Martins Creek Quarry Project

I oppose the Martins Creek Quarry Expansion.
My Objections to the Martins Creek Quarry Expansion are:
-Increased traffic and noise to the areas surrounding the mine.
-Impact of vibrations when blasting due to proposed increase in hours of operation.
-Increased dust and health concerns with regard to effects on respiratory conditions due to increased operations.
-Clearing of native vegetation, further exposing the residents and livestock to more dust and also impact on the native animals which would be displaced.
-Impacts on home & property values.
-Objection to proposed "Road Works" in Paterson CBD, impacts on parking, traffic noise, the areas' serenity , access to the local businesses.
-Destruction of a "Quiet Rural Town" due to the impact of increased truck movements in both directions.

Since the increase in truck traffic from the Martins Creek operations the noise level has become unacceptable. Trucks currently start movements on Tocal road as early as 5.30am. 'Compression breaking' is also common practice, which emmits an unacceptably high level of noise. These factors have considerably changed the enviromental conditions under which my wife and I now live. We both consider them totally unacceptable.
Onother concern is that there are a number schools and public meeting places on the current routs used. With the proposed increase in truck traffic it is obviously a major safety concern.
I hope that I do not have to refer to my concerns in a 'I told you so letter'. As we historically know everone in public office decides to 'hide under the bed' when this happens.

1. I frequently go to Paterson, specifically to get food, petrol, go to the chemist and Dr and use the cafe at the petrol station. I am very concerned at the prospect of increased truck movements from the quarry as they some times go through town rather fast (safety issue) and are quite noise. This will impact on the amenity of the town.

2. I am concerned at the prospect of encountering more trucks on the road generally and especially if they go along Martins Creek Rd which is just a normal country road

3. I live in a valley next to the quarry and can already hear the noise when trucks are loaded so I am concerned about the noise factor if this is increased

4. I especially object to the proposed increase in operating hours

I have been involved with the work at Martins Creek Quarry and seen the benefit it can bring to the greater community, especially providing material in times of need like the floods in 2015.

I wish to object to the proposed throughput and operating hours of truck/road haulage affecting Brandy Hill Drive, Brandy Hill.

As a resident of Brandy Hill and living very close to and being completely reliant on Brandy Hill Drive, I wish to object to any proposed increase in quarry truck traffic or approved operating hours for that traffic.

The rate of quarry truck traffic on Brandy Hill Drive (presumably from both Brandy Hill Quarry and Martins Creek Quarry) currently exceeds that which should reasonably be imposed upon a quiet rural community. It is unconscionable that an increase could be approved in relation to the numbers and operating hours of quarry haulage trucks along Brandy Hill Drive.

Brandy Hill Drive is a narrow, residential-scale roadway with a single lane each way, and with no pedestrian allowance, and is suitable for residential vehicular traffic only. Brandy Hill Drive is NOT suitable for the enormous quarry haulage trucks that we currently have to put up with.

Residents who attempt to walk along Brandy Hill Drive (as I do) currently have no choice but to carefully negotiate passing vehicular traffic without the benefit of any pedestrian space. While doing this safely is challenging enough in the context of ordinary private cars, the sheer size (width) of quarry haulage trucks makes this activity downright dangerous. It is not unreasonable for residents to expect to be able to walk around their local streets in safety.

The enormous quarry haulage trucks destroy Brandy Hill Drive's road surface, constantly causing huge potholes and uneven asphalt.

Being constantly forced to drive behind quarry haulage trucks on Brandy Hill Drive causes stray gravel to be thrown from those trucks, and from the road surface, on to residents' cars causing potential damage to windscreens. Are the quarries going to pay for our cracked windscreens caused by their trucks that shouldn't even be on a residential roadway such as Brandy Hill Drive?

Brandy Hill is a beautiful rural residential area. It is not acceptable that any further noise pollution should be imposed upon Brandy Hill residents by enormous noisy quarry haulage trucks, either through the number of truck movements, or the working hours.

Quarry truck haulage through residential areas and roadways such as Brandy Hill Drive should NOT be allowed to increase either in throughput or the hours in which they are allowed to operate.

I oppose the Martin's Creek Quarry Expansion. Our property lies on a curve of the road where the trucks fly along quickly. It is quite probable that even with the no of trucks now, let alone more, there could be a dangerous accident. Coming out of my driveway would be even more dangerous with an increase in the number of trucks and the speed that they go. The constant noise pollution disturbs our peace,a reason we bought a property in the country. I also wonder about the dust pollution that is quite evident even now. Many more native animals appear on our road now as road kill.... That will only increase with more trucks. Please do not allow this to happen !

I have been very concerned about the proposition the Quarry is presenting about the extension of their activities. From the currently approved 330,000 tpa to 1,500,000 tpa. I wish to lodge my objection to such a proposition. Already Paterson Village is unpleasantly shaken pretty much quarter hourly (and feeling very like New Zealand earthquakes I must say) with heavy trucks passing through the only main street, and already ripping up the road which had been partially repaired. The expansion if approved to transport by road will cause irreversible impact to the village amenity of Paterson.

Please NO more extension to the Quarry.

I oppose the martin's creek quarry expansion due to these reasons. Increased risk of being killed as I pull out of my driveway as lots more trucks bolt passed. I have young grandchildren and pets that would have an increased danger . The dust is already quite thick in the air...it will only get worse!

pdf attachment

Hi My name is Luke Banfield. I have worked with Daracon for over 10yrs as a labourer and now a leading hand. The martins creek quarry has supplied gravels and dust and aggregates to my jobs since I started. I also have mates that work in the industry for other companies in the hunter that also use the same materials. I think the quarry plays a big part in the Daracon Group and to other contractors throughout the hunter from small time players to the majors. Without the quarry I don't think that our jobs would operate as profitable as they do which in the long run effects our jobs and the wider community. I have a mate who lives directly next to the quarry who is also for the expansion as he understands the role it plays to the community and the people it effects. I think the MArtins Cree Quarry expansion is vital to the longterm success of our company and I strongly support it.

An uploaded document is attached.

Re: Opposition to the Martins Creek Quarry Expansion

Dear Mr Watt

I write in response to the proposed expansion of the Martins Creek Quarry.

My wife and I strongly object to an approval being granted in its current form.

As residents of Paterson, we are subject to ongoing noise emanating from trucks going through the Paterson township to and from the Quarry.

Truck movements are loud and obtrusive, and can be heard some distance away particularly as they come through the township. This creates undue annoyance at early hours, and on weekends. These movements have increased in the last few years we note, unapproved and we consider them to be having an impact on the rural community we bought into.

The roads around the Paterson township are not built for trucks, and any upgrade to them, as proposed does not deal with the issue of noise or frequency. But this proposal does not just affect Paterson, some 28kms of communities from the Quarry to East Maitland are affected by the proposal.

I find it quite difficult to understand how the exponential growth in output tonnages as per this proposal is appropriate.

Paterson is a growing rural town. There is always a need to ensure that the community can enjoy their lifestyle without unnecessary disturbance and the creation of safety concerns. The proposed increase in output by the quarry will generate more truck movements which create additional noise, and create safety issues that cannot be appropriately minimised for the community from those truck movements. Paterson township has already become difficult to cross roads given the constant stream of trucks en route or from the Quarry. They are obtrusive when trying to enjoy the local shops in the town.

The project approval as a whole seems rather flawed. It would appear that the applicant wants a blanket approval to generate these significant tonnages, however, there is in- sufficient detail around the commercial model to support it. In fact, precedence would show that the output tonnages proposed are not in line with commercial market demand, therefore, an approval per the proposal would be granting an approval far in excess of demand.

I note that it does not appear that rail has been considered as extensively as it could have been as an option for removal of product from the quarry. It has been suggested in the documentation the increased cost of rail vs road has been as a reason why rail is not viable for the applicant. Does the applicant therefore believe that the increased road volumes, impact of noise pollution from trucks on the community and general annoyance being caused should just simply be accepted by the community because an alternative method of transport might be more expensive for the applicant and their customers but less intrusive on the community? Surely the community's amenity and enjoyment is more important than the applicant's commercial model?

Whilst I can appreciate that applicant has submitted a development consent to 'ensure the ongoing operation of Martins Creek Quarry is clearly defined and all required mitigation measures are in place to limit the impact of the operations on the surrounding environment', it is our view that the proposal by the applicant can never in its current form limit the impact of operations on the surrounding environment. The operations are simply inconsistent with a rural town like Paterson with the small country roads subject to up to 600 trucks per day (based on the suggest approval tonnages); this simply is not commercial industry existing with local communities. This is commercial industry dominating a local community and destroying its amenity.

In regards to the applicants view that 'The economic ramifications of limiting operations will impact significantly on the supply of quarry materials in the Hunter Region'. This appears to be a statement with no merit. There is no evidence to support this statement, nor the statement 'Limiting supply from Martins Creek Quarry will have significant implications for the projects and could result in materials having to be sourced from areas further afield, thereby incurring higher costs and further land use conflicts'. It would appear through this statement that the applicant recognises that there are other sources of product for these projects and that the applicants quarry has already created a land use conflict.

The applicant also suggests that 'The quarry currently employs 15 full-time and 15 part-time workers, with an additional 70 staff as part of the haulage operations. Based on ABS data, the flow on effects are significant in the region. Any uncertainty on the future of the existing operations may result in the loss of valuable jobs in the LGA and wider Hunter Region. Conversely, approval for the expansion of the quarry will secure the existing jobs into the longer term'. What ABS data is the applicant referring to? There was 113,268 persons employed in the Hunter region according to the 2011 census. By this account, the quarry employ 0.08828619% of that workforce. It is hardly correct to make the statement that the flow on effects for jobs in the Hunter is significant if the proposal is not approved.

The economic arguments for the application seems quite weak, lacking in any real detail and draw long bow's; thus, I can therefore only deduce that the most appropriate case for the application is one for commercial benefit, which in my view, should directly impact the assessment of this proposal.

The community must be heard on this proposal. Commercial benefit for the applicant is not a reason for approval. The community will suffer amenity, the face of Paterson will be changed forever, roads in and around the township will continue to be unsafe, quite enjoyment will be gone and all because the applicant who has flaunted approvals for some time wants to be able to get a blanket approval for output tonnages inconsistent with the environment and the community which surrounds the quarry.


We ask you to strongly consider rejecting this proposal.

As per attached upload

I oppose the Martins Creek quarry expansion because of the impact of increased truck movements in a rural residential area of increased noise, safety issues, our roads have no shoulders to enable safe pedestrian movements or turning access to residences, increased traffic volume in hours and vehicular sizes, destruction of rural ambience and increased risk to native wildlife.

Attached.

File attached.

I oppose the Martins Creek quarry expansion because the local roads have been designed by council to inhibit through traffic but this is the route that these trucks use. Also extended hours removes quiet times for local recreation, e.g. walk the dog, bicycle or horse riding along roads that do not have shoulders. Currently convoys of trucks already start around 5.30 am, extended hours and increased truck movements is unacceptable.

File attached.

File attached.

File attached.