Update from Hanson, September 2019

The following information has been received from Hanson, regarding the Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion Project, which I am forwarding on to CCC members:

  • The amended Response to Submissions (RTS) has been finalised and has taken into account all submissions and information requested that have been received by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and provided to Hanson and RW Corkery.
  • Also included are responses to requests that have come directly from the planning assessment officer, as well as a complete description of refinements to the project and additional assessments undertaken.
  • Following review(s) by DPIE and its acceptance of the amended RTS (expected during the month of October); a copy will be forwarded to all CCC members.
  • Subsequently, the next CCC meeting will be scheduled after the review and at members’ earliest convenience.
  • CCC members will be kept updated on the progress of the RTS.

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.

Q&A on Hanson’s proposed concrete washout recycling and batching

The following extract of an email from Genevieve Seed at the NSW Dept Planning has been posted for the benefit of the community.

 

From: Gen Seed <genevieve.seed@planning.nsw.gov.au>
Date: 19 July 2019 11:02:35 am AEST

Subject: RE: Recycling Concrete Crushing Batching Plant Brandy Hill Quarry

Please find below the answers to your questions of last week.

As a lot of these questions related to the existing and proposed operation, I sought some input from Hanson for confirmation of my understanding.

The responses to your questions are as follows (in italics):

  1. The proponent states in RW Corkery & Co response letter to the CCC dated 18 January 2019 that a Concrete Batching Plant and Concrete Crushing plant for recycling activities will be limited to 20,000 tonnes of material each year. Please clarify if 20,000 tonnes is the accurate figure?

Yes. The Expansion Project is seeking to import 20,000 tonnes of concrete waste. The Project is also seeking to produce and dispatch 15,000m3 of pre-mixed concrete per annum.

  1. Can this number be increased in the next 30 years?

If this amount was approved, it could not be increased without a modification to the consent. This would be subject to a merit assessment.

  1. Once issued with a licence, what would have to occur for the plant to cease operating?

If consent is granted, the plant could operate until the nominated end of life date.

  1. What are the hours of operation for all activities including ancillary activities for the Concrete Recycling and Batching Plant? What days will all Concrete Recycling and Batching and ancillary activities be operating?

The proposed hours of operation for Concrete Recycling and Batching Plant are:

–  Monday to Saturday 5:00am to 10:00pm

–  No operation on Sundays or public holidays

  1. Has this recycling activity already started?

No – there is currently no concrete batching or recycling facility on the site.

  1. What is the total number of truck movements in and out of BHQ site per year for a 20,000 tonne Batching and Recycling plant?

Once operating, the concrete batching activities would require a maximum of 11 laden deliveries per day (22 movements) of sand and cementitious materials.

Deliveries of concrete washout material would most likely occur as backloads from the delivery of aggregate material. That is, trucks would transport this material on their way back to the Quarry. It is estimated that this process would require no more than 20 loads per week however this would vary significantly.

These proposed truck movements have been included in the overall proposed traffic limits of the Expansion application.

  1. Please list in dot point all the chemicals that are used in a Concrete Batching and Recycling plant?

There are no chemicals used in concrete recycling other than those required for maintenance of the equipment used.

Concrete batching requires mixing of aggregates, sand and water with cement or cementitious materials to produce concrete. The only chemicals used in this process are admixtures/activators required for special batching requests. These chemicals are commonly used to retard concrete setting or improve the concrete for use in particular settings such as reducing corrosion potential in marine environments.

  1. Please list in dot point all toxic or hazardous materials related to Concrete Recycling and Batching Plant?

Concrete recycling
–  Diesel fuel
–  Small volumes of oils, lubricants or greases.

Concrete batching

–  Cementitious materials including cement or fly ash (see discussion at question 14 below).
–  Admixtures / activators
–  Lime
–  Concrete itself is considered potentially corrosive (when uncured/hardened).

All material that is classified as potentially hazardous would be transported, transferred and stored in accordance with the Australian Standards and manufacturers’ specifications (requiring bunded storage to capture 110% of the storage capacity).

Material safety data sheets would be accessible for all chemicals used / stored on site.

  1. Will the Recycling Crusher be enclosed? How will Hanson enclose the Recycling Crusher?

Yes. The mobile crushing equipment would be housed in an enclosed unit that provides a degree of dust mitigation. Hanson would enclose the mobile crushing unit on three sides using shipping containers and a cover. This is not as effective as the sheeting that would be used for the fixed processing equipment, however this type of enclosure is not possible for mobile equipment.

  1. What is the process when the Mobile Crusher needs to be relocated?

Mobile crushing units are commonly loaded on to a flatbed truck or transport float. If the equipment is track mounted in would be moved within the Quarry without loading.

  1. If the Crusher is relocated, what process will occur to ensure the real time monitoring on site for noise and dust is relevant in the new location?

The mobile crushing unit would likely remain in the same position as presented in the Quarry layout figures. If the equipment needs to be relocated for some reason, it would still remain within the Processing and Stockpiling Area as this is the only location where there would be sufficient space for the equipment to operate. The change in location is not likely to change dust generation and dispersion to the extent that monitoring locations would need to be changed. However, Hanson has advised it would continue to liaise with the community throughout the life of the development to ensure that any impacts identified by the community are addressed and mitigated.

  1. Does Hanson currently import and use Sand and Coal Ash/Fly Ash in their Concrete production?

Yes at other Hanson concrete batching plants, but not currently at the Brandy Hill Quarry.

  1. Did Hanson use Ash from Coal Fired Station in 2012 and if so, why wasn’t the neighbours informed that these materials were being imported to the BHQ site?

Yes, Hanson participated in a field trail to inform research into the use of this waste material (bottom ash) as a replacement for fine sand materials. More information on this trial can be found here https://www.quarrymagazine.com/Article/2662/Coal-power-station-waste-as-a-fine-aggregate-replacement-in-concrete.

The trial involved pouring a small concrete slab (10m3) and then testing the concrete properties (slumping, strength and shrinkage). The use of ash materials from coal-fired power generation is common as a replacement for cement in concrete production, but this trial was seeking a replacement for fine sand materials using the larger bottom ash. The material was not stored at the Quarry for a significant period and only imported once. The risk of environmental impact was considered negligible and therefore there was no need to discuss this activity with neighbours. This activity may be compared to the pouring of a concrete driveway at any residence in Brandy Hill.

  1. Will Coal Ash that comes from coal-fired electric power plants be used at the Brandy Hill Quarry site in the processing of the 20,000 tonnes being imported to the site?

Hanson has advised me that they do intend to import fly ash as part of the Expansion Project. However, there is no information on this within in existing documentation for the proposal, and I know I have advised you previously that this did not form part of their proposal.

On this basis, I have requested further information from Hanson in relation to this matter, including what is being proposed and how it will be managed.

To get a bit more information about this material, I contacted the EPA for a discussion. They advised me that importing this material does not form part of an ‘Environment Protection License’ but is regulated by a Resource Recovery Order and Exemption issued in 2014 (see link below).

https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/waste/rro14-coal-ash.pdf?la=en&hash=7222DC20531E7EDEE919CDDE7CFB7FA740430841

I understand that to use this material, the supplier must ensure that it meets a certain chemical composition.

This is something we will be carefully considering when the Amended RTS comes in, and I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

  1. Recently Dam levels at Brandy Hill Quarry have been extremely low due to extremely low rainfall. What measures does Hanson take to ensure adequate dust suppression when they are running out of water?

Hanson advised it has not experienced the low dam levels reported here. However, if water in the Western Dam was getting low, Hanson would import water (using tanker supply) to ensure that the water cart can continue dust suppression. This has not been required in past operations.

  1. Who is responsible on site to evaluate dust, what is the current process for measuring dust?

The quarry manager is responsible for managing dust on site.

The EPA regulates all forms of pollution including dust, noise, water quality and blasting through the Quarry’s Environment Protection Licence. Currently, deposited dust is monitored at the Quarry boundary at three locations. Hanson also have a particulate matter monitor located to the south of the Quarry. This monitoring is not required under the Quarry’s existing Environment Protection Licence but is used by Hanson to inform dust management at the Quarry. It is expected that dust monitoring would increase under the Expansion Project, if approved.

  1. What scientific activities does Hanson BHQ undertake currently to ensure dust is not harming wildlife and farmed animals, fauna, flora and human residents on tank water?

Hanson advised that it undertakes monitoring in accordance with the requirements of the EPA. Hanson advised that it recently completed a program of water quality testing in water tanks in the vicinity of the Quarry and found that all tank water was suitable for drinking.

The Department will carefully consider the potential air quality impacts in its assessment of the application.

  1. In relation to the rock being crushed on site – what is the rock composition BHQ is blasting and crushing?

The rock being extracted at the Quarry is predominantly ignimbrite which is overlain by sandstone, mudstone and conglomerate to the south of the Quarry Site.

  1. What testing and monitoring of residents over the past 30 years has been conducted? What monitoring and studies have occurred for current and former staff from previous operators? How can you prove that the rock they have been breathing in has not harmed their health?

I do not believe Hanson has undertaken monitoring of residents or staff respiratory health. This would be a difficult system to implement particularly as people are exposed to all different levels of particulates. It is also difficult to determine the level that particulates affect respiratory health in comparison to other emissions (ie smoke). Research on the health effects of particulate matter is evolving and NSW Health have some interesting information of this. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/air/Pages/particulate-matter.aspx

  1. The community is concerned about the impact on the heritage listed; 3 Bridges, the Woodville Store, and the historical Stone Church and Hall at Woodville. Has there been a study on numbers of movements currently?  Has the impact from vibration on these buildings been considered? Has the owners of these premises been consulted regarding the expansion proposal?

Hanson has advised that the quarry currently uses the route that requires trucks to cross the heritage listed wooden bridges and to pass the Woodville Store and the Church and Hall at Woodville. Hanson consider that there is unlikely to be significant additional impacts from transport activities at these locations, as it does not intend to increase the maximum hourly number of dispatches from the site.

Drivers are made aware of the locations of the heritage bridges and the load limits and single lane requirements for their use.

Hanson has assessed potential blast vibration impacts from the operation and determined that vibration from blasting was not likely to cause structural damage at the closest residences to the Quarry. The blast assessment concludes that vibration from blasting would not impact the Woodville Store or the Church and Hall at Woodville as these are at a greater distance from the operation.

The Department will carefully consider the heritage and blasting impacts of the proposal in its assessment of the application.

  1. Residents rely on a variety of food produced in this area along with healthy native forests for honey production along with tourism activities. Industrial activities of this nature may significantly jeopardise commercial, primary producers, and non-commercial barter opportunities and any Organic Licenses for this community. Has there been any review on the validity and academic rigour of the Key Insights report on the surrounding rural communities impacted such as Butterwick, Dunns Creek, Woodville/Seaham? The report seems to only focus on the more built up areas of Brandy Hill, the village of Seaham and the row of houses in Nelsons Plains?

I understand the social impact assessment may have focused on the areas of Brandy Hill and Seaham based on their proximity to the extractive operation and proposed haulage route. The proposal’s potential to impact broader primary production in the area is likely to be related to groundwater drawdown and downstream surface water quality impacts.

The Department is carefully considering these impacts in its assessment of the proposal.

I hope this information is of assistance.

Please note that when Hanson responded to me about some of these questions, they advised that they are happy to meet any resident on site or in person. They also advised they would conduct a site visit for discussion of existing operations.  I understand if this does not appeal to you but thought it important that you know the offer is there.

Kind regards,
Gen

CCC Minutes February and May 2019 and Proposed Operating Hours

For your information, these are the minutes from the last two Brandy Hill Quarry Community Consultative Committee (CCC) meetings.

Finalised minutes of the Brandy Hill CCC February 2019

Brandy Hill Quarry_CCC Minutes 2-5-19

Also presented at the February meeting was the following document outlining the changes between the original EIS that resulted in the 160+ objecting submissions, and what Hanson were proposing at that time to include in their “Response TO Submissions”, ie their revised project plan. The community representatives advised that the revised planned hours of operation were still totally unacceptable to the community. In the absence of any subsequent advice from Hanson of any changes, we believe this document is still their current plan.

BHQ CCC Comparison Presentation_February 2019

For clarification of the above document, we understand that “Load and Haul” refers to dump truck movements from the pit to the primary crusher, which are all proposed to operate from 5am to 10pm, except Sundays and public holidays.
Truck loading and despatch is not clearly stated, but the answer in an earlier post states:

As described in Section 3.12 of the RTS, Hanson has reduced the components of the operation that would be approved to occur 24/7 following a review of the proposed ongoing operation. Hanson is seeking approval for the following activities to occur 24/7 where needed to satisfy client demand.
• Secondary crushing and screening activities.
• Road truck loading and despatch.
• Maintenance

The only concession on road truck haulage and despatch is that despatch between 10pm and 5am would only occur on up to 20 nights per year. ie we could expect despatch from 5am up until 10pm to satisfy “client demand”.

Compare that to BHSAG’s April 2017 submission which stated :

“Reject the proposal to allow 24/7 dispatch through a residential area and 24/7 crushing. There must be a complete curfew on operations between 8pm – 6am weekdays, and from midday Saturday until 6am Monday. Principally for the sake of amenity.”

After the poor response from Hanson in the above comparison document, BHSAG are proposing to put to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) hearing (whenever we get to that point), that operating hours should  remain as per the current consent :-  6am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday.

Do you have any comments on either the minutes, Hanson’s proposed hours of operations, or what we should ask the IPC to restrict them to?

 

 

 

 

 

Community Questions and Hanson’s Answers

These documents were provided in January and February respectively. Sorry for the delay in posting them.

At the November CCC meeting, Hanson invited the community representatives to ask any questions about Hanson’s current proposal for the quarry expansion.  The questions in this first document were prepared by those community representatives (N&M Ritchie, J Moore, P Rees, C Parslow-Redman, P McGee, R Adams & P LeMottee). The answers were provided by RW Corkery who are the primary consultant handling Hanson’s Response To Submissions.

968_BHQ – Response to Community Questions_January 2019

Giles Road residents also submitted questions and these were answered by Hanson.

Giles Road resident 21-2-19_Responses

We welcome any comments or questions that you have after reading these documents.

 

BHQ Operating Hours

We received the following letter from PSC regarding operation of the quarry outside the conditions of consent:

Hi Neil,

I just wish to advise you and your group that Council wrote to the quarry operator on 12 February 2019 and reinforced its position in relating to the approved operating hours (as stated in Councils submission to the Department of Planning and Environment) and requested that they comply with their development consent conditions.

The Manager of Development Assessment and Compliance also discussed the matter with the EPA relating to the quarry operator’s Environmental Protection Licence.

Regards

Greg Rodwell
Development Compliance Officer

Note that PSC’s submission to the DPE quoted the EIS stating “operations will be … 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday.
PS Thanks to all the new people Following our website

January 2019 Update

In this post

We have enjoyed the festive season break and hope you did too, but there has still been quite a bit happening regarding our quarries.

In this update there is information on further Martins Creek Quarry court outcomes. These are significant because of the direct impact of their haulage trucks on our roads but also because they set precedents relevant to the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion. There was a CCC meeting in November, a list of questions from CCC community members and the answers were recently received from Hanson. Lastly, there is information on where the expansion approval process is up to.

Hanson held a “have a chat” session on 6th February. More on all these matters follow.

Martins Creek Quarry

The land and environment Court ruled in October that the 1990 EIS and consent were the valid conditions for that quarry and that Daracon were operating the quarry well outside the consent and therefore illegally. The court issued orders that Daracon must comply with the consent, which imposed severe limits on the areas it could extract, the annual tonnage and amount by road.

The judge gave a three month stay on the orders to allow alternatives to be arranged by customers and contractors and for Daracon to find alternative employment for staff and workers, as they claimed that abiding by the consent would force closure of the quarry. The stay would expire in January. The ruling also gave Daracon the option to apply for an extension of the stay. During the stay period, Daracon was allowed to continue operating at levels greater than the consent, but less than they had been.

Daracon naturally applied for an infinite extension of the stay on the orders, and that was heard by the court in December. Two community representatives were invited by the judge to make presentations to the court. James Ashton from MCQAG and Neil Ritchie from BHSAG spoke against an extension of the stay, as did the DSC legal team. A significant outcome of the hearing was that the EIS for the new State Significant Development Application must be redone because the baseline is now the 1990 consent. The earliest expected completion of the new approval process is March 2020, probably later.

The judge could not condone the illegal activities continuing for that long, so the application for an infinite extension on the stay of orders was rejected. A compromise extension of just two months was granted, so Daracon have until early March to comply with the Orders. We will wait and see if they close,  scale back activity or increase rail haulage, from March until a new approval is granted.

One of the key findings in the October ruling is that key documents that were the basis of a consent, such as the EIS and any key restrictions, limitations or conditions in those documents are incorporated into the consent.

This gives a strong legal basis for us to reject Hanson’s claim that they have 24/7, as the Brandy Hill Quarry 1983 EIS states in three sections that operations will be 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday, and this adds to PSC’s submission to the DPE that as the consent authority, it believes the approved hours are 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday.

Neil had a phone conversation with Genevieve Seed who is the DPE officer responsible for the BHQ expansion, to ensure that the department is fully aware of the implications of the court rulings, PSC’s stance on the approved operating hours, and the devastatingly detrimental impact that 24/7 operations would have on the character and amenity of our residential areas.

Finally, have you noticed the reduction in truck traffic from Martins Creek, and the reduction in early morning and late evening truck movements since the October ruling? It has been quite dramatic and very welcome and shows the positive impact that restricted operating hours has on local amenity and rural/residential character. Daracon have not asked for 24/7 in their EIS, but have sought to extend the hours from what the current consent permits.

Brandy Hill Quarry

The expansion proposal is still in the hands of the DPE in the “Assessment” phase. We are waiting on the DPE to make recommendations to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC). The IPC will then call a public meeting to hear more submissions , and then they will make a ruling for the DPE to implement. The DPE advised me in January that they are still waiting on information from Hanson, and that the earliest that their recommendations would be available is late February. It will probably be later than that.

Things that have happened since the last post:

  • There was a CCC meeting in November. Here are the minutes:
    Finalised minutes from Brandy HIll CCCC held 15-11-18
  • One of the actions from the above meeting was for the community members of the CCC to present Hanson with any questions.  These were submitted in December and here are the answers: BHQ – Response to Community Questions_January 2019Again, nothing new, but it may clarify some issues in people’s minds.
  • Another action Hanson proposed was to hold a “have a chat session”.
    The first of these was held on Wednesday 6th at the farmhouse at 888 Clarence Town Road, opposite the quarry.
    It seems quite a few members of the public attended along with some BHSAG members. There was not much new information, but one point was that Hanson do not expect to build the concrete batching plant as it is much more expensive to cart concrete than gravel and sand. In other words it is more economical to have the batching plants close to the market. Hanson are just including provision for batching into the potential scope of the new approval. They have no plans to close or relocate the Raymond Terrace batching plant.
    One new item was the release of a draft document titled: “Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan”. I don’t have an electronic copy, so that will be posted as soon as it is available.
    My initial impression is that it is to tick a box with DPE.
    Hanson is trying to steer the issues of amenity and safety (pathway, intersection improvements and bus stops) into the voluntary planning agreement (VPA) , and the recommendation/decisions on the allocation of the meager transport levy toward the above, to a committee.
    Our view is that the DPE/IPC must make the safety issues prerequisites to the new consent. These items are not negotiable and must not be at the expense of other road maintenance funds.The subject of Hanson continuing to claim they currently have 24/7 was raised again. Hanson stated that they have a document to that effect and legal advise that they can operate 24/7, but still have not produced any proof. This is despite PSC stating in their RTS that 6am to 6pm Monday to Saturday as stated in the EIS is the approved operating hours. PSC were and still are the consent authority for the 1983 approval.
  • Hanson advised that the next CCC meeting will be held on the 21st February.

So in summary, Hanson is not budging from wanting 24/7 for crushing and despatch. They have no compassion or willingness to preserve the character or amenity of our area. Hanson continues to be evasive and non committal regarding offering any infrastructure to improve the safety at any intersections (the quarry entrance is the obvious one in need of improvement), or for pedestrians cyclists and school children and buses along Brandy Hill Drive.

Requested Pathway

Neil regularly cycles the eastern end of Brandy Hill Drive to Seaham. The cutting near the “Wallaby XING” is typical of the other cuttings. The lane from centreline to shoulder line is just 3 metres wide. There is no shoulder outside the line. The shoulder line is a far left as I can ride.  His bike protrudes 0.3m into the lane. If there is oncoming traffic, traffic cannot overtake and give the required 1.5m clearance without crossing into the oncoming lane, so must slow to his speed. Trucks are 2.4m wide, so a truck needs to cross a minimum of 1.2m into the oncoming lane, and more to provide any margin of safety, or slow to the cyclist speed.

These photos show a truck in the cutting near Eloura Cl and two trucks meeting near Warrigal Cl where both cross over the shoulder lines. That is also a blind crest and corner! A cycleway, as per PSC’s Cycleways Plan, is mandatory to allow cyclists to get off Brandy Hill Drive. Of course there are lots of other reasons for a pedestrian pathway as well, and we’ll cover those in a later post.

image1.jpegIMG_1579.jpg

Please encourage friends and neighbours to follow this site in order to automatically receive future posts.

We are also keen to get the views of anyone who attended the chat session, or has any other feedback.

BHSAG

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

July 2018 Update – MCQ and BHQ

Martins Creek Quarry

Despite the court case brought by DSC closing in April last year, a ruling has still not been made. However, Jacqui Tupper (DSC) notified MCQAG that the court has advised the parties that judgment on the Martins Creek Quarry matter will be handed down by the 17th August 2018. 

The following is a mail-out from MCQAG on 11th July. We encourage you to contact Umwelt to give them your perspective on how that quarry affects you. BHSAG committee members will be meeting with Umwelt. The cumulative impact of both quarries on our area is still a major concern.

Dear Members and Friends

you are receiving this email because we have you in our database as either a financial member of MCQAG or you have lodged your email on our website for updates on Martins Creek Quarry Expansion.

As you may know, MCQAG has never advocated for the closure of Martins Creek Quarry, only that any new consents require the facility to operate at a more reasonable scale that enables the quarry to coexist with residents and neighbours around the site and along the haulage route.

Quarry Expansion Update

Daracon has commenced the “Response to Submissions” stage of the State Significant Development Application process. Daracon has engaged Umwelt an environmental consulting firm based in Teralba as the lead consultancy to perform this work. 

MCQAG committee has met with Umwelt in the past three months, they have explained that they will be re-commencing community consultation and various environmental studies on the project over the coming months.

Umwelt have posted a Community Information Sheet to affected residents during the month of June. The flyer provided information on Daracon’s “Refined Project”. We are aware that many residents have not received this flyer and so we have attached a link to the document: Daracon Community Update

As you can see in the flyer Daracon’s refined project consists of;

  • 900,000 tonne per annum by road
  • 60 truck movements per hour
  • 280 truck movements per day
  • No loading of trucks or pit operations prior to 7am six days per week

The MCQAG committee’s view of the “Refined Project” is that the 7am starting time for load out of trucks and quarry operations is good news for impacted residents however the intensity of the operation proposed on an hourly basis in this refinement match and even exceeds that which was experienced in 2014 and 2015 when life around the facility and along the haulage route (particularly within the activity centre of Paterson) was simply unlivable; with intolerable impacts on our way of life, rural amenity and village character. The proposed increase in daily truck traffic is a 1166% increase in the currently approved 24 trucks per day from the site and the annual extraction limit proposed is a 300% increase from the currently approved 300,000 tonne per annum scale.

We Recommend You Take the Following Action

As noted in the community information sheet link above, Umwelt is commencing stakeholder engagement with affected residents. MCQAG encourages you all to register your interest with Umwelt (via their email social-team@umwelt.com.au) to ensure you get to participate in their consultation process. Importantly MCQAG strongly recommends you;

  • Register with Umwelt to participate in the consultation process using the email above
  • When dealing with Umwelt, remain steadfast regarding the issues that effect you and your community, remember the issues and impacts detailed in your submissions have most likely not been addressed with the refined project parameters listed above
  • Keep records of your discussions with Umwelt
  • Do not allow Umwelt or Daracon to divide and conquer, We must all remain united together to fight against the scale of the refined project to protect our way of life, rural amenity and village character.

We will provide updates to you all as the RTS process continues. Importantly please do not hesitate to contact MCQAG representatives on the telephone number or email below if you wish to discuss this further. We are happy to assist and advocate for you when dealing with Umwelt or Daracon.

MCQAG’s next committee meeting is on the 24th July at the Paterson School of Arts Hall, members and residents are welcome to attend.

Regards
James Ashton 
Secretary MCQAG
0413 616 677
info@mcqag.org

 

Brandy Hill Quarry.

There has not been any communication from Hanson since the CCC meeting early this year. However, James Moore has contacted Hanson regarding an offer they made at that meeting to provide a traffic speed display. The display is mounted on a trailer and would show drivers their actual speed as they approach the display. It does not record any data for subsequent analysis, and Hanson have asked that BHSA cover insurance for the month that they would allow. With the need for insurance and PSC, RMS and resident approval for a suitable location, there are a few hurdles before this could happen.

Although Hanson predicted at the last CCC that their Response to Submissions (RTS) may have been be ready by April, that has not yet happened, and could be months away.

We continue being wholly disappointed in the complete lack of any compromise in Hanson’s project scale, despite the years of CCC meetings and the huge number of opposing submissions from the community. Our disappointment in Hanson is even greater when we see that Daracon, who have never asked for 24/7, reduced their proposed hours of operation and also reduced their proposed road haulage annual tonnage by 40%, maximum trucks per day by 35% and maximum trucks per hour by 25% in their “Community Update” document. At least Daracon appear to be prepared to make some concessions in their Response to Submissions. Hanson have offered none. We can only hope that the NSW Department of Planning rejects Hanson’s approach.

We continue to:

  1. Vehemently oppose 24/7 quarry operations and the huge increase in both the average and maximum trucks per day and per hour. These would be a totally unacceptable assault on the amenity and residential character of the area.
  2. Demand that Hanson provide an off road pathway along Brandy Hill Drive and connecting the the Jacaranda preschool and Brandon park, bus bays and other safety improvements.
  3. Stand by all the other mitigation measures outlined in BHSAG’s submission.

Next Steps

  • We will continue investigating the speed display sign offered by Hanson.
  • Meetings will be held with Umwelt next week.
  • We are already drafting a presentation to the Independent Planning Commission- IPC (the new name for the Planning Assessment Commission – PAC).
    Once NSW planning accept Hanson’s RTS, and make recommendations to the IPC, we expect the IPC to hold a public meeting where key parties will be invited to make short presentations. That will be our last and only avenue to have some restrictions placed on Hanson’s ongoing operations.

Thats all for now. Thanks for your ongoing support. Any feedback via this website is always appreciated.