MOD 3 - Increase clay/shale extraction dispatch limit

Please refer to the submission attached

Great power, great for the community

I dont see the need to have another wate facility in orchard hill, since there is one at Eastern creek and one on Elizabeth drive.
Since i live in St Clair do get the smell coming from Eastern creek facility.
I dont want to live with 3 facilities near me.
Very much soooooo Object.

The modifications in the proposal are significant at 340,000 tonnes per annum and 314 movements per day which is more than double the existing tonnes and movements and is 45 tpa above the approved landfill disposal rate. This increase will have a major impact on traffic, noise and air born pollutants such as dust and exhaust emmissions. Orchard Hills already has a significant population with major feeder roads such as Northern Road which already has high traffic flow from both cars and trucks. The addition of an extra 314 movements per day will have an impact on traffic and therefore the safety of travel on these roads in and out of the area as well as wear and tare on the roads. This addition will also increase traffic and work site noise and add to already busy roads. The noise and air pollutants will also increase as a result of the increased 340,000 tpa output. There will be more equipment therefore more exhaust emmissions, more noise and dust generated from the increased extractions.
This modification will impact residents:
* access to their homes,
* their and their childrens safety while travelling within their community due to increased heavy vehicle movements,
* their quality of life especially to those with existing health concerns such as Asthma due to increases in noise and pollution. These factors will lead to a devaluation of the homes and community which will have a significant effect on the local residents and restrict any future residential development of the area.

We are opposed to the project. The roads and traffic will not be able to accomadate the current amount of traffic. Let alone increasing an additional 356 Truck movements... has there been approval by the Land and Environment Agency? The amount of time to put in our submission is very short. Has the community been advised in enough time... we recieved our hard copy of your letter on the 16th Oct ... 2 days after portal is open for submission and less time for community.

I wish to formally object to the proposed amendment to the recycling waste facility at Orchard Hills based on the following grounds:
1. Proximity to Residential Properties
The proposed development is located within 800 metres of residential homes, which are currently zoned for residential use. The close proximity poses an unreasonable intrusion into a residential area and does not align with appropriate land-use planning principles.
2. Existing Zoning Restrictions
The purchasers of this facility acquired the site with full knowledge of the planning restrictions in place. These restrictions must remain in effect unless and until the local council or the State Government rezones the nearby residential area to commercial or industrial use, which has not occurred.
3. Noise Pollution and Impact on Amenity
The proposed development will significantly increase noise levels due to the use of heavy plant machinery and a greater number of heavy vehicles, many of which will use air brakes. This level of industrial noise is not suitable in such close proximity to residential dwellings and will diminish the amenity and peaceful enjoyment of homes in the area, which was previously enjoyed before increased development, currently approved by the local council with minimal community consultation.
4. Traffic and Road Safety Concerns
The development will exacerbate existing traffic issues on Luddenham Road, which is already in poor condition. The bridge along Luddenham Road has had a 5-tonne load limit for many years, with no upgrade plans in place, despite repeated submersion during flood events. The expected increase in heavy vehicle traffic raises significant safety concerns and further deterioration of the road and bridge infrastructure.
5. Environmental and Public Health Risks
The development poses potential environmental issues, including increased noise, air pollution, dust, vermin infestation, and overall reduction in visual amenity. These impacts threaten the health, well-being, and lifestyle of residents and should be thoroughly assessed and mitigated before any approval is considered.
6. Lack of Community Consultation
There has been minimal to no consultation with local residents regarding this amendment. The absence of meaningful community engagement disregards the concerns of those who will be most affected by the development and undermines transparent and inclusive planning processes.
Conclusion
Given the proximity to residential zones, the expected adverse impacts on local amenity, safety, infrastructure, and the lack of community engagement, I respectfully request that this amendment be rejected.

I'm disgusted that 2 weeks given, minimal people notified in what is a major operating change. 570 trucks per day. increased noise, heavy traffic on a road that is used by many schools, residents. There is no way that the dust, pollution on trucks, on roads, in atmosphere can be stopped or contained. Original waste development applications are modified multiple times, to the detriment of residents, with no end plans ever. This company do not have a good environmental record when it comes to dealing with any problems. It's time to put the people of the Western Sydney, their health before company profits.

I object to the project because currently the road is in poor condition due to the current number of truck and dogs travelling the section of luddenham road they have broken up the road and the road needs to be upgraded before more trucks are allowed on this stretch of road plus bingo have a poor truck wheel wash trucks drag mud onto luddenham causing slippery conditions in the wet luddenham rd if bingo upgrades luddenham rd from Patton lane to Mamre road and cleaned the truck Tyers properly no residents would have a problem with more trucks on luddenham rd the road is a 8 ton limit road at the moment and there trucks run a minimum of 48 ton which is already unsuitable for the road cheers Joe Dimech

Please refer to the attached documents.