Here is another of the presentations to the IPC by BHSAG. This one from James Moore, giving his expert analysis showing that the quarry does not need overnight crushing or transport to achieve its goals. Best practices are also covered.
The IPC held the public meeting on the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion by video-conference yesterday, from 10am to about 4pm. It was a tiring day after weeks of preparation by the 6 BHSAG committee members who spoke on behalf of BHSAG and VOWW. Many other passionate and concerned residents from Giles Road, Nelsons plains and elsewhere also made their presentations. We wholeheartedly thank everyone who presented to the commission or have already sent in written submissions.
The meeting was live streamed so we hope you had the opportunity to watch some of the proceedings. Hanson had two speakers present first, and they both mainly pushed their need for more hours and more trucks in order to service the Sydney market.
Written submissions
If you still want to have your say on this project but were unable to participate in the Public Meeting, you can submit your comments in writing to the Commission via email to: ipcn@ipcn.nsw.gov.au , by post or the online portal: http://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/have-your-say Written comments are weighed the same as spoken presentations. The IPC will accept submissions until Friday 19th June. Your support is important.
Meeting Presentations
The presentations by committee members will be posted as soon as we can. Here is the first installment, from Neil Ritchie. We can only hope the IPC has listened with more empathy than Hanson has to date.
We were very disappointed with PSC’s responses to questions from the IPC last week about costings for the bus bays and shared pathway, and the suitability of the roads and intersections for heavy vehicles. See below from the IPC website:
Other presentations will be posted as they become available .
If you have read the Department’s assessment of the quarry expansion and thought that the recommended conditions of approval are reasonable to some degree, don’t be complacent. Don’t sit back and think the job is done. Read the following “Appendix A…” document, which is publically available on the IPC website, and have your say, either in person by videoconference, or by mailing a written submission to the IPC (see previous posts for the details). We don’t want the IPC to relax any of the proposed conditions for Hanson’s sake, we want them tightened further for our sakes!
Hanson has not accepted the recommended conditions and continues to push for 24/7 and thinks that its business needs overshadow the preservation of our area’s amenity and character and thus our lifestyle and wellbeing.
Hanson’s proposed “concessions” in the Voluntary Planning Agreement with PSC are also a sham and insult. The $120,000 mentioned for bus bays is not an additional contribution, just an advance payment that will be used as a credit to reduce future road maintenance payments.
The $1.5m for the pathway is only half what it will cost, even though their trucks account for over 90% of all the heavy vehicle traffic on Brandy Hill Drive, and will increase.
Have your say with the IPC and take control of your future!
Regards
The Independent Planning Commission (IPC) will hold the hearing on the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion on 12th June, by video conference.
Please either register by 5th June to speak to the commission on the 12th June, or simply send a written submission to the IPC to arrive by the 19th June.
The notice was in the Newcastle Herald today (21st May) and on the IPC website.
Today, the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment posted their recommended conditions for approval of the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion project onto their website.
We were advised with the following email from Genevieve Lucas, who has overseen this project from the beginning:
“The Department has now completed its merit assessment of the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion Project.
I have just made the recommendation live on our Major Project’s website, so it will be available either now or very shortly.
The Department has recommended that the application could be approved, subject to strict conditions of consent. This includes limitations on operating / product transport hours. The Department’s Assessment Report provides details of our recommendations and I encourage you to read this document as well as the recommended conditions of consent.
The application will now be considered and determined by the Independent Planning Commission of NSW. The Commission will undertake its own public engagement processes, and I encourage you to check their website for further information https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/ (it might be later on today that the project is available on their website).
It’s been a number of years that we have been in touch about this application and I appreciate all the inputs and updates you have provided.
I wish you all the best for the next steps, and as always, please contact me if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Gen
Genevieve Lucas
Team Leader
Resource Assessments, NSW Planning, Industry and Environment”
The link above provides access to three documents covering the department’s assessment. While I have not yet had time to read all the detail, a quick review and phone conversation with Genevieve enabled me make the some observations.
While everyone will have their own unique view on the proposed quarry expansion, I will limit my summary to the issues that BHSAG raised. Firstly, in its initial submission, which represented, as best we could, the consensus from the surveys and other feedback that we received from the community. The issues are listed with the most important first. later I will review the issues that BHSAG raised after Hanson provided its “Response to submissions”.
Issues Subsequent to the above initial submission, BHSAG advised the department in November 2018 that Hanson’s Response to Submissions continued to be grossly inadequate. The concerns raised then and the current outcomes are summarised below.
Reject 24/7. There must be an overnight curfew of despatch and crushing.
Outcome: Largely success. See above.
Mandate the provision of safety and amenity infrastructure (separate from the haulage levy) for footpaths and bus stops.
Outcome: Bus bays must be built before Hanson exceeds the current output limit.
The Shared pathway must be funded within two years of the commencement of the new consent (irrespective of tonnage). Genevieve’s expectation is that PSC will expedite the construction over say 5 years.
Ensure the haulage levy covers all council road routes through PSC and MCC.
Outcome. Maitland Council is pursuing a VPA covering a haulage levy on MCC roads.
PSC have an agreed VPA with Hanson.
Increase the haulage levy because multiple haulage routes are used. PSC has to maintain over 30km of haul roads, and not just the 12km to the nearest state road at Raymond Terrace. The paltry ~$400,000 pa does not cover anywhere near the cost of maintaining that length of road where the vast majority of heavy vehicles are, and will increasingly be, fully laden quarry trucks. Note that our surveys and casual observation indicate that fewer than 15 heavy non gravel trucks use Brandy Hill Drive daily. So the proportion of the 718 daily gravel trucks on that route will be the vast majority.
Outcome: I understand there is a significant increase in the levy in the VPA with PSC.
Mandate dust and sound attenuation enclosures on all processing equipment from stage 1.
Outcome: I understand that all crushing equipment will be enclosed.
Conclusion
My initial appraisal of the department’s assessment, in terms of the issues raised by BHSAG, is that we have been successful to a much larger degree than expected. While not all our wishes are granted, the big ticket items of limiting hours of operation and hourly truck numbers, providing safety and amenity infrastructure in the bus bays and a pathway, and ensuring local councils are better funded to maintain our roads, have all been largely addressed.
BHSAG’s next challenge will be to present to the IPC, to ensure that the department’s recommendations are not watered down to appease Hanson, and where there are deficiencies, we will continue to push for conditions closer to what our community wants.
The BHSAG committee will need a little time to fully understand the department’s assessment, and decide on our next steps. We will keep you informed on that and the IPC timetable.
That’s all for now.
We have been quite distracted lately due to corona virus disruptions. The chairperson of the CCC advised us in early March that a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) had been agreed with Port Stephens Council. Sorry for the delay in bringing that to you. The press release about the agreement is here: 2000305 Hanson_Brandy Hill Quarry VPA Statement
Our attempts to obtain the detail of the agreement have been unsuccessful, claiming confidentiality, as it also includes details of the haulage levy.
However, the press release does cover the two key items of infrastructure that BHSAG have campaigned for: Off-road bus stop bays and a shared pathway, so that is very good news. The aspect of when those items would need to be constructed will be determined by the NSW Department of Planning and the Independent Planning Commission. (More on that shortly)
We hope everyone dodged the corona virus, and that you are making cautious use of the relaxed rules for social interactions.
Please report any Brandy Hill Quarry operations that are outside 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday.
In December, the following was received from Port Stephens Council (PSC):
“At this stage the only compliance matter that Council is looking into is the hours of operation for the existing operation. We did receive some legal advice which goes some way to support Council’s position that was provided in a submission to the State Significant Development Application for the Quarry Expansion.
Council has also contacted the quarry operator again to reiterate our contention that the approved hours are those provided in the Environmental Impact Statement that was part of the 1983 quarry development application.”
It is essential that the community helps PSC and BHSA expose Hanson’s lie that they already have 24/7. That repeated claim in their EIS and Response to Submissions is fundamental to their push for overnight and early morning operations for the next 30 years.
If you see any trucks leaving or entering the quarry outside of 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday, or see or hear any operations noise from the quarry outside those times, please report the matter to PSC.
Report every occurence! Daily if needed. You can phone, but I suggest you also email. Include any photographic or other proof of location and time (not essential).
PSC contact details are:
Attention: Greg Rodwell
Development Compliance Officer PSC
Email: council@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
phone 02 4988 0468 | m 0447 446 779
If PSC can provide a history of community complaints to support our opposition to extended hours of operation, that will greatly improve our argument to NSW Planning and the Independent Planning Commission.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated as it will help ensure that the amenity and character of our rural residential area is not trashed by this proposed development for the foreseeable future.
There is nothing further to report regarding the expansion, other than Planning has been waiting on more documentation from Hanson.
Please report all illegal quarry operations.
Neil
PS A belated Happy New Year to everyone. The fire season has consumed all spare time of the Seaham RFS brigade members and delayed this post. All other lower Hunter brigades have been similarly involved. Thankfully, our area has been free of fires but we have been sending crews to fires on both sides of the valley. Keep safe, prepare your property, yourselves and your action plan for worst case scenarios while we all hope for the best, and rain.
The following information has been received from Hanson, regarding the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion Project, which I am forwarding on to CCC members:
Regards
Lisa Andrews, Independent Chairperson & Director, Articulate Solutions Pty Ltd
Brandy Hill and Seaham Action Group (BHSAG) has continued to lobby the NSW Dept Planning on the key matters of hours of operation, safety along BHD, health impacts of dust and noise, and the environmental impacts on fauna, in particularly the threatened local koala population hub. We can only wait and hope that Hanson’s final Response To Submissions contains some meaningful concessions on the above.
Daracon had lodged an application with the NSW Land & Environment Court seeking a further 12 months extension to the Stay on orders which expired on 20 September. That would have enabled their operations to continue outside the bounds of the 1991 consent, until a new consent is granted.
Justice Duggan handed down her decision on that application on Monday 23 September 2019 and has chosen to refuse the application. In making her decision she weighed factors relating to the impacts to Daracon versus public interest and ensuring the Environmental Planning laws are upheld. Open the link below, and skip to the end for the summary.
Apparently Daracon decided to close the quarry immediately. We expect they will continue progressing their state significant development application with the NSW Dept of Planning, in the hope of re opening the quarry under a new consent, sometime in the future. That is unlikely to occur before 2020/2021, if consent is granted and if Daracon accept the conditions that come with a future consent.
The Herald ran an article on the events.
The following update was received from the Martins Creek Quarry Action Group (MCQAG) last night. Great news!
Dear Members & Friends
Further to our message from earlier this week.
In a show of support towards impacted residents Dungog Shire Council this evening unanimously voted against entering into an agreement with Daracon to extend the stay on orders made against Daracon’s unlawful operations by the NSW Court of Appeal.
It is now open for Daracon to make this same request to the Land & Environment Court before a Judge, prior to the 20th of September.
Thank you to all the residents who attended the Council meeting this evening.
Regards
James Ashton
The “stay” has allowed Daracon to continue operating illegally, by extracting rock other than primarily for railway ballast, quarrying beyond the area to which the consent applied, dispatching a greater percentage of material by road than was allowable and impermissibly processing rock on the western land.
Yesterday, we had sent an email to the Dungog council urging them to reject any extension of the stay of the court orders. (Note: IEMP = Interim Environmental management Plan, which applies during the “stay”, setting interim tonnage, operating hours and truck frequency limits).
I write to council to urge you to reject any request from Daracon to extend the stay of the court orders. Any extension would allow the quarry to continue operating under the IEMP which was intended as a transition to compliance with the 1991 consent conditions.
While your councillors will all have some degree of sympathy for either the residents or the quarry, this is not a matter for sympathy. It is council’s duty as the current consent authority for the quarry, to carry through the actions already undertaken through the courts, and require Daracon to comply with the courts validated consent conditions. There must be no further extensions of the stay on the court orders. That is the law, and that is your duty.
Council must not assume that the SSDA being pursued by Daracon will ever be finalised and approved, and if so under what conditions, and whether Daracon would be prepared to proceed with reopening the quarry under those conditions. The IEMP conditions may therefore grossly exceed any future conditions.
Council does not have the legal or moral right to allow the increases implicit in the IEMP over the 1991 consent to continue. Only a new EIS with full scrutiny by all agencies, the DPE and the IPC can assess if and under what conditions would a quarry operations be allowed continue.
As a resident on a Martins Creek Quarry haul route, and a weekly visitor and shopper in Paterson, I urge council to disallow any extensions to the stay on the court orders.
Yours sincerely
Neil and Margarete Ritchie
It is great news that the council has voted to reject any further extension to the stay on the court orders. We must now wait to see if Daracon complies by the 20th September deadline, or continues to use the courts for further delays.
Brandy Hill & Seaham Action Group 