Kariong Sand and Soil Supplies Facility

I support the project.

Great project that will promote jobs and recycling. It’s a win win

I totally support this project because it's creating more jobs. It's also good for the environment because all the material coming in can be turned into usable product instead of going to landfill.

By having the facility in the Central Coast minimizes truck movements to Sydney and Newcastle and supports the locals

Refer to attached documents objecting to the proposed development - to be read in their entirety to establish our family's concerns as an immediate neighbour to the development site.

Documents attached:

1. Rejection Letter

2. Supporting Evidence
I. Refusal of Davis’ previous application for a similar Resource Recovery Facility at 168 Somersby Falls Road Somersby DA Number 40918/2011
II. Independent peer report authored by Todoroski Air Sciences dated 22 September, 2020

Health risk in and around Kariong residential area due to airborn particules from this proposed plant
Long term Health risk to children also .
Major

Kariong Sand & Soil Supplies SSD 8660
I strongly oppose SSD-8660 for Kariong Sand & Soil Supplies at 90 Gindurra Rd, Somersby submitted by Davis Earthmoving Pty Ltd, on the grounds of the implications of the proposed activities at the site and on the broader implications for Somersby Industries Park and the local area including Kariong residential suburb should it be approved
The proposed development has a potentially serious adverse impact on public health, road safety and the environment.
These include:
1. Increased heavy truck traffic fears for road safety - the safety of the numerous workers in the Somersby Industrial Park (SIP) travelling to and from work and the many other locals (Somersby and Mountains people) who regularly use Gindurra Rd will be put at risk if this development is approved. The basis for this claim is made by comparison with the large fleet of heavy truck vehicles that service Hansons Quarry at Kulnura, which I am familiar with. All vehicles use a trailer (dog) with a prime mover (truck). These include B-Doubles and 3- and 4-axle dogs. The vast majority of these combinations are 3-axle dogs. So it is reasonable to assume the same for this proposed development. A truck and 3-axle dog will carry an average payload of 32 tonnes. Waste material of the types proposed in this development will vary in density, but a 32t payload is an acceptable weight on which to base a calculation.

The maximum amount of waste of 200,000t proposed by the applicant to be trucked along Gindurra Rd annually, therefore represents 6,250 loads. Then there is the same amount again of either processed waste product or non-recyclable waste to come out of the site. So this site alone stands to transfer by truck and dog along Gindurra Rd up to 12,500 loads annually. Consider also the amount of dust from the trucks’ loads and off their wheels that will be shed. Then more broadly, directly opposite 90 Gindurra Rd is 83 Gindurra Rd where Bingo Recycling Pty Ltd also has an SSD application (SSD-9265) as well as a development application (DA59244/2020) currently out on public exhibition. This is seeking approval to process up to 500,000t of waste annually. Combined, this amounts to 700,000t of waste trucked into and 700,000t of processed waste and non-recyclable waste trucked out of these two sites every year, should they be approved. This would amount to 43,750 truck and dog movemenmts on Gindurra Rd every year. The number of truck loads to convey waste into and the processed product and non-recyclable waste out of 90 Gindurra Rd of 12,500 loads annually, is abominable, let alone the combined truck traffic on this small road, should the same, but larger waste processing proposal at 83 Gindurra Rd, also be approved. There is nothing that either applicant can say or do to mitigate this danger to other traffic and to congestion on the road. This total amounts to 183 truck loads every day of a 48 week working year.

2. Public health – There are a number of public schools in the immediate vicinity, there is the juvenile detention centre close by, there are a large number of workers in SIP, there are residents in the surrounding Somersby area and there is the Kariong residential suburb that would be exposed to any dust particularly from the concrete crushing and green waste processing operations planned at this site. The health of all of the above groups of people is a major concern. I can speak from first-hand experience. I live in relatively close proximity to one of the basalt rock crushing quarries in the nearby Mountain Districts. I have photographs of clouds of dust escaping from this site and drifting on the breeze through populated areas. I have been diagnosed with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis which is an incurable lung disease that shortens life expectancy to 2-5 years. While assurances are given in supporting documents given with SSD-8660 about what will be conducted at the site and where, there are no engineering details that describe the actual processes that provide an absolute guarantee that no dust will escape these two operations. The two large, tall roller doors in the newly constructed building that are visible from Gindurra Rd show the magnitude of the opening into the building. Concrete dust contains silica and mulch processing contains microbiological pathogens, both contain particulate matter, both with serious human health implications. Drawings merely showing where various activities will take place is unacceptable. That is not the same as describing the engineering details for the processes involved and relating them to any available national or international standards to provide the necessary guarantees of total dust capture and disposal.

3. Environmental – this area has numerous gullies that flow into Piles Creek and its catchments. This is a major concern.

While there is a requirement to assess every SSD application on merit and while this may be a permissible activity with consent, the Department of Industry, Planning and Environment – Major Projects has a responsibility to consider the broader picture of road safety, public health and the environment. In this case this application must be refused. The fact that between the closure of public submissions to the application and the submission of a revised proposal, the applicant has gone ahead and constructed major infrastructure, seems a deliberate attempt to exert pressure on the Department to obtain a favourable outcome. The Department must assess this proposal on merit and the major objections given here are sufficient to support refusal.

This project will provide valuable recycling infrastructure to the Central Coast region. The proposed development includes some of the most rigorous environmental protection measures for a C&D recycling facility in NSW.

The development of Kariong sand and soil supplies new facility will generate a huge amount of employment for local people here on the central coast which is greatly needed in these strange times we find our self's all in. Providing a local service to local businesses and people, helping to keep the local community strong and help us all strive for a more green environment. Recycling of a full range of materials that we all produce daily is critical to moving towards a high level of recyclables being reused where possible, to help protect future generations.

This site will provide an essential service that will divert recyclable resources from landfill in a safe and effective manner. This project should go ahead.

I support the facility because it is an important piece of infrastructure that will reduce the quantity of building materials going to landifll in the Central Coast and Hunter. The NSW government has a policy of moving our state towards a circular economy. This is a positive step towards achieving that goal. I understand that the development will create at least 20 new direct jobs and make a significant contribution to economic activity in the Central Coast region. At the same time the developer has gone out of his way to make sure that local impacts on the environment and neighbours will be minimised.

I support this project nsw needs more projects like this to be approved and less red tape!!!

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is with most urgency I am writing to raise a formal notification of complaint in opposing the planning for the concrete crushing business within our neighbourhood.

The erected building on 90 Gindurra Road, Somersby NSW 2250 has now confirmed further planning to commence their concrete crushing operation. Naturally, concerned locals – both resident and business owners – have objected to this. It has gained over 1200 signatures that state their concerns which such a business being allowed to operate.

I believe it is vital to raise awareness of the distress that this business would cause not only to myself but the surrounding population.

To start, when the initial planning was approved by local council, this was for up to 70,000 tonnes per year of recycling material. Via a state significant development application, this has now increased to 200,000 tonnes and is now to include up to 46,000 tonnes of concrete / year. A seemingly astronomical amount for a mostly rural/residential area and out of character of the surrounding bushland area that Somersby is known for.

Please note that the effects of having such a business in the area is already starting to cause damage to the surrounding location and its residents with increased noise due to the land clearing and vibration felt via close receptors with their houses.

There are many that are within close proximity to the crusher. This has already caused financial loss to one as they are unable to sell their property with the prospect of this business being so imminent.

Financial loss is not our only concern.

Undoubtedly with this type of trade brings a high level of noise pollution. Something that brings us all great concern. The noise of the actual crusher we believe will become intolerable to the surrounding area together with the unloading or industrial waste and constant truck movement. (Please see the attached independent Acoustic report from “Muller Acoustics”), which displays several areas of concern of the project, showing a significant exceedance to close-by receptors due to conservatively low sound power levels.

Section 3.3.3 of the NPI identifies that a development is considered to have a noise impact if the predicted levels at a receiver exceeds the corresponding project noise trigger level. Review of operational noise levels from the historic report identifies an exceedance of the PNTL at 24 Debenhams Road South, hence the project will have noise impacts on this receiver. Furthermore, taking into account the conservatively low sound power levels in conjunction with lower background noise levels east of the project site, project impacts would be up to 8dB higher than reported.
This potentially results in multiple receivers (10 Acacia Road, 12 Acacia Road, 16 Acacia Road 32 Acacia Road, 242 Debenham Road South and 252 Debenham Road South) exceeding the PNTL.
The maximum potential exceedance is 9dBA above the PNTL (for 242 Debenhams Road South) which would be above both the PNTL and relevant Amenity Noise Level and is also considered a significant exceedance under the NPI.


Concern falls heavily on the environmental factor that emissions from silica dust will have on the nearby orchards and residents. The company has addressed this by advising that they have taken measurements to prevent emissions. However, upon further research it is clear they are not adequate enough to prevent the silica travelling through air. Making it easy for locals to breathe in the pollution without any protective equipment and potentially cause adverse illnesses due to long term exposure.

To confirm, their supposedly adequate measures, they plan to use an open-ended enclosure for the crusher with the downward facing water sprays. Unfortunately, the crusher within enclosure hangs out of the building by 3.7 metres. It is a combination of the protruding concrete crusher and open enclosure that is extremely unsettling.

When researching the effectiveness of enclosures to gain 90%-100% of complete control over the silica emissions, it is stated in their own report, the only 100% safe option, would be to have a full enclosure of the crusher and holding bays. However, they have said this is not being done due to the cost of it to the company.

Please see the attached air report from “Todososki Air Sciences” we have had independently assessed, which indicates, they are not following the best practice in a development of this type and has underestimated several areas of air quality and dust emissions.

It is strongly deemed that an operation of this nature should not take place so close to residential areas or local businesses. There are families with young children that live in the area which this type of business can potentially cause health issues for all.

One element specifically raises concern for me is the movement of up to 160 trucks and cards per day. In particular, using Debenham Road South as a parking bay for trucks. The residents at this side – including myself – are subjected to the relentless noise of trucks parking, stopping and backing up all whilst using hazard alarms to warn of the vehicle’s movement. This is not something we wish to endure throughout the night causing loss of sleep. It is irritating and frustrating that there is no consideration for the locals.

In regards to caring for the environment factors, we have already experienced vibration issues from the building works. The owners of the company were called out to the nearby house in question to feel the vibration nuisance that it is already causing, yet even after feeling the vibration within the house and referring to the machinery they chose to use, nothing has been done to fix the house in question, instead choosing to ignore the issue. However, this will be minuscule compared to the noise and vibration that the trucks, tractors and heavy machinery could cause going forward. Not only will this be detrimental to the residents of the area’s mental health but the ability to move away. Therefore, causing further financial loss when property value plummets due to the noise pollution caused by this business.

The council has raised concerns about protecting the rich environmental heritage by conserving beaches, waterways, bushland, wildlife and the diversity of local native species in their plans to draw more visitors to Somersby, yet if this proposed development was approved it would have an irreversible impact and endanger the 1.41 Hectares local population of the eastern pygmy possum together with local endangered trees which seem to have their habitat in the exact chosen locations for the concrete crusher and holding bays to name a few.

We believe this objection is in the same nature to the refusal of the waste resource facility at 168 Somersby Falls Road (Development Application No 40918/2011), citing the proposal to not be ecologically sustainable and contrary to the precautionary principle as it has a direct and unknown impact upon the habitat areas of the aforementioned eastern pygmy possum.


I do not believe that a recycling centre that specialises in building waste removal – amongst other materials – would add value to the area. Nor would it in anyway conserve our happily situated bushland and wildlife. If anything, it will eventually cause detriment and damage to the surrounding areas whilst processing building waste materials.

Finally, another element of improvement for the Somersby area contains the proposed “The Great Weekender Trail” which states walkers will walk straight past this property and down Debenham Rd South. It is almost ridiculous that those visiting for an authentic bushland experience will be exposed to dramatically high buildings of a recycling centre. Something which I’m sure you would agree is completely out of character to this area. I believe that funding for this will be wasted as many who visit are likely to complain about the concrete jungle appearing in the middle of their weekender bushland trail.

All those who have signed the previous objections – that is over 1200 of us – believe that an operation of this size and environmental impact is not in accord with the bushland and rural properties that surround it.

Does the state government choose to turn the bush and eco wonderland of our beautiful Somersby into a waste recycling and crushing hotspot, and choose to ignore the local residences, their health, the endangered flora and fauna, and instead, allow big business to choose where to pick up and run their business due to their wallets and handing over money as bio credits, I hope not? If this occurs we will have no bushland left to appreciate!

I hope that this is dealt with as an urgent request and review.

Yours faithfully,

It is creating jobs and there is nothing like this business on the Central Coast

I think this would be a great development for the local area.
We often require bulk landscape supplies in the central coast area

I think this would be great for local job and the environment by recycling waste into new products

This submission is being lodged by the Mountain Districts Association on behalf of it's membership.

We strongly oppose SSD-8660 for Kariong Sand &Soil Supplies at 90 Gindurra Rd, Somersby submitted by Davis Earthmoving Pty Ltd as the proposed development has potential serious adverse impacts on Public Health, Road Safety and the Environment.

1.Increased heavy vehicle traffic.
The proposed development to recycle 200,000t waste annually will require a very considerable increase in heavy vehicle traffic (up to 167movements daily) both in and out of the facility. This will have significant negative impact on the local main road Wisemans Ferry Rd which is the main thoroughfare for residents of the Mountain districts and which is used by local school buses as well as workers in Somersby Industrial Area. Congestion and road safety are of concern. Debenham Rd, a possible alternative route to Gosford for residents, would also be negatively impacted.
Also there is a potential risk to a large Gas Main and Electricity Main that run along and under Gindurra Rd as a result of vibration from large heavy vehicles constantly using the road.
2.Public Health
The revised submission speaks about” best practice” and “state of the art” facilities but fails to detail how these processes will actually stop dust and microbiological pathogens escaping from the site. A Public Health concern exists for students at the 3 schools, all people at the Juvenile Justice Centre, workers in Somersby Industial Area as well as residents of Kariong and Somersby located in the near vicinity. Dust and noise pollution remain concerns.
3.Environment
The proximity of the site to Piles and Mooney Creeks poses a risk for environmental damage in this ecologically sensitive area. If water is used as a dust suppression strategy on site where is this water coming from and how will it be disposed of?

Mangrove Mountain and Districts Community Group Inc. object to the Development application of Kariong Soil and Sand Supplies

My objection is on three grounds
1) Noise - the proposed projects abuts rural properties and this type of operation would be disturbing to the residents, flora and fauna in this area.
2) Dust - Concrete crushing (silica dust) is just simply inappropriate for this area. It will do an awful lot of material and health damage to the residents / flora / fauna in the area
3) Traffic - this project would seriously escalate the truck movements on roads which are NOT designed to cope with heavy traffic which will impact the mental health of residents and potentially impact the native animals in the area (wallabies, echidnas, monitor lizards, bird life etc.)
Concrete Crushing is not a light industry business and is not appropriate for this rural residential area.
SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE