Explanation of Roadside Signs

Posted on by
Reply

We stand by the signs on the roadsides. We understand some people have jumped to the conclusion that we want the quarry to close, and said that the signs were incorrect.

Those people are wrong on both counts, and I’ll explain why.

Firstly, neither the signs say we want the quarry closed, nor have we ever said that at meetings, on our website or elsewhere. In fact, at the public meeting in Raymond Terrace we said “We support the ongoing operations of the Quarry, but only at a similar level to current. The need to access new reserves of rock as contained in the EIS is OK, to maintain current jobs and output”.

The signs are consistent with the consolidated feedback we received from residents, and Hanson’s EIS. The community concerns, from highest were: 24/7, the peak total number of trucks/day, the peak trucks/hr, and the total lack of any concessions, compromises or mitigation for the loss of amenity or safety, arising from the above.

Note that signs have been changed to avoid misinterpretation, but let me explain the facts that were listed as separate points:

  • 844 trucks per day.
    From Appendix 8, Section 10 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, on page 18, it says:
    “…the following existing deliveries from the site during peak production periods;
    ¨ Peak daily deliveries of 170 deliveries per day.
    ¨ Peak hourly deliveries of 32 deliveries per day.”

    So taking 170 deliveries X 2 = 340 truck trips per day (vtpd) and a peak of 32 X 2 = 64 vehicle trips per hour (vtph). Note that these are peak at current levels. Later on the same page it says:
    “Summarising the proposed traffic generation increase as a result of this development will be;
    Daily Vehicles = 482 vtpd (quarry deliveries)+20 vtpd (employees)+22 vtpd (concrete batch plant)= 524 vtpd.
    However in terms of the peak hourly traffic generation the increase as a result of the development will be;
    Peak Hour Vehicles = 52 vtph (quarry) + 10 vtph (employees) + 4 vtph (concrete batch plant)
    = 66 vtph. (i.e. a total of 150 vtph (84 + 66) from the site)
    8 AM – 9 AM period = 52 vtph (quarry) + 4 vtph (concrete batch plant) = 56 vtph”.

    The above  proposed Increase figures are repeated in the Executive Summary at page 7, and have not been reduced to align with the the noise consultant’s report.
    The figures above are the increases, so to calculate the likely peak volume of trucks when operating at 1,500,000 tonne annually, firstly eliminate the employee vehicles (40) leaves 504 extra truck trips/day. Adding 340 + 504 = 844, which is on the signs. The EIS has made it quite difficult for the public to understand the true magnitude of what is proposed! Hanson has not modified its proposed traffic figures based on the noise criteria, and neither have we. Like us, the DPE is also very concerned about the discrepancies in the figures in the EIS.The Statement of Commitments (see section 7) of an EIS normally includes any restrictions that the proponent is willing to apply, and nothing is offered regarding limiting peak trucks/day, trucks/hr or night time trucks. Neither is anything offered to address or mitigate any of our concerns over social amenity or safety. Additionally, if the noise section figures had to be complied with, Hanson would have to reduce their trucks/day by any additional Martins Creek or other trucks that used the roads, to address any cumulative impact, and they certainly have not offered that.

  • The sign that read 100 trucks/hour and 24/7 were two separate issues, separate lines and fonts. Both are true, but as it was being misinterpreted, the signs now just say:
    TRUCKS
    24/7.
  • The 100 trucks per hour was to illustrate peaks and is also directly supported by the EIS. Table 2 on page 7 of the Executive Summary actually says “a total of 150 vtph (84 + 66) from the site”. The 150 includes employee vehicles which is found on pages 9 and 18 of Appendix 8, so the 84 becomes 64 trucks and the 66 increase becomes 56 trucks, giving a total of 110. That was rounded that down on the sign  to 100 trucks per hour, which actually understates what the peak traffic from the quarry is likely to be.
  • 24/7 comes from Table 2 on page 20 of the main EIS document. Most activities including Sales and Dispatch which is what most people are most concerned about, is “24 hours any day“.

So the signs are correct, and we only have until the 9th April to lodge submissions.

Is yours in yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Count Help Needed

Posted on by
1

Can you assist with a traffic count to support our submission? We nedd detailed traffic counts for one day only, 5:30am – 6:00pm, to identify the proportion of the very heavy vehicles that are gravel trucks.

PSC has just installed traffic counting equipment on Brandy Hill Drive near the only bus  shelter to aid in preparing their submission to the EIS. The automatic counter does not distinguish between gravel and other heavy trucks.

At the public meeting, one of the NSW Dept Planning representatives made a statement to the effect that it would be unfair to levy quarry trucks for infrastructure upgrades when other trucks also use the same roads.

I think you would agree that a huge proportion of the heaviest trucks are quarry trucks, but we need data to support this. Can you help for an hour or more on Monday or Tuesday next week (3rd or 4th April)? Count sheets will be supplied. It is best to have two people on duty at any time, one counting each way. The count will be conducted at the Clarencetown Rd end of Brandy Hill Drive. Of course, the truck traffic recorded there will continue onto Seaham Road.

If you can assist, please contact us and advise which day or days and what time range you could cover. We will try to assign a two hour period at most, if we get enough volunteers.

Email nmritchie@bigpond.com , or phone or message 0497 886 184

Many thanks.
Neil & Margarete

New information on Dept Planning Website from the Community Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

The NSW Dept Planning has added information about the public meeting to their website:  Brandy Hill Quarry Extension

Three documents as follows can be accessed under:
“+ Community Meeting(3)

The first document has detailed instructions on how to lodge a submission. The department will add a summary of the issues and comments from the meeting onto their website next week. We will advise when that is done.

Our advice garnered from our experience with the Martins Creek Quarry EIS process and from what the Dept of Planning have asked for, is simply to write in your own words and in whatever way and you are comfortable with:

  1. What it is about the proposal that concerns you,
  2. Why those issue(s) matter to you (or your family, your business, your relatives etc)
  3. What you want changed, added, restricted etc in the expansion proposal (EIS) to lessen or mitigate those concerns, and why they would be improvements over what is proposed.

Just one paragraph is infinitely better than nothing. We need at least 25 submissions opposed to the EIS as it stands. Lets try for 225! So rally your neighbours, children, work mates, friends and anyone else that use the quarry haul roads.

If you have school children using buses on the quarry haul roads, please phone or email your bus company and ask whether the company has contacted Karen Forsythe at Port Stephens Council about how bus stop safety should be improved, and are they going to make a submission on the EIS? (We have tried but unsuccessfully to date).
eg Hunter Valley Buses Thornton:icon phone (02) 4935 7200icon mailhvbinfo@cdcbus.com.au

If anyone witnessed the truck skidding under locked-up brakes, past a stopped bus and onto the other side of Brandy Hill Drive, please contact us. What other near misses have you seen? Those are among the things that need to go into public submissions!

That is almost all for now.
How many submissions will you have instigated by the 9th April?

Notes on the Public Meeting 22nd March 2017

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks so much to everyone who attended the public meeting last night. The attendance was estimated at over 150, including our state member, PSC staff and counselors. All the speakers and all the comments and questions from the audience expressed concerns about the EIS. There were 6 staff from the NSW Planning department plus Hanson representatives to see the level of concern and to hear what they are.

The department will post a summary of the meeting on their website. We will advise when that is available.

The texts of the presentations from the two BHSA speakers are are available by clicking the following:
Presentation Part 1
Presentation Part 2

Details on how to lodge a submission will be posted in the near future. In the meantime you can type up your draft submission either into a Word or other text document. Plain text can later be cut and pasted onto the Dept website, or a file such as Word or pdf can be uploaded and attached to your submission.

Submissions close at 5pm April 9th.

DPE Meeting Tonight

Posted on by
1

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 Quarry EIS Open for Submissions

Posted on by
2

Hanson’s EIS for the proposed Brandy Hill quarry expansion is now on public exhibit, and the project is open for submissions from today and until 9th April, 2017.

The EIS can be viewed here. Click the “+” beside “Environmental Impact Statement (23)” to access the 23 individual documents. The first is the main EIS document followed by 22 appendices with more detail on the various topics. Please study the documents that are of most interest or relevance to you. Appendices 17 – SocioEconomic Impact, 8 – Traffic Impact Assessment, 9- Noise and 11 – Air Quality are among the appendices we think are most relevant.

Let me firstly reiterate that we are not opposed to the ongoing operations of the quarry and the jobs it provides. But any expansion must balance the benefits to Hanson and NSW in general, with the needs, health, well-being and safety of residents in the vicinity of the quarry, and also residents along the various quarry haul routes and other road users of those routes.

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is the consent authority for this expansion because it qualifies as “State Significant”. This is the first time since the quarry was established that public submissions are being sought as input before a decision is made on the various aspects of expansion and what conditions are to be imposed on future quarry operations. Previously, Port Stephens Council was the consent authority and approved various expansions without public consultation, and applied very few conditions to the operations.

The DPE, after consulation with BH/S Action, has agreed to hold a public meeting at :
Raymond Terrace Bowling Club
2 Jacaranda Ave
Wednesday 22nd March at 6:30pm.

(Seaham Public School principal refused to allow use of the school hall and the Seaham School of Arts hall is unavailable, so we are sorry for any extra travel  time or inconvenience this venue causes).

The agenda will include providing an overview of what Hanson are proposing in the expansion. There will be speakers from DPE, BHSA and VOWW (Voice of Wallalong and Woodville).You will be able to ask questions and state your views. The DPE wants to understand the community’s concerns about the proposed expansion, and will also explain how to lodge a submission. Individuals, businesses, community and sporting groups are all encouraged to lodge a submission if you have any concerns and would like the expansion to be limited or have conditions of any sort imposed.

Government and statuary bodies such as the RMS and Port Stephens Council (PSC) will also make submissions. BHSA will be meeting with PSC next week to see where our concerns align.

BHSA will of course be lodging a submission, but this is your chance to have your views and concerns heard. The more submissions that amplify the various concerns, the more that the DPE is likely to apply restrictions to future quarry operations. Remember that what the DPE decides now will shape the operations of the quarry for the next 30 years. Market conditions and ownership of the quarry can all change. For example, as quarries in the Sydney area close, quarries further afield such as in the Hunter Valley will seek a share of that market, and will want to dispatch trucks earlier and earlier in the morning to get to market in time. We have examples in our vicinity (Martins Creek Quarry – Paterson) where rules were not spelt out clearly enough and the new owners have exploited any loophole they could find without concern for the local community. Whatever the DPE decides regarding this expansion will carry forward, so have your say!

It is almost 4 years since Hanson announced their expansion intentions. After many Community Consultative Committee meetings for Hanson to understand the many community concerns, the EIS offers NO compromise on 24/7 operations and almost nothing for the improvement of roads, footpaths, bus stops or anything else to address the loss of amenity that the expansion will cause for local residents. If Hanson are not offering these things, we must rely on the DPE to impose appropriate conditions on the quarry expansion.

We hope to see you at the Bowling club on 22nd March, and that you prepare and lodge your submission by the due date so that your voice is heard.

Lastly, we need new people to help our committee by sharing your views in this final stage, so please contact us if you can help in any way. We also ask you to inform your friends and neighbours about the upcoming meeting and encourage them to attend.

BHSA Committee

 

Martins Creek Quarry Action Group (MCQAG) End of Year Summary

Posted on by
Reply
The following from MCQAG sums up recent events very well. It  includes the Land And Environment court judge dismissing the Daracon (aka Buttai Gravel and Hunter Industrial Rental Equipment) application to indefinitely defer the court action brought by Dungog Shire Council. The case will be heard as planned in February.

MCQAG

Dear Members and Friends
Firstly thank you to everyone who lodged a submission objecting to the proposed expansion of Martins Creek Quarry. Also thank you to the many people who contacted MCQAG offering assistance, advice and support.
Here is the wrap up of a busy end to 2016;

State Significant Development Application

The exhibition period is one of the few opportunities members of the public can have their say and influence decision makers. We understand that everyone who lodged a submission will now be entitled to address the Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) public meeting or hearing that will be held if the Daracon proposal is not rejected by the Minister prior.
MCQAG’s committee’s supplementary submission was lodged with the Department of Planning last week, you can read MCQAG’s submission via this link.
We note there were around 800 submissions lodged. ~410 of these were objections. A number of submissions included Daracon staff and contractors submitting form letters showing their support for the EIS.
There were also multiple government and agency submissions lodged. The most interesting are in the links are listed below;
• Department of Planning
• RMS
• Dungog Shire Council
• Port Stephens Council

As noted in the agency and local government submissions above there appears to be numerous issues and deficiencies that will require the proponent to “do more work” on the EIS.

It looks to us like the EIS will need to be revised completely to address the short comings identified from submissions and according to Daracon’s own planning consultant there won’t likely be a determination on the DA until December 2017.

Land & Environment Court Proceedings

In November this year whilst the EIS was on exhibition Daracon lodged a Notice of Motion with the Land and Environment Court seeking a deferral of the main Court hearing which is set to be heard on the 13th of February 2017.

This court matter is independent of the State Significant Development process and relates to lawfulness of the current operations at the site.
On the 9th of December his Honour Justice Sheahan heard arguments from both sides as to why the substantial court case set for February next year should or should not be delayed.

Today his Honor Justice Sheahan issued his judgment dismissing the Notice of Motion and awarding costs to Dungog Shire, the 3 week hearing as we understand it will commence on the 13th of February.  You can read the judgement handed down today via this link.

Action Group Update

Committee meetings will re commence in February, if you are interested in coming along or joining as a financial member please contact MCQAG via the webpage.
On behalf of the committee we wish you all a safe and merry Christmas
Regards
James Ashton
MCQAG Secretary

BHSA

After lodging a complaint to Hanson last week about early morning truck noise, we discovered that the empty trucks before 5am were servicing the Martins Creek quarry. Hanson often dispatch about 6 full trucks before 6am, but they are loaded then remain on site over night. The ones we observed did travel quietly. PSC will be lodging a complaint to Daracon about 4:30am trucks on Port Stephens roads.
As this is expected to be the last post from the BHSA committee this year, we also wish you Merry Christmas and a safe, happy and healthy 2017.

December 2016 Update

Posted on by
Reply

Firstly, there is still no news on the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion but we can be sure that Hanson will be watching the progress of the Martins Creek Quarry EIS with keen interest. We certainly are watching the Martins Creek Quarry because it has many of the same issues that we expect will arise in the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion, and the Department of Planning & Environment’s (DPE) handling of that is a precursor to how it will handle the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion.  Let me remind you that Daracon trucks and their other haulage contractors are the major users of Butterwick Road & Clarencetown Road through West Ward of PSC. Residents along Butterwick Road, Clarencetown Road, Brandy Hill Drive and Seaham Road are already suffering with the noise of early morning empty trucks heading towards Martins Creek as early as 4.30am. Of course there is the cumulative impact with Hanson’s trucks. The roads are set to deteriorate faster with Martins Creek Quarry paying no levies to any council. Hanson does pay a road levy per tonne moved.

Hanson have asked all the attendees at the CCC meetings for their permission for the minutes of the meetings to be included in their EIS. A new chairperson has been appointed for future CCC meetings. More information will be posted at a later date. The next CCC meeting is being planned for February 2017.

In this post:

A. Update on submissions on the Martins Creek Quarry EIS
B. Land & Environment Court (LEC) hearing on Daracon’s application for a deferment of Dungog Shire Council’s (DSC) court action.
C. Situation appraisal
D. Next Steps

A. Update on submissions on the Martins Creek Quarry EIS

Submissions closed on 24th November and have now been posted on the DPE website. Click here to view them.

Some organisations including Martins Creek Quarry Action Group (MCQAG) asked for more time to complete their submissions, and those will be lodged this week.

In total, 846 public, 12 agency and 100 business and organisation submissions (including BHSA) were lodged. Those are amazingly large numbers. There were 25 from our postcode, so our thanks to all the people who took the time to put their concerns in writing. This is definitely a situation where the DPE is taking notice of our submissions.

The majority of submissions oppose the expansion in some way. While there were many submissions supporting the expansion, they were mostly Daracon employees, suppliers and subcontractors, using form letters from Daracon. An analysis of the public submissions showed that the vast majority of the support came from Newcastle and Maitland, and the objections came from Paterson, Vacy and the haul routes, as can be expected. The supporters are those who make money from the quarry versus the objectors whose lives are being by adversely affected by its current and proposed operations.

The submissions that we found most interesting, and we encourage you to read them for yourselves to form your own conclusions, are:-

  1. The DSC submission which outlines why the court action has been taken. The main points are the annual tonnes being extracted far exceed the 300,000, that 70% is not going by rail, and that various land use rights are being breached. Please refer to that document for the details.
    It also states that “Dungog Shire Council acknowledges that Martins Creek Quarry does present a valuable natural resource and does not object to its operation in some form as long as the scale of those operations have had an appropriate environmental assessment and the operations do not significantly impact on the rural/residential amenity of residents residing in close proximity to the Quarry itself or along the transport Haulage routes. The Martins Creek and Paterson communities have over the past 10 years had their amenity and in some cases health negatively effected by excessive truck movements and the resultant impacts”  MCQAG and BHSA agree with that position.
  2. The 9 page letter from DPE to Daracon (Buttai Gravel) is in the folder ” DPE request for Response to Submissions”. It specifies in some detail all of the things that the DPE requires to be addressed in Daracon’s Response to Submissions (RTS). The lack of meaningful consultation and any resulting compromises to reduce resident’s concerns, and a large number of traffic and noise issues were included.
    In light of the court action which is challenging Daracon’s use of the current 900,000 tonne annual extraction rate as the baseline to ask for a further increase to 1.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), the DPE now requires Daracon to submit two extra versions of the EIS. One for an increase of 1.2 mtpa from 300,000 tonne, and another for  a 900,000 tonne increase from 600,0000 tonne. The 300,000 tonne rate is what  DSC claims in their court action, to be the Quarry’s current licensed rate.
  3. The RMS submission expressed concerns that it was not consulted about Gostwick bridge, while the EIS states that it was. The RMS is very concerned about the damage that the high volume of trucks is doing and will do to that historic one lane bridge, and also states that for the proposed traffic volumes, it should be replaced with a two lane bridge.The RMS also expressed concerns about the practicality of the proposed intersection upgrades and also that they do not comply with road standards. Land acquisitions and the impact on parking spaces in Paterson’s Main Street and access to businesses, all require further detailed analysis.
  4. The MCQAG submission will be worth reading as it is a very thorough compilation of all the adverse impacts on the amenity of residents and visitors to the area, and includes a number of professionally prepared technical rebuttals of the EIS.
  5. The PSC submission did echo and expand on the concerns that BHSA presented on 15th November. It included:
    • Restricting any noise from trucks to between 7am and 7pm.
    • The need for significant levies to fund road upgrades and maintenance,  and
    • A levy to also fund safety and amenity improvements in the form of footpaths, bus stops and intersection upgrades.
  6. The Maitland City Council (MCC) submission is very disappointing. Draw your own conclusions on what might be going on behind the scenes there!

B. Land and Environment Court (LEC) Action

DSC has taken Daracon (Buttai Gravel) to court over what it claims are 19 points where Daracon’s operations have been or are currently in breech of the conditions of the consent or licence to operate the quarry, as applied to State Rail before Daracon took over. see the DSC submission.

The case is listed to be heard in the LEC in Macquarie Street Sydney for 3 weeks from 13th February 2017. Daracon recently applied to have the case deferred to September 2017, so an all day hearing was held in the LEC on Friday 9th December for the judge to decide on whether to grant the delay or not.  A number of MCQAG, VOWW and BHSA representatives attended the hearing. Though the judge did not announce his decision on the day, he promised one before Christmas. We are very hopeful that the delay will be rejected, so that the case proceeds in February.

A summary of the hearing follows. It explains much about Daracon’s behaviour. The court case is likely to be a key factor in how the DPE handles the EIS, and more importantly, whether the current operations, which have destroyed amenity for residents, will be curtailed back to the levels that applied under State Rail, or perhaps be stopped completely, until a new consent is approved by the DPE.

Daracon did not argue their reasons for asking for the delay, rather just stated that they believe that they have an unrestricted licence for the quarry and therefore are not breaching any conditions. Daracon claim that there are no restrictions on how much they extract, on how it is transported, the times of day they do it, and that there are no levies they should be paying for the upkeep of roads or anything else!

DSC argued the merits of their case and that it needs to be resolved ASAP in the interest of residents, and because in most probability, a court decision is required so that the DPE can rule on the EIS. The other point they made is that Daracon believe and are acting as if they have an unrestricted license, and have stated that if a new consent has conditions or restrictions that are unfavourable to Daracon then they would chose to not adopt the new consent., and simply continue doing what they are doing. DSC want the court case resolved so that Daracon’s operation are curtailed to State Rail levels in order to restore local amenity, and that the only option for Daracon to increase output is to progress the EIS, and then abide by all conditions imposed by the DPE.

DSC argued that Daracon have systematically delayed the court case. It has already spanned 84 weeks, while most similar matters are resolved within 10 weeks. Daracon have also been slow progressing the EIS and have already stated that responding to all the submissions, and in particular resubmitting versions of the EIS for 1.2 and 0.9 mtpa increases, will take probably to the end of 2017.  With their stated position on reserving their right to only adopt any new consent if it does not disadvantage Daracon, the development application is also being used as a delaying tactic. The court case therefore must be resolved quickly so that the principles of the court can be upheld: That delay is undesirable, and that no party should be prejudiced by delay. In this case residents are being prejudiced every day that Daracon operate as they are. We will post an update when the court’s decision is available.

C. Situation Appraisal

Daracon believe they have an unrestricted license to operate the Martins Creek quarry. They pay no levies for roads, operate the quarry without the costs and restrictions that other quarries have, and will win whatever contracts they can to make profit, with  no compassion for residents.

Daracon are racing to extract whatever rock reserves remain (which have most likely been overstated in the EIS), and have been using the expansion EIS to delay any restrictions being imposed, and/or to hopefully get increases granted by DPE without restrictions that are too onerous being applied.

Daracon certainly don’t want the court case to proceed, as it could put a stop to their current activities that have so impacted residents, and would  force Daracon to rely on the outcome of their EIS with the DPE. A hefty fine is also a possibility.

In our view the crucial factors are: the poor infrastructure, particularly the Gostwick bridge and many inadequate intersections and road sections, and the impact on amenity, employment and the businesses in Paterson (with and without the proposed intersection changes) and along the haul routes. The DPE letter requires Daracon to properly consult with residents.  We take that to mean they must negotiate and  propose some voluntary restrictions, so that  the DPE does not need to impose any. Other quarry projects have had the numbers of trucks and haulage times severely restricted when travelling through villages like Paterson. The DPE is likely to impose significant levies on truck haulage to pay for the very expensive upgrades required for whatever volume of trucks are allowed in a new consent. In the light of the existing rail siding, I expect the DPE would severely restrict road haulage but allow higher quantities to go via rail.

Daracon did not listen to the concerns of residents and modify their proposal to mitigate any of the valid concerns raised. The objections contained in the submissions to the EIS are exactly the same objections that were raised when the expansion was first proposed!

So, with regards to the local Brandy Hill quarry,if Hanson do not include concessions in their EIS on operating hours rather than persisting with 24/7, it will be clear that they also have not taken the SEARs seriously. If there is nothing in their EIS about working with PSC to ensure that road shoulders and intersections are improved in a reasonable timeframe, then again they will also not have taken the SEARS seriously. If there is nothing definite in their EIS about working with PSC to build and maintain a pathway along Brandy Hill Drive linking to Brandon Park and the Jacaranda Preschool, then meaningful consultation will not have occurred. If any of the above are not addressed to residents satisfaction, it is clear that the DPE will ask Hanson to go back to the drawing board for that to happen before they complete their RTS (response to submissions).

D. Next Steps

  • Hopefully the LEC judge will rule next week that the court case proceeds in February.
  • MCQAG will be encouraging us all to attend the court hearing to support the DSC legal team.
  • The court case outcome should be known, hopefully by March/April.
  • The BHQ CCC should meet again in February. The timing of the Brandy Hill Quarry  EIS going on public exhibit is still unclear. Whether it complies with the SEARs better than MCQ, remains to be seen.

Conclusion

The responses of DSC, PSC, RMS and DPE to the MCQ EIS are very encouraging. The LEC case is critical to resolving Daracon’s excessive and illegal unrestricted operations, and then making the EIS the means for setting the rules for ongoing operations.

We are hopeful that Hanson learns from the MCQ process and prepares its EIS to comply with the community consultation aspects of the SEARs.

Thanks for your support. We are making a difference, and will continue to do so.

Have a merry Christmas and may the New Year bring extra happiness.

BHSA