I object to the proposal because of the dust that could leave the site boundary. I understand it is said there would be sprinklers however, who manages the sprinklers outside of business hours when unexpected weather rolls in?

I object to this proposal because of any sudden or loud noises that can be heard on site or the noises involved in transporting the waste. I am concerned about any dust or fumes going beyond the boundary. As well as the increased traffic on Hartley Road and how the traffic will be ending up at 52 Anderson Road. That seems like a high volume of traffic for that area.

The reason why I object to the proposal is because I am worried about our environment. We need to be sensitive to what type of ecological system is already here and make our environment ecologically sustainable. This does not mean creating a garbage tip next to the Kenny Creek and the Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain Forest Remnant, creating a dumping ground for waste materials, concrete and foreign botany plants. We should protect the environment that is already flourishing here and protect it and not put it under any more pressure from a profit making waste facility that may pollute the area more.

The reason why I object to the proposal is because I am shift worker and am worried about the noise the facility will create during the day. I live 300 meters from the site. Will the daytime operations on site create sleep disturbance for myself? I am also worried about the airborne dust particles and larger litter polluting the area.

The reason why I object to this proposal is because of increased traffic particularly from heavy traffic that will affect my business. I am also concerned about the impact of lead based paint and the possibility of asbestos dust that may be included in waste.

I Object to the DA application for the resource recycling facility at Smeaton Grange. Again we see decisions made with out any concern of the impact to the local residents and I am wondering if this recycling facility would go ahead if it was near their houses.
My reasons for the objection:
(1) The loss of value to the houses in Currans Hill
(2)We have a heritage protected creek that WILL be affected
(3)The protection of wildlife, the impact of having air pollution from both the proposed galvanising plant and the recycle plant
(4)Stored timbers this could have the potential of attracting Termites have seen this type of storage meany times in my 23 years in the Pest Control industry
(5) The impact of the facility traffic will have on Hartley Road.This is already a nightmare trying navigate your way around these ares last week i had to replace a wind screen on my car because of rubbish falling of trucks.
(6) They will except trucks 24 hour good luck Currans Hill getting a good nights sleep and who will compensate the family who loses a family member when they fall a sleep on the road.
(7) Quality of the water in private home swimming pools

I strongly object to the Resource Recovery Facility proposed for development in Smeaton Grange. This proposed development is in close proximity to residential areas and child care centres and facilities. It would be negligent of the Government to approve this application due to health and environmental concerns. There are homes within 100 meters of the proposed site. Increased noise, traffic and pollution is of great concern. Kenny Creek, a catchment area for the Nepean River, runs past this site. I fear that this waterway will become contaminated and have a huge impact on the animals that inhabit this conservation area. It is home to many species of animals, not to mention the contribution to polluting the Nepean River. As a mother I am very concerned about the impact on the health of my children. With the grinding of steel and concrete etc. the air will potentially become polluted with fine dust particles that will attribute to future respiratory related problems, also these particles entering swimming pools and polluting the water in which our children swim. In the disposal of building rubble there will always be the potential for quantities of asbestos to be present. Health problems attributed to the presence of air bourne asbestos fibres is already well known and well documented. This hazard alone should be the reason why this facility must not be built in Smeaton Grange. I strongly urge the Government to reject this proposal to build the Resource Recovery Facility.

Noise
Pollution
Environment

These are my three reasons why I think this application should NOT be approved for that particular site at 52 Anderson Dr Smeaton Grange.

I object to the noise this facility will create plus the pollution caused by the nature of the business. The impact on areas such as damage to the roads, road safety and the impact from waste contaminating the natural environment.

The noise that will be created by so many vehicles travelling to and from the facility will have an effect on those who work in Smeaton Grange. As too will the pollution blowing from the site. Especially the waste that either drops off vehicles before arriving or when on site.