Mod 1 - Approval Lapse Date

The response to does not clarify why Moorebank Recyclers require more time to commence construction. There is already certainty around the start date. This is the date of the sunset clause. I'm confused about why there needs to be an extension. If Moorebank Recyclers need more time, then they need to be upfront about the reasons.

Moorebank Recyclers set out in their proposal that establishment of this facility was required to support the government initiative of growth of the south west corridor. Growth and expansion that is happening now and over the coming years. Not in 5 years time.

Surely a change of this nature changes the whole objectives of the proposal and therefore should be rejected.

Moorebank Recyclers commenced this project in 2006 and they have had 10 years to gain approval and start construction. Surely it is unreasonable for residents to have to experience another 5 years of uncertainty.

If there was a requirement to extend the project, this should have been included in the original proposal.

Enough is enough! No more extensions please.

I oppose the proposed Moorebank Waste Processing Project (Project Number 05 0157) at Lot 6 DP
1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank.
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.

The proponent should undertake a new environmental assessment focusing on noise and air pollution. It is important that this assessment focus on the impacts for residents living adjacent to the site in the new joint Mirvac/ Brighton Gold club development

The existing noise and air pollution assessment for the construction of this project does not take into consideration any of the new residential development adjacent on Brighton Golf club land to the South West of the proponents site.

This new environmental assessment should:

- Asses noise by the requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy and importantly cover measurements from all Western aspects of the site.

-Provide accurate modelling of air pollution by using a model that is listed in the 'Approved Methods for Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW' by the EPA.
*CALPUFF is the most common and widely accepted air pollution model in NSW and thus should be the desired option.
The revised air pollution model should take into account data from the last 5 years, as the previously submitted EIA used wind data from 2006.


Thankyou.

What a disgrace. How many bites of the cherry does this moron get. When is a government going to do what the people want instead of bowing to money and business.

Disgraceful

My wife and I have purchased land within the Georges Fair Estate at Moorebank to build our dream home, and enjoy the lifestyle and recreational activities that are available in and around this area. We have invested a significant amount of our savings into this house as it is to be our forever home this development application now clearly impacts on our investment. The proposal to construct a heavy recycling plant in close proximity to what has been clearly sold as a residential and recreational development is preposterous.
It has been brought to our attention that Moorebank Recyclers has applied to the Department of Planning for a modification to the consent conditions for the recently approved Recycling Facility in Moorebank.
They are asking for is a 5 year consent period and if granted, we will continue to live on a knife's edge for the next 5 years, left wondering when construction will begin on this horrid concrete crushing monstrosity.
The local community have expressed their concerns; the Liverpool Council is also in objection in regards to this development, how many lifelines can one company be given for something that is not in the interests of the local community!!!!
How much more disrespect will be levelled at our community by the Department? Not only does this mean we live another 5 years wondering when our peaceful community will be shattered, it means that the original sunset clause of September 2018 may be extended.
WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!

Please see attached letter prepared by EMM Consulting Pty Limited acting for Benedict Industries Pty Ltd and objecting to the proposed modification.