Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

I ask you to rethink the current plans to turn Glebe Island into a
multi-use facility.
While I support some form of working harbor at White Bay the current
plans are not reasonable in regards to heavy ship and truck movements,
seven days a week at all hours.
The exposure from the proposed concrete batching facility will impact
the bays community negatively in regards to noise, pollution and
health.

Having studied the submission carefully, I have not been satisfied that
the proposal will not detract significantly from my residential
lifestyle and consequently from the value of my property. Reasons:
Noise and dust, however slight, is not there now and will be there to
a greater or lesser extent depending on wind and weather. Negative
impact on me.
The 24/7 operation is the major issue for me. I accept that this is a
working Harbour but I do not accept that is should operate adjacent to
a major residential area for any greater than daylight hours. The
operation will be immediately adjacent to my bedroom! Very Negative
impact.
Since we bought into the Jacksons Landing residential lifestyle only 7
years ago our peace and enjoyment has been diminished by the Cruise
Terminal opposite, the erection and demolition of the Temporary
Exhibition Centre. Regular discharge of dusty cargo on the Glebe
Island hard with associated shipping noise outside our bedroom 24/7.
Then there are proposals for the Multi Purpose Facility and the
dumping ground for Western Harbour Tunnel. Where will this incremental
creep end?

I have studied the submission carefully and have not been satisfied that
the proposal will not detract significantly from my residential
lifestyle and consequently from the value of my property. My reasons
are:
Noise and dust, however slight, is hardly there now but will be there
to a greater or lesser extent depending on wind and weather. Negative
impact on me.
The 24/7 operation is the major issue for me. I accept that this is a
working Harbour but I do not accept that is should operate adjacent to
a major residential area for any greater than 12 hours per day. The
operation will be immediately adjacent to my bedroom! Very Negative
impact on me.
Since we bought into the Jacksons Landing residential lifestyle only 7
years ago our peace and enjoyment has been diminished by the Cruise
Terminal opposite, the erection and demolition of the Temporary
Exhibition Centre. Regular discharge of dusty cargo on the Glebe
Island hard with associated shipping noise outside our bedroom 24/7.
Then there are proposals for the Multi Purpose Facility and the
dumping ground for Western Harbour Tunnel. Where will this incremental
creep end? Will we eventually have to forego our preferred location
because it has simply become too unpleasant to live here? If that
happens who will buy us out anyway?

I am concerned about the noise associated with a 24 hours facility would
generate in a largely residential areas. I am also very concerned
about dust pollution. Surely there must be a better place to locate
this facility away from residential properties. I think going ahead
with this proposal will generate a lot of complaints. The area is
already congested with heavy traffic, dust from commercial and
residential developments this will just add to existing problems.

I refer to the proposed Glebe Island Hanson Concrete Plant and raise the
following concerns:

Noise Pollution

* The proposed 24/7 operation (and frequency of cargo ships) noise
pollution in particular at night.

* Specific noise pollution I am concerned about includes:
o Front end loading reversing warning signal
o Cargo ship engine
o Cargo ship docking / undocking with support barges
o Aggregate falling onto the conveyor and hopper

The Evolve apartment window glass thickness has been increased however
the noise of past operations has impacted on our amenity.

In addition, when the apartment windows are closed there is no
opportunity for fresh air to enter the apartment which is not ideal
and not in accordance with authority requirements.

Air and Dust Pollution

* the cargo ship engine emissions and fine dust particles pollution
from the unloading and loading process:
o causing health concerns
o resulting in limited use of the outdoor area
o resulting in windows to be closed the majority of the time and the
apartment having no ventilation.

Light Pollution

* the light pollution from the cargo ship and task lighting.

I am outraged at the proposal for the concrete plant. I am concerned
about 4 key factors which are:
1) Noise
2) Pollution
3) Traffic
4) Light
I live looking onto the proposed site. Having experienced large
container ships docking at the site I experienced continual,
disturbing noise. As well as noise there was light coming from the
vessel which was distracting. With multiple trucks unloading the ships
24 hours a day, 7 days a week the pollution and traffic will have a
severe impact on traffic and the air. The road network is not equipped
to deal with the additional traffic and the quality of air will be
compromised from the traffic and dust which will be created.

I would like to add to what I hope is a pile of disapproval letters
against the Hanson Concrete Plant.

Pyrmont, for many years, has been an extremely calm and harmonious
suburb and we all truly believe that the intrusion of this project
will throw this harmony into disarray.

It is not solely a question of our family's discomfort and the
imposition of this eyesore into the landscape, which we cherish, but
more importantly the general enjoyment of the whole of Jackson's
Landing. The running tracks where many people relax and unwind as well
as the picnic areas where many families enjoy their weekends
undeniably will be ruined and disturbed by this project, not to
mention the noise and air pollution that will affect everyone's
health.

I am sure for many of you reading this letter, you possibly see little
value in what we say in regards to the region of Jackson's Landing but
frankly, having many times moved across Sydney due to the imposition
of projects such as these, I would be gravely disappointed for this to
happen again.

We purchased this property as Pyrmont was meant to be a purely
residential area and we have very much enjoyed it for that reason.
This project changes the nature of the suburb which has the highest
and densely populated area of Sydney. To now add this industrial
abomination is unfair to all the residents of Pyrmont.

I very much hope you reconsider this project and decide not to build
it in such proximity to Pyrmont.

As part of the wider community I am very pleased to hear about this
facility I believe this is a great opportunity which will have many
benefits to the community. It's wonderful to see such a great project
to be in forced which will benefit all the constructions departments
throughout Sydney CBD. Due to the great advancement in Glebe and the
upcoming construction plans this plant will be able to positively
support the infrastructure in the area. I am are very pleased and look
forward to the development of this project.

I have been working in the concrete industry for over 20 years and am
very pleased to hear about this facility. Concrete is the second most
used item in the community. This facility has many advantages creating
many employment opportunities. Due to the growing infrastructure in
CBD by having this facility it will provide efficient and prompt
service in order to assist the building work. This will create a
better Sydney offering good quality concrete supply long term.

This facility is a great investment which I thoroughly support. It will
have many benefits which include employment opportunities as well as
the advancement of infrastructure. I believe it is important to invest
in plants like this one in order to have a sustainable supply of
concrete in CBD.

I support this project and is very beneficial of the community and the
growing infrastructure in Sydney CBD

Hi there,
I strenuously object to the
* The relocation of Hanson concrete to Glebe Island to the east of the
silos
* A multi-user facility for building materials being brought in by sea
* A construction and dumping site for toxic sediment for the Western
Harbour Tunnel project

The reasons why include:
* 24 x 7 Operation of the Hanson Concrete Batching Plant will generate
noise from the machinery and truck movements. The hours of operation
should be in line with the noise-restriction regulations under the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
* 24 x 7 Operation of ships berthing and operating on board machinery
because of noise generated by machinery. The hours of operation should
be in line with the noise-restriction regulations under the Protection
of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
* Any bulk materials used at this site must be covered at all times to
prevent air pollution of said materials, created by wind and during
loading/unloading operations.
* Any vessel located at this site CAN ONLY use their on board
generators in line with the noise-restriction regulations under the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
* The building of such a site will interfere with the architectural
aesthetics of the ANZAC Memorial Bridge
* The 24 x 7 Operation of the Hanson Concrete Batching Plant will
generate unacceptable increases in traffic volume.

This area is the most densely populated suburb in Australia - with the
dirt, noise and environmental impact this cannot go ahead. If it
already existed there there would be plans to move it. This is not
progress.

I object in the strongest terms to the proposal to relocate Hansons
Concrete and to build and operate a concrete batching plant on Glebe
Island. The proposed location for such a plant is highly inappropriate
surrounded by nearby residential and recreational foreshore areas of
Balmain, Rozelle, Ultimo Glebe, Barangaroo, and Pyrmont because of the
noise, traffic, air quality, and most importantly the impact on the
visual amenity of the area.

Aesthetics - Impact on heritage and loss of view of architectural form
of Anzac Bridge

The environmental assessment documents indicate the concrete plant
will sit behind the western rampart/pylon of the ANZAC bridge when
viewed from the Glebe foreshore, and near to the heritage Glebe Island
Bridge. The Glebe foreshore walk and the residential areas across the
bay enjoy extraordinary views of these two bridges and through to the
Sydney harbour bridge. This is the reason so many walkers, picnic-ers,
especially on weekends, come to this area, as well as film and
television news crews. The proposed facility would blight this view
and mark Sydney as a city that is reckless with its natural, built and
bridge assets.

Noise

The proposal - that the facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week and that ships could berth there and run generators, pumps,
engines, air conditioning while berthed without on-shore power - is
completely unacceptable. Balmain residents are already subjected to
pollution from large ships and passenger liners with complete
disregard by NSW government over a number of years. Residents have no
reason to believe any promises of low impact or non-pollution.

Heavy traffic

The development 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. Heavy trucks are currently using the Anzac Bridge
at all hours, some making excessive noise and seemingly deliberately
revving their engines and travelling with excessive speed and noise
late at night and well into the early hours of the morning. More truck
noise and the amount of traffic this would generate is not acceptable.

Cumulative impact

Any assessment should also, as indicated in Appendix B document, take
into account the cumulative impact of this proposal - visually, on air
quality and noise impact and traffic. Just in terms of traffic, the
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 will be
excessive. But - as Appendix B makes clear, there are no EIS
"currently available" for five of these major projects.
The environmental assessment of the landscape and visual impact will
also be cumulative but the concrete batching plant likely to be the
most damaging because of its proximity to the heritage Glebe Island
Bridge and the landmark Anzac Bridge, and to residential and
recreational areas.

The impact of the Hanson Concrete batching plant application should be
assessed in conjunction with all the large construction projects in
the Rozelle- Balmain area. This assessment should be broader than the
Multi-User facility, given the proximity to the planned Rozelle
Interaction / WestConnex Stage 3, proposed Western Harbour Tunnel
support areas.

When reviewed in conjunction with all planned and proposed works, I
object strongly to the Hanson plant being constructed on Glebe Is.

Consider the cumulative impact on air pollution of all approved,
planned and `potential support' projects near the Hanson plant.
* Four smoke stacks from Stage 3 WestConnex will add air pollution to
the area
* Stage 3 WestConnex will add traffic air pollution with the estimated
additional 18,000/day vehicles on the Anazc Bridge, 7,000 on the City
West Links both when the Rozelle Interchange off-ramps are not open,
and the opened (1)
* Multi-user facility storage movements (particles in the air),
shipping pollution and traffic (1,200 movements/day when ships in
port)
* White Bay marshalling area with 586 heavy vehicle movements
* White Bay Cruise terminal - if expected increase in birthing
* Western Harbour construction and support areas in White Bay -
details limited but referenced in RMS May 2018 leaflet
* Western Harbour smoke stacks - locations to be confirmed
* Future `construction' work for the Beaches link - if Western Harbour
construction support areas remain in place to also support the Beaches
Link
* Hanson will increase heavy traffic by an additional 1,930 heavy
traffic movements per day

Consider the cumulative impact on traffic volume impact of all
approved, planned and `potential support' projects near the Hanson
plant.
* Rozelle Interchange off-ramps omission estimated to add 18,000
additional vehicle per average weekday on Anzac bridge; 7,000
additional vehicle per average weekday on City West Links (1)
* The multi-user facility add 1,200/day when ships in at Glebe Island
* White Bay Power Station staging site add 786 movements/day
* Western Harbour Tunnel construction & support areas - unclear
volumes
* White Bay Marina 6 development
* White Bay Cruise Terminal - if increase frequency and double
birthing
* Hanson will add 189 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 98 in the PM
peak hour.

Consider the cumulative noise pollution impact of all approved,
planned and `potential support' projects near the Hanson plant
ESPECIALLY the number of proposed 24 hour/7 day a week operations
* Road noise at Anzac Bridge/Victoria Road/The Crescent/City West Link
already exceeds noise criteria (2)
* Consider extra traffic noise from: Multi-user facility, WestConnex
construction (including civil sites at The Crescent, Victoria road),
WestConnex staging site at White Bay Power Station, WestConnex
operation, Western Harbour Tunnel support areas, any additional volume
in White Bay Cruise Terminal
* Hanson will increase traffic noise, but deemed OK in the submission
as already over approved levels - but that level does not take into
account WestConnex or Western Harbour Tunnel projects.

Consider ship air pollution, noise pollution and 24 hour operation
* Extra noise and pollution from the 10 ships birthing per month, as
no bans on ships running generators while berthed/leaving lights on at
night and ships will be permitted to berth at the port 24 hours a day,
7 days a week.
* 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.
* Hanson ship docking will add more air and noise pollution to the
area.


Given these serious impacts, I ask that you refuse the application.


Sources
1 WestConnex Updated Strategic Business Case Technical Paper 1:
Traffic report, page 66)
2 Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant, Noise Impact Assessment, SLR
Global environment solutions, March 2018)

Glebe Island Aggregate and Concrete Plant
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed construction of one of
the largest concrete batching plants in the southern hemisphere being
constructed on Glebe Island, some 200m away from our home.
The proposed concrete plant is completely incompatible with the
proposed location within the Bays Precinct and will directly impact
ambitions for cultural, marine, recreational, tourist, residential and
`innovation hub' use.
With the plants proposed 24 hour / 7 day per week operation the
amenity of any nearby residence will be rendered uninhabitable. The
current port operations at Berths 1 and 2 include any number of marine
activities (construction of wharfs, pre-assembly of parts, loading of
barges, storage of equipment, emergency lay ups, new years firework
preparation on barges etc). residents purchased apartments in Pyrmont
on the understanding of these activities and the residents and port
facilities have lived amicably for over 10 years. Now, due to poorly
thought out leases in Blackwattle Bay, the lure for Hanson to relocate
is to provide them with prime harbour front land converted into
industrial land for the construction industry. The intensity of this
proposed use has never been seen at Berths 1 and 2, and cannot be
justified in terms of existing use rights.
The preparation and mixing of concrete can in no way be considered a
port activity and cannot be justified to be introduced to an existing
port facility within a few hundred metres of existing residences. We
understand the need for the batching plant to be in close proximity to
the city and major infrastructure projects, but there is existing
industrial land to the south of the city which can support the new
batching plant, with aggregate and sand delivered to Port Botany.
Unacceptable environmental aspects of the proposal:
24 hour noise pollution from ship generators, truck and forklift
movement, conveyor belts, reversing alarms from ships, trucks and
forklifts, aggregate discharging into hoppers. Some of these factors
have been disregarded in the EIS reports, or not fully realised in
their assessment. We measure sound levels in our apartment well above
those noted in the report even as background noise. There are also
claims that engines and safety alarms will be turned off when
feasible, which we know will never happen. When the occasional ship is
moored at Berths 1 or 2 (twice a year max) the noise levels are again
in excess of the report levels. And this is without the additional
noise of a MU Facility or the Hanson plant. The levels that we monitor
NOW are in excess of the maximum night time noise levels, without any
night time activity at the berths. We will not be able to open any
window or door to our apartment if the proposal goes ahead, which
means that our apartment will not be afforded any natural ventilation,
and therefore under the Building Code of Australia will not be a
habitable residence. 5% of the floor area of an apartment is required
to be opening to provide the natural ventilation for occupants, which
again has not been taken into account in the EIS, assuming that the
apartment building facades are well built and fully sealed from air
and noise. So without access to fresh air in a fully sealed unit -
then what ?!!? We can't live in our own apartments ...!?
Air pollution including carcinogenic diesel fumes from ships, trucks,
dust and sand particles in the air. Previous port uses such as years
of car unloading and storage did not in any way generate the quantity
of air pollutants into the atmosphere that will be inherent with this
new industrial use on marine port land. This proposal will endanger
the health and wellbeing of my family and all Pyrmont residents and
cause significant health issues due to the 24 hour / 7 day a week air
pollution being introduced to the area for the first time. This is in
no way `business as usual' and is not fully or accurately represented
in the accompanying EIS.
The batching plant needs to move to existing industrial land south of
the city and aggregate / sand unloaded at Port Botany.

Noise Pollution
I am concerned about:
* the proposed 24/7 operation (and frequency of cargo ships docking).
Recent unloading activities regularly woke me up during the night even
with the windows closed.
In addition, when the apartment windows are closed there is no fresh
air which also affects my quality of sleep. Please note the air
conditioning system recycles air only.
Last year a cargo ship was docked for 6 weeks approx. with the engine
operating 24/7 and we were required to close the living room doors to
listen to the TV
* Specific noise pollution I am concerned about includes:
o Front end loading reversing warning signal
o Cargo ship engine
o Cargo ship docking / undocking with support barges
o Aggregate falling onto the conveyor and hopper

Refuelling and Potential Explosion
I am concerned about the minimal distance (and no proposed protection)
in the event of an explosion during refuelling. Although this may seem
an unlikely event (let's hope so!) what contingencies do you have in
place if a catastrophic event was likely to happen? Do you have any
idea how close our apartment block actually is to this plant?!? The
concrete plant does not run 24/7 NOW so why on earth do you think it's
ok to have it run 24/7 when there's residents in the near vicinity?

Air and Dust Pollution
I am concerned about the cargo ship engine emissions and fine dust
particles from the unloading process:
* causing health concerns (potential cancer, asthma, allergies etc).
* resulting in limited use of the outdoor area
* resulting in windows to be closed the majority of the time and the
apartment having no ventilation and fresh

Light Pollution
I am concerned about the cargo ship and task lighting effects.

Understand that this is a 'working harbour' as such but this proposal
is just preposterous! Putting a 24/7 concrete plant a few metres away
from thousands of residences - you have got to be joking!

I am opposed to the proposal to build a 24/7 multi purpose facility and
to the relocation of Hanson concrete to Glebe Island for the following
reasons:
1. There is no shore to ship power and ships coming to the terminal
will have to use their generators. Already we have noise and air
pollution from the ships using the cruise terminal. This facility will
exacerbate the pollution levels.
2. There will also be considerable light pollution.
3. Increased truck movements will make already unacceptable traffic
congestion even worse.
4. While I, like most residents who live close to the proposed
facility, accept that White Bay is a working harbour, this proposal is
excessive. It introduces heavy industry that is in conflict with the
government's plans to increase residential development around the Bay
precinct.
5.By giving preference to vested interests this government is once
again demonstrating its shameful approach to constituents' health and
welfare.
6. This proposal must be reconsidered. Surely a more imaginative use
can be made of the Glebe Island site.

I am particularly concerned about long term noise ... the disturbance to
quiet enjoyment of our living space, and in particular night time
noise which will disturb sleep. The impact statements makes it clear
that noise levels will NOT comply with the relevant SDNL standard
where we live. This report also fails to note that where the standard
is not met (Bowman St, Pyrmont), is the most densely populated
portion, of the most densely populated suburb in Australia.
The environmental impact report also appears to misrepresent the
impact of the non-compliance by calling it 'negligible' and then
mis-defining this word.
I strongly object to any installation that would knowingly impose this
noise disruption in this manner and this number of residents.

- How will noise be monitored and policed on an ongoing basis? Is
there a mechanism where operators of the plant(s) can be called to
account and forced to rectify/modify their operations in a way that to
ensure that nearby residents can live and sleep as expected?

I support the facility development so that we provide the necessary
resources to supply Sydney's infrastructure demands.