Kariong Sand and Soil Supplies Facility

Thank you for your email and referral letter inviting WaterNSW's comments
on the proposal for Kariong Sand and Soil Supplies Facility (SSD
8660).

As the subject site is not located in close proximity to WaterNSW land
or infrastructure, the potential for the proposal to impact water
supply infrastructure has been assessed as low. WaterNSW therefore
does not have any particular requirements or comments.

I wish to object to this project.

The area under consideration is primarily native bushland bordering
onto Light Industrial/ factory sites.

There are schools and public attraction within a 1 kilometre radius of
this site which would impacted on by noise and dust from the site.

Given the semi rural nature of this site, the enormous volume of
B-Doubles accessing the site to offload 200,00 per annum would also
have a significant on the local area. Access to the area would be via
a newly constructed section of roadway which I believe would not hold
up to the anticipated volume of traffic.

One must also consider waste water in this area. One only has to the
look at the land fill area at Mangrove Mountain to see the dangers of
permitting such development.
Water runoff from this area would go directly into the Brisbane Water
and could have a severe impact on the water system and aquatic life.

I do not believe this proposal in what is a bushland area should be
permitted.

Submission re waste diposal in Gunderra Road Somersby

Vehicles to be restricted to Wisemans Ferry Road, entry and exit
The Kangoo Road Central Coast Highway is in need of a major upgrade
and not suitable for large vehicles for the full length of it.
Also the noise generated from Heavy vehicles travels across the
residential area of Kariong on about half the year when the
atmospheric conditions prevail is far worse when heavy vehicles use
the Central Coast Highway/ Kangoo roads.

No access be permitted to the site outside the hours of 7.00 a.m. To
5.00 p.m. Monday to Friday.
Providing 24hr access would be open to abuse as has happened at the
Mangrove Mountain tip.

The owner to purchase the properties at the Acacia road/Debenham end
should the owners agree at the valuation before the development
application was submitted. The development material changes the nature
of the area from rural/residential and the owners should not be
penalised as a result.The owners are already stressed regarding this
proposal.

This would also facilitate the upgrading of the entry exit to the
development site which is unsuitable to heavy vehicles at present.

Particular attention is to be paid to the runoff from the site so that
the Penang Gardens Dam areas are not polluted.

So sad to see that waste is still dumped! It is so backward. Wouldn't it
be great if no household waste was wasted? If each and every item of
refuse was turned into something else - new products, raw materials,
gas or at least heat? Why can't we do it here in NSW? Most European
countries have been moving in that direction for decades. Nowadays,
the bulk of all household waste is recycled in one way or another.
Their recycling stations are often quite close residential areas! So
no need for trucking stuff from Sydney to some obscure spot in
Somersby! Most people in Europe separate all recyclable waste in their
homes and deposit it in special containers in their block of flats or
drop it off at a recycling station. Do councils around here even care
to deposit less in rubbish dumps?

The biodiversity assessment within the EIS includes a biodiversity
assessment report undertaken according to the FBA. This report details
that the site contains a resident population of Pygmy Possum.

Inadequate offset credits for this species have been detailed within
the biodiversity report, i.e. species polygon has been restricted to
PCT 1783_Mod_Good however the entire site (excluding cleared areas)
does contain adequate foraging and refuge resources for this species,
thus the species polygon should be extended to cover all areas of
suitable habitat.

In addition no efforts to avoid or minimize impacts to this resident
species have been detailed within the report. Offsetting is a
compensation measure only, it does not offer avoidance or amelioration
of impacts to species. Unless adequate measures to avoid impacts to
this species are explored and discussed in detail in accordance with
the avoid, minimize and offset hierarchy it is of my opinion that this
project should not be approved

It has been the experience of FRNSW that waste recycling facilities pose
unique challenges to firefighters when responding to and managing an
incident. Factors such as high and potentially hazardous fuel loads,
facility layout, and design of fire safety systems have a significant
impact on the ability to conduct firefighting operations safely and
effectively. Consultation with organisations such as FRNSW throughout
the development process enables the design and implementation of more
effective fire safety solutions that help to mitigate the impact of
incidents when they occur.

Waste facilities present `special problems of firefighting' that
warrant classification as `special hazards', and consideration of
provision for special hazards under Clause E1.10 and E2.3 of the NCC.

Fires in waste facilities present specific issues for firefighting,
including:
a) the physical nature of combustible waste and waste by-products,
including fire properties and ignition potential of both unsorted and
sorted materials
b) unsuitable storage method, stockpile size, separation distances and
accessibility
c) mechanised waste handling, sorting and processing systems,
including vehicles
d) poor emergency vehicle and/or firefighter access for firefighting
intervention
e) facilities having an inadequate or no fire hydrant system,
including water capacity
f) facilities having an inadequate automatic fire suppression system
installed
g) buildings having an inadequate smoke hazard management system
installed, and
h) facilities having inadequate provision to contain fire water
run-off.

Following a review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) report
FRNSW provides the following recommendations for your consideration:

* Consent authorities should issue a condition on the development
consent requiring Clause E1.10 and E2.3 of the NCC be complied with to
the satisfaction of FRNSW, achieved through either providing an
acceptable solution or through direct consultation with FRNSW.
* The waste facility is to provide safe, efficient and effective
access for emergency vehicles as detailed in FRNSW guideline Access
for emergency vehicles. Aerial appliance access is to be provided if
the facility is located within a fire district covered by an aerial
appliance.
* The waste facility is to have a fire hydrant system installed
appropriate to the risks and hazards for the facility. FRNSW
recommends a fire hydrant system designed and installed to Australian
Standard AS 2419.1-2017 and have an enhanced standard of performance
appropriate to special hazards.
* The waste facility is to have an automatic fire sprinkler system
installed if the building has a floor area greater than 1000 m² or
contains 200 m³ or more of combustible waste material. FRNSW
recommends the fire sprinkler system be installed to Australian
Standard AS 2118.1-2017.
* The waste facility is to have a fire detection and alarm system
installed appropriate to the risks and hazards identified for each
area of the facility. FRNSW recommends a fire detection and alarm
system installed to Australian Standard AS 1670.1-2015 Fire detection,
warning, control and intercom systems - system design, installation
and commissioning.
* Buildings containing combustible waste material are to have an
automatic smoke hazard management system appropriate to the potential
fire load and smoke production rate installed within the building.
* The waste facility is to have effective and automatic means of
containing fire water run-off, with primary containment having a net
capacity not less than the total hydraulic discharge of the worst-case
fire scenario. The total hydraulic discharge is the discharge from
both the fire hydrant system and automatic fire sprinkler system for a
duration of four hours. Failure to contain fire water run-off can
result in pollution of the environment and require a protracted
hazardous materials response.
* The owner is encouraged to engage a fire safety engineer or other
suitably qualified consultant to develop a performance design specific
to the facility and its operations. The performance-based design
should consider all possible fire scenarios.
* The occupier/operator is to develop an emergency plan for the waste
facility to AS 3745-2010 Planning for emergencies in facilities. An
external consultant should be engaged to provide specialist advice and
services in relation fire safety planning and developing an emergency
plan.

Consultation with FRNSW be undertaken by way of the fire engineering
brief questionnaire (FEBQ) process prior to the issue of the relevant
construction certificate.

While there is currently no requirement for a fire safety study, FRNSW
may request one be undertaken at a later stage should information be
provided such it is deemed that the development poses unique
challenges to the response to and management of an incident.

Please see the FRNSW fire safety guideline for Fire Safety in Waste
Facilities that includes legislated requirements and development
considerations (planning).
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/gallery/files/pdf/guidelines/guidelines_fire_safety_in_waste_facilities.pdf

This state significant development application should not be approved if
there is any possibility that the facility is going to cause the local
area and businesses to be inflicted with putrid smelling air and
airborne harmful dust. This Somersby industrial area is only now
starting to take off and there are several new warehouses being
constructed which is great for the immediate area and the Central
Coast. A facility such as is proposed should be located much further
away from an industrial estate. It is impossible for such a business
to govern or police the incoming waste materials so that only
non-putrescible will be dumped there. History shows that skip bins are
loaded with all sort of materials despite the requests not to do so.

Ausgrid has reviewed the noise and vibration report and air quality
report and has no further submission.

How is this possible without getting council approval. If we even just
want to do a minor modification to put house we must put a submission
into council, yet a development such as this is approved?

I am a 36 year old woman who was lucky enough to have grown up on the
central coast- lucky because I was surrounded by beautiful beaches,
breathtaking Bushland, waterfalls, forests, and wildlife.
I am saddened though to see the coast of my childhood is rapidly being
built over with factories and houses that have no desire to fit in to
the landscape- trees are felled, habitats are ruined and what was once
an oasis of Australian wildlife has now become a lifeless concrete
expanse.
It is bad enough that there is no thought put into how these
developments fail to work with the existing ecosystem but when a
suburb is knowingly destroyed and relplaced with an ugly, noisy site
that knowingly poisons the air its community breathe and the water
they drink- it's criminal and can't be allowed.
Forethought must be used and we can't let money talk over health,
beautiful environs and the longevity of both.

Please do not destroy this beautiful area.

I wish to oppose the proposal of the waste dump site. This will be just a
short distance from my childhood home and my current work place in
Kariong.
The damage this will do to the beautiful landscape and environment
will the devastating, not to mention the nose of trucks every 5
minutes and deadly silica dust!
We need to preserve our environment as much as possible, locals have
deserve to live in peace without the strench of waste and offensive
noise pollution.
This proposal is outrageous and disappointing to the area.

Why would you allow this to happen where there is a built up community.
Myself and children all have asthma as do alot of other residents.
There are schools etc located here as well.
The traffic is bad enough as it is and the roads cant cope.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION

I and my family are vehemently opposed to this project fo the following
reasons:
Airborne DEADLY Silicosis dust in the air and drinking water supplies
/ tanks, affecting schools, families & businesses.

Destruction of the local peaceful wildlife, their habitats and their
food source (Birds / Owls / Wallabies / Possums)

Destruction of 1.5 hectares of the Endangered Eastern Pygmy-Possum
habitat

Over 200+ Trucks per day (Running 24/7) carrying and offloading
40tonne loads (Roughly one truck every 5 mins) causing offensive
noise, dust and vibration to local businesses and bordering
residential properties.

Ongoing Crushing of Concrete & Industrial waste meters from family
homes and businesses.

Offensive smell to the local community caused due to stockpiling of
industrial waste.

The Waste will generate leaching which will contaminate surrounding
soils, groundwater and surface bodies.

Contaminated Stormwater would travel straight into the neighbourhoods
front yards, down into West Gosford.

The Development is out of character of the surrounding zoned rural
residential and scenic protected blocks

The buildings would be a visual eyesore to the current forest
landscape

Reduced air quality to the children and teachers of Kariong High
School, Riding for the Disabled Association, events run at Mt. Penang
Gardens, Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre and people of West
Gosford and Gosford

Potential risk of asbestos in the air due to unknown industrial waste
being crushed.

Potential destruction of common occurring Aboriginal artifacts in the
immediate area

This is a disaster for the residents of somersby and our children. We are
very much against thesw submissions as they will effect the water
qualilty and the health and lifestyle of our children will be fiercy
effected and this is very unfair that so many people will suffer cause
of this proposal.

My husband works in Somersby and this is not appropriate to allow silica
to be in the air- what about it's long term side affects. This is
against the law. Where is the guarantee about it's safety? If it's not
there, then it should not be allowed

I work full time outdoors in Kariong. I oppose this extension of
operation. I as sm concerned about the detrimental effects this plant
would as have on the air quality. I as also appalled at the proposed
loss of habitat for various species .

I work full time outdoors in Kariong. I oppose this extension of
operation. I as sm concerned about the detrimental effects this plant
would as have on the air quality. I as also appalled at the proposed
loss of habitat for various species .

I work full time outdoors in Kariong. I oppose this extension of
operation. I as sm concerned about the detrimental effects this plant
would as have on the air quality. I as also appalled at the proposed
loss of habitat for various species .

Our home is not a dumping ground. You have "selected" a sight in suburbia
next door to children can you really feel ok with polluting the air of
children, their families, people with disabilities and our animals.
Think about how you would react if this was happening down the street
from your homes.