Pindimar Abalone Farm

I object to this application #10_0006 because of two main reasons.
Firstly because it will change the area of Pindimar from a quiet, pristine, secluded holiday (and retirement) area. I know many people who have chosen to retire in Pindimar and this development threatens to shatter their lives for the sake of Dollars. The quiet little roads in Pindimar were not constructed for lorries or much traffic at all. As a child I remember riding my bike around this area with my brothers in a carefree safe environment. Now I'm 20 but see many children doing the same today. Changing that is unthinkable.

Secondly, is it just me or has no-one realised what a dumb idea it would be to empty waste into a beautiful port that is filled with holiday makers who go there for the clean water and a reasonable unspoilt environment? What is wrong with us that we would even be discussing this?!

Further to my previous submission, I would like to add the following.
This proposed development in my opinion does nothing to benefit the community in which it will be operating and to me it makes no sense to risk environmental damage to such a pristine environment for the sake of exporting such a small amount of product to foreign lands.

I object to this proposal on environmental economical and social grounds. I believe the shortcomings of the proposal significantly outweigh any alleged benefits.

I object to this plan on environmental, economic and social grounds. It is a wholly unsuitable project for this location.

I strongly object to the proposal to construct and operate an abalone aquaculture farm at 180 Clarke Street South Pindimar.

As a visitor that holidays at Pindimar and surrounding areas and has done so over many decades this development is grossly inappropriate for this proposed site in Pindimar.

Some reasons are;
The discharge of huge volumes of waste effluents into Port Stephens.
The detriment to the surrounding environment of this waste.
The damage to the water quality, sea grasses and mangroves by this operation.
The potential of the spreading of diseases, such as mollusc disease.
The introduction of commercial transport traffic movements in and around the production facility, on what are now quiet country roads.
The introduction of noise associated with a facility of this size, emanating from generators, pumps, warehouses equipment, assorted machinery, forklifts.
The damag

As a land owner in Challis Avenue and regular visitor to family in Pindimar South ( since 1986) I am concerned that our amenity will be detrimentally affected by this development through
1. Noise from pumps located 400-500 m from our land
2. Traffic volume, flow and noise
3. Run off from the elevated farm site to the water table and my land
4. Loss of quiet village ambiance

Of further concern :
5. POLLUTION OF PINDIMAR SOUTH - WATER AND BEACH
Movement of and storage of sea water and abalone effluent will have a high degree of risk of spillage into environment
6. TIDAL FLOW AND POLLUTION
Current observation of deposited sand on all sea-grass on South Pindimar beach from reclaiming work at Jimmy's Beach indicates a tidal flow INTO Pindimar South. Effluent water will eddy into and stay in Pindimar South and not escape into greater Port Stephens waters. Recreational use and fisheries must be affected by this phenomenon. Drainage is an issue for residents of Cambage Street with high tides and storm surges making their way up drains and along the street front of Cambage Street. This movement of water would likely bring waste from the abalone farm into close proximity to residences.
7. GROUNDWATER
As the abalone farm is to be established on higher ground run -off and escape of production water has to effect the high water table situated under residences of Cambage St and Challis Avenue. Residents rely on groundwater bores for all home exterior uses. Health issues will be of concern !
8. ROAD ACCESS
Camabge St is a lightly sealed village street often impacted by high tidal flows into drains and swamp like conditions. Heavy traffic will be detrimental to road condition and create extra expense to Council. Increased traffic will also be dangerous to pedestrians and road users who enjoy a quiet village location not an access road with multiple trips from employee and production traffic.

In conclusion my family objects to the application to construct an abalone farm in Pindimar South as it is not a sympathetic development for a residential and tourist settlement. This development also runs the risk of negatively impacting on the beautiful waters of Port Stephens ,a premier destination for tourism in New South Wales.

I own a house in Cambage St Pindimar and as such enjoy the peaceful lifestyle there with room for grandchildren to play, swim and roam on an unpolluted beach with beautiful clear water.
All this will change if this proposal goes ahead.
But what is much important is the threat to Port Stephens itself with the taking out of so much water ,cleaning it and returning it to the bay where it will take some 12 to 14 days to flush ,no doubt leaving sediment behind to the detriment of the existing sea grass.
All other abalone farms are in costal areas not in estuaries as is proposed here and what of the risk of disease in the wild abalone population? As this has happened in areas of Victoria and Tasmania. This we do not want to happen in Port Stephens as this could have an effect on the oyster growers as well.
I also question the proposed benefit to the locals as after the construction phase it would be lucky to employ three people on an ongoing basis.
There are at present many employed in the tourism industry in Port Stephens with round year dophin watching trips in the bay and if the environment is disturbed this could cause much more financial loss than the benefit if any of an abalone farm.
Also what occurs, if as has happened to many other businesses, it goes broke? Who would be responsible for the clean up?
I strongly oppose this application and consider it should not be allowed to proceed as the only people to really benefit are the people behind Austasia ,not the people of Australia or our enviorment

Objection to DA no MP 10_0006



Development Assessment Systems & Approvals, Planning & Infrastructure, GPO Box 39 Sydney, NSW 2001.

Attention: Director, Industry, Key Sites and Social Projects.


We note that in the City Plan response to the Review Assessment for the Pindimar Abalone Farm Project, the EPA is concerned that the nitrogen dispersement model in the DA is not accurate and therefore may cause more pollution then claimed.

City Plan answers that measurements taken at the farms in the Smith Bay, Point Boston and Streaky Bay farms in SA show rapid dispersion and little accumulation of nitrogen. However, these farms are all coastal and may be expected to flush rapidly, unlike the Pindimar site which is an estuary, 9 kilometres from the coast and flushes poorly.

All the other abalone farms in Australia are on or near the coast; this site is an experiment in pollution in a pristine Port endangering valuable tourist and oyster industries.

Did the proposers of this development pay any money to any political party either directly or via a third party in the last two years?

Why is this proposal allowed to be resubmitted so soon after it was so strongly rejected previously?

Development Assessment Systems & Approvals, Planning & Infrastructure, GPO Box 39 Sydney, NSW 2001.

Attention: Director, Industry, Key Sites and Social Projects.


The Pindimar Abalone Farm project, now on exhibition, does not show any pictures of any actual abalone farms, only diagrams. In reality, the existing abalone farms are extremely unattractive, often smelly, and quite noisy from the large pumps going 24 hours a day. The sites are usually strewn with various kind of cleaning, filtering and other kinds of industrial machines.

Other Australian abalone farms are situated far from residential communities; this proposed site is very close to South Pindimar. It is also near to a thriving tourism industry which would not be enhanced by heavy industry. The proposal states that the plant would be hidden by foreshore vegetation but recent erosion and mangrove death from new sand deposition is denuding the foreshore.

We object to this proposal because this is the wrong place to put an ugly heavy industrial complex in the centre of a beautiful, unspoiled, ecologically fragile place that is also near a quiet rural community.

I oppose the development because of the potential for something to go wrong and the possible cost to the environment if that were to happen. The Myall Lakes/Port Stephens/Foster Lqkes area is a NSW jewel. Its beauty and wildlife attracts thousands and thousands of visitors every year. Anything that jeopardises this is unacceptable.
Abalone farms in Australia have a recent history of going wrong. I am not a scientist and I can't comment on the science in the reports being provided. But where there are current examples that such farms have failed then I think there is clear evidence of the risk and potential cost.
I prefer development that enhances the assets of the area. For example I understand that the sea grasses from this area attract some fairly unique fauna. A development that somehow built on that might be lower impact and sustainable while still creating local employment opportunities.

I live close by the site in our quiet rural village, and I am appalled at the prospect of a large land based Abalone Factory/Farm (with its attendant traffic movements) pumping 50 mega litres of our ports water each day in and out of the factory. How can this huge transfer of water be monitored satisfactorily (deep in the bay) for effluent and bi-catch content?
Surely your responsibility for duty of care could not allow this to happen. I have followed press reports of similar Abalone Farms in Victoria and South Australia suffering viral diseases that are unable to be controlled or cured. Our Port is NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS RISKY BUSINESS TO OCCUR. I have no objection against Aqua Culture, but surely this Abalone Venture should be sited on the ocean shores where abalone thrive naturally and not sited in this or any other estuary.
Are there any other industries able to discharge any waste into any water ways that are not heavily monitored?
The noise factor also is also of great concern to this objector. Our village happily has only to contend with the sounds of nature. Why should this change?

I am extremely concerned that this proposal, in a slightly altered and enlarged form, has reappears after 9 years when the original proposal was withdrawn by the proponent and many inadequacies were found and not properly addressed in that original submission.
I am concerned that with the watering down of the state planning laws that all the issues that need to be addressed regarding the environment and local amenity will not get an adequate hearing.
It is not worth permanently damaging a fragile marine environment for the sake of a few jobs. Please consider the long term consequences of this proposal, and the potential precedent it sets.

NO. We don' want or need an abalone land factory at Pindima!
Any sensible person would say "NO!" to having the pristine waters of our beautiful Port Stephens put at risk of pollution.
We don't want another environmental disaster!

09 May 2014

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
Development Assessment Systems & Approvals, Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney, NSW 2001

Attention: Director, Industry, Key Sites and Social Projects

By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/on-exhibition


RE: Objection to Pindimar Abalone Land Farm ( MP10_0006)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I object to the proposed above Abalone Factory Farm and request that the NSW Planning and Infrastructure Department totally rejects the proposal for the following reasons:


1. Abalone's optimal water temperature habitat is 18-19 degrees Celsius and therefore are not suited to a Pindimar water supply which comes from a shallow estuary, 7 km from the ocean inlet, the site where the Tomaree Point experimental station obtained its water.
(a)At Pindimar, the water is several degrees warmer. Tomaree Point data is not valid for Pindimar.
(b)There are no Atlantic salmon farms in Queensland or barramundi farms in Tasmania precisely because water temperatures have to match species/temperature habitat.
(c)Data from satellite surveys demonstrate mean water temperature (at Corlette, 1km across the bay from the water inlet pipes) in summer months of over 24 degrees Celsius. Due to the shallow draft in Port Stephens there is no temperature stratification - deep and surface water give the same readings.
(d)Despite the tidal nature of the estuary, total turn-around time of water content is two weeks.
(e)A high mortality and stress rate is predictable, with warmer waters breeding infectious diseases for the Abalone.


2. Perkinsus protozoal infection is widely spread along the NSW coast (prompting a ban on abalone fishing from Jervis Bay to Port Stephens by NSW Fisheries). This infection cannot be excluded by inspection of a live animal. Confirmation requires histological examination of a (dead) animal. Collection of "disease-free" wild abalone thus becomes a gamble


3. The proposed farm lies immediately to the East of the Pindimar Marine sanctuary. Incoming tides will obviously wash out-flowing water from the tanks and their contents into the sanctuary twice daily with potential disastrous affects on the sanctuary.


4. Closed loops (whereby the abalone tank output is not returned to the sea) are mandatory in Tasmania and specified by NSW Dept of Fisheries. In contradistinction, this proposal is entirely open, returning 50 Ml of partially treated water to the estuary daily


5. No amount of meshing or filtration will prevent egress of a virus such as ganglioneurits. This is not known/recognised in NSW waters but the same was true in Victoria where its later incubation and emergence from abalone farms resulted in near-total destruction of wild abalone - this has subsequently spread over 100km from its points of release.

6. All Abalone farms so far are only in open water locations. Discharge in enclosed waters like our Port Stephens could have vast and unforeseen consequences. Imagine the impact on the tourist industry should discharge adversely affect our Port's Dolphin and fish life populations

7. The same (as in above point 6) can be said of potential impacts to commercial fishing in Port Stephens with potential consequences to the industry destroying he commercial fishing habitat.

8. During seasons of very heavy rain the Myall Lakes drain large amounts of fresh water into Port Stephens reducing the salinity of the bay for weeks to such a degree that the water is almost completely fresh right up to Pindimar. What will happen to Abalone when exposed to fresh water. This occurred several times over the last few years and all oyster farms were closed for months as a result.

9. Likelihood of failure must be considered as a strong possibility on both biological (temperature) and financial grounds. Profitability has been calculated as requiring minimal 100 tons output and this calculation was made when the price of abalone was considerably higher than at present. No information is provided as to who will provide the funds for any clean-up which could be required should the project fail as a result of failure.


10.The Victorian Government has recently been sued by those whose business have been destroyed by the contamination and destruction of wild abalone from discharge of ganglioneuritis from Government-approved abalone farms. Does the NSW Government wish to take this risk?





Yours faithfully,





Philip Dowling

it is hard enough to get a feed of fish in the bay as it is with all the people netting & the marine parks with out adding something else which may impact more on an already stressed waterway. the reports pretty things up very nicely but once it is up & running it will be to late to reverse any damage it may cause to a magic area. please look after the port it has more value as a tourist area than it has as a abalone farm.

I object to the proposed Abalone Farm development at Pindimar on the grounds that there is potential for pollution of the pristine waters of Port Stephens.
This area is popular with local and international tourists and any activity that puts at risk the resultant economic benefits or threatens the environmental integrity of the region must be approached with caution.
I believe that similar developments in other areas, e.g. Victoria, has resulted in damage to marine life. Effluent discharge close to Wanda and Soldiers Point beaches would be a disaster.

I personally object to the proposal to establish an abalone land factory farm at Port Stephens as the ecology of this area is sensitive enough, without this type of developing further adding to the fragility of the waters of Port Stephens.

I wish to submit my objection to the proposal to establish an abalone land factory farm at Port Stephens. The pristine waters of Port Stephens will obviously be contaminated by this business and must NOT be allowed to be developed.

I wish to object in the strongest terms to the Pindimar Abalone Farm Project because I am greatly worried about pollution of Port Stephens. Port Stephens is a pristine environment for a vital tourist industry.

Once before there was a submission to create an Abalone Farm in the same area. This was defeated in the Land and Environment Court in 2006 because of grave concerns of the pollution that would affect industry and humans, as well the risk of disease incubation and destruction of the local ecology.

Already Abalone farms around Australia are causing havoc to their local environment and these farms have outlets into the ocean not into a sheltered bay which does nor flush regularly. Already authorities are trying to deal with a serious virus in Victoria and Tasmania of which there is no effective means of control.

Also the other farms are not established where outflows are directed into water whose temperature ranges close to the shore line are so high. As well the flushing being irregular, there are places where eddies of water cause waste to remain for weeks according to a survey by Manly Hydraulics (Port Stephens/Myall Lakes Estuary Processes Study, MHL 913, 1999)

For the sake of Port Stephens' industries, including tourism, and for the quality of life and health of residents, visitors and particularly young children who use the water for play, I ask the Government not to destroy this great place for the active use of current and future generations.

I strongly object to this Abalone farm as I feel that the pollution caused by it will be detrimental to the marine life in Port Stephens which is a major attraction to locals and tourists and this farm could cause so much damage that we will lose visitors to beautiful Port Stephens.