We object to the above proposal because it is detrimental to our health, besides we have children with asthma and we are against any type of pollution esp asbestos or other dangerous materials.

I object the extension of allowing the Glenfield waste facility at 2 Cambridge ave as it would have a huge impact on the ecology of the local area.The Georges River is under pressure from a number of factors including weather,Industrial projects like this project.I have known that the Georges River is a very important river in terms of our environmental sustainability and is a major reasonin my opposition to the proposed Moorebank Intermodal which has major environment impact on the sustainability of the area particularly in periods of heavy rain.I have witnessed information that despite current threats to the river the wildlife aquatic species are currently in very good condition.This will not occurrr if projects like this are allowed tooccur

We wish to submit our objection to Application No. SSD6249 from Glenfield Waste Services Group, on the following grounds :
1. Existing facility should not be allowed any further expansion but arrangements need to be made for shifting it to some other less populated location.
2. Glenfield and its precincts have now developed as preferred residential areas and any such waste processing plants need to be prohibited.
3. Obviously, there will be negative environmental impact, and on property values, apart from risks to peoples health from dusts and other pollutants, therefore we respectfully ask the Minister for Planning not to approve this application.

I wish to object to the proposed Abalone Farm at Pindimar in NSW.
My main concerns include but are not limited to:
1/ After reading the Environmental Assessment, I have little to no confidence in the quality of statements offered by the developers. To me, their descriptions of estimated levels of pollutants being put back into the Port Stephens waters seem to be under exaggerated estimates and there appears to be a fair amount of ambiguous responses by the developers. They seem to struggle to produce hard facts, and have opted to offer statistics and figures from other Abalone ventures located in and around areas who have very different water quality issues. Port Stephens whilst it appears in quite good shape, is already struggling to maintain its natural beauty. Any extra commercial aquaculture ventures will push the ecology to the brink, and this Abalone Farm offers more risks than the Port can handle.

2/ The main source of income in the Port Stephens area is quite heavily tourism focussed. The developers of the Abalone Farm have recently admitted there will be damage to sea grass beds and opted to also state that pollutants will indeed be flushed into the Port daily. Surely in this day in age any commercial operation injecting pollution into the water would be stopped by the E.P.A or local council. Any percentage of pollutant is too much, and will over time stress an already struggling Port that receives 90% of its income and employment gained from tourism on the water like Dolphin and Whale Watch Tours. The E.A highlighted that the developers didn't seem to care about our tourism industry and its importance, well, I care about it and DO NOT WANT THIS ABALONE FARM TO PROCEED.

In relation to the proposed land based Abalone Farm at South Pindimar in NSW, put forward by Austasia Leefield Pty Ltd, please accept this as my submission AGAINST the proposal on several key issues addressed in the attached document.

DPI comments attached

Following a detailed review and assessment of the land-based abalone farm application as provided by Planning and Environment, Council officers conclude that additional information and an amended application is required to enable Council to properly consider the application.