Some comments - Environmental Effects
-question that in Village/Neighbourhood zone that an application for a crematorium can be put in as a commercial and refreshment room application
-to call a crematorium a funeral facility is misleading as a funeral facility does not need to have a crematorium to function fully
-crematorium would be more consistent as an industry, light industries, hazardous industries developments which are not permitted in the village /neighbourhood zone LEP 2005.Part 2 Division 3, Land Matrix 2.11
-if a crematorium is considered a waste management facility this is prohibited in village/neighbourhood zone LEP 2005,Part 2 Division 3, Land Matrix 2.13.
-“A crematory is a purpose built facility for the disposal of bodies by incineration”. Before a cremation authority can install a new cremator, it must be approved by NSW Health under the Public Health Act. The Statement of Environmental Effects includes specification for a cremator but makes no reference to the requirement for it needing to meet the Public Health Act and how the proposed facility does so.
We would also contend that the proposed development does not meet Section C2.1 of the Blue Mountains Better Living DCP, performance criteria as put forward by the applicant. “All development must contribute to the streetscape and landscape of the locality or precinct by; (a) being consistent with any future character statement relevant to the site, and (b) being complementary to existing development within the neighbourhood. “
A Funeral Home and Crematorium does not compliment existing development in the area nor the concept of a village/neighbourhood precinct.
We also contend that saying a funeral home and crematorium are ancillary to the refreshment room and commercial activities is an incorrect interpretation of the LEP 2005. A Funeral Home and Crematorium are the main activity with a refreshment room, offices and other stated commercial activities being a support to the main activity which is a funeral then the storage and disposal of bodies.
The proposed application would appear to meet the offensive industry pursuant to LED Dictionary= means a development for the purposes of any establishment where goods, material or products are stored which, when the development is in operation and when all measure proposed to reduce or minimise its impact on the locality have been employed….. would emit a polluting discharge (for example, noise) in a manner which would have a significant adverse impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land in the locality.
Or
Special use pursuant to LED Dictionary= means a land use that provides a community service, public facility or infrastructure carried out by Council or another public authority, institution, organisation, that is shown on Map Panel C for the land concerned and that it is distinctly identifies on Map Panel C as being for the purpose of one of the following
a) cemetery or
i) waste management facility
Site Plan
The Blue Mountains Better Living DCP 2005 Section C1.4 sets out the requirements for a Site Plan. We would contend that the development application does not meet this requirement. Particular reference is made to gaps in site characteristics of the prevailing wind direction and wind speeds, drainage, location of services, and any potential noise sources (refer below). The application makes reference to meeting Clause 41 of the LEP however we contend it does not meet Clause 42 or 43 for the reasons already outlined. Clause 42 states “.....The site analysis plan must:
(a) includes such information specified in Clause 43.......as is relevant, in the opinion of the consent authority, to enable the full consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed development...”
The Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators produced by the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Revised 2009 states, “Careful site selection can lead to substantial reduction in environmental nuisance. Relevant site information should include,
We contend that the development application does not meet its own industry guidelines and that the information provided in the developmental application is manifestly inadequate by not addressing the areas mentioned in the Guidelines. We note the application makes no mention of where internment will be.
Location to residential property
Section 2.0 of the development application document describes the site including being near residential properties. There is no information provided about the distance between the site and specific components of the proposed development to residences. We consider this is critical information that should be provided in assessing the impact of the application.
The Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators produced by the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, Revised 2009, Section 8.1.3 addresses Buffer zones.
“Adequate buffer distances from adjacent land uses are the best way of avoiding noise nuisance and noise pollution……..Sufficient land must be set aside for the sole purpose of the internment of unclaimed remains. “
In line with other state environmental protection authority guidelines, a buffer zone of 200 metres (depending on the nature of the prevailing winds and the natural topography of the site) between the emission stack and neighbouring residences is desirable. In any case a buffer zone no less than 100 metres is recommended.
We contend that the proposed development does not meet the above criteria and that a wind and topography study would suggest a greater buffer would be required.
Hours of operation
The application refers only to general hours of operation and contradicts itself by saying in the first paragraph that general hours of operation would be Monday to Friday but then goes on to say services will generally be conducted at times including between 9.30 and 6.00pm on Saturday and as requested on Sundays and Public Holidays. The hours of operation also do not include details about when the incinerator will operate and what afterhours access will include.
Remediation of Land
The Contamination Report makes references to Leaking Underground Storage Tanks or fuel delivery lines within the UST easement, the need for radar to confirm the absence or presence of any USTs on other site areas, the need for excavation and removal of identified USTs, delivery lines, vent pipes and petroleum impacted site soils and further groundwater monitoring to ensure removal of USTs and contamination. It also refers to there being no new excavations proposed? We consider an Email saying four USTs were removed in 2001 does not negate the need for implementation of recommendations.
It is our understanding that remediation would need to occur. This has been confirmed following contact with Environmental Investigations who did the Contamination Report, whereby secondary testing would be required to identify contaminants including if it is possible to remove contaminated soil.
The application also does not address what contamination may occur to the site from the operation of a Funeral Home and Crematorium and the impact on the site of the mix of existing contamination and possible contamination from the proposed development. We contend the application does not therefore meet Performance criteria C4.3, of the Better Living DCP, Land Contamination.
2. Ensure that changes to land use will not increase the risk to public health or the biophysical environment.
3. Ensure there is no risk to public health or the environment from any activities carried out on site.
Planning Controls
The above document makes no reference to NSW Health Guidelines for the Funeral Industry based on the Public Health (Disposal of Bodies) Regulation 2002. “This Regulation sets out standards for premises for handling bodies, the basic design and equipment for body preparation rooms, waste management and the use of vehicles for transporting bodies. The underlying principles in the standards are that they should have the capacity for easy and thorough cleaning and that there should be no potential for cross contamination between bodies and other goods or services.” 1.1 p3.
The development application document has no comment on how the proposed building and site meets the abovementioned standards. There is also no reference to how the site meets the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (Orders) Regulation, 1999 for mortuaries.
We consider further detailed information about the site and the building needs to be made to demonstrate how it will meet the already mentioned requirements by NSW Health and Local Government.
Waste
The Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators produced by the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Revised 2009 states “To fulfil the anticipated requirements of government policy on waste minimisation, a detailed account of sources and quantities should be prepared.” It goes on to list the sources of Airborne Wastes, Liquid Wastes and Solid Wastes.
The only reference to waste in the application is under Services with a reference to a waste recycling bin. We contend that the application should provide detailed information pursuant to Guidelines mentioned above and comments below
We also consider that the development application should be required to present a Waste Management Strategy pursuant to the Better Living DCP C5.1 Services whereby, “All new and redevelopment work involving …..commercial and industrial buildings will require a waste management strategy. ……It must address….. the volume and type of waste that will be generated…..how the waste will be stored and treated on site and how the residual will be disposed. It must also state how ongoing management is going to address the issues of waste minimisation and management.” There is also no statement from Sydney Water verifying the sewerage system is capable of sustaining the increased usage and a statement of environmental effects from Sydney Water indicating pump to sewage has the capacity to accept an additional load.
Liquid Waste
It is our belief that this level of industry (commercial) activity deals with a variety of toxic and hazardous liquid, solid and airborne waste and that environmentally appropriate storage and disposal has not been addressed e.g. There is no discussion of how it will be contained appropriately or removed. The report does not make any reference to needing to meet Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and its associated regulations For example, DEEC Waste Classification Guidelines.
Solid Waste
The NSW Health Guidelines for the Funeral Industry based on the Public Health (Disposal of Bodies) Regulation 2002 1.4 Waste Disposal p4 states that, “All solid waste arising from body preparation is considered to be contaminated (clinical) waste. It goes on to say there are separate regulations set down by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water which apply to the disposal of clinical waste. The report by Chapman Planning makes no reference to these requirements and there is no information on how clinical waste will be managed in the development application. We consider this is critical information required for any informed assessment of the impact of the development.
The disposal of unclaimed ashes has also not been addressed.
Noise (refer also to Site Plan comments)
There is no noise impact assessment attached with the submission and we believe this would be required for the following reasons:
We would expect to see a noise assessment associated with all of the increased noise potential for the development addressed due to the topography of the environment that has an amplifying effect – as has been experience with other nearby premises.
The Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators produced by the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Revised 2009 states “Clearly audible noise should not be detectable beyond crematoria site boundaries.” We contend this is impossible given the location of the proposed site and the close proximity to residences and small businesses.
Airborne Waste
The Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators produced by the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Revised 2009 states “The process of disposing of human remains by cremation can give rise to the emission of various pollutants to the atmosphere.” It goes on to say this Code of Practice has been developed so operators take all practical measures to prevent, control, reduce pollution and to control and regulate the disposal of wastes.
We note the development application makes no reference to these Guidelines nor that regulators use these guidelines to assess crematoria.
The Guidelines define air impurities as, “Smoke, soot, dust, ash (including fly ash) cinders, solid particles of any kind, gases, fumes, mist and odours.” We note the development application makes no reference to these air impurities other than to say there will be no smoke or odours.
DECC (The Department of Environment Climate Change and Water) webpage dated 20 November 2009, states “Air toxins include benzene, dioxins, lead and other metals. Major sources of theses toxins include motor vehicle exhaust and some commercial and industrial processes. Knowledge of the health effects of air toxins is far from complete, but studies in Europe and North America are showing that very small amounts of air toxins may present a risk to human health and the environment.” Emissions from crematoria include the following toxins
Source. Air Quality Impact Assessment Proposed Crematorium Tuggerong, ACT prepared for Canberra Cemeteries By Heggies P/L dated 9 December 2009, Table 4 p17.
No air quality impact assessment of the proposed site has been provided and we believe that a brochure from the manufacturer of the proposed crematorium usage and a report relating to another site is not adequate for approval of this application. We also consider the research provided by the Australian Government- National Pollution inventory only highlights the need for a comprehensive environmental impact analysis as the emissions mentioned are a generic guide only and do not take into account air flow, topography, proximity to receptor sites, impact of long term exposure, monitoring requirements and does not mention other toxins that are not formally measured.
We believe this is required due to the local topography consisting of valleys rather than a flat plain and unique air flow patterns of the area.
The application does not provide a detailed analysis using NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water “Approved methods for modelling and assessment of air pollutants in NSW.”
An Air Quality Impact Assessment was done in December 2009 for a proposed crematorium at Tuggeranong ACT. This was done to assess if pollutant concentrations meet current air quality criteria at sensitive receptor locations which included residential dwellings. This study was used to decide what the appropriate stack height should be for the cremator taking into account air flows. This has not been done for this development application which includes more sensitive receptor sites such as a school, a Leisure Centre, Aged Care Facility, variety of small businesses including food outlets and a children’s play area
The submissions compliance test was done in 2002 and relates to a site in Port Adelaide SA which is predominately an industrial area.
Dust Control has not been addressed in this submission and as they contain hazardous materials which can contaminate air, soil and water (e.g. burning of unknown variants associated with coffin production.)
In the Community Discussion Paper prepared for the ACT Public Cemeteries Authority, dated 19 January 2010 for the Proposed Southern Cemetery. p8 in the ACT reference is made to the need for the community to have;
-confirmation that appropriate environmental studies will be done to satisfy concerns and ensure informed decision are made as to the level of cremation pollution (atmospheric and ground), the cumulative effect and dispersion of emissions presented comparative to other emitters, the smell and the visual impact
-confirmation of the demand for another crematorium in the current market and that other options were considered to address needs.”
We contend that residents of the Blue Mountains should be given the same consideration as the community in the ACT.
Stormwater Management
The development application states it meets Clause 57 of the LEP. We would contend otherwise as the application does not address.
(b) the quality of surface or groundwater leaving the site will not be reduced in the short term or long term, and
(c) the development will minimise or eliminate point source and diffuse source pollution by best management practices.
Guidelines in Pollutions Solutions Crematoria Operators Guide QLD 2000 say there is a risk of contamination from run off to local waterways. Nothing in the submission addresses this concern and we believe more analysis/ investigation is needed
If this was a commercial activity that does not have an industrial aspect then perhaps not having a Stormwater Waste management plan may be appropriate but with the requirements for hazardous and toxic materials use and storage, contaminated waste storage and disposal we believe it would be appropriate to be able to view a Stormwater Management Plan including avoidance of a sewerage system overload.
We also consider a Stormwater Management Plan is required as C4.4 of the Blue Mountains Better Living DCP Section C4.4 Health and Safety makes reference to the sandstone aquifer of the Blue Mountains and this has a high vulnerability to contamination due to the relatively shallow depths and permeable soils, and cross references to the Section on Stormwater in the DCP.
Vehicular access, parking and traffic.
Refer to Traffic Committee Report
General Point
There is nothing in the submission that addresses concerns associated with the use and storage of volatile organic compounds in a residential area. There was a fire at Rookwood Crematoria in 2008. The submission does not address this issue at all or potential bushfire risk from a fire on site or dispersal of ash or cinders into nearby bushland.
Conclusion
In conclusion we contend the application does not meet the requirements of S.79c of the Environmental Protection Act 1979 for the reasons outlined above. The submissions supporting the development application are manifestly inadequate and do not provide the detail and scope of information necessary to make an informed assessment. We also contend the development application does not meet zoning requirements and if the abovementioned plans and assessments were done they would provide further evidence of the unsuitability of the application to this area.
We conclude by referring to the Better Living DCP C5.4 Amenity and strongly assert the development application does not meet the performance criteria for this;
1. Design and manage developments so that they do not adversely affect the ability of people to enjoy the environment of the Blue Mountains by way of;
a) noise interruption to their activities,
b) pollution causing impacts on health either short or long term,
c) excessive traffic within residential streets,
d) overspill of lighting from commercial, industrial or recreation sites,
e) poor integration of development into the landscape.
8