indicates street trees between the path and kerb which is unrealistic.


1. The turfed estate street verge is 1600 mm. This is sufficient room for small

to medium street trees. The detailed Estate landscape documentation will

clearly show this.

2. Other Estates have less verge space for street trees (First Estate) but have

been successful with medium sized street trees for added context.

3. Larger canopy trees (15m height) are specified for warehouse setback

planting areas.




12



Formalised Response

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – EES Group

To assist DPIE, EES has reviewed the Modification Report and relevant documents and considers that the proposed modification is unlikely to impact on the natural hazards, however, EES suggests that waterway health matters be considered as outlined below.

Waterway health Please note that EES recommends that the proponent consider the following Risk-based Framework for Considering Waterway Health Outcomes in Strategic Land-use Planning Decisions http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-andpublications/publicationssearch/risk-based-framework-for-considering-waterway-health-outcomes-in-strategic-land-use-planning.

In accordance with the Risk-based Framework EES has developed the NSW Government water quality and flow related objectives (Tables 1 and 2 below) for the Wianamatta-South Creek catchment to achieve the vision for Western Sydney Parkland City. The water quality and flow related objectives were provided to key stakeholders at a workshop on 19 October 2020 and were included in the recently exhibited Draft Aerotropolis Precinct Plan.

EES has also worked closely with DPIE Place Design and Public Spaces in developing the exhibited draft Mamre Road Precinct DCP and it is expected that the interim objectives in Section 2.6 in the draft DCP will be superseded by tables 1 and 2 below as follows:

▪ Page 26, Section 2.6 Integrated Water Cycle Management: following

the description of the flow components the new Table 1 (below) will

In a letter of support prepared by Costin Roe Consulting (refer to Appendix 6), they note

that there are no changes required or proposed to the approved Estate stormwater

management system, or discharge arrangements from the overall project, as a result of

the proposed modifications. As such there has been no change to the assessed

management systems and / or discharge arrangements as approved under SSD 9522.

The approved stormwater management system incorporates water quantity and quality

management systems consistent with accepted practices. The approved system has been

assessed as achieving acceptable stormwater discharge flow rates and water quality

outcomes.

It is noted that the EES Group Submission suggests alternate water quantity and quality

measures to those currently approved. Given there are no changes to the Estate

development areas and impervious surface coverage for the proposed modification layout,

or proposed to approved management systems, further assessments of the stormwater

management systems are not considered warranted.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-andpublications/publicationssearch/risk-based-framework-for-considering-waterway-health-outcomes-in-strategic-land-use-planning






13

be added and referred to. Also, ‘and baseflow requirements’ in the last/following sentence will be deleted.




14



Formalised Response

NSW Environment Protection Authority (Greg Newman – A/Unit Head Regulatory Operations – Metropolitan South)

The supporting information states that the modification will not require licencing. However, with the modification proposing to support future

development of Warehouse, Logistics and Industrial Facilities Hub, it is important that any licencing considerations should be considered in relation to the future operation of the facilities. For example, an operational Warehouse and/or a Logistic Facility can store large quantities of products which could potentially trigger licencing as “Chemical Storage” under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). In this instance activities that have the capacity to store more than 20 tonnes (pressurised gases), 200 tonnes (liquefied gases) or 2,000 tonnes (chemicals in any other form) would require an Environment Protection Licence.

Noted and agreed.

The supporting information states that bulk earthworks are proposed involving the importation of approximately 1,936,300 m3 of fill. The supporting information provides no information on the source of this fill material. If approved, the consent should require any fill that is imported to the site should only be Virgin Excavated Natural Materials (VENM) or Excavated

Natural Material (ENM) or other soils under a specific Resource Recovery Order or Exemption. In addition, any fill received for this purpose should be validated by a suitably qualified independent person to demonstrate that it is VENM or meets the requirements of the Relevant Resource Recovery Order/Exemption and is fit for its intended purpose. The Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should document management of this imported fill material including the quantity, source and quality of any fill material brought to the site, validation processes, storage and handling.

Noted and agreed.

The location of the proposal is in an area of known potentially high salinity risk. With the proposal involving considerable bulk earth works it is important that any potential salinity risks are identified at the site and appropriate management strategies are documented to help inform the design and construction of the proposal. This information can also then help inform a range of management approaches including soil and water management in the

Noted and agreed.




15

CEMP and Operational Environmental Management Plan. Information is included in the supporting information on the management of

waste. Its recommended that the proponent should consult The Better Practice Guidelines for Waste Management and Recycling in Commercial and Industrial Facilities (EPA December 2012) when developing their waste management plan.

Noted.




16



Formalised Response

Heritage NSW

The subject site at 657 – 769 Mamre Road, Kemps Creek is not listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR), nor is it near any SHR items. Whilst it is

acknowledged that the historical archaeological assessment (Mamre South State Significant Development Application – Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Biosis, dated 20 March 2018) has indicated that there may be potential for archaeological deposits, they are not significant. The recommendation for an unexpected finds procedure is appropriate. No further heritage comments are required. The Department does not need to refer subsequent stages of this proposal, or any further modifications, to the Heritage Council of NSW.

Noted and agreed.

HNSW have reviewed the Instrument of Approval for SSD-9522, issued on 21 December 2021 and notes that Conditions B56 – B63 relate to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, including conditions regarding statutory reporting requirements, preparation of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) and an Unexpected Finds Protocol.

HNSW advises that as the current application is a modification to the original

SSD-9522 proposal, the proponent should ensure compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage conditions specified in the Instrument of Approval. HNSW recommends the proponent provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Conditions of Approval - Aboriginal Heritage prior to consideration of the Modification proposal.

Conditions B56-B63 can continue to be complied with as a result of the

proposed modifications, for which the proposed modifications would not impact

on any of these Conditions under SSD 9522. Rather, the management plans

and mitigation measures would apply across the Site, for which ongoing

compliance will be achieved. Further consideration is not considered to be

required in this respect.




17



Formalised Response

TfNSW (Pahee Rathan – Senior Land Use Assessment Coordinator)

No. Amendments to Lot 1

1. Comment TfNSW notes that the modification includes an amendment to Lot 1, comprising an increase in Site Area from 680,972 m2 to 684,083 m2. TfNSW would not support any changes to Lot 1 until

Condition B18 of the development consent has been adequately addressed and the required changes are supported by TfNSW.

Noted and agreed as per Condition B18.

Freight – Permitted Vehicle

2. Comment TfNSW requests that DPIE replace all references in the draft Mamre Road DCP from “26m long B-double (PBS level 2 type B)” with “30m PBS Level 2 Type B”.

This is in line with the NSW Heavy Vehicle Access Policy Framework which identifies 30m PBS Level 2B Vehicles as the next PBS vehicle to be permitted wider access on NSW roads.

Recommendation TfNSW requests rewording Condition A6(d) to the following: “the largest vehicle permitted to access the site is a 30m PBS Level 2 Type B”.

Noted.

Public Transport – Bus Planning

3. Comment

There are no bus planning issues with the development, however as it is off a bus route, there should be provision for a bus turning area to enable buses to extend down to the site.

Recommendation It is requested that the applicant be conditioned to provide provision for a bus turning area to

There will be no issues for buses as the cul-de-sacs

have been designed to accommodate for B-Doubles as

illustrated in the revised swept paths prepared by Costin

Roe (refer to Appendix 6). Accordingly, Drawing

Co13362.01-SK29 enclosed within Appendix 6 shows

the swept path.




18

enable buses to extend down to the site. Slip Lane from NS Road 1 to Service Lot 5 – Item 1

The applicant approached TfNSW as a relevant stakeholder to consult on the proposed subject modification to Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8. Attachment A provides a correspondence table between TfNSW and the applicant to date. In response to the latest comments from the applicant dated

15/04/2021. TfNSW Response dated 1/4/21 Items 2 & 4 have been adequately addressed. TfNSW provides the following comments numbered based on TfNSW Response dated 1/4/21:

Noted.

4. a. TfNSW is supportive of attending a meeting with DPIE and the applicants to discuss the driveway access for Lot 5 on the NS Rd 1.

Noted. Ongoing consultation has occurred with the NSW

DPIE and TfNSW. Further consideration is not required

in this respect.

b. Drawing C013362_01-SK28 Revision A (Attachment B), indicates that the safe intersection site distance (SISD) is 151m. TfNSW notes that this SISD analysis was undertaken between a

vehicle in Lane 2 and a vehicle in the auxiliary lane about to enter the site. The SISD should be measured between a vehicle in lane 1 and the first few meters of the auxiliary lane (which is considered the conflict point). Please note that SISD is measured along the carriageway from the approaching vehicle to the conflict point (see Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD) Part 4A 3.2.2). Any future analysis should reflect the abovementioned comments and be in line with Austroads guidelines.

Reference should be made to SK28 (refer to Appendix

6). The Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) for the

design speed of 70 km/hr (60 km/hr posted) requires a

sight distance of 151 m. The SISD, per Austroads, is

required for between a stopped vehicle entering a road

from an intersection and is applicable to the car exit

driveway. The sight distance of 151 m is achieved for

the vehicle as demonstrated on the drawing, between

the vehicles travelling in lanes as requested in the

TfNSW letter.

Costin Roe have assessed the applicable site distance

for the vehicle entering the auxiliary lane from lane one

at the beginning of the entry into the auxiliary lane, as

requested in the TfNSW letter, and in accordance with

Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A, Section 3.2.

Costin Roe note the applicable site distance check for

this movement, per Austroads, is the Minimum Gap

Sight Distance (MGSD). The SISD is not applicable to

the auxiliary lane entry movement, being applicable to a

stationary vehicle entering traffic, as noted above.

The MGSD for the design speed of 70 km/hr is 78 m.

The sight distance available between a vehicle on the

carriageway to one entering the slip lane is 80.5 m

which meets the Austroads site distance requirements




19

as demonstrated on the drawing.

c. It is understood that the future Southern Link Road (SLR) will have a signalised intersection to

Bakers Lane in the location of the proposed bend on Bakers Lane. It is difficult to understand how the arrangement of a slip lane will work with the ultimate design. TfNSW is of the understanding that the start of the slip lane will be too close to the future signals and would likely lead to adverse safety outcomes.

Co13362.01-SK23 (refer to Appendix 6) shows a

distance of 78.8 m between the commencement of the

auxiliary left turn from the future anticipated SLR

ultimate Intersection, noting at the fully developed slip

lane the distance of 100 m is achieved.




20

d. Comment The proposed internal road network of Lot 5 provides an access of left in only from NS Rd 1 which loops around to egress from the cul-de-sac located on the south east corner of the lot. The arrangement requires the largest vehicle to undertake a turning movement equal to a u-turn in order to loop around the warehouse. This will result in the vehicle being required to slow down to a slow speed in order for this movement to be achieved. It is unclear is the proposed deceleration lane length has taken this into consideration.

Recommendation Whilst TfNSW is in general not supportive of any access to the NS Rd 1, TfNSW understands that it is desirable to have an internal loop network. Therefore it is suggested that should there be an access to Lot 5 to the NS Rd 1 it should be restricted to egress only (left out only) and located at the furthest point of the Lot away from the future SLR corridor. This will retain the loop road around the warehouse and remove the abovementioned (b-d) concerns.

Egress (left in) rather than exit (left out) from the N-S

road is required for the proposed User of Lot 5, to

enable left-hand turn down manoeuvring to the

Warehouse docks for safe and efficient use of loading

docks. The design has considered the need for efficient

truck site access by having the proposed slip lane to

access the facility off the N-S road, with multiple

queuing lanes for storage of several AV’s within the

development before any vehicles need to stop at the

internal boom gate. The left out only southern driveway

to the N-S road is for emergency vehicle exit only

providing Fire Brigade circulation around the warehouse

as required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Light Vehicle Access from NS Rd 1 to Service Lot 5 (Southwest Corner)

5. Comment The Appendix 5 – Masterplan indicates that an entry for light vehicles to Stage 2 Lot 5 will be

provided via the proposed the NS Road 01 southbound (south of the abovementioned slip lane). TfNSW would not support this access, the design results in 2 additional conflict points. One being at NS Road 01 and at the other at the access from the cul-de-sac.

Recommendation It is therefore recommended to remove any light vehicle access from NS Road 01.

The second access point is noted to be an egress point

only, which will cater for emergency vehicle access to

satisfy BCA requirements, which would not compromise

the road network, including the internal estate road

network as a result of its future functionality. Further

consideration is not considered to be required in this

respect.




21



Formalised Response

NSW DPIE – Department of Primary Industries (Josh Hollywood – Fisheries Manager, Coastal Systems Unit)

DPI Fisheries is responsible for ensuring that fish stocks are conserved and that there is no net loss of key fish habitats upon which they depend. To

achieve this, DPI Fisheries ensures that developments comply with the requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) (namely the aquatic habitat protection and threatened species conservation provisions in Parts 7 and 7A of the Act, respectively), and the associated Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (2013). DPI Fisheries is also responsible for ensuring the sustainable management of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal cultural fishing, aquaculture, marine parks and aquatic reserves within NSW. DPI Fisheries has reviewed Modification Application Planning Report SSD-9522-Mod1 (Willow Tree Planning, April 2021 (WTJ20-525)).

This modification application seeks to modify the existing development generally involving changes to the internal subdivision plan boundaries, carparking and road ways. The project does bound the Key Fish Habitat of South Creek to the west. The lots that are adjacent South Creek (Stage 1 Lots 3, 4 & 5) are not affected by the modification application. In light of this, DPI Fisheries has no objections to the modification application.

Noted and agreed.




22



Formalised Response

Sydney Water (Nicholas Geroulas – Growth Intelligence)

Sydney Water has no objection to the proposed modification, and understands this specific modification includes no high water and wastewater uses resulting

from the proposal.

Noted and agreed.

However, we note that the adjacent lot, Stage 1 and Subdivided Lot 2 included within the overall development plan under SSD-9522 will involve the

construction and operation of a new data centre (currently being processed under linked SSD-10101987), which will be a high-water user and may create servicing constraints within the area especially before 2026.

Noted. This is not relevant to the subject Modification Application.

Although SSD-9522-Mod-1 does not include this data centre, this proposal

involves an increase in GFA and hence a likely increase in water demand. Although the additional demand created by this modification may be minimal, we still require revised job projections, both ultimate and annual for this SSD. We thank you however for confirming that there will be no high-water users within this SSD area.

Noted. This is not relevant to the subject Modification Application.

The proponent should continue to liaise with Sydney Water under CN 185016 and any other relevant cases to fully detail ultimate and annual demand and any prudent and efficient operation requirements especially before 2026.

Ongoing consultation will be undertaken by the Proponents with Sydney Water

where required.

This will enable Sydney Water to look at the development and this site holistically to ensure the delivery of new and upgraded infrastructure to the area meets the needs of this development and developments within the wider Mamre Precinct. And to ensure both short and long term servicing plans are timely and effective.

Noted and agreed.




23



Formalised Response

WaterNSW (Clay Preshaw – Manager Catchment Protection)

Increased Imperviousness

The current MOD proposes an increase in overall GFA across the site from 162,355 m2 to 186,123 m2. WaterNSW considers that the request to increase the GFA has not been adequately justified, especially the potential for impact associated with the increased runoff volumes from impervious land surfaces.

The MOD planning report (p. 49) identifies that stormwater detention and water quality measures will be addressed in future DAs, however WaterNSW require these impacts to be considered at this stage, as it is unmanaged stormwater runoff from increased impervious areas that poses a significant risk to our downstream infrastructure. As such, further justification is required.

It is noted, that as a result of the proposed modifications, there are provisions

made for internal configuration of the Site; however, it is important to note that

the stormwater management outcomes across the Site would be continued to be

achieved via the bio-retention basins approved on-site, as well as there being no

such increase in the imperviousness of the Site, which has been previously

contemplated and approved under SSD 9522.

WaterNSW also reiterates its requirement (provided for parent SSD-9522 approval) that:

▪ Final levels and design of the proposal must not result in an increase in overland flow of water into the Pipelines corridor of either quantity, quality or velocity. The development must be designed, operated and maintained to ensure post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows into and through the Pipelines corridor.

Further, WaterNSW questions the use of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff

(ARR) (1988 Edition) for runoff and stormwater management (as indicated in Appendix 9 – Costin Roe). Australian Rainfall and Runoff is a practitioner’s principal guide to hydrology and hydraulic estimation in Australia, with two updated editions (2016; 2019) providing a significant update of techniques and base information from the 1988 edition. WaterNSW requests justification as to why the most current version of ARR was not used in this application, and for the proponent to identify any differences in the current design with those requirements of ARR 2019.

Overland flow has been confirmed multiple times to be diverted away from the

pipelines and for these to not be affected due to the development approved under

SSD 9522 and as modified under the subject Modification Application. With regard

to the above, internal drainage for the detail design will be per ARR 2019. This will

be defined in the Operational Stormwater Management Plan required under the

consent pertaining to SSD 9522. Flood assessments are to ARR 1987. This is

consistent with Council’s adopted flood study, which has been peer reviewed as

acceptable and agreed with both Council and the NSW DPIE. Further assessments

of higher order storms have also been completed. The 2019 rainfall is within 5-

10% of 1987 and would be within the range of storms assessed and deemed

acceptable. Further consideration is not considered to be required in this respect.

Consultation




24

WaterNSW would like to identify that it did not receive any request for initial comment from the proponent, prior to the request from the department. WaterNSW affirms the need for on-going consultation throughout the development of the Estate, specifically in relation the road and drainage work within and adjoining the Pipelines corridor, to ensure timely advice can be provided back to the proponent for early incorporation into planning and design.

Email correspondence (dated 8 March 2021) was issued to Malcolm Hughes of

WaterNSW whom the Proponents had previously dealt with under SSD 9522. For

completeness the email has been included as part of this Submission (refer to

Appendix 9).

SSD 9522 Approval

In general, WaterNSW is satisfied that the existing approval for SSD-9522 includes consent conditions to mitigate any identified impact on the Warragamba Pipelines Corridor. Any subsequent conditions for MOD 1 should include requirements to address any increased runoff and additional stormwater management measures, if required, based on the proponents submissions response.

Noted and agreed.




25



Formalised Response

Endeavour Energy (Cornelis Duba – Development Application Specialist)

The applicant will need to contact Endeavour Energy’s Network Connections Branch (via Head Office enquiries on business days from 9am - 4:30pm on

telephone: 133 718 or (02) 9853 6666) who are responsible for managing the conditions of supply with the developer and their Accredited Service Provider (ASP) if this Development Application:

▪ Includes any contestable works projects that are outside of any existing approved / certified works.

Noted and agreed.

▪ Results in an electricity load that is outside of any existing Supply / Connection Offer requiring the incorporation of the additional load for consideration. This is due to load being based on a desktop assessment using an After Diversity Maximum Demand (ADMD) where demand is aggregated over a large number of customers providing an ADMD for the site / per lot. Depending on the actual development proposed for the site, the ADMD provided may not be sufficient.

Noted and agreed.

Endeavour Energy has noted that as shown in the following extract of Site Plan (Warehouse 6 & 8) provision has been made for two padmount substations.

Noted.




26

From Endeavour Energy’s perspective the fact that provision is being made for a padmount substation is a positive. Endeavour Energy’s general requirements is for a padmount substation to be at ground level and have direct access from a public street (unless provided with appropriate easements for the associated underground cables and right of access).

As shown in the following extract of Endeavour Energy’s Mains Design Instruction MDI 0044 ‘Easements and Property Tenure Rights’, Figure A4.3 ‘Padmount easements and clearances’, padmount substations require:

Noted.




27

▪ Easement with a minimum size of 2.75 x 5.5 metres (single

transformer). ▪ Restriction for fire rating which usually extends 3 metres horizontally

from the base of the substation footing / plinth and 6 metres vertically from the same point.

▪ Restriction for swimming pools which extends 5 metres from the easement (which is usually not required for non-residential development).

The easement should not cross property boundaries but the restriction/s may affect any adjoining property provided they are able to be registered on the title to that property. In addition the following matters also need to be considered in regard to the fire restriction:

▪ Personnel access doors and fire exit doors to a building are not

permitted within the fire restriction area. ▪ Gas mains/pipes shall not pass through the fire restriction area. ▪ A 10 metre clearance distance shall be maintained between substation

and fire hydrants, booster valves, and the like in accordance with

Noted and agreed.




28

AS2419.1 ‘Fire hydrant installations System design, installation and commissioning’ as updated from time to time.

▪ Consideration should be provided to the appropriateness of the landscaping relative to the fire restriction for the substation. Any landscaping that potentially could transfer / provide connectivity for flame or radiant heat from a fire in the substation to a dwelling or building should be avoided.

▪ The storage of and / or use of flammable, combustible, corrosive or explosive material within the fire restriction should be avoided.

Generally it is the Level 3 ASP’s responsibility (engaged by the developer) to make sure that the substation location and design complies with Endeavour Energy’s standards the suitability of access, safety clearances, fire ratings,

flooding etc. As a condition of the Development Application consent Council should request the submission of documentary evidence from Endeavour Energy confirming that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the connection of electricity and the design requirements for the substation, prior to the release of the Construction Certificate / commencement of works.

Noted and agreed.




29



Formalised Response

TransGrid (Lauren Player – Enquiry Services Coordinator)

Please be advised TransGrid has no comment as there is no impact to TransGrid’s assets.

Noted and agreed.




22 DP 258414)

Appendices

Documents

RE: SECTION 4.55(2) MODIFICATION TO SSD 9522 PROPOSED