Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

Dear Mr Lusher,

SSD 8544−Glebe Island Aggregate Handling & Concrete Batching
Facility

OUTLINE of REASONS for our OBJECTION to G11&2 PROPOSALS:
Port Authority of NSW Multi−User Facility and Hanson Concrete
Plant

We are residents of [REDACTED] and are writing to you
to object most strongly to Hanson's proposed Concrete Plant on Glebe
Island.lf this development goes ahead it will impact significantly on
Jacksons
Landing and the surrounding district.Of all of the residents of
Jacksons
Landing our building, the evolve, will be most affected.We already are
affected by the works currently taking place on Glebe Island and the
unloading of sand etc from rather large, noisy, smelling ships. lt
also occurs to
me that the location chosen is politically driven as an easy solution
to re
development of the Fish Market.Like all the current NSW Governments
initiatives short sited and inappropriate.Not only is this proposed
development inconsistent with the 2000 Master Plan but will not allow
further
uses for tourism, open space and residential given the proximity to
the city
and the Harbour.

The points we put forward to support our objection are as follows:

PROPOSED LOCATION IS UNSAFE & UNSUITABLE
1. Port Botany is the appropriate port for the supply of construction
materials to
Sydney and should be developed accordingly to cope with future demand
−
not just for the short term but far beyond. Glebe Island is ultimately
inadequate and increasingly irrelevant, as its context and usage
shifts to
more residential, urban−, tourism−, and
leisure−related functions and will
involve increasing traffic congestion on land and on water.
2. Cargo ships servicing both facilities would be manoeuvring and
berthing in
the narrow waterway linking Rozelle Bay and Blackwattle Bay to Sydney
Harbour. The PA describes Jones Bay as a port. which is a
throw−back to
times gone by, when cars were unloaded at Glebe Island and CSR
occupied
the opposite shore.Millions upon millions have been spent on the clean
up
and re development of Pyrmont to allow an environment which Sydney
should be proud of.
3. Glebe Island is not a suitable location for manufacturing plants
and
numerous cargo ships unloading bulk materials. Its future is in
commerce,
technology, tourism and maritime services, as described in the Bays
Transformation Plan objectives.
4. Jones Bay is an increasingly busy marine thoroughfare which
services a
constantly−increasing and diverse range of craft which include
kayaks &
dragon boats, the Sydney fishing fleet, yachts, pleasure boats and
super−
yachts of all shapes & sizes, Sydney harbour cruise vessels,
entertainment
boats and ferries.
5. If the proposals for this area were to go ahead, the ships berthed
(with no
specified limit in numbers) will be within metres of the narrow
entrance to
Rozelle Bay via the old Glebe Island bridge, thereby encroaching on
safe
passage for other boats in/out of Rozelle & Blackwattle Bays and
endangering all marine traffic in the immediate area.
6. The potential consequences of all of this for the safe maneuvering
and
passage of other boats should be obvious − at best significant
congestion
and interference and at worst potential disaster and fatality.
7. The proposed location at GI 1&2 is completely incompatible with the
residential and recreational needs and rights of surrounding residents
and
the general public in Pyrmont.
8. The proposed location is also incompatible with existing and
proposed public
foreshore and open space development including existing promenades
around Pyrmont point, Pirrama park and Jones Bay wharf. Public
enjoyment
of these areas is a key plank of existing urban renewal as well as the
visions
for linking the various destinations of the Bays Precinct. Fumes,
dust, noise
and water pollution from an industrialised Glebe Island would destroy
the
benefits of this public open space development.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ARE UNACCEPTABLE & DANGEROUS
1. The proposed 24/7 facilities are located within 150−250
metres of residents
and public park users
* Without ship−to−shore power, ships berthed will run
engines continuously day and night
− − resulting in night−time noise levels in excess
of EPA limits (already proven).
2. The entire wharf is likely to be artificially lit at night with
significant negative
impacts on quality of sleep for nearby residents.This is already
occurring
3. Emissions from ship engines continuously burning crude diesel
− together
with fine dust particles from bulk materials on vessels corning from
countries
with low emission−reduction standards − will severely
impact air quality. Yet
there do not appear to have been any quantitative or qualitative
estimates of
likely air pollution under the proposed 24/7 operations or any
specific plans
to mitigate them.Our balconies are already covered in these particles.
4. Water pollution impacts, which do not even appear to be addressed
in the
PA's REF, are likely to be significant given the level of human
activity around
this part of the harbour, the new fish markets, harbour cruises,
dragon boat
racing and other water−based sporting activities in Rozelle and
Blackwattle
Bays. It is evident from the collections of the Environmental boats
that there
is already a problem.
5. There appear to be no proposed mitigation measures for any adverse
environmental effects in the PA's report/REF. Instead, an apparent
attempt to
convince the reader that there aren't any!

PROPOSALS CONFLICT WITH BAYS PRECINCT OBJECTIVES
FOR GLEBE ISLAND & 2000 MASTER PLAN FOR WHITE BAY &
GLEBE ISLAND
1. Proposals are not in keeping with the Glebe Island and White Bay
Master
Plan 2000, nor with Urban Growth NSWs Urban Transformation Program
plan for the Bays Precinct. In that plan Glebe Island is described as
the
"Glebe Island Innovation District".Perhaps GOOGLE would have been
convinced to remain in NSW given the location.
2. Plan objectives are to support economic activities of maritime
industries,
combined with a high−tech "economic hub that will promote
Sydney's global
economic competitiveness"; in a way that reflects high quality urban
design
and improved ecological and marine water quality improvements; to
create a
mixed−use innovation district.
3. Current proposals to construct a gigantic unsightly shed and
adjacent
concrete plant, with multiple ships each carrying 40,000 tonnes of
loose
material to discharge into 40 or more trucks per hour, to be operated
24/7,
but likely mostly at night, is antithetical to the ambitions of the
Transformation Program.
4. The PA has dismissed or disregarded 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)

PROPOSED 24/7 OPERATING HOURS ARE INAPPROPRIATE &
INTOLERABLE
1. 24/7 proposal is contrary to current usage of Sydney harbour, where
very
limited ship activity occurs before 8am or after 8pm. This will impact
on the
entire harbour, not just Jones Bay.
2. Ship berthing, materials loading and unloading, concrete production
and
other industrial facilities constitute heavy industrial use and 24/7
operation
will cause major additional night−time disturbance to all
residents in Pyrmont
and surrounding areas
3. The PA has set no restrictions on vessel or truck numbers and
movements
at night or on weekends or within any particular period. This is a
totally
inappropriate situation in such a densely populated area.
4. Artificial lighting at night, in association with on−board
ship lighting is totally
unacceptable at times when residents should be able to enjoy peace and
quiet at home.
5. The absence of any limits in the PA proposal would allow operators
to
continually expand facilities in response to commercial demands. The
cumulative effects of the 2 facilities would amplify the burden on
residents.

PROPOSALS DO NOT CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT ROAD TRAFFIC
CONSEQUENCES
1. The large number of trucks servicing these facilities, the
remainder of Glebe
Island and the possible Glebe Island dump site for excavated material
from
the new harbour tunnel would all have to access and egress via James
Craig Rd at its intersection with the City West Link.
2. Associated truck movements have been estimated to number in the
many
hundreds per day (possibly many more depending on the number of ships
berthed at any one time and other uses of Glebe Island). The resulting
effects on traffic on these roads, the Crescent, the Anzac Bridge and
WestConnex carriageways would most likely negate many of the claimed
benefits from these upgraded road systems and create further unwanted
congestion on our roadways and nearby bridges.
3. The Port Authority claims (information sessions) that local
supplies of sand
and aggregate are nearing depletion, thus creating the need to ship
these
products from locations more remote from Sydney. But this will be the
case
regardless of the port to which the product is shipped and therefore
does not
represent a specific justification for Glebe Island 1&2 as an
essential or valid
site.
4. Construction demands of Sydney will only increase over the future.
Construction of this MUF does not address the longer term need to find
a
more permanent solution to the import of these materials, unless the
Port
Authority is misrepresenting the proposed short−term operating
life of the
facility. Once constructed, the PA most likely intends to retain it
over the
longer term to the detriment of the entire area.
5. Regardless of where the ships are coming from or to, the number of
trucks
moving materials from ship to site across Sydney will not be reduced.
(The
only way this could occur would be if the number of planned projects
reduced.) It is the route that the trucks take that will be different.
Requiring
up to 1500 trucks per ship to travel to inner Sydney to receive and
dispatch
construction materials will not result in reduced truck movements. On
the
contrary, it will result in serious additional traffic noise and
congestion in
areas which are already experiencing such problems.
6. Trucks will be concentrated in a single pivotal area where massive
public
funds are already committed to road system upgrades, close to some of
the
most densely populated suburbs in Sydney, in an area where the State
Government hopes to profit from further land sales and leaseholds with
the
re−development of the various Bays Precincts.

PROPOSALS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE
1. The proposed facilities will clearly add to noise, light, air, and
water pollution
in the harbour, as well as marine and road traffic congestion in Jones
Bay
and the surrounding already congested road network.
2. The PA goes to some lengths to make assessment and predictions
about
some, but not all, of these impacts, and (conveniently)assesses them
all to
be minor. It is the additive impact of each new development that must
be
considered.
3. The PA describes the proposed facility as a "low−cost"
solution. Yes, low cost
to shipping operators, transport companies and property developers who
collect, transport and use the materials. The PA has advised that the
facility
will more likely operate at night, to reduce transport and fuel costs
of
trucking companies. Residents are expected to subsidise these outcomes
by
significant exposure to adverse outcomes and reductions in property
values.
4. However, these operations will impose significant human costs on
the
surrounding residents, in terms of increased pollution, sleep
disturbance,
and traffic congestion (road & marine), the advice to "just close your
windows" if the noise is bothersome will lead to higher power costs
because
air−conditioning will be required more often. Resulting
increases in air and
water pollution in such a busy area of human activity, and one
increasingly
visited by international tourists on cruises, flies in the face of
sustainability.
5. Therefore, low cost/low standards for the proponents to maximise
profits &
high costs to residents who will suffer the consequences.

REF IS LACKING IN SUBSTANCE, ACCURACY, DETAIL &
INTEGRITY
The REF "finds" that the key potential environmental impacts would
include
noise emissions during construction and visual impacts during
operation of
the facility. In fact, residents of Jacksons Landing are more
concerned about
non−stop high−level noise emitting from ship engines,
diesel fumes and
the extent of artificial lighting required along the wharf to sustain
24/7
operation of the proposed facilities.
2. The PA omits any serious acknowledgement of or response to these
concerns despite having commissioned an acoustic consultant to measure
actual noise levels emitted by a ship at berth at G11, where
night−time ship−
sourced noise levels were found to exceed EPA limits by a significant
margin.
3. The REF appears to contravene the EP&A Act 1979 which requires the
PA
to take into account all matters affecting or likely to affect the
environment
from the proposed activities to the fullest extent possible. Clearly
the REF
does not comply here, and the PA is therefore not in compliance with
the
legislation. This appears to be a deliberate tactic to avoid a
requirement for
an EIS, which would most likely demonstrate that the proposal will
create
sufficient adverse environmental effects to warrant refusal, should
the PA be
required to seek development consent.
4. This appears to be a disingenuous response to the Act and
represents a
complete insult to the local community and surrounding suburbs. The
REF
fails to properly address both its context and the serious impacts
which will
undoubtedly fall on existing and future residents of Pyrmont.

SELF−ASSESSMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
1. The PA attitude to Jacksons Landing residents has consistently been
disrespectful. Comments made at information sessions −" If noise
levels too
high, residents should go inside their apartments and close their
doors and
windows" are unprofessional, disrespectful and unacceptable.
2. The PA appears to be attempting to recreate a significant
industrialised port
in an area whose urban landscape is undergoing change to other uses
and
seems determined to get its proposal through regardless of issues and
resistance. Its attitude is uncompromising.
3. The PA is not interested in providing ship−to−shore
power to mitigate engine
noise (as has been done at Garden Island) or to construct a wharf on
the
White Bay side of Glebe Island to accommodate the proposed facilities
so
that impacts could be mitigated.
4. Statements in REF suggest that Jacksons Landing apartments have
been
designed to cope with noise are disingenuous & misleading −
apartments
have been designed with opening windows & balconies to aid natural
ventilation and reduce reliance on air−conditioning. The PA
ignores the rights
of residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their indoor and outdoor
spaces
5. The PA provides no measures to mandate environmental−impact
mitigation
in its proposal. The PA seems to hope that the entities operating at
the
facility will adopt such mitigation voluntarily. However, relying on
the goodwill
of private enterprises to undertake mitigating impacts seems naïve,
deceptive and/or misguided. These operators will simply refuse to
comply,
and residents of the precinct will suffer significantly.
6. Significant breaches of EPA noise limits have already occurred
without any
mitigation (ref. SLR Consulting noise monitoring report for CSL
Reliance at
Glebe Island Berth 1, which demonstrated that the CSL Reliance
exceeded
night time noise levels at Pyrmont by up to 8dB during the period
measured). A response to this breach, which reflects future outcomes,
is
conveniently omitted from REF. Such an omission throws doubt on the
ability
of,theRA to reach an outcome that acknowledges (let alone balances)
the
rights of the residential community.
7. The MUF proposal is open−ended in terms of potential future
expansion without
− any usage limits − which is not subject to any
overriding planning
controls. But this is an issue for both the wider community and the
transformation objectives for Glebe Island.
8. Arguably, the PA proposal does not even conform with planning
legislation
due to omissions in REF The PA has not addressed all the issues raised
by
the EPA (December 2017 email). To do so would weaken their case and
make obvious the need for a development application & EIS.
9. There appears to be a potential conflict of interest with Mr
Ricardo Prieto−
Curie!, who is a town planner and is assisting the PA in the MUF
proposal,
and who we understand may also be an employee of Lend Lease
(environmental manager) -- the latter being a potential beneficiary of
the
MUF.

CONFLICTING PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF
PROPOSALS EXIST
1. The Hanson proposal is subject to assessment by the DOP, requiring
full
EIS and DA documentation in a transparent public process. It is
subject to
rejection or conditions of consent to mitigate effects.
2. The PA proposal is (currently) to be self−assessed by an
institution which
appears determined to push through its proposal regardless of its
clearly
significant environmental impacts. Little prospect of rejection, no
prospect of
conditions of consent, no respect for the EP&A Act − unless this
situation is
redressed.
3. Yet Environmental impacts are likely to be the same for both
applications.
This is a ludicrous situation which urgently requires redress by the
NSW Government.

PROPOSALS ARE COMPLETELY LACKING IN AESTHETIC
QUALITY
1. The proposed facilities are completely lacking in aesthetic and
architectural
quality by contrast with the high aesthetic quality of Jacksons
Landing and
the general requirements for and public expectation of future
developments
within The Bays Precinct.
2. The proposals represent low−quality industrial design at its
worst − a
complete affront to the objective of developing a high−tech
innovation hub on
Glebe Island and the implications for high−quality and
innovative buildings.
3. The proposed Hanson concrete plant would obstruct views of the
highly−
acclaimed Anzac Bridge, which shows complete disregard for such an
iconic
structure.

The proposed facilities − with their 24/7 operation −
would create significant
noise, light, water and air pollution emitted from both activities on
Glebe
Island and the ships berthed at GI 1&2. A severely negative impact on
the
health and wellbeing of residents in Pyrmont, located as close as
200−250
metres away in Sydney's most densely populated suburb, as well as
those in
neighbouring suburbs, would result. Based on documented evidence of
ship
operations, the reality of noise emissions, particularly at Pyrmont,
is likely to
be much worse than predicted in the REF. This will result in
substantial sleep
disturbance, adverse heath and safety outcomes, and financial loss due
to
devalued property.
The proposed location on the east side of Glebe Island and within the
increasingly busy marine thoroughfare which links Rozelle &
Blackwattle
Bays with Sydney Harbour will disrupt other marine traffic in/out of
Rozelle
Bay and create an unsafe waterway. This is clearly an unacceptable
outcome and reinforces the argument that the proposed location for
these
facilities is both inappropriate and unsuitable.
The proposed structures are completely lacking in aesthetic value and
will
read as an over−scaled eyesore on the landscape between Rozelle
and
Pyrmont − a throwback to an era of dirty, ugly industrial
buildings and
activities dumping high−level pollution of all types on existing
and future
residential areas.
Glebe island now sits in a densely populated residential context as
opposed
to its early history. The development of Glebe Island as an intensive,
industrialised inner−city port is clearly not compatible with
the overall
objectives of the Bays Precinct and the 2000 Master Plan for White Bay
and
Glebe Island.
The Port Authority appears to ignore the explicit requirements of the
EP&A
Act 1979 in relation to environmental impacts from the proposed MUF.
It
declares in its REF, quite disingenuously, that there are no
significant
environmental outcomes and therefore an EIS is not required. Clearly
the PA
is not fit to determine its own application if it cannot complete an
honest and
complete review of environmental factors, as required under the Act.
The Port Authority should be instructed, as a matter of urgency, by
the NSW
Government to find a permanent material−handling solution
elsewhere, in a
more appropriate industrial port or alternative location. NSW
government
funds should not be wasted on the construction of a facility with such
potentially disastrous environmental outcomes, whose presence and
operations would impede the time frame for and the objectives of the
proposed redevelopment of the Bays Precinct as well as the prospects
of
attracting investors to fund such development.

At the very least, the Minister for Planning and Environment must call
the
MUF in as a State Significant Development for assessment through the
Department of Planning in a transparent and democratic public process
− one
which requires a complete and adequate EIS and extensive documentation
one that provides the opportunity for the Public and other interested
organisations to make submissions. The same process as currently
applies
to the Hanson application must also apply to the MUF.

Yours Faithfully,

[REDACTED]

20 April 2018

NSW Government
Planning and Environment

Attention: Director - Key Sited Assessments.
SSD 8544

This letter is in reply to correspondence received from your
Department
regarding the proposed development at Rozelle dated 11 April 2018.
As a resident of Jacksons Landing for 18 years we strongly oppose this
development application.
Our reasons are:
*The proposed site is directly opposite the Jacksons Landing
residential
development which accommodates many thousand of residents and rate
payers. This area is now a residential area and the proposed
industrial site is
totally out of character with the redevelopment of Sydney Harbour.
*The operating hours proposed on a 7 day/24 hour basis will cause
unacceptable noise and dust pollution levels. This will affect the
living
standards and general health of Pyrmont/Balmain residents living
nearby.
*The proposed development will exacerbate the already intolerable
traffic
situation on the Anzac Bridge and Victoria Rd. With trucks having no
other
entry or exit options other then the major roads already under stress.
*The proposed development will almost certainly result in a general
downgrade of the area and affect the desirability for residential
living.
*All the above issues will result in a substantial negative affect on
property
values, which is totally unacceptable.

The area in question is no longer industrial, rather it has developed,
with the
appropriate approval, into a densely populated residential area
housing
thousands of families. What you are proposing is heavy industrial 24/7
pollution in our beautiful city and must not be approved in any form.

Sincerely yours,

[REDACTED]

Application No SSD 8544
Applicant - Hanson Construction Materials Pty Lim
[REDACTED]

Notice of our objection to the above development

We cannot believe that Council would contemplate granting approval to
a concrete batching facility on a prime parcel of land right at the
front door of Balmain / Rozelle, with all the noise dust traffic 24
hours a day. Council must be mad to even think of approving such an
eyesore, what a waste of prime real estate.

We sincerely hope Council (that we voted for) will see reason and not
approve this tip of a development.

We and all the other owners of units and homes will not be voting
council in again if this application is approved.

[REDACTED]

GLEBE ISLAND AGGREGATE HANDLING AND CONCRETE BATCHING FACILITY
I strongly object to the proposal for the Glebe Island Facility for
the aggregate handling and concrete batching plants for Hanson
Construction Materials Pty Ltd, on a prime harbour site opposite
Pyrmont, the highest density residential area of Sydney.

The environment and Sydney priorities have changed and the Pyrmont -
Glebe Island - Balmain precinct is no longer a major industrial area.

Blackwattle Bay is an industrial area with the two concrete batching
plants and should be kept as such as there is no residential buildings
opposite these areas.

Glebe Island should be used for the very popular Sydney Fish Markets
which would improve the access and parking facilities for this popular
facility. It could have:
1. ferry access from the Quay,
2. a station in the new proposed Parramatta-CBD rail link and
3. with some creative imagination, be a major tourism facility for
Sydney.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED SSD 8544 FACILITY
TRANSPORT MOVEMENTS
1. Parking and traffic movement proposed for 24hours/day 7days/week.
2. Movement of 50 trucks/hour (we were advised).
3. Congestion of surrounding roads and intersections, especially
entries and exits around the very busy ANZAC Bridge.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Noise from construction materials being off loading and
transporting the material from ships at berth 1 and into a continual
line of trucks.
2. From ship's engines. I was awakened recently between midnight and
1.00am on Monday 19 February 2018 when the huge bulk carrier arrived
opposite carrying aggregate. Thereafter the noise of constant motors
and continuous vibrations continued for the entire time the ship was
in port.

AIR POLLUTION
This will affect all residents within the precinct.
1. At present everything is constantly covered inside and out with
black dust plus extra pollutants potentially causing or exacerbating
health problems from the proposal.
2. Using outdoor areas will be a health hazard because of pollution,
vibration and noise.
3. The proposed facility is located opposite a well-used children's
park, Waterfront Park and the ineffable dust will be a health hazard.

4. LIGHTING
1. Sleep disruption, inconvenience from all-night lighting.

PROPERTY DEVALUATION
1. Our property was purchased in 2016 in good faith, for a healthy
quality of life, not expecting the development of an industrial
complex, including a supplier of heavy construction materials, to be
build opposite in 2018, after almost 10 years of vacancy for this
site.
We have been advised of property devaluation because of this proposed
development.

ADVANTAGES OF AN ALTERNATIVE USE FOR GLEBE ISLAND
1. Landscape/developed for the Sydney Fish Markets, community use and
tourism.
2. Coordinate fully with Bay Precinct planning for a more creative
vision of this pristine view of Sydney Harbour area.
3. An alternative for the proposal should be considered more fully
with the proposed rail link to Port Botany as an alternative.

Robert Tupper
104/35 Bowman Street
Pyrmont
10 May 2018

it will be clean and well maintained suporting major inverstructer in
sydney

Re: Glebe Island Aggregate Handling and Concrete Batching Facility (SSD
8544) Glebe Island, James Craig Road, Rozelle (lot 10 DP 11 707 10)

I am a resident at [REDACTED], Pyrmont and lodge my strong objection
to the above titled proposal by Hanson Construction. I have previously
lodged my objection to the proposed MUF by the Ports Authority.

The proposed development is to be located within 200 to 250 meters of
a major residential area and is intended to operate on a 24/7 basis.
The proposal is a backward step reverting Glebe Island to a heavy
industrial area completely ignoring the overall objectives and
principles of the Bays Precinct and the 2000 Master Plan for White Bay
and Glebe Island.


1. Emissions from ships burning crude diesel and fine dust particles
from unloading will severely impact air quality.
2. The noise from the ships engines/generators continually running
will result in night time noise levels above EPA limits impacting
residents sleep and wellbeing.
3. The entire wharf area will be artificially lit which will also
impact on the quality of sleep.
4. The proposed development will increase the already severe traffic
congestion in the area. If not on a standalone basis but certainly
when combined with other proposals for the area eg the MUF and the
construction of large concrete support beams for distribution to
infrastructure projects around Sydney eg the proposed new harbour
tunnel.


Existing use rights for the port facility should not be an acceptable
reason to disregard the health risks to nearby residents. Being told
by the PA that we can close our windows and doors against the noise
and dust is totally unacceptable and environmentally unsound.


The proposed Hanson development along with the proposed Multi User
Facility - operating on a 24/7 basis - will create significant noise,
light, water and air pollution and have a severely negative impact on
the health and wellbeing of residents in Pyrmont. These proposals
cannot be looked at on a standalone basis and must be looked at as a
whole and a proper EIS completed taking into account the impact of
both.

Given these serious impacts, I ask that you refuse the application or
introduce strong controls to protect local residential amenity.

Yours sincerely


[REDACTED]

I write in objection to the above proposal.
The plant will operate 24/7 near a large residential area.
Ships will be allowed to birth without ship to shore power,as is
evident from from the cruisers at white bay the noise is and air
pollution is already intolerable.
Ship to shore power must be mandatory.
The impact of increased truck movements in the area combined with the
other large projects planned at the same place at the same time should
be taken into account.
Whilst I understand the need to reduce congestion caused by the
governments economic growth push i believe it is essential the various
applications for the bays precinct should be looked at as a whole and
the combined impact on local residents of these mammoth projects be
measured against feasible public transport alternatives.

I write in objection to the above proposal.
The plant will operate 24/7 near a large residential area.
Ships will be allowed to birth without ship to shore power,as is
evident from from the cruisers at white bay the noise is and air
pollution is already intolerable.
Ship to shore power must be mandatory.
The impact of increased truck movements in the area combined with the
other large projects planned at the same place at the same time should
be taken into account.
Whilst I understand the need to reduce congestion caused by the
governments economic growth push i believe it is essential the various
applications for the bays precinct should be looked at as a whole and
the combined impact on local residents of these mammoth projects be
measured against feasible public transport alternatives.

Dear Minister,

I am extremely concerned about the proposals to relocate Hanson's
Cement Works to Glebe Island and to produce the concrete tunnels for
the second cross harbor tunnel at the site.

The facility, I hear from the EIS for Hanson's batching plan, will
operate 24/7 with ships permitted to berth 24 hours a day 7 days a
week without restrictions on running generators through the night. The
area has already been the focus of attention due to cruise ships
berthing and burning dangerous fuels to the air quality for local
residents. There has been an issue about the expense of ship to shore
power, which would need to be addressed in the instance of the
facility locating at Glebe Island.

It appears that significant additional numbers of trucks are being
generously included in this application, onto our local road network,
without considering the already overloaded traffic access into and out
of the peninsula. An additional 189 vehicles in the am peak and 98 in
the pm peak makes an inexcusable impact on life on the peninsula
impossible for residents.

The project needs to take into account the cumulative impact of truck
movements from a range of other projects proposed for the area
including the multi-user facility at Glebe Island, the Western Harbour
Tunnel and the staging site at White Bay Power Station.

Given these serious impacts, I ask you to refuse the application in
its current form and introduce strong controls to protect local
residents from noise, air pollution and traffic.

In addition, I understand that the construction of the concrete
tunnels for the first harbour tunnel from the Rocks to Kirribili
occurred at Port Kembla, with the tunnels being barged to the harbour
to be placed in position. I see no reason why this approach cannot be
adopted again with this new development, as it would both provide
employment in an area where many workers already reside and make use
of existing industrial facilities that do not impinge on the quality
of air, noise, access and daily life of a residential community
already squeezed by its inner city location. The Balmain Peninsula has
a rich history and archaeology that needs to be preserved. The
intrusion of new industrial facilities that will be used temporarily
for 4 or so years makes no sense in an area which represents one
chapter of Sydney's colourful colonial early days, both residential
and industrial.

Another issue I have heard about is the proposal to dredge
contaminated silt at White Bay and enclose it in concrete to then bury
in the harbour or out of the Heads. This proposal is risking the
biodiversity of our harbour and its wonderful and in some instance
unique creatures such as sea dragons and sea horses.

It is of utmost importance that the Ministry review these matters
seriously and studiously before embarking on destructive measures that
will cause irreparable damage to Sydney's inner harbour suburbs and
air, noise, road and water quality.

Yours sincerely,
Jenny Proctor

Dear Sir

Re: Proposed Multi-User Facility & Hanson Concrete Plant
GI B1 & B2 Adjacent land, James Craig Road,Rozelle. (Glebe Island)

I hereby lodge my objection to the proposed development on the above
property
namely the establishment of a Multi-User Facility and a concrete plant
to be operated by
Hanson's.

The proposed development will have adverse impact by with regards

NOISE
The proposed 27/7 operation will significantly raise noise omissions
generated by
ships & trucks will these increases will be detrimental to sleeping
patterns particularly at
night and will thus have severe health consequences.
Whilst many Jackson's Landing residents were aware that the Sydney
Harbour was
to remain a working harbour. It was never envisaged that Glebe Island
would be used for
intense material handling & manufacturing operations as is now
proposed by the this
development.

POLUTION & AIR QUALITY
Ships manoeuvring into and when berthed GB1 & 2. and trucks servicing
the facility
will give rise to an increase in exhaust emissions .The handling of
cement sand and fine
aggregate will produce dust level over and above to those that
presently exists.

HEALTH & AMENITY
Increases in fuel & dust omissions will adversely effect the health
and wellbeing
of residents in the vicinity. The large number of elderly persons that
reside at Jackson's
Landing are more likely to be affected by any reduction in air
quality.

TRAFFIC
Increased traffic movements by trucks servicing the facilities will
result . The
cumulative effect of vehicles servicing the Multi-User facility,
Hanson's concrete plant and
cruise ships when at berth will result unacceptable levels of
congestion along James
Craig Road, at the James Craig Road /City West Link intersection and
at the City West
Link /Victoria Road intersections.

MARINE SAFETY
The marine traffic coming and going to Blackwattle Bay and Rozelle Bay
via the
narrow channel under the old Glebe Island Bridge will be become more
hazardous when
GI 1 & 2 berths are occupied by ships servicing the proposed
Multi-User Facility & the
Hanson's Plant and will escalate the congestion and increase
occurrence of serious
accidents.

AESTHETIC QUALITY
Both facilities lack any aesthetic qualities, building and structures
proposed will be
an eyesore comprising of over-scaled buildings that will be totally
out of character to the
present Rozelle and Pyrmont landscape. The NSW Urban Transformation
Programme for
the Bays Precinct nominated Glebe Island as a Innovative District. Its
objective were in
support economic activities, marine industries combined with a
high-tech hub. The
proposed developments will not achieve these objectives and the high
quality urban
design and improvements sought by the NSW Urban Transformation
Programme will, if
the current proposal is approved result in an unsightly, noise and
pollution emitting
industrial development.

CONCLUSION
The fact is that the proposed development will have severe adverse
impacts on the
environment and amenity of the area caused by excessive noise, and a
reduction of air
and water quality. These negative impacts will diminish the health and
well-being of those
residing at Jackson's Landing

The increase in traffic volumes will increase congestion at major
intersections to an
unprecedented levels.The use of the GI 1 & 2 berths when occupied by
ships servicing the
proposed development will be hazardous to vessels wanting to access
Blackwattle bay
and Rozelle Bay.

The structures proposed are severely lacking in aesthetic value and
will appear as
dirty, noisy and pollution emitting industrial buildings which is
contrary to the objectives of
The NSW Urban Transformation Programme for the Bays Precinct.

Glebe Island by way of its location forms the western gateway to the
Sydney CBD.
If this development is approved, visitors arriving by cruise ship and
by motor vehicles via
the Anzac Bridge will be confronted by dirty and ugly industrial
development. The
opportunity to development Glebe Island for uses that satisfy the aims
and objectives The
NSW Urban Transformation Programme for the Bays Precinct will be lost.

My apartment was purchased ten years ago on the understanding that the
new
vehicle facility was to be relocated at Port Kembla and that the port
uses of Glebe
Island(Johnson Bay) would be only of a passive nature. This
information assisted in my
decision to proceed with the purchase.The proposed development seeks
approval for a
high volume of material handling and concrete batching. Had I known
this at the time I
would not have proceeded. The approval of the development will result
in a substantial
reduction of the market value of the unit and discourage potential
purchasers.
I currently suffer from a terminal neurological condition. The thought
of this
development proposal being approved imposes undue stress which is
severely affecting
health

Glebe Island needs to be developed in a manner that the City of Sydney
is proud
to present to visitors as being clean and of high quality design and
not a dirty and ugly
industrial development.

I respectfully request that the proposed Multi-User Facility &
Hanson's Concrete
Plant on Glebe Island be determined by the Department of Planning as
being unsuitable
and that BOTH PROPOSALS BE REJECTED

Yours faithfully

[REDACTED]

PYRMONT

I strongly object to building a concrete facility in White Bay. Harbour
frontage is so rare now to build this facility shows no thought or
future planning. Please don't let this happen on visual and
environmental grounds.
Gordon Fitchett

With the redevelopment of the fish markets, the current Hanson plant will
be shut down and decommissioned. This proposal will relocate the plant
to Glebe island.

The construction industry is booming. This proposal will allow for the
continued efficient supply of concrete to support the industry. I
understand that the proposal includes shipping of aggregates to the
new facility. Currently, all aggregates are carted into the city by
truck. With this proposal traffic impacts will be greatly reduced
since this ship will remove a large amount of truck movements, which
will also reduce noise impacts.

Finally, Hanson is a large employer. This proposal will result in
continued employment for the current employees and will likley result
in additional jobs.

For these reasons I believe this proposal should be allowed to move
forward.

Dear Sir

Re: Proposed Multi-User Facility & Hanson Concrete Plant
GI B1 & B2 Adjacent land, James Craig Road,Rozelle. (Glebe Island)

I hereby lodge my objection to the proposed development on the above
property
namely the establishment of a Multi-User Facility and a concrete plant
to be operated by
Hanson's.

The proposed development will have adverse impact by with regards

NOISE
The proposed 27/7 operation will significantly raise noise omissions
generated by
ships & trucks will these increases will be detrimental to sleeping
patterns particularly at
night and will thus have severe health consequences.
Whilst many Jackson's Landing residents were aware that the Sydney
Harbour was
to remain a working harbour. It was never envisaged that Glebe Island
would be used for
intense material handling & manufacturing operations as is now
proposed by the this
development.

POLUTION & AIR QUALITY
Ships manoeuvring into and when berthed GB1 & 2. and trucks servicing
the facility
will give rise to an increase in exhaust emissions .The handling of
cement sand and fine
aggregate will produce dust level over and above to those that
presently exists.

HEALTH & AMENITY
Increases in fuel & dust omissions will adversely effect the health
and wellbeing
of residents in the vicinity. The large number of elderly persons that
reside at Jackson's
Landing are more likely to be affected by any reduction in air
quality.

TRAFFIC
Increased traffic movements by trucks servicing the facilities will
result . The
cumulative effect of vehicles servicing the Multi-User facility,
Hanson's concrete plant and
cruise ships when at berth will result unacceptable levels of
congestion along James
Craig Road, at the James Craig Road /City West Link intersection and
at the City West
Link /Victoria Road intersections.

MARINE SAFETY
The marine traffic coming and going to Blackwattle Bay and Rozelle Bay
via the
narrow channel under the old Glebe Island Bridge will be become more
hazardous when
GI 1 & 2 berths are occupied by ships servicing the proposed
Multi-User Facility & the
Hanson's Plant and will escalate the congestion and increase
occurrence of serious
accidents.

AESTHETIC QUALITY
Both facilities lack any aesthetic qualities, building and structures
proposed will be
an eyesore comprising of over-scaled buildings that will be totally
out of character to the
present Rozelle and Pyrmont landscape. The NSW Urban Transformation
Programme for
the Bays Precinct nominated Glebe Island as a Innovative District. Its
objective were in
support economic activities, marine industries combined with a
high-tech hub. The
proposed developments will not achieve these objectives and the high
quality urban
design and improvements sought by the NSW Urban Transformation
Programme will, if
the current proposal is approved result in an unsightly, noise and
pollution emitting
industrial development.

CONCLUSION
The fact is that the proposed development will have severe adverse
impacts on the
environment and amenity of the area caused by excessive noise, and a
reduction of air
and water quality. These negative impacts will diminish the health and
well-being of those
residing at Jackson's Landing

The increase in traffic volumes will increase congestion at major
intersections to an
unprecedented levels.The use of the GI 1 & 2 berths when occupied by
ships servicing the
proposed development will be hazardous to vessels wanting to access
Blackwattle bay
and Rozelle Bay.

The structures proposed are severely lacking in aesthetic value and
will appear as
dirty, noisy and pollution emitting industrial buildings which is
contrary to the objectives of
The NSW Urban Transformation Programme for the Bays Precinct.

Glebe Island by way of its location forms the western gateway to the
Sydney CBD.
If this development is approved, visitors arriving by cruise ship and
by motor vehicles via
the Anzac Bridge will be confronted by dirty and ugly industrial
development. The
opportunity to development Glebe Island for uses that satisfy the aims
and objectives The
NSW Urban Transformation Programme for the Bays Precinct will be lost.

My apartment was purchased ten years ago on the understanding that the
new
vehicle facility was to be relocated at Port Kembla and that the port
uses of Glebe
Island(Johnson Bay) would be only of a passive nature. This
information assisted in my
decision to proceed with the purchase.The proposed development seeks
approval for a
high volume of material handling and concrete batching. Had I known
this at the time I
would not have proceeded. The approval of the development will result
in a substantial
reduction of the market value of the unit and discourage potential
purchasers.
I currently suffer from a terminal neurological condition. The thought
of this
development proposal being approved imposes undue stress which is
severely affecting
health

Glebe Island needs to be developed in a manner that the City of Sydney
is proud
to present to visitors as being clean and of high quality design and
not a dirty and ugly
industrial development.

I respectfully request that the proposed Multi-User Facility &
Hanson's Concrete
Plant on Glebe Island be determined by the Department of Planning as
being unsuitable
and that BOTH PROPOSALS BE REJECTED

Yours faithfully

[REDACTED]

PYRMONT

I object to the following:
24/7 operation and noise pollution all through the night and day in
what is a residential, schooling and sporting area.

This is a health safety hazard to residents in inner Sydney.....
why push more people into the already stretched health system?
Ships delivering concrete and aggregate should be required to cover
their product so that particles do not become airborne at sea or in
the bay.
Ships should not be permitted to run their engines 24/7 because of the
negative impact this will have on air quality.
Shore to shop power should be mandatory.

The application would add a significant number of trucks onto the
local road network including 189 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 98
in the PM peak hour.
The project should take into account the cumulative impact of truck
movements from a range of other projects proposed for the area
including the multi-user facility at Glebe Island, the Western Harbour
Tunnel and the staging site at White Bay Power Station.

Why can we not ship the ready made cement pipes in from Port Kembla as
a healthy safe alternative?

I support the proposal of the Hanson facility. The facility will replace
the pending closure of the existing Hanson concrete batching plant in
Blackwattle Bay which has been a critical concrete batching plant
involved in the construction of Sydney city for many decades.
The city of Sydney requires an incredible of amount of ready mix
concrete for years to come and suppliers are already experiencing
great pressure to meet these demands. The facility will support the
city in achieving efficent supply of ready mixed concrete in to the
area. The proposed design will also reduce the number of trucks needed
to transport materials into Sydney via road networks and provide local
employment.

While it will be sad to see the old Blackwattle bay plant pulled down, it
will be a large step forward to build a larger, safer, quieter, more
efficient and environmentally friendly plant.

I believe the proposed Hanson development will be positive for Sydney
with a significant reduction in heavy vehicles on our roads due to the
aggregate being delivered by ship. The new facility would replace the
existing Concrete plant & aggregate depot at Blackwattle Bay with a
"worlds best practice" facility significantly reducing impacts to the
environment & public ammenity. Hanson/Pioneer established the existing
operation in the early 1970s & are now being forced to relocate to
accommodate the new fish market. It is important the Hanson be given
the opportunity to relocate the business in the immediate area to
ensure continunity of concrete supply to the building industy, thus
ensuring we contunue to renew this great city & improve the roads
system & public transport. I am a long term employee of Hanson (over
25 years). Hanson has many long term employees, this is because the
company values it's employees. A employer such as this should be
encouraged to do business in this city.

I strongly object on the grounds of
1) Noise pollution on the basis of 24/7, cement processing and
generators etc
2) Dust from chemicals used to produce the concrete.
3) Toxic fumes expelled into the air from loading / unloading of
concrete and its materials used.
4) Lights used at night disturbing residences .

I strongly object on the grounds of
1) Noise pollution on the basis of 24/7, cement processing and
generators etc
2) Dust from chemicals used to produce the concrete.
3) Toxic fumes expelled into the air from loading / unloading of
concrete and its materials used.
4) Lights used at night disturbing residences .

Michele Jackson
Apt 14A, 2 Distillery Drive
PYRMONT NSW 2009

12 May 2019

The Director
Key Sites Assessments
NSW Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001

Attention: Mr Karl Fetterplace

Re: OBJECTION
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

Dear Mr Fetterplace
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed relocation and
expansion of the Hanson concrete batching plant and bulk aggregate
facility to Glebe Island Berth 1. I have made no reportable political
donations

I have been a resident of the Glebe and Pyrmont areas for nearly 28
years and have witnessed much development in that time. As a property
owner and resident of Jackson's Landing over the last 5 years my
understanding has been that the area has been committed to a mix of
balanced space incorporating green space, residential and quiet
commercial. I acknowledge that the area has always incorporated a
working harbour but there has been a balanced approach to this too and
has resulted in little inconvenience during the evening hours and
overnight.

There have been previous plans mooted for the Glebe Island area
particularly the innovation hub proposed in recent years. This has
worked well for a space which is surrounded by residential development
on all sides.
The Hanson proposal currently under review will result in an
unacceptable shift in balance to heavy industry. This proposal is at
odds with previous community consultation and will negatively impact
the communities of Pyrmont, Glebe and Rozelle.
The proposed relocation of Hanson's to Glebe Island with the added
port activity across a 24/7 timetable is extremely likely to have
major environmental and health-related issues for residents, as
indicated in the Environmental Impact Study(EIS) released by the
Department of Planning, and the wider communities. The level of
traffic congestion arising from the operation of the current Hanson
plant already clog the Pyrmont peninsula for significant parts of the
day. Increased traffic as a result of the proposal will result in an
untenable traffic situation that will extend into Glebe and will
impact the Anzac Bridge and traffic flow towards Annandale as well as
Rozelle.
My primary concerns are detailed below.
POLLUTION
Pyrmont already suffers from an excess of dust particles and despite
promises of covered storage for bulk materials this will increase and
impact our air quality and health. I do not see any guarantees of
monitoring and guaranteeing air quality into the future.
These issues will be further exacerbated by the fumes from berthed
cargo ships when the volume is increased as per the proposal.
NOISE
Pyrmont residents are already subject to noise pollution from ships
berthed at Glebe Island. Such noise has already been measured by
acoustic consultants as being well above EPA night-time noise limits
without any acknowledgement from the Planning Authority. Ship engines
run continuously while ships are berthed. As there is no proposal for
the proposed concrete plant to provide
shore to ship electric power this noise cannot be contained. This is a
major backward step in the quality of life for residents across
Pyrmont, Glebe and Rozelle. It is hard to understand a government
condoning these conditions.
TRAFFIC
As already pointed out, traffic congestion in the Pyrmont area is
already reaching untenable levels during peak hours. 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 Environmental Impact
Study suggests effects on traffic would be minor which is laughable
and irresponsible.
Leaving aside the impact on residents and indeed small scale business
operators in Pyrmont, Glebe and Rozelle the proposal would, by
increasing large shipping, negatively impact the smaller marine
traffic in Johnstons Bay, potentially blocking access through the
channel under the old Glebe Island Bridge. This smaller marine
activity has been an integral part of our harbour landscape and
co-exists with the residential area without issues.

The impacts on resident lifestyle and health must be taken into
account in denying this proposal. The cumulative effects of noise,
fumes and dust must have a deleterious effect on health outcomes. What
provision is being made for the future recourse for compensation for
these impacts? Implementation of this proposal holds the risk of
creating another Asbestos/James Hardy case in the future, in this
instance however it will be clear that the risks were known and
ignored and the outcome disastrous for both Hanson and the NSW
Government.
The State Government supported the transition of Pyrmont from an
industrial site to residential development after the demise if the CSR
operations, it is not now appropriate to revert to an industrial
landscape. Facilities of this scale cannot successfully coexistwith
residential apartments and smaller-scale businesses. This proposal
should be denied.
Yours Faithfully


Michele Jackson
[email protected]
PH:9518 8831