Martins Creek Quarry Project

Our concern is that the intersection of Paterson Road & Bolwarra Road will become even more dangerous if this project is approved, it will create major traffic back from the Bolwarra Public school & Child care centre. Paterson Road is unable to support the current traffic congestion & this project will create a negative outcome for the families that use it.

To Whom it may concern,

I write this submission to the department of Planning and Environment to formally object to all aspects of the proposal for the expansion and change of operation of the Martins Creek Quarry.

My family and I moved into the Bolwarra area in late 2017. It appeared to be a fast growing area and indeed it has proved to be just that, particularly having regard to the Bolwarra Heights residential development. Paterson Road goes past that development and is also the road we must use to exit and enter Bolwarra.

Paterson Road is a relatively narrow one lane each way road which is already very busy. At times, it takes a considerable time to enter Paterson Road, when leaving Bolwarra. As such, leaving times are carefully planned.

To have a major increase in Paterson Road traffic, and for that increased traffic to consist of laden and empty trucks, seems to be a major mistake and contrary to the semi rural nature of the area. Also, north of the intersection with Flat Road, along the proposed primary route, there is a childcare centre (on Paterson Road) and a primary school (just off Paterson Road). The excess dust and noise that will result from the project cannot be helpful to those institutions.

I went on to the planning documents to review the traffic report, to see if I could understand how these issues were dealt with, and 2 major concerns appeared to me:
(i) the assessment is based on information which is over 5 years old. It is too old to form the basis of any reasonable decision. As an example only, the Bolwarra Heights development has significantly expanded since we moved into the area only 3 and a half years ago. Surely no decision can be made until updated information is available?
(ii) The proposal is for 1.5 million tonnes of product per annum to be transported and for only 50,000 of those tonnes to be transported by rail. The explanation for that state of affairs is brief in the extreme and thus unconvincing. Rail is surely a better way to go and, if the project is to be considered for approval, there should be a thorough examination of why rail usage could not be greatly increased.

Thank you for your consideration,
Graham

I’m concerned in regard to the number of heavy vehicles that are proposed to be passing through the residential areas that are populated by not only the elderly but also by many families with children. I personally live in a narrow section of Tocal Road, and I can confirm, as your report points out, current traffic, including heavies, rarely adhere to the 60km/hr speed limit. I have also witnessed too many near miss situations in the local area that can only be attributable to the width or the road, the residential nature of the area coupled with speed and inattentive drivers.
My local area has many properties that require residents to reverse into the live traffic to exit their properties and the increase in heavy traffic poses an unacceptable risk to these residents. Further, there are many school children that walk, and must cross Tocal Road to bus stops from their homes posing a further unacceptable risk.
Finally, current road infrastructure on Tocal Road Bolwarra Heights is already in distress and an increase of heavy vehicles will accelerate road degradation and as a result increase noise level.
I understand the need for source material and the requirement for transport but I strongly object to the use of suburban roads as high use heavy vehicle haul road. The current proposal is totally unacceptable.

I reside in one of the properties with direct driveway access onto a narrow single lane section of Tocal Road which requires me to reverse out onto the road. This is a process which already requires a great degree of caution with the current traffic and the speed it travels, and will become far more dangerous if this project goes ahead. The current traffic already exceeds the 60km per hour speed limit along this stretch of road, as shown in the traffic submissions provided. I therefore have concerns for my safety when slowing down on the narrow section of the road, which is also on a bend, to turn into the property. I have already witnessed a car have to mount up on the grass verge to avoid slamming into a neighbours car as they were slowing down to turn right.
My concerns are also for the safety of schoolchildren, dog walkers and cyclists who use this stretch of Tocal Road and Paterson Road. Whilst work has been done to improve the footpaths and I now see many more children cycling to school on them, there is no designated safe place to cross either road. Every day I witness school children dodging traffic to cross the roads to get on and off school buses. This will only become more dangerous if this project is allowed to proceed and use our roads as a transport route for their heavy loads. I object strongly to this company even proposing to increase the amount of heavy traffic on our roads and putting the communities safety at risk.

I object to this project and the effects these planned truck movements will have on our small country roads and community. This will forever change the way of life out here and the peaceful rural lifestyle. If they want to expand quarry activities the rail network should be utilised and not our roads.
I believe this planned expansion and road movements will impact the well being and safety of residents in the area. There will be more on road danger, added noise pollution and lowering of air and water quality.
I am against this project as are my family.

I live in the centre of the village of Paterson. I have seen these trucks coming through town for years and they often do so in a manner which is dangerous and careless, often with complete disregard for pedestrians and other motorists.
I also feel that a company that has already proven itself to not follow the rules by mining outside their approved area for years, and turning a massive profit from those illegal activities, should not be rewarded further.
I am all for mining and the creation of jobs but not when it is detrimental to all of its surrounding communities. The sheer numbers of trucks that has been proposed will have a massive impact on our already lacking road infrastructure.

I live in the centre of the village of Paterson. I have seen these trucks coming through town for years and they often do so in a manner which is dangerous and careless, often with complete disregard for pedestrians and other motorists.
I also feel that a company that has already proven itself to not follow the rules by mining outside their approved area for years, and turning a massive profit from those illegal activities, should not be rewarded further.
I am all for mining and the creation of jobs but not when it is detrimental to all of its surrounding communities. The sheer numbers of trucks that has been proposed will have a massive impact on our already lacking road infrastructure.

I believe this proposal to be unsuitable on the following grounds:
1: This proposal is little different to the previous proposal, which was rejected both by the community and government, no matter how it is glossed up.
2: 280+ truck movements per day is not a suitable proposition for residential roads and suburbs.
3: The number of truck movements (most with extra trailer) will cause an unacceptable accident risk on already congested roads, past schools and within growing residential areas. The entry to Tocal and Paterson Roads to & from residences, is already dangerous, and will be nearly impossible with extra truck movements.
4: There will be more major problems at the Paterson Junction, the two sets of traffic lights in Melbourne Street East Maitland, and through Bolwarra Heights and Bolwarra.
5: Exhaust fumes from diesel trucks will increase pollution in the atmosphere, and cover residences in greasy soot, to a much greater extent than now.
6: Noise pollution will be increased by the approx. 280 truck movements per day.
7: This proposal is for 25 years, with residential growth increasing at a great rate every year ,creating more local traffic.
8: It is problematic that the applicant can be trusted to abide with any conditions approved, in view of its previous history in this regard. Who will police the conditions and who will pay for future court costs, if the applicant does not strictly abide by the conditions over the next 25 years.
9: It is noted that the applicant will be making more use of rail for transport. I believe that all production be transported to depots throughout its customer areas by rail, to reduce the need for up to 280 truck movement through the Lower Hunter area.
10: I do not consider this application to be a State Significant Proposal, as there are many suitable quarries in New South Wales that can provide such material. Or is this to circumvent taxpayer opposition to this unacceptable application.
11. So far there have been no public meetings by the Department in regard to this application.
11: I object to any approval of this application.

Will highly impact on the surrounding wildlife, residents and the roads. Population in the hunter is increasing traffic increasing and with a extra 280 trucks per day on these roads with people speeding along these skinny stretch of country roads definately not ideal. I tried to attach a photo of a koala taken 6 months ago but do not have a pdf file, they have been sited more in this area and have never been sighted in this area before. I believe this is due to the approved expansion of brandy hill mine that has pushed them out. Greedy and sad world we live in 😔 please do not allow any further devastation

Too many trucks going through our small town of Paterson. And more trains at night isn't good either

I wish to make a submission re the Martins Creek Quarry Project and the revised/amended proposal.
1. The revised proposal is a token gesture with little substance aiming to create the impression that Daracon actually has listened to the community and the consultation process.
2. It is simply ridiculous that this quarry will be able to impinge on the lives and safety of all who live in Paterson and surrounding areas while there is a rail siding accessing the quarry.
3. With up to half a million tonnes of material to be travel by road ie truck and dog, that could mean over 1000 trucks per month using a sub standard road and as many as 260 trucks and dogs per day. This is unacceptable for the citizens and visitors of Paterson and surrounds and severely impacts on their quality of life and safety.
4. This through a town that involves a blind hill crest when entering the township along Gresford Road, a railway line crossing and a 90 degree right turn through the main street in front of the busiest part of the town including service station, café and post office, doctor’s surgery and B&B.
5. The run on lane from Dungog Road to Gresford Road is extremely hazardous an d more than 200 trucks a day will make it even more hazardous.
5. I have witnessed the trucks and dogs carrying quarry material often cut the corner both ways and this provides an extremely unsafe environment for citizens and through traffic and Paterson retail trade.

I object to any expansion of the quarry. Any increased truck movements on any local roads (including Martins Creek Road) will detrimentally affect the lifestyle of residents. The quarry is located in an unsuitable location taking into account the proximity of residents who otherwise enjoy a comfortable rural or semi-rural lifestyle. The village of Paterson provides an idyllic environment for residents and the many visitors to the area. It should be maintained as it is which will be impossible with the proposed additional truck movements. Paterson is a welcome contrast to other overdeveloped nearby areas. It is already often difficult to exit Bolwarra Road onto Paterson Road at Bolwarra. The proposed additional truck movements will detrimentally affect residents of Bolwarra in this regard and dramatically increase noise pollution in the area.

Martins Creek Quarry expansion in Hunter Valley.

I am objecting to this application due to the large increase in heavy vehicle traffic the DA proposes. The last time we had this number of trucks rocketing past our front gate was when Daracon deliberately and knowingly exceeded its current approved level of extraction. There is a 100km limit on our stretch of Tocal Road and judging from the speed of the trucks at that time compared to other traffic they often well and truly exceeded this. It became dangerous to turn onto or off Tocal Road from our property. I note Daracon’s suggestions on policing this but their actions in the past give me little faith that they will abide by any commitment they make.

Daracon bought this quarry as a source of rail ballast shipped mostly by rail. Their own proposal states that they can at least double the volume they move by rail alone and this should be, at most, what they are limited to.

I object to the approval because the Quarry was originally designed to utilise the train line to transport the majority of it’s output - NOT ON OUR LOCAL ROADS!

The quarry’s proposal to use the local roads and infrastructure is disruptive and damaging to the local community. The Paterson township is miserable when you can’t talk or think straight when meeting other locals in the street. The roads become inherently more dangerous with the additional traffic and are themselves not designed to take the volume of traffic that this proposal will add. This additional wear and tear on the road infrastructure will not be able to be maintained, again, making the road even more dangerous. Being able to cross the street in what is a normally very quiet village, will become almost impossible while the trucks, at the volume’s being considered, are rumbling back and forth. This coupled with the existing trainline will make for a very congested roadway in what is a reasonably narrow streetscape.

Our house is on Gresford Road, only 1.5km from the Paterson township and the movement of trucks on our local road is already incredibly noisy and causes great anxiety and annoyance within our home. Our house is very close to the roadway, having been constructed in the early 1970’s (before this quarry was established). The constant noise and rattling of the home with more heavily loaded trucks would be truly depressing. There would be even more noise delivered from the unladen trucks as they make their way back to the quarry to get further loads.

I fear that our 3 children and numerous pets would not be safe with the additional heavy traffic that this proposal would add to the road. All three of our school aged children are required to cross the road to get on to their designated bus transportation to get to school. More trucks on the road (who may have difficulty seeing children from their high up cabs) only adds more danger.

A number of other quarries in the area have recently been approved. Adding another quarry into the already crowded marketplace does not even make sense from a pure economical standpoint. This quarry is not required to fulfill any shortages within the market.

This quarry is not needed or wanted. To reiterate, I fully object to the proposal.

I object to this project purely because i dont want hundreds of trucks a day using my road, the noise pollution and dust will be outrageous, there is a railway line in martins creek, just extend a loop of that to the mine, will save money in the long run and keep a quiet country town and country roads just that, quiet.

My main objection to this quarry expansion is how they will transport their mined materials. The proposed increase of a couple of hundred trucks per day running through our small country suburbs is an accident waiting to happen. The roads are narrow in places, with many concealed driveways and small side roads, and run directly through areas with walkways built purposely for pedestrian traffic such as school children and families. Noise pollution will considerably increase with that volume of heavy vehicle traffic , as well as greatly impacting our road surfaces. Cost to local council in road repairs would massively increase.
Heavy vehicles will increase congestion on an already struggling route, especially in peak hours. Our small country roads cannot take this, as well as the roads and traffic in town that will see many big quarry trucks mingling with city traffic.
Why can’t they rail their materials out, as we have a perfectly good rail line running right by their mine?
I do not want my home suburb to be subjected to a heavy vehicle every 40 seconds, 13 hours a day. This would greatly effect every day life for people living along the proposed route.
I am not against industry or development entirely, if this can be done with consideration of lessening impact on local communities as much as possible.
Please do not increase heavy traffic along a road my children and grandchildren walk daily. If this goes ahead it will be a recipe for disaster. Many heavy vehicles and small suburban roads do not mix.

I strongly object to the intrusion onto our road network which will impede the comfort and quite nature of our community. It is a recently developed heavily populated area and increased volumes of traffic create a serious hazard with these large vehicles. The road infrastructure will not support. Their are young families, school buses along with aged community receiving services that will be at risk. There is no benefit for the community it would be a destructive impact. Why isn’t the existing rail infrastructure being utilised to keep these heavy vehicles off the road network.

During the period of time that Martin’s Creek Quarry operated brazenly and excessively beyond its consent we learnt quite a few things about the proposed quarry operations and its management.

Martin’s Creek Quarry does not adequately monitor its impacts or care if it exceeds its operating consent. The company has shown that it can only be brought in line with Court action. It cannot be relied upon to monitor its own operations or the actions of its workforce. They have shown that consent once given will be abused.

We lived in Lorn during the illegal operation of the quarry and the excessive truck movements through our streets had considerable impact on our lives and the amenity of our homes.

Drivers would routinely shortcut through our neighbourhoods to the highway. Despite assurances that they would not.

We would be woken by the rumble of the convoys as they rattled the windows and hauled their loads through our streets to make their delivery deadlines each morning.

I would stand at the pedestrian crossing while trucks deemed it unnecessary to slow or stop for my children and I. Perhaps they are too heavy or it was just too inconvenient. We have had a taste of this awful reality and do not want it repeated.

Martin’s Creek quarry is poorly situated for road operations and it is mere greed that sees Its operators attempt to revive this unlawful and abusive corporate neighbour.

We lived through the years of our roads being damaged by these heavy vehicles. We lived through the noise and vibration of truck after truck hurrying to drop of loads or return with empty and loudly drumming trailers. We lived through the danger that these trucks present plowing through an urban environment.

We were relieved when they were finally called to account for their abuse of operational consent and now we have to sit through the process of this corporate abuser attempting to legally operate again in that fashion despite resounding community objections.

It is inappropriate for trucks to be operating in this residential neighbourhood and in adjoining neighbourhoods and towns in this fashion. The impact on our lives is real and present and needs to be prevented.

We have lived through this scenario in the past and we know what it will be like if approval is granted again. That would be an unacceptable situation. If anything good comes from the quarries illegal past operations it should be that it serves as an example of what we should never have to put up with again.

Please reject this and future proposals. The quarry has an existing consent. Hold them to it.

To whom it may concern,

I submit this email to lodge an objection in the strongest of terms to the Martins Creek Quarry Project.
The Land and Environment Court has already ruled against this project ( Refer to Newcastle Herald Article- Sept 24, 2019) . In this article the parent company Daracon has previously lost a court case against Dungog Shire Council for unlawful operations. This company has shown, in the past, it chooses to work outside the boundaries of any government or regulatory authority and can not be trusted to continue any operations of this nature. Any further application by Daracon to continue operations or expand operations in the Martins Creek Area should be dismissed accordingly with a resolve that no such further application be permitted.

The current application revolves around 1.1 million tonne annual extraction and as such the damage to the environment, waterways will be present for decades to follow. Any environmental impact statement will not begin to cover the damage to natural vegetation, wildlife, river species and current livestock that occupy this area. The effects of quality of life for all current residents, landholders, ratepayers ( VOTERS) will be disastrous and will substantially reduce the peaceful quality of life which exists at the moment.

The application involves 31,000 truck movements per year on small two way roads incapable of supporting such movements when the alternative of rail only is available for consideration by Daracon who to my knowledge have refused to acknowledge such an alternative. The subsequent increase in roadworks, motor vehicle accidents, injuries, direct and indirect health care issues will represent a decrease in our way of living and provide a reason for this useless Maitland Council to raise council rates.

The anticipated 280 truck movements per day represents a clear danger for road users, school traffic, local road traffic and stands to adversely affect the quality of traffic movement, road congestion, pedestrian , vehicle and general road safety. The inability for Maitland Council to control local building projects, like Hunter Glen , Gillieston Heights and others for quick council profits and their support of this project ( Ref Maitland Mercury Dec 9 2016) is abhorrent, short sighted and represents a clear betrayal to the residents of Maitland, Paterson, East Maitland and all other areas and residents affected.

The proposed 40 truck movements per hour (peak) will result in a huge increase in noise pollution, traffic pollution emissions never experienced in this area - renowned for its peaceful country lifestyle ( the reason for the current increase in property values)

The anticipated clearing 21ha of native vegetation in this application will result in a devastating effect to the native flora, fauna and wildlife that current occupy this area will never recover and the ability for an unreliable, untrustworthy applicant -tenant like Daracon to commit to any restriction of their proposed working area is highly unlikely and not worth the paper for which it is written. ( Refer to Dungog Shire Council Vs Daracon 2018)

The fact that this application is based on a tenure of 25 years operations would adversely affect all persons, landholders, wildlife, flora , fauna that currently call this area home and any such application for any period of time , should never be considered under any circumstances.

In summary this application should be refused forthwith as the ramifications on the quality of lifestyle for all Maitland, Paterson and combined Lower Hunter Residents will be irreversible in our lifetime. This application has the ability to adversely affect our daily Health and Safety , the existence of our current country lifestyle, will see a potential rise in council rates, a decrease in all our property values, a fall in tourism and a decline in our very quality of life.

In the strongest of terms I request that this application by Daracon to continue or expand any Quarrying Operations in the Martin Creek area be rejected forthwith.

Submitted for attention.

Greg Billingham
13 Corina Ave, Bolwarr Hts 2320