Asbestos anger at White Bay

Part 1

The construction of a cruise terminal at White Bay has sparked further controversy with accusations that Sydney Ports failed to adequately notify residents of asbestos removal from the site.
Leichhardt Council was to apply for an injunction if it believed Sydney Ports had breached the project’s conditions of approval. But subsequent research has indicated that notification of residents was not an explicit requirement.
“To the best of our knowledge, on information received from both authorities, they are complying with the consent conditions,” a Council spokesperson said.
The conditions of approval require Sydney Ports to “undertake a hazardous material survey prior to construction and…manage hazardous material, including asbestos or asbestos-contaminated materials that may be uncovered during the construction of the project.”
But the conditions do not stipulate that local residents must be given forewarning about the removal process.
Councillor John Stamolis said this was not good enough, and that it was of utmost importance that information be provided.
“You need to know, because if you are a risk-averse person, you need to be able to make your decision,” he said.
“It is a gross oversight, and if it is still within procedures, then those procedures need to change. People need to be communicated with.”
Sydney Ports contacted residents by mail on November 25 with information about the ongoing removal of asbestos from the area. This was in response to “a small number of enquiries about the demolition works at our site”, a spokesperson from Sydney Ports said.
“Workcover has attended the site and found all relevant measures and plans have been implemented for the asbestos removal.”
An injunction on that basis is now unlikely. However, Council and the Friends of White Bay community group will continue to push for a moratorium on the cruise terminal’s construction. They want a master plan which would allow for community input on the purpose, direction and content of the precinct.
Friends of White Bay President, Michael Lehmann said: “If you’re going to do a true master plan, you must stop construction on White Bay immediately.” He believes there are no impediments to halting construction immediately.
“It’s very doable, very feasible. Glebe Island is available as a temporary facility [for cruise ships]. From a political perspective…there is a significant impact on the traffic which will continue to worsen from the cruise terminal being located here, on Victoria Road.”
Roads and Maritime Services, which is responsible for both Victoria Road and the City West Link, required the construction of a separate, purpose-built access road as part of the cruise terminal’s planning process.
“The new access road via James Craig Road will be constructed through an industrial area and will not impact surrounding residents,” Sydney Ports said.
“In addition, the majority of traffic movements generated by domestic cruise ships generally occur outside of traffic peak hours.”
At a community meeting at Leichhardt Town Hall on Monday night, Mr Lehmann told an audience of about forty residents that the terminal would create an extra 2600 car movements per cruise ship.
This would have a direct impact on Victoria Road, which was already Sydney’s slowest major arterial road, he said.
Cr Porteous also attended the meeting and announced she would take a seat on the terms of reference sub-committee of the Bays Precinct Taskforce. The group, which has representation from the state government, Sydney Ports and the community, will meet for the first time in January and is to formulate a long-term strategy for the bays area. At this stage that would not include stopping or changing the White Bay cruise terminal.
Criticising Sydney Ports’ hostility to consultation, Cr Porteous said: “I’ve got a few words to describe them…but they’re probably not appropriate at a public meeting.”
The Greens member for Balmain, Jamie Parker, told the meeting Garden Island was a superior site for a new terminal, and that the White Bay development was not supported by the Tourism and Transport Forum or any council.
“It’s actually about providing a money-making facility for Sydney Ports,” he said.
The meeting was unified in its condemnation of the plan. But there was recognition that stopping its construction – which is due to begin in six to eight weeks – was a tough ask.
“Our numbers are relatively modest right now,” said Mr Lehmann, who opened the meeting. “But they will continue to grow.
“We are looking at the worst case scenario. If you think the White Bay terminal should be there…this may not be the right meeting for you.”