Ardmore Park Quarry Modification 3

The submission extends the intrusion of this quarry into the rural life
of the Bungonia community impacting traffic, water and other
resources. Approval was previously granted for operation under
particular terms that balanced the different interests involved but
now the operator seeks to extend these terms and will continue to try
and extend until they get everything that they want. This is a
violation of the original position and means that anytime a community
agrees to operation under certain terms they are then trampled over as
operators seek to push ever further with development. It is what leads
communities to completely rejecting all development as you can never
trust what is approved to remain the deal with dishonourable
developers.

I chose to move into this area for the quite and clean air for my family.
I can not understand how the quarry was approved in the first place.
We live 2 klms away and are zoned environmental protection area. A
bitumen plant will cause pollution in the area. The extra trucks will
cause noise polution. The roads how they have been patched up will not
cope with the extra truck traffic. They have cut down hundreds of
trees. How could this happen??? We are not allow to remove any. The
wild life will not cope. This multiquip modification is all about
extra profit and nothing more. If this makes it through when will it
stop? It will not be the end. Till 10pm at night they want to have
truck movements. Come on when will it stop?? With how multimedia is
these days good luck if it goes ahead.

I am very much opposed to Ardmore Park Quarry starting work at 5am and
wanting to finish at 10 pm. We bought this property 10 years ago in
the hope of moving to the country for some peace and quiet. With these
possible 5 am starts the trucks will be driving past our front gate
every day.Regards NA and AS Derwent

I am not a resident of the area however I have been watching the changes
in the area. I own a property in Bungonia and travel there on
occasions to get away from the city life. I have been watching the
progress of the quarry and find it appalling. The ongoing erosion of
quality of lifestyle in the region can be compared to a cancer of
which there is no cure. There are constant amendments and submissions
being put forth by the quarry to achieve its final goal. I am
objecting to the constant changing of the agreements and to the
problems that the quarry is causing: - Bungonia was a quiet rural
town, the tranquillity of the town has now been compromised and will
be for the next 30 or more years. - The increase in heavy haulage has
caused degradation of the roads (even the widened sections). The
conditions are now worse than the original road before the quarry was
opened. - The danger to road users has increased. I have been forced
of the road by a heavy vehicle on more than one occasion. Do you
really think white paint in the middle of the road will stop vehicles
from cutting corners especially when they need to get from point A to
point B in the fastest time possible? If white paint can prevent
cutting of corners then we better apply lots of 'white paint' to the
construction of the road. - The new widened areas of Jerrara Rd are
degrading faster than the actual original rural road. - Who will pay
for the constant maintenance of the roads as they fall apart when used
by heavy vehicles? - The real estate value will soon start falling as
people realise that Bungonia is not what it used to be. Travel along
the local roads and see how many properties are up for sale, also note
the state of disrepair some of the properties have gone into. This is
mainly due to out of town owners giving up on the area. - The sound of
thunder was a welcome sound as it meant rain but now it means trucks.
- The pollutants generated by the truck exhaust will fall onto
residents catchment areas and worst of all onto the rooftops that
supply drinking water to the households. To summarise briefly, the
quarry has broken and at the current rate of amendments will continue
to break all agreements with the residents and council. The rural
lifestyle that Bungonia had always offered is slowly being decimated.
The costs to the community at large will be great due to the damage
caused by heavy vehicles. Health and Safety on the roads and in the
homes has been compromised.

1. We are the owners of 5028 Oallen Ford Road Bungonia having owned this
property since 1977 which is shown as property No. 5 on Table 6 and
property No. 29 on Figure 13 of the EIS. 2. We object to the approval
of the Ardmore Park Quarry Mofification ( MP 07_0155 Mod3 ). 3. Being
immediate neighbours and sharing boundaries with the quarry property
we will be adversely effected by any expansion of the quarry area,
operations or times as proposed. 4. Additionally, the proposal to
increase truck movements on any given day by one third from 88 to 124
movements, in our opinion, increases the chance of any road user being
involved in a collision with any of these trucks. 5. In relation to
the number of trucks, although the monthly average will not increase,
the mere fact that on any specific day there could be 124 truck
movements means that on those days the risk of colliding with a
Multiquip truck is increased by one third. 6. With the proposed
expansion of loading and despatch times there will be Multiquip trucks
on the road early morning and at night which will add to the risk of
vehicle collision on the road. 7. Regardless of the opinion stated in
the EIS re Socio-Economic benefits to the community, we as property
owners are directly disadvantaged financially by the devaluation of
our property by the existence of the quarry. The proposed expansion
will only further de-value our property. 8. We acknowledge there may
be economic benefits to the community as a whole, but those benefits
are in part being supplemented by Bungonia property owners who's
properties suffer devaluation. The EIS does not address this nor give
a balanced view. 9. The author of the EIS states "..perceived adverse
impacts on the local environment have been identified, are considered
acceptable....etc " - We do not consider them acceptable. 10. Our
property is zoned Rural Residential not Industrial but we now have
industrial activities as our next door neighbour. 11. The EIS does not
address the adverse psychological impact this type of development and
the constant push for expansion can have on some of the residents of
our area. 12. The EIS states that Mulitquip Community Liaison Officer
Mr Michael Rogers has consulted with all surrounding landowners on
several occasions during 2017 - this is inaccurate as we have not had
this contact. Possibly there are other inaccuracies in the EIS.

To the minister i ask you to take in consideration the amenity of the
residents who reside along the transport path for the ardmore quarry
in determination of extending the hours of operation. I would like to
point out some facts below. From the start of the road works being
carried out by multiquip we as a community have endured the constant
noise from trucks using the route from the quarry to the road works
and utilising the village bypass. The drivers of theses trucks have a
constant need to use engine brakes along the bypass road then again on
mountain ash road travelling onto jerrara road. Some have been
witnessed and footage taken of unnecessary use of engine brakes being
used up the hill from mountain ash road into the bypass road. I have
made numerous calls to multiquip staff and council and i am fed up
with the arrogance. The noise travels through out every area within a
kilometer of the jerrara and mountain ash roads. This entails the
whole village and surrounding areas. These trucks also return empty to
the quarry and the noise from these empty tip bodies is also
disturbing. As a shift worker from am to pm back to am starts i
sometimes struggle now to aqurie a required rest and sleep due to the
noise. I have also recently again had my property valuation done with
dissapointing results and was advised more bad news would follow if
extended hours were granted. To finish i would like to add i dont
discurridge anyone from doing what or how with there property but dont
implore arrogance and loss of amenity on long term residents of this
community. Ps video and sound recordings have been taken of points
disclosed above.

Hello, I wish to lodge a submission on the proposal by multiquip to
extend the Ardmore park quarry. 1. Air quality; the proposed bitumen
coating plant is located on the western boundary, which is very close
to the village of Bungonia. There's every possibility that there will
be odours and carcinogenic particles reaching the residential area,
with no acknowledgement by corkerys of this. What is the strategy for
the project if this becomes fact? If there's no strategy for
mitigation then the proposal must be refused. 2.social
amenities/impacts. The quarry seems to be morphing into bigger and
more intrusive projects in an attempt to remain viable. The site was
poorly placed from the outset, with minimal transport options and a
typically arid landscape, and local roads never designed to take
multiple heavy trucks. Now the proponent wants to increase not only
the tonnage by 40%, but is intent on value-adding to the products that
he extracts, is bituminous coatings and concrete batching. As there
are currently 3 major quarries less than 20 km from this quarry, all
much larger and selling the same product, and with superior
transportation options, it would be a perversion to pass this proposal
as the products are adequately supplied by boral, holcim and gunlake.
The residents and surrounding landowners are surely entitled to quiet
enjoyment of their property, just as rental tenants are, and the
increasing size and ongoing expansion of enterprises on the Ardmore
site will ensure the eventual destruction of the ambiance and the
local community. There's no mitigation or compensation that can repair
the damage afterwards if this proposal is passed. There's very little
benefit to local people from the quarry; just an unacceptable
imposition on us all. 3. The haul route. While I acknowledge the role
of engineers in the design of the upgrade of jerrara rd, I can't see
the pavement handling a 40% increase in tonnage with no effects. We
could find ourselves in a situation where council has insufficient
funds to repair the damage caused by multiquip trucks, and multiquip
refusing to pay more than the VPA which may not cover the damage
either. Then we would have a really dangerous road being heavily used
and not maintained.. what measures are in place to address this
potential problem? The increase in tonnage is only to benefit the
proponent, and even though truck movements remain the same, there's a
request for vastly increased transport hours. I feel that this
increase in hours is part of a plan to then lodge a further part 3A to
increase the truck movements and extraction in the future. There's got
to be a limit on the scope of this quarry to protect the integrity of
the local area. 4. Venm/enm. Camden high school and the old Camden
valley golf club have had hundreds of tonnes of contaminated soils
removed; what guarantees do we have that these soils and others won't
find their way to Ardmore Park? If there's ANY doubt, the proposal
must be refused. 5.ground water. Many locals rely on bores, and its
interesting to note that all the monitoring bores are either south of
the site, on multiquip land, or northeast; there are at least 4
registered bores on inverary rd, less than 1.5 km as the crow flies..
by why are none shown on the plan by corkerys? The potential for
either loss of water or contamination is a huge worry to those of us
who rely on bore water to water stock and use domestically. A 40%
increase in yield of water, ground or surface, from any source will
necessarily impact somewhere. What guarantees are in place, other than
the drawn out process for in corkerys reports, to ensure normal
supplies of groundwater? And will multiquip even accept responsibility
if bores run dry, or will we be just collateral damage for the
proponent? I note that in the consultants reporting, all impacts on
surrounding residents/landowners are " minimal" but in the final
submission about the consequences of refusing the part 3A, the
consultant lists several points very important to his client. Points
1and 2 confirm time that the quarry was never viable in its original
form.. that the quarry operators have every intention of increasing
the size, scope and related value-added industries until they have
ruined the entire area. Point 3 confirms that the proponent is mostly
concerned with efficiency and profitability of the quarry than any
adverse impacts the quarry has on anyone affected. Point 5 begs the
question.. how does the quarry need fewer employees if the proposal is
refused? The truck movements are unchanged, only the tonnage is
increased in the proposal; so the claims that jobs would be lost is a
total confection. This quarry was always unsuited to the area, it
being an isolated farming community in a harsh arid area, with poor
access to the site and many health concerns including the
transportation of goods which are available from multiple other local
sources; dust and particulate matter airborne in the area; impacts on
ground water and the potential for contamination of surface water;
noise and now odour concerns;and the lack of clear oversight of the
venm and enm by authorities, relying on the proponent to self regulate
the products delivered to the site. These are my reasons for objecting
to the proposal, and I believe that for every submission received
there are probably 20 more who didn't know about this part 3A, there
having been nothing mentioned at any stage in our local monthly
newsletter, the Bungonia times. The proponent claims to have contacted
property owners in the area but his methods were, in my opinion,
designed to exclude the majority because the letters placed in
mailboxes were random, insufficient, and not placed in locations which
were likely to be impacted adversely by the quarry. I was notified by
an interested party but would have otherwise had no option to respond
due to the lack of information made locally available by the
proponent. This looks rather underhanded, and is a reason why so many
local people don't trust the proponent or his consultants, who show
bias towards the project at all times. Thank you for the opportunity
to have input into this proposal, I just hope that our submissions are
addressed with the same seriousness as they have been written. I don't
believe that Ardmore Park quarry should be granted an expansion. If
this most important issue cannot be guaranteed, then the proposal must
be refused.

I am very much opposed to Ardmore park Quarry starting work at 5 am and
wanting to finish at 10 pm on any day. We bought this property 10
years ago in the hope of moving to the country for some peace and
quiet. With these possible 5 am starts the trucks will be driving past
our front gate every day.

Jarrara road is a public road, not a private quarry haul road, as such,
88 trucks a day i believe is to many, and to drive on that road with
124 trucks a day is far too dangerous. As a resident who lives
directly across the road from the quarry. i find the noise level at
present way to offensive for my rural habitation. The high demand on
ground water is a huge concern as my own registered bore had already
dropped over 3 meters since ardmore park began using underground
water.

My main concern is twofold - noise and ground water usage. I own a
property to the west of the quarry and rely on groundwater for stock
and household use. It appears there is some insane idea that the water
aquifer is an unlimited resource. By extending the mine and the amount
that it extracts will only lead to more extraction of ground water and
further lowering the water table. In this day and age of climate
change concerns and extended droughts I find it hard to fathom why one
industry is allowed to proceed and place undue stress on others that
have been there for many generations (I myself are the 5th generation
that has lived in "Inverary". It is great that my neighbour has been
given assurances that the mine will provide him with water if he runs
out however this fails to acknowledge that the aquifer goes across
many properties and spreads far and wide beneath the ground. Will the
mine provide me with substitution of water if required? Noise - the
mine is proposing to extend working hours. This is also totally
unacceptable as the operation is on a hilltop less than several km
from my house and we already suffer excessive background noise. How is
it that we insist on supporting a venture that imposes on all those
that live, and have lived for a long time, in the immediate vicinity?

Jerrara and Oallen Ford Roads are already unsafe for heavy truck dog
trailer combinations. The number of trucks proposed by Multiquip will
cause more dangerous traffic conditions. The quarry noise is too loud
some days at our residence and complaints to quarry managers are
useless. The extended operating hours will make it even harder for us
to get our young children to sleep, and to stay asleep for enough time
each day. Multiquip have ruined the rural amenity of the Bungonia
area.

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

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.

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.