Bobs Farm Sand Quarry

Statement of Objection to the Proposed Sand Mine at Bobs Farm
I strongly object to the proposed sand mine at Bobs Farm due to the significant health and safety risks
it poses to the students, teachers, and staff at the nearby public school, located approximately 250
metres from the proposed site.
The close proximity of the sand mine to a school is deeply concerning. Sand mining operations have the
potential to generate respirable crystalline silica dust, which is recognised as a serious health hazard
when inhaled. Scientific studies have shown that airborne dust generated by mining and quarrying
activities can travel well beyond the boundaries of a site, with weather conditions such as wind
significantly influencing the distance travelled. At a distance of only 250 metres, there is a genuine
concern that dust generated by mining activities could reach the school grounds.
Children are particularly vulnerable to air pollution because their lungs are still developing, they breathe
more rapidly than adults, and they spend significant periods of time outdoors during school hours.
Teachers and school staff would also face repeated, long-term exposure over many years. Any increase
in airborne respirable silica or dust has the potential to adversely affect the health of those attending
the school.
While crystalline silica is best known for causing silicosis in workers exposed to high concentrations over
prolonged periods, respirable particulate matter associated with mining operations can also contribute
to respiratory irritation, reduced lung function, and may increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease.
The long-term health implications of exposing children to airborne dust near a school should not be
underestimated.
The precautionary principle should be applied in this case. Where there is potential for serious or
irreversible harm, particularly to children, the absence of complete scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason to proceed with a development that may place public health at risk.
In addition to the health concerns, the proposal raises broader issues relating to air quality, noise,
increased heavy vehicle movements, and the overall suitability of locating an industrial mining
operation in such close proximity to an educational facility. Schools should provide a safe and healthy
learning environment, free from avoidable environmental hazards.
I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully consider the potential impacts on the health,
wellbeing, and safety of the school community. Given the proposed mine's location only 250 metres
from the public school, the risk of airborne dust exposure, including respirable crystalline silica, is
unacceptable. Protecting the health of children, teachers, and the wider community should be the
highest priority, and for these reasons I urge that the proposed sand mine at Bobs Farm be refused.

I am not in favor of mining sand from our pristine beaches. We don’t have the roads or even an alternate artillery road to support the infrastructure (truck movement). I don’t like the idea of disrupting nature’s sand dunes. Every time we mess with nature it causes a domino effect and problems elsewhere. The sand provides water purification to the Tomago catchment area.
The government needs to understand Port Stephens is a tourist precinct as it provides clean beautiful nature in the form of beaches, nature parks etc. you can’t mess that up.

The South Tomaree Community Association (STCA) represents the postcode 2316 community.

This proposal is not simply about extracting sand. It is about whether a 120,000-year-old coastal dune system of environmental, cultural and community significance should be permanently destroyed for a project with a relatively short operational life, on the basis of technical assessments that repeatedly defer resolution of acknowledged uncertainty to the future. Future generations cannot recreate that landform once it has been excavated.
STCA submits that the proposal should be refused because:
1. Impacts on matters of national environmental significance remain unresolved, and the EIS's own EPBC Assessment conflicts with the Commonwealth's controlled action determination.
2. The proposal would permanently destroy an irreplaceable, ancient coastal dune landform.
3. Aboriginal cultural heritage impacts, including five identified heritage sites, have not been adequately weighed.
4. Biodiversity loss is substantial, relies excessively on offsets, and is described using inconsistent credit figures across the BDAR and EPBC documentation.
5. Groundwater protection has not been demonstrated: the extraction buffer is inconsistent across the EIS and Rehabilitation Strategy (0.7 m vs 1 m), materially less conservative than the neighbouring Mackas approval (2 m/1 m), and derived from a model with a calibration error exceeding accepted benchmarks and a limited monitoring record.
6. Groundwater quality anomalies, including elevated metals and detectable hydrocarbons, remain unexplained.
7. Climate change impacts on groundwater, rehabilitation and closure have not been adequately assessed.
8. Acid sulfate soil risks (Class 3 and Class 4) have not been adequately addressed.
9. The Visual Impact Assessment relies on outdated 2012 data and a methodology its own field validation contradicted.
10. Sensitive receivers, including Bobs Farm Public School and tourism accommodation within 40–60 metres of extraction, have not been adequately considered.
11. Traffic safety impacts remain unresolved in the absence of an independent Road Safety Audit, and traffic modelling excluded peak tourism and school-holiday conditions.
12. Noise compliance has not been demonstrated for later stages of extraction, and the proponent's own assessment proposes an operational hold point to work this out after approval.
13. Construction dust has not been quantitatively assessed, and RCS background data is drawn from an unrelated 2005 Victorian study.
14. Rehabilitation success remains speculative, with subjective completion criteria and a Class 7 land capability rating that sits uneasily with claims of agricultural restoration.
15. Social impacts are understated, drawing broad conclusions from a 27-response survey the assessment itself describes as not statistically significant.
16. Land-use compatibility under Clause 2.17 of the Resources and Energy SEPP has not been established.
17. Cumulative impacts across groundwater, biodiversity, traffic, noise and tourism systems have not been adequately assessed.
18. The Economic Assessment has not demonstrated a net public benefit, having assumed multiple significant costs to be zero.
19. Greenhouse gas emissions appear understated, with internally inconsistent haulage figures and excluded export and land-clearing emissions.
20. The proposal relies excessively on future monitoring and adaptive management rather than demonstrated present-day acceptability.
21. The public interest test under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act has not been satisfied.
Accordingly, STCA respectfully requests that the Department refuse SSD-99860959.

This proposal raises concerns about:
Biodiversity loss
Impacts on a sensitive coastal groundwater system
Increased truck traffic and road safety risks
Impacts on amenity, rural character and lifestyle
Potential impacts on schools, families and local residents
Potential health impacts from dust and silicates
Potential visual impacts on one of Port Stephens most important entrance corridors
Further industrialisation of the Bobs Farm–Salt Ash area
Cumulative impacts from existing and proposed extractive industries

Huge impact of noise and traffic for the students of Bobs Farm! As a teacher, I feel for the students if their idyllic and quiet country location becomes an adjunct to a sand quarry that will be operating constantly with polluted air and noise added to the ugliness. Many beautiful trees, home to wildlife will be razed.This is on proposed fora one way main road which would necessitate constant large trucks having to drive towards Nelson Bay and do a u turn to go in the direction of Newcastle ….dangerous and adding to traffic congestion and problems.

SUBMISSION ON STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT: BOBS FARM SAND QUARRY (SSD-99860959)
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Attn: Major Projects Assessment
Submission Date: July 2026
Submitter: Kristy Arnall
Address: 3339 Nelson Bay Road, Bobs Farm NSW 2316
Position: Local Resident / Active Community Objector (4.1 km from proposal)
1. Executive Summary & Personal Declaration
I am writing to lodge my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry (SSD-99860959).
I reside at 3339 Nelson Bay Road, located just 4.1 km from the proposed development site. Having played an active role in the initial community opposition to the original 2019 proposal, I am intimately familiar with the history of this site, the surrounding ecosystems, and the daily reality of living along the Nelson Bay Road corridor.
To be clear: I am not opposed to mining, regional development, or local employment. I respect the necessity of resource extraction when located appropriately. However, this is simply the wrong location.
While the proponent has adjusted the proposal from a wet extraction model to a 'dry' quarry, this change fails to resolve the fundamental site incompatibility. Clearing 24 hectares of native habitat, introducing up to 40 heavy truck movements an hour onto our primary regional arterial road, operating adjacent to a local school, and digging immediately above a sensitive coastal groundwater table creates an unacceptable risk.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) relies heavily on post-approval monitoring, future management plans, and adaptive mitigation. Monitoring is not mitigation. As a nearby resident who will be directly affected by the daily operational reality of this site, I urge the Department to reject this proposal under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).
2. Direct Corridor & Amenity Impacts: Living 4.1 km Downstream on Nelson Bay Road
A. Severe Traffic Safety & Gateway Disruption
Living 4.1 km from the site puts my home directly on the primary transport and haulage corridor for this proposal.
* Unprecedented Truck Volumes: The proposal seeks to extract up to 530,000 tonnes of sand annually—more than double Macka’s Sand (200,000 tonnes/year). This translates to up to 40 heavy vehicle movements per hour merging onto Nelson Bay Road and navigating the Port Stephens Drive roundabout.
* Daily Liveability & Safety: As local residents, our household relies on Nelson Bay Road for daily commuting, school runs, and basic access. This stretch of road is already heavily congested during peak tourism periods and school travel hours. Adding a continuous stream of heavy, slow-accelerating haulage trucks introduces severe safety hazards for residents turning into and out of rural driveways along this corridor, including my own.
* Omission of Road Safety Audits: The Traffic Assessment focuses on broad intersection capacities but fails to include a comprehensive, independent Road Safety Audit that accounts for local residential access, school bus stops, and peak holiday traffic flows along this specific stretch of Nelson Bay Road.
B. Cumulative Environmental Noise & Regional Amenity
* Noise Compliance Concerns: The Noise Assessment acknowledges future operational uncertainties and relies on "adaptive management" to address noise exceedances in later extraction stages. Traffic and operational noise do not stop at property boundaries—they carry significantly across the flat landscape of Bobs Farm.
* Air Quality and Public Health: The EIS fails to quantitatively model dust generated during initial clearing and site establishment. Heavy vehicle movements and large stockpiles generate fine particulate emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) that compromise the air quality of the surrounding residential catchment.
3. Groundwater & Hydrological Vulnerability
Extracting sand within 0.7 to 1.0 metre of the highest predicted groundwater table leaves an dangerously thin margin of error in a highly dynamic coastal aquifer system.
* Inconsistent Safety Standards: The Hydrogeological Impact Assessment bases its risk calculations on a 0.7-metre separation above groundwater, while the site Rehabilitation Strategy references 1.0 metre. The EIS lacks a consistent, dependable groundwater protection benchmark.
* Acid Sulfate Soils & Contamination: The site contains Class 3 and Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils, alongside existing acidic groundwater and elevated metal levels. Large-scale excavation and vegetation removal risk altering local groundwater recharge, disturbing soil chemistry, and impacting water quality across the broader Bobs Farm groundwater system.
* Lack of Climate Resilience Modelling: The EIS contains no dynamic modelling showing how localized groundwater levels will behave under severe rainfall events, storm surges, or long-term sea-level rise during the 10-year extraction window or post-closure phase.
4. Biodiversity & Ecological Significance: Direct Species Sighting
The EIS understates the ecological impact of clearing ~24 hectares of native vegetation by relying heavily on biodiversity credit offsets. Offsets do not prevent local habitat destruction; they merely quantify the loss.
A. First-Hand Observation: Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua)
The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) identifies the site as threatened species habitat. I can confirm the ecological significance of this area firsthand: I have personally sighted the Powerful Owl on this site.
The Powerful Owl requires large, unbroken corridors of mature native forest and established hollow-bearing trees to forage and nest. Removing 24 hectares of native vegetation will sever the vital north-south wildlife corridor connecting the Tomaree and Tilligerry Peninsulas, displacing apex predators and native fauna.
B. Contradictory Threatened Species Assessments
* Koala Habitat Critical to Survival: The Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water determined that the proposal involves clearing approximately 24.5 hectares of habitat critical to the survival of the Koala. The proponent’s attempt in the EIS to reclassify this as "supplementary habitat" directly contradicts Commonwealth findings.
* Speculative Rehabilitation: The EIS assumes that mature woodland, hollow-bearing trees, and complex ecosystem functions can be recreated post-closure. Re-establishing functioning mature ecosystems takes decades. Future promises of revegetation cannot replace immediate, permanent habitat loss.
5. Failure to Satisfy Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act
Under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must evaluate whether a proposal is suitable for the site and in the public interest.
* Application of the Precautionary Principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, a lack of scientific certainty must not be used to justify proceeding. The unresolved risks surrounding groundwater stability, traffic safety, cumulative corridor impacts, and habitat fragmentation demand that the Department apply the Precautionary Principle and refuse the application.
* Land-Use Incompatibility: Inserting a high-volume industrial sand extraction operation into a rural-residential, eco-tourism, and agricultural gateway corridor—adjacent to Bobs Farm Public School—is an incompatible land use that degrades the character and safety of South Tomaree.
6. Conclusion & Requested Determination
The proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry (SSD-99860959) is simply in the wrong location. It presents unacceptable risks to local groundwater, destroys critical habitat for threatened species including the Powerful Owl and Koala, creates severe traffic hazards along the Nelson Bay Road corridor, and undermines the safety and amenity of nearby residents.
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure REFUSE Application SSD-99860959.
Alternative Operational Conditions (If Approved)
Should the Department grant approval despite these critical unresolved impacts, I request that the following strict conditions be imposed to protect the surrounding community:
* Groundwater Buffer: A strict, non-negotiable minimum 2.0-metre vertical separation between extraction depth and the maximum historical/predicted water table level, independently verified.
* Haulage & Traffic Limits: Strict restrictions limiting heavy vehicle movements to standard business hours (7:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday to Friday), with a total ban on truck haulage during weekends, public holidays, and NSW school holiday periods.
* Independent Road Safety Audits: Mandatory independent Road Safety Audits conducted biennially along the Nelson Bay Road haulage corridor to assess local driveway integration and school bus safety.
* Legally Secured Offsets: All required biodiversity offsets must be formally secured and funded prior to any physical site disturbance or clearing.
* Real-Time Monitoring: Installation of real-time, publicly accessible noise, dust, and groundwater monitoring stations, with automatic stop-work triggers enforced upon any environmental exceedance.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Kristy Arnall
3339 Nelson Bay Road, Bobs Farm NSW 2316
Local Resident & Concerned Community Member

1. Executive Summary & Personal Declaration
I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry (SSD-99860959).

I reside on Nelson Bay Road, approximately 4 km from the proposed site, and am familiar with the area’s environmental significance and the daily realities of living along this corridor.

I am not opposed to mining, regional development or local employment. Resource extraction has an important role when undertaken in appropriate locations. However, this proposal is fundamentally unsuitable for Bobs Farm.

Although the proposal has changed from wet extraction to a dry quarry, it still involves clearing approximately 24 hectares of native vegetation, introducing significant heavy vehicle traffic onto Nelson Bay Road, operating near a local school (one we chose not to send our child to this year due to the worry of the mine going a head) and excavating above a sensitive coastal groundwater system.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) relies heavily on future monitoring and management plans to address potential impacts. Monitoring is not mitigation. As a nearby resident who will be directly affected by this development, I urge the Department to reject the proposal under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. Direct Corridor & Amenity Impacts

A. Traffic Safety & Nelson Bay Road

Living just 4 km from the site places my home directly on the proposed haulage route.

* The quarry proposes extracting up to 530,000 tonnes of sand annually, generating up to 40 heavy vehicle movements per hour.
* Nelson Bay Road is already heavily used by residents, school and work traffic and tourists. Additional heavy vehicles will increase congestion and create significant safety risks for those entering and exiting rural properties. Through in the daily tourist coming out our BFarm and turning right and driving against the traffic head on at 100km per hour.
* The Traffic Assessment does not adequately consider local residential access, school bus stops or peak holiday traffic conditions. It can take us up to 30 mins extra to access our U turn road in peak holiday traffic and can take up to 5 minutes at time to even safely exit our driveway.

B. Noise, Dust & Amenity

* The Noise Assessment relies on adaptive management measures rather than demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated.
* Dust generated during vegetation clearing, stockpiling and truck movements has not been comprehensively modelled. Fine particulate matter poses risks to both air quality and public health.
* Noise and dust impacts will extend beyond the site’s boundaries and affect the surrounding residential community, including the school and local business.

3. Groundwater & Hydrological Vulnerability

The proposed extraction depth leaves a minimal buffer between quarry operations and the local groundwater table within a sensitive coastal aquifer.

* The EIS contains inconsistent groundwater protection standards, referencing both 0.7 metre and 1.0 metre separation distances.
* The site contains Acid Sulfate Soils and existing groundwater quality concerns. Excavation may alter groundwater recharge and impact water quality more broadly.
* There is insufficient modelling demonstrating how groundwater levels will respond to severe rainfall events, storm surges or long-term sea-level rise over the life of the project and following rehabilitation.

4. Biodiversity & Ecological Significance

The proposal would result in the clearing of approximately 24 hectares of native vegetation. Biodiversity offsets do not replace the immediate loss of habitat.

A. Powerful Owl Habitat

I have personally sighted the Powerful Owl near our property. This threatened species relies on mature native vegetation and connected wildlife corridors for nesting and foraging.

Clearing this land will further fragment important habitat connections between the Tomaree and Tilligerry Peninsulas and impact native fauna across the region.

B. Threatened Species Concerns

* Commonwealth assessments have identified the site as containing habitat critical to the survival of the Koala, contradicting the proponent’s characterisation of the land as merely supplementary habitat.
* The proposed rehabilitation strategy assumes mature ecosystems can be recreated over time. However, hollow-bearing trees and established ecological systems cannot simply be replaced within a reasonable timeframe.

5. Failure to Satisfy Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act

Under Section 4.15, the consent authority must determine whether the proposal is suitable for the site and in the public interest.

* The unresolved risks relating to groundwater, traffic safety, biodiversity and cumulative environmental impacts warrant application of the Precautionary Principle.
* The proposal represents an incompatible land use within a rural-residential, agricultural and eco-tourism area located adjacent to Bobs Farm Public School.
* The environmental and community impacts outweigh any claimed benefits of the development.

6. Conclusion & Requested Determination

The proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry is in the wrong location.

It presents unacceptable risks to groundwater, biodiversity, traffic safety and the amenity of nearby residents and will permanently alter the character of the Bobs Farm community.

I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse Application SSD-99860959.

Alternative Operational Conditions (If Approved)

Should approval be granted despite these concerns, I request the following conditions be imposed:

* A minimum 2.0 metre groundwater buffer between extraction depth and the maximum historical or predicted groundwater level, independently verified.
* Heavy vehicle movements restricted to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday to Friday only, with no haulage permitted on weekends, public holidays or NSW school holiday periods.
* Independent Road Safety Audits conducted every two years along the Nelson Bay Road haulage corridor.
* All biodiversity offsets secured and funded prior to any vegetation clearing or site works.
* Real-time, publicly accessible monitoring of noise, dust and groundwater levels, including automatic stop-work requirements where environmental limits are exceeded.

Thank you for considering this submission

I object to the proposal on the following grounds:
TRAFFIC
The traffic survey was not done in peak periods which are around 6am-7.30am and 4pm - 6pm to capture work related travel peaks. The absence of a 24hr baseline monitoring study invalidates the assessment times as being representative of Peak Hour Flows. The length of the deceleration lane is inadequate and the merge point on the bend will increase risks to road users, particularly as an outcome of misjudged merging by sand laden trucks. The frequency of trucks doing u turns on a busy roundabout with increase risks to road users. It also excluded consideration of significant holiday season travel. I can not be considered a valid and representative survey.

GROUNDWATER
The proposal to extract only dry sand to 0.7m above appears not to consider that the groundwater table will suffer local depression from the removal of the overlying sands. The proponent should be required to submit detail groundwater modelling. Any approval should apply an extraction limiting 3D surface to avert groundwater table interference.

MNES
The removal of habitat for the critically endangered species of Koala, Grey-headed Flying Fox, and Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is unacceptable.
The standout problem is Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater — the report's own cited guideline calls for March–July surveys, but the only current fieldwork was in January, and the only in-window data is 11–12 years old. Glossy Black Cockatoo targeted surveys also missed the March–August breeding season, and the Spotted-tailed Quoll camera survey wrapped up just before the April–July mating season when detectability peaks. The apparent avoidance of peak detection windows cast serios doubt on the credibility of the assessment.
The report is fundamentally flawed and the proponent is required to address this by resurvey.
Other issues:
The New Holland Mouse is treated as a full MNES throughout the report, but the report's own Table 18 lists its EPBC status as blank/not listed — an unresolved internal contradiction that undermines the basis for assessing/offsetting it under the Commonwealth Act.
Section 3.2.3 (Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest) cites survey guidance for a completely different TEC (Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland) — looks like leftover template text from another project.
Hair funnels are listed as a required Spotted-tailed Quoll survey method but never reported as completed; the camera bait used (sweet/oil mixture) isn't well suited to a carnivorous target species.The New Holland Mouse is treated as a full MNES throughout the report, but the report's own Table 18 lists its EPBC status as blank/not listed — an unresolved internal contradiction that undermines the basis for assessing/offsetting it under the Commonwealth Act.
Section 3.2.3 (Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest) cites survey guidance for a completely different TEC (Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland) — looks like leftover template text from another project.

My concerns are the infrastructure, roads will not handle 200 trucks a day 7 days a week. The holiday traffic is already bad and this will make it worse.
My concerns are also the air pollution, wildlife. I have seen dogs, wombats, echidna, lizards on the road most have been hit or are about to be hit, having extra trucks, people will do nothing but hurt our wildlife by destroying their environment.
Also, my personal opinion having a Labor council, state and federal government has been a disaster for port stephens.

This project would have detrimental effects specifically on the environment due to proximity of excavations to the water table. Heavy vehicle traffic on local roads is likely to cause massive disruption to the area and thirdly silicone dust created from the excavation work would be severely dangerous to the children and staff at the Bobs Farm Primary School. This is a project previously denied and should be again regardless of the changes made to the original application.

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry at 3631 Nelson Bay Road, Bobs Farm (SSD-99860959). I respectfully request that this proposal be refused, and that it be determined by the Independent Planning Commission due to the significant public interest and community concern surrounding the project.

My objection is both personal and community based. My family owns a farm on Marsh Road, where I grew up, and I have a deep and long standing connection to this landscape. I have firsthand knowledge of the area’s environmental values and the importance of preserving its rural character for current and future generations.

Biodiversity and habitat loss-

The proposal involves clearing approximately 24 hectares of native vegetation and extracting 530,000 tonnes of sand per year for 10 years. This represents a substantial and irreversible loss of habitat in an area known to support threatened and vulnerable species.

I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts on:

● Grey-headed Flying Foxes – I have personally observed large colonies of Grey Headed Flying Foxes in the exact area where this mine is proposed. These colonies are an important part of the local ecosystem, and their displacement or loss would be devastating.

● Spotted Tailed Quolls – an endangered species whose habitat may be affected by vegetation clearing, noise, lighting, and increased human activity.

● Bush Stone Curlews – when I was young, Bush Stone Curlews were present on our family farm paddock on Marsh Road. Their historical presence demonstrates the ecological significance of this landscape and the need to protect remaining habitat.

● Koalas, Powerful Owls & Mahony’s Toadlet- all of which rely on connected native vegetation corridors that could be fragmented or destroyed by this development.

The cumulative impact of habitat clearing, quarry operations, stockpiling, lighting, and heavy vehicle movements threatens to permanently alter the biodiversity of the Bobs Farm–Salt Ash area.

Groundwater and environmental risks-

I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts on the sensitive coastal groundwater system. Sand mining can alter groundwater flows, affect water quality, and reduce water availability for surrounding properties, agriculture, and ecosystems. Given the rural nature of the area and the reliance of many properties/farms on groundwater resources, these risks must not be underestimated.

Traffic and road safety-

The proposal would significantly increase heavy vehicle movements along Nelson Bay Road and surrounding local roads. This raises serious concerns about road safety for residents, commuters, and school children.

In particular, I am concerned about the proximity of Bobs Farm Public School on Marsh Road. Increased truck traffic in the area poses an unacceptable risk to families, children, cyclists, and pedestrians who use these roads daily. The safety of our community should be prioritised over industrial expansion.

Health, amenity, and rural character-

Dust and airborne silica from quarry operations have the potential to impact the health of nearby residents, particularly children and vulnerable people. Noise, vibration, and visual impacts would also significantly reduce the amenity and lifestyle of those living in the area.

Bobs Farm is a rural and environmentally significant gateway to Port Stephens. Further industrialisation through another sand quarry would erode the unique character of the region and diminish the natural beauty that residents and visitors value so highly.

Tourism, amenity, and rural character-

Bobs Farm and the surrounding Port Stephens region are not only valued for their rural lifestyle and environmental significance, but also for their thriving tourism industry. The proposed quarry is located in close proximity to a number of well known tourism and hospitality businesses that contribute to the local economy and the reputation of Port Stephens as a destination for nature based and family tourism.

Nearby businesses include Port Stephens Animal Adventures, Bobs Farm Berries, Bobs Farm Avocado Farm, B Farm by Murray’s, Cookabarra Restaurant/Barramundi Farm and Hydroponics, Go Karts Go, Kookaburra Farm Stay, Sunset + Vine Restaurant & Vineyard, and Valhalla. These businesses rely on the area’s peaceful rural atmosphere, scenic landscapes, clean environment, and positive visitor experience.

The introduction of a large scale sand quarry, with associated noise, dust, visual impacts, heavy vehicle traffic, and industrial activity, has the potential to negatively affect these tourism operators and reduce the appeal of the area to visitors. This could result in economic harm to local businesses and undermine the broader tourism identity of Port Stephens.

I am also deeply concerned about the proximity of the proposed quarry to the surrounding national parks and protected natural areas, including the internationally recognised coastal landscapes and biodiversity values of the Port Stephens region. These protected areas provide critical habitat for native wildlife, support ecological connectivity, and are enjoyed by residents and visitors for recreation and appreciation of nature.

The establishment of another extractive industry adjacent to these sensitive natural environments is inconsistent with the protection of Port Stephens’ environmental and scenic values. Rather than further industrialising this important gateway to Port Stephens, the focus should be on preserving its unique rural character, biodiversity, and tourism assets for future generations.

Previous community opposition

I understand that there was a previous attempt to establish a sand mine in this area, which did not proceed following strong community opposition. The fact that the community fought hard against such a proposal in the past demonstrates the long-standing and widespread concern about extractive industries in this location. Those concerns remain valid today and should be given substantial weight in the assessment of this application.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, I strongly object to the Bobs Farm Sand Quarry proposal. The environmental, social, health, and safety risks associated with this development outweigh any claimed economic benefits. I urge the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse this application and protect the biodiversity, groundwater, rural character, and community wellbeing of Bobs Farm and Port Stephens.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,

Jessica Henderson
70 Koree Street Pindimar NSW 2324

Family Farm- 756 Marsh Road Bobs Farm NSW 2316

21/07/2026

If this sand mine is approved, it will put another (up to) 120 heavy vehicles on the road. This will endanger residents of Sunrise Lifestyle Resort, visitors, trades and emergency services when entering Nelson Bay Road from Binder and Trotter roads.
I have a suggestion to alleviate this problem; install a new roundabout for the trucks to enter and leave the sand mine site directly onto Nelson Bay Road from the site. This will mean the loaded trucks will not be required to travel to the Port Stephens Drive roundabout to turn around and head back to Newcastle.

We live less than 5 kilometers from the proposed Project site on Marsh Road.
We rely on tank water and I have concerns about
the airborne Silica dust which will affect not only the school children close by the site but many residents in the surrounding area.
The number of trucks using our roads, 40 per hour.
The environmental impact on native ecologically sensitive vegetation and Fauna
Our precious ground water.
The noise and dust pollution will affect the Bobs Farm Primary School where 4 of my children went.
I strongly oppose this Mining Proposal.

•I am lodging my objection to the proposed Bobs Farm quarry.

•I live within the 4 Kms of the proposed quarry.

• I was involved in the first community opposition to the original proposal in 2019.

•I am familiar with the history of this site, surrounding lands, it's flora and fauna and the movement of peoples along the roads directly involved , ie Marsh Road and Nelson Bay Road.

• The movement of the number of trucks per hour on a road that also carries many many vehicles daily and often comes to a snails pace during peak holiday seasons makes this proposal totally dangerous and ridiculous.

It will cause major traffic interuption and risks vehicular accidents.

It is a main arterial road to the iconic and globally renowned Port Stephens Peninsula.

• An independent road safety audit needs to be done including the impact of noise, dust and vibration levels.

Bobs Farm Public School lies within a stones throw of the proposed quarry site.

• It will be virtually impossible to create a learning environment for the students of our local school with the heavy machinery required for escavation.

• The disturbance of the ancient sand beds allows the exposure of silica to spread and become airborne.

• The silica released during extraction may effect people within range

• It would be unforgivable if one of our young children developed the death scentence of scoliosis from this soil disturbance.

• Our area relies on rain water for all of our needs.

• Air and drinking water quality will be compromised.

• A basic map of the area effected during times of wind indicate that the radius of 10 Kms,( which is an estimated distance from the source that dust would travel) cover the majority of Port Stephens ,which is vastly populated.

I am greatly concerned.

• Anecdotal evidence indicates that risks to major extraction of fresh water in the sand beds will draw salt water up from Tilligerry Creek, onto the marhes rendering much of the land now used for agriculture , horticulture and general garden use ,brackish and unusable. The proposal of such a mine will make much of the marsh lands challenging, if not impossible to revegetate. Our family relies on our garden for food and medicines.

• There are no offsets that can replace the destruction of the proposed 24.5 hecares of our local habitat - koalas, powerful owls, pigmy flying foxes, wallaby, bandicoot and the people who dwell here on.

• They will all be disturbed or destroyed, their habitat along with them and their vital corridor broken from the Tomaree Tilligerry Peninsulas.

• This habitat is critical to these creatures. Revegetation is not going to replace the old growth trees that house these animals and birds

• This application for a mine must be stopped!

Objection to the Proposed Bobs Farm Quarry

I wish to formally lodge my objection to the proposed Bobs Farm quarry.

My family live within four kilometres of the proposed quarry site and have a direct interest in protecting the health, safety, and environmental integrity of our community.

I was actively involved in the first community opposition to the original quarry proposal in 2019. I am familiar with the history of this site and the surrounding landscape, including its unique flora and fauna, as well as the traffic movements along Marsh Road and Nelson Bay Road.

One of my greatest concerns is road safety. The proposal would introduce a significant number of heavy trucks onto roads that already carry high volumes of traffic every day.
During holiday periods, Nelson Bay Road frequently slows to a standstill as it serves as the main arterial route to the iconic Port Stephens Peninsula. Adding quarry trucks to this already congested road network would create unnecessary traffic delays, increase the likelihood of serious accidents, and compromise the safety of residents and visitors alike.
An independent road safety assessment should be undertaken before any approval is considered. This assessment should also examine the cumulative impacts of increased noise, dust, and vibration associated with quarry operations.

Bobs Farm Public School is located only a short distance from the proposed quarry. It is difficult to imagine how students could learn in a safe and productive environment while heavy machinery operates nearby. The constant noise, dust, and vibration would inevitably affect both the wellbeing of students and the quality of their education.

The excavation of ancient sand beds also raises serious concerns regarding airborne silica dust. Disturbing these sands has the potential to release respirable crystalline silica into the surrounding environment, creating a potential health risk for workers, nearby residents, and school children. This risk must be independently assessed before any approval is granted.

Our community relies almost entirely on rainwater for drinking and household use. Air quality and water quality are therefore of critical importance. Dust generated by quarry operations has the potential to contaminate rainwater collection systems across a wide area. Wind mapping suggests that dust could travel up to 10 kilometres from the source, potentially affecting much of the densely populated Port Stephens region.

I am also deeply concerned about the proposal's potential impacts on groundwater. There is longstanding concern within the community that extensive extraction from the ancient sand beds could alter groundwater levels, drawing saltwater inland from Tilligerry Creek and affecting the surrounding marshes. If this occurs, land currently used for agriculture, horticulture, and home food production could become saline and unsuitable for cultivation. My own family relies on our garden to grow food and medicinal plants, and this proposal places that at risk.

The environmental consequences of this development cannot be adequately offset. The destruction of approximately 24.5 hectares of native habitat would permanently impact koalas, powerful owls, pygmy flying foxes, wallabies, bandicoots, and countless other native species. It would also sever an important wildlife corridor connecting the Tomaree and Tilligerry Peninsulas.

These mature ecosystems have developed over hundreds of years. Revegetation cannot replace old-growth trees that provide essential nesting hollows, shelter, and food sources for native wildlife. Once this habitat is destroyed, it cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.

This proposal places unacceptable risks on our community's safety, health, water security, biodiversity, and quality of life. The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic benefit.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Bobs Farm quarry and respectfully request that this application be refused.

This proposal is a repeat of a previous proposal in 2019 which the Bobs Farm community rallied against and fought. I am saddened to see it brought forth again. I am very familiar with the area having lived and farmed here for 59 years with my husband, Don Kafer. First of all it will change the character of the area from quiet rural farmland to busy quarry. It has potential to damage bushland, including wildlife habitat which includes koalas, the Powerful owl, pygmy flying fox, wallabies, swamp wallaby, bandicoots, sugar gliders and several species of small birds. It also has the potential to negatively impact the water table, regardless of any so-called measures put into place to prevent this. I am not convinced that fines levied against damaging the water table and environment, or promises to remediate land are good enough to warrant going ahead with this quarry. The risk is too great. This is why individual residents in this area are not allowed to cut down trees, for example, due to the irreversible impacts on old growth trees and habitat. So why is it acceptable for a company to do this just because they put in a formal proposal? How does this process legitimise the destruction that will occur? For example, on my farm, we have bore water for irrigating our Avocado orchard drawn from the aquifer underground, which we are now obliged to pay for. How can you say for certain that withdrawing huge amounts of sand and water won't impact the water table and therefore the functioning of my and others' water bores? nother issue is the impact on air quality and water from the industrial process. Thirdly, there is the issue of large trucks continuously ferrying tonnes of sand onto Marsh Road - a road that is infamous for potholes and general malaise, and which simply cannot cope with that kind of heavy industrial transport. This is particularly hazardous during holiday season, with further impacts on traffic. Last of all, there is the impact of trucks passing close to Bobs Farm School. Why does it appear to not matter that residents and school children will have to put up with the noise and dust of heavy machinery and trucks? We already put up with noise from jets from the RAAF base and have done so for decades without consultation. This kind of imposition by a large company in a small rural area is disempowering to local Bobs Farm residents and everyone I've spoken to agrees that it is an outrage for this to go ahead.

Submission Objecting to the Proposed Bobs Farm Sand Extraction Project
I wish to formally object to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Extraction Project.
This proposal would involve the extraction of approximately 530,000 tonnes of sand each year for a period of 10 years, together with the clearing of around 24 hectares of native vegetation. The environmental costs of this development far outweigh any short-term economic benefits.
Port Stephens is recognised as one of the last significant strongholds for koalas on the NSW coast. Despite ongoing conservation efforts, koala populations continue to decline due to habitat loss, fragmentation, vehicle strike, dog attack, disease and the increasing impacts of development. Every remaining area of native vegetation and every wildlife corridor plays a critical role in the long-term survival of this endangered species.
The proposed clearing would permanently remove habitat used by threatened species, including the Koala, Grey-headed Flying Fox and Powerful Owl. Habitat fragmentation also forces wildlife to cross roads more frequently, increasing mortality and reducing breeding success. These impacts cannot simply be offset through revegetation elsewhere, as mature habitat takes decades to develop and many species depend on established ecosystems.
The Koala is listed as Endangered in New South Wales under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and nationally under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Governments at all levels have committed significant resources to reversing the decline of koala populations through habitat protection and restoration. Approving further clearing of known koala habitat appears inconsistent with these commitments and with the objectives of the NSW Koala Strategy, which aims to secure and expand koala habitat and improve landscape connectivity.
As a volunteer involved in koala rescue, rehabilitation and community education in Port Stephens, I have seen firsthand the devastating consequences of habitat loss. Our hospital treats koalas injured through threats that are often directly linked to urban expansion and habitat fragmentation. Preventing additional habitat destruction is far more effective than attempting to rescue wildlife after those impacts have occurred.
Beyond its impact on biodiversity, this proposal raises several serious environmental concerns.
The project has the potential to affect a sensitive coastal groundwater system that supports native vegetation and local ecosystems. Any alteration to groundwater levels or quality could have long-term consequences extending well beyond the extraction site.
The proposal would also generate substantial quarry processing, stockpiling and haulage activities, resulting in a significant increase in heavy vehicle movements along Nelson Bay Road. This raises concerns regarding traffic congestion, road safety and increased risks for local residents, school communities and visitors.
Potential health impacts associated with dust and airborne crystalline silica should also be carefully considered. Nearby residents should not be exposed to avoidable health risks arising from large-scale extractive industry.
In addition, the industrialisation of the Bobs Farm–Salt Ash area would erode the rural character and visual amenity of one of Port Stephens' most important entrance corridors. The natural environment is central to the identity, liveability and tourism appeal of Port Stephens. Incremental industrial development threatens these values and may have lasting economic consequences for businesses that rely on the region's environmental reputation.
Perhaps most concerning is the cumulative impact of this proposal when considered alongside existing and proposed extractive industries in the surrounding area. Environmental assessments should not examine each project in isolation. The combined loss of native vegetation, increased traffic, noise, dust, groundwater impacts and fragmentation of wildlife habitat must all be considered together. Small incremental losses can ultimately lead to irreversible ecological decline.
The precautionary principle should be applied in assessing this proposal. Where there is the potential for serious or irreversible environmental damage, uncertainty should not be used as a reason to proceed with development. Instead, protecting biodiversity and threatened species should be the priority.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse this application. The permanent loss of native vegetation, destruction of threatened species habitat, increased pressure on an already endangered koala population, potential impacts on groundwater, public health concerns, increased heavy vehicle traffic and the cumulative industrialisation of the Bobs Farm–Salt Ash area are not in the long-term interests of either the environment or the Port Stephens community.
Future generations deserve to inherit healthy ecosystems, thriving wildlife populations and the unique natural landscapes that make Port Stephens such a special place. Once this habitat is destroyed, it cannot simply be replaced.
As mentioned previously, I am an active volunteer at the Port Stephens Koala Hospital and have watched the decline of our local population. While rehabilitating injured koalas is an essential part of conservation, preventing habitat loss is far more effective. Once mature koala habitat is cleared, it cannot be recreated within the lifetime of the koalas that depend upon it.
Sharon Egan

I am most concerned with the proposed submission. I live in Sunrise Over 55's Village at 4011 Nelson Bay Road, Bobs Farm. We enjoy a semi rural environment, yet only 10 minutes from the thriving hub of Nelson Bay and Shoal Bay, a hugely populated waterfront tourist hub. This is at the end of a peninsula, surrounded by beautiful ocean, and is accessed by one road - Nelson Bay Road. My main objection is the unacceptable huge increase of articulated haul trucks along this road - by their own submission a total of 120 proposed movements daily! In the submission it provides for these trucks to travel a distance of approximately 4.4 km along Nelson Bay Road before they reach Port Stephens Drive roundabout before they can turn at the roundabout to travel south - this is ridiculous! At Sunrise Village we can only perform a left hand turn, travel further to Trotters Road intersection, enter Trotters Road U-turn bay to come back to Nelson Bay Road to perform a right hand turn to travel south. It is difficult enough now to access the left hand turn from Sunrise Village to head to Trotters Road - the road from our village to enter Nelson Bay Road is just past a blind bend and extreme caution and patience is required to access Nelson Bay Road. Bring on 60 articulated haul trucks a day coming from a blind bend past our only egress - a recipe for disaster. Natura Over 55's Village has their only means of access and egress on Trotters Road and these residents will also be severely hampered by these trucks. It is common rumour that there is a further proposed Village to be constructed on the corner of Port Stephens Drive roundabout. THERE MUST BE PROVISION MADE FOR THESE TRUCKS TO TURN SOUTH FAR BEFORE THE PORT STEPHENS DRIVE ROUNDABOUT, AND CERTAINLY FAR BEFORE THE SUNRISE VILLAGE ACCESS/EGRESS ROAD AT 4011 NELSON BAY ROAD. Nelson Bay Road is extremely busy every day, but this volume would easily double during holiday times. It is noted that the development will be operating 6 days a week from 7 am - 5 pm Mon - Fri and 7 am - 4 pm Saturday, with maintenance operating 7 days a week. The locals experience very poor road surfaces at the current time, and have to take extreme care to avoid the hugely damaging potholes. With a minimum of 120 proposed articulated haul truck movements a day on this section of the road, what chance have we got to hope for any safe surfaced roads. The noise and associated dust levels cannot be imagined nor endured. The degradation to the landscape is heartbreaking - I thought Port Stephens was as a Koala preservation habitat but this is slowly but surely being decimated. I have had the pleasure of living in this beautiful part of Port Stephens for over 3 years, making the decision to leave busier suburbs and enjoy the lifestyle enjoyed by the residents of Port Stephens and the holiday makers - please do not lower the aesthetics of this very special place!

I wish to raise concerns regarding the traffic assessment undertaken for the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry, particularly regarding the indirect impacts on Marsh Road and the Marsh Road/Nelson Bay Road intersection.

While the Environmental Impact Statement states that haulage trucks will be prohibited from using Marsh Road, the assessment appears to give limited consideration to the broader impacts that the additional quarry traffic will have on the surrounding road network and on residents who rely on Marsh Road for access to Nelson Bay Road.

Nelson Bay Road already experiences significant traffic volumes. There are also ongoing safety concerns associated with drivers exiting businesses and tourism venues along Nelson Bay Road. Drivers unfamiliar with the area occasionally exit venues along Nelson Bay Road onto a one-way road against the flow of traffic, creating an immediate head-on collision risk. I have personally witnessed this occur on multiple occasions over the past six years, including an incident involving a truck at night within the last two months.

Subsequently, the Traffic Impact Assessment contains out-of-date information stating, “There have been no crashes on Nelson Bay Road during this period (2020–2024) involving heavy trucks”. This does not include a fatal collision involving a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle that occurred on 6 February 2026 on Nelson Bay Road, near the intersection with Frost Road.

These existing safety issues should be considered when assessing the cumulative impact of introducing an additional 240 daily truck movements associated with the quarry.

Marsh Road residents depend entirely on finding suitable gaps in traffic at the Marsh Road and Nelson Bay Road intersection in order to enter and exit their properties.

The Traffic Impact Assessment states that “peak quarry operations could generate 120 truck entries and 120 truck exits per day, equivalent to 240 heavy vehicle movements daily.” Even if these trucks do not travel on Marsh Road itself, they will still contribute to increased traffic volumes on Nelson Bay Road and may reduce opportunities for vehicles to safely enter or exit Marsh Road.

This issue is particularly noticeable during weekends, school holidays and peak tourism periods when traffic volumes are already high. During these periods, it is not uncommon to wait several minutes to exit Marsh Road onto Nelson Bay Road.
The assessment does not appear to specifically model delays, queuing or gap acceptance for motorists exiting Marsh Road, despite this intersection being directly affected by increased traffic volumes generated by the proposal.

The EIS states that haulage trucks will be prohibited from using Marsh Road. However, it is unclear whether this restriction would remain in place during traffic incidents, roadworks, emergency detours or temporary closures of Nelson Bay Road.

Clarification is required regarding:
- Whether haulage vehicles would ever be permitted to use Marsh Road during diversions.
- How access would be managed during major incidents on Nelson Bay Road.
- Whether any contingency traffic management plans have been prepared.

Marsh Road is not suitable for increased heavy vehicle traffic. The road was constructed across saltmarsh areas and is known to experience pavement movement, surface deterioration and frequent potholes. Additional heavy vehicle use would exacerbate these existing issues. For residents, this road is the only way to access our properties and it is unlikely that the road will be repaired by Council if affected by the proposal, with potholes often taking months to be fixed.

Given the existing congestion and safety constraints on Nelson Bay Road, I believe further assessment is required before works commence.

I request that the Department enquire regarding:
- A peak holiday and peak tourism traffic assessment, rather than assessment based solely on average traffic conditions.
- Detailed intersection modelling for the Marsh Road/Nelson Bay Road intersection, including delays, queue lengths and available turning gaps for Marsh Road residents.
- Assessment of cumulative safety impacts associated with increased heavy vehicle movements on Nelson Bay Road.
- Whether additional signage, line marking or lighting measures are required to prevent wrong-way exit incidents by unfamiliar drivers.
- Clarification of traffic arrangements during road closures, incidents and detours.
- Post-approval traffic monitoring, with clear trigger points requiring mitigation measures or intersection upgrades if traffic delays or safety issues increase.

While the proposal states that haulage trucks will not use Marsh Road, the assessment appears to underestimate the indirect impact of quarry-generated traffic on Marsh Road residents and on the safe operation of the Marsh Road/Nelson Bay Road intersection. Additional assessment and monitoring should be undertaken to ensure that existing congestion and road safety issues are not worsened by the development.

This submission of mine is not going to be put through AI to check revise or polish up. It is coming directly from me fueled by my deep conviction. I bear Newcastle Sand no malice, nor do I wish their business ill, but as I live in Bobs Farm, on Nelson Bay Rd and I am a close neighbour, living approximately 800 metres from the proposed site, I strongly and absolutely oppose this project.

I oppose this project for the following reasons:

The proposed location of this sand quarry is totally inappropriate. This is the gateway to a beautiful area of bays and beaches, birds and wildlife. A quarry, right at the entrance, is hardly an inviting prospect for visitors coming to the area. The 15 metre buffer will not block the sound of extraction and vehicle movements on the site nor block visitors from the sight of loaded trucks and dogs slowly driving out of the quarry and onto Nelson Bay Road. It will congest the only gateway to Port Stephens, a popular tourist destination.

Environmental damage to a fragile ecosystem. The destruction of 24 hectares of native vegetation and an old established dune forest exposes a fragile eco system to irreparable damage. Without the stablising influence of these large trees and their deep roots, sand is easily whipped and blown and washed away. The power of nature is violent and strong and not tamed by man as witnessed along Foreshore Drive in March 2021 when storms and severe weather washed out an underlying culvert and caused a major collapse of the road. We have also witnessed the major damage caused to homes and pre-schools along Stockton Beach by sand being eroded by wind, rain and ocean. So, to take away the natural cover and stabilising effect of the existing trees and vegetation is exposing the area and environs to erosion and instability.

Disruption to the idyllic peace and serenity of the area which we and so many others came here to enjoy and the disruption to the function of local residents’ businesses - roadside stalls, wineries/restaurants/accommodation. The noise and the activity at the quarry 7 days a week will break the tranquility and peacefulness of the area, undermining its charm and changing the character of Bobs Farm

Finally, I fear that, once granted, limited permission will open the door to requests extensions of both time, area and scope.
Sand extraction on this site has been proposed previously and was not successful. The objections now are largely the same but voiced by different people as new people enter the district and others leave. The objections remain the same because they are real and authentic and closely bound to our homes, our lifestyles and our livelihoods, therefore I request that the Department REFUSE SSD- 99860959 and if possible, make it a final conclusion so that we residents do not have to endure the stress of fighting repeatedly for our habitat.