Ardmore Park Quarry Modification 3

See attached

re Ardmore park Bungonia ;this is a sstatement of objection to the
controlling bodies of transport and Safety about the increased times
of operation of the quarry and the increased hours of transportation
of trucks.They are requesting 5am-10pm monday to friday and on
saturday 5 am to 5 pm a) higher tonnage and increased truck movements
will damage the road faster causing it to brake up and go back to
dirt;kill more wildlife especially in the dawn and dark.this will
leave more animal carcasses on the road which will cause more damage
to ordinary motor vehicles.Cause loss of sleep and increased health
and mental problems to residents that are subject to the increased
noise of the trucks past their properties.natural sleep will be
impossible so increased medical costs will happen .b) quarry operation
hours will cause damaging to the value of surrounding properties and
cause more damage to the environment c)a bitumen operation at the
quarry could cause a big operational lot of noise and health problems
involved d)CTC cameraas should be mounted at the AP gates so that
truck numbers,times and dates of tuck movements is a complete record
of quarry vehicles in and out of the quarry .This also would be
beneficial to the quarry operatives if any vewhicle that should not
enter the quarry are recorded and checked out .Trusting this helps in
your decisions making about the quarry .

P 69/170 EA Non-Aboriginal Heritage (subject to separate development
approval), What consideration has been given to the increased impacts
of extra weights, convoying of trucks and the increased daily cap of
truck movements on the by-pass to the Historic (1840's) Parsonage and
the associated iconic aucaria pine tree also dating from 1840's?. We
assume that the tight concentration of truck movements would cause a
different impact from movements spaced with significant time gaps
between them. Although the trucks are explained as state of the art
,the extra compressive weight could also be an issue for these
historic items. It is unknown what the structure of the By-pass road
is and how that structure might mitigate any of the possible effects.
Perhaps these items are sterilised from oversight by Dept Planning
because the Quarry business is owned by the proponent ? However the
Historical Society remains concerned about any impacts on these
important elements of the collective Heritage of the Bungonia
District. The trucks pass by the rubble stone building on the GMC
Local heritage register . Quoted from Goulburn Mulwarree Economic
Development Plan pg 10 2008 "Bungonia was once the major stop-over on
the Great South Road and was originally planned to be a major city.
Now it is a village en-route to the World Heritage classed Bungonia
Gorge in the State Conservation Area."[Note the SCA listed 2014 as a
National Park ] Quoted fromReport to the Heritage Council 2003,by JL
and mtracyp14 para 1.04 "the vilalge itself(note the parsonage is the
Village Glebe) has a far wider ranging contextual heritage and is
significant for its place in pastoral expansion and development in
South Eastern NSW from 1820." The heritage assets of Bungonia are
important as both individual elements and as part of the whole extant
collection.

Firstly the new proposal of 97 hours per week of constant noise at my
house will totally destroy our amenity iam requesting at this moment
for further noise monitoring at my residence from the EPA CANBERRA My
own noise metre when crushing and sand processing takes place is way
above da set limits of 36dbs most timesin the vicinity of more than45
to55dbs for long periods.This means the only way to get away from this
noise is to hide inside the house with the television on As you can
imagine isnt what we moved onto our country property for. After
promises from Multiquipto relocate there crushing plant into there
rock extraction area which would be approx 15 to 20 metreslower into
thethe ground we find it perched on a3metre high mound no wonder they
have neighour issues LAND VALUES We being the neighbours of Ardmore
Park were told that we would not loose any land value yet we find our
unimproved land value reduced by upto 30 percent.My own property value
pre and post the quarryhas reduced by about 250000 dollars on resale
value yet I have no way for any compensation. All the larger quarries
in our district have there own bufferzones to minimise neighbour
conflict In some cases they actually purchased ajoining properties The
Department of Planning by approving Ardmore Park quarry on such a
small parcel of land sentenced the neighbours of Ardmore Park to be
BUFFERZONE FOREVER This I feel is very UNAUSTRALIAN and feel something
should be done to correct this situation Yours Sincerely Mick
Heppleston PS. WATER ISSUESS Quarry has been allowed 210 megalitres
per annum What is more valuable sand or WATER the neighbours of
ardmore park

Please refer to the attached document noting objection to the proposal
including detailed items of concern for review.

See attached

The submission to be uploaded objects to the increased hours for the
transportation of quarry products. I will also post a hard copy via
Express Post in case there is problem with the upload of the PDF file

1. + 6 hrs M-F = 54%, +6 hrs S = 100% or 36 hrs per week. This is unfair
and unsafe for the local people and through traffic as it is fully one
sided for the quarry with NO benefit for the local people who would
see trucks thundering past in the UNSAFE night time including erosion
of local amenity. 2. Objection to 45% increase in annual production.
The quarry says it is because of new trucks so if in the future there
are newer trucks with greater capacity will the quarry apply for more
tonnage per annum. 3. Objection to an increase in quarry size by 3.5
ha. This would be converted to extra tonnage and therefore another
future modification. Refuse all three items: Quarry size expansion,
longer hours of operation and greater annjual tonnage.

My primary objection is to the extended hours of operation on the haulage
route. I travel Jarrara Road several times every week and it is a
dangerous road at the best of times and that is without large trucks.
Although the widening of the road has improved the safety that is only
in daylight hours. The extended hours of 5am to 7am morning and 5pm to
10pm evening will for the best part of the year in the DARK. Never
mind the obstacles of kangaroos, wombats, etc. to have a large truck
thundering along the road will be UNSAFE and DANGEROUS for the local
community and indeed for anyone travelling along this road. Even if
there are days when the trucks cannot travel due to bad weather as one
who actually lives in the area, these days are at a minimum and the
tonnage can easily be made up. If the hours of operation are not
approved then there will not be any need to increase the annual
tonnage or expand the size of the quarry. This is just a matter of
greed and no care or condsideration is being to the local community
who live in this part of the world because of the tranquility and
amenity of the area. Shame on you Ardmore Park your request is MOST
unfair.

I am a member of Parks Trust and am disappointed that the water
allocation was not discussed before the decision was made to allocate
more water to the Ardmore Park Quarry as this has an impact on our
creek system and our wildlife. Our wildlife -especially the Kangaroos
will be massacred on the roads if the Quarry is allowed to extend
their hours as the wild life is out and about early morning and just
after dusk. Also I don't want to be on the roads after dark with big
trucks traversing the roads as we don't have street lighting and they
are so big that they are a lot of the times tending to be across the
white lines on these country roads . I also, don't think our roads are
up to a good enough standard to handle these extra large trucks
carrying loads out and back again.

* Benefits of the quarry expansion overstated o No quota of employees
from local area required o $7 million contribution to economy needs
offsetting against infrastructure, social, environmental (including
greenhouse gas emissions) and lost agriculture production costs o
Benefits to Bungonia itself is minimal (funding to community hall) and
mostly negative given the area is either a rural landscape or
environmental management area in which mining does not fit. * Quarry
would be major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from Bungonia
further affecting the regions ability to mitigate climate change, an
issue that costs much more than the $7 million pa input from the mine.
CO2 emissions are estimated to be greater than 10ktpa from the mine
and haulage of product to Sydney, or more than 0.5Mt CO2 over the
mines life. * Initial application was for 580ktpa and it was not
approved. After gaining approval for a 400ktpa operation, Multiquip is
now seeking an increase by 45% to the initial application production
rate. If this is approved then it is in direct conflict with initially
rejected proposal. * A simple estimate on OPEX and CAPEX of the
operation, based on details provided in the gives an estimated
production rate of ~420kpa for the quarry to breakeven. This is based
on current prices for sand, hard rock, fuel, labour and estimated
capital expenditure for civil works, development costs and equipment.
With the recycling of waste glass becoming a building sand substitute,
the cost of sand for building may come under pressure. * Upgrading of
public roads is of poor quality and does not cope with existing
traffic let alone that of the approved truck movements or the proposed
increase in truck tonnages. o Certain completed sections are already
subsiding and require urgent repair. o Edges (the edge from old to new
road)exist where the widening of the road meets the existing road and
causes vehicles to track dangerously when the tyres get caught on
theses edges. o There is no advice in the application on what measures
are to be undertaken to ensure the road surface can withstand the
extra truck tonnage and what maintenance will be conducted and by
whom. * The approved operation has already been in breach of its
allowed truck movements and small fines have been given that do not
discourage future breaches. No advice has been provided on how
movements will be monitored to ensure further breaches do not occur?
Will part of their operating license include higher fines for
breaches? * The nearly 50% increase in truck movements on any given
day will have serious impacts on the local community given that trucks
will be by far the largest users of the public roads. * If batched
concrete deliveries are not included in the truck movement numbers,
then how can the truck movement allowances be monitored and adhered
to?

* The use of ENM as backfill is of particular concern given that nowhere
in the application does it outline in any detail what this material
is, where it is sourced and what testing has been done to verify its
classification. Although the proposal states the application would be
in accordance with the Resource Recovery Exemption under Part 9,
Clauses 91 and 92 of the Protection of the Environment Operations
(Waste) Regulation 2014, no further details are given. Specifically,
the current proposal does not address the requirements for the
condition of exemption outlined in section 7 of the above mention
regulation , including but not limited too; o Section 7.1 on chemical
and other material requirements, o Section 7.3 & 7.4 notifications and
record keeping * Unfortunately the exemption only requires the ENM to
be 98% by weight natural material, thus up to 2% could be contaminated
material. Although ENM does not include material that contains
asbestos, some forms of respiritable crystalline silica (RCS) occur
naturally and the exemption does not make it clear what contaminants
the ENM are to be tested for. * The Bungonia area already has an issue
with contaminated ENM being bought in from Sydney, typically
respiritable crystalline silica (RCS) and petrochemical residues. What
assurances can the Multiquip and the authorities provide the residents
that their community will not be contaminated by incorrect declared
and inappropriately monitored ENM? Approval for ENM cannot be given
unless both the operators and the EPA can show these concerns can be
addressed adequately. * The almost doubling of the underground water
allocation from 110ML to 210ML is not in proportion with the
production increase. The effect of this on the local waterways and
aquifers has not been adequate assessed in the new proposal. No
consultation with the community regarding the extra water use has been
undertaken. Given the heavy reliance on bore water by local
inhabitants and farming businesses, and the lack of rain in the recent
years, the extraction of 200+ML would not be inconsequential and needs
better quantification and assessment before approval should be given.
* Using the Bungonia Progess Association (BPA) as means to consult the
community is insufficient. The BPA does not represent the local
community and is not independent in its views given it has received
substantial funding for the hall from the proposal applicants. This
potential for funding was not sought from other community business. *
Multiquip's consultation process is poor and at no time did all
stakeholders receive adequate notice of meetings and/or information
relevant to allow proper consideration by the community. Only
residents on the proposed route have been consulted and received the
letters in Appendix 4 (page A4-5, A4-7), but others not on the route
but still potentially affected by dust, noise, wind and pollution from
the operation, and also from traffic on the routes to Goulburn and
Marulan, did not receive this letter or any other communication from
Multiquip or its affiliates and subsidiaries. * There is a deficiency
in the noise assessment in that only the level of noise from the truck
movements has been considered. The frequency of the noise events and
the relevant background noise for that time of day must also be
considered for the assessment to be realistic and thorough. This has
not been considered in the application. * The increase in operating
hours, proposed to start at 5am and cease at 10pm is not acceptable.
Based on Appendix 7 Table 13 & 14, traffic on the proposed route from
5am to 7am will nearly be all from the quarry (20 quarry vs 3 or 4
local) and thus frequency of noise events will be substantially
increased. If times are limited to the current approval, then trucks
from the operations will only represent about half the total traffic
and thus the frequency of noise event differences will be minimal. *
Bungonia is a rural community, there is no busy times for local
traffic, as can be seen in Appendix 7 Tables 13 to 16, and hence the
increased hours based on avoiding busy times for local traffic is
misleading. Avoiding Sydney peak times seems to be the main reason and
one can avoid Sydney peaks hour as per standard procedures for most
transport companies, i.e by parking outside city limits and waiting
for low peak times.

document uploaded

I feel it is unreasonable to expect the residents of the truck route to
endure the sound of trucks from 5 am till 10 pm at night. What is the
point of moving to the country for the quiet life. It would be more
beneficial to find an alternative site to lessen the impact on
residents.

Find an alternative site to avoid the inconvenience of waking residents
at 5 am.

I object to the Modification . Jerara and Oallen Roads pavements were not
designed to carry the kind of traffic proposed ie. loads of 50 tonnes
and 124 movements a day. Even with the present use the surface is
deteriorating. Both roads are links to route 92 and are used by
increased tourist traffic, including caravans,campervans and
motorbikes. There are few passing spots and even with the road
widening the increased heavy vehicle use will be a hazard Oallen Ford
and Jerara Roads and a small part of Mountain Ash Rd. are school bus
routes linking Bungonia to Goulburn and Marulan schools. There are
about 6 movements in the moring and again in the afternoon. Are the
trucks off the roads during these times as proposed in the Development
Application? Underground water use by present quarry operations has
effected bores in neighbouring properties. An increase in use by the
quarry will worsen this situation. Will Multiquip compensate the
owners as proposed in the DA. Noise during early morning and at night
will be another problem, both fron quarry operations and trucks . A
bitumen pre-coating plant is hardly a Quarry operation. Are there
further truck movements associated with this operation? We don't want
quarry trucks on the roads on Saturday afternoon, as early 5am or up
till 10pm. Extending the kind of backfill is also questionable. The
area is part is of the Sydney Catchment Area and any contaminated
material will effect the run off into the water system, that also
applies to chicken manure.

Please find our submission attached.

Please find our submission attached.

We have an olive plantation and Oil extraction plant and heavily rely on
our bore water to irrigate our 10,000 approx, olive trees. The
proximity of the mine and the additional water allocation is of grave
concern to us. Also of concern are the amount of trucks on the roads
due to the mine. Despite being made slightly wider in the past year/s
the road is still to narrow for the amount of truck movements. It is
only a matter of time before a serious incident occurs.

Good morning. Thanks for the extension of time, it's allowed us to read
more about the hydrology report on Ardmore Park quarry, and to express
our dismay at the proposal to increase groundwater extraction by 100%.
Firstly, I note on page 45 there is a reference to a recent approval
under a state government "controlled allocation order " of 100ml. Is
this in addition to the 100ml approved originally, and what was the
procedure for this approval.. was it sought by the proponent or
arbitrarily granted by the state government with no consultation with
surrounding landowners? This would make a mockery of the water
management act 2000, and as we've just received a statement of
approval from that department, it proves that they're aware of
surrounding bores close to the quarry. It is noted in the Cook report
that the local aquifers are primarily recharged by rainfall.. this
area is often (currently) affected by low to non existent rainfall and
with climate change will become more unreliable. It's also noted on
page 44 by the proponent's own consultant, that there is a potential
for the water extraction by the quarry bores to lower the water tables
in the basalt aquifer. This would result in failure of the bores on
surrounding properties, as the bores on the quarry are significantly
deeper than the domestic bores along inverary rd. We are only 1km from
the quarry as the crow flies and there has been NO efforts by the
proponent to contact us, via mail or roadside letterboxing, to
enlighten us on his plan for a vast expansion of usage of a scarce
resource. We all feel that this has been a deliberate plan of
exclusion of those most likely to be adversely affected by the
quarry's proposed expansion. Given the admission by the consultant
that the water table will be likely impacted adversely, and the very
sketchy details available on repercussions for the proponent for
impacts caused by his quarry, it appears that the onus will be on
local landowners to engage and fund their own research to establish
the role of the quarry in the loss of an essential element for
production and livestock watering. This would be beyond the scope of a
common farmer, and would be most unfair to not have government funding
available to assist those losing their livelihoods due to bore
failure. We have a bore commissioned in 2004 at a common level of
about 80 metres.. it's been producing a reliable 24hr ( when required)
supply of 1000 litres per hour, and the livestock on the property rely
on this water as the dams often dry up or fall too low and become
dangerous for stock. Should this rate fall ( if this allocation is
taken in ful by the quarry) it will be because of the excessive water
extraction by the quarry, provable because of the reliability and
consistency of our flows for 14 years. It's noted that the proponent
has only installed test bores to the south and west of his property;
there is no certainty where the aquifers cross/conjoin or interact,
and this was revealed in the original DA in 2009. Why has there been
no test bore to the north or west in this case? We can only conclude
that the proponent is aware that there could be possible adverse
effects from his water extraction and is unwilling to examine the
potential for interference with our bores. I know that the aquifer
interference legislation should deal with this but I'm getting a
feeling that the legislation may require landowners to do the work of
identifying problems before they get involved. That's completely
unsuitable. In closing, I'd make the strong point that if there's ANY
doubt about the increasing extraction and impacts on others in the
area, then this increase must be refused on public interest/social
impacts growth kinds. It's no ones fault that the proponent has
commenced a project which is unviable under the original terms of
approval; it's not anyone's fault that they need to value-add and
increase production to be viable; and it's grossly unfair to
constantly subject us to these proposals which have zero benefit to
the community adversely affected by the operations. The proponent, if
successful, will continue to apply to extend/add industries (concrete
batching) if allowed to proceed with this modification. Please refuse
it.