NSW Planning and Environment (DPE) is hosting a meeting tonight at the Raymond Terrace Bowling Club, at 6:30pm.
It will be very helpful to have as many concerned people there as possible, so please come along.
We met one of the DPE staff this morning and showed all the issues with the road and intersections, narrow or non existent shoulders and lack of paths and proper bus stops etc. There were plenty of Hanson and Martins Creek quarry trucks using the road.
The DPE will outline what is in Hanson’s proposal, explain their role in the process for assessing the EIS, the importance of submissions from the public and also how to lodge a submission. The BHSA committee will present our preliminary assessment of the EIS and response to it. Suffice to say we are very disappointed after 4 years of CCC meetings. VOWW will also present their concerns, and then concerns and comments will be sought from the audience.
Please come and show your support and express your own concerns.
We hope to see you there tonight. If you cannot make it, make sure that you lodge your submission by 9th April. If you want to be involved in the preparation of the BHSA submission, please get in touch.
Brandy Hill & Seaham Action Group 
Hi
I have read the detail of the EIS as per your last email out, in particular the Appendix 8 Traffic Assessment concerns me. This 200 page report is obviously positioned to be too much for most to bother reading.
Its pretty clear to anyone with common sense that lives in this area, the Brandy Hill / Clarence town Rd intersection is a currently a disaster waiting to happen; regardless, the ‘paid opinion’ in the report states that with current or future traffic, it will be OK. Refer the following paragraph from EIS Appendix 8 Executive Summary statement “A review of traffic accident data for the Clarence Town Road / Brandy Hill Drive intersection has determined that there is no significant accident history at the intersection and no obvious trends within the data that indicates existence of a safety problem. It is therefore considered that the intersection provides a suitable level of road safety for existing traffic volumes and should continue to do so for at least a further ten years.”
As I am a consulting statistician, in my opinion this statement/ conclusion is inherently confounded.
There is the quoted doubling of peak hourly traffic from current peak hourly deliveries of 32 per day to “approx. 60 vph”, a near doubling.
As often quoted by superannuation funds, historical performance is in no way indicative of future performance. The history of ‘no accidents’ for existing traffic volumes is being used to conclude that this will likely continue to be the case over the next 10 years, and obviously this factors in the Hanson traffic increases documented.
I fail to see on what basis this conclusion has been made, and is clearly just the contracted “Intersect Traffic” company opinion!
Because the past has been OK, the future will be too, even though there is double the amount of heavy traffic?
I therefore would like to be involved in the EIS submission.
Regards