Anyone that travels to Paterson or Maitland will appreciate the impact that an extra 280 truck movement/day will have on the queues and congestion in Melbourne street and surrounding roads, I encourage you to make a submission.
The following was received from MCQAG:
“Martins Creek Railway Ballast Quarry currently has an amended development application on public exhibition (link to the exhibted documents here)
The proposal being exhibited is an amendment to the 2016 EIS and SSDA that was previously exhibited in November 2016 and also follows on from the largest decision in the NSW Land & Environment Court history that in 2019 led to the operator of the quarry being restrained from unlawful operations at the site which it had been conducting since 2012.
This planning process is independent and unrelated to the court action.
The Amendment DA is seeking approval for the following;
- 1,100,000 tonne per annum extraction for 25 years
- clearing of 21Ha of native vegetation containing EPBC threatened species (Koalas, Slatey Red Gums, swift Parrots, Regent Honey eaters and Spotted Quals)
- 500,000 tpa transport of product by road
- 600,000 tpa transport of product by rail from the site
- 280 truck movements per day (peak) 140 loaded/140 empty
- 40 truck movements per hour (peak) 20 loaded/20 empty
We hope as many concerned residents can lodge submissions objecting to the proposal. In relation to the human/built environment impacts we have summarized these in a link on our website, primarily MCQAG is recommending that residents with “Lived Experiences” of past unlawful operations detail in their submissions how the above parameters will result in a return to those impacts that have impacted them and their communities historically, we are advising that residents pay particular attention to the amenity and social impacts (sense of place, social fabric, rural amenity etc) that can NOT be explained away in technical studies relating to noise, vibration or air quality.
In relation to the fauna and flora impacts these have been “detailed” in the proponents biodiversity assessment report (Link to doc here), the consultant report finds that a number of the above EPBC threatened species could reside but haven’t been found on the site, however we have photographic evidence that all have been located/sighted on land immediately adjoining the site, and the study has therefore understated the impact likely to occur with the removal of this habitat.
Submissions are now due by COB on the 31st July we understand (they must be lodged via this portal Link Here).
Any submissions opposing the Proposal (including a key focus on the impacts that have been omitted/understated by the Proponent and their Environmental consultant Umwelt) as detailed above would be greatly appreciated.
Happy to take calls/queries to assist in relation to submission lodgement etc.
thanks in advance