Glebe Island Concrete Batching Plant and Aggregate Handling Facility

Dear Minister,
I write in response to the proposed re-industrialisation of Glebe
Island.
Please take heed of the following objections:
- industrial development directly adjacent to the nation's most
densely populated residential suburb - Pyrmont
- aesthetic pollution of the harbour foreshore - bi-secting the iconic
Anzac Bridge and the overseas passenger terminal
- environmental pollution emanating from the proposed plant
- noise & light pollution from the 24/7 plant - opposite the densely
populated suburb
- the above pollutants will have detrimental health and well-being
impact on residents of Pyrmont, Rozelle and Balmain
- harbour congestion in an area used by tourist boats and recreational
users including small craft - kayaks, dragon boats, tinnies
- road congestion in an area with physical limitations for expansion -
notably Anzac Bridge and Victoria Rd.

Can the minister please explain why a heavy industry is proposed to be
located in a historic and iconic site which has been transformed
sympathetically from its industrial origins into highly successful and
cohesive residential area.

Glebe Island should be considered for further residential development
eg low cost, essential worker housing.

Yours sincerely,

JB Walsh

The proposed Glebe Island Concrete Batch Plant is situated much too
close to the wonderful Glebe Island Bridge. This heritage bridge was a
significant development when built, resulting in it featuring on the
cover of Scientific American in 1904. Figure 11 of the EIS for the
Concrete Batching Plant shows that the proposed plant is right next to
the Glebe Island Bridge. The aggregate silos will tower over this
iconic bridge in a very detrimental way.
It is not just the blocking of views that is important, but also the
diminution of the impact of an iconic item by an overwhelming
presence. Further, Australia has had few technological developments
that lead the world. It is a pity to diminish one of the few that
remain and are on public display. We should be honouring this work by
the acclaimed bridge designer Percy Allan, which also features early
work by John Bradfield (who went on to engineer the Sydney Harbour
Bridge).
Please move the proposed Concrete Batching Plant further from the
Glebe Island Bridge. Australia produces very few world-leading
technological triumphs. Let's keep this one on show.

I write to object to the Hanson Batching Plant proposal.
I believe that the proposed development is significant in scale and
will reduce the amenity of my home. It will impact on traffic, noise,
visual and air pollution.The cumulative impacts of this and the other
proposals for the area (West Harbour Tunnel; Multi -User Facility;
M4-M5 interchange) will be devastating.
The total movement of up to 240 trucks /hour (4/minute) will have a
tremendous impact on traffic movements on the City West Link and also
the Crescent. There are already serious traffic issues at these
locations. These movements will also add to the already significant
air and noise pollution.
The visual impact is indicated to be moderate to high for the area in
which we live. This impact will come mainly from the buildings but
also from lighting from the plant and shipping.
The fact that the facility will operate 24/7 will exacerbate the
impact of the facility.
I believe this proposal will have a detrimental impact on my quality
of life. I sincerely request that you decline the proposal.

Dear Minister

Concrete Batching Plant, Glebe Island

I write to strongly object to the proposed handling and concrete
facility proposed for Glebe Island (Hanson Concrete Plant).

It is inconceivable that other major developments have curfew
restrictions (eg Sydney Airport and general roadside construction) but
that the Hanson Concrete Plant may be permitted to operate 24/7 with
minimal restrictions on their activities.

Noise

The Hanson Concrete Plant and the resulting intensification of
industrial activities will be extremely disruptive to those living,
working and enjoying the parks at Jackson's Landing.

Noise monitoring should be conducted at the closest point to the
proposed location - being at 2 Bowman Street Pyrmont. It makes no
sense for noise monitoring to be conducted at Distillery Drive, which
is farther from the proposed location and partially protected from
some of the noise. Even Hanson admits that 2 Bowman Street will be the
most adversely affected.

It is also unacceptable for noise levels to be assessed when windows
and doors are closed. The buildings in Jackson's Landing have been
designed with windows and doors for ventilation and the Jackson's
Landing contains a number of parks which will not have any protection
from the noise.

The current noise mitigation measures are unclear and must be taken
seriously by your office.

Lights

There are no restrictions on the use of lights on the ships and on
Glebe Island. As a resident of 2 Bowman Street, I have experienced on
numerous occasions bright lights shining into my bedroom and living
room in the evenings, even when the blinds are closed. The lights have
been extremely bright and have impacted my quality of sleep.

It is unacceptable that the lighting impacts have been ignored.

Air Quality

The Hanson Concrete Plant will have an adverse effect on air quality
in Jackson's Landing. All boats and trucks must be required to cover
their loads. There is also no way to guarantee any level of emissions
from berthed vessels without shore to ship power, as will be the case
at the Hanson Concrete Plant. The air quality levels will be
exacerbated by the 24/7 operations of the Hanson Concrete Plant.

There must be live monitoring of pollutants, with results regularly
published online. Monitoring sites must include receivers along the
water in Pyrmont and where air quality breaches occur, breaches should
be advised to the public and activities should be stopped until there
is a solution.

I ask that you refuse the application to protect the local amenity and
ensure Pyrmont continues to be enjoyed by residents and visitors for
decades to come.

I object to the proposed Hanson Concrete Facility due to the unacceptable
impact on residents in nearby suburbs.

These impacts include:

1) Noise
The facility is proposed to run 24/7 and given the topography of the
surrounding landscape and buildings the noise from this facility will
reverberate around Pyrmont, Rozelle, Balmain, Lilyfield, etc. This is
not for a "short-term" construction project but is projected to run
indefinitely, significantly affecting the ability of local residents
to sleep and interfering with their quiet enjoyment of their home.

Ships will be coming and going and will run their engines even when
berthed (since there is no shore power). Trucks will be coming and
going and running their engines. Staff will be coming and going by
car. Materials will be loaded and unloaded.

The nature of the purpose of the facility is inherently noisy. I do
not see how noise controls could effectively mitigate this noise.

2) Air pollution

White Bay and surrounding areas are already heavily polluted due to a
nearly constant rotation of older cruise ships who run their engines
24/7 and have no fuel restrictions when coming and going. The
cumulative impact of this with all other maritime activity, alongside
projected growth of traffic on the Anzac Bridge and due to WestConnex
and more diesel truck movements means that this facility is really the
straw that breaks the camels back in terms of air quality.

It is unacceptable that more heavily polluting ships are able to
operate 24/7 so close to so many homes. Pyrmont is the most densely
populated suburb in Australia. The pollution caused by this facility
is simply unacceptable.

Shore power for all ships docking (including cruise ships) along with
very stringent fuel controls for when ships are not berthed would be
the bare minimum needed to mitigate this.

Any and all trucks that use the facility should undergo emissions
testing and stringent standards adhered to.



3) Congestion
The Anzac Bridge is already heavily congested during peak hours.
WestConnex stages 1 and 2 will bring even more vehicles. Construction
of Stage 3 will bring yet more trucks and staff cars.

The local streets are old and narrow - many local roads literally
cannot have 2 vehicles going in opposite directions at the same time.

Again, this facility is the straw that breaks the camels back. There
is simply not enough capacity on surrounding roads to accommodate the
projected growth in cars and trucks.

The impact on traffic congestion is unacceptable.


4) Loss of property value
Many, many residents bought property in the local area because there
was no active industrial uses at Glebe Island and White Bay. The NSW
Government continually planned for Urban Renewal in this area. This
proposal, along with others at White Bay/Glebe Island have already
significantly cost local residents.

The NSW Governments track record with fair compensation does not give
any confidence that local property owners will be fairly compensated
for this.


In summary, I object to the proposed Hanson Concrete Facility because
the noise, air pollution, congestion and property impacts are simply
too great.

It is possible that some aspects may be mitigated by extremely
stringent controls and huge investments in infrastructure such as
shore power for all ships, emissions and noise limits for trucks,
limited times for the facility to operate, etc.

We 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.

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.

I write to object to the Hanson Batching Plant proposal. I do so on the
following grounds:
* Having recently become a resident of Glebe I appreciate and enjoy
the amenity of this area and the mix of residential and historical
industrial and working harbour development. I believe that the
proposed development is significant in scale and will reduce the
amenity of my new home.
* The proposal on its own is of concern but the cumulative impacts of
this and the other proposals for the area (West Harbour Tunnel; Multi
-User Facility; M4-M5 interchange) will be devastating. These impacts
include noise; visual; vibration; air quality and traffic.
* The SLR Global Environmental Solutions report commissioned by Hanson
points out that there will be up to 120 truck movements /hour
(2/minute) BOTH in and out. This will have a tremendous impact on
traffic movements on the City West Link and also the Crescent. There
are already serious traffic issues at these locations. These movements
will also add to the already significant noise pollution.
* The report indicates that the visual impact will be moderate to high
for the area in which we now live. This impact will come mainly from
the buildings but also from lighting (particularly shipping that can
berth and operate 24 hours per day with no requirement regarding the
source of power for this lighting). The suggestion that the visual
impact of the silos and conveyors can be mitigated by "art" is
laughable.
* Throughout the report there is the assertion that vibration caused
by the plant will be negligible. I do not believe this to be the case.
I know this from bitter experience at my previous home. How do you
prove that cracks and other flaws in your home are caused by external
factors such as vibration and not from other factors?
In conclusion I believe this proposal will have a detrimental impact
on my quality of life. I sincerely request you to decline the
proposal. If it is approved I request that restrictions are placed on
noise, traffic movements, profile of buildings and operating hours of
both the plant and the ships that arrive and depart form the facility.

I object to the proposal. Please see my attached document in PDF format
as requested 'Submission re Hanson Concrete Batching Facility
Proposal.pdf'

I am dismayed at the development proposals being put forward concerning
Glebe Island. The particular subject of this submission is Hansons
Concrete Batching Plant which is entirely inappropriate for this
location - for reasons of noise, air quality and especially the
aesthetics and visual landscape right next to the heritage Glebe
Island Bridge and the landmark Anzac Bridge, and across form
Barangaroo.

As I understand three proposals are being considered:

* Hanson Concrete being moved to this site
* A dumping site for toxic sediment relating to the Tunnel project
* A facility for building materials arriving by sea

I realise that Sydney, a long time ago, became a place where
Developers and Business interests clearly reign and have profound and
excessive influence over all aspects of this city's development.

These three developments are symptomatic of this and it is high time
that decision makers place quality of life issues above short term
thinking.

Please consider the many residents who will be affected, especially
the health of children, and our legacy to future generations of
inappropriate unsightly developments and an unliveable city area.

My wife and I love living in Glebe but will reluctantly have to
consider moving if these projects proceed.

We support the development in-principle however believe there are some
further important areas which require calculation, justification and
adjustment. Details are in the attached letter (file).

Bike Leichhardt is a community organization representing cyclists in the
former Leichhardt LGA and Inner West of Sydney. We are affiliated with
Bicycle NSW and an incorporated association.

We submit the following in regards to the Traffic Impact assessment:

It is stated that the numbers of residents cycling to work is not
known, but these figures are available from the 2016 ABS Journey to
Work data, by LGA, including the former Leichhardt LGA. Data from
annual bike counts in March (Super Tuesday count) by Bicycle Network
for Leichhardt Council and now Inner West Council is available for
Lilyfield Rd, Victoria Rd, The Crescent and Anzac Bridge approach. A
count at the Beattie Bush pedestrian Bridge on the City West Link in
March this year had around 800 cyclists heading to the Anzac bridge
7am to 9 am.

It is also stated (section 3.5) that there is "excellent cycling
access" from local cycling routes. This is not correct, as there is no
access from Robert St via Sydney Port access roads, and access via the
shared path on James Craig Drive leads to the narrow Sommerville Rd,
where the shared path ends at the roundabout and becomes a narrow
footpath only. Cyclists would be forced to share the road up the hill
under the Anzac Bridge. James Craig Drive is locked off at the
underpass of the old Glebe Island Bridge approach. It is not clear if
a bike path would be offered here for cyclists to access the site.
Cyclists would in any event have to negotiate the roundabout at start
of Sommerville Road, which will have many heavy truck movements.

Cyclists could use the Anzac Bridge approach from Victoria Rd and ramp
down to Sommerville Rd, but there is no bike path after that. Cyclists
again would be sharing with heavy vehicles, unless a path was built.

We submit that a path from Robert St on the (possibly) western side of
the Sydney Ports access road to the new Hanson site would be feasible
and in line with the future path from the Rozelle Railyard to the old
power station and waterfront as envisaged by the UG Bays Precinct plan
for a Waterfront Promenade" and Westconnex Active Transport Strategy
for cycleways in the old Railyards.

There are strong reasons for reopening the old Glebe Island Bridge to
walkers and cyclists, and access via Sommerville Rd to the raised
western approach of the old bridge would be essential. Therefore
nothing should be done that might prevent this and any positive steps
that would facilitate this should be taken.

Regarding bicycle parking facilities (section 4.4.2), we submit that
the number may be inline with the guidance for places of work, but as
cycling becomes more popular these guidelines may be inadequate.
Therefore space for future growth should be allowed. A lockable
compound along the lines of the Parkiteer (see bicyclenetwork.com.au)
or other covered secure parking may not add greatly to the cost of
providing parking for all vehicles on site.

Yours sincerely
Robert Moore
Vice President
Bike Leichhardt

I request that the department review the option of including a bicycle
lane over Glebe Island Bridge.

I object to the redevelopment of Glebe Island for raw building materials
as per the application above, including the Hanson Cement Terminal.

I live in Stephen Street Balmain, opposite Glebe Island, and will be
directly affected by the 24-hour operation proposed. The southerly
winds carry any fume and dust from ships that use this site so I can
confirm I will be significantly affected by operations as they
proposed in this application.

Based on the current cement terminal at Prymont there is a precedent
that suggests any new facility will be dirty noisey and a heavy
polluter.

This application is also completely at odds with the NSW Government's
commitment to a master plan for the Bays Precinct..

A low value industrial use of Glebe Island cannot be supported on
economic or environmental grounds.

I support the Bike Sydney submission and would like to point out that the
Glebe Island Bridge is earmarked as a possible active transport
corridor. The Anzac Bridge is the current route, but any new
development should not impact on the safe and clear passage for
walking and cycling over Glebe Island Bridge.

Unavoidably, the plant will have traffic impacts in the area, and
increase risk for vulnerable road users. It makes sense for the
project to be required to mitigate both traffic and danger by the
provision of extra walking and cycling infrastructure in the vacinity
of Glebe Island. In particular, to construct part of the City West
Cycle Link project.

Dear Karl

I make this submission against application SSD 17_8544:
Concrete Batching Plant, Glebe Island

The proposal does not sufficiently address its impact on existing and
future regional cycling links.

The proposed increase in trucking traffic (55 concrete trucks) will
impact active transport provision through the region, and to Glebe
Island Bridge in particular; a key future link for the City West Cycle
Link. To this end, the proposal should be conditioned to extend the
existing grade-separated cycleway on the northern side of James Craig
Road. further east along Somerville Road to at least as far as the
western approach to Glebe Island Bridge. This could be achieved by
narrowing the existing vehicle travel lanes (noting that trucks are
speed-limited here to 30km/h.)

Similarly, the existing internal access road linking Roberts St to
Sommerville Road should be retro-fitted with a separated cycleway to
enable access to the Batch Plant site and also to the future Glebe
Island Bridge path. This cycling corridor is essential to the future
City West Cycle Link path - a future "trunk route" veloway designed to
accommodate riders of all experience levels, including the elderly and
children.

These links will be required to achieve the Proposal's stated active
travel goals (5% of trips by Batch Plant workers taken by bike).

These cycling facilities should be integrated with the cycling
facilities to be delivered by the M4-M5 Link and Rozelle Interchange
elements of Westconnex.

To mitigate the proposal's increase in truck traffic, the proposal
should be conditioned to provide safer crossing and more green time
for pedestrians and riders crossing James Craig Drive at its
intersection with The Crescent.

Notably, the Proposal will not lack for the building materials to
create these highly important cycling and walking links.

Integrated land use and transport planning is a stated key principle
of the NSW Premier.

I recommend liaising with BIKE Sydney and BIKE Marrickville for
details.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

Please register my objection to the entirety of this development
proposal. In particular, I object for the following reasons:
* The transportion associated with the concrete plant will generate
unacceptable noise, made worse by their 24 hour, 7 day a week
operations
* It will increase noise, dust and light pollution
* It will add this pollution into an extremely densely populated
residential area that I live in
* The proposed buildings are ugly and the size of the plants is way
bigger than needed
* The facilities themselves are designed to run constantly which will
not provide residents with any relief from the pollution
* The development does not meet the stated aims of the Bays Precinct
masterplan

a cement batching plant on Glebe Island is absolutely criminal, not only
is it polluting the air. The water will probably be polluted, and
there will be noise pollution.

I could never Imagine anything like this happening in the beautiful
old cities of the world eg Paris, London, Rome.

I strongly object to the relocation of the Hanson concrete plant to Glebe
Island. The facility will have a detrimental impact on the environment
including the Bays Precinct as a whole and in particular on Pyrmont
(the most densely populated suburb in Australia) which will be only a
few hundred metres away.
The following points highlight my reasons for this objection:
 Maritime traffic will be dramatically increased in order to
service this facility along with the Multi-User storage facility.
Additional Cargo ships will operate in a narrow waterway,
significantly increasing the probability of an accident.
 The number of trucks moving into and out of the facility
means that the local roadways, which are already at an unacceptable
level of traffic movements will be overloaded and will create gridlock
in the area. Along with the multi user storage facility, the potential
for thousands of additional truck movements is a cause for alarm.
 The proposed location for the Hanson Aggregate Handling and
Concrete Batching facility is totally at odds with the White Bay
Master Plan.
 The environment and the residents of that environment will be
subjected to unacceptable levels of:
o air pollution from the dust and other particulates
o noise pollution from the ship's engines along with the material
handling equipment for the movement of the raw materials and concrete
and the trucks involved in distributing the product
o intrusive night lighting that will negatively impact on residents
o water pollution from runoff and potential spills, leaks and
accidents
o visual pollution -a large scale, aesthetically unappealing
industrial facility directly across Jones Bay from public parks and
apartments is not in keeping with urban renewal goals
The fact that the facility will run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
exacerbates all of these issues and provides no respite from an
untenable situation.
To review individual proposals for Glebe Island is unrealistic and
unconscionable. The combined impact of the proposals needs to be
considered in order to make a realistic determination on the impact to
the environment as a whole.
In isolation this proposal is a danger to the environment. When viewed
in concert with the other proposals it is immediately apparent how
unsuitable the Glebe Island site is for this type of industry.