Champions Quarry

To whom it may concern,
Todd Anthony and Patricia Anne Pearson being the landowners of 165 Tregeagle Road Wyrallah wish to lodge a submission strongly objecting to the Development Application referred to above and currently being considered by The NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure.

Impacts that would arise should this development application be approved by the department in our opinion are as follows:-
* Significant increase in traffic flow due to staff and heavy machinery accessing the site. The roads in the immediate area can only be described as of a poor standard and not intended for the regular flow of heavy vehicles.
* Approval would result in a significantly increased traffic hazard to the many children in the area that ride their pushbikes on the roads.
* Approval would also result in detrimental impact on the amenity of all local residents. People in this area have chosen to live in the country in order to enjoy a rural lifestyle and escape the traffic and noise of the cities and towns.
* Increased noise would result from the constant movements of the heavy vehicles and equipment as well as the quarrying activities on the site.
* Approval would also result in a detrimental impact on the local environment given its proximity to Tucki watercourses and wetlands. We have grave concerns about the impact this would have on the diverse wildlife in our area.
* We rely on artesian water for domestic use, including our drinking water. Given the significant use of artesian water for the quarrying activities we hold grave concerns not only for the quality but for our ongoing supply.

We have been residents in the Lismore area all of our adult lives.
We feel strongly that approval of this development application will have a significant and detrimental impact on not just ourselves and our family, but also the other residents of the area; the overall amenity of the area and the environment.



Yours Sincerely

Todd and Patricia Pearson

As a life long resident of the Lismore area, including Tuckurimba, I was involved as an observer in the 2011 hearings of the Land and Environment Court relating to this proposal. These especially involved concerns of Aboriginal Heritage being threatened by the Champions Quarry Project.

I am outraged at the prospect of this project. In my estimation this project posses significant impacts on people's quality of life in the immediate vicinity as well as those descendants living with the legacy of this project. My observations of formal testimony given by Bundjalung elders has convinced me that this project directly threatens the Aboriginal Heritage located in and around the proposed quarry site. My research indicates that the residential area of this project will suffer respiratory and carcinogenic health risks as a direct result of the heavy traffic and other pollution necessary to implement this project. My experience teaches me that this proposed quarry will have significant impact on the flora and fauna living in and down-stream of the proposed site. Furthermore I am personally disgusted that the proponent need not feel ashamed of the costs they have forced upon the Lismore City Council in previously disqualified applications for this same project.

Previous applications for this quarry expansion have proved to me that the project is socially damaging, environmentally unwarranted, and culturally inappropriate.

It is incumbent on the NSW Government to do what it is elected to do, and represent the people affected by this ill-conceived proposal, by upholding the decision already made by the Lismore City Council to disallow this proposed project in its entirety.

Sincerely,
Daniel John Peterson JP

I write in support of the Champions Quarry Preferred Project Report.

I am a Councillor at Lismore City Council in my second term in office.

I have read through the Preferred Project Report (PPR) submitted by Champion's consultants, as on your website.

I note that:

* Champions Quarry is a State Significant resource as per SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011 Schedule 1 (Extractive Industries);
* In January 2011 the Department of Planning & Infrastructure provided Champions Quarry with a Draft Project Approval document setting out the proposed Conditions of Approval for comment;
* The approval was not issued due to an Appeal in the Land and Environment Court;
* Champion Consultants have considered the findings of the Land and Environment Court Appeal and have updated the proposal to address some specific concerns raised by the court; and
* The PPR includes additional and/or updated standalone assessment reports that have been specifically undertaken in response to matters raised by the LEC.

I understand that Champions Quarry represents the largest and only source of sand and sandstone resource used for road base and other construction material in the southern area of Lismore Council area.

The reduction in travel times for trucks using the resource will advantage the development industry. Also approval of the Preferred Project will have the benefit of reduced travel distances and thus reduced usage of Council's roads by trucks.

Champions Quarry is thus a very important resource for the Lismore Council and should be approved.

I object to Champions Quarry Expansion Project 09_0080 for the following reasons:
1. Lismore City Council and the Land and Environment Court rejected this project for many reasons, which have not been addressed adequately by the Preferred Project Report.
2. This project would create land use conflict by producing unacceptable levels of noise, vibration, dust and visual impact for the surrounding rural residential properties.There are several within 800m and even within 500m of the quarry, which had been subdivided by the proponent!
3. The noise assessment is based on inaccurate data ie the back ground noise level, the machinery noise level esp from impulsive noise, wind direction and strength. The Lismore weather data do not reflect the topography and coastal exposure of the Tucki quarry site. Alstonville data would be more representative. The proposed higher construction noise levels are not acceptable for quarries.
4. The surface water management plan is also based on Lismore rainfall data, which does not reflect the coastal exposure of the quarry. Alstonville data would be more representative. The plan is based on 1in20 year storm events. This would mean serious contamination of runoff into the Tuckean Swamp during more serious storm events. This has already become evident during the last 2 years.
5. Since the 2009 Roadnet traffic study the condition of Wyrallah Rd has deteriorated significantly, this road was not constructed for heavy transport in wet conditions. The traffic impact in the previously approved DA 2005/999 was based on average loads of 20 tonnes. For the current application of up to 1500 t/day this would result in 75 laden and 75 empty truck movements per day. Currently 2 truck movements per day on average take place. The proposed increase is unacceptable because of safety and noise concerns. I have already witnessed several occasions when trucks travelling along the curves, rises and falls along Wyrallah Rd in the Tucki area have only just managed to stop behind stationary school buses, Lismore City Council garbage trucks and vehicles waiting to turn into one of many driveways. The current road noise level is already above the relevant NSW DECC level. The intersection of Pacific Hwy and Broadwater Rd was not assessed adequately despite the proposed heavy use of that route.
6. The previous expansion application to 16 ha had included a northern extraction area which is not part of the current PPR. This means that 6.25 million tonnes or 3 million m3 will be extracted from a much smaller area, so the extraction depth will increase significantly beyond the 15-20m stated in the EA. It would be approximately 30m additional to the depth of topsoil to be removed first. This would intercept water tables and groundwater and cause unacceptable impact on water resources in the area. The adverse visual impact of such a large hole in the ground is not consistent with the rural zoning of the area. It is proposed to sell removed topsoil instead of using it for rehabilitation which would increase the negative impact.

I object to Champions Quarry Expansion Project 09_0080 for the following reasons:
1. Lismore City Council and the Land and Environment Court rejected this project for many reasons, which have not been addressed adequately by the Preferred Project Report.
2. This project would create land use conflict by producing unacceptable levels of noise, vibration, dust and visual impact for the surrounding rural residential properties.There are several within 800m and even within 500m of the quarry, which had been subdivided by the proponent!
3. The noise assessment is based on inaccurate data ie the back ground noise level, the machinery noise level esp from impulsive noise, wind direction and strength. The Lismore weather data do not reflect the topography and coastal exposure of the Tucki quarry site. Alstonville data would be more representative. The proposed higher construction noise levels are not acceptable for quarries.
4. The surface water management plan is also based on Lismore rainfall data, which does not reflect the coastal exposure of the quarry. Alstonville data would be more representative. The plan is based on 1in20 year storm events. This would mean serious contamination of runoff into the Tuckean Swamp during more serious storm events. This has already become evident during the last 2 years.
5. Since the 2009 Roadnet traffic study the condition of Wyrallah Rd has deteriorated significantly, this road was not constructed for heavy transport in wet conditions. The traffic impact in the previously approved DA 2005/999 was based on average loads of 20 tonnes. For the current application of up to 1500 t/day this would result in 75 laden and 75 empty truck movements per day. Currently 2 truck movements per day on average take place. The proposed increase is unacceptable because of safety and noise concerns. I have already witnessed several occasions when trucks travelling along the curves, rises and falls along Wyrallah Rd in the Tucki area have only just managed to stop behind stationary school buses, Lismore City Council garbage trucks and vehicles waiting to turn into one of many driveways. The current road noise level is already above the relevant NSW DECC level. The intersection of Pacific Hwy and Broadwater Rd was not assessed adequately despite the proposed heavy use of that route.
6. The previous expansion application to 16 ha had included a northern extraction area which is not part of the current PPR. This means that 6.25 million tonnes or 3 million m3 will be extracted from a much smaller area, so the extraction depth will increase significantly beyond the 15-20m stated in the EA. It would be approximately 30m additional to the depth of topsoil to be removed first. This would intercept water tables and groundwater and cause unacceptable impact on water resources in the area. The adverse visual impact of such a large hole in the ground is not consistent with the rural zoning of the area. It is proposed to sell removed topsoil instead of using it for rehabilitation which would increase the negative impact.

The assessment of noise impacts is wrong , not done fairly.the scensrios are not true for the exposed operations, the backgrounds are 2 decibels too high, they should put in wind effects and impulses from the equipment. the sound power levels of the machines are put too low. if you add
1. 2 decibels for background missing
2. 5 decibels for wind
3 .5 decibels for impulses
4 .5 decibels for incorrect power levels,they are worse than that.
it becomes 17 decibels in error at the worst scenario
10 decibels doubles the sound

The proponent has not provided complete and accurate information necessary for correct and proper public exhibition of the Preferred Project Report resulting in disadvantage to the public's ability to fully assess the project. I object to this disadvantage for myself and the interested public.

I object to the proposed quarry on the ground that the noise & rainfall data that was used in the modeling should have used the charts from Alstonville Research Station as it is a lot more similar to Tucki than Lismore is. I also object to the layout of the information in the profered project Report as it was extreamly difficult to follow & find photos, tables etcin the presentation with some items unable to find at all.

I object to the proposal because:
a) It heightens the risk of increased sedimentation entering nearby waterways including the Richmond River that already have heightened levels of sediments, contributing to diminishing water quality and declining fish numbers.
b) The roads leading to and from the quarry are already in appalling condition and are not of a standard of construction, suitable width or safe design to allow passage of so many extra heavy vehicles. I already fear for the lives of my wife and daughter who travel this narrow, poorly maintained and heavily used road every day to Lismore. An increase of heavy trucks is a recipe for disaster. This road is already disintegrating; an additional burden of heavy traffic is going to destroy it for everybody and for what - so one person's company can financially benefit, to the detriment of all other road users in the region.

I am absolutely horrified that champions quarry it even thinking about extending the truck movements on Wyrallah Road.
As I use this road on a regular basis, to think of sharing it with an extra 100 gravel trucks frightens the life out of me as the road has never been a road to feel safe on and it usually in need of repair.

I do not live in close proximity to the quarry site. However I am very familiar with the site as I travel frequently from Lismore to Broadwater, along Whyralla Rd, to a holiday house we have at Iluka, down the coast from Broadwater. I have been making this trip for the past 14 years.

My objection to the proposed increase in production from the Quarry is based on four main issues,
1. SAFETY.
2. AFFECT on local Koala population.
3. LOSS of amenity for local residents.
4. WEAR and tear on Whyralla Rd.

1. SAFETY; Whyrallah rd is a meandering, narrow country rd which has to compete for funding with all other roads in the Lismore Shire. It is in a poor state of repair with large potholes and crumbling edges along its length. It is poorly aligned, has many creek/watercourse crossings and floods frequently. The section that travels north towards Lismore is undulating with frequent hillclimbs, affecting truck movements and is restricted to 80kl/hr because of this and its poor state of repair. A majority of the proposed, increased truck movements from the quarry are planned for this route.

The proposed increase in heavy truck movements will be competing with school buses, local traffic, cane haulage and a recently introduced garbage service, six days a week, including peak hour traffic morning and night. This will lead to an unacceptable risk for local residents and other rd users.

2. AFFECT on local Koala population; The quarry site and Whyralla rd traverse one of the largest remaining Koala populations on the n'coast. The Tucki nature reserve, a popular Koala spotting site is on Whyralla rd approx 2klm north of the quarry site. Local property owners have planted Koala food trees extensively. On my many trips along Whyralla rd, it is unusual not to see at least one Koala in trees along Whyralla rd. On one occassion a few years ago I witnessed a Koala loping south on Whyralla rd just outside the entrance to the quarry.

Reading the proponents application gives the impression that the extension to activities/truck movements at the quarry will benefit the Koala population. This can not be the case. The biggest loss of Koala numbers, other than habitat loss is caused by being hit by motor vehicles. Loaded trucks will not give Koalas a second chance.

Logically you have a significant existing Koala population affected by a rd travelling through their habitat. Any increase in traffic movements along this rd will lead to increased Koala deaths from contact with vehicles, particularly if those vehicles are heavilly loaded trucks. This is a fact ! The only practical way of avoiding this happening would be to install Koala proof fencing on both sides of the rd, as council did when tarring Skyline rd. Even this presents problems for Koalas accessing habitat.

3. LOSS of amenity for residents living in proximity to the quarry site; Unfortunately the quarry site is bowl shaped, with the quarry at the bottom of the bowl. Any increase in output from the quarry will affect residents living close to the site. Any amount of earth bunding will not change this.

4. WEAR and tear on Whyrallah rd; The quarry expansion proposal includes a massive increase in truck movements. Again it is irrefutable that this will lead to significant increase in wear and tear on Whyrallah rd and other local rds proposed as routes for truck movements. This deterioration of Whyrallah rd will also increase the risk of accidents as drivers struggle to avoid pot holes and deteriorating rd edges, whilst also trying to avoid loaded trucks also using the rd.

I note the proponents intention of not contributing to any cost of maintanance of the rd network caused by increased truck movements, other than the widening of a couple of intersections, necessary as they do not meet standards.

In summary I object to the proposal to expand Champions Quarry for the reasons stated above and implore the Dept to reject this inappropriate development.

Steve Knowles.

Dear Sir/Madam'

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the above Quarry Development Application on the grounds of :

-Lack of adequate buffer zones to neighbours
-Inadequate roads to cope with truck movements
-Lack of Indigenous heritage investigation
-threat of pollution of nearby Tucki Swamp
-noise dust water pollution to the surrounding areas

I also have huge problems with the NSW Government being able to overturn a Local Isssue which has been vastly considered over many years by LIsmore City Council and found to be NOT in the Public Interest.

Please reject this application.

Yours Sincerely

Peter Bellew

I object to the assessment as per attached submission.

Review of noise impact assessment which under estimates the noise impact on residential receivers and does not provide a worst case scenario.

Please see attached submission as well
Cr Simon Clough
90 Beardow St West
Lismore 2480
M 0428886217
E [email protected]


Department of Planning and infrastructure
Att: Howard Reed
Mining & Industry Projects
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Mr Reed

SUBMISSION - PART 3A PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT - CHAMPIONS QUARRY
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Preferred Project Report ("the PRP") for the proposed expansion of Champions Quarry at Tuckurimba in the Lismore City Council Local Government Area.

I am submitting this material in a private capacity, though there is reference to Lismore City Council's submission.

I ask that the Department consider the judgments of Senior Commissioner Moore in Champions Quarry Pty Ltd v Lismore City Council [2011] NSWLEC 1124 (DA Appeal) and Reavill Farm Pty Ltd v Lismore City Council [2010]
NSWLEC 1207 (Section 96 Appeal). These appeals consumed over a month of hearing dates at great cost to the Council, and involved the compilation of
large amounts of expert evidence from both parties. The Applicant's appeals were both dismissed. I believe there are similarities between the project now under consideration and development application/section 96 appeal considered and determined by Council and defended upon appeal that are relevant to
the determination of the Part 3A project. Virtually all of the material lodged with the Part 3A application was, in one from or another, presented to the Land & Environment Court by the proponent in response to Council's concerns about the operation and impacts of the proposed quarry expansion. The amended EIS lodged in the DA Appeal is based upon and relies on the work that was completed for the Part 3A project now awaiting determination.
I maintain that it is essential that the Department have regard to the Land & Environment Court's findings. It is simply untrue that the appeals involved different development proposals. In the DA Appeal, Senior Commissioner Moore accepted the interchangeability of documentation between the Part 3A appeal and DA (see comments at para 39 of judgment).



Summary
I believe there is no better summary of this PRP than that provided in the précis of the Land and Environment Court decision:

`The reconstruction of the bund adjacent to the Woolley residence is unacceptable on acoustic impact grounds. A reconstructed bund adjacent to the Woolley residence is unacceptable on visual impact grounds. Both these grounds separately are sufficient to reject this structure. Rejection of this structure would require rejection of the proposed quarry in its entirety. There are other acoustic impacts of construction activities that would require rejection of the proposed quarry in its entirety. There are further, lesser impacts that would not require rejection of the proposed quarry in its entirety but which, when accumulated with other impacts, would all collectively require rejection of the proposed quarry in its entirety. There are insufficient public benefits to outweigh the adverse impacts and thus the quarry expansion is rejected (my bold)'


Quality of the product and Quarry Management

Washed sand product is the focus of the original and additional PRP work
undertaken by Robertson in Annex E of the PRP (see also Coffey's Geotechnics Report of 2007), but the proponent says that they are no longer seeking approval for this. If washed sand product is taken out nothing is left except fill - a significant implication for the public benefit test. The sandwashing aspect of the proposal was removed during the DA Appeal because the proponent was unable (or unwilling) to adequately address the issues related to environmental damage related to sand washing.

The proponent has made many recent public comments that Lismore City Council needs his product to blend with its own quarry product to improve local road making. I approached Council's Executive Director of Infrastructure Services on this topic and he stated there was no substance to this proposal.

I saw Mr Don Reed Lismore City Council's expert witness in the Land and Environment Court and strongly suggest the Department seek the record of Mr Reed's evidence. Mr Reed is highly qualified to comment on the quarry proposal and found many aspects of the quarry development proposal which were not capable of being managed.

Traffic Impacts

The following is a quote from the Lismore City Council business paper of 13 April 2010
`Section 94 Contributions
The Environment Assessment - Appendix F Traffic Impact Assessment_
presents an argument from RoadNet (a traffic engineering consultant) that significantly reduces the section 94 contributions payable by Council. To put this into context the following sets of calculations are provided as a comparison between the contributions plan and the RoadNet calculations:
Assumptions from our Section 94 plan and inputs from application
Cost of construction = $369,000
ESA load = 6.74 x 106
CPI Dec 03 to Dec 09 = 1.1776
Administration levy = 2.5%
Convert m3 to tonnes = 1.7
Credit for extraction = 5000m3
Extraction PA = 250,000t
Levy = ($369,000 / 6.74 x 106) x 15 x (250,000 - [5000 x 1.7]) x 1.025 x 1.1776
= 0.0547 x 15 x 241,500 x 1.025 x 1.1776
= $239,176
This is the maximum charge in year 1.
Expressed as a $ per tonne at quarry gate = $0.96 + CPI*
* CPI to be calculated from date of consent.
Recalculation based on RoadNet figures from part 3A EA
Cost of maintenance = $50,000
ESA load = 6.74 x 106
CPI Dec 03 to Sept 09 = 1.1776
Administration levy = 2.5%
Convert m3 to tonnes = 1.7
Credit for extraction = 5000m3
Extraction PA = 250,000t
Levy = ($50,000 / 6.74 x 106) x 15 x (250,000 - [5000 x 1.7]) x 1.025 x 1.1776
= 0.0074 x 15 x 241,500 x 1.025 x 1.1776
= $32,357
This is the maximum charge in year 1.
Expressed as a $ per tonne at quarry gate = $ 0.13 + CPI*
* CPI to be calculated from date of consent.
NOTE: RoadNet's calculations come to $0.11 per tonne but this doesn't account for application of CPI from December 2003 to today's date.
The total cost of S94 payments as per the plan over the 25 year life of the quarry is: $5,979,400 + CPI.
This reduces to $808,925+ CPI under the RoadNet proposal giving Champion a net saving of $5,170,475 + CPI over the life of the quarry.
It is the position of staff that the Minister should apply the contributions plan and not adopt the RoadNet
Figures (my bold).'

While this matter maybe easily dealt with in terms of the conditions imposed on the development I believe it goes to the attitude of the proponent who is essentially seeking a $5m subsidy over the life of the quarry from the Lismore community.

Additionally the proponent is seeking to increase the daily traffic movements of the 30 tonne trucks involved to 50 laden movements a day. Counting return movements that is quarry truck coming or going from the quarry every 6 minutes. This is simply unacceptable in terms of noise generated and in terms of road damage and safety on Wyrallah Rd. It should be noted that the proponent has little control over these trucks or their drivers as they are independent contractors. Noise and smoke emissions and in fact routes will be largely determined by the truck drivers.

Noise
There is still no construction noise management plan provided as referred to in the DP&I letter of 29 June 2011, and there seems to be no justification to support the assessment of the construction noise impacts.

Lismore city Council in its submission contends that the Sound Power Level allocated for the rock hammer in the proponent's acoustic assessment is too low and needs to be increased to approximately 120 dB(A) for correct modelling of impacts. The submission also contends that the Sound Power Level for the bulldozer used in the Applicant's acoustic model is approximately 10 dB(A) too low and does not represent the impact of noise from the tracks when the machine is operated in reverse which will occur for approximately 50% of its operational time.

Aboriginal Heritage
The proponent has left unanswered many significant issues that were raised in the Land and Environment Court which contradicted his claim that the site was of no significant Aboriginal heritage. On this basis alone I believe the DP&I should reject the PRP.

Compliance
This project where a major quarry is to be developed within a relatively densely populated rural area will always produce, and is already producing a significant number of compliance issues. Historically the proponent has shown himself to be reluctant to deal with these compliance issues. I maintain that acceptance of this proposal would place an unacceptable burden on the compliance authority and generate continuing conflict in the community with `insufficient public benefit'.

Please see attachment

See attached document.

Please advise if you are unable to access this submission