Waste Management Facility, Botany

Hello,

I am local resident with two young children under 10 years old.

- The location of Botany waste project is less than 500m from me and BOTANY PUBLIC SCHOOL. I know also there are so many young children under age of 14 years old resides in this particular spot. These children are very young and the possibility of contamination of the waste are very dangerous for them: eg airborne risk, ground water contamination etc.
Please please consider of these children future health, would NSW Goverment be willing to guarantee that there will be no impact for these children’s health in the future? Would NSW Government willing to be held responsible if there is any proof in the future that this waste project caused harm to these children in the local area?


- The location of this Botany waste project is so closed to the water, its very risky for the water to be contaminated. There will always be defect with science & technology, if there would be some sort of leak that contaminate the ground water, again, would NSW Government would be willing to be held responsible?

I am really disappointed that NSW Government even consider creating a waste project that is so closed to a public school, resident & water. Please please consider other location that is more remote & as away as possible from children.

Thank you

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.

N/A

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.