Aussie Skips Recycling - Bellfrog St Site upgrades

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I am writing to formerly object to the proposal upgrades to the resource facility in Bell frog Street (Aussie Skips)
My main reason for this objection is mainly because this facility already accepts hundreds of tons of construction and demolition waste, if the expansion of this facility goes ahead and operates around the clock of normal operating hours it only increases local traffic, more noise from trucks, machinery and site movement, during times when people expect rest, such as early mornings, another reason is that the neighborhood already receives large amount of dust settlement blown over from that site even at current activity settlement on houses, outdoor settings, cars etc.
The proposal of upgrades to existing facility, including an extension of operating hours will not only impact on local residents but might impact on the endangered Green and Goldern Bell Frog, just behind the facility, air quality, noise quality, longer hours, trucks on our roads will impact our way of life, ive live in my home for over 25 years in that time till now traffic banks up from Roberts Road to Punchbowl Road, local parking sometimes impossible to find, there's days where i keep doors and windows closed due to noise, dust, smell.
I know the likelihood increases in dust, extended hours, noise, and local traffic will affect the locals that's why I strongly oppose the expansion of this development.
I urge the governing authority to reject the proposal, keep the facility as is and just think if this development was behind your house and what impact it creates for your family or residents.

Thank you
ALAM DABEL

I support the project

I am writing to formally object to the proposed upgrades to the Bellfrog Street resource recovery facility, which would enable the site to accept and process up to 199,000 tonnes per year of construction and demolition waste, commercial and industrial waste, and municipal solid waste (non-putrescible). While I acknowledge the need for effective waste-management infrastructure, the scale and operating changes proposed for this facility present unacceptable impacts on the surrounding community.

Dust pollution is already a significant problem in the area, even under the facility’s current operating capacity. Local residents regularly experience dust settling on homes, outdoor surfaces, and vehicles, and the air quality noticeably declines during peak activity. Increasing the processing capacity to nearly 200,000 tonnes per annum will inevitably intensify dust generation from truck movements, stockpiles, and processing activities. This raises serious concerns regarding respiratory health, general amenity, and environmental quality. Without substantial and proven mitigation measures, the proposal fails to protect the community from worsening air-quality impacts.

In addition, the proposed extension of operating hours will create further disruption for local residents. Longer operating times mean increased noise from trucks, machinery, and site activity during early mornings or late evenings. Many households in the area already struggle with the constant background noise associated with the facility. Extending hours will only compound sleep disturbance, stress, and reduced quality of life, particularly for families, shift workers, and vulnerable individuals. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate how noise impacts will be managed to ensure residents can enjoy reasonable peace and comfort.

Given the expected increase in dust pollution, the extended noise exposure, and the lack of sufficient safeguards, I strongly oppose this development. I urge the assessing authority to reject the proposal or require major revisions that genuinely protect the wellbeing of the surrounding community.

Sadleir's Transport has a major rail terminal that adjoins this property. Our reasonable concern is that this project will generate large amounts of noxious dust that will affect both our site, our employees and our freight products. Construction/demolition waste covers a wide variety of waste products that often can contain traces of harmful items like asbestos or silicon stones. It would be useful to understand what measure would be put in place to strictly monitor this site and ensure dangerous or noxious airborne waste would not be allowed nor expose our employees to any form of risk? Surely this sort of operation should be conducted in a location that has a reasonable safety/green zone and not located in a small inner city industrial area and very close to residential areas?

I support the proposed upgrades to the Aussie Skips Recycling Bellfrog Street site, noting the improvements to operational efficiency, safety and environmental performance.

I recommend that conditions of consent require the facility to provide increased capacity and equitable access arrangements for regional councils across New South Wales to utilise the site for the processing of recyclable materials. This would support improved resource recovery outcomes, reduce reliance on landfill and strengthen waste management capability for regional communities.

Ensuring regional councils have access to modern recycling infrastructure will deliver broader environmental and economic benefits beyond the immediate local area.

Please find attached NSW Ports comment on the application.

1. Inadequate Community Consultation
The Developer’s own documentation claims that they ‘provided a community flyer to over 2,600
properties in the local area and received zero feedback’. A survey of highly motivated owners in
the area revealed that none of them had seen the flyers, and the amount of objections and
comments being received by the Department will show how inadequate the developer’s efforts
were.
Additionally, as they supplied a flyer in their documents on the Department’s website, it is clear
they do not reference the height of the building, nor its impact on existing buildings and
infrastructure.
Finally, the proposal references and supplied to the Department an old community consultation
based on a different building size and makeup from February as proof they consulted the
community appropriately. This is completely inadequate to fulfil the requirements for community
consultation and the proposal should be rejected until they do a proper community consultation on
the building they intend to build.
2. Traffic and Transport Impact
Existing road ingress and egress from the area is already insufficient. Adding a high number of
residential residences that are not accessed via the Pacific Highway will exacerbate the gridlock.
3. Loss of Views and Amenity
The height of the building and new design significantly worsens solar exposure for surrounding
buildings and views that create a peaceful atmosphere for residents. Additionally, the proposal’s
planned reduced setbacks next to existing narrow streets will create a constricting atmosphere.
4. Inadequate Parking Provision
The large number of apartments (541) is not supported by a suitable number of car parks (93 Car
parks only!) within the building and is below the survey results of regular work transport (let alone
weekend travel) in their own documentation. It also fails to meet the plans outlined in their own
social impact scoping study, which uses 4 basement levels, not 3. This will significantly impact
street parking access, which is already impacted by the development’s plans. Other similarly
sized developments have far more parking.
5. Overdevelopment Without Open Space or Facility
Other similarly sized developments included significant facilities, public space and parks. This
proposal, while adding 541 apartments, fails to provide anything for the local area and fails to meet
the Liveable Lane Cove Plans and does nothing to address the shortfall of facilities identified in
The St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct Social Infrastructure and Open Space Study
2018.
6. Loss of Trust: Planning Agreement Breach
Residents purchased in reliance on earlier planning controls, including the Lane Cove LEP 2009
and the St Leonards South Masterplan. The project’s scale and massing contradict the previously
agreed planning envelope and will clearly provide negative impacts on the feasibility of
developments currently in process or planned on the Pacific Highway.
7. Lost of privacy and fire safety concerns