Moorebank Waste Facility

See attachment

This proposed recycling plant is less than 200 metres from a residential area as well as on the bank of a recreational river. The plant is to process material containing silica, asbestos and other dangerous material, as well as producing high levels of dust that will cause significant health problems for local residents.

In addition, the location does not have suitable access for the high volume of truck traffic that will accompany this operation.

It is absurd that this location is even being considered for an industrial waste processing plant. The hazardous dust and noise pollution that will be produced is a danger to local residents and the existing protected river.

This proposed recycling plant is less than 200 metres from a residential area as well as on the bank of a recreational river. The plant is to process material containing silica, asbestos and other dangerous material, as well as producing high levels of dust that will cause significant health problems for local residents.

In addition, the location does not have suitable access for the high volume of truck traffic that will accompany this operation.

It is absurd that this location is even being considered for an industrial waste processing plant. The hazardous dust and noise pollution that will be produced is a danger to local residents and the existing protected river.

OPPOSITION TO MOOREBANK BUILDING WASTE PROCESSING PLANT

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 known risks from inevitable silica dust, 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. It is well known that inhalable silica dust causes lung cancer and silicosis (`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 building materials proposed to be crushed at the plant inherently contain very high silica content. 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 lack of studies in a non-industrial setting of inevitable exposure to respirable silica dust of nearby residents, particularly infants, the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions. A lot has been said in the literature about exposure limits, necessary safety gear, etc. of the grownup employees working for only around 40 hours a week in such plants but information is lacking about the unprotected residents, especially infants, growing children and elderly, exposed 24/7 to such carcinogenic environments. NSW government's own website (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2009/chapter4/chp_4.1.htm#fig4.11 ) has the following to say: "Those particularly susceptible to the health impacts of air pollution are the very young (because they are generally more active outdoors and their lungs are still developing), the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions." Additionally, since infants breathe by mouth, thus bypassing the natural filtering mechanism of nose, they are at a much higher risk.


4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the known increased toxicity of freshly fractured silica that will be released from the plant than aged crystalline silica dust found elsewhere.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the misleading information provided by Moorebank Recyclers in their application showing their panhandle as the access route for their trucks to New Bridge Road whereas RTA has already refused this access. The environmental assessment is meaningless without taking correct route into account to assess the impact on the nearby residents and environment. The to and fro movement of 324 trucks per day will create huge dust clouds if one goes by what their trucks were shown to do in a recent ACA report on Channel 9 titled "Housing dream shattered".

13. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the misleading information provided by Moorebank Recyclers in their application claiming their "model to predict dust concentrations in the region and at nearest sensitive receptors" whereas the nearest sensitive locations are actually much closer than those used in their model, i.e., Georges Fair residences just across the Brickmakers Drive.

14. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the model used by Moorebank Recyclers for Air Quality Assessment is based on pollution data obtained during 2005 whereas government's own website (mentioned above in 3) says: "Emissions from the commercial and domestic sectors are growing, increasing their relative contribution to overall emissions." In view of this the modeling should be based on recent data and not some old convenient data.

15. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the model used by Moorebank Recyclers for Air Quality Assessment is based on meteorological data obtained from Bankstown Airport which is kilometers away but still "considered to be representative of conditions experienced at the project site" despite "Terrain around the site consists of gentle hills, bounding the Georges River (see Figure 2)". These types of gross assumptions are risky to be made when it comes to public health and safety especially when DECCW requirements clearly state that "Data must be representative of the area in which emissions are modeled".

16. I oppose the building waste processing plant because Moorebank Recyclers already admit in their Air Quality Assessment that "Assessment of cumulative 24-hour average PM10 air quality impacts is often complicated as there may be many occasions when background concentrations are already above the 24-hour average air quality criteria". The pollution levels have further increased since this data was obtained and will most likely keep increasing due to proposed Intermodal. Therefore, the pollution levels cannot be allowed to increase any further risking thousands of innocent lives.

17. I oppose the building waste processing plant because Moorebank Recyclers proposal is denying the opportunity to the future residents closest to the proposed site who are yet to complete their construction and start living there.

18. I oppose the building waste processing plant because we might be creating another James Hardie like situation considering the striking similarities of health effects of asbestos and respirable silica dust. 30 years ago it was considered perfectly fine to work with asbestos without any protection. Even at that time plenty of medical break-through were occurring. Yet, nobody banned asbestos back then. It was only years later that the real danger of working with asbestos was known. Unfortunately, for some people it was too late. However, the dangers about exposure to inhalable silica dust are already well known and perhaps in future we may find that it is even more dangerous than we ever knew. Despite knowing this, if this development were to go head, it not only would be an environmental and health catastrophe but it would also be a moral catastrophe where future generations may not look at this event kindly. It is unclear why despite having recently looked at the James Hardie debacle we are trying to create another James Hardie? Why are the poor people who have nowhere to go being subjected to this serious health hazard 24/7?

19. I oppose the building waste processing plant because I am aware of significant scientific literature which clearly states that methods often used to control dust, such as watering or screening by trees, are ineffective when it comes to the extremely fine particles of respirable silica dust, which act as integral part of air and follow it everywhere. Such particles are known to travel several kilometers in air.

As a local community member, I OPPOSE the building waste processing plant. I call on councillors, the NSW Parliament, the Minister for Planning, the Planning Assessment Commission, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Premier of NSW to REJECT this proposal.

OPPOSITION TO MOOREBANK BUILDING WASTE PROCESSING PLANT

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 known risks from inevitable silica dust, 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. It is well known that inhalable silica dust causes lung cancer and silicosis (`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 building materials proposed to be crushed at the plant inherently contain very high silica content. 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 lack of studies in a non-industrial setting of inevitable exposure to respirable silica dust of nearby residents, particularly infants, the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions. A lot has been said in the literature about exposure limits, necessary safety gear, etc. of the grownup employees working for only around 40 hours a week in such plants but information is lacking about the unprotected residents, especially infants, growing children and elderly, exposed 24/7 to such carcinogenic environments. NSW government's own website (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2009/chapter4/chp_4.1.htm#fig4.11 ) has the following to say: "Those particularly susceptible to the health impacts of air pollution are the very young (because they are generally more active outdoors and their lungs are still developing), the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions." Additionally, since infants breathe by mouth, thus bypassing the natural filtering mechanism of nose, they are at a much higher risk.


4. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the known increased toxicity of freshly fractured silica that will be released from the plant than aged crystalline silica dust found elsewhere.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the misleading information provided by Moorebank Recyclers in their application showing their panhandle as the access route for their trucks to New Bridge Road whereas RTA has already refused this access. The environmental assessment is meaningless without taking correct route into account to assess the impact on the nearby residents and environment. The to and fro movement of 324 trucks per day will create huge dust clouds if one goes by what their trucks were shown to do in a recent ACA report on Channel 9 titled "Housing dream shattered".

13. I oppose the building waste processing plant because of the misleading information provided by Moorebank Recyclers in their application claiming their "model to predict dust concentrations in the region and at nearest sensitive receptors" whereas the nearest sensitive locations are actually much closer than those used in their model, i.e., Georges Fair residences just across the Brickmakers Drive.

14. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the model used by Moorebank Recyclers for Air Quality Assessment is based on pollution data obtained during 2005 whereas government's own website (mentioned above in 3) says: "Emissions from the commercial and domestic sectors are growing, increasing their relative contribution to overall emissions." In view of this the modeling should be based on recent data and not some old convenient data.

15. I oppose the building waste processing plant because the model used by Moorebank Recyclers for Air Quality Assessment is based on meteorological data obtained from Bankstown Airport which is kilometers away but still "considered to be representative of conditions experienced at the project site" despite "Terrain around the site consists of gentle hills, bounding the Georges River (see Figure 2)". These types of gross assumptions are risky to be made when it comes to public health and safety especially when DECCW requirements clearly state that "Data must be representative of the area in which emissions are modeled".

16. I oppose the building waste processing plant because Moorebank Recyclers already admit in their Air Quality Assessment that "Assessment of cumulative 24-hour average PM10 air quality impacts is often complicated as there may be many occasions when background concentrations are already above the 24-hour average air quality criteria". The pollution levels have further increased since this data was obtained and will most likely keep increasing due to proposed Intermodal. Therefore, the pollution levels cannot be allowed to increase any further risking thousands of innocent lives.

17. I oppose the building waste processing plant because Moorebank Recyclers proposal is denying the opportunity to the future residents closest to the proposed site who are yet to complete their construction and start living there.

18. I oppose the building waste processing plant because we might be creating another James Hardie like situation considering the striking similarities of health effects of asbestos and respirable silica dust. 30 years ago it was considered perfectly fine to work with asbestos without any protection. Even at that time plenty of medical break-through were occurring. Yet, nobody banned asbestos back then. It was only years later that the real danger of working with asbestos was known. Unfortunately, for some people it was too late. However, the dangers about exposure to inhalable silica dust are already well known and perhaps in future we may find that it is even more dangerous than we ever knew. Despite knowing this, if this development were to go head, it not only would be an environmental and health catastrophe but it would also be a moral catastrophe where future generations may not look at this event kindly. It is unclear why despite having recently looked at the James Hardie debacle we are trying to create another James Hardie? Why are the poor people who have nowhere to go being subjected to this serious health hazard 24/7?

19. I oppose the building waste processing plant because I am aware of significant scientific literature which clearly states that methods often used to control dust, such as watering or screening by trees, are ineffective when it comes to the extremely fine particles of respirable silica dust, which act as integral part of air and follow it everywhere. Such particles are known to travel several kilometers in air.

As a local community member, I OPPOSE the building waste processing plant. I call on councillors, the NSW Parliament, the Minister for Planning, the Planning Assessment Commission, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Premier of NSW to REJECT this proposal.

From: B & D Maile
c/- Holsworthy NSW 2173

Currently building at Georges Fair Moorebank

Re: Amendments to proposed Building & Construction Waste Recycling Facility Moorebank
Application No. 05_0157

OBJECTION

No donations EVER to political parties

I am writing to voice our objection and absolute disgust about this proposal. There are so many reasons to object Im not sure where to start!

(1) Impact on the environment and surrounding Georges River area Â- an area currently enjoyed by many people and set to be enjoyed by many more once the marina is completed. The added unprecedented levels of pollution flowing into the water and the air above is absolutely deplorable and disgusting that such a thing is even being considered. We are currently building at Georges Fair and chose it for itÂ's lovely surrounds and also as prior we lived at Bexley directly under the flight path. Both of my children developed asthma and it was noticeably worse the days the planes were overhead, and now we are to be inflicted with a constant stream of dust and other pollutants. If this disgusting development is allowed to proceed not only will there be a distinct impact on the surrounding nature but also on the many people who have or are making Georges Fair their home.
(2) The impact of the noise and the additional traffic from the hundreds of trucks that will be using the facility daily. Brickmakers Drive is already used by a large number of people as a quick route between Newbridge and Nuwarra Roads Â- adding hundreds of trucks will just make the area and surrounding streets ridiculously busy and congested. Georges Fair will be a lovely and reasonably quiet area once all of the construction is completed but now we are to assaulted daily with unrelenting and unwanted noise from the plant.
(3) The plant is to process 500,000 tons of building and construction waste which is outrageous! I would also question immediately what safeguards are in place to stop any asbestos materials getting in and then being polluted into the local air and water? You canÂ't tell me that with such a large amount of waste some poor schmuck is going to analyse every morsel to ensure no asbestos has gotten through and so therefore I can only assume that we will all be exposed many times to asbestos products. Conveniently this will take more than 20-30 years to affect the health of those around so of course these recycling idiots can claim innocence! In years to come when all the locals are suffering asbestos and dust related diseases what will they do then? I think they will do as much as Boral did after inflicting dust and damage for 8 years to all of the local houses while developing Georges Fair Â- and that is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! This will mean that not only will we have to live with this abomination but we can expect no assistance in the future with any medical issues.
(4) We are an area already under siege by a useless Government with the current implementation of the Inter-modal link Â- something that was not ever wanted by anyone in the area and it will already contribute hundreds of large trucks to the area Â- much more than the currently overloaded area can cope with. Anyone who has to use the M5 or surrounding streets will be severely adversely affected by this ridiculous plan Â- do you really think adding hundreds more trucks and pollution at this recycling plant will add anything good to the area? There is clearly so much corruption and under the table deals going on here as neither of these ideas were crushed from the beginning. They are both patently ridiculous and extremely unfair to the thousands of people who live in the areas and show a complete lack of consideration for anyone except those corrupt people who will profit from these disasters.

In conclusion I again voice my objection in the strongest possible terms. This should never be built anywhere near residential homes and I am completely disgusted about the lack of consideration for all of the young families in the area (my own included) who will be adversely affected. I donÂ't particularly expect anything to come from my letter however as clearly the corruption involved is deep and entrenched and no objections will affect that.

Shame on you!

We object this recycling project to keep the area sound more residential kind and less traffic, already had too much traffic. After building a dream home, we want good and safe environment for our kids where they could grow safe and healthy.

Dear Sir

I object the concrete recylcing in Moorebank.

I would like to bring the following points to your attention

The Brickmakers drive is having vehicles going as fast as 70 km/hr. If the plant is approved just imaging the number of vehicles using that road. The Nuwarra road is like a car park nowadays. I leave my house to drop my son to school in Holsworthy. It takes me a full 15 minutes to reach the Heathcode road.
I see the backlog of cars using the brickmakers drive to get to nuwarra road/heathcote road.

Thanks and regards
Manu

I oppose to the proposed Moorebank Waste Processing Project (Project Number 05 0157) at Lot 6 DP1065574, Newbridge Road, Moorebank.

1. The proposed development of a waste processing plant is far too close to existing and proposed residential homes.

2. The proposed development of a waste processing plant poses a health risk from dust and potential asbestos exposure.

3. NSW govt scraps 3A planning provision hence this proposal should not have been allowed to proceed since Councillors of the Liverpool City Council have voted unanimously against this development.

4. There will be significant volume of traffic increase around the Georges fair area which will result in an increase in traffic noise, rush hour jams and various safety concerns because of an increase in large trucks movement.

5. This proposal have negative impact on land values for the surrounding area.

6. This proposal does not bring postive gains to the community but brings only negative impact.

7. This proposal should be located in a remote area not near a residential zone.

see attached

I strongly object to the proposal MP 05_0157 Moorebank waste facility for the following reasons:

TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

With reference to the preferred project report on the Moorebank Waste Faciity, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

See attached for outline of objections.

To whoever that have commonsense!

1. Just wondering what happened to the objections that was raised few months ago! For how long do we have to keep fighting?
2. People with money! (Morrebank waste facilty) can afford to take common people for a ride - Eg: They are proposing a revised PPR, which is nothing but "old wine in new bottle". They can afford - because they have the money, time & resources. What about the common people - who do not have money, nor the time or resources to fight it!
3.As mentioned in the previous objection that I raised, my only question is "does the people in power (includes, Moorebank Waste facilty owners, approving officials, other government officials concerned/involed with the project, approving authorities) is that, will you have the same project in your backyard/neighbourhood?
4. The dust, pollution and stench from the existing Benedict Recyclers is itself a nightmare and you want to add more to the already existing mess!
5. Why on earth did the Georges Fair Housing Development approved in the first place? It would have been good if the old Boral Qarry was left as it was 13 years ago and moorebank waste facilty could have built the world's biggest facilty in that dump (all underground)! instead of coming up with their disastrous proposal now!

With reference to the proposed Moorebank Waste Facility (MP 05_0157), I STRONGLY OPPOSE this. See attached for details.

Strongly Object to this proposal, this is a residential area now, pull your heads out and move it next to eastern creek where theres already a dump.

I am strongly objecting this project as it will be created a lot of air polutions and ruin the look of the area.

I submitted our letter in March 2013, stating both my husband and my feelings about this Major Project in our back yard. We are completely AGAINST IT.

This is our Objection to Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd Building Waste Proposal

We have lived in the Moorebank / Chipping Norton area for more than 34 years. Although we don't live in The Georges Fair area, we had considered buying there and we know many families that have done exactly that.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE LAST THING WE NEED IN THIS AREA IS MORE TRUCKS.

A MAJOR FACTOR IS HEALTH ISSUES, there isn't a thing any one can say that will convince us that this wont affect the health of many young children not to mention elderly people. The pollution that comes out of the trucks, and we can't forget the dust from both the trucks and the Site - all of which are health issues. Has council and the planners ever driven along Newbridge Rd as the trucks enter and leave the Benedicts Site - if so, you would see the dust tossed around by these trucks not to mention the dirt on the road all the way to Governor Macquarie Drive & up the hill to Nuwarra Rd.I When I dust my furniture it is black dust, and it can only be caused by trucks in the area. When we lived in the eastern suburbs, I never had black dust. We also have concerns of ASBESTOS, they all try to assure us that this can't happen, unfortunately promises can and will be broken and this cant be guaranteed.

There are far better sites than this to put a recycling plant.
We already have an industrial area nearby, we dont need more. Perhaps a better site may be in their own backyard at their Rydalmere Office. Especially since they don't seem to feel there are any Health Issues. Better next to an office & factory rather than a HOME.

Dont you think Moorebank is already subject to the worst truck infestion now? This is going to make our area impossible to drive in yet alone live in.
Traffic, congestion and the noise in this area is bad enough now. We also now have the Intermodal in our back yard! What more damage can our council prevail on us?
M5 is congested so all the trucks are now coming back to our main roads. Newbridge, Heathcote, Nuwarra, Henry Lawson. And now even a little local street called Brickmakers Drive has to put up with that. That street should never have allowed trucks on it. I can't believe they reckon 324 truck movements along Brickmakers Drive and that operating 6 days a week 7am - 6pm is not going to cause any noise or harm to us all!
WHO ARE THEY KIDDING the place hasn't even opened yet and that street is a nightmare with trucks running up & down. I realise council have now put a Tonnage Limit on it but some trucks will still use it.

While I'm on this subject of Brickmakers Drive -
Why did R & M Services change the left hand turn only - from Newbridge Road into Nuwarra Road to a straight or left turn - That in my opinion (and I believe many would agree with me) has contributed to the trucks using Brickmakers Drive as you only have to have one car wanting to go straight on Newbridge Road and it holds up all the traffic that wants to turn left. I don't know who or how that decision was made, but can only come to the conclusion that the person either doesn't live in the area or wants all traffic to go into Brickmakers Drive - unfortunately causing hell for all the residents. It would be great if someone would reconfigure it back the way it was, this will certainly cut down the use of Brickmakers Drive by truckies and restore some peace to the residents of Georges Fair.


Our minds boggle that this proposal is even being considered.

We can't stress strongly enough as to how we totally object to this proposal

A recycling plant is of no use to us and should be in a Dedicated Industrial Area suited for its purpose NOT HERE..

Rebuttals to the Moorebank Recycler "Preferred Project" report

The mere naming of this report by Moorebank Recycler is totally misleading as this is definitely NOT "Preferred" by the whole community breathing and living surrounding this polluting proposal. This so-called Preferred Project report is initiated and financed by Moorebank Recycler thus is strongly bias toward presenting false and misleading "evidences" or assumptions to get the polluting factory approved by PAC.
Section 1.3 in the report clearly shows the Boral Moorebank Structure Plan 2002 indicated the Moorebank Recycler parcel and Benedict Sand parcel as Waste and Recycling uses/Open Space (Other uses subject to detailed investigations). Liverpool Council, being a very conscientious and pro-community council has great plans to beautify this part of the council precinct and started to move towards this direction. In LEP3008, Moorebank Recycler's parcel has been zoned as E2 Environmental Conservation with Clause 11. This clause explicitly provides a sunset time limit for any waste factory to be built within deadline of 1 September 2018. It is clear that Liverpool Council is proactive yet sensitive and sympathetic towards businesses such as this landfill owner now known as Moorebank Recycler, in giving this company ample time (2002 to 2018) to submit their voluntary prezoning submission to improve their land purpose. Another company, Benedict Sands, being a very much more forward-looking has in fact submitted plans to close their sandmining operation and replace it with a functional and magnificent marina, suiting the recreation purpose of Georges River. On the other hand, Moorebank Recycler has and is still adamant to be stuck in polluting industry, thus pushing this waste recycling plant proposal through Part 3A process. Moorebank Recycler has turned around and bite the Liverpool Council's hand of generosity and is trying to completely destroy the improvement of this ex-Boral land parcel.

The numerous reports financed by the proponent MRF tried to mislead the public and PAC that this proposal has negligible impact on air quality, noise, visual impact. Yet, the numbers from these reports are mere estimation based on fancy sounding models, not actual concrete numbers from any similarly existing waste recycling plant. Hidden somewhere in Attachment 11 of Pacific Environment Limited Air Quality report is a section showing existing Dust Control procedure at 11 Thackeray Street, Camellia. MRF has been operating this polluting plant for such a long time under the banner of Concrete Recycler. Why are the air quality, noise, dust, visual impact studies not conducted on this existing factory surroundings? This existing plant is much smaller than the proposed MRF at Moorebank yet emitting high pollution in all aspects. Once actual readings numbers are obtained from this existing plant, these can be extrapolated to the 500,000 tonnes per annum operation. These numbers will be much more representative of how badly the air quality will be affected and noise increased once MRF start operating.

Section 3.1.1 Site Access of the Proposed Amendments contains the Cardno plans which clearly show ramps for access of this MRF. Any trucks, especially the huge 23 tonnes trucks, straining to go up the short steep ramp to cross the bridge will surely result in the following:-
- Backing up the traffic at Brickmakers road, all the way till Newbridge Road, since these ramps are merely less than 300m from the Newbridge intersection. With 324 trucks movement daily, this traffic jam will last the whole day, disrupting the flow of passengers cars from Georges Fair community and any passing vehicles. It is likely that the whole Milperra section of Newbrige Road will piled up with MRF trucks queuing to access these ramps.
- Excessive smoke from the trucks, polluting the surrounding air, especially the Georges Fair residential area.
- Increase noise volume and amplitude from the trucks engine struggling to go up the ramps.
These results completely negate the responses of the proponent in section 2.3, 2.4, 2.5. The proponent conveniently avoids addressing the struggling truck movements up the ramps in Cardno Plans, hoping to hoodwink PAC by merely showing numbers. Note too that all the numbers in the proponent report is merely assumptions without any actual existing facility study. MRF purposely avoid putting forward a study of actual numbers at the existing Concrete Recycler plant at Camelia, where trucks movement pose daily dangers and hazards to residents nearby.

If the proponent MRF is really serious and concerned of mitigating visual impact, they should not have proposed a stockpile height of 10m. Even in section 3.1.3 Amended Stockpile Height, MRF is only proposing limiting the stockpile height to 7 m, which is higher than the western boundary bund of 6m. And if MRF really wanted to be environmentally responsible, the company should not even propose building such a polluting plant next to an environmentally sensitive river ecosystem of Georges River. The fact that the proponent tried to play down the ecosystem sensitivity of the Georges River in page 3-27 does not give this MRF the right to further damage and pollute the river more.

Section 3.2.8 Flora and Fauna, MRF readily acknowledge the proposal will threaten the local flora and fauna, yet the mitigating measures are just credit offsets which do nothing good for that localised damaged flora and fauna.

What good doES the list of Statement of Commitments do when the proponent got approval to pollute the complete surrounding communities with asbestos dust, kills the ecosystem of the river and thorough ruin the lives and health of people; children, families, retirees within 2km of this plant? Will the state government be responsible for compensations in the future? Will the EPA which seems to appear ignorant and flippant in their letter under Attachment B (part of Attachment 12), be responsible for subjecting so many residents to noise stress and highly likely asbestos dust exposure?

Will this be another James Hardie episode?

The blood of people will be on Planning Assessment Commission hand, the state government hand and the Planning Minister Brad Hazzard's hand if this proposal gets the go-ahead.

please see attached

I am strongly against this idiotic proposal. Attached are my opposition points.

- Moorebank Recycler protest letter
- References
- Community Petition

The state government, its agencies - EPA, RMS; Judiciary; Planning Assessment Commission, Planning & Infrastructure Minister Brad Hazzard are responsible to do the right thing and deny this proposal.