Waste Management Facility, Botany

I heavily object to the submission of a waste management facility in the proposed location of Hale street.
It's close proximity to waterways (Mill Pond) and a Children's public school playground (Botany Bay School) is reason enough for this facility to not be approved. It's not physically possible for a 100% guarantee that dust and air pollution will be contained within the premises at all times let alone from the trucks carrying the waste/harmful chemicals during the construction or ongoing running of the facility.

Instead of looking at statistics and making decisions from a desk have someone physically view the already heavily congested traffic trying to enter and exit Hale street/foreshore road and general Holmes drive during peak times.
1 single truck accident or breakdown will prevent complete access over the bridge which will then force trucks to use alternate routes through botany shops. These trucks could be carrying asbestos or hazardous materials and containment cannot be guaranteed.

Quite simply the proposal is a joke and should not have been considered considering it's location to waterways, primary school children and an already extremely heavily congested traffic hot spot.

Community and stakeholders within the community namely residents and local business owners have not been adequately advised and notified of the proposed DA.
It notes within the submission that residents and business owners were delivered flyers “600 between 14-20th November 2023” within the catchment.

I have a local business within the catchment and did not receive any flyer or information in the forum held.
Nor did I receive information in the webpage


Furthermore I don’t believe 600 flyers is sufficient for a catchment that contains over 25,000 residents and business owners/employees.

Furthermore I don’t believe the consultation with Bayside Council adequately address the communities concerns (submitted through the online survery) pertaining to use of Botany Road for large Hervey vehicles.
While the project is a state project and council are responsible for the traffic management on Botany Rd, I don’t think an adequate resolution to this management to minimise the use of Botany Rd For heavy Vehicles has been properly addressed.
My business is on Botany rd - I watch at least 5-6 semi trailers with loads drive down it every day.
Despite the requirement for them to use Foreshore Rd as outlined in your submission WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THIS.

I’d also like to highlight the fact the current ground contamination is a real concern and residents should be notified about the remedial process so they can make adequate arrangements and adjustments to their own home during this time.
When is it likely to be of highest concern during development stages?
What is being proposed to minimise risk of small particles in the air during development and remedy of the site?

Thankyou for taking the time to read my submission

The Hale Street Waste Management project is too close to Botany Public School and will be a health risk to the children and also to the residents living and working next to the waste facility. Old building materials in Australia very often has asbestos and other toxic materials, and asbestos is often hidden amongst waste material. The facility is also next to the Mill Stream Pond River which flows into Botany Bay. Fish from Botany Bay are consumed by locals. The water in Botany Bay is already polluted, there is no need to increase the water, noise and air pollution. Nearby Booralee Street and Bay Street are of historic and cultural significance, and the area should be improved for residents and visitors. Hale Street is already a very noisy area from airplanes at Sydney Airport and truck and car traffic along Foreshore Road. The noise travels along Hale Street, and the noise has been irritating since Hale Street was opened to traffic from Foreshore Road in 2011. The current site at Hale Street could be put to better use, such as a gymnasium for Botany Public School and local children.

Obviously, the majority of the vehicles going to this facility would be during the normal working day therefore it would place an excessive amount of extra vehicles entering and leaving Foreshore Rd. Hale St is a single lane road as it comes off of Foreshore Rd and already carries a large amount of traffic especially in peak hours I do not consider this facility appropriate for 2 – 4 Hale St Botany for the following reasons
1) should there be the slightest little hiccup at the junction of this facility traffic on Foreshore Rd could be brought to a standstill Vehicles over a 6 ton are not allowed through Botany so the only way vehicles when exiting this proposed facility can go when coming out of the site is to turn right on to a single lane bridge toward Foreshore Rd and in peak hours this would be virtually impossible. Regards smaller vehicles that could turn left this then puts extra traffic along Underwood Rd and they then have to turn right into Bay street which in peak hours is already at capacity also where there is a primary school
2) Noise. We have been told the estimated number of trucks daily but there will be a constant background noise 24/7 from equipment such as bulldozers, diggers, excavators etc.
3) Smell. I feel that there will be a constant smell of rotting food and vegetation and in the summer this would be unbearable making it impossible to use any outdoor facility,
4) Then there is the question of airborne dust, such as asbestos, which they won’t be able to guarantee is not coming in from building sites, plus cement dust to name just a couple.

I understand the soil at the proposed site is already contaminated and that any excavation work to build this facility will disturb hazardous soil materials containing chemicals, asbestos and other poisonous materials present and could lead to hazardous materials becoming airborne with a risk to health of the local community
We, and many other people, bought our houses in Botany knowing that the Airport and docks were there but since buying our properties the 3rd runway has opened at the airport , when this runway was put in we were told no planes would be allowed to take off east to west, this was changed when the Howard government were elected so we now have to contend with the extra noise and though they did the airport noise project when all our house were given noise insulation this did not help if one wanted to have friends and/or family over for an outside venue or just a social cup of tea. Planes are not allowed to take off or land between the hours of 11,00pm to 6.00 am however this facility would 24hr.
The docks have been extended causing extra traffic with trucks already queuing along Foreshore Rd waiting to get into the site.
We already get excessive dirt from the planes and I feel this facility would cause more airborne dust and dirt being detrimental to the health of local residents if it is allowed.
My home, at 18 Erith St., which I bought before the airport noise debacle, is one of the closest to this proposed Waste Management Facility and I think that the stench, especially in summer would be beyond description , and I feel that with the constant background noise of large vehicles and heavy machinery it would make it impossible to have any outdoor social life whatsoever.
The increase in traffic through Hale St, which is already beyond capacity in both morning and evening peak hours would cause build up of vehicles trying to exit Chegwyn St as this is a one way Street so all traffic leaving the council carpark plus businesses in that street plus vehicles doing deliveries and pick ups would have difficulty exiting into Hale St.
Eileen Tinker

In referencing the Environmental Impact Statement document for this project, I have the following objections:
1) Vehicle movements is noted at 34 large/heavy truck per hour. The trucks are required to enter & exit the proposed driveway in a forward direction (EIS section 2.6). When following the Truck Routes listed in EIS 6.4.3.3, every truck will be required to enter the roundabout at the corner of Hale and Luland Street Botany to perform a 360 degree turn, then enter the property across oncoming traffic. The roundabout is not large enough to support a B-Double truck to perform a 360 degree turn and is only barely large enough to support semi-trailers. Currently many semi-trailers attempting a 360 degree turn at the roundabout end up reversing a number of times (holding up traffic, causing traffic congestion, unsafe manoeuvres and near accidents) and as a result some damage the drain, kerb and gutter which has been repaired numerous times. The additional traffic from the proposed Truck Movements (EIS 6.4.3.1) is also an issue, as at current peak traffic times, there is already congestion. A real-world test should be conducted with a representation of proposed truck sizes performing 34 movements an hour undertaking the 360 degree roundabout manoeuvre at peak traffic times to determine the results.
2) The findings of the Sensitive Receptors section (6.3.2.1) regarding Air Quality and Odour remains an unacceptable risk to the health of the many residents, school children and workers located in very close proximity to the site. All waste transfer stations, no matter how modern, generate odours, airborne pollutant particles and visual rubbish from the process of truck transportation and transfers. The current air quality and pollution dust in the area is already relatively poor from aircraft and truck fuel, evident by the black dust that covers surfaces after a short period of time. A waste transfer station that will process much toxic and banned waste and the increase in truck emissions in very close proximity to a large population, substantially increases the health risk of the local community.

I am primarily concerned by the extra traffic the proposal will generate in both Hale street and adjoining streets which are
already struggling with heavy traffic ; frequently causing extensive traffic delays.
Attached please find a petition signed by eighteen affected businesses AND four photographs that illustrate our point.
Thank you for considering our submission

I work for Lovatt Transport located at 32 Luland Street, Botany.
Factors that I feel should be considered are:
1. Traffic congestion.
• I see no Impact statement on the traffic on Hale Street and surrounding streets, only the main arterial roads or parking on Hale Street. Therefore, you should be made aware of the following traffic issues that we face every day.
• The traffic turning into Foreshore during peak times is banked back through the airport tunnel on General Holmes Drive, then negotiating with other traffic to turn into Hale street is also difficult most days.
• At the end of the day, the traffic is banked back to Botany Road from the traffic lights at Foreshore Road. This traffic continues through to M5 and back through Foreshore road.
• I have also noticed the impact that congestion on Hale street has on trucks turning right from Foreshore (from the port district), this could cause significant delays and severely impact deliveries to and from the wharves.
• The overpass on Hale street is very narrow, considering the number of truck movements that are envisaged.
• 206 combined inbound/outbound deliveries per day would cause extreme traffic congestion on our already congested street and an accident or stoppage at the facility, would potentially result in gridlock. Trucks cannot divert along Botany Road, there is only one access to Luland street and the Port Air Industrial Estate where numerous truck deliveries are made throughout the day.
2. A thorough Biodiversity Development Assessment Report must be undertaken,
3. The NSW EPA specifically states “Poorly run waste management facilities can cause leachate, dust, offensive odours and noise. Poor waste disposal, especially of hazardous wastes can result in harmful chemicals leaching into the soil, groundwater and surface water becoming a risk to human health and the environment”. “An estimated 2 million tonnes of hazardous waste was generated in NSW in 2019–20. Asbestos and contaminated soils accounted for 72% of this” Source: Waste and Recycling | NSW State of the Environment
3. The dust from unloading waste can cause air pollution and have a direct impact on the local school children, workers, residents and pets.
4. My employer and other stakeholders in the area were not informed of the proposal and therefore the employees were not informed. I do not believe effective and genuine community consultation was actually undertaken.
5. As Hale Street is known to flood at least annually during king tides and high rainfall, creating a Waste Management Facility on Hale Street could have significant impacts on the water management strategy. The proposal to have flood reduction facilities put in place to reduce the impact of flooding in Hale Street and the surrounding Botany areas as detailed in botany_bay_foreshore_beach_floodplain_risk_management_study_&_plan_version_e_part_b.pdf (nsw.gov.au)
6. This construction and operation will have significant negative impacts on the protected Biodiversity in the area located in Penrhyn Estuary and Foreshore Beach adjacent to Port Botany and situated close to Hale Street. These areas are home to a wide variety of native species including marine, migratory and shorebirds, mangroves and coastal saltmarsh and seagrasses. Port Botany | NSW Ports
7. The construction will also have detrimental negative impacts on the partnership Bayside Council and NSW ports are participating in to restore the biodiversity at Sir Joseph Banks Park – a crucial natural refuge. Sir Joseph Banks Park a 16-hectare reserve in Botany Bay which contains some of the last remnants of the endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub. It plays a vital role in providing habitats for a diverse range of native wildlife, including the Yellow-tailed black cockatoo, ringtail possum, dwarf tree frog and eastern long-necked turtle. Restoring Botany Bay's Biodiversity - Conservation Volunteers Australia.
Finally, I live at Kurnell. Breen Resources – Waste Management and Disposal Centre is situated on our only road access to the village. We endure the trucks and the waste that falls from the loads, that have resulted in several closures of the road and damage to cars. We also have the drivers of those types of trucks blatantly flouting the road rules and tailgating cars because they are paid by the load (not hourly) so they are always in a hurry. We certainly don't want this to occur on our local roads in Botany.

I have noted the entrance to the proposed Waste Management Plant is to be by Hale St and Foreshore Rd, and the large number of trucks coming in and out each 24 hours. My home is on Botany Rd, very close to the trafic lights at Hale St where the trucks would turn in and out. Apart from the Botany Shopping centre, this part of Botany Rd is very residential. It seems sensible that the major entrance and exit point would be by Foreshore Rd. There are no homes in this area, noise at any time would not annoy any residents.
Is the enclosed building, as I read in the proposal, to keep in the noise and any particles floating in the air.
I also read waste would be sorted into plant feed, clean concrete and brick, metal and light mixed waste. My presumption is there will be no human food rubbish. So I expect this plant will not give off any smells appart from plant smells.
If my presumptions are correct and a majority of the truck movements will be by Foreshore Rd, I will be happy to support this project.

I am worried about the probable contamination and noise outlined in the Appendix Q of the Report and I am not convinced it would be properly controlled as a safety hazard. I would prefer the Planning Authorities err on the side of caution and not approve this development in an area that is more suitable over time for residential construction.

I object as the site will create incremental pollution in the area with the creation of extra noise, smell and potential dangerous material in an area where there is already too much pollution with the airport and port.

1. Health Concerns: The proposed waste management facility poses significant health risks to local residents, particularly given its proximity—less than 300 meters—from Botany Public School. Within this short distance, there are numerous residential homes directly impacted by potential airborne contaminants and unpleasant odors from the facility. Of particular concern is the handling of construction materials that may contain hazardous substances, such as asbestos, which could severely affect vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory conditions. The risk of exposure to these pollutants is unacceptable in such a densely populated and sensitive area.
2. Environmental Impact on Nearby Parks and Waterways: The proposed site is located adjacent to Sir Joseph Banks Park, the largest and most popular park in Botany, and also borders Mill Ponds. The facility’s operations would undoubtedly deteriorate the local air quality and could lead to the pollution of these cherished green spaces and waterways. Such environmental degradation not only threatens wildlife and natural habitats but also diminishes the quality of life for residents who rely on these areas for recreation and community activities.
3. Proximity to Existing Waste Facility and Safety Concerns: The proposed site is in close proximity to the existing Wanless Waste Management facility, which operates directly back-to-back on Bay Street. The trucks from Wanless Waste Management frequently speed along local roads, posing a clear safety hazard to residents and students at Botany Public School. The addition of another waste facility in such a small area would compound these safety risks, increasing the likelihood of dangerous driving behavior and putting the community’s health and safety at further risk.
4. Traffic and Safety Concerns: The introduction of another waste management facility would significantly increase the volume of heavy vehicles and trucks accessing local roads, exacerbating existing traffic congestion and posing a serious safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. The current road infrastructure is not equipped to handle this heightened traffic flow, which would likely result in increased accidents, noise pollution, and disruptions to the daily lives of local residents. The safety of children walking to and from Botany Public School would be particularly compromised.

The project will excessively reduce on-street parking spaces available for the community as it:
- removes 5 on-street car parking spaces
- only provides 13 on-site car parking spaces against the 52 on-site car parking spaces required by the Bayside DCP. Of these 13 car parking spaces provided, only 9 are for staff. This will result in staff parking on the street further reducing on-street car parking spaces for other community users

The project should be redesigned to prevent any reduction in on-street parking spaces and provide the on-site parking spaces required by the DCP. If can not be redesigned as such, then it should not proceed.

Given this project will take waste vegetation material I object to its placement near housing and the local school. There is no indication that this facility will not take aspestos or other hazardous building materials. There are also food and alcohol manufacturers adjacent to this proposed waste facility that may be impacted by dust or airbourne pollutants.
The school is of particular concern also.
I note the facility will also run 24/7.

This is the most ludicrous proposal I have seen in my 45 years of operating a Port related transport company. From 1979, my company was located in Port Air Industrial Estate (1A Hale Street Botany) and since 2015 in Luland Street Botany. Therefore, I have witnessed the changes that opening Hale Street to Foreshore Road and closing Botany Road to heavy vehicles has made during this time.

The traffic volume that uses Hale Street as a route to get to the Eastern Suburbs has tripled in the last three years and this development will only add to the problems that already exist.
Some long-standing tenants of Port Air Industrial Estate include FEDEX, UPS, Star Track (Australia Post), PCFS, Coca Cola, Menzies Air freight Transport and Gibson Freight all use Heavy vehicles accessed by Foreshore Road, Hale Street and Luland Street.

My other concerns are the materials that will be transferred through this development and the ramifications for over 1000 workers and their health, working in the immediate area, not to mention the houses in Bay Street that back onto the property and Botany Primary School which is in the immediate vicinity.

During summer we experience King tides, that result in flooding at the Luland Street/Hale Street roundabout with a foot of water and this could create pollution to the Bay and surrounding waterways with the operation of this development.

Traffic coming off Foreshore and over the pipeline into Hale street would be disastrous going both ways as it is only two lanes wide and NO room for error with large vehicles entering or leaving this site.

I have discussed the proposal with Transport of NSW who have indicated that they would also object to this proposal. The traffic flow around Foreshore Road, General Holmes Drive and Hale Street is a priority for movements of export and import containers to the Port precinct. A large increase in the traffic, such as stated in the proposal, would cause massive traffic problems to the public as well as transport companies and would increase the gridlock status and a huge problem for Transport of NSW.

The only notice that we had on this proposal was by one of my workers obtaining a leaflet from a Botany shop and bringing it to my attention on Monday 26th August. As a main stakeholder in the precinct, we (and all Port Air Industrial Estate tenants) should have been informed well in advance of the closing date. Unfortunately, we were left only one week to lodge an objection to this development which in itself I find is controversial.

I employ over 50 staff (truck drivers, warehouse, admin and subcontractors), I was only able to petition them for half a day and attach that petition to my submission. There would have been more objections if we had more time to display it.

I am available to discuss any of our concerns in this objection which I believe is detrimental to this area. I hope commonsense prevails and you take into consideration all the objections to this project.

N/A

A Waste Transfer Station at the bottom of Bay Street, Botany is inappropriate. It will create huge issues with traffic, pollution (noise/ toxic hazards/ smell/ water pollution to Botany Bay) located so close to residential/ educational areas. A more appropriate location is required as the industrial zone in this region shrinks.

OBJECTION TO SSD-62855708 WASTE COLLECTION, TREATMENT & DISPOSAL FACILITY, 2-4 HALE ST, BOTANY.

My objections, in broad terms, that
• most seriously, the proposal involves a huge number of additional heavy vehicle movements in an already very congested section of road, and will lead to something I could only describe as chaos, in peak periods
• There is huge potential for queueing problems, spilling out into Hale St which, should it happen with a single truck, would be devastating for existing road traffic.
• the proposal is presented as for ‘construction and demolition’ waste, but in fact is stated in the finer print of the EIS to potentially include a much broader range of waste materials
• the proposal is for a facility significantly in conflict with all other businesses in the area
• the site does not appear to be large enough to properly accommodate the proposed business, nor orderly entry and exit of trucks to and from the site

TRUCK MOVEMENTS AND IMPACT ON ADJACENT ROAD

Hale St is already very busy, especially during peak hours
• While it is true that large articulated trucks to use Hale St, already, note that Hale St, particularly between the roundabout intersection with Luland St, and Foreshore Rd, is narrow, and includes a very narrow bridge near the latter.
• This section of road is heavily congested during peak hours, and very busy during business hours on weekdays
• Particularly, in the afternoon peak, for around 30 minutes, there is normally a stopped queue of traffic stretching from the traffic lights at Foreshore Rd, almost to Underwood St ie ~400m long.

Proposed truck movements represent a huge, and intolerable increase above already high traffic
• Estimated truck movements are discussed on p38 of the EIS. Ie 412 truck movements per day, with 80% 7am to 6pm. Let’s put that in a different way: every 2 minutes, 11 hours per day, a heavy truck, including B doubles will be either entering or exiting this site. That is A LOT of extra traffic.

Orderly entry and exit to the site does not appear feasible
• The diagrams on pp 24 and 28 of the EIS make this fairly clear. Hale St is narrow. There is, in my estimation, little chance heavy rigid trucks, and definitely not articulated trucks, can turn left from Hale St, into such a facility. That involves making a ~135 deg hard turn, and there simply isn’t enough space. If possible at all, these vehicles would have to swing onto the other side of the road to make the turn. That is completely unacceptable, 206 times per day, and possibly worse for the remaining 20% of movements, at night.
• The diagram on p24 appears to suggest turning left from Hale St to enter, and turning right onto Hale St, to exit. I do not see that is workable.
• Entering this way would also necessitate removal of the street parking which currently exists, and parking is already in short supply in this area.
• Most likely, drivers arriving will likely choose to do a 180deg turn at the roundabout at Luland St, then a right turn across the oncoming traffic lane to enter, or exit left to the roundabout and do a 180deg turn to exit Hale St to the West. In my opinion, 406 such manoeuvres per day is unacceptable. Further, the road at that point is soft and unstable, as it is flooded with sea water twice a day during peak tides, and requires ongoing repair already, let alone with the stress of 406 U turns by heavy trucks per day.
• This sort of entry / exit would be truly chaotic during heavy traffic periods as these vehicles would be blocking traffic even more that is already the case.
• Note that the entry point proposed is, on its eastern edge, < 10m from the roundabout.
• SUGGESTION: If this proposal is accepted, it should be stipulated that trucks are prohibited from doing 180deg turns at the roundabout and the intersection with Luland St.
Queueing
• Again, using EIS numbers, 168 arrivals per day. 80% during daytime hours = 134 arrivals. That is 12 per hour for 11 daytime hours. That is 5 minutes per truck allowable in this facility, to weigh, unload, and leave. I contend that is not possible.
• Plus, at the same time, about 3 much bigger trucks arrive per hour, to remove the sorted waste. They will have to arrive, weigh, load and leave with 20 mins turnaround. Yet, when I look at the diagram on p24, it is hard to comprehend how that can work. There is plainly no room for passing or parking of trucks, so I foresee a serious queuing problem. When that happens, I will lay money that some driver is going to stop in Hale St, waiting to enter the facility. That is going to cause utter chaos. Who will be on hand to prevent that?

PURPOSE OF THIS FACILITY IS AMBIGUOUS
• The proposal continually refers to ‘construction and demolition waste’, yet, the table on p23 of the EIS says it includes “mixed waste (recyclable and otherwise), building and demolition waste, vegetation waste, timber and wood waste, cardboard, asphalt, and excavated natural materials”

PROPOSAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY IN CONFLICT WITH BUSINESSES IN THIS AREA
• All businesses operating in Booralee St, Luland St, the relevant end of Hale St, and indeed nearby streets such as Underwood and Chegwyn St etc, are all light industrial in nature. There is not a single one which creates significant noise, dust, litter or much in the way of traffic, either cars or trucks.
• Even the modest container terminal in the business park at the south end of Luland St, involves relatively few movements of heavy trucks.
• Rather, they are typified by relatively small businesses which include automotive services, sheet metal work, warehousing, cabinetmaking etc.
• These sorts of properties are in short supply in the area, and the loss of such business units at this site would be a bad outcome.

THE SITE APPEARS TO BE BARELY SUFFICIENT FOR SUCH A BUSINESSES
• Looking at the diagram on p24, it is clear that this is not a big site, in the context of the proposed use.
• I question the viability of offloading 1000 tonnes per day into such a compressed space. Using the numbers from the EIS, ~10 trucks per hour will be dropping of waste during daytime hours. So there will be 5 minutes per truck, to weigh, drop off, and exit. At the same time, another set of trucks are supposedly also arriving, loading and exiting with average 20 mins turnaround.
• As noted earlier, there is obviously no scope for trucks passing in the same direction, in the proposed facility. They are all, whether dropping off, or leaving loaded, entering and exiting in a single line.
• To me, this sounds highly unworkable. And utterly unrealistic. I see no way of scheduling arrivals and departures in any significant way, let alone in a manner which would allow the processing of 1000 tonnes of waste, per day, in such a confined space, in such a congested road context.

RE ATTACHED PHOTOS
*These are taken from the western edge of the roundabout, looking at the eastern end of the site.
According to the EIS, trucks, including B Doubles, are (apparently) going to come from the Foreshore Rd (to the left in these photos, and make a left hand turn from Hale St into a driveway sited where this building currently stands, and exit by making a right hand turn onto Hale St.
*Given the near ~135deg turn (at least) that requires in a very tight space, I suggest that is a/ likely not possible for larger trucks, and b/ only possible for most of them if they swing across the centreline of the road before turning left.
*As noted above, I can see many drivers making a U turn in the roundabout. I consider than unacceptable for potentially large number of truck movements.

We live at very close proximity to the proposed Waste Management Facility and our 7 year old son attends the public school that is also neighbouring the site, and thus would also be negatively affected by this facility, and we feel great distress around this proposal! We're gravely concerned about the hazardous materials that would be dealt with their, the pollution caused by the waste as well as the large amount of vehicles that would be coming in and out of the facility and suburb daily, by the currently contaminated materials there being disturbed and circulated in the air and nearby waterworks, the noise, smells, traffic. Not only would residents nearby be affected but the WHOLE community through the children attending the school being exposed, and the suburb and nearby areas with all the increased traffic and particles carrying over. Botany Public School, Mill Ponds, residents need to be considered and this project needs to be rejected! We need to think about the population and children and the long term effects of these decisions!

The traffic in Botany is already a nightmare. This particular bottle neck at the bottom of Hale street in the mornings and afternoons will be made far worse with up to 200 truck movements a day. These trucks will be lining up waiting and blocking the road as access is inadequate. I cannot see in any reasonable terms that this much traffic directed into a small area can work.

Traffic aside, the environmental impacts that this waste management facility will have on the surrounding business, schools and residents in my opinion is totally unacceptable. Botany was once an industrial area but the council and governments have slowly allowed this to change into mostly residential and as such proposals like these shouldn't even be on the table.

I am concerned about noise, pollution, potential hazardous materials pollution and increased traffic congestion from hale street onto foreshore road.