Office of Environment and Heritage
Comment
Office of Environment and Heritage
Comment
Lismore City Council
Comment
Lismore City Council
Comment
OEH Heritage Branch
Comment
OEH Heritage Branch
Comment
Environmental Protection Authority
Comment
Environmental Protection Authority
Comment
michael Murphy
Comment
michael Murphy
Comment
The Channon
,
New South Wales
Message
I am the joint owner with my wife, Victoria Murphy of
6 Fermoy Avenue and 6A Fermoy Avenue, Lismore. These properties are directly negatively affected by the proposed vehicular use of Little Uralba Street, by truck and van deliveries 24 hours a day.
6 Fermoy Avenue is directly opposite Little Uralba Street and will consequently be directly affected by lights and noise at night. The property has already be negatively affected by the placement of the Mental Health facility directly opposite (screams and sirens) sometimes for an hour or more, at night.
I am really concerned that this next building stage of the Hospital complex will render my two properties unsuitable for residential purposes. These properties are currently rented to working people who have been complaining to me about the noise and extra activity at night ever since the new Mental Health facility was completed.
I understand the the Hospital extension will benefit the whole community and is necessary. Some consideration should be given to re-zoning residential blocks that are directly affected
by the Hospital extensions to use for more intensive
medical purposes only. For example, height restrictions. This would enable residential blocks such as mine and those in Weaver Street to be used as non-residential and potential day time medical use.
As it stands, the value of these residential blocks will reduce dramatically as the extensions to the Hospital proceeds.
I suggest that Planning and Infrastructure should be examining this problem now with the owners of the affected properties to resolve matters earlier rather than later as conditions deteriorate further.
6 Fermoy Avenue and 6A Fermoy Avenue, Lismore. These properties are directly negatively affected by the proposed vehicular use of Little Uralba Street, by truck and van deliveries 24 hours a day.
6 Fermoy Avenue is directly opposite Little Uralba Street and will consequently be directly affected by lights and noise at night. The property has already be negatively affected by the placement of the Mental Health facility directly opposite (screams and sirens) sometimes for an hour or more, at night.
I am really concerned that this next building stage of the Hospital complex will render my two properties unsuitable for residential purposes. These properties are currently rented to working people who have been complaining to me about the noise and extra activity at night ever since the new Mental Health facility was completed.
I understand the the Hospital extension will benefit the whole community and is necessary. Some consideration should be given to re-zoning residential blocks that are directly affected
by the Hospital extensions to use for more intensive
medical purposes only. For example, height restrictions. This would enable residential blocks such as mine and those in Weaver Street to be used as non-residential and potential day time medical use.
As it stands, the value of these residential blocks will reduce dramatically as the extensions to the Hospital proceeds.
I suggest that Planning and Infrastructure should be examining this problem now with the owners of the affected properties to resolve matters earlier rather than later as conditions deteriorate further.
Dianne Williams
Object
Dianne Williams
Object
Balranald
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: SSD 5285 - Balranald Mineral Sands Mine
I thank Allan Kane for his prompt response dated 3rd July, 2015 to my concerns as outlined in my letter dated 29th June, 2015. Copies of both are attached. Alan's response is a re-statement of what is publicly available in the EIS and fails to answer my specific personal concerns.
My home and farming and accommodation businesses are situated at Lake Paika Station approximately three kilometres East of the Balranald site. There are three residents on the property, myself, my partner Iain Lindsay-Field and pensioner Ron Duffy. We have many accommodation and camping guests through the business (www.lakepaikaaccommodation.com.au). Lake Paika is adjacent to my home and is 450 ha in size and is filled with environmental water from the Murrumbidgee River. It is the water source for stock and domestic water. Rain water for drinking is captured off one of the farm sheds.
Further the home and farming property of my daughter and son-in-law, and their young children, are also within five kilometres East of the site. Their drinking water is collected off the roof of their home.
As the prevailing wind in the area is a Westerly, this puts us directly in the prevailing wind direction of the mine site.
I acknowledge that air and water modelling has been done with reference to the EPA and that according to the modelling my property, and the property of my daughter and son-in law, would have, it seems, a low likelihood of air and water contamination. This modelling is however only modelling and Allan's letter refers to the preparation and implementation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and Water Management Plan (WMP) that would allow for the collection of actual data in respect to air and water over the life of the mine site.
As a safeguard and given the risks associated with my proximity to the mine site on the health of myself, my family and my gyests, I request to have one air monitoring site and one water monitoring site (in Lake Paika) on my property. Further, I request that I have one air monitoring site on the property of my daughter and son-in-law. I would expect that these sites come under the AQMP and WMP and as such are reported on Iluka's website.
I also request to know how often the monitoring of each site will be recorded and how often it will be reported on the website? My preference is for daily recording and reporting so that effective corrective action can be prompt both by Iluka and myself.
This project is good for the district and I am keen for it to move forward. Iluka has been good in it's consultation process with stakeholders and I, at all times, look to be reasonable but practical about the my stakeholder risks.
Kind Regards,
Dianne Williams
5.7.2015
I thank Allan Kane for his prompt response dated 3rd July, 2015 to my concerns as outlined in my letter dated 29th June, 2015. Copies of both are attached. Alan's response is a re-statement of what is publicly available in the EIS and fails to answer my specific personal concerns.
My home and farming and accommodation businesses are situated at Lake Paika Station approximately three kilometres East of the Balranald site. There are three residents on the property, myself, my partner Iain Lindsay-Field and pensioner Ron Duffy. We have many accommodation and camping guests through the business (www.lakepaikaaccommodation.com.au). Lake Paika is adjacent to my home and is 450 ha in size and is filled with environmental water from the Murrumbidgee River. It is the water source for stock and domestic water. Rain water for drinking is captured off one of the farm sheds.
Further the home and farming property of my daughter and son-in-law, and their young children, are also within five kilometres East of the site. Their drinking water is collected off the roof of their home.
As the prevailing wind in the area is a Westerly, this puts us directly in the prevailing wind direction of the mine site.
I acknowledge that air and water modelling has been done with reference to the EPA and that according to the modelling my property, and the property of my daughter and son-in law, would have, it seems, a low likelihood of air and water contamination. This modelling is however only modelling and Allan's letter refers to the preparation and implementation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and Water Management Plan (WMP) that would allow for the collection of actual data in respect to air and water over the life of the mine site.
As a safeguard and given the risks associated with my proximity to the mine site on the health of myself, my family and my gyests, I request to have one air monitoring site and one water monitoring site (in Lake Paika) on my property. Further, I request that I have one air monitoring site on the property of my daughter and son-in-law. I would expect that these sites come under the AQMP and WMP and as such are reported on Iluka's website.
I also request to know how often the monitoring of each site will be recorded and how often it will be reported on the website? My preference is for daily recording and reporting so that effective corrective action can be prompt both by Iluka and myself.
This project is good for the district and I am keen for it to move forward. Iluka has been good in it's consultation process with stakeholders and I, at all times, look to be reasonable but practical about the my stakeholder risks.
Kind Regards,
Dianne Williams
5.7.2015