Belmont Desalination Plant Modification 1 – Permanent Operational Availability

Traffic Assessment - Section 5.4 Impacts on other transport modes. Q1. Why is there no mention of the Fernleigh Track cycleway extension adjacent to Ocean Park Rd between Beach St and Green St? Q2. The impact of the extra traffic movements will be substantial especially where the cycleway crosses Ocean Park Rd. What measures will HW be taking to ensure the safety of the cyclists and pedestrians using the Fernleigh Track? Q3. Given the configuration of the crossing, what will be the impact on local traffic at the Ocean Park Rd/Green St intersection when heavy vehicle and/or Over Size Over Mass (OSOM) traffic movements at the crossing. Q4. How are low loader vehicles impacted by the raised crossing that is at a difficult angle to the road for large vehicles to manoeuvre? We suggest that now these works are nearing completion you revisit the site to understand the lack of room at the crossing.
Table 7.2 - Scheduling -> Q5 What night deliveries are anticipated?
Table 7.4 - D5 – b. Prescribed Activity, including … delivery of materials to support tunnelling which are permitted 24 x 7. Q6. What deliveries are required `Just In Time’ for scheduled and planned tunnelling activities?
On-street parking - There is no mention in the traffic assessment of on-street parking for OSOM vehicle movements. Q7. Does this mean that there will be no requirement to impose parking restrictions for Beach St?
Construction Traffic speed limit to be 40km/hr for Beach St/Ocean Park Rd. Q8. Is this to be the speed limit for all local traffic as well? Q9. Who will be monitoring this and how often, and for those that exceed the limit what will be the deterrent for them to not continue the behaviour? I would also suggest the speed limit be reduced to 20 kmh for site traffic.
Light vehicle movements (LMV) at peak times. Q10. Will all LMVs be using the Beach St/Pacific Hwy intersection to enter and exit the site or will `rat-running’ through the local streets be permitted (Green St and Marriot St and then Hudson, Clara, Arthur, Harry, Thompson etc – especially for those heading south?) Q11. If the LMVs are directed not use the local streets as rat-runs, who will be monitoring this and enforcing it?
Vibration monitoring. Exhaust emissions. Contaminated materials. Q12. Will there be vibration, emission and contaminated materials monitoring along Beach St? Q1 3. If so, what is the monitoring program, the criteria for success/failure and will the monitoring results be available to the residents? Q14. Will there be contaminated materials transported through the residential areas? Q15. What will be the measures to ensure secured contaminated materials are transported safely and what monitoring will there be to ensure clean transport through the streets?
Beach St and Pacific Highway Intersection. There is currently no plan to change the traffic lights. Q16 There is currently no right turn arrow when approaching from the south – will this change as a reasonable % of workers will travel from the South so how will this current dangerous right turn become safer with increased volume? If there is to be no right turn arrow from the south what will prevent rat running through streets like Clara, Hudson, Marriot and Green? Q17 Why is there an assumption that increased traffic will not be delayed at the lights if the length of green light available is not increased – several hundred extra vehicles all trying to enter and exit within the same hour is going to cause traffic to be backed up waiting for the lights?

Q18 Whilst figures were provided of expected number of vehicles entering and leaving the site for the commencement and finish of work times, there is no mention of any of these leaving during the day and returning (for example to go for lunch) – can we therefore assume no-one will be allowed to leave?
Q19 How many of the worker vehicles will be electric or hybrid?
Q20 What measures are you taking to offset the construction carbon emissions and in particular all these vehicle movements?
Q21 What measures will you be taking to reduce the impact of vehicle emissions on local residents and flora and fauna?
Communication with affected residents and property owners - I do not believe a fair and reasonable process was used to notify us of the increased impact of construction. The brochures were hand delivered to mail boxes that did not have a No Junk sticker on them. This has missed many local people, myself being one. Q22 Hunter Water (HW) mailed out their invoice to us in January – why was this not included? Q23 Or failing that, a separate mail out? The brochure did not contain the time of the information session that was held on 7/2/2024. When registering it still did not advise you of the time. Once I had successfully registered I still did not receive confirmation of the time – I had to email a contact person separately. This did not make it easy for individuals who are not computer geniuses. Q24 I also note that the two posters put up locally advising of the changes and the information sessions were placed at the entrance to the Water Treatment Plant (locked gate at end of Beach Street) – whereas a general notice is further down at the Green St/Beach St gate – why could one of the other posters not be placed there? Q25 Why were there no other posters put up in the local streets? I do not believe HW have done their best at informing local residents and making it easy for them to have their say.
Q26 How will you guarantee that these vehicle movements will not cause structural issues with properties?
Q27 If structural issues occur (or general damage such as cracking paintwork due to minor cracks in walls etc) what will be the process for HW to rectify them?
Q28 Why is the plant not being built with the intention of having renewable energy from the very start – it seems ridiculous that solar will be installed after construction has been completed?
Q29 During the entire construction phase will there be a dedicated HW person to whom all complaints and questions can be directed? Q30 And can you guarantee that all issues raised will be addressed within agreed timeframes? Q31 If so what are the agreed timeframes?

This is a major expansion on the original desal plant planned by Hunter water, especially in cost. Desal plants use up a lot of electricity for years ahead still by coal power and gas- powered plants! This is a huge desal plant that will still have major effects on our beach. I want to see other water saving projects instead eg stopping loss of water from our dams through extensive evaporation!

The Managing Director Hunter Water,
Darren Cleary,
Dear Sir,
I am not happy about Hunter Water's decision to proceed
with the construction of a Desalination Plant at Belmont. Obviously, Hunter Water
has not considered the history of these plants, especially in Sydney. The Sydney
Plant has been a total waste of money, as, I believe it has seldom been used. The
residents of Sydney have been used to finance this white elephant. At present, as
I write this email, Warragamba Dam is about to overflow.
As regards the Belmont Plant, currently Hunter Water consumers must be prepared
to pay an extra $175 each year for the next 5 years. Considering that prediction,
it will probably be at least $200 forever. Even if it is only for 5 years, that is
nearly an extra $1000.That imposition will remain on our bills forever. Hunter
residents will be paying a minimum of $2500plus each year forever, plus more
increases in standing charges and more increases in the cost of water per
kilolitre.
For what.The plant is expected to produce 15% of the Hunter's drinking
requirements. I would suspect, that, the water supplied by the Belmont Plant, would
never reach the residents of Maitland. Furthermore, how would it get to Maitland
residents in any case. Yet, Maitland residents are expected to fund this project
for no benefit.
Surely, there must be cheaper ways to manage the water supply. More dams, utilising
storm water to storage tanks, whether, they be underground tanks or old quarries or
pumping more from the river or sandbeds into more storage facilities.
It will be okay for you, your term at Hunter Water will come with retirement and
we the residents will be left to shoulder the burden of this white elephant.


John Alterator
2 Roxburgh Street,
Lorn.2320.
NSW

While I recognise the importance of the planned expansion of the desalination plant in Belmont, I object to the current project on a number of grounds, but in particular the proposed increase in traffic and the associated disruption that this will cause to the lives of the residents living in Beach St and surrounding streets in the suburb of Belmont South. I am also aware that not all residents in Beach Street and the surrounding streets in the suburb have received the information leaflet (that was delivered by hand) that details the modification to environmental impact statement.

The proposal indicates that there will be an increase in light vehicle movements to around 72,000 over the three-year duration of construction, peaking at around 430 light vehicles movements a day which is an increase from around 144 per day. This is a threefold increase in the amount of light vehicle traffic that currently uses Beach Street.

Of greater concern is the fact that the proposal indicates that there will be an increase in heavy vehicle traffic. This will peak at around 20 per hour (10 in bound and 10 outbound), which equates to a heavy vehicle travelling along Beach Street, every 3 minutes. Aside from the unacceptable noise factor and the general disruption to the lives of residents, Beach St is a residential suburban street that is simply not designed to accommodate an additional 180 – 200 heavy vehicle movements per day. If for instance, vehicles are parked on both sides of the street, then it will be impossible for two heavy vehicles to pass each other going in opposite directions.

In additional to this increase in heavy vehicle traffic, the proposal indicates that 80% of the staff (i.e. 172 of the 215 FTE peak) will commute along this street to work before 7am and after 6pm each day. It is important to note that 172 FTE staff does not necessarily equate to 172 individual people and / or vehicles. Some staff maybe employed on a fractional basis, so theoretically the number of vehicles travelling along Beach Street could easily be greater than 172.

A number of people who live in Beach Street and the surrounding streets are retirees, not working, and do not want to be disturbed by excess traffic hours outside of day time hours. In fact, the Belmont Permanent Desalination Plant – Modification 1: Construction Noise Assessment Document submitted as part of this proposal states that properties ‘along the Pacific Highway, Beach Street, Hudson Street, Ocean Park Road will experience traffic noise greater than the applicable traffic noise assessment level’. This is a clear indicator that residents in these streets should be alarmed and concerned. We are dealing with a situation that will not last for a brief period of time, but rather one that will last for 3 years. This is simply not acceptable.

The residents of Beach Street recently experienced an increase in heavy vehicle traffic (which can be described as a modest increase, in contrast to the proposed traffic changes for the desalination plant), during the construction of the extension of the Fernleigh track at Ocean Park Rd, between Beach and William Streets. Many of these heavy vehicles often travelled well in excess of the permitted speed limit. This caused the houses to shake and vibrate. The proposed increase in heavy vehicle traffic, should the modifications to the desalination plant go ahead as planned, will be significantly worse than what was experienced by residents during the construction of the extension to the Fernleigh track. So, there is the likelihood that properties in Beach Street are likely to experience structural damage.

In short, Beach Street is not an appropriate route and is simply not designed for the level of heavy traffic that will occur if the current construction plan for the desalination work goes ahead as planned.

An alternative access route that could be developed could be one from Belmont North following the existing fire trails / dirt tracks that commence from the corner of Railway Crescent and Kalaroo Road, adjacent to the former Jewells railway station on the Fernleigh Track cycle path. The advantage of this route is that it would avoid any south bound traffic from having to navigate the Belmont town centre and several sets of traffic lights where the traffic is particularly busy during peak times. This would allow access to the northern point of the proposed desalination plant and would be a quicker journey time for any vehicles travelling from Newcastle and suburbs north of Belmont. Numerous other projects have had to develop roads using the routes of fire trails as access roads for construction purposes, the Inland Rail is a good example. This should also be possible for the expansion of the Belmont Desalination Plant.

In summary the proposed modifications as presented, are not acceptable to either myself or to other concerned residents in Belmont South.

Subject: Formal Objection to the Proposed Desalination Plant at Belmont South - Traffic Concerns and Legal Implications**

To Whom It May Concern,
As a concerned homeowner and resident of Beach Street, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Desalination Plant at Belmont South. While I recognize the importance of addressing water scarcity through desalination projects, it is crucial to consider the significant adverse impact this project would have on our community. Myself and my neighbours overall do don’t disagree with the site proposal but are strongly a proposed to the Traffic issues and planned route down Beach Street in Belmont South.
1. Traffic Concerns: The existing traffic situation in our area is already busy, with speed and traffic volume considered hazardous. The addition of traffic generated by the proposed project raises valid concerns about exacerbating these conditions. The project predicts approximately 215 cars for staff once operational, along with suppliers and other vehicles. This equates to approximately 230 cars per day with a return trip of 430, in addition to up to 180 trucks per day. The project planners must carefully balance the benefits of water supply with the guaranteed disruptions caused by increased traffic. An alternative route is needed.
The Vehicles required for this project build and day to day operations will never decrease but rather likely to increase. The planned route down beach street will result in more travel time, fuel consumption, increased wages as well as all the harmful effects to the ecology and mental distress to residents. An alternative route from Jewels would allow the project the freedom to transport vehicles with out disruption to them & us.
2. Traffic &Speeding Incidents: I conducted a traffic count on Thursday, February 15th, from 7 am to 8 am. During this period, I observed 11 work vehicles or trucks and 22 other vehicles, of which 6 were speeding. On Friday, February 16th, between 12:30 pm and 1 pm, I noted 17 work vehicles or trucks and 42 other vehicles. Surprisingly, even a mobility scooter, 6 bikes, and 4 motorbikes were among those speeding. Considering that I live just three doors from the lights, such speeding incidents should not be occurring, especially for traffic heading east. The increase in traffic should the desalination plan go ahead as described, will exacerbate this issue.
3. Residents’ Concerns: In this battle between progress and preservation, the residents of Beach Street stand as sentinels. We are deeply invested in the well-being of our community and its liveability. While we recognize the need for water security and are happy with the site but not the traffic route, this project planned traffic route cannot come at the cost of compromising our safety, quality of life, and existing infrastructure. Constant and consistent disruption to daily routines, sleep patterns, and overall well-being are impacted.
4. Property Values and Safety: Property values are intricately tied to the neighbourhood’s desirability and liveability. The surge in traffic poses safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
The safety of vulnerable road users, including children and elderly residents, hangs in the balance.
I have recently had a property valuation and structural report. Newly painted and all in pristine condition. If this road traffic plan goes ahead any damage due to it will be blatantly pursued. I will not cease to stop this desalination plants project traffic plan.
5.Quality of Life Disruption: Beyond inconvenience, the persistent disturbance affects mental well-being. The proposed increase in traffic will affect the resident’s long term, perpetually leaving residents on edge. Daily routines, sleep patterns, and overall well-being are impacted.
There are Health risks associated with this planned massive increase in traffic.
6: Comprehensive Traffic Assessment: An in-depth study assessing the project’s impact on traffic flow, safety, and congestion is crucial. Exploring alternative project designs that prioritize community well-being is essential.
An alternative route will actually also be beneficial to the Desalination plants construction and long-term operations.
An alternative route will be quicker, saving wages and fuel and time.
Such a substantial increase in traffic volume in the already busy Beach Street will significantly affect local residents and commuters and your staff.
7.Legal Implications: Consider the legal implications of this projects traffic plan on our community. Duty of care has not been considered at all. Considering the legal implications of this project on our community. Prioritizing the welfare of Beach Street residents and safeguarding property values should guide decision-making.
Road traffic will negatively impact our lives if this is allowed to go ahead with the current plan.
Potential legal consequences include disturbance to residents' property, damage claims, mental health impacts, and loss of property value. Additionally, there is a risk of accidents or fatalities.
Additionally. There is a high risk to Bike riders & walkers on the Fernleigh Track
I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed Desalination Plants Traffic Plan at Belmont South and thoroughly assess its impact on our community. We must find a solution that balances progress with the preservation of our neighbourhood.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Eileen Steel

I am a resident of Beach St, Belmont South. Belmont South is a RESIDENTIAL AREA, not an INDUSTRIAL ONE.
Currently we are subjected to the 4WD traffic using the beach access, the ongoing construction of the Fernleigh Track at the end of the street with its many cement trucks and noise, as well as the added traffic from Belmont Golf Club that now has north bound traffic leaving the Golf Club to access the Beach St traffic lights.
I do not object to the building of a Desalination plant, but I DO OBJECT to it's LOCATION, and the IMPACT during the construction to the RESIDENTS of Beach Street, mostly by the high volume of HEAVY & LIGHT VEHICLES using Beach Street for its access to the plant. Surely with our vast coastline, there is another area that this plant can be built without causing this disruption?
During the on-line meeting with Hunter Water on the 7th February it was suggested that an alternate route be found to avoid using our street. There is a FIRE TRAIL that can be accessed from Kalaroo Road which goes almost directly to the planned site that could be used with a little work to make it suitable for all traffic to use.
There was also mention about congestion at the traffic lights not being of any concern, or creating further waiting times. As there is NO RIGHT TURN ARROW into Beach St when coming from the South, most drivers already are having to turn through a red light just to get across the highway! Any cars following trucks would have no hope of getting through!
My house is an old one that has been renovated. It already shakes when a large truck goes by. I can't imagine how it's going to be when there is the amount of proposed traffic per day using the street. Not to mention that our loungeroom & bedroom is at the front of the house and the noise will be terrible.
Please THINK about how you would feel if this was going to happen in YOUR STREET!!!! I STRONGLY OBJECT to this project going forward in this area.

Good afternoon,
Please find attached my submission in support of the Belmont Desalination project. I request that Black Neds Bay Walking track be upgraded as a community benefit as part of the project. A letter of support from Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) is also provided.
Kind regards,
Cr Adam Shultz

I am concerned about many things to do with this project. As I am a property owner and live here. One of the reasons I bought here was the beauty of nature and the peace and quiet. The natural flora and fauna, is abundant around here and the night sky is wonderful for stars... This seems like a very bad idea to me and opportunistic, not thought through well eg. To have a waste process station that pumps treated fecal matter into the ocean~ alongside a desalination plant that extracts water for drinking (ultimately) seems completely stupid unsustainable . The environmental impact on this delicate eco system ,not to mention the noise pollution from building the plant which I am told will take 36 MONTHS!!! )with trucks and
hellicopters.. ruining the serenity surrounding this area.. let alone the sound pollution from the plant itself) I can hear the ocean at night and will now be hearing Industrial mechanics and no doubt light pollution. again disrupting the natural habitat for both humans and animals. Another concern is the rising level of the ocean due to global warming. It is short sighted, and ill thought plan. in my opinion. Just because some extra adjacent land is owned Hunter Water doesn't mean it has to be used.. full stop.. Our coastal environment is already over populated and fragile. What about using solar for making clean drinking water using more cutting edge technologies! eg water tanks for people, is another cheaper idea (much cheaper)~ also 15% of our water needs is a bandaid solution. especially as the whole area may be underwater in 20 yrs time. Plus we have no proof that the the planet is going to be
dryer .. it may well be wetter...

Below is from attachment.

CONCERNS:- Page 1 – Carole Wright Submission

There is Concern to why in the Proposed Environment Impact Statement Modification 1 – That the Lack in making the investment of this Proposal Not include Solar Up and Running on Completion?

Could this also take the Burden of Our Electricity Supply?

There are questions as to why the Zero Target Emissions for 2035 would be up to Customer and Consumer Support?

Where are these Proposed High Voltage Power Lines being upgraded from are any upgrading of High Voltage lines going over residential Properties/Streets?

Are these preposed Jobs being filled by Hunter Locals.

ALTERNATE:-

Alternative treatment works – Burwood WWTP – Main Arterial Roads and Plant Already existing making it more suitable compared to the proposed Belmont WWTP Facility.

Alternate Route for Entry into the Belmont WWTP from Kalaroo Road Redhead/Jewells with Existing Main Arterial Road and Industrial Area leading in from the Northern end of Belmont WWTP.

The diminishment in Our Quality of Life is a Major Concern:-

Noise
Sleep Disruption
Mental Health Trauma
Vibrational Disruption to Life
The Function of day to day Life
Well being Greatly Compromised
Community Safety
Ongoing Property De Valuing

Property Subsidence – Vibrational waves creating negative ongoing impact over the Life of Our homes.
Pollution Factors
Loss of Income

Major Fatality Concerns Page 2 – Carole Wright Submission
Due to the High Volume of Traffic that are already using Our Residential Streets, which is also a direct access by the Belmont Golf and Bowling Clubs, The New Fernleigh Track, Beach goers, Walking Groups plus The Cemetery and Residents of All the feeder Streets.
The New Fernleigh Track (Newcastle-Murrays Beach) crossing over Beach Street has been a New addition to Our Surrounding Streets, which accommodates Push bikes, Schooters, Rollar skaters, Skateboard Riders, Runners, Running Groups, Walkers, Disable Modalities, Children etc.
As a Major Stakeholder – Property Owner on Beach and William St Belmont South, I have Great concerns with this proposal & Ask for the ongoing community discussions and the ability of Handwritten submissions to be put forward from concerned Residents of the area that have been unable to attend this consultation period due to being away &or unable to Navigate the computer world, that still have a Need to have their say and to be heard !

Trusting you Can work on another EN ROUTE &or ANOTHER Desalination to Ease the Burden on this Beautiful area is what we Need to Keep.!

Your View on the above submission would be Greatly appreciated.

Carole Wright
19 Beach Street Belmont South

Below copied from attached submission.

Submission to NSW Government
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Transport and Water Assessments



We have a number of objections to the proposed change of the approval for a desalination plant in South Belmont from temporary drought relief to be changed to a permanent desalination plant.

Objection 1

Very poor communication about this proposed planning change.
We heard about it by word of mouth from a friend who lives in Belmont South who will be directly affected by the construction. on the weekend before submission were due.

We have raised it with neighbour's and numerous other Lake Macquarie residents, and no one has heard about this proposal. Everyone we spoke to was outraged about the proposal and the fact that no one had heard about it.

Why was this not mentioned in every newsletter that comes with our water bills?

Objection 2
There is no evidence provided that gives a convincing argument that the desalination plant needs to operate outside a severe drought.
As the Hunter Water Managing Director, Darren Cleary says it will take more than 3 years for the region to run out of water in the worst of droughts; so why can’t we continue with the plan to have a temporary desalination plant to be ramped up only if it is needed

Objection 3
Why should Hunter Water rate payers be spending $530 million for a smelly noisy, energy guzzling desalination plant that we don't need? The answer is that they don’t know they are paying. They don’t know it is likely to be noisy and smelly. As I have already written, they don’t even know it is proposed.
Objection 4
What about the environmental impacts on the precious Neighbouring Belmont Wetlands and the ocean and beaches, marine life etc. There is no information on this environmental impact which I am sure will be significant. Damage to these beautiful natural areas will impact on recreation and tourism in the area.

Objection 5
It is my understanding that desalination plants use a large amount of energy. I note there is a proposal for solar energy to be generated from solar panels on and beside the plant. Will this cover all the energy consumption of the plant? In our era of working towards Net Zero carbon emissions why are we spending huge amounts of money on such an energy intensive plant that there is no evidence to say is necessary.

Objection 6,
With climate change we cannot predict the rainfall that we get. We have seen an increase in our rainfall in the Hunter in recent years. If instead of drought we have excessive rain for a few years will we be releasing our dam water into the ocean and still drinking desalinised water because the plant needs to keep running so the owners get return on their investment?


In summary, our main objection is that this change in purpose from temporary to permanent seems to be one of dishonesty on the part of Hunter Water. All things being equal no one would object to having a temporary desalination plant designed as part of a drought response plan but now Hunter Water seeks to change the approval so that the plant will permanently produce 30,000,000 litres of water each day for a region that has never ran out of water!
We are concerned about the risk of damaging our wetlands and ocean and beach, as well as damaging the recreational potential of these beautiful natural assets.
The cost is $530 million and ratepayers will have to pay for water that they probably will never need.

Thank you for considering our objections.
Dr Bernard Goldman,
Dr Mary Price (Goldman)
7 Pacific Drive
Swansea Heads,
NSW 2281