Smeaton Grange Waste Facility

I am concerned about the health concerns that this waste facility will have on the health of families in the area, in particular, the children. I am concerned over any contamination to air, water, or land that could be created by the transporting the waste to the facility and then the management of the waste on-site. I am concerned about the impact this could have on the Young Academics Early Learning pre-school centre located at 89 Anderson road, Smeaton Grange.

I object to this waste facility going ahead because I am worried about the noise and smell it will create. Regardless if it is minimal or sporadic , the point is over many years this constant interfering noise and smell can become a chronic situation that will impact on our right to keep living in our peaceful community.

The reason why I am objecting to this proposal is because of the noise, traffic and pollution it may create.
It is unacceptable to have such a facility proposed for this site.

I object to this proposed application based on the impact it will have on surround areas in regards to noise, traffic and pollution.

I object to a resource recovery facility coming to 52 Anderson Road Smeaton Grange because of the negative impact that the noise and pollution will have on the local community. Regardless if the activity in the facility is occurring day or night, in either case, the noise and vibrations will be unacceptable. Currans Hill prides itself for having lovely native green lands, walking paths, peace and quiet and the idea of putting a waste facility here so close to family homes is offensive.

I live 150m away from the site.
I expect my neighbours to be non-offensive. I should not have to adjust my daily comfort levels in any way to accommodate for a profit making business neighbour who collects, sorts, stores, and transport garbage. Plus this will not be for a short interval this discomfort will be experienced for many prolonged years. I object to this neighbour moving in.

I live right next door to the land that is proposed for this facility. I strongly object to having such an offensive business proposed for this site. I object because the applicant failed to declare in the acoustic report that the noise from the facility will exceed Camden Council noise policy standards. Therefore confirming it will create sleep disturbances for my family. The applicant also failed to declare accurate findings for odour emissions as they used the US guidelines and not the Australian guidelines. I am concerned about the dust/pollution management on site and from vehicles going to the site. Plus the impact from mice, rats, snakes, Ibis birds, termites that may have an impact in our area. I strongly object to this resource recovery facility or in better words a garbage tip moving in next door.

I live within 150m to this site.
I object on every level to this facility being approved. This business does not compliment surrounding areas. It is a gross mistake to consider that a waste facility is an appropriate business for that site. Neighbours support and care for each other. This waste facility who will be using heavy machinery, offensive waste materials and the volume of activity generated from the site, would be the most offensive neighbour possible. Our home was purchased for the green open space, quiet road well-maintained homes, a safe place for children to explore. For the authorities to approve such an application would be an injustice in terms of the corporate greed and privileges within a society.

I live within 150m of this proposed waste facility.

A proposed waste facility would be inappropriate for the area as it is too close to established housing.

It would be inappropriate for this to be approved. It does not compliment the surrounding areas.

I live within 150 meters to the proposed site.

A waste facility or a resource recovery center to be built on that site would be too close to housing.

From my house I would be able to hear the movement of machinery, trucks, staff regardless of the time of day.

I would recommend on finding another site for that facility, one that fits in with its surroundings or further away from family homes.

I object to this facility moving into the community based on the following concerns.
The air, water, soil, dust and noise pollution. The impact on road congestion on Hartley Road and Anderson Road and to have so many vehicles heading towards 52 Anderson which is less than 150m away. I am also concerned about the Environmental impact on the area.
I strongly object to this misplanned development application.

I object because I am concerned about the pollution it will create from the impact of sorting such high volume of rubbish over many years. The waste facility is just too close to homes.

This proposal is not suitable because the proposed site is too close to the residential area.

I object to the Resource Recovery Facility for Smeaton Grange because of the noise that will be created by the processing of material and delivery vehicles. It is too close to homes and childcare centres. I am concerned about the long-term pollution will have on backyard swimming pools, air quality, run off and dust from the waste facility will be open to the elements.

I wish to object to this application. I object on the grounds of this plant creating an environment that will create pollution such as air particles , pests, noise, light and odour pollution to the site. The risk is too high to have a facility like this so close to a residential area. Especially when the facility will be operating such long hours for many years.

We are opposed to the development. It is inappropriate for the area. The impact on surrounding areas from this facility exceeds what is considered to be fair and just.

I personally object to this proposed development due to the noise impacts upon residential properties. The potential for air quality and odour impacting on the health of children especially over a course of 10-20 years.

I object to this proposed waste recycling facility in Smeaton Grange because I am concerned about the long-term health effects on children that may occur from the chronic noise of the equipment and the noise of the traffic management on site. This includes the visiting trucks and vehicles during the day. I am concerned if they have offered sprinklers to reduce dust, then this is open for human error it has the potential to delay turning the equipment on every single time. I am concerned that this facility will share a neighbouring space to residential areas. I find if this facility and children share a common space for many years, it will be the children who will be affected and not the machinery or the rubbish. Surely the deciding bodies will not give priority to machinery and rubbish over the health of children?

I strongly object to this proposal based on the potential impact on children's health from the dust pollution blowing across the residential area of Currans Hill.

Children make up 35% of the population in Currans Hill. I am concerned over the emptying, sorting, storing, moving and reloading of waste material. If 50 trucks are doing this a day, how is the management of dust and other air pollutants being managed in an open air environment? Especially now that Currans Hill has experience extreme weather conditions. I am concerned about the long-term health effects on children in the area.

We are a neighbouring property to this proposed site. We have always admired the location of our home because of the view of gum trees, the tranquility of the green nature areas, fresh air due to the quiet street, and well-presented homes. To consider that a garbage tip (resource recovery facility) is trying to seek permission to move in 120m opposite our home is beyond belief!
I object to the offensive smell, dangerous airborne pollution, the health hazard dust created by moving the waste , the glare from flood lighting on the site. I have the right to live in peace in and around my home day or night and not be disturbed by a waste facility who are operating for a profit only 120m from our home. I strongly object.