Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

This site is in immediate proximity to a residential area. It does not
have the size and amenity to appropriately manage the noise,
environment controls and traffic that would emerge from such a
project. The community strongly opposes such a project on such an
inadequate site.

I don't want this project to move forward.
This will be noisey and disrupt my every day living.

I am wrting to you with my submission of objection regading the proposed
application SSD 8544 Glebe Island proposal from Hanson Construction
Materials. My main concerns over this proposal is that this would be a
24/7 operation that would in turn cause noise and also create dust in
the area depending on wind directions.I am also concerned about added
heavy vehichle trafic that would be added to the inner west
community.We have been residents of in Jacksons Landing for several
years where we have pleasant green recreational spaces to enjoy and
the thought of having increased heavy industry in the area is not
conducive with living in this area. I would appreciate your
consideration regarding my concerns.

I wish to object to this project. It is inconsistent with the Bays
Precinct plan. It is inconsistent with residential development and
de-industrialization of Pyrmont over recent decades. The location of
development will lead to unacceptable noise, dust and light pollution,
especially to those of us in the evolve building at 2 Bowman St. The
proposed location is totally unsuitable for the development and the
associated ship loading facilities.

I wish to raise my deep concern in relation to the Development
Application for the Glebe Island Concrete Batching Facility. My
concerns are broadly consistent with my overall objection to the
proposed Glebe Island Multi User Facility (MUF). For the MUF proposal,
I have read the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) report and
attended an information session on Monday 12 February 2018. I consider
that I have a general understanding of the Multi User Facility
proposal. I have also read many of the reports tabled with the
Concrete Batching proposal.

The central areas for my concern are as follows:
Ad Hoc Planning; Glebe Island has had numerous uses proposed by
Government(s) through the past decade (recreational, technological,
residential). There seems to be a lack of a coherent long-term vision
for this asset. This proposal re-introduces heavy industry (materials
handling and concrete manufacture) into a precinct with Australia's
highest population density. This lack of a coherent vision adversely
impacts on resident's life planning and expectations. These
Development Applications seem to be "drip fed" to the community. This
approach to planning can result in affected residents not reaching a
clear view of the overall scope and impact of the proposed
development(s). I believe both the MUF and Concrete Batching proposals
need to be assessed in unison. Is the MUF DA an umbrella proposal for
the Concrete Batching DA? If so, "What's next?". If not, "Why not?".
Hours of Operation; The 24/7 proposal is extreme and not workable in
such a densely populated area. My understanding is that the existing
Hanson facilities do not operate 24/7.
Noise Pollution; I was informed at the Information Session for the MUF
that noise impact modelling had assumed closed widows in proximate
Jacksons Landing residences. The conclusions from the modelling are,
therefore, tainted by unrealistic assumption. Similar assumptions are
mentioned in the Concrete Batching attachments.
Alternative Options; The MUF REF Option Two alternative seems to lack
rigorous analysis (at least from the MUF REF Report). The Option seems
to have been dismissed with words like "may", "may be possible"" etc.
How rigorous was this assessment? Was it fully costed and researched?
Asset Values; Are any compensation measures envisaged for the likely
fall in property values in the Jacksons Landing (and surrounding
residential suburbs) area?
In summary, I have concerns that the proposed development will result
in a degradation of life quality and amenity for residents of the
Ultimo/Pyrmont and Balmain peninsulas and that these concerns have
been inadequately addressed in the Applications. Words like "within
manageable limits" provide little comfort.

It could also be argued that insufficient time has been allowed for
public discussion/feedback.

Please advise what measures, if any, are planned to address my
concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Boucher

The development application shows that the noise level of cement plant
operations will exceed the normal limit, but is within the discretion
of the approval authority. Given that
1. Pyrmont one of the highest density residential areas, and
2. The industrial area on Glebe Island is large and could have future
developments. (It has had several short-term uses in the recent past)
I request that the development be disallowed on the basis of noise.
Unless developments are kept within the prescribed limits both
resident amenity and the potential for other developments is degraded.

The proposal effectively ignores the close proximity of the *evolve
apartment building. I think the approving authorities should require
all supporting data to reflect this built proximity, and not the
'general' use of Bowman Street for the data evaluation we see in
Hanson's submission. Apart from my immediate and (obvious) personal
concern as to noise, dust and light spill, I think this
re-industrialisation of Glebe Island is a retrograde step that puts a
large question mark over the unique outcomes that could have been
arrived at for the Bays Precinct. If, despite this, we are to be
largely ignored, can we at least ask that operations are NOT 24/7.

I object to the proposal as it will have significant deleterious effects
on a large number of residents and its planning is not to 2018
standards. I object on the following grounds.
1. The scope and size of the project is too big for what is now NSW's
most densely populated suburb, Pyrmont. It is not a sustainable
balanced use of land and space in the context of 2018. The master plan
written in 2000 is not in the spirit of sustainability for such a
large group of residents living only 300m away from the site. I refer
you the decisions made to move the unloading of cars from Glebe Island
to Kurnell and Port Kembla in 2008.
2. Boating safety. The access to Blackwattle Bay by small passive
craft will be partially blocked by large ships at Glebe Island 1.
3. Noise. The report even states that noise will exceed acceptable
limits for many residents. As the decibel scale is logarithmic, an
increase of 7dB represents a large increase in noise. This is NOT
NEGLIGIBLE.
4. Light. The report also indicates that lighting is excessive for the
residents of Pyrmont.
5. Particulate matter. Increases from boats' engines as well as
flyash!
6. Traffic. 66 trucks in and out per hour at the AM peak is too much
for Anzac Bridge and the Westconnex and all other roads.
7. Glebe Island Multi Use Facility plus this project is too much for
this area, with too great an impact. This was acknowledged at the Port
Authority meeting with residents, where we were told by Port Authority
reps to simply close all the windows and use air conditioning. This is
not a sustainable (or responsible) response.
8. Synergistic effects of too much noise, too much light, too much
soot etc......the total effect is worse than the sum of the parts.
9. Bays Project is supposed to be a world class development. How does
a site of heavy industry fit into that plan? It doesnt!
Glebe Island is currently used for smaller maritime operations which
are welcome by most residents. The proposed project is too too big for
such a small site adjacent to a large residential area.

Dear Sir

I write to express my strong opposition to the proposed relocation and
expansion of the Hanson concrete batching plant and bulk aggregate
facility to Glebe Island Berth 1. I believe that this proposal must be
refused in the public interest.

As a resident of Jacksons Landing (I live in Silk) I was led to
believe that I was buying into an evolving residential area opposite a
visionary recycling of an obsolete heavy port and industrial area into
a high-tech innovation hub. These are wonderful ideas for a city which
wishes to take a prominent place on the world stage!

On the contrary, the Hanson proposal - together with its neighbour,
the proposed Port Authority MUF, would mean that I would instead be
living opposite a new "Port Botany" with large-scale, intensified port
and industrialised development. I wonder how you think this would
reflect on Sydney's international profile - abysmally I would think!

This turnaround represents a complete breach of faith from the State
Government to the people of Pyrmont, Glebe and Rozelle and must be
refused as being an archaic, retrograde and completely inappropriate
facility for Glebe Island.

Having the existing concrete plant facility "relocated" to Glebe
Island as a significantly larger concrete and aggregate handling plant
operating on a 24/7 basis due to the impending Sydney Fish Market
redevelopment would cause major environmental and health-related
issues for residents and wider communities. These consist of:

POLLUTION

air quality
massive amounts of fine dust particles in a high-wind area. Despite
assurances in the Hanson EIS that bulk materials will be covered and
stored appropriately, it is impossible not to have fine particulates
in the air throughout day and night. I live approximately 200m from
the site and have already witnessed increased levels of fine dust
collecting on my apartment, possibly due to WestConnex activity in the
area. This fallout would be substantially increased, should this
proposal be approved.
Diesel fumes throughout the day and night from the constantly-running
engines of berthed cargo ships burning sulphurous bunker diesel would
also have serious health implications.

Noise
I, and much of the Jacksons Landing community, have already been
exposed to high levels of low-frequency rumbling, pulsating noise from
the engines of ships occasionally berthed at Glebe Island B1&2. Such
noise has already been measured by acoustic consultants as being well
above EPA night-time noise limits without any acknowledgement from the
proponent in its EIS.
Many people do not realise that these engines run continuously while
ships are berthed, and the noise cannot be ameliorated. As there is no
proposal for the proposed concrete plant to provide shore to ship
electric power, the proponent is clearly not interested in the effects
on its residential neighbours. It is therefore probable that I and my
family would be exposed to such high-level noise non-stop. Surely this
cannot be permitted. It is draconian and would reflect very badly on
your Government if it was allowed.
We are occasionally woken at night by the beeping sound of trucks
reversing - another noise which is both loud and disruptive. With 24/7
operability, and notes in the EIS supporting the application that
substantial truck activity will occur at night, we are expected to
suffer from both high-frequency (beeping) and low-frequency (diesel
engine) noise at the same time and throughout night and day. This
would be a totally unacceptable outcome in a civilized society and an
urban area! Are we to be treated like cannon fodder so that the Port
Authority can build its Glebe Island empire?
As a health professional, I am well aware that sleep disturbances lead
to serious physical and mental health issues - all scientifically
proven. This threat to public health amounts to sufficient reason on
its own for this application to be refused.

Traffic
Figures extrapolated from the EIS show likely truck movements along
James Craig Rd and through its intersection with Victoria Rd to be in
the range of 3000 - 6000 truck trips per day! Yet the EIS suggests
effects on traffic would be minor! This suggestion is clearly untrue,
and deliberately misleading. The impacts on cumulative noise, fumes,
dust, as well as functionality of existing businesses on Glebe Island
would be immense and intolerable. Facilities of this scale cannot be
allowed to coexist with residential apartments and smaller-scale
businesses. It would be both regressive and anachronistic for you to
allow substantially increased industrial development on Glebe Island.
Also, greatly affected would be marine traffic in Johnstons Bay. An
ever-increasing amount of marine traffic of all shapes and sizes move
through the existing waterway of Johnstons Bay and through the narrow
channel provided by the old Glebe Island bridge into and out of
Rozelle Bay. The proposed location of the Hanson plant would see large
ships berthed within metres of this channel. This would create
congestion and potential danger to all craft maneuvering through
Johnstons Bay. Another significant risk to public health and safety! I
would remind you that there has already been a marine fatality through
this passage. To illustrate this risk, please refer to the images
attached to this submission.
These road and marine traffic impacts would be felt throughout Sydney
and its harbour and not just on an around Glebe Island.

Artificial Lighting
Since the proposed facility is to run all day and all night throughout
the year and within 200 metres of bedrooms of residential apartments
in which many hundreds (if not thousands) of people live, sleep
disturbance would be further exacerbated by artificial lighting
spilling from berthed ships, the illuminated wharf, and the facility
itself. This location is justified in the EIS on historical grounds -
the wharf was used to deliver cars to Glebe island in the past
(finishing in 2008). Based on this, Hanson claims that Johnstons Bay
is a port, that it has existing-use rights, and that the proposed
facility is in keeping with the history of Glebe Island. It clearly is
no longer a port and no such existing usage rights should exist in
such a changed context. Johnstons Bay is now a waterway.! Existing
port-related rights have been extinguished by time and progress.
This historical port argument clearly belongs in the past and is no
longer relevant or valid. Johnstons Bay is narrow and wedge-shaped
towards the passage through to Rozelle Bay. It no longer functions as
an active port and should only ever be used for occasional berthing of
ships, as it has been for some considerable time. It is a totally
unreasonable and unfair proposition for waterway users and adjacent
residents to convert it to a permanently-floodlit 24/7 port and
thereby jeopardise the safety of other craft in the waterway and the
health of all people adjacent to it.
Water Pollution
Conversion of Glebe Island to a large-scale port and industrial
facility will also affect the quality of water in Johnstons Bay.
Frequent berthing of cargo ships unloading bulk materials would
undoubtedly lead to increased oil- and foul-water slicks in Johnstons
Bay and recontamination of a waterway which has become cleaner over
the years since regular and intensified port activity ceased on this
side of Glebe Island (2008). Unacceptable!

SCALE
This proposal, together with the adjacent Port Authority MUF proposal,
is for facilities with very substantial scale. For example, the
proposed Hanson concrete plant is much larger and has a much higher
annual throughput than the existing one located on the new Sydney Fish
Market site. It is located on a site the size of 21/2 football fields
and has structures which are 34 metres (equivalent to an 11-storey
building) in height - almost as high as the existing Glebe Island
Silos! Its proposed 24/7 usage is not even currently enjoyed by the
existing concrete plant on Bridge Rd and is a totally unreasonable
proposition for this location! The adjacent MUF proposal is for a
building which is hundreds of metres long and 65 metres wide. Clearly,
the sheer size of these proposed facilities will magnify all the
environmental impacts outlined above. Totally inappropriate!

BAYS PECINCT MASTERPLAN VISIONS
Mike Baird is quoted as saying (in his Bradfield Oration) less than 2
years ago "The industrial relic of the White Bay Power Station and
surrounds will be transformed into a global centre for high-tech jobs
and innovation. Glebe Island will transition from importing sand to
exporting silicon".

"The NSW Government's ambition for The Bays Precinct is to drive an
internationally competitive economy, by building world-class
destinations on Sydney Harbour that will transform the city, New South
Wales and Australia" (extract from the DOP&E website).

It seems we might have been sold a lie when we decided to live
opposite Glebe island and we might now end up living opposite a
re-industrialised, dirty, noisy, traffic-bound and polluted Glebe
Island if this facility (and its neighbour) are permitted to blight
the landscape.

SUMMARY
Are we to believe - as we would have every right to should this
application be approved - that the NSW government is so inept and
lazy, so disinterested in maintaining faith with its own stated
objectives and its own electorate that it cannot find a more suitable
site for the location of a large-scale industrial facility such as the
Hanson Concrete Batching and Aggregate-Handling Plant than this one?

As a citizen of NSW, I and my community have a right to the peaceful
enjoyment of our home and our environment which we have been
experiencing for several years - long before these proposals came
along! Our Government has an obligation to protect this right.

I insist that this application be refused in the public interest; that
the visions and possibilities in the Bays Transformation Plan be
respected and the site held over for future development which is
progressive and compatible with that vision and my expectations.

Yours Faithfully

RE: SSD 8544 Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and Concrete Batching
Facility

Dear Minister,

I'm writing in regards to the proposed Glebe Island Aggregate Handling
and Concrete Batching Facility (SSD 8544) and would like to submit my
objection. As a Pyrmont resident I currently enjoy the ambiance and
lifestyle that Pyrmont offers.

If the proposed location of the Glebe Island Aggregate Handling goes
ahead, I do not feel it is fair that we will be subjected to the noise
and pollution from trucks and ships dropping their cargo 24/7 365 days
per year. As somebody who is planning a family and is planning on
staying in Pyrmont, this will not be a healthy place to live due to
the air pollution associated with the boats. I not only live here but
also have a small business, which supports the backbone of the
Australian economy and also the significant taxes I pay to live in
this wonderful city.

It's been 10 years since Glebe Island has operated as a 24 hour
working port and in that time Pyrmont has become one of the most
densely populated suburbs in Australia and this will now impact many
more people. This proposed facility goes against the City of Sydney's
2030 strategic plan and vision of building Sydney to be one of the
most livable cities in the world through achieving a `Green, Global
and Connected City'. The pollution alone associated with this project
contradicts and impedes the delivery of the City's vision. It also
goes against the NSW Government's election and ministerial commitments
of driving sustainable economic growth and putting the citizens at the
centre of everything it does as none of the residents of Pyrmont will
benefit from this proposed facility due to the pollution, impact on
the real estate industry which is a key industry in Pyrmont. This will
deter families and other residents from purchasing in Pyrmont and
potentially reduce the house prices, leading to significant economic
losses.

Additionally, the roads in Pyrmont are already congested due to the
dense population that live here and the trucks that deliver the
material from Glebe Island will further clog the surrounding roads.
This will not only impact the environment through higher fuel
emissions but the impact to the safety and security of the roads.

There are so many reasons that this proposed facility is a terrible
idea but the key one is that it goes against everything the NSW
Government and City of Sydney stands for and the commitments they have
made to their main customers, `the residents of the City of Sydney'.

I appreciate it that you will look to reconsider the location of this
Aggregate Handling and Concrete batching facility.

Regards

Ellen English

Concerned Pyrmont Resident

I am opposed to this proposal in view of the below:

- operation of the plant will create significant light, sound, dust
and air pollution

- operation of the plant may create additional environmental pollution
in the local area/waterways

- A concrete batching facility will have visual impact and create
negative impact on local property values

- Government released plans to transform the Bays Precinct into an
innovation district in October 2015. A concrete batching facility is
not in line with said plans and local area being a residential
district

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Hanson Concrete plant on
Glebe Island.

I am in the Silk Apartments in Jacksons Landing Estate in Distillery
Drive, overlooking Bowman St. I have lived here for 6 years with my
husband and enjoy the location, the community and the activity on the
harbour.
I am very concerned about the expected noise disturbance and also the
dust and dirt and air pollution that will result from the proposed
concrete plant that will be located just a few hundred metres away
from our balcony and main bedroom.
I accept that there is a certain level of noise and air pollution that
comes with living close to the city and the harbour. However the
proposal to operate a concrete plant with ships unloading night and
day, with the noise from the plant and the ships engines and the
bright lights will be unbearable. And for 10 to 15 years!
We frequently have our children and grandchildren visit with us and
enjoy sitting with them on the balcony and in the loungeroom with
doors wide open. I know how noisy it can be when the occasional ship
is unloading opposite us - I just don't think it is fair to have ships
unloading day and night, including weekends.
We were given the impression when we moved to the area that heavy
industry had ceased to operate in the Bays Precinct and that the
future was about high tech industries and more public access to
spaces. The temporary Convention Centre was located on Glebe Island
for the last couple of years and we had no problem with it. There is
also quite a bit of light industrial construction of ferry wharves and
other activity that is not a bother. However a concrete plant combined
with the Port Authority multi use facility will be a huge backward
step for Glebe Island and the precinct.
I therefore object to the proposal and ask that should it be approved
that strong restrictions be placed on the hours of operation and on
the noise pollution and air pollution. There needs to be continual
monitoring of the operation and these negative impacts. There should
also be a number of well publicised means of lodging complaints at any
time that the plant is operating.
Thank you.

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Hanson Concrete plant on
Glebe island.

My wife and I live in the Silk Apartment block, part of the Jacksons
Landing Estate in Distillery Drive/Bowman St, directly opposite the
proposed concrete plant. We are owner occupiers and have lived here
for almost 6 years, having bought our apartment off the plan from Lend
Lease and moved in from day one.
Our apartment is 7 floors above Bowman St, or about 9 floors above sea
level. It is located in the A stack, on the north east corner of the
building, with our main bedroom directly facing the proposed facility
and our lounge room and balcony area also exposed.
I have read/scanned the EIS, a lengthy and complex document. I also
attended a meeting with representatives of Hanson Concrete, their EIS
consultants and a representative from the Port Authority held at
Jacksons Landing on Monday 23rd April 2018.
At the end of the evening with Hanson Concrete and their consultants,
I asked the lead consultant responsible for the report the simple
question - "you have conducted the Environmental Impact Statement, so
will our environment here and hence our lives be negatively impacted?"
To paraphrase him, his job is to assess whether our environment (our
lives) are negatively impacted up to pre-determined acceptable levels
- eg noise levels, air pollution, visual impact, light pollution. So
our lives will be negatively impacted by this development, it is just
a matter of degree - hardly an encouraging prospect.
I believe there are valid objections on each of the environmental
factors examined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For the
sake of brevity, I would like to highlight two key areas as follows.
1. The proposal does not take adequate account of the Bays Precinct
Transformation Plan 2015. The SEARS requirements expressly made
reference to this Plan. The Transformation Plan states that it is "an
opportunity to create stunning waterfront destinations and to deliver
the kind of public spaces, promenades and workplaces that we can all
be proud of" and "represents a once in a generation opportunity to
deliver innovation and attract the jobs of the future". It talks of
Glebe island as the "opportunity to support blue economic activities
of the port and maritime industries, potentially combining with a
technological and innovation campus". It also describes "Living Cities
- create great places, great spaces and great opportunities in
transformed Destinations that are resilient, happy and prosperous". It
states 8 Principles, 20 Objectives and sets 7 key actions, one of
which is the repurposing of Glebe Island Bridge. I will not list all
of these, I am sure you are aware of them - only one of them,
Objective 16, makes reference to maritime industries and working
harbour. The vast majority talk of improving the environment, healthy
lifestyles, knowledge intensive jobs, great places, quality design etc
etc. I think you would have to agree that the proposed concrete plant
does not sit comfortably with this grand plan.
Glebe Island is referred to in the Transformation Plan as one of three
"Longer-term priority destinations with works commencing 2022 and
beyond". References to the Transformation Plan in the EIS introduce a
concept of a 10-15 year transition (there is no mention of this
timeframe in the Transformation Plan) before any new usage for Glebe
Island would/may be underway. The year 2022 is suggested as a date
when the Government might start thinking about the future of Glebe
Island, rather than a date to begin to transform it. This is a
significant extrapolation of what is stated in the Transformation
Plan. It seems to me that the 10-15 year period has been introduced by
the proponent as this timeframe is required to obtain payback on the
proposed $10 million investment, rather than being a timeframe that
was intended in the Transformation Plan. Any reasonable person reading
the Transformation Plan would be astounded to hear that a concrete
plant operating for the next 10 to 15 years in any way is consistent
with the expressed intention for Glebe Island in the Plan.
2. Noise Impact. As a local resident living around 200 metres across
from the proposed plant, my number one concern is noise, and in
particular noise at night. The noise impact assessment in the EIS is
complex, I have read it a number of times, and also questioned the
consultant who prepared it. I have no expertise in this area but I
will make the following points:
a. Where I live (overlooking Bowman St), the predictive noise level at
night contained in the EIS exceeds the EPA night time permissible
maximum. This is dismissed as being only a minor exceedance. Surely a
maximum is a maximum? And "predictive" may be on the low side, as we
have found from the lived experience of some tankers in the past.
b. Supposed sound attenuation built in to our buildings by Lend Lease
(unknown to any of us) keeps the predictive noise impact to just above
the maximum level. In simple terms if we keep our windows and doors
shut, then the noise should almost be bearable. However the proposed
plant is seeking approval to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So
at peak operation, to avoid health damaging noise levels we are to
have our windows and doors shut day and night. I can't see how this
fits with the Bays Precinct Transformation Plan's concept of a Living
City.
c. Noise will come from plant operation, trucks, trucks reversing,
ships berthing, ships unloading. Noise will also come from the Port
Authority's proposed Multi User Facility (MUF). It will also come from
the proposed relocation of the party boats marina from Blackwattle bay
to directly behind us, under the Anzac bridge. What about the
cumulative noise effect of these three proposed operations? Cumulative
impact is mentioned in the report, but it appears to have not been
calculated and compared to the EPA limits. Again in simple terms, it
is more than likely given the MUF will operate 24/7 and the Hanson
plant seeking to operate 24/7, that we will at times have two ships
berthed side by side, directly opposite our main bedroom, unloading at
2am in the morning. I don't need to be an audio engineer to know that
the noise levels will exceed permitted limits, and will wake up my
wife and I, and keep us awake.

It would be remiss of me to not mention other obvious problems with
this proposal. They include:
* The anticipated volume of truck movements from this proposal is
significant. When combined with the MUF it will be huge. There is only
one road in and out of Glebe Island.
* The Glebe Island berths 1 and 2 are located in a narrow passageway
leading under the Anzac Bridge and into Blackwattle Bay and Rozelle
Bay. This is a busy thoroughfare, having potentially two tankers
unloading simultaneously while commercial and pleasure craft sail by
is dangerous.
* The air pollution, the water pollution, the light pollution and the
noise pollution resulting from this development and being located
adjacent to one of the most densely populated suburbs in Australia,
makes no sense.

My strong preference is for this development to be located elsewhere
(Port Botany?). However should it proceed, then what can be done to
help those of us living in the working harbour enjoy some sleep and
some peace and quiet.
If we put aside the practicalities for a moment, I think that a
reasonable person would say that the working harbour can work during
the daytime, and the residents get to have some peace and quiet at
night and on the weekends. Even Sydney airport has a night curfew on
flights! The existing concrete plant does not operate at night nor on
Sundays or public holidays. The application for a 24/7 operation
simply allows the proponent completely unrestricted operation. I think
this is unreasonable and allows the proponent to be lazy in their
planning at the expense of the local community.
Please consider the following suggestions:
1. No ships on weekends please. We would like some peace on Sunday
morning. Many of us have our families and friends over on the weekend
- we don't want to have doors and windows closed to block out the
noise, and be restricted to the inside of our apartment.
2. As far as possible, restrict night time unloading. If it is
possible to stop unloading between say 7pm and 7am, and the engines be
slowed/quietened in this period.
3. I was told that the conveyor belts will be covered and that most
operations will take place within the enclosure of the storage
facility. However there was no commitment to sound proofing of these
structures. Sound proofing should be built in to the structures at the
time of construction - not thought about afterwards when being swamped
by noise complaints from residents. Please don't allow corners to be
cut on this aspect - build in noise attenuation as much as possible in
every stage of the process
4. Maximize the speed of unloading and minimise the stay of the ship.
5. Schedule the ship arrivals so that we get a decent break between
deliveries. And coordinate with the MUF to avoid two ships unloading
simultaneously.
6. We need permanent noise monitoring in place. How can we prove how
noisy it truly is at 2am in the morning? Only by insitu permanent
monitors.
7. We need a real time, dedicated complaints line. Who do I call at
2am when I am lying awake because of the noise. We need someone who
can respond and record at the time.
8. We have found over the last few years that some ships are much
noisier than others. They must be required to ban the noisier ships.
Can this testing of ships be done before the facility is operational?
9. Investigate the on shore power option.


I accept the working harbour, however I believe that the proposed
plant is a significant backward step for the future of Glebe Island
and the Bays Precinct and contrary to the expressed intentions of the
2015 Transformation Plan.

I, among many other residents of Pyrmont, am writing to express great
dismay at the proposed Glebe Island Concrete Works.
It is deeply worrying that the vision for this doomed proposal has
failed on many levels.
Despite the eye sore which will ruin the idyllic lifestyle in Pyrmont,
the Cement works create serious air contamination. The fact that the
planning is for a 24 hour operation adds to massive light and noise
pollution.
In addition, the constant trucks coming and going will create even
more traffic for the already busy Anzac Bridge and add to even more
pollution.
I sincerely hope there are people in this Government who are seriously
taking these submissions seriously and this terrible proposal will be
laid to rest.
Sincerely
Peter Coleman-Wright AO

As a resident of White Bay I strongly object to the Western Harbour
Tunnel project's impact to my quiet enjoyment and risk to mine and my
family's health due to 24/7 noise and dust from trucks, dredging
activities and the toxins/pumes of toxic waste smell that will be
released into the air not to mention what potential damage may be done
to the structure of my building with massive trucks using the narrow
roads around me.
What happened to new Silicon Valley that was proposed for the White
Bay wharves...there are countless other technology firms outside of
Google that could be secured.

I object to the proposed project in the strongest possible way.
Although the project documents are very long and complicated, and to
some extent beyond my comprehension, it is clear to me the project is
unacceptable on numerous levels.
While Sydney is a working harbour and Glebe Island has been in
continuous use, the current proposed project is totally inconsistent
with the level of activity over the past decade or so. It is also
totally inconstant with the Bays Precinct plan which suggested we
should expect to see development in the area yes - but of technology
parks, residential properties and park areas. Many people, myself
included, moved into the area in the past year or two happily
anticipating such developments. Instead the proposal for a cement
factory multiple times larger than the facility it is proposed to
replace seems a total betrayal of residents of Pyrmont plus
surrounding suburbs and anyone who passes through the area.
My objections are many and multiple but major points to highlight are:
Noise Pollution - the plant will exceed acceptable levels, and the
assessment does not even properly acknowledge the impact on our
building with bedroom windows and balconies directly facing the site.
The fact that the project is proposed to operate 24/7 is intolerable.
Air Pollution - the project would result a massive increase in ships
parked within a stones throw of our bedrooms and balconies and the
inability of these vessels to access shore power and the dirty fuel
they burn means the air pollution the create would be well above safe
levels. It is a far worse situation than faced by our friends n
Balmain from the White Bay facility where passenger ships have access
to land power so engines can be shut down, and passenger ships are
required under national regulations to meet higher environmental
standards. There are many retirees that have moved into Pyrmont in the
past decade who would have to be considered higher risk to respiratory
difficulties.
Dust - it is inevitable that the significant increase in activity at
the site will result in dust in the atmosphere.
Light Pollution - the proposed 24/7 operation of the site means that
the area will be fully ablaze with lights all night. This is clearly
unacceptable to residents seeking to get a good night sleep.
Traffic Levels - I frequently travel back and forth over Anzac Bridge
which is already a traffic bottleneck. I cannot fathom how much worse
the situation will be around the bridge and surrounding routes along
the Western Distributor and Victoria Road with an additional several
thousand trucks per day. In addition, the additional truck traffic
will make passenger car driving more hazardous and will make the
adjoining walking and biking paths much less pleasurable.
I could detail of specific ways in which the proposal will affect the
amenity of people in the area and particularly residents in closest
proximity.
Overall however, it appears to me that the project is poorly
conceived. I am sure the site of the project like a lotto win for
Hanson (a major corporation that should need no leg up at the expense
of ordinary citizens). The location selected is poor. It does not
appear any genuine effort to explore alternatives has been made.
And to enable Hanson to proceed on their absolute dream location, we
residents will end up living in our homes with windows closed and
curtains drawn and air-conditioning circulating the polluted air.
It is essential that the project be reconsidered and relocated to a
more fitting purely industrial location.

Deborah Mitchell
12/15 Bowman Street
PYRMONT NSW 2009
Objection to:-
Application Number SSD 8544 - Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and
Concrete Batching Facility
Berth 1 and Land Adjacent, Glebe Island, James Craig Road, Rozelle
(Lot 10 DP 11 707 10)
I don't believe that the proposed facilities should be allowed to go
ahead for all the reasons listed below.
1. The proposed 24/7 operations would create noise, excessive light
and pollution intolerable for all residents in the area incessantly
every day and night of the week including religious holidays. Due to
its proximity to residents this is no longer a suitable port site for
the most densely populated suburb in Australia.
Not only would all the noise, light and pollution be emitted from the
Facility but also from the Ships berthed alongside. These are less
than 300 metres from our homes. We would not
2. be able to open our windows and doors resulting in constant use of
air conditioning. Please consider this carefully and put yourself in
the same situation. I invite you to visit our home and experience this
for yourself.
3. There would be little control measures over the emissions from the
berthed vessels and constant noise and pollution from related trucks
coming and going.
4. The Health and well-being implications are a considerable risk to
all the residents of Pyrmont.
5. The waterway would become dangerously congested. I have witnessed
many near collisions already even without the constant presence of
larger vessels proposed.
6. Aesthetically, this would do Sydney a great injustice. There is
simply no place for this in a central district of one of the most
beautiful cities in the world. Pyrmont was always part of a larger
plan of a high standard of green urban design. This goes against
everything in the Master plan for this innercity area such as
protected vistas and environmental controls.
7. I ask you why this cannot be placed at Port Botany where such
facilities are common place. Ours is no longer the industrial precinct
that it was 10 years ago and this must be taken into consideration.
The residents must have a say in this matter!
8. This shows a lack of foresight and good planning for our beautiful
city.
9. Please consider this objection carefully. I look forward to a
positive reply.
Yours Sincerely

Deborah Mitchell

Abram Mitchell
12/15 Bowman Street
PYRMONT NSW 2009
Objection to:-
Application Number SSD 8544 - Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and
Concrete Batching Facility
Berth 1 and Land Adjacent, Glebe Island, James Craig Road, Rozelle
(Lot 10 DP 11 707 10)
I strongly object to the proposed facilities for the following
reasons.
1. 24/7 operations are unacceptable as this would create noise,
excessive light and pollution and sub standard air quality intolerable
for all residents in the area without any reprieve.
2. The industrialisation of Glebe Island is a backward step as it
hasn't had heavy activity since 2008 when the cars were removed. The
precinct of Pyrmont would be directly effected and consideration must
be given to the people who live there. This area is now comprised of
high density living with over 3000 residents.
3. Not only would all the noise, light and pollution be emitted from
the Facility but also from the Ships stopping at the port. Our home is
approx 250 metres away. We would not be able to open our windows and
doors resulting in constant use of air conditioning putting additional
strain on the environment.
4. There would be little control measures over the emissions from the
berthed vessels and constant noise and pollution from 1000's of trucks
coming and going.
5. The waterway would become dangerously congested. It is a narrow
waterway and would not be able to handle extra water traffic.
6. It is time for someone to have foresight and take a stand and
preserve the beautification of the waterways of Sydney and adjoining
suburbs. This was in the Master Plan which is now being completely
ignored. THIS IS NOT PROGRESS!
7. What is Proposed is completely ugly and would be seen and heard
from many parts of Sydney.
8. Consider this objection carefully as I am one of thousands of
voting rate payers who live here and are deeply worried about the
decisions being made without any thought for them and reasonable
consultation. I look forward to a positive reply.


Abram Mitchell

Paul Mitchell
12/15 Bowman Street
PYRMONT NSW 2009


My Objection regarding:-

Application Number SSD 8544 - Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and
Concrete Batching Facility
Berth 1 and Land Adjacent, Glebe Island, James Craig Road, Rozelle
(Lot 10 DP 11 707 10)

Please consider my Objection to the Application for the Construction
and the 24/7 Operations of the Concrete Works. I am one of at least
3000 Voters in this suburb who are very concerned about the proposed
inappropriate developments including the Hanson Concrete Plant as well
as the Multi- User Facility..
Pyrmont is no longer an Industrial Precinct and should not be
subjected to 24/7 noise, pollution and excessive lights. We moved to
this area from the Northern Beaches as we were attracted to the Master
plan to create a "green" environmentally friendly, quiet suburb in the
inner city.
The works proposed would be operating no more than 250 metres away
from where we live. A 24/7 operation would have a serious impact on
our daily life, our sleep and our general health due to deterioration
in air quality. We would have to keep our doors shut at all times.
The long term health implications will no doubt impact on Government.
Control of the noise, pollution and lights from the ships and trucks
all day and night, not to mention the facility, have not been properly
considered or addressed.
This would also be an ugly construction smack bang in the middle of
Sydney. This shows no foresight in town planning in one of the most
beautiful cities in the world. I wonder why there has been this change
in plans. Is the government receiving money from having this facility
there? Who is paying for this? Will the long term financial
implications far outweigh the short term gains. This would create an
eyesore for Sydney for years to come.
This may enhance the purse strings temporarily, however, long term it
would definitely not enhance Sydney or the future longevity of the
current Government.

Yours Sincerely

Paul Mitchell

Dear Mr Ray,

I strongly object to the Hanson Concrete application for a batching
plant on Glebe Island. That, along with the accompanying multi-user
facility, fails our local community in so many ways, but my objection
will concentrate on pollution- mainly noise pollution, but light and
particulate pollution are also a big concern. The site is 150 metres
or less from our Evolve building and hundreds more nearby residents,
with nothing between us but water, whereas the current Blackwattle
site has very few nearby neighbours comparatively.

Obviously, all of Jackson's Landing are worried about the value of our
apartments in the wake of this announcement, but it it's not just
nimbyism. I understand that this is a working harbour, but, once JL
was built on this previously industrial land, thousands of residents
moved in and many will be greatly affected by this proposal. Real
estate agents are already noticing a downturn in prospective buyers
since it has been announced, and with an older demographic, a lot of
residents are counting on property values for their future.

The noise pollution this facility (and it's construction) will create
alone is worth the objection, especially in the wake of numerous ships
exceeding the noise recommendations of the EPA over recent years with
little or no repercussions for the offending vessels. It is not just
the noise these ships create themselves with their constant generator
humming, but the accompanying tug noise that rumbles through our
entire building when the ships arrive and depart, quite often aiming
their thrusters straight at us to get the ships aside, not to mention
the horns, bells and occasional sirens, which are NOT conducive to
sleep. The massive increase in ship and truck traffic, especially with
the horrendous proposed 24/7 operating hours, will invariably disrupt
the sleep of hundreds of residents, which can affect mood and
wellbeing at the least and cause actual illness at worst. The fact
that the trucks will be inside when loading and unloading means
nothing, as the trucks are loudest as they accelerate and decelerate
from the facility, and in using their air brakes over the ANZAC
bridge. The added noise will mean that those who enjoy days with the
doors open and that sleep with windows open will have to close them
and turn on their air conditioning, thus negating any "environmental
benefits" being claimed.

The addition of lighting over the site will impact sleep, also, for
those who don't have block-out blinds or the means to afford them.
Even though the lights will not supposedly be "aimed" to the south of
the facility, the ambient light will still affect us. With particulate
pollution, we notice the increase in the need to dust with the few
ships that unload currently, and, with the increased traffic of
possibly 50 to 100x more, this will undoubtedly increase
exponentially. Fuel oil emissions are a particular worry for people
with breathing issues, but for healthy people, as well.

There are those lucky few who can sleep through anything, but, with
the average age of the population of Jackson's Landing being a bit
older, most of us cannot. As a recovering cancer patient who needs
less stress, not more, I personally have a big issue with this whole
proposal, and I hope a better site can be found for this facility.

Sincerely,