Pindimar Abalone Farm

The PROPOSED abalone farm at Port Stephens might pose major environmental questions and problems, as the waterway of Port Stephens is under immense stress. As Lesley Lane proposes, it is "a huge risk" (New Castle Herald, July 16 2013).
The PROPOSED abalone farm may increase the traffic of delivery vans to the area, producing an increase in gas emissions, noise and dust, adding more pollution to an already distressed area.
According to chef Peter Hatton "abalone has an immense flavour" However, I do prefer to keep the pristine waters of Port Stephen and the health of other "with less flavour" marine inhabitants that share the waters of the Port.
I do object to the development of the PROPOSED abalone far.
I. Blanco

This development is long overdue. It was previously approved by the local council only to be rejected in the courts after local cattle farmers who have properties adjoining the site recieved support from an environment group. that these same farmers have clear felled thousands of acres should put their view into perspective. This can easily be viewed via google earth.
It is a fantastic sustainable environmentally friendly project. The local area ( Port Stephens ) has begun rebranding itself as a fresh produce tourist destination. This project fits in perfectly.
I fully support the project and the tourism and employment that it will bring with it.

Having an MSc in ecology I fail to understand why Austasia Leefield Pty Ltd, are so insistent on locating an onshore Abalone farm in what is a marginal region. Existing Abalone farms are all in Southern states where there is access to clean, cold ocean water.
The proposal is to pump water from Port Stephens, a water mass that gets very little flushing with fresh sea water. Indeed, when there are floods, the Ports waters are flushed by fresh water containing large amounts of tannins.
Furthermore, the proposal is for waste water to be returned to the Port at no great distance to the inlet pipes. This would cause a deterioration of the inlet and Ports water quality over time.
The proposal is at best commercially marginal and will be detrimental to the Ports ecosystems.
Who will pay for the removal of pipes and other infrastructure when the business goes bust?

I am objecting to the Pindimar Abalone Project (Application MP 10_0006). I believe that the peaceful, naturally beautiful and popular holiday destination of Port Stephens is a completely inappropriate location for heavy industry such as the proposed application.

Firstly, a project such as this will damage the ecology of an area that is largely wild and currently left natural. Disrupting this will not only ruin the specific area of the proposed site, but also disrupt surrounding areas, impacting on the entire Port.

Secondly, Port Stephens is known for its year round tourism as a place for long and short stay holidays for families to enjoy the many benefits of a Port unburdened by heavy industry. It's because of the current lack of industry that families can enjoy Port Stephens as a holiday destination within a couple of hours drive from Sydney.

A project such as the proposed will damage the ecology of the area, the water quality, the thriving tourism of the Port and disturb the residents who have moved to the area for its peace and natural beauty.

Please reject this proposal and help preserve this wonderful piece of New South Wales.

I am objecting to the Pindimar Abalone Project (Application MP 10_0006) because I believe that the beautiful vacation land around Port Stephens is an inappropriate place for heavy industry.

A project such as the proposed will damage the ecology of an area that is largely wild, decrease surrounding water quality, negatively impact local tourism and disrupt residents with noise, odour and heavy traffic.

Please reject this proposal and preserve this special place.

I am objecting to the Pindimar Abalone Project (Application MP 10_0006).

Port Stephens Pindimar Bay has always been an escape destination for me, my family and our friends. Somewhere to disappear to, somewhere to unwind away from Sydney and relax in the quiet bay. A project like this would destroy this dream destination for us as well as many other residents, permanent or weekenders.

A project like this will damage the area, the wildlife and the serenity of the bay. Also, not only will it disrupt Pindimar Bay but I believe will also impact the entire Port.

This proposed project will damage the Bay in a few ways: the water quality and therefore the wildlife, the thriving tourism of the Port and disturb the residents who have moved to the area for its peace and natural beauty.

Please reject this proposal and help preserve this wonderful piece of New South Wales.

Regards,
Ben Payton

I'm submitting this application to oppose the proposed use of an abalone farm.

I object to the construction of the Abalone Farm as this is primarily a semi rural and residential area and the development of the Abalone Farm will significantly change the nature of the area.
It will introduce commercial noise by increased traffic (due to employees daily commute and delivery trucks, fork lifts with continuous beeping), pumps working 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, as well as possible light polution during the night.
In addition I understand that it will have a strong environmental impact on water quality, sea grasses and mangroves, all areas which are very important breading grounds for fish and other marine creatures. It has been stated by the proponents that the contents of the discharge pipe, which will empty the abalone waste and unused food into the Port, will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf. I understand that this is not so as, during the case against this proposal last time when the Port flow charts were tabled showing the eddy effects within the Port, it was clearly demonstrated that any pollution would reside for a length period of time.

> This proposed development is inappropriate on so many levels. Apart from changing this lovely quiet hamlet into a commercial thoroughfare along Cambage Street, it will have a strong environmental impact on water quality, sea grasses, mangroves and at a land level. It has been stated by the proponents that the contents of the discharge pipe, which will empty the abalone waste and unused food into the Port, will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf. This was been found to be completely untrue last time when we tabled Port flow charts that demonstrated the eddy effects within the Port.
>
> We know that it will introduce commercial noise by increased traffic, (around 13-15 full time employees commuting daily, supply delivery trucks not to mention their heavy produce vehicles) generators, pumps that are operated 24/7 and no doubt fork lifts with their incessant beeping. There will also probably be light pollution

Pindimar Abalone Farm Application #MP 10_0006

I object to this proposal. I believe it to be totally inappropriate for this area and in fact for any location like this in `protected waters' that wouldn't allow sufficient flushing of the abalone waste and unused food. It is well known that the eddying effects within the Port would hold the polluted water for very long periods of time and there is data to support this.
There are numerous risks with land based Abalone Farms but the biggest is probably the effect on the Port water quality and in turn sea-life due to elevated nutrients and the future risk of one of the various abalone diseases escaping into the wild through small juveniles or during the spawning periods causing potentially devastating damage.

South Pindimar is an unspoilt backwater and a haven for retirees and residents who choose the area for its natural beauty and peacefulness. Why would anyone want to ruin that by allowing a development that would change this forever?

This proposal would increase local traffic and noise pollution by introducing trucks and staff cars through a quiet street on which children currently ride their bikes in safety (particularly in school holidays), light pollution, increased water pollution within the Port and environmental damage both on land, beach and below water level.

Why on Earth should a Company be allowed to dump their waste into our Port for their own financial gain whilst impacting on, sea grasses, the land, sea life not to mention what I thought were protected species: turtles, dolphins and mangroves.

I strongly object to this proposal.

Sincerely,


Trina Payton

Re. Pindimar Abalone Farm Application #MP 10_0006


I object to this proposal.

I believe it to be grossly inappropriate on many levels and strongly recommend that the Minister actually visits the area to gain an understanding as to why this is so.

I attach a Abalone Aquaculture Dialogue statement from the World Wildlife Fund (http://www.mesa.edu.au/aquaculture/aquaculture17.asp) which supports many of my objections points listed below.

South Pindimar is one of the few non-commercialised areas left and is enjoyed both as a retirement destination and a weekend getaway to be amidst peace and the natural tranquillity. This proposal would change the local township forever by:

- increased traffic from the 13+ full time workers


- introducing both delivery trucks and produce vehicles into a no-thoroughfare road in a countrified residential area

- the negative effects on water quality within the entire Port. This includes the highly popular holiday areas of Nelson Bay right back to Lemon Tree Passage on the southern side. You need only study the independently produced Port water flow charts which illustrate the numerous eddying effects throughout the Port which clearly contradict the development's statement that abalone waste will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf! It is clear to me that the waste water could stay within the Port for weeks before dissipation and well before further waste is disgorged there from the same source.

- the introduction of light pollution. Part of the beauty of the area is the vividness of the night sky allowing local enthusiasts an uncontaminated darkness. This also would be spoilt forever should this proposal ever be permitted.

- creating noise pollution in the form of trucks, probably fork-lifts with their incessant beeping, generators, pumps and the mere process of running a commercial business

- destruction of local sea grasses and protected mangroves through the installation of intake and discharge pipes across public and protected areas


I cannot understand why such a development could even be considered within enclosed waters such as a Port. Clearly the obvious position would be on the coast where direct access to the ocean and wave action could flush the abalone effluent more effectively.

It was my understanding the abalone requires a colder water in which to survive anyway and, as any local will tell you, the water temperature becomes quite warm especially as it is sometime the receiptent of tropical currents.

I also understand that abalone is very susceptible to disease. We have already seen the near destruction of oyster farming in the area and I am told this could be due to current pollution emanating from industry further up the Karuah River and run-off from surrounding areas.

Please, we don't need any more.


Sincerely,

John Payton

I am writing to object to the Pindimar Abalone Project Application M P 10-0006 to build a large land based abalone farm which will siphon 50 megalitres of water DAILY through the farm (factory) to Port Stephens

_ According to a survey by Manly Hydraulics the water at South Pindimar does not flush out daily and there are several places where eddies of water cause waste to remain for weeks
The pipes are 9 kilometres from the inlet at Port Stephens
-This is an inappropriate site for this project and puts the ecology of the Port at GRAVE RISK in a very fragile environment
Abalone farms are coastal This would be the 1st abalone farm in an estuary in NSW

Port Stephens Council has raised concerns that the Pindimar Abalone Farm should be subject to monitoring by a third party
THIS IS ESSENTIAL the monitors should be independently engaged by Council and paid for by the proponents and should include local resident representation

-A LARGE BOND should be paid by the proponents to clean up the destruction to the Port WHEN this venture FAILS
-
-The proponents address is Clarke Street but the proposal is to use access via Cambage Street

Cambage Street is a road built for light LOCAL traffic through a village which is used for local domestic purpose very few cars owned by locals who drive at 40 kilometres There is no footpath and there are swails on the side of this narrow domestic road turning into Como Street and Carruthers Street which are not formed roads but bush track

Many Senior walkers
Children on Bikes
Resident with Visual Disability
Resident in Electric Wheelchair
use the road for exercise and socialisation

-The locality in this village is TOTALLY WRONG and DANGEROUS!!!!

The Bay is an area highly used by residents and visitors for swimming, recreational water sports and boating right where the pipes would be disgorging 50 megalitres of waste from this dirty industry every day

-This is NOT a State Significant Industry
Abalone is not a food eaten by most Australians but a food to be exported
The profits will NOT benefit NSW as as the proponents told us at the "Community Consultation"
"There are many OVERSEAS investors waiting to invest in this Industrial development
Port Stephens must not be PUT AT RISK and Community life and facility MUST NOT BE SACRIFICED

Judy Richardson

1. Where will the 4 pipelines enter/exit Port Stephens bay.
2. What sort of noise will be generated from this "Major Project" .
3. Our rates are very high as it is considering the isolation of the area, will this "Major Project" raise our rates?
4. Will this "Major Project" rely on tank water like we do, or will town water come to Pindimar for all.
5. How will the general running of this "Major Project" affect our day to day lives, will there be increased traffic on Clarke St/Pindimar Road for instance.
6. Pindimar is a huge holiday area as well as home to many residents (including myself), how will this affect the price of our homes.

As a regular visitor to Port Stephens, I object to this proposal. I believe it to be quite inappropriate for South Pindimar, which is one of the few non-commercialised areas left in the area where peace and the natural tranquility can be enjoyed. This proposal would change the local township forever by:

- increased traffic from the 13+ full time workers, delivery trucks and produce vehicles into the area and finally along a no-thoroughfare road in presently unspoiled bushland

- the negative effects on water quality within the entire Port. This includes the highly popular holiday areas of Nelson Bay right back to Lemon Tree Passage on the southern side. The independently produced Port water flow charts illustrate the numerous eddying effects throughout the Port which clearly contradict the development's statement that abalone waste will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf! It is clear to me that the waste water could stay within the Port for weeks before dissipation and well before further waste is disgorged there from the same source.

- the introduction of light pollution. Part of the beauty of the area is the vividness of the night sky. This also would be spoilt forever should this proposal ever be permitted.

- creating noise pollution in the form of trucks and fork-lifts with their shrill reverse beeping, generators, pumps and other noise associated with running a commercial business.

- destruction of local sea grasses and protected mangroves through the installation of intake and discharge pipes across public and protected areas. I believe that abalone requires a colder water in which to survive and, since the water temperature in the Port becomes quite warm, discharged water from the plant will be cooler when returned to the Port.

Such a development should not even be considered within enclosed waters such as a port. Clearly the obvious position would be on the coast where direct access to the ocean and wave action could flush the abalone effluent more effectively.

Re. Pindimar Abalone Farm Application #MP 10_0006


I object to this proposal. I believe it to be inappropriate for this area.

South Pindimar is a quite village populated by retirees and residents who choose the area for its natural beauty and peacefulness. I am 93 years old and would be most upset by the extra traffic, dirt and noise that this development would cause let alone the raping of such a beautiful, natural area.

I strongly object to this proposal.

Sincerely,


Glen Payton

My objections are as follows:
1. If consent is given for this project to pipe effluent treated or not out into Port Stephens waterways it sets a precedent that will then be followed by many.
2. The village of Pindimar South or Lower Pindimar is home to about 90 permanent residents. The road leading into the village struggles to cope at the best of times and will not do well with extra traffic. We are told there is a workforce attached to this project. There are no shops if facilities close by. They will be required to drive 15 minutes into the local town. I doubt this will happen and if it does it will once again place a strain on the existing poorly constructed barely wide enough road.
4. The power supply to this village barely copes at present with the demands placed on it. Frequent power brown outs and black outs are something most residents are use to. In fact during a recent storm power was lost to this village for 30 hours! A light industrial complex such as the proposed would place additional strain on the power lines. Having their own generating supply would add to the noise levels.
5. This is a quiet residential holiday area not a light industrial zone.
6. Historically Abalone Farms have been subject to disease and for the most part commercial failure. What makes this one any different and when it does fail who will clean up the environmental mess it will leave?
7. There is a commercial yabby farm and fish farm in the area. Neither of which are allowed to pump waste, treated or otherwise, into the creeks, rivers or in fact directly into the bay. Why should this farm being given preferential treatment and be allowed to do so via an invasive pipe going into Port Stephens?

Dear Mr Hazzard

I am a currently nearby resident and once a part owner of "Tallowfield", the adjacent property to180 Clarke St, Pindimar. I attended the Land & Environment Court hearing some years ago when a similar proposal was rejected.

I strongly object to this later proposal which appears to be much larger than the earlier plan. My objection is lodged for the very reasons that it was originally rejected. They are pollution of the delicate port, disease and destruction of the local ecology.

Research with Great Lakes Council will show the Minister that both Shoal Bay and Jimmy's Beach are at great risk of sediment erosion. The entire shallow waterway is the ongoing subject of a University of Sydney study.

This is an entirely inappropriate site for heavy industry.

James Slater

Object to proposal

My Objections > The use of CAMBAGE st as access to a industial development on a no through road .

.Pindimar South AT present is a holiday spot for young children visiting Grand parent , the children use the road as a foot path , No foot paths or walk ways are available IN South Pindimar.

I have 4 children who regualy visit Pindimar South and enjoy riding there bicks along Cambage st ,on a low volume road.

Eldely residents use Cambage St walking daily . Hearing impared people .have a safty risk of not hearing traffic.

at present the locals go very slowly.and watch out for people walking.
Traffic on a local road through South Pindimar Village ,with a increase of 100% or more cars is unfair on PINDIMAR community,and a SAFTY risk.

Our family owns a waterfront block which will be the adjoining neighbour to this development. In the environmental assessment proposal there is no evidence of the effects to neibouring properties, in fact it was very dificult to ascertain who is the direct neighboring properties as this level of detail has not been included in the proposal. We therefore object on the basis that the EA is insufficiently detailed so as to advise all parties concerned. What effects will water outlets have on neighboring properties.