Martins Creek Quarry EIS Submissions

Posted on by
Reply

Submissions closed today, so we do hope that you got to have your say to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The Brandy Hill & Seaham Action committee have had a busy time since our last post.

  1. We met with councillors Paul LeMottee and Ken Jordan on 9th Nov, to get their support towards ensuring that the submissions from council and our group would have as much in common as possible. We asked this on the basis that we believed that DPE would be more likely to make a favourable ruling on this project if we were all asking for similar things.The councillors agreed and subsequently arranged a 30 minute meeting with council staff on Tuesday 15Th Nov, for us to present our concerns and what we would be seeking from DPE.
  2. Our delegation met with mayor McKenzie and managers and staff from the planning department who had responsibility for preparing council’s submission. We were pleased with the response we had. Here is summary of the material presented  : meeting-with-psc-15-11-2016-bhsa
  3. Along with the MCQAG group, we had signs made for installation along the main quarry haulage roads, to encourage as many submissions as possible. I hope you saw the ones on Brandy Hill Drive.
  4. We contributed to the V.O.W.W. submission.
    We will post that here if they agree.
  5. We finalised the submission from BHSA. While it is impossible to say everything that everyone wants and in the way that you would want it said, we hope you think we have done a reasonable job on your behalf. A lot of effort went into it.
    The 10 page document can be viewed here.  bhsa-mcq-submission-final
  6.  PSC provided us with a copy of their submission. We were very pleased to see that they obviously listened to our delegation and agree with it our position. Our councils submission supported us very strongly. If we get permission, it will be posted on our website for you to see.

So many thanks to everyone that made their own submissions. The next phase is for DPE to provide all submissions to Daracon and ask for their responses. We expect that a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) will be mapped out with the three councils and that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC)  will be involved in the decision process. Daracon continues to stall the court case with Dungog Shire Council, having asked for a deferment of the hearing set for early 2017, until September 2017! It will be interesting to see how that plays out, and whether the DPE will want the court case resolved before making its ruling, or not.

It is possible that the PAC may arrange a further public meeting on the matter before making their recommendations to the DPE, so there is still a long way to go before this quarry matter is decided.

There is no news on the Brandy Hill Quarry expansion EIS.

That is all for now.

 

 

 

 

October 2016 Update

Posted on by
Reply

In this post:

  1. BHSA Committee Update
  2. Hanson’s Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion Status
  3. Daracon’s Martins Creek Quarry Expansion Status
  4. Next Steps

1 BHSA Committee Update

Though it has been 12 months since we have posted an update, the BHSA committee is still operating. However, James Hart is moving and has had to cease his activity on the committee, leaving just the Ritchies and Fishers plus Bob Adams and Peter Rees on the committee. If anyone else would like to join the committee for the important next phase, then please contact us.

The lack of recent posts is because no further CCC meetings have occurred while Hanson has been preparing their full EIS. The committee members have also needed a break from the stress and responsibilities of this important community issue.

We have not been completely idle! The council mergers announced by the NSW government in February or early March, which included PSC/Newcastle merger, triggered phone and email contact with NSW Planning. We wanted to make NSW Planning aware of BHSA’s role on the CCC, the size of the Brandy Hill community on the main haul route, our stance on the expansion (based on the results of our community surveys), and our concern over the impacts of the NSW government’s planned council mergers. While the topics raised in those discussions will be well known to Hanson, we felt that revealing the detail to Hanson before they submit their EIS would be counter-productive to our cause, so it was not posted on our website.

The proposed PSC/ Newcastle council merger remains a great concern. We expected that it would take PSC council’s attention away from them developing plans and costings for the concessions we have been asking for at the CCC. Those actions are essential prerequisites for them to negotiate with Hanson on any Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that would cover road maintenance and the other concessions BHSA has been asking for to alleviate/mitigate community concerns over the expansion. The feedback from NSW planning was encouraging at the time, but after we joined a recent MCQAG delegation which met with PSC mayor and senior staff, our worst concerns have played out. PSC has done nothing on the Brandy Hill expansion, let alone considered the potential cumulative impacts of both quarry expansions!.

Committee members have also attended many Martins Creek Quarry Action Group (MCQAG) committee meetings. More on that matter in section 3.

Our dormant period is ending, as we understand that Hanson are close to finalising their EIS, and Daracon’s EIS went on public exhibit last week. Refer to the following sections 2, 3 and 4 for more details.

2 Hanson’s Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion Status

On the NSW Planning website:
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=5899
this project is still at stage 2  “Proponent Prepares DA and EIS”, of the 7 stage process.

On 11th October Hanson contacted CCC attendees with the following:

“Hanson are finalising the EIS based on feedback from the Department of Planning and Environment and wish to include the agenda of the CCC meetings in the consultation section of the EIS. This will include the names of CCC members who attended the meetings and will be made public during the public exhibition period of the EIS. It is not proposed to include the minutes of the meetings.

Could you please advise via return email if you approve the inclusion of the agenda in the EIS.”

We replied with our consent, but have also asked why not include all the minutes as well, as from our perspective the minutes would clearly show the degree of actual consultation and where Hanson have and have not changed their proposal based on the community delegates feedback and requests.

From the above, we conclude that Hanson must be close to submitting their EIS. However, we also understand that after Hanson lodge their EIS, NSW planning will assess it for adequacy against the requirements in the Director Generals’ Requirements (DGRs) as stage 3. Then, as in the case of Daracon’s initial EIS, NSW planning may ask for additional detail, which would further delay the EIS going on public exhibit, which is stage 4 of the planning process.

A recent discovery of major concern to BHSA and MCQAG, is that the DGRs for both quarry expansions were changed without notifying the community groups, and probably not the councils, RMS etc. The new versions are dated 4th August 2016 for Martins Creek, and 5th July 2015 for Brandy Hill. The superseded versions have been removed from NSW planning’s website making it difficult to identify the actual changes, but it seems that additional requirements added after community feedback to the initial versions mainly around the cumulative impact of two quarry expansions, has been watered down! We have written to NSW planning on this matter and are waiting a reply.

3 Daracon’s Martins Creek Quarry Expansion Status

After NSW planning rejected Daracon’s EIS in July because of many deficiencies, a revised EIS was accepted by NSW planning and was put on public exhibit on 13th Oct. Submissions will be accepted up to 24th Nov. The DGRs for that project were revised on 4th August as noted above, so NSW Planning changed the goal posts. Why? We have asked for an explanation but have not yet received an explanation!

The Martins Creek Quarry EIS includes nothing on the potential cumulative impact of traffic, so we are very surprised and concerned that NSW planning, in putting the EIS on public exhibit, has deemed that the EIS meets the DGRs!

We are particularly concerned about the cumulative impact of the quarry truck movements of this expansion in conjunction with the Brandy Hill quarry expansion. While Daracon estimate that 25% of their annual tonnage will go via Brandy Hill Drive, at times, depending on contracts, that can ALL go along Brandy Hill drive, as it did for the Hexham rail siding project. The EIS states that the peak frequency of Daracon’s truck deliveries is 40 per hour. We expect Hanson’s figures will be similar. Add a similar number of unladen trucks going to each quarry and the peak total could be 160 truck movements per hour! If the additional trucks alone is not sufficient to have you concerned, perhaps the extended operating hours that Daracon want so that they can service the Sydney market, in conjunction with Hanson wanting a 24/7 permit for the same reason, will have you hopping mad!

The Martins Creek EIS can be viewed here: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6612
The first EIS document is an overview (~190 pages), with more detail in the many further documents. NSW planning are holding a community meeting at the Paterson School Of Arts Hall, at 6:30pm on 2nd November.

MCQAG have prepared the following leaflet that will be letter box dropped in all the affected areas and along haul routes in the coming days.
mcqag-community-letter_eis-exhibition-public-meeting_20161019

Your attendance at the Paterson meeting will show NSW Planning something of the level of concern for that project, but your best course of action to influence NSW Planning to either reduce the annual extraction tonnage, limit the proportion going via road with the balance going via rail, and/or limit the operating hours so that our sleeping hours are not disturbed, or any other matter concerning you, is to make a personal submission. It is easy via the NSW Planning website. That is also NSW Planning’s preferred method. Use the link above and scroll down. This will be a practice for when the Brandy Hill Quarry EIS goes on public exhibit.

4 Next Steps

Brandy Hill Quarry Expansion:

  • Draft what you want to say to NSW Planning for when the time comes to make your submission. Wait for the EIS to go on public exhibit. We expect NSW Planning will hold a public meeting during the exhibition period. Then finalise and send in your submission before the closing date (yet to be set).
  • Contact us if you can assist the BHSA committee. We need your help!

Martins Creek Quarry Expansion:

  • Read the EIS overview and relevant other documents on NSW planning website (above), and attend the Paterson meeting at 6:30pm on 2nd November.
  • Draft your submission ASAP, polish it up and send it to NSW planning before 24th November. Submissions are your primary and best means to influence NSW planning to reject, limit or change the proposal (eg restrict operating hours or maximum truck movements per hour), and/or apply conditions such as a VPA for roads, footpaths, sound attenuation, intersections, bus stops or other infrastructure or offsets that you want.

That’s all for now from the BHSA committee.

October 2015 Update

Posted on by
Reply

This update covers a few topics:

  • CCC matters
  • Progress on the survey about a path along Brandy Hill Drive
  • The impact of the Martins Creek quarry
  • Current Gravel Projects

CCC

Minutes of the May meeting were finalised and will be posted shortly on our website. The significant items included:

  • A draft Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) had been provided to CCC members on a confidential basis, seeking community feedback prior to it being finalised. A number of items were challenged, and these were to be fully documented by BHSA.
  • The need for a pathway along Brandy Hill Drive was discussed, but it was clear that the Port Stephens Council representatives were not taking the idea seriously, and were also not considering that Hanson were prepared to contribute funding for it.
  •  HANSON’s contribution of free and discounted gravel for residents to repair driveways after the April Super Storm was gratefully appreciated. (Note that the Daracon Martins Creek quarry provided no community assistance after that storm).

The September CCC was a significant milestone. The minutes will not be posted until they are approved at the next meeting, currently set for 26th November. The highlights were:

  • Councillors Paul LeMottee and Geoff Dingle, and John Maretich from PSC attended for the first time. The councillors fully supported the resident’s plea for a pathway. Hanson supported the need for a path and confirmed their willingness to negotiate on the funding of the safety improvements and pathway. Though John Maretich expressed concerns about the cost and practicality of building a pathway, PSC was asked to progress the engineering and cost assessments for input to subsequent negotiations. The previous council representative no longer works for the council.
  • BHSA advised that a survey was being conducted to get wider community feedback on the prospect of a pathway. Early responses were all strongly in favour of a pathway.
  • The feedback BHSA had provided on the draft TIA, had been forwarded to the consultant responsible, and most of the points had resulted in positive changes to the final TIA. Whilst not every suggestion had been taken up in full, it was a significant improvement, including recognition that the roadway is unsuitable for pedestrians. BHSA advised that we will challenge some aspects of the TIA when it is on public exhibition, as it paints an overly “rose coloured glasses” view of the suitability of the roads at present, and their assessment of the cumulative impact with the Martins Creek quarry grossly understated the number of trucks coming from there.
  • Hanson advised that the noise impact report had been prepared, and that their full EIS had now been presented to the department of planning (DOP) for an “adequacy check”. Hanson agreed to provide the CC members with a copy of the noise impact report.
    EIS is nearing the Public Exhibition phase, and the timing will depend on what if any additional documentation or changes the DOP requests from Hanson.

PATHWAY SURVEY

A letterbox drop and website post of the survey has resulted in about 50 responses at last count. Thanks to all the people who took the time. Almost all respondents strongly support the need for a pathway. A full analysis of the responses to each question, and a précis of the comments will be posted when time permits. If you have not yet returned your survey, please do by mid November.

Suffice to say that the feedback has strongly supported our committee’s push for infrastructure to improve safety along the main quarry haul route.

MARTINS CREEK QUARRY

We often have a representative at the MCQAG committee meetings and also at the MCQ CCC meetings. The Paterson community is very much opposed to Daracon operating that quarry at considerably higher levels of truck traffic than State Rail ever did, as it is having a significantly damaging effect on local businesses, area roads and residential amenity. Dungog council has taken legal action against Daracon for breaching the extraction licence they believe applies. Daracon pays no levy for road maintenance to any of the three council areas crossed by its haulage routes!

Daracon is hoping to legitimise its operations which are already approaching 1.5mtpa by submitting an EIS for that level of operation. The significant aspect for Brandy Hill is that they estimate that on average, 25% of their trucks will use the Butterwick road, Clarencetown Road, Brandy Hill Drive and Seaham Road route toward Raymond Terrace. Obviously, depending on the major contract destinations, the proportion using this route will vary but the peaks will almost double the trucks using Brandy Hill drive.

Daracon have not yet prepared their TIA, so we are yet to see their assessment of the cumulative impact of the two quarries.

CURRENT GRAVEL PROJECTS 

There are major infrastructure projects in the Williamtown area, including the airport upgrade. The three local quarries are all providing gravel for these projects, so the number of trucks using the route to Raymond Terrace  will be noticeably higher than usual. This is a taste of what the norm is likely to be if the quarry licences are increased, and the peaks will be even greater!

 

September Update and Footpath Survey

Posted on by
Reply

A few months have passed since our last website post but the Brandy Hill and Seaham Action committee has continued its work despite the April super storm, employers, surgery and holidays all needing attention.

A CCC meeting will be held on Thursday 24th Sept so we will have more to report after that on where Hanson’s submission is up to.

This week, a BHSAction survey form is being distributed to Brandy Hill residents with an update on the committee’s position on the proposed quarry expansion. We encourage you to read the information, and look for the survey form in your letterbox. Alternatively, print the form, complete it and return it to an address on the form.

2015 Survey

CCC Minutes

Posted on by
Reply

As the year draws to a close it is time to evaluate our aims and objectives with regards to the expansion of Hanson Quarry at Brandy Hill. So that you can follow the discussions with Hanson at their voluntary Community Consultative Committee (CCC) I have attached below the minutes of all meetings to date.

Most meetings begin with updates from the company regarding their current operations and then when reports are available as required by the Dept of Planning, they are tabled and discussed. Our views are sought and discussed and even though we don’t always agree with each other, our views are respected and listened to.

We now need more input from the community and it is almost time to put our submissions to the Dept of Planning. The Development Application will be submitted in either February or March by Hanson. I urge you to think about your own personal views on this expansion. How is it going to affect you and your family? What are the main issues as far as you are concerned? We have continuing issues with communicating to as many people as possible. We urge you to pass information to neighbours and get as many people as possible to register, via this website, for notification by email for ongoing web information. We have had just over 70 people complete the survey on the website, so I encourage everyone who wants to contribute to the overall opinion, to do so now if they have not completed it yet.

The Brandy Hill/Seaham Action committee is currently working on the submission that it will be sent to the Dept of Planning when the time comes and a draft will be posted on this website within the next month.

Margarete Ritchie.

BHQ CCC Minutes Meeting No 01

BHQ CCC Minutes Meeting No 02

BHQ CCC Minutes Meeting No 03

BHQ CCC Minutes Meeting No 04

BHQ CCC Minutes Meeting No 05

Martins Creek Quarry Expansion

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been happening in the last few weeks regarding the expansion of Martins Creek Quarry which is managed by Daracon. Why are we concerned? Over half of the quarry truck traffic travels through our area, causing great concern over issues of safety, especially during school bus pick-up and drop-off times. There are also the ongoing issues of noise and road deterioration. Did you know that the wear and tear on a road, per axle of a fully laden truck is the equivalent of 10,000 cars. ( Statistic given by Mayor of Dungog Council at a recent closed community forum which Neil and I attended on behalf of our group.) This quarry is operating without an licence that is recognised by all stakeholders, and is causing extreme angst in the community of Paterson and elsewhere over the volume of truck movements. I believe we have a part to play to support their protest and thereby reduce the potential to cause even more headaches for us in Brandy Hill and Nelsons Plains.

Since Daracon took over operating the quarry from state rail, it has dramatically increased extraction rates and almost all product is being sent by road instead of rail. The operating license is in dispute as to the annual tonnage limit and no tonnage levy is paid to Dungog or any of the other councils whose roads are affected. The roads have already suffered significant deterioration which Dungog does not have the funds to repair. To resolve these matters, Daracon is now in a similar process to Hanson, in preparing a development application. Daracon also wants to increase tonnage to 1.5 million tonnes/year, by road. A Community Consultative Committee (CCC) will also be formed as part of the DA process. Unlike the Hanson CCC, all three councils have agreed to provide representatives.

The public has been invited to attend a public meeting on the 31st July at Paterson. You will find the official invitation below.

DSC Public Meeting Invitation 31-7-2014

Remember, we will suffer from the cumulative effect of two quarries seeking to expand!

View from a Truck

Posted on by
1

Don’t let it be said that my investigation into the quarry expansion is half-hearted. On Wednesday 21st May, I accepted an invitation to spend a day on the road with Brian, one of the senior drivers from the Hanson quarry fleet. The intention was to gain a better understanding of how a truck “behaves” on the road and what options a driver has to minimise noise, and to alert the driver to the concerns of the resident walkers and bike riders.

Brian took a fully laden truck and dog to a concrete batching plant at Belmont. IMG_0589We drove to Newcastle via Industrial Drive and Stewart Avenue, then along City Road, through Charlestown and down through Redhead to the plant. I saw firsthand how ridiculously narrow some of these major roads are. Brian pointed out some pinch-points on curves where the gutter took up some of the road width forcing wider vehicles to hug the centre line. I certainly have a lot of respect for the skill required to keep a truck within its lane. Brian was constantly on the lookout in every direction for other traffic, pedestrians and cyclists and while we all do that when driving, it is quite something else when you are carrying 32 tonnes with a trailer!

I was told that one fully laden truck is the equivalent of 20 small cars, it has 18 forward gears and while compression braking is mandatory on all trucks quite often it is not necessary to use. A truck driving down Brandy Hill Drive, for example, would rarely need to use engine braking.

Hanson will be taking delivery of a new fleet of trucks in about 4 months. These trucks will have quieter engines and they have rubber pads separating the tray and the chassis to reduce the rattling sound when they are empty. There are other design changes like rounded sides. Rubber mountings on the tail gate also add to the reduction in noise levels WE HOPE.

In conclusion; I did not spend a day on a truck for my amusement. It was a fact-finding exercise. I observed a very competent driver who drove to the rules and conditions. That is not to say that all drivers and haulage companies have the same high standards, and we have seen some of those driving on our roads. But, it became obvious that the road conditions in many areas are woeful and we all need to be reminded to drive to the conditions and that we all have a part to play in our own road safety.

 

Brandy Hill Drive was constructed, as with most jobs Councils do, with the funds that developers and governments are prepared to contribute. It is more obvious now that there is so much more truck and car traffic, that it is quite inadequate. Brian and other quarry employees have wondered why no pathway exists along Brandy Hill Drive and Seaham Road. They agree with residents that bus stops along Brandy Hill Drive are substandard as there are only two where buses can totally pull off the road, one being at the top of Sophia Jane Drive and one nearly opposite Elouera Close. The condition of the roads will always be a major factor in the noise that trucks make, no matter how new they are. The course grade of blue metal that Council currently uses always generates more road noise.

 

While trucks are part of our society and that will never change, we have to demand the infrastructure that allows us to access our area in safety and for us to retain a semblance of the peaceful environment we chose to live in.

 

 

Compression Braking Road Signs

Posted on by
Reply

Just a short message to give an update on a small but significant issue that seemed to be getting nowhere. That is the installation of new road signs indicating that truck drivers travelling along Brandy Hill Drive have a responsibility to local residents to keep the truck noise to a minimum.
PSC have made it quite clear for a number of years now that the signs they put up many years ago, after constant complaints by residents, would have to do even though they were installed in the wrong positions.
Several months ago Hanson quarry offered to foot the cost of the signs and installation but it was only this week that all parties met and determined where the signs should be positioned. We can only hope that all drivers, be they from quarries, chicken businesses, grain etc will notice them and pay attention.

Thank you to Michael Benic, manager BH Quarry for funding this initiative, Brian, senior driver in the Hanson fleet for his advice as to the placement of the signs and to Marc Goodall from Council for his input on Wednesday.

Martins Creek quarry: how it will impact Brandy Hill / Seaham residents

Posted on by
Reply

You may be wondering why I am writing about the Daracon quarry at Martins Creek. Although this quarry was not on our radar as an issue when this community action group formed, we have since realised its current and ongoing expansion has huge implications for the whole area.

In mid-March I was asked by the Paterson Progress Association to give a short outline at a Paterson community meeting of how we are managing our discussions with the Hanson quarry at Brandy Hill. Neil and I represented our Brandy Hill / Seaham area at the meeting, which was organised to canvas residents’ opinions about the Martins Creek Quarry. About 150 residents turned up. It quickly became apparent that the community has great concerns with numerous issues.

Daracon pays no road levy to either Dungog Council, Port Stephens Council or Maitland Council, even though most of its product is transported on our roads as well as through Bolwarra and Lorn.

There has been no communication with the local communities, in particular with Paterson. Truck traffic has been monitored on normal work days at several sites and a resident recorded 100 truck movements past his front door between 5.45 am and 7 am (with video evidence to substantiate this).

Paterson has no detour options, and therefore all traffic has to travel down the main street. The safety concerns are well and truly warranted and road noise is excessive.

Paterson businesses are being severely affected, and considering that they are dependent on tourism as well, trucks rumbling through on Saturdays is most unwelcome.

Of particular concern to our own communities is that the trucks also affect Brandy Hill and Seaham residents. Once the trucks move on through Paterson they are travelling on Port Stephens Shire roads. Most of them head on down Brandy Hill Drive and High Street Wallalong, and some are now travelling through Seaham and around to Raymond Terrace. That is, they are using every possible route and not paying one cent to reduce their impact on our roads and the ambience of our local area.

The situation at Paterson, regarding the Martins Creek Quarry, is slightly different from our own situation regarding the Brandy Hill Quarry. We have been working with Hanson through the Department of Planning process and thus the community voice is being heard. It may be slow, but that is the nature of the whole process. In Paterson that process is not in place. The EPA granted Daracon an upgrade to the quarry operating licence from 450,000 tonnes to 2 million tonnes without community consultation. Residents believe that even this limit is being exceeded at the moment.

No one knows where Dungog Council stands on this. I sent several emails and made phone calls about this issue to Robyn Parker’s office, Dungog Council and Port Stephens Council late last year and earlier this year. This followed concerns expressed by Brandy Hill residents about the number of Daracon trucks and their haulage contractors barrelling down Brandy Hill Drive without concern for safety or noise issues. The only reply I had was from Port Stephens Council stating that there are no cross-boundary rules or discussions on this issue.

At the end of the Paterson meeting, the residents resolved to form a committee, seek discussions with George Souris (Member for Upper Hunter) and Robyn Parker (Minister for the Environment), and meet with Dungog Council and Daracon to sort out this issue which is not only distressing to all residents in Paterson but which also has such large implications for us all.

I have subsequently heard that a meeting with Daracon was held, but the outcome was not all that encouraging.

I believe it is in the interest of our residents that the Brandy Hill / Seaham Action Group works together with the Paterson Progress Association and VOWW on these matters that will affect us all.

You can read a Maitland Mercury piece on Paterson residents’ negotiations with Daracon here.

Councillor involvement at latest quarry meeting

Posted on by
Reply

It has been quite difficult to get Port Stephens Council engagement on issues related to the Brandy Hill Quarry. On behalf of the Brandy Hill / Seaham Action Group I recently invited two Councillors, who had responded regarding these issues, and the quarry manager, to meet with me to ensure our concerns are known.

The meeting took place on March 18 at the quarry, and present were Michael Benic (manager, Brandy Hill quarry), Peter Kafer (West Ward Councillor), Geoff Dingle (East Ward Councillor), and myself. Thank you to both Councillors for attending and reporting these issues back to Council.

Points discussed included:

  • Compression braking signs. The present ones are too small and not placed in the most appropriate positions. Hanson have offered to pay for proper signs, much larger and in keeping with usual Council/RMS regulations. Hanson will forward advice passed on from their drivers as to best placement and then it is up to Council to install.
  • Speed limits on Brandy Hill Drive. These were queried by the manager and then discussed. Councillors stated that this option was often opposed by politicians as it was not popular with residents. What are your thoughts on this? Are you prepared to lower your own speed?
  • Speed limit along Clarence Town Road. Manager discussed problems with speed limit of 100 kph along Clarence Town Road at the entry/exit to the quarry. Drivers report that it takes a fully laden truck 20 seconds to cross Clarence Town Road but it only takes 7 seconds from when a car comes over the crest from the direction of Seaham, to the intersection. One of the drivers said that it ‘scares the hell out of him’ every time he has to cross that road. RMS and Council can’t see anything wrong with that intersection as it is now. They have spent ‘black spot’ grant on changes to the intersection. Have they thereby made it even more of a black spot?
  • Road noise issue. The road noise increases with the size of the gravel used. This comes as no surprise to most of us. Finer gravel obviously costs more and Council rarely uses it, according to the Councillors. Potholes and uneven surfaces also contribute to noise-based stress among residents.

I mentioned to Councillors that there are often terms used in discussions that most residents do not fully understand and asked for clarification.

One such term is “voluntary planning agreement”. These can be applied to development licences and are one of the potential outcomes of the Community Consultative Committee. The agreement is between the developer (Hanson) and the consent authority (eg. State Planning). Some of the potential topics include road maintenance, footpaths and other community infrastructures, hours of operation and truck movement restrictions.

While these issues have been on the agenda for a while now we have had no way to ensure that Council is listening. I hope Councillors Kafer and Dingle can get some results so that we start moving forward on some of these minor issues.

– Margarete