Mod 1 - Approval Lapse Date

Dear Mr Witherdin,
Firstly, I would like to express my absolute disgust at the way in which this EA Exhibition came to be public knowledge - I honestly believe that if Community Representatives had not made approach to the Department to clarify the modification sought and the timeline for submissions, this modification would have been granted without any community consultation.
I strongly object to the modification, being an extension to the consent period for the development. My understanding is that being a Transitional Part 3A project, approval for this project laspses 5 years after the repeal of Part 3A - being 1st October, 2016. Any modification to allow extension from this date would be unlawful, not to mention immoral.
I look forward to a fair and just outcome from the Department, and following legislation, a lapse of consent on 1st October, 2016.
With regards,
Fiona Macnaught

Dear Mr Witherdin,
Firstly, we would like to express our absolute disgust at the way in which this EA Exhibition came to be public knowledge. Why was there no community consultation for such a controversial and highly objectionable modification until Community Representatives made approach to the Department?
Our Community strongly objects to the modification, being an extension to the consent period for the development. Under advice, we understand that being a Transitional Part 3A project, approval for this project laspses 5 years after the repeal of Part 3A - being 1st October, 2016. Any modification to allow extension from this date would be unlawful, not to mention immoral. Additionally, in no way is this a minor modification - extension of approval by 4 years cannot be considered minor!
The approval granted by PAC for the project relies on the Liverpool LEP. Under this planning control, permissibility for the project exists only until 1st September, 2018 - 2 years shy of what the proponent is seeking..hardy a minor modification!
We look forward to a fair and just outcome from the Department, and by following legislation, a lapse of consent confirmed as at 1st October, 2016.
With regards,
Fiona Macnaught
President - Moorebank Residents' Action Group

I strongly oppose the application for modification to MP 05_0157 MOD 1 at site Lot 6 DP 1065574 Newbridge Road, Moorebank. An additional five year extension to the consent period just prolongs the process of a potential and highly damaging waste recycling plant impacting on the residents of Georges Fair and the greater area of Moorebank. I strongly believe the consent period should be in accordance with the sunset clause in the Liverpool LEP which expires on September 1st, 2018. No further extensions to the consent period are to be made to prolong this devastating development application. I hope that the community has their voice heard in this matter regarding the negative effects that this modification application has on the local community.

I object to the application for modification to MP 05_0157 MOD 1 at site Lot 6 DP 1065574 Newbridge Road, Moorebank. As a community member who has family including grandchildren living in Georges Fair which is opposite this proposed site, I reject the application to extend the consent period, as this will continue to have a negative impact on the local community.

I object to the application for modification to MP 05_0157 MOD 1 at site Lot 6 DP 1065574 Newbridge Road, Moorebank. The consent period must not be extended beyond what is already documented in the existing application.

As a concerned resident within the local area, regardless of the development application, I am in opposition to the application for modification to MP 05_0157 MOD 1 at site Lot 6 DP 1065574 Newbridge Road, Moorebank.

The primary reason for my objection to the five year extension of the consent period is that it will prolong the official rejection of the overall development application causing anxiety for the surrounding residents and businesses, also diminishing the value of the area in real terms from private and public investment. Given the amount of time already surpassed I believe the sunset clause in the Liverpool LEP which expires on September 1st, 2018 is, and has been adequate enough.

I reiterate my strong objection to this application and look forward to a positive outcome.

I have recently purchased a unit in Liverpool and I would like to keep the Georges river clean and the moorebank kept residential area only

I object to this request for a modification to the approval on the grounds that the original proposal should never have been granted approval in the first place. It is quite clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that placing building waste disposal facility on that lot surrounded by homes, a marina, a river, a golf course, and eventually parklands/cycleways/walking tracks is a clear example of planning stupidity. At no point has the commercial entity in its proposal, nor the planning & environment department in its approval, demonstrated how this facility will enhance the area, nor provide a benefit that outweighs what a blight it will be, and an obstruction to the development of the area as a natural asset to the local community. The Planning & Environment Department should add the letters "Un" to the front of its name, since if you were to view an overhead photograph of the area in 10 years time based on this decision you would swear that someone had just plonked this facility randomly like in a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

This application should NEVER have been approved in the first place. Shame on you for approving a recycling plant in close proximity to a newly developed residential area.

Please don't allow this plant to ruin the new development area by having dangerous chemicals near family homes.

I oppose to Modification to Resource Recovery Facility - Construction and Demolition Waste BECAUSE I AM AGAINST SETTING UP SUCH A HAZARDOUS PLANT SO CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL LOCATION WHERE FAMILIES WITH NEWBORNS, YOUNG CHILDREN, YOUTH, PREGNANT LADIES, OLD AND SICK PEOPLE RESIDE:

1. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is far too close to existing
and proposed residential homes. The proposed development is just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing
estate. Trucks using the proposed facility will travel even closer to residential homes. Trucks will likely short cut
through Georges Fair, passing parks and local residents, using roads not designed for massive trucks.
2. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the risks from asbestos and toxins. At the community
consultation meeting held on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club, the representatives of the developer refused to
comment on whether asbestos would be processed at the facility and whether toxins would be released. There is
a link between silica dust and lung cancer (`Occupational Exposure to Silica and Lung Cancer', Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention Journal, Volume 19, 2010). There is no known cure for silicosis (`A
Brief Review of Silicosis in the US', Environ Health Insights, Volume 4, East Carolina University, 2010). The
developer plans to install sweepers "where trucks and people will travel" and that there are "unsealed areas" in the
development. Their own documentation refers to "likely dust from the recycling facility" (pg 3, developer's
information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). This is an unacceptable health risk for local
residents.
3. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the potential for flooding. The proposed development
is in an area that floods. In the event of a flood, unsafe building materials and material stockpiles may cause an
environmental disaster throughout Moorebank and the entire Georges River Basin.
4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the NSW Government has indicated there will be "a
return of local planning powers to local communities" (`NSW govt scraps 3A planning provision', SMH, 4/4/2011).
The local community is opposed to this development. Councillors of the Liverpool City Council have voted
unanimously against this development (Minutes, Liverpool City Council meeting, 15/6/2011).
5. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is incompatible with the
current and planned residential and recreational uses of the area. The proposed concrete processing facility is
just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing estate, with a high proportion of residents having young families.
The area is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. It should not be used for a concrete processing plant. In
close proximity are schools, parklands, the Georges River itself, cycleways, a proposed waterside marina, a library
and a golf club. The land is more suitable for recreational facilities or a reserve. Even the owners of the Benedict
Recycling plant at Moorebank (which borders the proposed facility) have accepted that the area is no longer
suitable for a building waste processing plant and have started to shut down their operations to create their own
housing estate and marina.
6. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of increased traffic. The developer states the proposed
facility will result in an extra 324 truck movements a day, which is "very low and will have no impact on the arterial
road network" (developer's information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). Increased traffic will
have a significant impact on arterial roads including Nuwarra Road, Newbridge Road and Governor Macquarie
Drive. There is already significant traffic in the area which will be made worse by the `Intermodal', which will cause
an extra 1.5 million truck movements in the first year. Truck movements will primarily be in peak hours, further
impacting on already high congestion. The residents of Moorebank and other areas should not experience any
additional noise, pollution and congestion from this proposed facility, given the likelihood of the `Intermodal'.
7. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the negative impact on land values. Residents of the
Moorebank precinct in particular have spent significant amounts of money on land and homes. The proposed
development will have a severe impact on land values and residents will not be compensated.
8. I oppose the building waste processing plant because there was a lack of community consultation at a meeting
held by representatives of the developers on 31/5/2011. The organisers did not notify a significant number of local
residents and future residents about the meeting. The organisers refused to answer questions from local residents
on health risks. The organisers did not allow time to note down and respond to residents' concerns.
9. I oppose the building waste processing plant because it is dangerous to residents for a concrete processing
plant to be located in this area of metropolitan Sydney. There are pre-existing waste processing plants operated by
Benedict Recycling and Smorgan Steel Recycling at Chipping Norton. Benedict Recycling is planning to build
another plant at Heathcote. There is no need for so many waste processing plants in such close proximity to each
other.

As a resident located 250 metres from this proposed concrete crusher I object to the extension of the proposal. Resodents don't want it, local governments in Liverpool and Bankstown don't want it here. It should not be built. The health of residents is at the hands of this proposal. It must be stopped now.

I oppose the Modification to Resource Recovery Facility - Construction and Demolition Waste BECAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE , I AM AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF SO CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE YOUNG FAMILIES WITH NEWBORN AND YOUNG CHILDREN, YOUTH, PREGNANT WOMEN, OLD AND SICK PEOPLE RESIDE. THE REASONS FOR MY OBJECTION TO THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF ARE GIVEN BELOW.
1. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is far too close to existing
and proposed residential homes. The proposed development is just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing
estate. Trucks using the proposed facility will travel even closer to residential homes. Trucks will likely short cut
through Georges Fair, passing parks and local residents, using roads not designed for massive trucks.
2. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the risks from asbestos and toxins. At the community
consultation meeting held on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club, the representatives of the developer refused to
comment on whether asbestos would be processed at the facility and whether toxins would be released. There is
a link between silica dust and lung cancer (`Occupational Exposure to Silica and Lung Cancer', Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention Journal, Volume 19, 2010). There is no known cure for silicosis (`A
Brief Review of Silicosis in the US', Environ Health Insights, Volume 4, East Carolina University, 2010). The
developer plans to install sweepers "where trucks and people will travel" and that there are "unsealed areas" in the
development. Their own documentation refers to "likely dust from the recycling facility" (pg 3, developer's
information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). This is an unacceptable health risk for local
residents.
3. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the potential for flooding. The proposed development
is in an area that floods. In the event of a flood, unsafe building materials and material stockpiles may cause an
environmental disaster throughout Moorebank and the entire Georges River Basin.
4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the NSW Government has indicated there will be "a
return of local planning powers to local communities" (`NSW govt scraps 3A planning provision', SMH, 4/4/2011).
The local community is opposed to this development. Councillors of the Liverpool City Council have voted
unanimously against this development (Minutes, Liverpool City Council meeting, 15/6/2011).
5. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is incompatible with the
current and planned residential and recreational uses of the area. The proposed concrete processing facility is
just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing estate, with a high proportion of residents having young families.
The area is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. It should not be used for a concrete processing plant. In
close proximity are schools, parklands, the Georges River itself, cycleways, a proposed waterside marina, a library
and a golf club. The land is more suitable for recreational facilities or a reserve. Even the owners of the Benedict
Recycling plant at Moorebank (which borders the proposed facility) have accepted that the area is no longer
suitable for a building waste processing plant and have started to shut down their operations to create their own
housing estate and marina.
6. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of increased traffic. The developer states the proposed
facility will result in an extra 324 truck movements a day, which is "very low and will have no impact on the arterial
road network" (developer's information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). Increased traffic will
have a significant impact on arterial roads including Nuwarra Road, Newbridge Road and Governor Macquarie
Drive. There is already significant traffic in the area which will be made worse by the `Intermodal', which will cause
an extra 1.5 million truck movements in the first year. Truck movements will primarily be in peak hours, further
impacting on already high congestion. The residents of Moorebank and other areas should not experience any
additional noise, pollution and congestion from this proposed facility, given the likelihood of the `Intermodal'.
7. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the negative impact on land values. Residents of the
Moorebank precinct in particular have spent significant amounts of money on land and homes. The proposed
development will have a severe impact on land values and residents will not be compensated.
8. I oppose the building waste processing plant because there was a lack of community consultation at a meeting
held by representatives of the developers on 31/5/2011. The organisers did not notify a significant number of local
residents and future residents about the meeting. The organisers refused to answer questions from local residents
on health risks. The organisers did not allow time to note down and respond to residents' concerns.
9. I oppose the building waste processing plant because it is dangerous to residents for a concrete processing
plant to be located in this area of metropolitan Sydney. There are pre-existing waste processing plants operated by
Benedict Recycling and Smorgan Steel Recycling at Chipping Norton. Benedict Recycling is planning to build
another plant at Heathcote. There is no need for so many waste processing plants in such close proximity to each
other.
SINCE I OPPOSE THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF, I AM OF COURSE AGAINST THE MODIFICATION TO THE FACILITY.

I oppose the Modification to Resource Recovery Facility - Construction and Demolition Waste BECAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE , I AM AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF SO CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE YOUNG FAMILIES WITH NEWBORN AND YOUNG CHILDREN, YOUTH, PREGNANT WOMEN, OLD AND SICK PEOPLE RESIDE. THE REASONS FOR MY OBJECTION TO THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF ARE GIVEN BELOW.
1. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is far too close to existing
and proposed residential homes. The proposed development is just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing
estate. Trucks using the proposed facility will travel even closer to residential homes. Trucks will likely short cut
through Georges Fair, passing parks and local residents, using roads not designed for massive trucks.
2. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the risks from asbestos and toxins. At the community
consultation meeting held on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club, the representatives of the developer refused to
comment on whether asbestos would be processed at the facility and whether toxins would be released. There is
a link between silica dust and lung cancer (`Occupational Exposure to Silica and Lung Cancer', Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention Journal, Volume 19, 2010). There is no known cure for silicosis (`A
Brief Review of Silicosis in the US', Environ Health Insights, Volume 4, East Carolina University, 2010). The
developer plans to install sweepers "where trucks and people will travel" and that there are "unsealed areas" in the
development. Their own documentation refers to "likely dust from the recycling facility" (pg 3, developer's
information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). This is an unacceptable health risk for local
residents.
3. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the potential for flooding. The proposed development
is in an area that floods. In the event of a flood, unsafe building materials and material stockpiles may cause an
environmental disaster throughout Moorebank and the entire Georges River Basin.
4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the NSW Government has indicated there will be "a
return of local planning powers to local communities" (`NSW govt scraps 3A planning provision', SMH, 4/4/2011).
The local community is opposed to this development. Councillors of the Liverpool City Council have voted
unanimously against this development (Minutes, Liverpool City Council meeting, 15/6/2011).
5. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is incompatible with the
current and planned residential and recreational uses of the area. The proposed concrete processing facility is
just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing estate, with a high proportion of residents having young families.
The area is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. It should not be used for a concrete processing plant. In
close proximity are schools, parklands, the Georges River itself, cycleways, a proposed waterside marina, a library
and a golf club. The land is more suitable for recreational facilities or a reserve. Even the owners of the Benedict
Recycling plant at Moorebank (which borders the proposed facility) have accepted that the area is no longer
suitable for a building waste processing plant and have started to shut down their operations to create their own
housing estate and marina.
6. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of increased traffic. The developer states the proposed
facility will result in an extra 324 truck movements a day, which is "very low and will have no impact on the arterial
road network" (developer's information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). Increased traffic will
have a significant impact on arterial roads including Nuwarra Road, Newbridge Road and Governor Macquarie
Drive. There is already significant traffic in the area which will be made worse by the `Intermodal', which will cause
an extra 1.5 million truck movements in the first year. Truck movements will primarily be in peak hours, further
impacting on already high congestion. The residents of Moorebank and other areas should not experience any
additional noise, pollution and congestion from this proposed facility, given the likelihood of the `Intermodal'.
7. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the negative impact on land values. Residents of the
Moorebank precinct in particular have spent significant amounts of money on land and homes. The proposed
development will have a severe impact on land values and residents will not be compensated.
8. I oppose the building waste processing plant because there was a lack of community consultation at a meeting
held by representatives of the developers on 31/5/2011. The organisers did not notify a significant number of local
residents and future residents about the meeting. The organisers refused to answer questions from local residents
on health risks. The organisers did not allow time to note down and respond to residents' concerns.
9. I oppose the building waste processing plant because it is dangerous to residents for a concrete processing
plant to be located in this area of metropolitan Sydney. There are pre-existing waste processing plants operated by
Benedict Recycling and Smorgan Steel Recycling at Chipping Norton. Benedict Recycling is planning to build
another plant at Heathcote. There is no need for so many waste processing plants in such close proximity to each
other.
SINCE I OPPOSE THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF I AM OFCOURSE AGAINST THE MODIFICATION TO THE FACILITY.

I oppose the Modification to Resource Recovery Facility - Construction and Demolition Waste BECAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE , I AM AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF SO CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE YOUNG FAMILIES WITH NEWBORN AND YOUNG CHILDREN, YOUTH, PREGNANT WOMEN, OLD AND SICK PEOPLE RESIDE. THE REASONS FOR MY OBJECTION TO THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF ARE GIVEN BELOW.
1. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is far too close to existing
and proposed residential homes. The proposed development is just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing
estate. Trucks using the proposed facility will travel even closer to residential homes. Trucks will likely short cut
through Georges Fair, passing parks and local residents, using roads not designed for massive trucks.
2. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the risks from asbestos and toxins. At the community
consultation meeting held on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club, the representatives of the developer refused to
comment on whether asbestos would be processed at the facility and whether toxins would be released. There is
a link between silica dust and lung cancer (`Occupational Exposure to Silica and Lung Cancer', Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention Journal, Volume 19, 2010). There is no known cure for silicosis (`A
Brief Review of Silicosis in the US', Environ Health Insights, Volume 4, East Carolina University, 2010). The
developer plans to install sweepers "where trucks and people will travel" and that there are "unsealed areas" in the
development. Their own documentation refers to "likely dust from the recycling facility" (pg 3, developer's
information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). This is an unacceptable health risk for local
residents.
3. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the potential for flooding. The proposed development
is in an area that floods. In the event of a flood, unsafe building materials and material stockpiles may cause an
environmental disaster throughout Moorebank and the entire Georges River Basin.
4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the NSW Government has indicated there will be "a
return of local planning powers to local communities" (`NSW govt scraps 3A planning provision', SMH, 4/4/2011).
The local community is opposed to this development. Councillors of the Liverpool City Council have voted
unanimously against this development (Minutes, Liverpool City Council meeting, 15/6/2011).
5. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the proposed development is incompatible with the
current and planned residential and recreational uses of the area. The proposed concrete processing facility is
just 250 metres from the Georges Fair housing estate, with a high proportion of residents having young families.
The area is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. It should not be used for a concrete processing plant. In
close proximity are schools, parklands, the Georges River itself, cycleways, a proposed waterside marina, a library
and a golf club. The land is more suitable for recreational facilities or a reserve. Even the owners of the Benedict
Recycling plant at Moorebank (which borders the proposed facility) have accepted that the area is no longer
suitable for a building waste processing plant and have started to shut down their operations to create their own
housing estate and marina.
6. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of increased traffic. The developer states the proposed
facility will result in an extra 324 truck movements a day, which is "very low and will have no impact on the arterial
road network" (developer's information distributed on 31/5/2011 at New Brighton Golf Club). Increased traffic will
have a significant impact on arterial roads including Nuwarra Road, Newbridge Road and Governor Macquarie
Drive. There is already significant traffic in the area which will be made worse by the `Intermodal', which will cause
an extra 1.5 million truck movements in the first year. Truck movements will primarily be in peak hours, further
impacting on already high congestion. The residents of Moorebank and other areas should not experience any
additional noise, pollution and congestion from this proposed facility, given the likelihood of the `Intermodal'.
7. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the negative impact on land values. Residents of the
Moorebank precinct in particular have spent significant amounts of money on land and homes. The proposed
development will have a severe impact on land values and residents will not be compensated.
8. I oppose the building waste processing plant because there was a lack of community consultation at a meeting
held by representatives of the developers on 31/5/2011. The organisers did not notify a significant number of local
residents and future residents about the meeting. The organisers refused to answer questions from local residents
on health risks. The organisers did not allow time to note down and respond to residents' concerns.
9. I oppose the building waste processing plant because it is dangerous to residents for a concrete processing
plant to be located in this area of metropolitan Sydney. There are pre-existing waste processing plants operated by
Benedict Recycling and Smorgan Steel Recycling at Chipping Norton. Benedict Recycling is planning to build
another plant at Heathcote. There is no need for so many waste processing plants in such close proximity to each
other.
SINCE I OPPOSE THE RECYCLING PLANT ITSELF I AM OFCOURSE AGAINST THE MODIFICATION TO THE FACILITY.

I am wanting to lodge my submission against the Waste Recycling Facility, Moorebank. My husband and I have just started to build in George's Fair. Our dream house, we are appalled by this facility being built right near our home. We have young children, where is their quality of life, clean fresh air? A beautiful new neighbood next door to a waste (dump). What about the pollution waste facility will create. I strongly object against such a Waste Recycling Facility being built in our new established area.

I strongly object to such a facility being built in Moorebank. My wife and I have just started to build in George's Fair. We have a young family and were very excited to build our dream home, after hearing whats being built we were guttered. Its a shame we didn't know prior to buying our block of land. How can we ever sell our house now, knowing that a Waste Recycling Facility is being built next to a new estate. A big loss to me and my family, paying over 1 million dollars for our home, to know its going to next door to a waste recycling facility.

This project is ridiculous. The PAC decision only looked at the legalities from corrupt previous council. Now thy want to extend it beyond the original corruption. There should be no extension to the approval. The whole landscape of Moorebank will have changed in 5 years. You will be yet again approving something that is utter stupid and then realising it 5 years on. Don't make stupid mistakes multiple times!

I strongly object to the development and any modification made to the application. Air and noise pollution are not wanted nor accepatable in such a high residential area. This development should never have been approved.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY MODIFICATIONS OR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE ABOVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
The PAC failed to acknowledge that another new estate named New Brighton Lakes is currently being developed in close proximity to the recycling plant when construction was already under way. Why was this never mentioned?
If access as PAC says to the recycling site is challenging, then I fail to understand how it could be approved. Where does the ENVIRONMENT come in here, in fact the ENVIRONMENT was not even considered when approval was given. WHY? Failure on the PAC, Planning Dept and Moorebank Recyclers not to take into consideration that this development will be in close proximity to 900 + homes in Georges Fair and 300+ in New Brighton, as well as being in a flood and fire zone causing possible environmental damage to our river and surrounding area to this development.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME GIVEN AS SINCE 2005 WHEN THE AREA IN QUESTION WAS APPROVED FOR MAJOR PROJECTS, THE OWNERS OF MOOREBANK RECYCLING HAS WAITED UNTIL DEC 2015 WHEN MOST OF THE BUILDING OF HOUSES IN GEORGES FAIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATIONS.

SHOULD AND WHEN THIS RECYCLERS SITE IN CAMELIA BE EARMARKED FOR RESIDENTIAL IN THE NEAR FUTURE COULD THIS BE THE REASON WHY THE OWNER OF BOTH THESE SITES REQUESTED THE EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL 2018 FOR MOOREBANK??

SO I DO OBJECT TO ANY MODIFICATIONS OR EXTENSION OF TIME BE GIVEN.

IT WOULD BE GREATLY CONSIDERED IF JUST FOR ONCE CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE MANY RESIDENTS WHO HAVE VOICED THE OBJECTIONS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED.