Smeaton Grange Waste Facility

I object to the Recovery Facility because I am concerned about any potential noise the facility will create at night time, and the dust that will leave the site when they are working the waste materials with such large equipment..

This facility is too close to houses and child care services. It will create odours and noise

The reason i object to the proposal is because I have similar concerns to my husband and neighbours regarding the impact on us from the facility creating dust, smells, noise and the impact of this on healthy living.

I am also concerned how close the child care facility is as it is only about 450 meters along Anderson Road

I object to the proposed Recycling Facility as it is too close to houses. it will produce pollution, smells and rodents. It is also too close to food storage facilities and a protected waterway(Kenny Creek) next door that flows into Harrington Park Lake.

The reason why I object to the proposal is because of the offensive noise that will come from the facility both day and night. Plus the potential for green waste to contaminate the local ecological systems of Kenny Creek and in to Harrington Park Lake.

I object to the proposal because I am worried about any airborne contamination from inside and outside the site boundaries. The disturbing noise from machinery, trucks loading and unloading, voices from staff and customers all hours of the day and night.
The impact of the heavy vehicles all congesting into an area only 130 meters from our house. As well as any type of odour that is blown form the site towards our house. Surely there are other types of businesses that could be approved for the lands use instead of using it as a garbage tip so close to homes.

The reason I object to the proposal is it is far too close to houses.

I am objecting to the proposal because of the transport noise and operational noise including moving and unloading metal and concrete materials, and moving skip bins etc. The offensive smells that might leave the site perimeters such as green waste being transported or sitting in stock piles. The airborne pollution that might leave the site and impact on the health and well-being of others in the nearby community. The effect of this business will have an impact on the local environment such as pot holes in roads, rubbish being dumped or blown off site onto roads in transit to and from the facility. Even if the loads are covered, the impact on the environment will be damaging especially over time with the amount of deliveries of rubbish that will be expected.
This facility is too active for the small site that is planned and too close to houses and schools.
Permission for this facility to operate must not be given.

Worried about smell, noise

I am concerned about smell, extra garbage trucks in the area.

I oppose this development because it is too close to a child care centre. Any unintentional asbestos/asbestos dust could be very harmful to these young children and especially children with asthmatic conditions.
The increased trucks and other vehicles would have an impact on entering and exiting the childcare centre.

Smeaton Grange and surrounding local roads are already congested without adding large nymbets of waste disposal trucks. New and existing homes surrounding the area will loose value. Although there is no direct road access homes are in extremely close proximity to the site. New noise, air polution (dust) and odour will negatively affect our local environment

I am objecting to the proposal because of the 24 hour operation that is suggested in the EIS report. The noise level still must not be offensive during the day either, as there are a lot of shift workers who live in the area.
I also object to any offensive odour that may leave the site and affect neighbours, either from waste being transported to and from the facility or being on site. even if green waste is there for 48 hours, if the stock piles are outside and are open to the elements then it can not be guaranteed to move on if there has been wet weather, hot weather or transport issues.

I am objecting to the Waste Facility because of my concern about the potential for noise, dust, traffic that will affect the health and well being of our family and friends in the area.

I am objecting to the proposal because of noise, dust, traffic and health concerns. This facility appears to be in conflict with the environment in which it is proposed to sit. I would recommend that this facility is offered another site that is better suits its needs.

The reason why I object to the proposal is because it will be just to close to the residential area. The site that was purchased for waste recycling is just not suitable when you assess it within the context of the area. The impact on surrounding area will be just to great

I object to the application based on noise levels, the application states 'It is likely that noise emission from proposed construction activity will be above the recommended noise
management level at the assessment locations. Due to this, recommendations have been provided
regarding work practices to be considered to minimise construction noise from the proposal.' Increased trucks in the local area will impact on traffic flow, Camden Valley and Narellan Rd cannot cope with existing traffic and are gridlocked already in peak hours, roads in Smeaton Grange are already congested with trucks most of the day due to the opening of more and more industrial companies opening. I also object to the application based on odour from the plant if it goes ahead. There have been numerous ongoing problems in Currans Hill, Harrington park and Narellan from wind carrying obnoxious odours from Smeaton Grange industrial area over the last 2 years or more and wind direction cannot be controlled and residents should not have to suffer.
I also resent Benedicts representative Ernest Dupere accusing Camden Council of not being qualified to making measured comments as quoted in Camden Narellan Advertiser dated 17 August 2016. The representative shows blatant contempt for residents in Macarthur when he also says that odour and noise concerns were hardly worth considering. I dare say they don't live in the area and couldn't care less. Child Care facilities in the area will be affected by both noise and odour as well as nearby entertainment venues and cafes.
This development must not be approved as it will affect the current lifestyle of thousands of local residents, it will impact on shiftworkers who live within 120 metres of the proposed complex.

To whom it may concern,

Young Academics located at 89 Anderson Ave, Smeaton Grange is writing to object to the resource recovery facility at proposed location within the Smeaton Grange Industrial estate.

Traffic/ transport- We have already lodged with council numerous times and so have many families who use our service a number of near misses and accident when exiting our location, due to the amount off street parking making it difficult to see oncoming traffic. We are concerned that the traffic that will now be using this road will be large trucks, cars with trailers, etc. Due to the resource facility opening hours being similar to our own this increase in traffic will affect the parents and customers coming to our service.

The extra noise also generated by this traffic will be disruptive to the children and educators at the service, who enjoy the peace and quiet when playing outside.

Odour and air quality: Our service has a number of children enrolled who we feel will be affected by the quality of the air or the odour that the proposed facility may produce. Due to catering for children with allergies, asthma and other medical conditions we fear that their time outside may be reduced when levels in the air are high due to poor air quality therefore affecting their health and wellbeing. We also have numerous concerns in regards to educators and children who can spend up to 4-5 hours outside may be affected may be affected by any long term medical side effects for poor air quality or reduced vitamin D levels form not being able to go outside.

I live in Narellan Vale, some (approx 3) kms away from the proposed site. I have been to Benedict's plant at Chipping Norton and have found that it generates noise during it's operation. Noise mainly from trucks entering and exiting, tipping the products from the trucks, but also the noise from the crushing plant/s running simultaniously. My understanding is that Benedicts want to keep the plant open until 10pm.

In my opinion there should be restrictions placed upon truck entry/exit times and also on the crushing/sorting machinery. These all generate noise in some form and nearby residence (Not me personally, I live too far away to notice) would be subjected to this inconvenience, as this will be detrimental to their lifestyles and surroundings.

Conclusion: To only permit the plant to operate from say 7am to 6pm Monday to Fridays. No weekend work/operation due to the close proximity to residential houses.

I object to the building of the recycling facility in Smeaton Grange based on the following concerns:

1. The area is surrounded by residential homes, and should therefore be zoned only light industrial, for the safety and health of the residents. This plant could easily be situated in another area that does not have the high level of residential home sites that Smeaton Grange does for example Badgerys Creek or even an area along the M7 at Eastern Creek could possibly be considered as an alternate. The area surrounding Smeaton Grange not only has established residential areas such as Currans Hill, Harrington Park, but also residential areas that are still developing and evolving such as Gregory Hills, Oran Park and Manooka, which would all be effected by the building of the recycling plant.

2. Currans Hill has a heritage protected creek. This creek WILL be affected by the building and operating of the recycling facility. The protection of wildlife and vegetation in the area surrounding Kenny Creek needs to be considered. We cannot treat Kenny Creek as having no consequence as doing so could almost be described as treating it akin to a drain. We must treat it with care in order to sustain and protect it for the future. Has an in depth study been undertaken as to the wildlife that exists in the corridor i.e. the birdlife, native animals and/or aquatic life and whether the building of the recycling plant would effect it. Residents that live around Kenny Creek as well as those that walk around that area advice that they see a variety of native animals not limited to platypus, echidnas, wallabies, turtles, native ducks, waterfowls, snakes and kookaburras.

3. I am greatly concerned with the effect that the plant will have on air quality. The possibility of air pollution from both the proposed recycling plant as well as the proposed galvanising plant (both of which are strongly opposed by residents) could be quite high. Has a study been done on what the impact to air quality these plants singularly and/or combined will have on the air quality and therefore what the impact this will have on the residents, especially the children residing in the area or even those who attend children's activities, childcare or schools in the area. Not to mention the impact that it could have on the native animals that currently live in the corridor around Kenny Creek. The health of our children should be of paramount concern, surely we can expect that the State of New South Wales would do all in its power to improve the air quality of residents and that those residents could have faith that the State would not approve a resource facility in such close proximity to a large and still growing residential area which could result in poorer air quality and could in result in the health of some residents being endangered.

4. I am concerned about the attraction of pests to the area as well as the possibility of the introduction of pests that could cause damage to the residents homes and gardens one example could be the attraction of termites or the introduction of termites (from materials that are stored such as infected timbers). Should this occur it could have a devastating effect on the homes in the area, especially as the majority of the homes in the area have been built utilising wooden frames.

5. The plant also has the possibility of causing the introduction of spiders, pests and other vermin that are not indigenous to the area. The introduction of these pests could have a devastating effect on the Kenny Creek area. We are lucky enough to live in an area which still has the Cumberland Plains Forest Remnant and we as residents should protect this for the future.

6. Vegetation from other areas brought to the site could further bring in seeds from noxious plants which may become airborne and as a result infest Kenny Creek with vegetation that is undesirable and which could have a devastating effect on Kenny Creek and could also possibly have a flow on effect into Harrington Park Lake.

7. I understand that B Double trucks cannot turn off their engines whilst waiting to be unloaded as if they do so it will result in the loss of their pneumatic power and braking capacity. This will result in an increase in noise pollution in the area. I further understood that trucks will be unloading 24 hours a day. It is my understanding and belief that there is no quiet way of tipping a truck to unload. I have been informed that the trucks in fact need to be revving well above idling in order to generate the power required to lift the hydraulics to raise the back up, and therefore empty the trays. Not only will there be the increased noise level from the motors, and hydraulics but there will also be the resultant loud crashing noise as the trays bounce back into position upon the completion of the dumping, and then there will be the noise that will be produced by the dumped goods themselves crashing out of the vehicles onto the stockpiles. Whatever comes off the back of the trucks will itself make a loud noise depending on its composition (i.e. - bricks or concrete). Trucks waiting for the gates to open or waiting in a queue to enter will still have their engine running, which will result in an increase in exhaust fumes. It also appears from the report that major rail/road projects will require out of hours access (10pm-6am) for offloading (very noisy materials in the dead of night and only 120metres from residential homes). I cannot imagine that there would be a quiet way of dumping Rail Ballast.

8. Noise is worth mentioning again as the trucks will be accepted 24 hours a day this will have a severe impact on the sleep patterns of residents and could quite reasonably be described as resulting in sleep deprivation. Better Health Victoria (a Victorian state government) states the following:

`Sleep deprivation is a general term to describe a state caused by inadequate quantity or quality of sleep, including voluntary or involuntary sleeplessness and circadian rhythm sleep disorders. Sleep is as important to the human body as food and water, but many of us don't get enough sleep. Insufficient sleep, inadequate quality of sleep or disruptions to the sleep-wake cycle has consequences for how we function in the daytime, causing sleepiness and fatigue:
* A sleepy fatigued person is accident prone, judgement impaired and more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions.
* Staying awake for 24 ours leads to a reduced hand-to-eye coordination that is similar to having a blood alcohol content of 0.1.
* This is why sleep deprivation contributes to road accidents and work injuries.
* Lack of sleep can also affect a child's school performance3 and could be linked to emotional problems such as depression.'

It goes on further to say:

`That a person who needs eight hours of sleep per night who only gets six. This two-hour sleep loss can have a major impact including:
* Reduced alertness
* Shortened attention span
* Slower than normal reaction time
* Poorer judgement
* Reduced awareness of the environment and situation
* Reduced decision-making skills
* Poorer memory
* Reduced concentration
* Increased likelihood of mentally `stalling' or fixating on one thought
* Increased likelihood of moodiness and bad temper
* Reduced work efficiency
* Loss of motivation
* Errors of omission - making a mistake by forgetting to do something
* Errors of commission - making a mistake by doing something, but choosing the wrong option
* Microsleep - brief periods of involuntary sleeping that range from a few seconds to a few minutes in duration.'
It further lists the `Effects of sleep loss on children as:

* Selected statistics from research studies into sleep loss and its effects on children and teenagers include:
* Sleep loss causes a range of schooling problems, including naughtiness and poor concentration.
* Chronically sleep-deprived teenagers are more likely to have problems with impulse control, which leads to risk-taking behaviours.
* Sleep problems in teenagers are associated with increased risk of disorders such as depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
* High school students who regularly score C, D or F in school tests and assignments get, on average, half an hour less sleep per night than high school students who regularly get A and B grades.
* Later start times at school result in reduced daytime sleepiness, higher grades and reduced negative feelings.'
These are all very serious issues and are recognised as such by the State of Victoria. Surely the New South Wales Government also recognises these issues and as is stated above just two hours less sleep each night could have serious repercussions on the health and wellbeing of the residents of Currans Hill and the surrounding residential areas. Surely, it should be expected that a duty of care exists in relation to protecting the residents health and wellbeing.
Regardless of whether the facility opens with reduced/shorter hours, it is a very real possibility that once the facility is built and operating that these hours will be increased. As the original proposal advised that the facility would be available 24 hours during high peak periods it is clearly evident that it would not be long before the facility opens 24 hours to deal with the demands that it will advise is required by the increase in rezoning and demolition of areas in and around Sydney thus the facility should be viewed as being open 24 hours a day and its impact on the residents viewed from the positon of it being open 24 hours per day.

9. There are many youth and childrens activities in the area as well as a school and child care facilities, these include but are not limited to the Sports Centres and Young Academics Day Care Centre. They share the same stretch of common road, i.e., Anderson Rd, between Anzac Avenue and Bluett Drive. This area is already viewed as a heavy traffic area and does not need or require the addition of the extra traffic which would be a byproduct of the facility. Many using this road consider to utilise the facilities advise that exiting from them can only be described as unsafe and fraught with danger.

10. It is anticipated based on calculations provided by the company that there will be approximately 276 vehicle movements a day. With the developing needs from the demolition of older homes located in and around Sydney for high rise development, as well as the rezoning of old industrial sites to become residential land, the volume of traffic into this `dead-end' of Anderson Road will substantially increase and may even increase more than the forecast 276 heavy vehicle movements. It is unlikely that the roads in the area were built to accommodate this amount of heavy vehicle traffic and it is therefore a reasonable presumption that the roads will be unable to cope and will disintegrate into a state of disrepair. When consideration is also given to the existing needs of traffic in relation to access to the many youth and childrens activity centres in the area including the Sports Centres and Young Academics Day Care Centre (which share the same stretch of common road, Anderson Rd, between Anzac Avenue and Bluett Drive) and with the increase of the proposed volume of traffic and trucks, including some that will be carting dangerous and corrosive materials it quite reasonable to presume that the risk of fatal accidents will be increased exponentially.

11. My concern is also with toxic fallout (chemical and airborne particles) that will blow over vast areas of suburban Currans Hill as well as other surrounding residential areas and which will tend to settle as dust in the homes and swimming pools in the area. I have concerns as to what the level of particles will actually be, will they be toxic, (given the high level of chemicals and poisons that can be found in old building materials this is quite a reasonable proposition, and could quite easily include such poisons as lead and arsenic). What will be the effect of this fallout be on the water quality in backyard swimming pools, could the water in the pools induce illness in our children or even have a longer lasting effect on their health, what effect will even small amounts of toxic fallout have on those residents, should there be any, that currently endure chronic health issues. Will there be excessive costs required by homeowners in order to purify and clean the water in their pools, or even will it be possible to clean and purify the water. Will this fallout damage pool filters and pumps resulting in even more cost to the home owner. Further what will be the danger to household pets as well as the native animals in the area surrounding Kenny Creek as this fallout results in a layer of toxic fallout or a film of chemicals on their drinking water.

12. Finally, I am concerned that given the above concerns, that the building of the recycling plant at Smeaton Grange can only have a negative impact on the homes in the area which will result in difficulties with the sale and lease of properties in the surrounding residential areas resulting in an overall depreciation of their value.