Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

I object the Glebe Island Multi-User Facility development for the
following reasons:

* Pyrmont, Balmain & Glebe area should not be subjected to the noise
from ships dropping their cargo in the area 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week all year round;
* The air pollution associated with the boats will adversely effect
the health of residents in the surrounding area;
* A facility that runs during the night will use lighting that will
impact on residents in direct line of sight;
* It is 10 years since the Glebe Island operated as a 24 hour working
port and in that time Pyrmont has become the most densely populated
suburb in Australia; &
* The trucks that will deliver the material from Glebe Island will
further clog the surrounding roads.

This is not a professional, empirical, highly researched submission. It
is from a local resident who has lived less than a kilometre from the
proposed site for over 40 years and who has noted with increasing
pride the improvement in public amenity over time. With the
incremental removal of coal-fired power generation (White Bay Power
Station), containerised shipping, some bulk materials transfer and car
storage (Sydney Ports Authority) and, most recently, temporary
convention facilities, Glebe Island and its harbour edge have been
progressively improved - as one would expect for a Government-owned
site less than two kilometres from the country's largest CBD. The
option of reactivating the old Glebe Island Bridge for pedestrian,
cyclist and public transport use is particularly enticing, as is a
passenger ferry wharf on Rozelle Bay.

Given the high profile location of the proposed batching plant, its
inherent ugliness, possible adverse environmental impacts (noise and
air pollution 24:7) and the huge opportunity cost resulting from the
loss of such a valuable site to more amenable uses, I find it
incomprehensible that a company with even an iota of civic pride or a
government supposedly committed to urban renewal could propose such a
nineteenth century idea.

No matter how much you mask this base proposal with notions of
retaining a working harbour (largely romance) or co-existence with
existing adverse impacts (the former grain silos - two wrongs don't
make a right), or equity because Hanson is being bumped out of
Blackwattle Bay where it has had an overly generous existence for
many, many years, the fact remains that a highly visible landmark site
within spitting distance of Sydney's central business district is
being touted for a dirty industrial future with heavy trucks spewing
off in all directions at all hours of the day.

How committed is the State Government to its Bays Precinct urban
renewal program? Fine words to appease the Inner Westies, but when it
comes to actual progress on the ground nothing happens - Callan Park
continues to rot; little attempt was made to keep Google at White Bay,
there has been no start on the much-hyped foreshore promenade,
shore-to-ship power is not being provided to the cruise terminal in
White Bay and improvements to existing public transport remain
illusory. I have little faith in the government holding to its lofty
statements on urban renewal when cashed-up proponents like Hanson come
along cap-in-hand asking favours which mere residents cannot prevent.

Yes, Sydney needs concrete batching plants as the city continues to
expand, but not cheek by jowl with medium-to-high-density housing and
not in locations where we should be improving amenity over time - not
diminishing it. Certainly, as the years pass, things change. Not so
long ago the State Government built an expensive high level bridge
(Anzac Bridge) because Hanson used a ship that needed to pass
underneath. How long did Hanson keep the ship? Not long...

I support this project - the facility will be vital to supply concrete to
the upcoming infrastructure projects and developments for Sydney. Use
of marine transport will reduce truck movements. This project will
also be in keeping with the history of Sydney Harbour being a working
Port.

I support Hanson's Glebe Island concrete plant for the following reasons:
- The Glebe concrete plant will allow Hanson to continue its supply of
concrete after the closure of the Blackwattle Bay concrete plant
- Aggregates can be delivered by ship from the Hanson Bass Point
Quarry which will minimise tipper truck movements

We are object this DA because we live opposite this Glebe site and our
community--Jacksons Landing will be heavily impact by the noise, dust,
and also with visual impact. It's not not appropriate to consider this
site as concrete batching facility, hope government can consider
another better option. Thanks for your attention.

We are object this DA because we live opposite this Glebe site and our
community--Jacksons Landing will be heavily impact by the noise, dust,
and also with visual impact. It's not not appropriate to consider this
site as concrete batching facility, hope government can consider
another better option. Thanks for your attention.

We are object this DA because we live opposite this Glebe site and our
community--Jacksons Landing will be heavily impact by the noise, dust,
and also with visual impact. It's not not appropriate to consider this
site as concrete batching facility, hope government can consider
another better option. Thanks for your attention.

We are object this DA because we live opposite this Glebe site and our
community--Jacksons Landing will be heavily impact by the noise, dust,
and also with visual impact. It's not not appropriate to consider this
site as concrete batching facility, hope government can consider
another better option. Thanks for your attention.

I object to this submission. I live within a couple of hundred metres of
the proposed site, and my child's school (amongst others) is also
nearby. I am concerned about noise and particle pollution and the
effects on our sleep, concentration levels, respiratory function, and
potential long term health effects. It is too close to residential
areas, it should be moved to a less populated area (e.g. ports area).

I object to the above development because:
1 .a very noticeable increase in noise from trucks and ships
(motors will run 24 h day and night.
2. a major increase in dangerous exhaust air pollution from ships and
trucks
3. increase in bay water pollution
4. onsite night lighting disturbs our sleep
5. the increase in traffic in the waterways by heavy industrial
vessels may result in safety issues for the recreational boats like
kayaking, dragon boats,rowing boats, small sailing ships.
6. health issues for all people breathing in contaminated air day
and night (specially the elderly, asthma sufferer)

I am writing to object to the 24/7 nature of the concrete batching
facility proposed to be built at Glebe Island. As a working port I
have no objection to the facility being built but cannot see the need
for it to operate 24/7. The building sites requiring the concrete will
not be operation 24/7 and the location of this site is in close
proximity to multiple dwellings. The operation of the plant 24/7 will
severely impact on the lives of many residents in an area the state
government targeted for development.

I strongly oppose the Concrete facility on Glebe Island as it kills long
term planning for one of the last development areas in the Heart of
the City. White Bay / Glebe Island should be used to add value to our
city in a sustainable way. A concrete facility does generate cement
dust which is toxic and does affect humans. There is no room for such
an industry in the heart of the city, not around dense population.
nobody wants to live beside a concrete manufacturing facility. The
Cruise Ship terminal is bad enough and evicently affecting health of
the residents, this is a similar issue.

We most strenuously object to the proposal for a 24/7 Concrete Batching
Plant on Glebe Island because of its proximity to a residential area
whose inhabitants will be adversely affected by the noise, air and
water pollution and its effect on recreational water activities.

The development is apparently "temporary" which is a joke in itself.
How long is "temporary" and when does "temporary" become "permanent?"

No consideration has been given to the residents of Pyrmont when
proposing such a development many of whom had been led to believe that
any development on Glebe Island would be sympathetic to its
residential surrounds.

23 April 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to lodge my strong objection to Hanson's proposed Concrete
Plant on Glebe Island.

Building the Concrete Plant is in direct conflict with the Glebe
Island & White Bay Master Plan 2000 as well as Urban Growth NSW plans
for The Bays Precinct.
Building the Concree Plant contravenes the following principles in the
White Bay and Glebe Island Master Plan 2000:
* enhanced environmental performance,
* improve the appearance of the port,
* maintain views of the Pyrmont Skyline and Anzac Bridge as seen from
Balmain and White Bay Park,
* protect vistas for streets which terminate at the water,
* deliver a high standard of urban design,
* provide noise, light spill, water quality, air quality and hazard
risk control measures (some proposed but not all will be mandated for
all operations at the facility, e.g. truck driver behaviours,
ship-to-shore power etc)

0ver the last 10 years Pyrmont and the surrounding areas have
developed into the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney, The area
has changed dramatically over the last 10 years.
Building the Concrete Plant will create a number of environmental and
health issues that will impact both residents and visitors to the
area.
Although an EIS has been carried out its validity is questionable and
the independence of the report open to challenge. For example, the
disclaimer by the company, Pacific Environment engaged to report on
air quality (Appendix I, page 4). The Pacific Environment (PE)
Disclaimer states amongst other things that the "report is based on
the information made available by the client" and "does not attempt to
verify the accuracy, validity or comprehensiveness of any information
supplied"
In the report there is little evidence-based data to substantiate the
findings and consequent recommendations.

Furthermore, there is a substantial amount of collateral data that is
conveniently overlooked by the proposal. The Concrete Plant and its
impact will accentuate the impact of current projects such as
Westconnex, Sydney Metro West, Western Harbour Tunnel, and in
particular the, GI Multi-User Facility.
Traffic impacts on the area consequent to the implementation of all or
some of these projects will be horrendous; further contributing to the
growing bottle neck that Pyrmont and inner West suburbs is becoming.
Specifically, as a single example, building The Concrete Plant next to
the Glebe Island Multi-User Facility will have a deleterious impact
24/7 x 365 days a year. The REF for Glebe Island Multi User facility
states that heavy vehicle traffic movements will likely occur at night
or during the middle of the day due to efficiencies offered by
scheduling truck runs outside peak hours. The Port Authority is a
business that will want to optimise the use of the MUF and Hanson's
business objectives will mean that together they will create health
and environmental havoc!
Furthermore, the Concrete Plant will increase the danger to the safety
of those that use the waterway. The space opposite the proposed site
is narrow and it would become further hazardous as it facilitates the
berthing of ships that will service the Concrete Plant, the MUF
traffic, and the myriad of leisure activities that take place in the
waterway..

In summary, I object to building the Hanson Concrete Plant on Glebe
Island. It is not only dangerous to those that use the waterway but
will exacerbate the impact the proposed Glebe Island MUF will have as
well as other coming projects.
It is foolhardy to assess the impact of the proposed Concrete Plant in
isolation of other projects planned for the near areas.
The noise, air, light and traffic impacts are too great to allow such
a project to proceed

Should you require a more extensive explaination of my position please
feel free to contact me..

Thank you

Peter Freese
[email protected]
0429022665

We object to this proposal on the following grounds.
Impact on our environment in terms of noise, dust, pollution and
light.
We request that the Port Authority conduct a thorough environmental
impact study so that our concerns can be addressed.
Yours faithfully,

This proposal involving the Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and Concrete
Batching Facility (SSD 8544) operating 24/7 will have a very high
detrimental impact on health for the large number of residents living
in close proximity to Glebe Island. There is already pollution from
the stacks of the cruise ships docked in this bay which have their
generators on constantly. You can smell the exhaust at times. The
pollution from the cruise ships together with the constant trafficking
and docking o f the commercial ships will worsen the condition
considerably. Also, the noise generated by the constant loading and
unloading of these commercial ships together with the noise generated
by the Aggregate Handling and Concreting Facility operating 24/7 will
be intolerable, especially at night when the noise seems to be
amplified. This noise factor was experienced when Glebe Island was
used to load and unload cars not too long ago. We strongly object to
this proposal o f using Glebe Island as an Aggregate Handling and
Concrete Batching Facility, especially operating 24/7, due these
reasons. I believe the Department of Planning & Environment has a duty
of care to protect the health of the people living in the area
surrounding Glebe Island. Clusters of cancer developing from these
carcinogenic pollutants nobody wants and is preventable.

Relocate this industrial facility to a more appropriate location.Glebe
island,surrounded by water and an affluent densely populated
neighborhood,is one of the few places available to locate an
environmentally friendly and 'public' useful facility offering good
parking ,easy access and a pristine setting for something like a lyric
theater for the enjoyment of all Sydney residents.By moving the
subject industrial facility several hundred meters from the
Blackwattle Bay to Glebe Island could only be considered as a very
short sighted step taken without a master plan for the region and
lacking any vision for the needs of the residents of Sydney..
My wife and I ,in retirement,live next door at Jacksons Landing,and
our bed room directly overlooks the site for this facility located a
mere 100 meters away from our home.Without a proper environmental
study for noise and pollution that could impact us very severely at
this stage in our lives, is another reason for us to strongly object
to locating the subject facility at Glebe.

Re: SSD 8544 - Glebe Island Aggregate Handling & Concrete Batching
Facility I wish to lodge my strong objection to Hanson's proposed
Concrete Plant on Glebe Island as this is not an appropriate site for
this development.
My objections are based for the following reasons
1. Blackwattle Bay was an industrial area in the 20th century but
since 1999 the area has become one of the highly densely populated
areas in Australia. More residential development is proposed with the
new Bays Precinct. Hence any conditions that were appropriate for an
industrial area, are no longer applicable.
2. Noise -the proposal identifies that the facility will be
operational 24/7. This is not conducive to enjoyment of the area by
the thousands of residents who face Glebe Island. At a community
meeting for the adjoining proposal, the consultants recommended that
residents in adjoining buildings would need to keep their windows
closed in order to reduce the noise levels.
3. Pollution - the movement of ships and trucks will severely impact
on air quality
4. Traffic - the movement of tens of thousands of trucks onto and off
Glebe Island will impact on the already heavily congested ANZAC
Bridge, Victoria Rd and City West Link. This is without taking into
the consideration the spill of traffic from the Westconnex project.
One of the reasons we were told for the location of the facility on
Glebe Island was to save travelling time for the trucks. I put it,
that in fact the trucks will be sitting in traffic waiting to get off
the island.
5. Inconsistent developments - the former premier Mike Baird had
unveiled a significant development project for the Bays Precinct
whereby there would be continuous walkways, parks, a renewed Fish
Market and additional apartments. A new cement factory is inconsistent
with this urban renewal concept
6. Maritime dangers - there is considerable boat traffic on the area
around Glebe Island from dragon boats, kayaks, pleasure craft, party
boats and fishing boats. With an increase in the movement of large
ships in the area there is significant chance of collisions. A near
miss between a cruiser and a tanker was witnessed just recently.
7. Available alternatives - Port Botany and Newcastle are established
ship yards that are capable of dealing with additional ship movements.
As mentioned in #4 above, I do not believe that there would actually
be any time savings in having the facility on Glebe Island .

I remind those deciding on this proposal that the harbour belongs to
many not just a few. It belongs to all that sail on the harbour - big
and small craft. The harbourside belongs to all - and now that the
area has been established as a residential one, the quiet enjoyment of
the communities that surround it shouldn't be compromised by a
facility that no longer belongs there.

Manuela Epstein
501/42 Refinery Drive Pyrmont
Mob: 0402 062 665
Email: [email protected]

Hi there,
I am a resident at Jackson's Landing and I wish to voice my objections
to the Glebe Island project.
If this facility is to proceed, sound levels from vessel generators,
and the operation of the facility must be lower than what is currently
proposed, and those sound levels should be communicated to the
community. These levels should be regularly monitored by the Ports
Authority, with punitive remedies able to be enforced on the operator
of the facility, the vessels involved and the trucking companies
involved. The Ports Authority should be prepared to be transparent
with the concerned community on these reduced sound levels.
Given the proximity to the largest population density in the country,
it would be appropriate to reduce operational hours to be between
7.00am in the morning and 8.00pm in the evening which is 12 hours
operation a day to at least allow residents some quiet enjoyment of
outside park areas.
The Port Authority also have it within their power to be strict on the
specifications on which vessels are entitled to use the facility,
having regard to the environmental sustainability and capabilities of
vessels, the Government is well aware of the what the specifications
of the "preferred vessels" allowed to dock should be. Setting up this
facility if it goes ahead is the opportunity to do it the "right way".
I hope you will take these comments on board.
Regards,

9/25 Bowman Street
PYRMONT 2009

22 April 2018
Minister for Planning
Planning Services,
Department of Planning and Environment,
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001



OUR OBJECTION TO THE DA APPLCIATION BY HANSON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
PTY LTD


Application number is: SSD 8544. Berth 1 and land adjacent, Glebe
Island, James Craig Road, Rozelle (lot 10 DP 11 707 10)
Applicant Hansons Construction Materials Pty Ltd
Council Area Inner West
Consent Authority Minister for Planning



Our objection: The area around Glebe Island encompasses the White Bay
Cruise Terminal, Jackson's Landing, the Bays Precinct and Sydney Fish
Markets. As industries had moved out leaving the areas abandoned,
redevelopment with mixed residential housing emerged. Within this
development parks and gardens were included along the foreshore, old
dilapidated industrial buildings brought back to life and, where
possible, sympathetic contemporary residential housing was
constructed.

These efforts encouraged many more people to move into Pyrmont and by
2018 we have a vibrant, mixed community of 2500 residents or more
living in Jackson's Landing alone. Any proposal for Glebe Island must
take into account the changed landscape of the now residential area.
Blackwattle Bay is unsuitable for such cargo ships and we urge the
Planning Minister to consider that Port Botany is a far more suitable
site as it is well established industrial port with excellent links to
rail and road networks which can carry materials to the many
infrastructure projects underway across Sydney region.

This project must be considered within the wider context of what the
Port Authority plans to undertake which is the development of a
Multi-User Facility.

Our objection to the Hanson Proposal is:

1. Conflict of interest: It is of gave concern that the Hanson Project
would not be viable without the direct benefit of the Port Authority's
project to establish the MUF at the adjacent berth. The MUF proposal
is not subject to the same scrutiny as the concurrent application by
Hanson to establish a Concrete Batching Plant, adjacent to the Port
Authority MUF. At the very least we would expect the Port Authority's
MUF project to have to produce an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).

2. Close to a residential community: The development of the Glebe
Island site is unsuitable for such a project due to the proximity with
residential communities: The Bays Precinct has undergone significant
urban rejuvenation and investment creating vibrant residential
communities where people who live along the foreshore adjacent to the
proposed site. Glebe Island is at the centre of a residential
community.

3. Traffic: The roads in Pyrmont are already clogged. In peak hours
twice a day the Anzac Bridge is almost at a standstill. Contrary to
what the Port Authority Project that its proposal says it is "saving
about 14,000 trucks a day bringing sand and cement into the area" for
essential infrastructure. This is in stark contrast to the claims the
Hanson Project state in their Planning Application. Hanson states
section 2.3.3 of the SLR Dispatch - "Once the concrete is loaded into
the concrete agitator trucks, they can depart from the west of the
enclosed building. Concrete agitator trucks will exit the Facility via
James Craig Road and from there travel to where their delivery is
required. When the plant is operating at peak capacity up to 120
concrete deliveries will be made from the plant in an hour. Aggregates
not used in the batching of concrete will be dispatched from the
storage silos by conveyor directly for loading to an aggregate truck
for dispatch to another concrete batching plant facility. This will
increase truck and traffic congestion in this local area at a minimum
by 120 x 24 = 2880 x 365 = 1,051,200 per annum at full capacity. This
does not include the dispatch of other products and the dispatches
could be greater. How does this reduce traffic congestion as the Port
Authority are claiming in relation to the incoming sand and cement to
and from other places around Sydney, rather it is adding even more
congestion well known to the people of Sydney specifically along the
connecting road to the Anzac Bridge and surrounding areas.

4. Light and noise pollution: so that Hanson Project can operate 24
hours a day it will source its product form the cargo ships that will
also operate 24 hours a day directly into our apartment buildings
facing Glebe Island. The increased noise level of traffic, batching
plant and cargo being moved will be constant in what has become the
most densely populated area in Australia. The levels we believe will
generated by the Hanson Project are excessive.

5. Dust Pollution: the ships will be unloading tonnes of sand, cement
and related materials every day. No matter how they say they will try
to contain dust there is no doubt that very fine dust particles will
be blown over the surrounding areas with subsequent health risks to
resident and visitors alike.

6. Obstruction to shipping: Hanson proposal out liens that it plans to
source its product form the large cargo ships (to be berthed at the
Port Authority Multi Use Facility) adjacent to the batching plant. We
believe the increase in congestion not only of the roads but also to
and marine craft traffic in and out of Blackwattle Bay, which is a
busy and very narrow channel.


The Hanson Batching Plant Proposal to build an Aggregate Handling
Facility (SSD 8544) on Glebe Island, James Craig Road is not supported
as it will render a return of an Industrial Port and create the same
in the adjacent waterways. This investment is inconsistent with the
announced and agreed NSW State Government Bays Precinct Transformation
Plan in 2015 and will negatively impact on 20,000 people who live
locally.

Yours sincerely,
Ron Gill