Basin Villages Forum

Representing the St Georges Basin Villages Community

• BVF Home  >  
• QUARRY  >  

• Rehabilitation/Remediation;

• • Mining Operation and rehabilitation plan lodged with Council in 2012, Council said the plan was deficient but did no consultation to make it compliant and still no plan in place 9 years later despite quarry not operating for over 2 years
• • Despite assurance from Colin Woods that a survey to check AHD and boundary of extraction area of quarry [In the presence of Martin Holland and myself] and elsewhere in meetings no such survey has been carried out.
• • Residents indicated their desire for the subject material to remain on site until a plan is approved and adopted, to see if it could be used for rehabilitation. The idea of leaving material on site was supported by a senior council officer in a conversation with myself.

• Alleged illegal Dumping of Asbestos on subject land outside quarry area.

• • March 2018 First reported to Member for South Coast and Council
• • April 2018 Further legal documents purporting to alleged activity presented to Council under s.9.14 of the EP&A Act 1979.
• • Feb 2019 At a meeting at Tomerong Hall, in the presence of Mayor Amanda Findley and Hon Shelley Hancock Member for South Coast, Colin Woods compliance officer stated that Council had not physically visited alleged site area. 11 months after initial complaint.
• • August 2019 Director Phil Costello stated that Council was in the process of obtaining orders to seek permission to enter the site. [Comment Council seem to have no problems entering site for other purposes or quarry starting up again etc]
• • Note. The Forum or the writer makes no inferences but puts Council fairly and formally on Notice to apply expedient due diligence to the matters mentioned in 1&2 above. [refer NSW Planning and Environment 5.2 Sec127[5A] “Proceedings for an offence against the Act or the regulations must be commenced no later than two years: b. After the date on which evidence of the alleged offence first came to the attention of an investigation officer”
• • In other words, we are notifying you as concerned residents and ratepayers to act diligently so as to not cause delays to an investigation which may or could result in prosecution to the offending parties.

• Public Safety and Traffic

• • DA90/1912 [Consent Document] There is no Traffic Impact Statement for truck movements data on Gumden Lane nor in the EIS application preceding this designated development DA. It does state that trucks are of the 10-12 tonne capacity. This is a 29-year-old DA. Traffic has increased exponentially since then.
• • Present. With todays influx of residential development around the quarry and large number of children riding bikes to school it is an accident waiting to happen. In fact, this was realised back in 1998 when the manager wrote to Council addressing his concerns about “Parnell rd. expanding and being a route for school buses and the safety factor is a consideration” It also notes that there are only “3 Permanent residents and 1 casual resident on Gumden Lane”. There is a lot more than that today.
• • Impact on a Tourist Facility. At the Southern entrance to the quarry bordering the quarry gate is a function accommodation venue to which the owner has spent many millions of dollars upgrading into making it a much-loved wedding and function centre. In short ‘Brides and B doubles do not go hand in hand’.
• • Does SCC put the commercial interest of one operator over a viable tourist activity bringing accolades and visitors to the area.
• • The community expects Council to apply “due diligence” and request an upgrade/ modification on the Traffic Impact Statement for both quarry entrances as the current DA does not reflect the true nature of the traffic movements and puts the community and especially our children fairly at risk. Council has the mechanism to do this in the interest of public safety.

• Public Purse

• • Will Council give an undertaking not to purchase this material directly or indirectly as one member said from the floor last night, “we pay for it to go out and we pay for it to come back in” Privatise the profit and the ratepaying public pay the cost.
• • Overburden was sold illegally for commercial profit by a private company and the ratepaying public wear the cost and the loss of public amenity.

• The community is particularly annoyed that there was no written confirmation about this quarry starting again. We found our third hand from a truck driver.

• No community consultation
• No formal acknowledgement before 28th August
• Colin Woods replied to a member by email that he knew nothing about it.
• EPA had rung and set up a meeting with the Forum whilst Council were not telling us anything.
• It is hard to have trust in Council if they continue to operate in this secretive manner.
• It has been suggested that some material from this quarry is for a Council contract project at Sussex Inlet?? Can Council please confirm.
• The angst in the Hall last night was palpable and I for once had difficulty in controlling the meeting, heaven help what would happen if one of our children or residents was injured by Council dereliction to enforce full compliance and updated documents in regard to truck movements outside the quarry
• The operator has indicated that they will use contract drivers, we had numerous issues with contract drivers with the previous operator and in a legal sense the quarry operators have no control or legal responsibility if an accident was to occur

• Desirable Outcomes:

• • As mentioned last night “Council put an injunction on the DA to stop any material from leaving the quarry” until such time as

• • • The Rehabilitation Plan is adopted and approved.
• • • The survey of the quarry is carried out directly related to assist above
• • • The investigation into the alleged asbestos is finalised, and we will then know if vast quantities, another 200,000 tonnes approx. can be used for rehabilitation.
• • • An upgraded/modified traffic management plan or TIS is approved in consultation with the community to reflect current statistics and best practise in the interest of Public Health and Safety.
• • • Council to investigate if this ongoing use of a quarry in this area/location is in the public interest and considering the number off breaches of consent over many years show cause why the DA should not be rescinded. It is old and antiquated and does not reflect the environment of today.