Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NORTH SYDNEY
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing as an owner and resident at M01 "McLaren Apartments", 37–39 McLaren Street, North Sydney, in the immediate vicinity of the above site, to formally object to the modification application referenced above ("the Mod 5 Application"). The Mod 5 Application seeks to extend approved construction hours on the site from 7:00am–5:00pm to 7:00am–9:00pm, and to permit concrete pours to occur on an occasional basis within this extended window.
For the reasons below, I submit the Mod 5 Application should be refused, or, if approved, made subject to the conditions in Section 6.
1. Standing and context
My home is located in the immediate vicinity of the site, within direct line of sound of construction activity at 173–179 Walker Street and 11–17 Hampden Street. I am already contending with a separate, unresolved noise compliance matter concerning Reddam House North Sydney (DA 269/23, SSD-46014456), currently before North Sydney Council's Building Compliance team. The cumulative effect of concurrent, extended-hours construction and school operational noise on the same residential pocket is a matter the Department should weigh directly in its assessment, and one I am experiencing first-hand, not hypothetically.
The original SSD-67175465 application also attracted substantial community and Council objection on traffic and congestion grounds, centred on the constrained Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection, the dead-end Hampden Street configuration, and nearby traffic generators (Reddam House, Aqualand, and 45 McLaren Street). Those constraints remain unresolved and are more acute in 2026 than at exhibition in 2024.
2. The application discloses no volume or vehicle-movement data — it cannot be properly assessed
A threshold difficulty with the Mod 5 Application is that it does not specify the volume of concrete proposed per out-of-hours pour, the number of pours anticipated over the balance of construction, or the number of agitator, pump and support-vehicle movements each pour would generate on Walker Street or Hampden Street.
This is not a minor omission. The scale of noise, vibration, diesel exhaust, and queuing/reversing-vehicle impact from a single-storey slab pour differs materially from a full basement or podium-level pour, which on a site this size could require a continuous queue of agitator trucks over several hours. Without stated maximum volume, movements and frequency figures, neither I, Council, nor the Department can properly assess the real impact of what is being sought — the application effectively asks for open-ended discretion to conduct out-of-hours works of unspecified scale, as often as the applicant judges necessary.
I submit that the Department should decline to determine the Mod 5 Application until the applicant has publicly disclosed: (a) the anticipated maximum concrete volume per out-of-hours pour; (b) the anticipated number of truck movements (agitator, pump, and ancillary) generated per pour; and (c) the anticipated total number and frequency of out-of-hours pours for the remaining construction programme. Absent this information, any approval would not be a genuinely informed exercise of the Department's discretion under the EP&A Act.
3. The proposed hours are inconsistent with the applicable noise guideline
The NSW EPA's Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG, 2009) identifies standard construction hours as Monday to Friday 7:00am–6:00pm and Saturday 8:00am–1:00pm, with no work on Sundays or public holidays. Work outside these hours is only appropriate where the proponent can demonstrate, among other things, that no feasible or reasonable alternative work method exists, that the community has been consulted and impacts are genuinely minor, and that real-time attended monitoring will verify compliance with the relevant noise management levels.
Extending standard hours by a further four hours each evening, to 9:00pm, is a substantial departure from the ICNG benchmark. Concrete pours in particular are inherently high-noise, high-vehicle-movement activities (pumping plant, agitator truck queuing and reversing beepers, vibration compaction) that are difficult to reconcile with the ICNG's "respite period" expectations for a dense residential locality such as this.
I am not aware of any evidence in the Mod 5 Application demonstrating that a genuine construction methodology constraint (as opposed to programme or cost convenience) necessitates evening pours, and submit that the Department should require this justification to be tested before any variation is granted.
4. Environmental impact
The environmental impact of this proposal extends well beyond noise. Concrete agitator trucks, pump trucks and support vehicles are predominantly diesel-powered and generate significant exhaust emissions — oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and greenhouse gases — which are concentrated at idle while trucks queue for access to a constrained site. Shifting these movements into the evening does not reduce this burden; it relocates it into hours when residents, including children, are at home with windows open and outdoor areas in use, rather than at work or school.
• Queuing and idling agitator trucks on Walker Street and Hampden Street will increase localised air pollution (NOx and PM2.5/PM10) in a densely populated residential precinct, with direct exposure to residents at street level and in ground- and lower-floor apartments.
• Concrete pumping and washout activity carries its own emissions and waste-water/runoff risks if conducted outside standard daylight supervision hours, when compliance oversight is typically reduced.
• Extending the working day increases the site's total diesel plant runtime (generators, pumps, lighting towers required for evening works), adding to the cumulative greenhouse gas and air quality burden of the project without any corresponding environmental offset being proposed.
• These impacts compound — rather than substitute for — the daytime environmental burden already approved, given the application does not propose to reduce daytime hours in exchange for the evening extension.
None of these environmental impacts appear to have been quantified in the Mod 5 Application, which reinforces the disclosure gap raised in Section 2 above.
5. Impact on the quiet enjoyment of homes
The extension sought strikes directly at the ordinary use and enjoyment of nearby homes during exactly the hours residents most rely on for rest, family life and recovery from the working day. Under the existing consent, residents can reasonably plan their evenings — dinner, children's homework and bedtime routines, winding down, and sleep preparation — on the basis that construction activity ceases at 5:00pm. An approval to work until 9:00pm removes that certainty entirely, and does so unevenly and unpredictably, given pours are described as "occasional" rather than scheduled.
• High-noise activity until 9:00pm is incompatible with settling young children, and with the ordinary expectation of a quiet evening at home that residents are entitled to under the current consent.
• The unpredictability of "occasional" out-of-hours pours means residents cannot plan around them — unlike a fixed, published construction hours regime, they have no ability to arrange to be away, close windows in advance, or otherwise mitigate impact, because they will not know in advance which evenings will be affected.
• Sleep disruption from evening construction noise has well-established flow-on effects on health, concentration and wellbeing, particularly for children, shift workers, and older residents — effects which are cumulative if repeated over the life of the construction programme.
• The amenity impact is compounded, not isolated, given residents in this precinct are already absorbing noise impacts from the adjacent Reddam House operations and other concurrent nearby construction sites. The Department should consider the total noise burden on this pocket of North Sydney, not this application in isolation.
In short, the proposal asks residents to trade a settled, predictable evening for the applicant's construction efficiency, without having disclosed the scale of works involved or offering any commensurate benefit to the community bearing the impact.
6. Conditions requested in the event of any approval
Should the Department nonetheless be minded to approve some variation, I request that any consent modification include, at minimum:
• Public disclosure, prior to any determination, of the maximum concrete volume, maximum truck movements, and maximum frequency of out-of-hours pours proposed, so the true scale of impact can be assessed;
• A hard cap on the number of out-of-hours concrete pours permitted per month, with each requiring prior written notification to Council and to directly affected residents at least 5 business days in advance;
• A requirement for independent, real-time attended acoustic monitoring during every out-of-hours pour, with results provided to Council within 24 hours, consistent with the verification approach I have separately sought in respect of the Reddam House ONMP compliance matter;
• A defined absolute cut-off (no work of any kind, including truck movements, wash-down or clean-up, beyond 9:00pm) with financial penalties or suspension of the out-of-hours privilege for breaches;
• An updated Construction Traffic Management Plan specifically addressing evening truck movements, queuing, and swept-path conflicts at the Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection; and
• Exclusion of Fridays, the day before public holidays, and any date coinciding with known high-traffic-generating events at nearby schools, from the extended-hours allowance.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission further and can be contacted via the details
below.
Yours faithfully,
R Cunniappen
For the reasons below, I submit the Mod 5 Application should be refused, or, if approved, made subject to the conditions in Section 6.
1. Standing and context
My home is located in the immediate vicinity of the site, within direct line of sound of construction activity at 173–179 Walker Street and 11–17 Hampden Street. I am already contending with a separate, unresolved noise compliance matter concerning Reddam House North Sydney (DA 269/23, SSD-46014456), currently before North Sydney Council's Building Compliance team. The cumulative effect of concurrent, extended-hours construction and school operational noise on the same residential pocket is a matter the Department should weigh directly in its assessment, and one I am experiencing first-hand, not hypothetically.
The original SSD-67175465 application also attracted substantial community and Council objection on traffic and congestion grounds, centred on the constrained Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection, the dead-end Hampden Street configuration, and nearby traffic generators (Reddam House, Aqualand, and 45 McLaren Street). Those constraints remain unresolved and are more acute in 2026 than at exhibition in 2024.
2. The application discloses no volume or vehicle-movement data — it cannot be properly assessed
A threshold difficulty with the Mod 5 Application is that it does not specify the volume of concrete proposed per out-of-hours pour, the number of pours anticipated over the balance of construction, or the number of agitator, pump and support-vehicle movements each pour would generate on Walker Street or Hampden Street.
This is not a minor omission. The scale of noise, vibration, diesel exhaust, and queuing/reversing-vehicle impact from a single-storey slab pour differs materially from a full basement or podium-level pour, which on a site this size could require a continuous queue of agitator trucks over several hours. Without stated maximum volume, movements and frequency figures, neither I, Council, nor the Department can properly assess the real impact of what is being sought — the application effectively asks for open-ended discretion to conduct out-of-hours works of unspecified scale, as often as the applicant judges necessary.
I submit that the Department should decline to determine the Mod 5 Application until the applicant has publicly disclosed: (a) the anticipated maximum concrete volume per out-of-hours pour; (b) the anticipated number of truck movements (agitator, pump, and ancillary) generated per pour; and (c) the anticipated total number and frequency of out-of-hours pours for the remaining construction programme. Absent this information, any approval would not be a genuinely informed exercise of the Department's discretion under the EP&A Act.
3. The proposed hours are inconsistent with the applicable noise guideline
The NSW EPA's Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG, 2009) identifies standard construction hours as Monday to Friday 7:00am–6:00pm and Saturday 8:00am–1:00pm, with no work on Sundays or public holidays. Work outside these hours is only appropriate where the proponent can demonstrate, among other things, that no feasible or reasonable alternative work method exists, that the community has been consulted and impacts are genuinely minor, and that real-time attended monitoring will verify compliance with the relevant noise management levels.
Extending standard hours by a further four hours each evening, to 9:00pm, is a substantial departure from the ICNG benchmark. Concrete pours in particular are inherently high-noise, high-vehicle-movement activities (pumping plant, agitator truck queuing and reversing beepers, vibration compaction) that are difficult to reconcile with the ICNG's "respite period" expectations for a dense residential locality such as this.
I am not aware of any evidence in the Mod 5 Application demonstrating that a genuine construction methodology constraint (as opposed to programme or cost convenience) necessitates evening pours, and submit that the Department should require this justification to be tested before any variation is granted.
4. Environmental impact
The environmental impact of this proposal extends well beyond noise. Concrete agitator trucks, pump trucks and support vehicles are predominantly diesel-powered and generate significant exhaust emissions — oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and greenhouse gases — which are concentrated at idle while trucks queue for access to a constrained site. Shifting these movements into the evening does not reduce this burden; it relocates it into hours when residents, including children, are at home with windows open and outdoor areas in use, rather than at work or school.
• Queuing and idling agitator trucks on Walker Street and Hampden Street will increase localised air pollution (NOx and PM2.5/PM10) in a densely populated residential precinct, with direct exposure to residents at street level and in ground- and lower-floor apartments.
• Concrete pumping and washout activity carries its own emissions and waste-water/runoff risks if conducted outside standard daylight supervision hours, when compliance oversight is typically reduced.
• Extending the working day increases the site's total diesel plant runtime (generators, pumps, lighting towers required for evening works), adding to the cumulative greenhouse gas and air quality burden of the project without any corresponding environmental offset being proposed.
• These impacts compound — rather than substitute for — the daytime environmental burden already approved, given the application does not propose to reduce daytime hours in exchange for the evening extension.
None of these environmental impacts appear to have been quantified in the Mod 5 Application, which reinforces the disclosure gap raised in Section 2 above.
5. Impact on the quiet enjoyment of homes
The extension sought strikes directly at the ordinary use and enjoyment of nearby homes during exactly the hours residents most rely on for rest, family life and recovery from the working day. Under the existing consent, residents can reasonably plan their evenings — dinner, children's homework and bedtime routines, winding down, and sleep preparation — on the basis that construction activity ceases at 5:00pm. An approval to work until 9:00pm removes that certainty entirely, and does so unevenly and unpredictably, given pours are described as "occasional" rather than scheduled.
• High-noise activity until 9:00pm is incompatible with settling young children, and with the ordinary expectation of a quiet evening at home that residents are entitled to under the current consent.
• The unpredictability of "occasional" out-of-hours pours means residents cannot plan around them — unlike a fixed, published construction hours regime, they have no ability to arrange to be away, close windows in advance, or otherwise mitigate impact, because they will not know in advance which evenings will be affected.
• Sleep disruption from evening construction noise has well-established flow-on effects on health, concentration and wellbeing, particularly for children, shift workers, and older residents — effects which are cumulative if repeated over the life of the construction programme.
• The amenity impact is compounded, not isolated, given residents in this precinct are already absorbing noise impacts from the adjacent Reddam House operations and other concurrent nearby construction sites. The Department should consider the total noise burden on this pocket of North Sydney, not this application in isolation.
In short, the proposal asks residents to trade a settled, predictable evening for the applicant's construction efficiency, without having disclosed the scale of works involved or offering any commensurate benefit to the community bearing the impact.
6. Conditions requested in the event of any approval
Should the Department nonetheless be minded to approve some variation, I request that any consent modification include, at minimum:
• Public disclosure, prior to any determination, of the maximum concrete volume, maximum truck movements, and maximum frequency of out-of-hours pours proposed, so the true scale of impact can be assessed;
• A hard cap on the number of out-of-hours concrete pours permitted per month, with each requiring prior written notification to Council and to directly affected residents at least 5 business days in advance;
• A requirement for independent, real-time attended acoustic monitoring during every out-of-hours pour, with results provided to Council within 24 hours, consistent with the verification approach I have separately sought in respect of the Reddam House ONMP compliance matter;
• A defined absolute cut-off (no work of any kind, including truck movements, wash-down or clean-up, beyond 9:00pm) with financial penalties or suspension of the out-of-hours privilege for breaches;
• An updated Construction Traffic Management Plan specifically addressing evening truck movements, queuing, and swept-path conflicts at the Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection; and
• Exclusion of Fridays, the day before public holidays, and any date coinciding with known high-traffic-generating events at nearby schools, from the extended-hours allowance.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission further and can be contacted via the details
below.
Yours faithfully,
R Cunniappen
Janet Wotton
Object
Janet Wotton
Object
North Sydney
,
New South Wales
Message
I am disappointed to hear the developers wish to extend their work hours. I live next door at 171 Walker Street and already we have been subjected to loud noises and excavation works for over 6 months to get to this stage and i think it is highly inappropriate and thoughtless that the developers want to extend their work hours as suggested creating noise and lights late into the evening when families and elderly people are strung to settle down for the evening. I would sincerely hope this isn’t allowed.
Rosemary Heal
Object
Rosemary Heal
Object
North Sydney
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the Application from East Walker 88 Development Pty Ltd (Modification 5) on the following grounds:
1. The Applicant (apparently on behalf of ALAND Developments) has already begun extended construction work utilising more than the extended hours requested in this application. Yesterday evening (14/07/2026), construction work under spotlights continued from 6:15pm until 10:00pm. This work appeared to be 'finishing' of an extensive area of concrete apparently laid during the day. The mobile spotlights remained on for an extended time, possibly a security measure. This exceeded the Applicant's proposed modification to 9:00pm.
Unless an approval has already been given to the Applicant but somehow not communicated to immediate and affected residents, it seems to us a complete subversion and mockery of the compliance process seeking consent to a temporary extension of construction hours.
Note: I took numerous photographs of yesterday evening's work in progress and notes of the work. I shall attempt to attach these to this submission but I may not have the technology skills to achieve this. The photographs are available if required via email to a Dept of Planning nominated email address.
2. The Application does not state a timeframe for the extended hours requested. Apparently this information is not available at this stage. In order for local residents to 'Have your say' and be fully informed, we consider Start and End dates should have been stated in the Application for Proposed Modification for Temporary Extension of Hours. As it stands, the Application appears to be open ended. Potentially the substantial increase of 20 hours weekly could become very extended. How temporary is temporary?
In our view the Applicant/ALAND has already been granted very generous hours of work. The existing approval totals 55 hours per week including 5 hours on Saturdays.
3. Local residents, particularly those adjacent to the East Walker Street development suffered extremely disruptive and almost continual noise from around mid-January 2026 to around April 2026. This was during the excavation phase of work. The noise levels were extremely excessive, notwithstanding that the Applicant/ALAND stated they had noise monitors along the boundary line of their project. The massive noise from rock breaking, heavy drilling, crashing of loads of rocks being tipped into metal based trucks was horrendous as four very large earthmoving machines worked to excavate to a depth of four levels of basement. Respite breaks appeared to be brief and infrequent, with no clear pattern of timing.
As a purely personal view I, and my husband Gary Cook, consider the disruptive effects of this constant, significant noise were substantially detrimental to our health and wellbeing, and our ability to use our main bedroom (noting Gary Cook was undergoing radiation treatment for cancer during March and needed daytime rest), and I Rosemary was unable to work in our home office without constantly wearing industrial noise cancelling head phones.
We are aware of numerous other examples of local residents within 171 Walker Street who were severely detrimentally impacted by these works and whose ability to go about their normal work and home routines was severely disrupted.
4. As our own personal view, it seems to us the Applicant/ALAND has made a barely minimal effort to engage with the local community, extend any empathy, and provide specific, regular information eg works scheduled for the next 2 weeks.
5. In conclusion we do not support the Applicant's Proposal for Temporary Modification of Construction Hours by an additional 20 hours per week. In our view, the Applicant has been granted very generous construction hours which total 55 hours per week. Work to date has imposed substantial disruption, frustration and annoyance on the immediate local community. To grant a temporary extension to add a further 20 hours per week for an unknown timeframe is totally unacceptable. We see the request as harsh and unconscionable.
With courtesy and respect, we request that the Application from East Walker 88 Development Pty Ltd be declined.
From Rosemary Heal on behalf of Rosemary Heal and Gary Cook
1. The Applicant (apparently on behalf of ALAND Developments) has already begun extended construction work utilising more than the extended hours requested in this application. Yesterday evening (14/07/2026), construction work under spotlights continued from 6:15pm until 10:00pm. This work appeared to be 'finishing' of an extensive area of concrete apparently laid during the day. The mobile spotlights remained on for an extended time, possibly a security measure. This exceeded the Applicant's proposed modification to 9:00pm.
Unless an approval has already been given to the Applicant but somehow not communicated to immediate and affected residents, it seems to us a complete subversion and mockery of the compliance process seeking consent to a temporary extension of construction hours.
Note: I took numerous photographs of yesterday evening's work in progress and notes of the work. I shall attempt to attach these to this submission but I may not have the technology skills to achieve this. The photographs are available if required via email to a Dept of Planning nominated email address.
2. The Application does not state a timeframe for the extended hours requested. Apparently this information is not available at this stage. In order for local residents to 'Have your say' and be fully informed, we consider Start and End dates should have been stated in the Application for Proposed Modification for Temporary Extension of Hours. As it stands, the Application appears to be open ended. Potentially the substantial increase of 20 hours weekly could become very extended. How temporary is temporary?
In our view the Applicant/ALAND has already been granted very generous hours of work. The existing approval totals 55 hours per week including 5 hours on Saturdays.
3. Local residents, particularly those adjacent to the East Walker Street development suffered extremely disruptive and almost continual noise from around mid-January 2026 to around April 2026. This was during the excavation phase of work. The noise levels were extremely excessive, notwithstanding that the Applicant/ALAND stated they had noise monitors along the boundary line of their project. The massive noise from rock breaking, heavy drilling, crashing of loads of rocks being tipped into metal based trucks was horrendous as four very large earthmoving machines worked to excavate to a depth of four levels of basement. Respite breaks appeared to be brief and infrequent, with no clear pattern of timing.
As a purely personal view I, and my husband Gary Cook, consider the disruptive effects of this constant, significant noise were substantially detrimental to our health and wellbeing, and our ability to use our main bedroom (noting Gary Cook was undergoing radiation treatment for cancer during March and needed daytime rest), and I Rosemary was unable to work in our home office without constantly wearing industrial noise cancelling head phones.
We are aware of numerous other examples of local residents within 171 Walker Street who were severely detrimentally impacted by these works and whose ability to go about their normal work and home routines was severely disrupted.
4. As our own personal view, it seems to us the Applicant/ALAND has made a barely minimal effort to engage with the local community, extend any empathy, and provide specific, regular information eg works scheduled for the next 2 weeks.
5. In conclusion we do not support the Applicant's Proposal for Temporary Modification of Construction Hours by an additional 20 hours per week. In our view, the Applicant has been granted very generous construction hours which total 55 hours per week. Work to date has imposed substantial disruption, frustration and annoyance on the immediate local community. To grant a temporary extension to add a further 20 hours per week for an unknown timeframe is totally unacceptable. We see the request as harsh and unconscionable.
With courtesy and respect, we request that the Application from East Walker 88 Development Pty Ltd be declined.
From Rosemary Heal on behalf of Rosemary Heal and Gary Cook
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROYALLA
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this project on two grounds, firstly community health and the impact this project with on my family and friends who live in this area: and secondly the misrespentation in the EIS that this is just a medium scale quarry, rather than the actuality that this is a major extraction quarry combined with a concrete batching plant and an asphalt production plant. Science agrees that silica dust
environmental impacts, in terms of human health, can extend up to 20 kilometers from the quarry site. This has the ability to affect the tens of thousands of peoples living in the immediate area. For this reason alone, this quarry should not proceed.
The EIS covers the development of a quarry with up to 500 loaded truck entries to an already a busy highway per day. These vehicle movements cover the movement of quarry products only and miss the additional movements required by the development of the concrete and asphalt plants. As these additional plants are not adequately covered by the EIS, that document mispresents the effects of the totally of the development to our local community and to the state government itself.
I firmly believe that this development is misrepresented in the supporting documentation and should not be proceeded with.
Sincerely
environmental impacts, in terms of human health, can extend up to 20 kilometers from the quarry site. This has the ability to affect the tens of thousands of peoples living in the immediate area. For this reason alone, this quarry should not proceed.
The EIS covers the development of a quarry with up to 500 loaded truck entries to an already a busy highway per day. These vehicle movements cover the movement of quarry products only and miss the additional movements required by the development of the concrete and asphalt plants. As these additional plants are not adequately covered by the EIS, that document mispresents the effects of the totally of the development to our local community and to the state government itself.
I firmly believe that this development is misrepresented in the supporting documentation and should not be proceeded with.
Sincerely
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROYALLA
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal because of the negative impacts it will have on our lives and the lives of the residents of Royalla and the surrounding region because:
the applicant has documented in the SIA the negative future impacts on the Royalla community and particularly that of my wife’s property and those in her close proximity.
that even though the proposal suggest that the company can manage and monitor the air quality including the silica dust, science is conclusive that no amount of silica dust can be considered safe for humans therefore how can this be acceptable in close proximity to residential areas.
the need for an additional quarry in the Royalla area has not been adequately demonstrated,
land values have been effected and there is no suggestion of any compensation for those in the immediate area
of the huge increase in volume of the heavy vehicle traffic, the road damage and associated traffic hazards. Already existing road damage takes weeks or months to get repaired,
low to high noise, dust and traffic impacts as identified in the proposal
the applicant has documented in the SIA the negative future impacts on the Royalla community and particularly that of my wife’s property and those in her close proximity.
that even though the proposal suggest that the company can manage and monitor the air quality including the silica dust, science is conclusive that no amount of silica dust can be considered safe for humans therefore how can this be acceptable in close proximity to residential areas.
the need for an additional quarry in the Royalla area has not been adequately demonstrated,
land values have been effected and there is no suggestion of any compensation for those in the immediate area
of the huge increase in volume of the heavy vehicle traffic, the road damage and associated traffic hazards. Already existing road damage takes weeks or months to get repaired,
low to high noise, dust and traffic impacts as identified in the proposal
Attachments
Jennifer George
Object
Jennifer George
Object
Googong
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this project SSD-27223807
Proposed Monaro Rock Quarry – Royalla NSW 2620
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for reading my letter.
I feel compelled to write to you with my serious concerns and strong objection to the proposed Monaro Rock Quarry Project.
I live in Little Burra, a small rural residential community bordering on Royalla and the quarry will be just a few kilometres from my back door looking north west.
My family and I moved here 19 years ago with a plan to enjoy the rural ambience, improve the environment and leave a positive imprint on this beautiful land. The impact of this quarry will adversely affect 4 generations of my family ranging in age from 2yrs to 87yrs. All of whom either live here long term or reside for varying lengths of time. We have propagated and planted over 700 trees, grown gardens to enhance the bees, birds and butterflies and enjoy watching the local wildlife graze on our native grassland under the hundred year old yellow box gums. We use rainwater for drinking and have solar power with battery back up to run our home.
How do you convey the feeling of extreme anxiety and heartfelt despair over the consequences of what this quarry will bring? How the immediate effect of the shock-waves of the blasting and the compounding effect of the fine particles of life limiting dust that will affect all forms of local inhabitants from grasses to birds to wildlife and humans?
The impact of this quarry is very difficult to quantify…….
There are significant issues of concern such as water contamination, air pollution, noise, road safety, local heavy vehicle traffic, environmental impact and the irreplaceable loss of habitat for the local wildlife, flora and fauna in an area that is already listed as critically endangered. The multiple reports created to support this quarry can be seen to mitigate or offset these serious concerns in very convincing ways by experienced, professional organisations in favour of the quarry because they are paid by the proponents.
We already have 2 quarries within a 10 km radius of here that have many many years of excellent high grade resources still available to serve the surrounding area. And neither are needing to run at full capacity. Yes, I understand employment and resource availability is extremely important for obvious reasons, but why put another quarry in between these 2 quarries just because it can be seen to improve competition and just because Monaro Rock has access to the rock. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should. This quarry provides no advantage to long term employment or resource availability to the surrounding communities of NSW or ACT at all.
Thank you again for reading this letter and giving it due consideration.
I hope it has raised awareness about my concerns on the impact that this addition quarry would have on my family, our community and our environment. I look forward to hearing of your considered and hopefully favourable decision in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Jennifer George
Little Burra
Googong
NSW 2620
Proposed Monaro Rock Quarry – Royalla NSW 2620
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for reading my letter.
I feel compelled to write to you with my serious concerns and strong objection to the proposed Monaro Rock Quarry Project.
I live in Little Burra, a small rural residential community bordering on Royalla and the quarry will be just a few kilometres from my back door looking north west.
My family and I moved here 19 years ago with a plan to enjoy the rural ambience, improve the environment and leave a positive imprint on this beautiful land. The impact of this quarry will adversely affect 4 generations of my family ranging in age from 2yrs to 87yrs. All of whom either live here long term or reside for varying lengths of time. We have propagated and planted over 700 trees, grown gardens to enhance the bees, birds and butterflies and enjoy watching the local wildlife graze on our native grassland under the hundred year old yellow box gums. We use rainwater for drinking and have solar power with battery back up to run our home.
How do you convey the feeling of extreme anxiety and heartfelt despair over the consequences of what this quarry will bring? How the immediate effect of the shock-waves of the blasting and the compounding effect of the fine particles of life limiting dust that will affect all forms of local inhabitants from grasses to birds to wildlife and humans?
The impact of this quarry is very difficult to quantify…….
There are significant issues of concern such as water contamination, air pollution, noise, road safety, local heavy vehicle traffic, environmental impact and the irreplaceable loss of habitat for the local wildlife, flora and fauna in an area that is already listed as critically endangered. The multiple reports created to support this quarry can be seen to mitigate or offset these serious concerns in very convincing ways by experienced, professional organisations in favour of the quarry because they are paid by the proponents.
We already have 2 quarries within a 10 km radius of here that have many many years of excellent high grade resources still available to serve the surrounding area. And neither are needing to run at full capacity. Yes, I understand employment and resource availability is extremely important for obvious reasons, but why put another quarry in between these 2 quarries just because it can be seen to improve competition and just because Monaro Rock has access to the rock. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should. This quarry provides no advantage to long term employment or resource availability to the surrounding communities of NSW or ACT at all.
Thank you again for reading this letter and giving it due consideration.
I hope it has raised awareness about my concerns on the impact that this addition quarry would have on my family, our community and our environment. I look forward to hearing of your considered and hopefully favourable decision in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Jennifer George
Little Burra
Googong
NSW 2620
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Royalla
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the development of the Monaro Rock Quarry which is located on the door step of the residential estate of which I live. There are already 4 quarries with enough capacity to supply the area and surrounds for the next 100 years, so another polluting quarry is not necessary. I understand the new quarry, is not just a quarry, but also plans to manufacture concrete, and hot asphalt. The pollution and noise from this proposed quarry will significantly impact the quality of life and health of my life living here in Royalla. My family moved here 24 years ago, for a quieter, peaceful and healthy lifestyle. Had I known a quarry, concrete and asphalt manufacturing plant was going to be developed I never would have moved here. The risk to human health from silica dust, and contamination of rain water due to silica dust cannot be ignored. The odour , noise and vibrations from blasting and heavy vehicle traffic is also unacceptable and will ruin the quality of my life living here and for all residents living in this area.
What compensation is the NSW Government going to provide to cover illness to residents from pollution from the quarry, and the devaluing of my home as the value of the housing market will significantly drop as no one will want to buy a home to live next to a quarry.
If the NSW Government goes ahead with this development I will never vote for it again!
Regards
What compensation is the NSW Government going to provide to cover illness to residents from pollution from the quarry, and the devaluing of my home as the value of the housing market will significantly drop as no one will want to buy a home to live next to a quarry.
If the NSW Government goes ahead with this development I will never vote for it again!
Regards
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
KAMBAH
,
Australian Capital Territory
Message
I am writing to express my strong support for the Monaro Rock Quarry project. This project represents a significant opportunity for our community, both in terms of economic development and environmental stewardship.
The Monaro Rock Quarry project promises substantial benefits for our local community. One of the most significant advantages is the creation of additional jobs. The project will generate employment opportunities during both the construction and operational phases, providing much-needed jobs for local residents. This will not only boost the local economy but also improve the quality of life for many families in our region.
Moreover, the project will contribute to the growth of the local industry. By producing high-quality aggregates, the Monaro Rock Quarry will support various construction and infrastructure projects in the area. This will lead to increased demand for local services and suppliers, further stimulating economic growth. The development of additional infrastructure, such as a concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, and concrete recycling facility, will provide valuable resources for local construction and maintenance activities, enhancing the region's industrial capabilities.
The project's commitment to environmental responsibility is also commendable. By sourcing water from the Project Site and prioritizing dust suppression, the Monaro Rock Quarry ensures that air quality is maintained, protecting the health and comfort of nearby residents. The dedicated private access road to the Monaro Highway addresses community concerns about noise, traffic, and disruption, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to minimizing the project's impact on local residents.
In conclusion, the Monaro Rock Quarry project is a well-planned and thoughtfully executed initiative that promises significant benefits for our community. I fully support this project and look forward to seeing its positive impact on our local economy and environment.
Best regards,
The Monaro Rock Quarry project promises substantial benefits for our local community. One of the most significant advantages is the creation of additional jobs. The project will generate employment opportunities during both the construction and operational phases, providing much-needed jobs for local residents. This will not only boost the local economy but also improve the quality of life for many families in our region.
Moreover, the project will contribute to the growth of the local industry. By producing high-quality aggregates, the Monaro Rock Quarry will support various construction and infrastructure projects in the area. This will lead to increased demand for local services and suppliers, further stimulating economic growth. The development of additional infrastructure, such as a concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, and concrete recycling facility, will provide valuable resources for local construction and maintenance activities, enhancing the region's industrial capabilities.
The project's commitment to environmental responsibility is also commendable. By sourcing water from the Project Site and prioritizing dust suppression, the Monaro Rock Quarry ensures that air quality is maintained, protecting the health and comfort of nearby residents. The dedicated private access road to the Monaro Highway addresses community concerns about noise, traffic, and disruption, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to minimizing the project's impact on local residents.
In conclusion, the Monaro Rock Quarry project is a well-planned and thoughtfully executed initiative that promises significant benefits for our community. I fully support this project and look forward to seeing its positive impact on our local economy and environment.
Best regards,