Breen Resource Recovery Facility

In the same way as most of my neighbours, I am strongly against the extension of Breen Resource facilities, not so much because of increased noisy traffic (which is already bad enough), but mainly due to already unacceptable high levels of dust emissions and possible pollutants from the existing facilities. As the scoping report indicates (under 7.10 Waste Management) it is particularly in spring and summer that north-easterly winds bring high levels of dust emissions to our residential area. This is clearly visible for anybody with a swimming pool in our suburb as during this period (of at least 6 months) we need to vacuum nearly every single day brown-red dust at the bottom of our pools. And I am not talking about the dust that we regularly need to clean from our outdoor pavements or roofs. As most of our families have children who play every day in our streets, we are highly concerned about the risk and dangers of these dust emissions - and possible other pollutants - to their health .

As far as we know, there has never been a detailed assessment of the health hazards generated by the emitted dust and pollutants from Breen Resource to our adjacent residential area. According to the Wilkinson report that has been presented with the project presentation, there are presently 'no site-specific data available to determine the existing concentrations of dust and particulate matter'. This is shocking news, the nearest DPTE monitoring station is apparently based in Randwick. So while hundreds of our children are playing every day outside in Greenhills Beach and other residential areas, under the dust and particulates emitted by Breen Resource, an expansion project by the same company is being considered in the total absence of a detailed study on the health effects of present and possible future activities from the company.

According to research published on 24 may 2016 in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Oxford University Press, health is at risk for anyone living within 5 kilometers of a landfill site : 'Results of the research showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalisations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children.' The residential area of Greenhills Beach is less than 2 kilometer from Breen Resource. The company operates a commercial rather than a residential landfill. We do not know to what extent the level and quality of dust and pollutant emissions may be more or less damaging to our health, but a detailed study into the health hazards for residents living close, and even very close, to the Breen Resource facilities should be a pre-condition before any consideration is being given to the expansion of present facilities.

In the absence of the conclusions of such study, we will continue to object against the expansion of existing facilities.

I strongly object to this also as the road is incredibly dangerous with the amount of huge speeding trucks also.

Regards
Erin Ryan

As a resident of nearby Greenhills Beach estate I am concerned the Breen development if approved will have dire consequences for myself, my family, the local community and wildlife. The Breen development will increase traffic noise, pollution,
Emissions. Diesel fuels from the equipment at the site combined with fuels from the delivery trucks will have a negative impact on the air quality. I am concerned about the dust and emissions from the site, we have no idea what these particles will do to our lungs. We already know the pollution. Form the existing sites carries through the air and Linda on our washing lines, pools and homes. This is already cause for concern. Allowing Breen to expand on their industry is not in the public’s best interest. I object to the Breen development application wholeheartedly.

I am writing regarding SSD 10412 – Breen Resource Recovery Facility.
I see that the proposal involves the construction and operation of a resource recovery facility to process up to 650,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition (C&D) and commercial and industrial (C&I) wastes and land restoration, landfilling and contouring. I understand that it will not be accepting putrescible and household waste.
I am in favour of the proposal because:
• Environmentally it will be a great improvement on the current facility which is an eyesore. It will be housed in enclosed buildings, there will be paved roads and it will have new truck washing facilities.
• Importantly the current site is to be moved and the land used for playing fields as well as the construction of parklands. This will be supported by the community.
As a Kurnell resident I feel the new recreational areas and sporting fields are long overdue but I welcome the commitment made to build them and finally provide some timelines for their construction.
Of course this all depends on the proposal getting approval. I hope that is the case.

The Breen proposal is good news and I support it. The proposed Marang Parklands will be a huge improvement on the current eyesore. It should have happened long ago but hopefully with approval for the project it will become a reality.
I’m particularly supportive of the idea of using Kurnell Dune Forest, Coastal Heath and grasses in the refurbishment of the lands. Hopefully that landscaping will help return the lands to what they would have looked like many years ago before sandmining tore it apart.

In the same way as most of my neighbours, I am strongly against the extension of Breen Resource facilities, not so much because of increased noisy traffic (which is already bad enough), but mainly due to already unacceptable high levels of dust emissions and possible pollutants from the existing facilities. As the scoping report indicates (under 7.10 Waste Management) it is particularly in spring and summer that north-easterly winds bring high levels of dust emissions to our residential area. This is clearly visible for anybody with a swimming pool in our suburb as during this period (of at least 6 months) we need to vacuum nearly every single day brown-red dust at the bottom of our pools. And I am not talking about the dust that we regularly need to clean from our outdoor pavements or roofs. As most of our families have children who play every day in our streets, we are highly concerned about the risk and dangers of these dust emissions - and possible other pollutants - to their health .

As far as we know, there has never been a detailed assessment of the health hazards generated by the emitted dust and pollutants from Breen Resource to our adjacent residential area. According to the Wilkinson report that has been presented with the project presentation, there are presently 'no site-specific data available to determine the existing concentrations of dust and particulate matter'. This is shocking news, the nearest DPTE monitoring station is apparently based in Randwick. So while hundreds of our children are playing every day outside in Greenhills Beach and other residential areas, under the dust and particulates emitted by Breen Resource, an expansion project by the same company is being considered in the total absence of a detailed study on the health effects of present and possible future activities from the company.

According to research published on 24 may 2016 in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Oxford University Press, health is at risk for anyone living within 5 kilometers of a landfill site : 'Results of the research showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalisations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children.' The residential area of Greenhills Beach is less than 2 kilometer from Breen Resource. The company operates a commercial rather than a residential landfill. We do not know to what extent the level and quality of dust and pollutant emissions may be more or less damaging to our health, but a detailed study into the health hazards for residents living close, and even very close, to the Breen Resource facilities should be a pre-condition before any consideration is being given to the expansion of present facilities.

In the absence of the conclusions of such study, we will continue to object against the expansion of existing facilities.

In consideration of the proposed projects close vicinity to established residential communities to both the north and the south, there lies a significant danger to the long term health and well being of surrounding residents. As both north & south prevailing winds are present along this coastal strip, this will result in the airborne movement of dusts and fine particles from the waste & processing facilities into these communities.

In additional to the exposure risk presented to adjacent communities, consideration must also be given to the proposed development location with respect to the popular Marang Parklands sports & leisure facilities and the heavy patronized Boat Harbour 4WD marine park. The Marang facility is home to organised community sport (hockey & soccer) and a children's skatepark, the Boat Harbour precent attracts families from greater southern Sydney. Public exposure to potential toxic dusts & particles would be unavoidable and hardly present a level of air quality suitable for any form of physical activity (and may also result in longer term health problems for people exposed).

In the same way as most of my neighbours, I am strongly against the extension of Breen Resource facilities, not so much because of increased noisy traffic (which is already bad enough), but mainly due to already unacceptable high levels of dust emissions and possible pollutants from the existing facilities. As the scoping report indicates (under 7.10 Waste Management) it is particularly in spring and summer that north-easterly winds bring high levels of dust emissions to our residential area. This is clearly visible for anybody with a swimming pool in our suburb as during this period (of at least 6 months) we need to vacuum nearly every single day brown-red dust at the bottom of our pools. And I am not talking about the dust that we regularly need to clean from our outdoor pavements or roofs. As most of our families have children who play every day in our streets, we are highly concerned about the risk and dangers of these dust emissions - and possible other pollutants - to their health .
As far as we know, there has never been a detailed assessment of the health hazards generated by the emitted dust and pollutants from Breen Resource to our adjacent residential area. According to the Wilkinson report that has been presented with the project presentation, there are presently 'no site-specific data available to determine the existing concentrations of dust and particulate matter'. This is shocking news, the nearest DPTE monitoring station is apparently based in Randwick. So while hundreds of our children are playing every day outside in Greenhills Beach and other residential areas, under the dust and particulates emitted by Breen Resource, an expansion project by the same company is being considered in the total absence of a detailed study on the health effects of present and possible future activities from the company.
According to research published on 24 may 2016 in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Oxford University Press, health is at risk for anyone living within 5 kilometers of a landfill site : 'Results of the research showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalisations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children.' The residential area of Greenhills Beach is less than 2 kilometer from Breen Resource. The company operates a commercial rather than a residential landfill. We do not know to what extent the level and quality of dust and pollutant emissions may be more or less damaging to our health, but a detailed study into the health hazards for residents living close, and even very close, to the Breen Resource facilities should be a pre-condition before any consideration is being given to the expansion of present facilities.
In the absence of the conclusions of such study, we will continue to object against the expansion of existing facilities.

I am writing in response to the proposal by Breen Resources to build a new waste processing plant at Kurnell. I support the project.
As a local resident i think it will be good for the environment to have all the processing activities take place in enclosed buildings. That will cut down on dust and keep the areas clean.
The fact that this will also mean the current facility will be relocated and we will finally see the playing fields that have been promised for so long is a big plus, i regularly use the skatepark, hockey field and soccer field with my friends we all cannot wait for the rest to be completed, i think it will be great for the community now and for many years to come.
I hope it is approved.

n the same way as most of my neighbours, I am strongly against the extension of Breen Resource facilities, not so much because of increased noisy traffic (which is already bad enough), but mainly due to already unacceptable high levels of dust emissions and possible pollutants from the existing facilities. As the scoping report indicates (under 7.10 Waste Management) it is particularly in spring and summer that north-easterly winds bring high levels of dust emissions to our residential area. This is clearly visible for anybody with a swimming pool in our suburb as during this period (of at least 6 months) we need to vacuum nearly every single day brown-red dust at the bottom of our pools. And I am not talking about the dust that we regularly need to clean from our outdoor pavements or roofs. As most of our families have children who play every day in our streets, we are highly concerned about the risk and dangers of these dust emissions - and possible other pollutants - to their health .
As far as we know, there has never been a detailed assessment of the health hazards generated by the emitted dust and pollutants from Breen Resource to our adjacent residential area. According to the Wilkinson report that has been presented with the project presentation, there are presently 'no site-specific data available to determine the existing concentrations of dust and particulate matter'. This is shocking news, the nearest DPTE monitoring station is apparently based in Randwick. So while hundreds of our children are playing every day outside in Greenhills Beach and other residential areas, under the dust and particulates emitted by Breen Resource, an expansion project by the same company is being considered in the total absence of a detailed study on the health effects of present and possible future activities from the company.
According to research published on 24 may 2016 in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Oxford University Press, health is at risk for anyone living within 5 kilometers of a landfill site : 'Results of the research showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalisations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children.' The residential area of Greenhills Beach is less than 2 kilometer from Breen Resource. The company operates a commercial rather than a residential landfill. We do not know to what extent the level and quality of dust and pollutant emissions may be more or less damaging to our health, but a detailed study into the health hazards for residents living close, and even very close, to the Breen Resource facilities should be a pre-condition before any consideration is being given to the expansion of present facilities.
In the absence of the conclusions of such study, we will continue to object against the expansion of existing facilities.

As a resident of Greenhills Beach, I strongly oppose the proposal!. My house is situated near the current facility and dust particles frequently cover all of the areas outside our house. I am an asthmatic and I have found this has impacted my health at times when the wind is blowing from the direction of the current facility. If the current operator cannot manage the pollution and dust from the processing facility, what will be the impact if this submission is approved and the facility is significantly expanded!
One of the benefits of living in Greenhills Beach is the children who can play outside in a safe environment. If significant amounts of pollution and dust come from the plant, this could cause irreparable harm to these children!
In addition, I am a cyclist who rides to Kurnell 3-4 times per week. Many of the trucks bringing waste to the current facility show no regard to cyclists, and often drive dangerously close to the cycle lane! A significant increase in the number of trucks travelling at all hours could make this cycle path too dangerous to travel, robbing thousands of cyclists of the opportunity to enjoy a safe ride to Kurnell.
The NSW Government and Sutherland Shire Council should be actively examining ways to enhance our community, to reduce pollution and improve the quality of life for the residence! This proposal would significantly increase the amount of pollution, reduce the living standards of the residence and make it too dangerous to go outside and enjoy the environment and should be strongly opposed!

I object to the Breen Resource Recovery Facility on the following grounds:

Stake Holder Engagement Report
The report indicates that Cronulla High School was not invited to provide feedback on the proposal as part of the community engagement process.
Why is this the case? Cronulla High School is already significantly impacted by truck noise generated at the roundabout located at the intersection of Captain Cook Rd and Bate Bay Rd. These heavy vehicles generate significant noise levels by stopping and starting at the roundabout causing major disruption to the learning activities at the school. The traffic report indicates that there will be an increase in the number of heavy vehicles travelling on Captain cook drive thus increasing the negative impact on the school and the school community. This issue is not addressed in the report. It must be addressed. Noise abatement walls must be installed if the proposal proceeds.

Air Quality Impact Assessment
It is very clear that air quality from the current and proposed operations of Breen is a major concerns for residents of Greenhills Beach and Kurnell.
Section 4.3 of the above report states:
"No site-specific data are available to determine the existing concentrations of dust and particulate matter at sensitive receptors near the Proposal. The NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) operates a network of air quality monitoring stations across NSW. The nearest DPIE monitoring station is located at Randwick. The Randwick monitoring station is located approximately 11.5 kilometres north east of the Proposal site."

Despite the air quality monitoring station being located at Randwick it is used to report particulate matter levels. The suburb of Greenhills Beach is located 3 kilometres from the proposed development. How is the use of a monitoring station 11.5 kilometres from the site justified when residences are located within 3 kilometres of the site? Dust and particulate matter is a significant threat to the health of the residents of Greenhills Beach. The report of measurements taken 11.5 kilometres away is not valid. Breen should be compelled to install air quality monitoring stations at the boundary of the suburbs of Greenhills Beach and Kurnell to ensure actual and valid measurements. The report recognises that the measurements from the Randwick monitoring site are not indicative of dust and particulate levels at the site. To address this estimates are reported. The estimates are not reliable. The health and well being of residents should not be based on estimated data.

Traffic management report
The traffic management report indicates that there will be an increase in the number of heavy vehicles accessing the Breen site if the proposal is to proceed.
The report is silent to the resulting increased noise levels for residents of Greenhills Beach and for Cronulla High School from the increased number of heavy vehicles. This issue must be addressed.
Breen must be obliged to install noise abatement walls along the perimeter of the suburb Greenhills Beach and Captain Cook Drive from the intersection of Bay Bate Rd.
The report uses the periods of 8:00 - 9:00 am and 5:00 - 6:00 pm as the peak hour period in Sydney. The quoted p[periods are no longer accepted as the peak hour traffic periods in Sydney. These peak hour figures for increased truck movements must be re-assed.
Captain Cook Drive has two bicycle lanes used extensively by cyclists on the weekdays and weekends. Once again the report is silent on the impact of increased heavy vehicle trips on Captain Cook Drive on cyclists. What measures will be taken to ensure the safety of cyclists given this significant increase on heavy vehicle traffic on Captain Cook Drive?

Breen Resource Recovery Facility (SDD-10412)

This is a submission of objection in respect of the above-mentioned application. I live with my family in the suburb of Greenhills Beach.

Back in 2010 the original agreement required Breen to deliver a staged transfer of 91 hectares of land to public ownership for the purpose of environmental conservation and public open space. It included Breen providing regional recreation facilities, including 10 playing fields, walking and cycling tracks, picnic facilities and 400 car parking spaces.

It’s been 3 whole years (i.e., 2018) since Breen opened a couple of hockey fields and a skate park. Since that time nothing else has been built - WHY??? What happened to the Agreement?

Now the same developer is applying to expand their Resource Recovery Facility with absolutely NO regard to the ORIGINAL agreement that had been reached to provide the ever-expanding Shark Park/ Greenhills Beach family community with recreational facilities.

It’s a disgrace.

What is the point of having an Agreement when a ‘new’ agreement can be proposed without the previous agreement being satisfied???

The ever increasing and dramatic increase in population around Cronulla Sutherland Football ground/club combined with that of the Greenhills Beach and Shearwater communities has placed an unbearable strain on the traffic around the area and other infrastructure such as schools and parks and playgrounds. This is all because of lack of planning.

Now we have a case where some planning WAS DONE in 2010 and agreement reached where rich developers agreed to providing much needed COMMUNITY FACILITIES to support the influx of families into the areas that they developed and profited from.

But instead of doing the right thing and providing those facilities Breen instead, after doing nothing for 3 years while the local population of families increased dramatically, now propose to develop their own Resource Recovery facility with no regard to the Community facilities that they previously promised.

This is a chance for the current NSW government to show its support for the families that have moved into this area by dismissing the application and directing Breen to, without delay, use some of the money they made from all the development in the area, to provide the public recreational facilities it promised to the community.
This should be done before consideration is given to any other proposal.

Therefore the Community Facilities must be developed and delivered to the community now as promised.

Then Breen must undertake a relevant health impact analysis about the level of dust emissions and pollutants. Studies have been done that there are severe health impacts for people who live within 5 kilometres of a landfill site.

Greenhills Beach is less than 2 kilometres from the proposed site, where is the Health Study (independent) that states that this is not a risk?

I am concern with the following points of this project
* current pollution already created by current site operation - leechates into Quibray bay a protected Marine sanctuary expecially PFAS - Airborne contaminates as this is a recreational area and also close to the beautiful Kurnell Village
* the statement that this is an industrial area is incorrect, this land is meant to be given to council as payment for the large residential development at Greenhills and Shearwater.
* This land has been destroyed for too many years they have gotten there moneys worth and it should be given respect and rehabilitated as promised.
* The increase in truck movements is massive for a one lane in and out road, which has in the past has had to be closed due to truck accidents.
* Lindum road is the centre of recreational use, this includes Car entry to Boat Harbour, soccor fields, a skate park and the only pedestrian access to Boat Harbour and an very secluded part of Bate Bay Beach. This pedstrian access is used constantly by Surfers, people walking Dogs and Families without 4WD , I personally use this access and find it has become so popular due to COVID that I can not get parking. Lindum road is not an appropriate access for a industrial zone.
* The roundabout access is not appropriate for increase in truck movements, Breens current site has a right turn lane which I have seenin the past banked up for access, imagine how this would work at a round about - it wouldn't.
* The end of a Peninsular is no place to place a recycling facility, The Sutherland shire already has a recycling facility at Lucas heights.
* The no time limit is ridiculous, we are meant to be a more environmentally friendly society, learning from the mistakes of the past, why would say yes to industry let alone not give it a time limit.
* Do not let them change the type of Materials they can receive, they should not be allowed to take industrial waste of household waste as this contains so many more risks of pollution

I would like to object to the proposed new Breen resource recovery facility. My Breen’s own admission the existing facility has a capacity of 400,000 tonnes per annum and does not process commercial and industrial waste. The proposed facility will process both B&D and C&I waste in the order of 650,000 tonnes per annum.
Why is this a problem? Well this is more than a 50% increase in capacity and yet Breen have stated that this will not result in increased air pollution or traffic. This is obviously incorrect.
My children’s health is more valuable than this development. Air pollution is a massive concern of mine.
Breen have stated that the delivery of the Mirang Parklands hinges on the approval and building of the new facility. I don’t think the new parklands is worth the trade off. We don’t need a bigger eyesore and health hazard operating for decades to come just so we can get some new public parkland. I’m in favour of allowing Breen to operate the current facility as currently approved with regard to lifetime and capacity. Allow the proposed space for the new facility to lay dormant and allow vegetation to grow for habitat and view. The view north from the northern most lookout on the service trail adjacent to the sand dunes will be destroyed. Breen have detailed this abomination in their visual assessment. Just look at the proposed view. This area is used heavily by families and fitness lovers going for run, walk or ride and now they’ll be looking at a large tip with predominant northerly winds in summer destroying their fresh air.
Council - please support my views and my neighbours. We don’t need this new facility.
Many thanks,
Luke

The present facilities are already generating large amounts of dust every day - we only need to look in our swimming pools. As a mother, I’m particulary concerned about our children who are playing every day in our streets or in the adjacent skate park while inhaling this dust of which we do not know to what extent there may be asbestos or other pollutants in it. While the company officially states it does not process asbestos, it is impossible to know what the exact contents are of the enormous masses of industrial waste that the large number of noisy trucks bring to Breen Resource every single day. It is widely known that asbestos, in the form of dust, can lead to lung cancer and severe respiratory diseases. My own father died of Mesothelioma after working with James Hardy Industries so I am acutely aware of the dangers. The documents provided with the project presentation confirm - in the Wilkinson Report - that there is no detailed analysis available on the emissions and pollutants generated by Breen Resource and the degree of health hazards for nearby residents. This is shocking and the main reason why I am objecting to the expansion of Breen Resource and demanding an analysis report of the dust and pollutant emissions before the expansion of it is even considered.

One thing is sure, namely that the proposed expansion - if approved - will bring along more noisy truck traffic as well as more dust emission and pollutants. There is no time for complacency in this case : if and when the proposal is approved, we will have no choice than to face the consequences.

An increase in pollutants and dust emissions could be disastrous to all of us here!

This will bring an increase in trucks using captain cook drive, increased air and noise pollution. Dust and chemicals from building waste in the air. Unsightly building. The smells which could be omitted. Increase in truck traffic would be dangerous cyclists. The land should be used for the good of the environment not to its detriment.

Besides the fact that we are long overdue on the parks, fields and bike tracks we were promised, extending the Breen project will continue to polute our neighborhood. It's not beneficial for anyone in our area and it goes against what we were promised as a community over 10 years ago. One skate park and one soccer field is all that's been delivered. It will be criminal if this is allowed.

Please see attached cover letter and submission

The area is unable to accommodate the increase in traffic and dust which will ultimately be generated by this facility.

I don’t believe this project is suitable for our young and growing community. It poses health risks to the many children and young families who live in the Greenhills estate.