Our family owns a waterfront block which will be the adjoining neighbour to this development. In the environmental assessment proposal there is no evidence of the effects to neibouring properties, in fact it was very dificult to ascertain who is the direct neighboring properties as this level of detail has not been included in the proposal. We therefore object on the basis that the EA is insufficiently detailed so as to advise all parties concerned. What effects will water outlets have on neighboring properties.

My Objections > The use of CAMBAGE st as access to a industial development on a no through road .

.Pindimar South AT present is a holiday spot for young children visiting Grand parent , the children use the road as a foot path , No foot paths or walk ways are available IN South Pindimar.

I have 4 children who regualy visit Pindimar South and enjoy riding there bicks along Cambage st ,on a low volume road.

Eldely residents use Cambage St walking daily . Hearing impared people .have a safty risk of not hearing traffic.

at present the locals go very slowly.and watch out for people walking.
Traffic on a local road through South Pindimar Village ,with a increase of 100% or more cars is unfair on PINDIMAR community,and a SAFTY risk.

Object to proposal

Dear Mr Hazzard

I am a currently nearby resident and once a part owner of "Tallowfield", the adjacent property to180 Clarke St, Pindimar. I attended the Land & Environment Court hearing some years ago when a similar proposal was rejected.

I strongly object to this later proposal which appears to be much larger than the earlier plan. My objection is lodged for the very reasons that it was originally rejected. They are pollution of the delicate port, disease and destruction of the local ecology.

Research with Great Lakes Council will show the Minister that both Shoal Bay and Jimmy's Beach are at great risk of sediment erosion. The entire shallow waterway is the ongoing subject of a University of Sydney study.

This is an entirely inappropriate site for heavy industry.

James Slater

My objections are as follows:
1. If consent is given for this project to pipe effluent treated or not out into Port Stephens waterways it sets a precedent that will then be followed by many.
2. The village of Pindimar South or Lower Pindimar is home to about 90 permanent residents. The road leading into the village struggles to cope at the best of times and will not do well with extra traffic. We are told there is a workforce attached to this project. There are no shops if facilities close by. They will be required to drive 15 minutes into the local town. I doubt this will happen and if it does it will once again place a strain on the existing poorly constructed barely wide enough road.
4. The power supply to this village barely copes at present with the demands placed on it. Frequent power brown outs and black outs are something most residents are use to. In fact during a recent storm power was lost to this village for 30 hours! A light industrial complex such as the proposed would place additional strain on the power lines. Having their own generating supply would add to the noise levels.
5. This is a quiet residential holiday area not a light industrial zone.
6. Historically Abalone Farms have been subject to disease and for the most part commercial failure. What makes this one any different and when it does fail who will clean up the environmental mess it will leave?
7. There is a commercial yabby farm and fish farm in the area. Neither of which are allowed to pump waste, treated or otherwise, into the creeks, rivers or in fact directly into the bay. Why should this farm being given preferential treatment and be allowed to do so via an invasive pipe going into Port Stephens?

Re. Pindimar Abalone Farm Application #MP 10_0006


I object to this proposal. I believe it to be inappropriate for this area.

South Pindimar is a quite village populated by retirees and residents who choose the area for its natural beauty and peacefulness. I am 93 years old and would be most upset by the extra traffic, dirt and noise that this development would cause let alone the raping of such a beautiful, natural area.

I strongly object to this proposal.

Sincerely,


Glen Payton

As a regular visitor to Port Stephens, I object to this proposal. I believe it to be quite inappropriate for South Pindimar, which is one of the few non-commercialised areas left in the area where peace and the natural tranquility can be enjoyed. This proposal would change the local township forever by:

- increased traffic from the 13+ full time workers, delivery trucks and produce vehicles into the area and finally along a no-thoroughfare road in presently unspoiled bushland

- the negative effects on water quality within the entire Port. This includes the highly popular holiday areas of Nelson Bay right back to Lemon Tree Passage on the southern side. The independently produced Port water flow charts illustrate the numerous eddying effects throughout the Port which clearly contradict the development's statement that abalone waste will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf! It is clear to me that the waste water could stay within the Port for weeks before dissipation and well before further waste is disgorged there from the same source.

- the introduction of light pollution. Part of the beauty of the area is the vividness of the night sky. This also would be spoilt forever should this proposal ever be permitted.

- creating noise pollution in the form of trucks and fork-lifts with their shrill reverse beeping, generators, pumps and other noise associated with running a commercial business.

- destruction of local sea grasses and protected mangroves through the installation of intake and discharge pipes across public and protected areas. I believe that abalone requires a colder water in which to survive and, since the water temperature in the Port becomes quite warm, discharged water from the plant will be cooler when returned to the Port.

Such a development should not even be considered within enclosed waters such as a port. Clearly the obvious position would be on the coast where direct access to the ocean and wave action could flush the abalone effluent more effectively.

1. Where will the 4 pipelines enter/exit Port Stephens bay.
2. What sort of noise will be generated from this "Major Project" .
3. Our rates are very high as it is considering the isolation of the area, will this "Major Project" raise our rates?
4. Will this "Major Project" rely on tank water like we do, or will town water come to Pindimar for all.
5. How will the general running of this "Major Project" affect our day to day lives, will there be increased traffic on Clarke St/Pindimar Road for instance.
6. Pindimar is a huge holiday area as well as home to many residents (including myself), how will this affect the price of our homes.

I am writing to object to the Pindimar Abalone Project Application M P 10-0006 to build a large land based abalone farm which will siphon 50 megalitres of water DAILY through the farm (factory) to Port Stephens

_ According to a survey by Manly Hydraulics the water at South Pindimar does not flush out daily and there are several places where eddies of water cause waste to remain for weeks
The pipes are 9 kilometres from the inlet at Port Stephens
-This is an inappropriate site for this project and puts the ecology of the Port at GRAVE RISK in a very fragile environment
Abalone farms are coastal This would be the 1st abalone farm in an estuary in NSW

Port Stephens Council has raised concerns that the Pindimar Abalone Farm should be subject to monitoring by a third party
THIS IS ESSENTIAL the monitors should be independently engaged by Council and paid for by the proponents and should include local resident representation

-A LARGE BOND should be paid by the proponents to clean up the destruction to the Port WHEN this venture FAILS
-
-The proponents address is Clarke Street but the proposal is to use access via Cambage Street

Cambage Street is a road built for light LOCAL traffic through a village which is used for local domestic purpose very few cars owned by locals who drive at 40 kilometres There is no footpath and there are swails on the side of this narrow domestic road turning into Como Street and Carruthers Street which are not formed roads but bush track

Many Senior walkers
Children on Bikes
Resident with Visual Disability
Resident in Electric Wheelchair
use the road for exercise and socialisation

-The locality in this village is TOTALLY WRONG and DANGEROUS!!!!

The Bay is an area highly used by residents and visitors for swimming, recreational water sports and boating right where the pipes would be disgorging 50 megalitres of waste from this dirty industry every day

-This is NOT a State Significant Industry
Abalone is not a food eaten by most Australians but a food to be exported
The profits will NOT benefit NSW as as the proponents told us at the "Community Consultation"
"There are many OVERSEAS investors waiting to invest in this Industrial development
Port Stephens must not be PUT AT RISK and Community life and facility MUST NOT BE SACRIFICED

Judy Richardson

Re. Pindimar Abalone Farm Application #MP 10_0006


I object to this proposal.

I believe it to be grossly inappropriate on many levels and strongly recommend that the Minister actually visits the area to gain an understanding as to why this is so.

I attach a Abalone Aquaculture Dialogue statement from the World Wildlife Fund (http://www.mesa.edu.au/aquaculture/aquaculture17.asp) which supports many of my objections points listed below.

South Pindimar is one of the few non-commercialised areas left and is enjoyed both as a retirement destination and a weekend getaway to be amidst peace and the natural tranquillity. This proposal would change the local township forever by:

- increased traffic from the 13+ full time workers


- introducing both delivery trucks and produce vehicles into a no-thoroughfare road in a countrified residential area

- the negative effects on water quality within the entire Port. This includes the highly popular holiday areas of Nelson Bay right back to Lemon Tree Passage on the southern side. You need only study the independently produced Port water flow charts which illustrate the numerous eddying effects throughout the Port which clearly contradict the development's statement that abalone waste will be quickly flushed out to the Continental shelf! It is clear to me that the waste water could stay within the Port for weeks before dissipation and well before further waste is disgorged there from the same source.

- the introduction of light pollution. Part of the beauty of the area is the vividness of the night sky allowing local enthusiasts an uncontaminated darkness. This also would be spoilt forever should this proposal ever be permitted.

- creating noise pollution in the form of trucks, probably fork-lifts with their incessant beeping, generators, pumps and the mere process of running a commercial business

- destruction of local sea grasses and protected mangroves through the installation of intake and discharge pipes across public and protected areas


I cannot understand why such a development could even be considered within enclosed waters such as a Port. Clearly the obvious position would be on the coast where direct access to the ocean and wave action could flush the abalone effluent more effectively.

It was my understanding the abalone requires a colder water in which to survive anyway and, as any local will tell you, the water temperature becomes quite warm especially as it is sometime the receiptent of tropical currents.

I also understand that abalone is very susceptible to disease. We have already seen the near destruction of oyster farming in the area and I am told this could be due to current pollution emanating from industry further up the Karuah River and run-off from surrounding areas.

Please, we don't need any more.


Sincerely,

John Payton