Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

See attached

See attached

See attached

Submission attached

Attached

Attached

Submission attached

HANSON CONCRETE BATCHING & AGGREGATE HANDLING PLANT OBJECTION:

I object strongly to this project. The proposal for the Hanson
Concrete Batching Plant should be rejected and the factory relocated.

There are many reasons to object to this wilful destruction of the
local community. I will restrict this letter to the following critical
points.

The project is designed and positioned as a 24 hour, 365-day
operation. Together with the bulk carriers unloading at GIB1 and with
the Port Authority MUF in 24/7 production, there will be a massive
expansion of highly intrusive noise, air and water pollution as well
as extreme industrial light spill.

Result 1: Noise. The EIS has acknowledged "in particular due to the
proximity between the GIB1 and the Pyrmont Residential Receivers, port
facility noise levels may exceed noise planning goals established in
accordance with more conventional approaches to the assessment of
industrial noise sources." (emphasis added)

The cumulative effect of effect of the Hanson plant, the MUF, and the
bulk carrier ship engines have all to be considered in the measurement
of the noise pollution. The words in Italics above are classic
obfuscation by the consultants. The words imply that the consultants
actually do not know how to predict/measure the noise output.

I note that SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd measured night noise
levels created by the CSL Reliance in June 2017 at GI1. The report was
"well above EPA limits". This does not encourage those of us residents
to be confident about our exposure to the Hanson plan.

Lack of sleep, particularly caused by external sources is a known for
serious physical and emotional health consequences.

I note on page 29 of your EIS states "Hanson advise they will
co-ordinate with ship operators to ensure ship engines and ventilation
systems are minimised where feasible and reasonable to do so".
(emphasis added). This is simply a nice sentiment with a get out of
jail option when Hanson needs it. There are no controls, no punitive
measures, which would have to be be mandated if you were serious.

Result 2: Air Quality.
My understanding is that bulk carrier vessels continually burn a low
quality, sulphurous, crude diesel fuel. Once again, the cumulative
effects of both bulk facilities at GI1 must be taken into account and
significantly reduced or eliminated.

Corrosive, fine dust particles will be inevitable. It is specious to
suggest otherwise. The waterfront area of Jacksons landing and the
taller apartment buildings are very much exposed to high wind
variability.

Result 3: On-water risk.
Congestion of a myriad of bulk carriers unloading immediately adjacent
to the existing Glebe Island Bridge will undoubtedly increase the
water hazard here. There are large numbers of marine craft entering &
exiting Blackwattle Bay. These include fishing trawlers, commercial
entertainment craft, dragon boats and other small vessels, and larger
private vessels docked at Rozelle Bay marina facilities.

The image enclosed with this objection exposes the water risk in the
narrow channel under the ANZAC Bridge.

Result 4: Light pollution will be also an aggressive home intrusion.
In addition to the light splash generated by the Hanson plant, cargo
ships keep their industrial lighting on throughout the night. We have
direct experience of this when the occasional carrier is at the wharf
now. The light is unavoidable inside the home.

Result 5: Massive scale.

As previously noted, it is impossible to ignore the cumulative effect
of both Glebe Island projects. My present understanding of the
entirely inappropriate scale of both is as follows:

Hanson: site area 2.5 football fields. Silo height 34m, other
buildings 25m high.
Throughput planned 1,000,000 tonnes wet concrete p.a.

I would point out at this juncture that the Hanson structure at silo
height is virtually the same height as the evolve* building in which
my wife and I live.

MUF: 200m long x 65m wide x 20.5m high.
Throughput planned1200 truck loads per day including salt, gypsum &
bulk liquids.

CONCLUSION
To those people who are reviewing this objection and many others, I
invite you to consider the following scenario.

Imagine the Hanson & MUF structures at a distance of 200 metres from
the front door at your office, or indeed, your family home.

The attached scale image illustrates what your proposal will present
to residents of Jacksons Landing: an enormous 24/7 concrete factory.

No doubt, any citizen faced with such an imposition on their
residences, property values and lifestyles would have an equally
vociferous adverse response.

The scale of the Glebe Island factory structures dominates the
precinct and is demonstrably unfit for this location.

The consequences of the Glebe Island factories will be severe and long
term regarding resident health, the land and marine environment and
the traffic explosion on the precinct. The proposition (by Port
Authority personnel) that concerned residents should live behind
permanently closed windows and balcony doors is an insult to us.

Your proposal is, alas, the encapsulation of Oscar Wide's definition
of a cynic: You know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I vigorously oppose your development and will continue to protest it.


Martin McAvenna
29 April 2009

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SUBMISSION

This submission objection is on behalf of my household and that of my
neighbours who are currently overseas and unable to submit it
themselves. It represents the view of ourselves, our families and
friends who visit our home in Pyrmont.