Monthly Archives: October 2018

Hanson have lodged their “Response To Submissions” (RTS) with the Department of Planning and Environment (DoPE)

Posted on by
Reply

This was posted on 11th October, but did not appear to get mailed out so it is being posted again. Some updates have been added at the end.

 

On 9th October we received the following email from DoPE.

We have received the Response to Submissions report for the Brandy Hill Expansion Project, and it can be viewed on our website at http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=5899

The Department will now send the RTS to agencies and Council for comment, and commence its assessment of the application.

Upon completion of our assessment, the application will be referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) for determination. At this time, there will be further opportunity for members of the public to comment on the project, either in writing or by registering to speak at the public meeting.

Please contact me if you have any further questions, or would like to discuss.

Kind regards,

Genevieve Seed
Senior Planning Officer
Resource Assessments
320 Pitt Street | GPO Box 39 | Sydney NSW 2001
T 02 9274 6489

We have not had time to fully read and understand the RTS which can be accessed from the link above. There are 5 RTS documents. The last one is the main document. It is clear that Hanson have not listened to the community’s submissions as they have not altered their proposal in any way as a result of the submissions. During the past 4 years the community representatives on the CCC have used every opportunity at meetings to express community views and concerns.  The only changes they have offered are all to meet rules and regulations regarding noise, dust traffic etc.

Our primary concern about 24/7 has not been addressed. Hanson still ask for around the clock dispatch and secondary crushing.

Safety and amenity along Brandy Hill Drive has not been addressed with any offer to help build a footpath or bus stop bays.

No additional voluntary contributions are offered for roads, intersections or for road haulage trough other council areas eg Maitland City Council (MCC). (Just as we in PSC would expect Martins Creek quarry would to contribute to the maintenance of roads used through MCC and PSC areas).

You are invited to draw your own conclusions.

Please send us your comments about the RTS via our website, and we will post them for all to see.

BHSAG has send a letter to DoPE expressing our huge disappointment in the RTS and implore the department to recommend changes to the consent, when it is handed to the IPC.

We have also spoken with Councillor LeMottee and PSC staff, who are equally disappointed in the RTS, and have offered to collaborate with PSC to align our positions.

The DoPE expects responses from the other agencies by the end of October, and BHSAG expects to provide more information in a similar timeframe.

 

Margarete & Neil

on behalf of BHSAG

Judge’s Ruling on the Martins Creek Quarry Court Case

Posted on by
Reply

As you know, Daracon has been transporting gravel from the Martins Creek Quarry along Butterwick Road, Clarence Town Road, Brandy Hill Drive and Seaham Road for a number of years. It has been a burden on those residents who live along these roads in particular, as it combines with truck traffic from the Hanson quarry. In addition to that, Daracon has not paid any road levy to any of the three council’s including Port Stephens Council, for road maintenance or improvements. and truck traffic through Paterson risks the closure of businesses and the loss of the services they provide.

On 12th October, the judge finally handed down his ruling on the court case. The court hearing was held in April last year.  Dungog Shire Council brought the action against Daracon for 11 breaches of the conditions of consent for the operations of the quarry.

It is difficult to summarise such a long document but here are a few key points.

  1. Council has won on many of the declarations and orders. The court has confirmed the Martins Creek Quarry operations are illegal in many respects.
  2. The 1991 consent issued to State rail was ruled to be the valid conditions for operations as a railway ballast quarry and not as a general quarry.
  3. The judge also ruled and that the EPA license variation to 2 million tonnes/annum was illegal.
  4. The judge issued a number of orders regarding ongoing operations, which contain restrictions. Operations must abide by an Interim Environmental Management Plan (which was volunteered by Daracon), that must be fully implemented within 3 months.
  5. The 3 month stay before the orders take effect is to reduce the impact on employees and avoid the adverse consequences of a sudden curtailment in supply to existing projects.
  6. Daracon may make a further application to the court if in 3 months they have not received an SSDA approval.
  7. Being a civil matter, there is no fine, restitution order or gaol-term, however, Daracon pays court costs and the ruling provides a strong basis for further court actions seeking damages.

So it is a good outcome. The delay was explained in that the 350 pages covering the 11 separate matters, is the longest ruling in the history of the Land and Environment court! That is even even larger than the Mabo land rights case!

The full ruling is now available on the Land and Environment court’s website: DSC v Daracon

If you open the link, scroll down just a few pages to the “Table of Contents”. Each entry is also a link to that section, so click to go straight to that section. We suggest you go to the section “THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS” for the summary.

We don’t see any direst impact on the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion proposal.

We will be watching for the next steps with interest. Will the quarry curtail operations? Will they redo their SSDA proposal for expansion? What will happen next in the courts?

Till next time.

Hanson have lodged their “Response To Submissions” (RTS) with the Department of Planning and Environment (DoPE)

Posted on by
Reply

On 9th October we received the following email from DoPE.

We have received the Response to Submissions report for the Brandy Hill Expansion Project, and it can be viewed on our website at http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=5899

The Department will now send the RTS to agencies and Council for comment, and commence its assessment of the application.

Upon completion of our assessment, the application will be referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) for determination. At this time, there will be further opportunity for members of the public to comment on the project, either in writing or by registering to speak at the public meeting.

Please contact me if you have any further questions, or would like to discuss.

Kind regards,

Genevieve Seed
Senior Planning Officer
Resource Assessments
320 Pitt Street | GPO Box 39 | Sydney NSW 2001
T 02 9274 6489

We have not had time to fully read and understand the RTS which can be accessed from the link above. There are 5 RTS documents. The last one is the main document. It is clear that Hanson have not listened to the community’s submissions as they have not altered their proposal in any way as a result of the submissions. During the past 4 years the community representatives on the CCC have used every opportunity at meetings to express community views and concerns.  The only changes they have offered are all to meet rules and regulations regarding noise, dust traffic etc.

Our primary concern about 24/7 has not been addressed. Hanson still ask for around the clock dispatch and secondary crushing.

Safety and amenity along Brandy Hill Drive has not been addressed with any offer to help build a footpath or bus stop bays.

No additional voluntary contributions are offered for roads, intersections or for road haulage trough other council areas eg Maitland City Council (MCC). (Just as we in PSC would expect Martins Creek quarry would to contribute to the maintenance of roads used through MCC and PSC areas).

You are invited to draw your own conclusions.

Please send us your comments about the RTS via our website, and we will post them for all to see.

BHSAG intends to send a letter to DoPE to express our huge disappointment in the RTS and implore the department to recommend changes to the consent, when it is handed to the IPC. That letter will be posted when it is finalised.

PS. The court ruling in the DSC Vs Daracon case regarding Martins Creek Quarry is expected on Friday 12th October. We will bring you details as they come to hand.

Margarete & Neil

on behalf of BHSAG