Ardmore Park Quarry Modification 3

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.

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.

We live in a rural residential area. My kids go to sleep at 8:30 to go to
school. It will be very hard on them to sleep with trucks still going
up and down the street till 10:30 and starting again at 5:30. There is
not enough water supply long term in the area for farmers like
ourselves let along to run a quarry. The extra production they want
there is no longevity with water supply or the roads. We live in a
rural eviromentally protected area not a industrial area or the city.

As a young family living on Jerrara Road we strongly oppose the proposed
modification to PA 07_0155. In particular, we object the proposal to
increase the annual production limit from 400,000tpa to 580,000tpa
(and the associated increase in tuck loads to 50.3t per load) as well
as, the increase in hours of operation for product loading and
transportation (from 5am to 10pm on Monday to Friday and 5am to 5pm on
Saturday). As residents with driveway access onto Jerrara Road and
regular users of Jerrara Road, we are already very concerned by the
number of trucks that travel along Jerrara Road(currently 88 truck
movements per day) as well as the times during the day when the trucks
travel along Jerrara Road (with 56 `approved quarry heavy' trucks
currently travelling along Jerrara Road during school bus hours).
These concerns, as well as the condition of Jerrara Road (which
remains substandard despite the ongoing roadworks to widen the road)
deterred us from enrolling our school age child at Marulan Public
School (our closest school and the school we are zoned to) as we
didn't want our children travelling on Jerrara Road twice a day. Now
that there are the proposed modifications to increase the truck
movements to 124 per day, increase the vehicle size to 25.3 metres and
increase the hours of operation - makes us extremely worried for the
safety of our family on Jerrara Road and we already avoid using
Jerrara Road as much as possible - preferring to travel a longer
distance (via Mountain Ash Road to Goulburn) to avoid sharing the road
with such a number of large trucks. Based on these concerns for the
safety of our family on Jerrara Road, we strongly oppose the proposed
modification to PA 07_0155 particularly until the road is widened and
meets council regulations. Given the current state of Jerrara Road and
stipulations that the road be completed by March 2018, Jerrara Road is
simply not up to standard to support an increase in the number of
truck movements, an increase in the size of the trucks and to have
trucks travelling in the dark from 5am to 10pm. We are extremely
concerned local residents and hope the concerns for the safety of our
family travelling on Jerrara Road - and those of other drivers on the
road - are taken seriously into consideration.

I have just returned after several weeks away, and therefore have not had
a chance to thoroughly go into this whole Modification Request Ardmore
Park Quarry. Application No. MP 07_0155 MOD 3, so therefore will be
only able to respond to the obvious parts that immediately hit me as
potential problems. (1) Obviously, the water table under the ground
that all surrounding properties rely on for their stock and their own
crop growing. The massive amount of this water being used by the
quarry, specially if increased loads rise another 1/3rd more than
current rate. (2) The longer hours of operation - 17 hrs (5am to 10pm)
M-F and 5am to 5 pm sat. ... all sound is magnified in quiet rural
areas, specially in early morning hours and after 7pm. The increased
volume of Traffic from Sydney, etc, going to the coast, and weekend
visitors who come through Bungonia any time from around 3pm to
midnight will not be expecting large dog and trailer trucks at 5am,
nor after 8pm at night on unlit country roads. (3) The increased
volume of trucks, from 88 movements per day to 124 movements. Equates
to more than 7 each hour and carrying 50 tonnes instead of original 30
Tonnes. They will be coming back fully laden with backfill and stock
piled (3) The quarry wants to mine another 180,000 Tonnes, over the
current allowance, and also extend the life of the quarry over another
8 yrs. (4) A big issue will also be the haul route on Jerrara Road.
The new widening, and resurfacing, is breaking down already, as is
evident in several placees. The thin layer of Ashphalt is going to be
worthless in a couple of months. That road needs strong , thick
bitumen edge to edge, to support larger trucks. The surfacing being
done right now, definitety is not going to last.

We, Dean & Anne MIreylees appose the modified application as follows *
The extension to transport hours, we do not want to hear trucks going
past our farm at 0500hrs every day of the week or so late at night
till 2200hrs. In a normal town setting no lawn mowers are to start
till 0800 and everything to stop at 2000hrs. We are very concerned
about the proposed 0500hrs on the Saturday due to the increased
traffic of our area without trucks being added to the equation. we
chose to live here in Bungonia on our little farm for the quiet life,
we moved away from the urban dwelling for that reason. * we have a
concern regarding the larger trucks have the current upgrade of the
roads accomodated these larger size( width) and increase in capacity
(weight) *we feel that the addition of a bitumen pre-coating plant at
the quarry doesn't support the locals who already have this business
up and running in Goulburn. they should be supporting local business
and those who have jobs there. we are sure that this addition to the
quarry would mean more truck movements that don't come under any
proposal. * we don't want an increase in the number of truck movements
per day. this is a substantial increase from 88 up[ to 124 movements
per day. it is our understanding that these bigger better more
improved trucks carry a larger load than the previously proposed
trucks. these new trucks carry 53tonne as apposed to the previous
trucks capacity of 33tonnes . therefore we don't understand why he
needs to increase the hours or the truck movements( my wife had a
visit from Mick Rogers the company liaison coincidently after making
comments on facebook about the quarry - talking with locals. in the
middle of the day he found out who we were and where we lived invading
our privacy to tell us if we have an issues about the quarry to call
him. he informed my wife that there wouldn't be 124 truck movements
every day only 88 if the weather was fine but if there was some rainy
days then they would have to make up their loses on the subsequent
days.- so if we have say a week of rain then the next week they will
have 124 truck movements every day thereafter till they reach their
quota ?? So that could mean a whole week or more of 124 truck
movements everyday. * also we don't understand what the 'amending the
wording of several administrative conditions ' means or how it will
affect us on our farm. in closing we moved onto our farm for the quiet
life of living off the land to raise our children amongst farm animals
and the beautiful wildlife of the Bungonia area. we didn't buy our
farm so that we could listen toe 124 trucks going past our property
daily. lifestyle farm not truck haul route.

My brothers and I have been training racehorse at Randwick for the past
50 years with the intention of breeding horses and spelling our horse
there so if you allow the quarry to go ahead my farm would be useless
knowing that there would be truck flying up and down jerrara road all
day as our horses would be in the price of $100.000 dollars plus ..
the road is that narrow that there has been roughly about 7 Deaths on
jerrara road secondly what about health issues with people like myself
that suffer from asthma little alone the elderly people that have
health issues Having 40 ton truck flying up and down jerrara road will
only cause my death as these truck drivers don't care To allow this
Quarry to run its trucks up and down jerrara road would be a bad
mistake clearly 1 being the health of every person that lives in
jerrara road 2 the road is not wide enough it will be very dangerous
for residents leaving there home and returning home knowing there will
be trucks speeding up to 80k hour little alone the wild life that will
be killed because of these trucks do you really believe a truck driver
would stop and help the injured wild life No 3 is the Quarry going to
help pay for the cleaning of owners houses because of all the Dust
little alone the dust which will land in the dams which we rely on for
our horses to drink from plus the water from the dams we use to wash
ourselves and our clothing 4 This Quarry must not be approved for
health reasons to residents life’s also our wildlife these are the
Questions that need to be answered is the Quarry willing to pay land
owners companstion for lost of value to there land I also believe
speed cameras should be in stored at the Quarry expense so when one of
the land owners are killed the Quarry can be held responsible And I
believe you Mr Herbert should be asking the NSW police for there
advice and the health minister advice about health issues to the land
owners And the roads authorities to investigate weather the road would
be safe enough for the residents of jerrara road

Ardmore Park Quarry Modification MP 07_Mod 3 PA 07_0155 Proposes
We only received this letter of Notification a few days ago and note
dated 21st February 2018
And wish to express concern about the lack of time to respond to the
above modification.

We have 2 properties on 4018 Oallen Ford Road, and 3814 Oallen Ford
Road Windellama 2580 and also commute on a regular basis to Wollongong
and have been doing so over the past 15 years.

Safety
Jerrara Rd, even with its planned improvements, is still only a basic
connecting country road, not designed for excessive truck movements,
with increased movements and weight limits the road condition will
deteriorate rapidly, who will be responsible for its upkeep? The
shoulders will still be rough and broken, accidents will happen.
The roadworks being undertaken on Jerrara Road has been spasmodic all
along the Road between Marulan and Bungonia, without little or no
notification of the stages of future works that are to be undertaken
in sections. The illuminated signs are inconsistent to the length of
road work being undertaken.
Major Road Works Signs about the stages of proposed works at both end
of Jerrara Road are non-existent.
Most major roads works projects have permanent signage to inform the
general public of the stages of works and the persons who has endorsed
/directed / funded and time frame for the major works conducted.
Is NSW Government subsidising the Multiquip Company? If so this should
also be disclosed.
Who is the engineering company contracted for the road works and where
is their name displayed professionally?
The people working on the site are often clearly not seen with the
colour clothing they wear. We express concerns for their own safety.

Extraction and further mining.
The company has not provided current sufficient information to the
general public, about the environmental impact.
An up to date drone aerial photo view would at least outline the
precise boundaries of the site’s progression, and display ongoing
impingement to the environment should at least be provided to
neighbouring properties and provide open disclosure to the general
public.
Ground water issues are still a major concern as flows on some
adjoining properties have significantly reduced over recent years.
These properties have operated for over a hundred years relying on
ground water flows and may become unviable if these flows reduce
further, where does this leave the property owners?
Noise and environmental pollution from product and transportation
should be further addressed. The owner does not appear to live
onsite, which means only those living on neighbouring properties will
be greatly affected.
Increased truck movements
Due to increased production will rip up the road, compromising safety
to the general public leaving continual road works to be undertaken.
Who benefits from unsafe roads?
Operational Bitumen pre- coating Plant on the Quarry Site
There is insufficient information provided about how this will be
undertaken. Again where is the professional requirement and conditions
to the amenity of the land and environment?
Is Ardmore Park proposing a factory site for bitumen production?
Risks Hazzard Pollution, Toxins and Fire.

Extending the life of the Quarry
This mean more traffic movements. Safety is compromised to the
general public and community..
What does the term Excavated Natural Mineral as back fill material
mean ? Insufficient information given professionally to the general
public and community. Does this also involve excess truck movements on
the public road?
Extending the life of the Quarry by 8 years
Extended road safety concerns.

What does the term Performance Based Scheme Trucks mean?
No information provided. More truck movements?.....

We object to the proposal of Ardmore Park Quarry Modification MP
07_Mod 3 PA 07_0155 Proposes.

I object as per the attached file attachment.

Re: Ardmore Park Quarry HISTORY of JERRARA, MOUNTAIN ASH & OALLEN FORD
ROADS I have lived in the Bungonia area since 1960. I remember when
the now Mountain Ash Road, the Jerrara Road and the Oallen Ford Roads
were both gravel and 4 cars a day was a busy day. I have some
qualifications and much experience in road-building having built roads
in the Goulburn Mulwaree, Yarralumla, Palerang and Cooma Shires.
Further I have contracted under hire to the Dept of Main Roads, then
the Roads and Traffic Authority and many other construction
organisations over the past 30 years. Extensive roadworks were carried
out on both roads during the 1980s, commencing with upgrading the
gravel surface and subsequently spray-sealing both with bitumen. Since
that time very little maintenance has been carried out, and that which
has been undertaken has been at the expense of the ratepayers. The
Shire engineers did the best they could with the limited funds
available (this being prior to amalgamation of the 2 Shires). The
roads they built were good enough for the usage at that time. No one
envisaged the amount of traffic now traversing these roads. When
various quarries commenced operation in the Windellama region, the
Shire diverted traffic to the Braidwood Road via Cullala and Sandy
Point Roads. This prevented heavy vehicle usage of Oallen Ford and
Jerrara Roads. THE FACTS I have tested the gravel that was used on the
Mountain Ash, Oallen Ford and Jerrara Roads won from Carmichael's pit
on Mountain Ash Road. This product fails most of the Main Roads tests
(see attached file from MR documents). The Plasticity Index (PI) for
Carmichael's pit is 12-16, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is
only 10 - both of these fall well outside recommendations. A suitable
gravel for a haul road, bearing in mind the extra weight of the
traffic, is a PI of 4-6 and a CBR of 46-70. These are only 2 of a
number of appropriate tests. To satisfy most main road requirements, a
gravel meeting DGB20 is required. It is plain to see from the above
analysis that the road base applicable to Jerrara, Oallen Ford and
Mountain Ash Roads is totally unsuitable for a haul road carrying the
tonnage envisaged in this Modification Request. Evidence of this is
available to anyone travelling these roads at present, even prior to
commencement of full quarry operations. CURRENT ACTIVITIES Ardmore
Park has done considerable widening of the haul route. I have not seen
the quality tests conducted by a NATA-approved laboratory, but would
like access to same. I would also like to see the density tests
conducted on the widening by a certified NATA testing officer, as I
have reservations as to the methods employed to achieve 100%
compaction on the strip sections attached to the pre-existing
thoroughfare. In my professional opinion, the roads in question will
deteriorate very quickly when the quarry trucks commence fully-loaded
operation at the new tonnages sought. The ratepayers should not be
responsible for funding Ardmore Park's enterprises. I note that the
Modification Request seeks a substitution of Section 94 contributions
with a Voluntary Planning Agreement. The original Section 94
contributions were miniscule but their replacement with a "VPA" needs
full explanation and investigation. The entire haul route would not be
adjudged acceptable by any competent engineer given the proposed
tonnage, additional truck movements plus the ever-increasing private
vehicle usage. The bitumen at total width inclusive of the widening
strips on the entire haul route should be removed. The existing road
base gravel is suitable only for "select material" and should be
compacted to 100%. Two layers of 150mm per layer, of DGB20 standard
gravel should be spread, compacted and certified to 100%. Testing
every 100 metres should be undertaken. A two or three coat seal (even
better a hot mix surface) should then be applied. A few overtaking
lanes would also be an advantage given the road alignment. ASSOCIATED
ISSUES Mountain Ash Road to Goulburn - same story, too many trucks
(not all the property of Ardmore Park and its subsidiary APE) and
sub-standard gravel. The only solution for this is to repair the road
and get trucks off it. Ardmore Park currently has the right to sell
and deliver product locally using the entire local road network
including the Mountain Ash Road to Goulburn. Because of this
additional usage, the road between Bungonia and Goulburn is so
destroyed as to be dangerous. I suggest a 15 tonne load limit for all
roads other than the haul route. This will not inconvenience companies
delivering product to residents along the road but will prevent
opportunistic travel as a thoroughfare or shortcut. This will
concentrate most heavy traffic onto the haul route except transit
through the village of Bungonia. Incidentally, it is a nonsense that
the Bungonia By-Pass is a private road and unavailable to other
trucking companies - it should have been gazetted and used for all
traffic in excess of 4 tonnes GVM. This could become a trade-off for
Ardmore Park's Modification Requests. CONCLUSION I draw attention in
brief to the following: 1. Ardmore Park makes much of the fact that
his new vehicles (not all his existing fleet) comply with NHVR
standards and, for some reason, are likely to do less damage than
conventional trucks. I would say that 2288 vehicle movements per annum
and 580,000 tonnes of freight at 8 tonnes per drive or load axle will
destroy any road that is not up to standard and even those that are,
viz. entry and exit to Marulan checking station. 2. Truck hours of
operation. In the initial, generous consent, trucks were permitted to
travel the haul route between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday to Friday and
between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Saturdays. This was resisted by the local
residents but Ardomore Park now seeks a modification to allow the
hours to change to 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday to Friday and 5 a.m. to 5
p.m. on Saturdays. The weekday time increase is 64% and the Saturday
increase is over 110%. I would remind the Minister that Friday
afternoon is the busiest time on Jerrara Road with the weekender peak
period between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. - dark in winter for the entire
period and for at least 2 hours in the height of summer. Human and
wildlife carnage might be anticipated. In other local government
areas, where quarries are situated in rural residential areas, they
are often restricted to an 8-hour day, five days per week. Now my
comments are on record, they may be used in class actions if my
predictions prove correct - with particular reference to safety and
the cost of road repairs that will, of necessity, be borne by the
ratepayers.

Submission attached.

Please refer to the attached document

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached