Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

Submission attached

Submission attached

I have uploaded a file. AnneMaree Stillman

I have uploaded my submission. The file is attached. David Stillman

This proposal should not be approved for the various reasons that have
been outlined in the attached document

The Hanson's proposal should not be approved for the various reasons that
have been outlined in the attached document

See attached letter

Objection - please see attached.

Please find attached PDF Hanson Objection Submission

Application No.: SSD17 _8544
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Limited - Proposed Glebe Island
Aggregate Handling and Concrete Batching Development Plant.

I am writing to object to this Hanson proposal for Glebe Island.

Joy Fairfull

Our submission includes reference to this proposal and to 2 other
proposals for the site - the Multi-use Facility and the Western
Harbour Tunnel - because we consider that the 3 proposals must be
considered both together and separately.

I object to this proposal and my objection is contained in the attached
PDF file.

I were shocked when I heard the proposal to build a Cement factory on
Glebe Island because it will totally destroyed my life at Evovle.

1. Noise and vibration from plant,trucks, ship make our environment
change to busy Industrial Port, and most importantly it's just 30
Meters away from my apartment.

2. Dust from trucks,ships will severely influence our health,
especially our lungs.

3. 24 hours operation totally destroys our residential life .

4. New facility will change people's life and devalue the properties
in Pyrmont community , especially sharply devalue my apartment in
Evovle .

I want to ask what's the initial purpose of our government to develop
Pyrmont from demolished industrial area to residential one. After the
residential community successfully built after 18 years, this proposal
will change Pyrmont community back to industrial one and it's
absolutely not against the initial purpose of building new Pyrmont.
The government should not only consider economic interests but also
people's life and health .To Maintain and improve the living
environment should be the government `s goal but not economic interest
especially when any proposal sacrificing people's health.

Besides, I never see Industrial facility in very down town in any
other big cities in the world . Only in Sydney we could see concrete
plant in Glebe , a very important place on the other side of harbour
bridge. Sydney is always regarded as big international city but these
cement factory or proposal of building multi-user facility are pulling
a modern city to a outdated industrial city of early last century.

If this proposal passed , that will make me very depressed and I will
be forced to see both psychological and physical doctors.I'm planning
to live at my apartment for rest of my life, but it will totally
destroy my dream if this proposal passed.

See attached letter

See attached letter

Dear Sir/Madam,


RE:
- Application Number: 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


I wish to put on record my strong objection to the construction of the
Port Authority of NSW Multi-User Facility Building and Hanson Concrete
Batching Plant ("Proposed Developments") on Glebe Island.

I understand that the Proposed Developments will be located
approximately 200-300 metres from my residence at Silk, 2 Distillery
Drive, Pyrmont ("Silk"). The close proximity of the Proposed
Developments to Silk raises the following concerns:

1. Inconsistent with Gentrification of Pyrmont: When buying Silk, I
was given the impression that Glebe Island would be undergoing a
transformation process from its traditionally industrial base towards
becoming a residential, recreational, retail and urban hub, in line
with the gentrification of the rest of Pyrmont (Sydney's most densely
populated suburb). I am disappointed to discover that to the contrary,
heavy industrial activities will instead increase on Glebe Island by
virtue of the Proposed Developments. The operation of heavy industrial
facilities 24/7 on Glebe Island will clearly have spillover effects on
neighbouring areas (such as pollution and traffic congestion, as
discussed below).

The erection of an unsightly industrial facility, concrete plant and
cranes devoid of aesthetic value will also impede the current views
enjoyed from Silk of the Jackson's Landing and Jones Bay area. The
berthing of cargo ships in the vicinity will further mar views of the
waterfront. The Proposed Developments stand in stark contrast to the
well-designed residential/commercial buildings and landscaped public
spaces which comprise Jackson's Landing and diminish the overall look
and feel of the neighbourhood.

These factors will ultimately diminish the enjoyment of my property
and devalue my investment in the same. I would not have invested in
Silk had I known this to be the case.

2. Air & Water Pollution: The operation of heavy industrial facilities
and corresponding influx of cargo ships servicing such facilities will
inevitably result in significant dust and emissions, including diesel
fumes from ships and trucks, being released into the air and waterways
close to Silk, neighbouring residential developments as well as
community areas such as the numerous public parks and promenades
erected around the Jackson's Landing and Jones Bay area. The constant
release of dust and emissions is not only a nuisance which will
interfere with the enjoyment of my property but poses health risks to
all exposed to them over an extended period of time (both people and
wildlife), the long terms effects of which could be detrimental.

3. Light & Noise Pollution: Apart from air and water pollution, I
anticipate that the operation of heavy industrial facilities 24/7 will
create light and noise pollution for those in proximity to the
Proposed Developments (including residents of Silk). I understand that
the night-time noise levels from cargo ships will be in excess of EPA
limits. Also, artificial lighting will likely be employed at night to
light the wharf and incoming/outgoing ships. The nuisance and
disturbance caused by such light and noise pollution could have
adverse effects on the quality of sleep enjoyed by residents of the
area.

4. Traffic Congestion: I understand that a large number of trucks will
be needed to service the Proposed Developments (estimated to number in
the hundreds per day). This will contribute additional traffic to the
already congested inner city (especially around the nearby James Craig
Road and Anzac Bridge). This issue will only be compounded as more
trucks and machinery are mobilised by other developments in the Bays
Precinct area. Increased waterway congestion is also likely to result
as cargo ships compete with recreational and transportation vessels
such as pleasure boats, yachts, cruise ships, ferries, kayaks, etc.
Clearly, this poses an unnecessary safety risk to recreational users
of the waterways.

5. Devaluation: Inevitably, the above factors taken collectively will
reduce the desirability of Silk as a premier waterfront property and
erode its investment value. Those who have purchased property here in
good faith that the neighbouring areas would be responsibly and
cohesively developed (including myself) will ultimately pay the price
of the Proposed Developments.


******

I strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to
consider the adverse impact that the Proposed Developments will have
on the environment and community in totality, and not allow them to
proceed.

Submission in Objection to proposed Facility - attached

Please see objection attached.

As a long-term resident of Pyrmont, I strongly oppose the above mentioned
development proposal. I have lived in Jacksons Landing for over 15
years and I have been part of its development which has contributed to
Pyrmont becoming the most densely populated suburb in Australia. I was
a resident of Refinery Drive when the car carriers used to dock here
and unload the cars and I know how much of a disruption this caused to
the residents around. The decision to move this activity from Glebe
Island to the more suitable Port Botany was welcomed by all, including
those involved in the industry who no longer had to deal with ongoing
resident complaints or the logistical issues that the site presents in
terms of clogging of roads. Once the cars moved on, residents were led
to believe the Bays Precinct Master Plan was going to lead to a
redevelopment of Glebe Island more in keeping with its residential
neighbours, for example the transformation to a technology hub. Sadly
as residents (and voters) we have been sadly misled. It would appear
the State Government is more concerned with heavy industrial
development and the destruction of inner city living than developing
an area that the city can be proud of on the world stage.

Having read the EIS, which should be noted has been written in such a
way that it is almost impossible for the everyday reader (who will be
impacted by this development) to easily interpret, I challenge the
development for the following reasons:

Noise
The 24/7 operation of a concrete batching plant is going to produce
excessive noise in a highly populated residential area. Noise is going
to come from multiple sources, including ships berthed and unloading
materials, processing of concrete, movement of cement trucks, beeping
of trucks and other vehicles.

EIS addressing noise:
* The EIS has attempted to acknowledge these noise issues, but also
conceded that it is expected the noise produced will be above
acceptable limits in a residential area.
* The EIS fails to take into account the cumulative effect of the
noise generated as a result of the Hanson relocation and the proposed
MUF at Glebe Island.
* EIS measurements have been taken from inappropriate locations in
Pyrmont that are not reflective of the height of the buildings that
will be affected.
* EIS states that the noise produced from the ships is not the
responsibility of Hanson to manage (ie generators running constantly)
and this falls under a federal legislation. If Hanson wasn't moved to
Glebe Island the ships wouldn't be there and the noise issue from the
ships wouldn't be an issue, therefore to suggest this is not Hanson
responsibility to address is ridiculous, this development is the
trigger for the issue and as such needs to take responsibility to
address.

Overall there is no consideration to the impact of the cumulative
noise impacts 24/7 on residents, and while there is an acceptance that
there will be noise generated, the reading of it is that locals just
need to suck it up.

Air Pollution
An industrial activity such as cement production is going to produce
huge amounts of dust particles, and despite the EIS stating that
Hanson will ensure that all materials are covered, it's impossible to
stop small particles getting into the atmosphere. As an Asthma
sufferer, I'm already affected by the air quality of Sydney, which is
significantly impacted when it is windy and dusty, this is only going
to increase the risk of my asthma episodes happening more frequently -
knock on impact to the cost to the healthcare system as I'll be taking
more trips to the hospital for treatment.

The ships that will be bringing in supplies will be burning diesel
24/7 due to no ship to shore power being implemented (or willingness
to do so by anyone). This is going to introduce sulphurous bunker
diesel and would lead to many serious health issues for people.

As with the noise issue, the proposer is adopting the position that
the issues caused by the ships are not their issue - again, if Hanson
don't relocate here, there would be no ships and therefore there would
be no issue.

Light
The running of Hanson 24/7 means there will be a huge increase in
light pollution in the area. The development is within 200m of many
large residential buildings, therefore this increase in light
pollution is only going to increase the amount of sleep disturbance
the residents must contend with. Again, it's not just the light
produced by the Hanson plant, but also the ships moored. This was
demonstrated when the Hanjiin was moored at Glebe Island (under
emergency circumstances) in 2017. The increase in light disturbance,
as well as noise, air quality, was huge and very noticeable to all
residents.

Traffic
Suggested traffic movements obtained from the EIS are in the region of
3000-6000 movements a day. How is this sustainable on already clogged
roads? It has been suggested that given the volume of traffic on the
roads the impact would be minimal, however this either suggests that
the trucks introduced because of the Hanson plant will be moving at
non-busy times (ie in the middle of the night) and therefore
introducing more noise issues, or the figures quoted are deliberately
misleading in terms of the real impact.

I thought this government wanted to reduce traffic around and in the
city (in keeping with other world cities such as London) yet you want
to introduce more trucks into a smaller contained space.

How can this level of truck movement be in keeping with a densely
populated residential area?

Traffic also refers to marine traffic. Johnston Bay is already a busy
thoroughfare of boats, both commercial and pleasure craft, introducing
large container ships into this space on a permanent basis is an
accident waiting to happen.

Scale
While this objection is specific to the Hanson relocation proposal, it
cannot be read in isolation of the other proposed development by the
Port Authority for the MUF. The size of the proposed Hanson site is
significantly bigger than what they presently have, and would be a
huge eyesore and totally out of keeping with its current surroundings.
When you combine this with the MUF proposal, a building 100's square
meters in size, the whole thing is ridiculous in such a densely
populated residential area. The size of this would be considered large
on many industrial sites, let alone surrounded by residential towers.

In summary, I strongly oppose the relocation of the Hanson plant to
Glebe Island. In allowing this proposal to proceed shows a total
disregard for the impacts on the residents, many of whom have moved to
the area to support and enjoy the rejuvenation of Pyrmont and Rozelle.
As a resident I have the right to enjoy a clean and pollution free
residence.

There is no consideration for the cumulative impacts of the overall
Glebe Island proposed developments (Hanson, MUF, Harbour Tunnel site).
To try and move each proposal through an individual development
process suggests an underhand move by all involved, and demonstrates a
total lack of vision, ownership and integrity, at least admit there is
a overall development plan for Glebe Island and stop trying to sneak
things through in `small' proposals, thinking people will not look at
the bigger picture and its impacts.

Sydney should be a world class city, utilizing its world class harbour
for the right reasons. We should be protecting it and the areas around
it, not turning them into heavy industrial areas.

Think about what Glebe Island could be in the future, and the future
is not a concrete batching plant.

Regards
R Palmer

As this is a significant project, we urge the NSW Department of Planning
to appropriately oversee and assess the project viability with public
consultation input. For Sydney to be a vibrant city and world leader
in an environmentally sustainable future, this new facility needs to
be gauged against the impact on the broader and modern Pyrmont and
surrounding communities and not be gauged against historical usage
provisions that permits archaic noise and air level tolerances and
allows 24/7 365 days usage availability.

For residents like us, this proposal will have a significant impact on
the quality of our lives compared to our current levels of noise, air,
water and light pollution.