Mod 2 - Local Product Delivery

Oallen Ford Road and Windellama Road are already just waiting for accidents to happen - unfinished edges, pot-holes, escaped cattle on the roads, narrow points, limited passing, deceptive visibility (bends and dips), regular white-outs for half the year. In just past the past few years there have been many accidents resulting in fatalities and requiring the helicopter ambulance. Adding heavy vehicles in to the mix is sheer lunacy.

In addition, it would be criminal to disturb the quiet rural ambience with noise pollution.

If the Ardmore Park Quarry is able to proceed, I think a condition of approval should be the upgrading (or at least ongoing repair of) the roads used by the quarry.

Objection to the S75 modification of PA 07_0155
- for delivery of up to 20,000 tpa of quarry product by trucks and trailers on local roads not included in the transport route approved by PA 07_0155.
Reasons.- Local roads are currently marginally safe and if not upgraded as the haul roads were to be in the original approval then the additional trucks will increase risk of major accident and death.- Public safety was not addressed in the Modification Application.- The consultant reports used in the modification application were there to only support the application.- this modification application is for an Incremental approval and should be refused due to the High Risk to Local Residents and Public Safety .

I object, we don't need more heavy traffic on our already deteriorating and dangerous roads, community safety is at risk with these heavy trucks on our roads. There is no community benefit!

I am extremely concerned at the prospect of heavy mining trucks using Windellama Road.. I envisage that heavy trucks will cause continual damage to the road which seems to be easily damaged as there are frequently potholes in it. As well the trucks will damage the edges of the road making it more unsafe.
Of even greater importance is the safety of road users such as myself having to share the road with the heavy mining trucks. It will be bad enough along the straight stretches but it will be horrific on the winding sections where there are double white lines.
I am extremely concerned as to the safety of my wife having to share the road with these heavy vehicles. My wife travels to and from work in Goulburn 5 days per week and will, I know, be traumatised by heavy vehicles either coming towards her on this relatively quiet rural road, or coming up behind her and perhaps overtaking her or overtaking coming towards her as they keep to their schedules.
If the Ardmore Park Quarry must go ahead, then the mining company needs to find some other more direct and suitable road for its heavy vehicles. If such a road cannot be found, then the mining activities just simply should not take place. Mines require infrastructure and perhaps need to provide their own roads rather than use public roads to the detriment of all other public road users.
It should also be noted that heavy vehicles are responsible for road accidents and road fatalities far greater in number than the number of heavy vehicles or their distances travelled warrant, ie they are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents as compared to other users.
If Ardmore Park Quarry is permitted to have its heavy vehicles use Windellama Road, then other users of Windellama Road need to be given some safer alternative although what this would be I cannot imagine - perhaps a new road for non-mining traffic; perhaps widening of the road to 4 lanes for its entire length so that the left lane each direction is reserved for trucks only and that trucks must not use the right lane.
I can only imagine that people who would give approval for heavy mining trucks to use Windellama Road do not and will not use Windellama Road for their own transport and neither will the owners of the Ardmore Park Quarry use it because no sensible person would willingly want to share a rural road with such heavy vehicles.

I would like to submit my objection to an increase in the number of large trucks being used by Ardmore Park Quarry. My property has a boundary on Cullulla Road in Tarago. This road is already used by more trucks than the road can handle and as such the road is in a sever state of disrepair. It has no centre line or verge lines and in some parts has been so badly degraded by overuse by heavy vehicles that two cars cannot pass each other without one having to move onto the gravel verge. In some parts this road is now less than three metres wide in total. This narrowness has meant that I have been run off the road on several occasions by large trucks and I am now fearful when I see them driving towards me on this road. This would only happen more frequently with more trucks on the road and will definitely lead to fatalities in the future. Cullulla Road is also a road used regularly by holiday makers and motorcycle clubs on the way to Nowra. To add extra trucks to this mix would prove extremely dangerous. In future I would be very reluctant to let me children get on the local school bus which runs along this road if there was an increase in the heavy vehicle traffic. I urge you to actually examine the state of this road prior to any decision being made. As such I do not support this application by Ardmore Park Quarry.

I oppose to the bungonia quarry trucks using Oallen ford rd and windellama rd. I believe the Roads are too narrow and windy for heavy trucks to be using. It is dangerous enough as it is, with cars cutting blind corners, head on accidents. road kill, and pot holes. Which will all increase if the trucks are allowed to take this route. Which is also straight past the school on a few bad corners as well.
Thankyou

It would be extremely irresponsible of the NSW Govt to allow the regular use of Windellama Road by heavy vehicles.

Children should surely be our highest priority and I fear the consequences for the numerous children who use this route. With no verges and fenced off fields, children have no choice but to wait for their school rides standing right on the edge of the road. Add in to this mornings notorious for regular 'pea-souper' fog and you have the makings of a disaster.
Similarly, in the afternoons with children anxious to get home, I pity the driver of a heavy vehicle who has to try to stop on a dime because of a child in the road.

As a frequent user of the Windellama Road travelling five days a week to Goulburn to work I'm concerned about driving together with trucks. There isn't any doubt that no local residents living near/on Windellama Road will benefit from regular truck traffic. I will list the major points of concern:

1. Road safety in fog conditions during 1/2 of the year. During autumn-winter-spring time the fog is quite frequent on Windellama Road and the visibility could be very poor. Oncoming vehicles without head lights in such conditions take one by surprise. Trucks without headlights are extremely difficult to see. Frequent truck traffic creates a risk of more frequent accidents and together with fog conditions increase the danger for local drivers.

2. Current state of the road. Windellama Road is just an ordinary local road connecting rural properties with Goulburn. Its current state - that is two narrow lanes with frequent bends - is not appropriate for freight trucks travelling by schedule. There are too many unbroken lines and bends that would create a big hazard if sharing the road with big trucks.

3. Safety of the road. Overtaking trucks on this rural road will decrease the safety of the road. Many drivers would feel intimidated if they are overtaken by high speed trucks.

4. Damage to the road due to truck traffic. One of the main causes of the damage of rural roads are heavy vehicles like trucks. Increase of the truck traffic will deteriorate road condition.

5. Noise hazard jeopardizes the benefits of rural style living. Without doubts no local residents living close to Windellama Road would like to hear constant noise caused by the truck traffic.

I object to the proposal to use our local roads for an extra 10 trucks per day, in a 5 hour period 6 days a week.
Reasons are
1. A 62% increase in Heavy Vehicle movements per day
2. This will be between the hours 9.30 am to 2.30 pm, equating to 2 extra Heavy vehicle movements per hour.
3. Currently proposed routes have load limits restrictions on Heavy vehicle road use. Therefore indicting roads currently unable to sustain increase in Heavy Load Movements.

I was a serving, front line, Policeman for nearly 30 years and have attended countless fatal motor vehicle collisions over that time and over 300+ collisions ( fatal and non fatal ) involving heavy motor vehicles - especially on Mt Ousley, Wollongong, prior to the safety barrier being installed along the entire length of that road in an attempt to circumvent the high degree of fatals involving head on collisions.

These safety barriers have all but stopped the head on collisions upon Mt Ousley but still don't stop 100% of those fatalities due to other causational factors.

The local arterial roads leading to and from Bungonia are of a sub standard and are ONLY suitable for local light traffic and were never intended nor have they been designed for the constant pounding of heavy vehicles and most definitely are not to Australian Standards for heavy vehicles.

These local roads have numerous narrow sections, blind bends, bull dust, corrugations, no - little line markings and NO street lighting.

There have already, in the history of this area, been a number of fatalities - mostly involving light vehicles but by adding additional heavy vehicles to this mix, six days a week, WILL lead to further, unnecessary deaths upon our roads IF these roads are not brought up to Standard for the safe passage of both truck and light vehicle.

There are well and truly over 500 vehicle travel over these local roads, especially on the weekends. A great majority of those weekend vehicles also tow caravans and, especially, trailers with trail bikes etc. Each vehicle has at least two persons aboard those vehicles traveling to and from their final destinations.

I am not against the Quarry but I AM against the danger which a quoted number of 88 eventual heavy vehicle movements a day will cause upon these local sub standard roads will cause along the original haulage route and also the large number of heavy vehicle movements via the alternate route that the proponent is seeking permission to use.

The quarry has been approved since 2009 but in the past five years, the proponent has made absolutely no improvements to the original haul route and I have no doubt that he will make no improvements along any other route he may choose to travel.

Although I have no personal problems in relation to the quarry itself ( apart from the road safety issues ), I know that there are a large number of residents and vehicle users along, and off, the haul route who do take issue with the quarry and the danger that these additional heavy vehicles will cause to the local infrastructure and safety of themselves and family / friends.

Until the haul routes are upgraded to carry these heavy vehicles in a safe manner, I will always and continue to protest against the haulage of product along our local sub-standard and unsafe roads.

I have attended far too many serious and fatal collisions and have had to inform the family of far too many victims about the death of their loved ones.

How much blood, exploded and mutilated body parts does a Policeman, Ambulance Officer, Fire Officer, Doctor, Nurse, Funeral worker have to see and touch before we learn from our past experiences.

Not only is it the inconvenience of a local road being closed for several hours but it is the trauma thrust upon these people that have to be considered.

Moral and ethics before money.



regards


Greg Callander

I object to the modification for the following reasons:

1. The entry/egress from the quarry is dangerous to other road users
2. The entry/egress as proposed in the EA is schematic ands its affect on my property could be a problem
3. The historic "Larbert Tree" will be killed due to its proximity to the entry
4. The local roads have sections that are unsuitable as a haulage route for heavy vehicles
5. The proposed modification under s75W of the EPA is of doubtful validity
6 Traffic Counts appear to be understated and counters positioned to minimise count.

1.Entry/Egress
This is located close to the intersection of Oallen Ford Road and Lumley Road. This spot has a lot of collisions at the moment. Frequent heavy vehicle movement into and from the road here is likely to increase the number of accidents. I have frequently attended accidents here. I remember a head on collision fairly recently where one of the cars carrying two people went on its side. There are frequent collisions between cars coming out of Lumley Road with cars travelling towards Bungonia village on Oallen Ford Road. If these sort of crashes occurred with trucks they would likely be fatal. The alignment of Lumley Road at an obtuse angle to Oallen Ford Road restricts vision. To add frequent heavy vehicle usage into this situation is inviting disaster.
2. The unused portion of the road reservation at this corner has already been used up in an attempt to improve the vision by drivers using Lumley Road. I note the design for the entry/egress is schematic only and has not been dimensioned. I do not believe the intersection can work safely and a detailed design needs to be presented and considered by an expert. This is a 100km/h road and road safety is a priority. I object to the entire road reservation being used up for the intersection as this will cause crashes into my fence and result in my stock escaping onto the road with potentially great problems. I am entitled to a reasonable buffer between the road and my property. I could have up to 1500 sheep grazing in this paddock which is some 3km from my house and if the fence were damaged by a vehicle this stock would wander onto the road causing me a public liability problem as well as loss of stock. Additionally it is common for cars to stop at this point as mobile reception is available after a long period of no reception. This is an added complication. If a design calls for a joining lane then this should be designed such that the necessary land comes out of Multiquips property and not by using up the road reservation adjacent to Lumley Park.
3. The frequent compression of the roots of the historic Larbert Tree will result in its death. This tree was important to Aboriginal people and early white settlers. Its an important part of Bungonia's history and it must be preserved.
4. The roads proposed for use are used at times by all locals. We know they are sub standard in some sections. There are parts of these roads which are narrow; have narrow culverts; poor sight lines; defective edges; pot holes; no line markings etc. Native animals often cause problems. Sheep, cattle and goats are often on these roads. Approximately 14 kms of Lumley Road is dirt - it can flood, it can have significant bull dust in summer causing problems with the control of vehicles and other areas are rough with pot holes and corrugations. The road usage is increasing due to the Main Road 92 and many of these drivers are unaware and not accustomed to driving on these types of roads. Usage of these roads is increasing at a greater rate than would otherwise be expected as it is now much easier to get to the coast this way and adding a heavy vehicle haulage route into the equation is asking for trouble.
5. s75W of the EPA was legislated to allow minor variations to an approved Part 3A project. The modification here is outside of what was considered in the Part 3A approval. Thus the need for the EA. This modification is not consistent with the original approval and it introduces a new and concerning range of environmental issues that were not addressed in the approval. It is unlikely this modification is an appropriate use of s75W and on this basis the application by Multiquip should not be approved.
6. The traffic counts detailed in the EA seem to be open to question. The counts seem very low and the positioning of the counters seem to be based on minimising the counts. I suggest NSW Planning appoint a company independent of the proponent to get an accurate figures. As the standard of the roads are related to the traffic counts this is important.

Our roads, Sandy Point Road, Oallen Ford and Cullulla roads have all been affected by the volume of traffic with the upgrade of MR 92 and we do not need any extra trucks using these roads. The roads are too narrow and have crumbling edges now and more heavy trucks will only degrade these roads further.

I oppose the approval of any increase of trucks on our roads unless they improve the quality of our roads.

I wish to object to the application as a resident of the local area. The proposed increase of truck movements is dangerous given the nature of the area. The roads are narrow rural roads that now attract more tourists travelling to the South Coast form the Central Tablelands as a result of the Nerriga Road upgrade. If truck movements are allowed more black spot roads will result and more fatalities will occur. The roads are zoned 100kh/h and are already too fast for the type of road they are. If trucks are allowed to travel on these roads at this speed accidents will result. The response time for emergency services in this area is at least 40 minutes and will put a strain on local operations if accidents occur. This is a rural environment that already have load limits on both Oallen Ford Road and Windellama road. This in itself proves the roads are not suitable for heavy vehicles.

Due to the narrowness of roads out here and the volume of traffic from Canberra to Nowra, plus more trucks, our roads cannot handle it.

I myself have had a few near misses and nearly run off the road; am not impressed.

I oppose any extra big vehicles using our roads, unless our roads are updated with a centre line and more reflector posts.

The Goulburn Group (TGG) is an incorporated not for profit community organisation in Goulburn Mulwaree. We are involved in a range of projects with sustainable economic development and environmental outcomes. TGG has had a number of requests from residents of Bungonia regarding the application for modification from Multiquip. We have read the modification 2 application along with previous DA and modification requests. The Original Consent conditions were upheld in the assessment of the application for Modification 1.
The Director General's Assessment advice was clear and fair and must be upheld in order to give community confidence in the planning and assessment process of the Department of Planning. This development has gone through a number of rigorous hoops and hurdles already and the issue of upgraded road haulage routes and the need for a bypass have consistently been upheld in favour of the amenity and safety of Bungonia Village residents. This is a small but engaged community. The developer needs to demonstrate a capacity to manage the Quarry in a fiscally, socially and environmentally sustainable way. To date Multiquip has consistently tried to vary the very reasonable conditions placed upon it. It will be extremely detrimental to public confidence and rate payer investment in this DA if the Department makes a ruling in favour of Multiquip in relation to existing Consent conditions.

As a resident and ratepayer in Goulburn Mulwaree Council I wish to object strongly to the application by Multiquip to run large trucks through our local roads, or the euphemistically termed "alternate haul routes". These roads are poorly maintained rural goat tracks with soft shoulders and most have little to no verges to pull over out of the way of oncoming trucks. Truly a disaster waiting to happen.

I feel that Multiquip should upgrade any roads it intends to use frequently for these large truck movements at it's own expense as it will more than recoup any outgoings once the quarry is up and running. And they should most certainly be made to construct the Bungonia Bypass as per the original Application.

I most strongly object to this application and will oppose any truck movements outside of the original Application as I will not accept the tried and true excuse of pre-existing truck movements as a reason to increase them.

And if Multiquip succeeds in this ludicrous modification, I will be partitioning the Valuer General for a review of my land value, and Goulburn Mulwaree Council for a reclassification of my rates, as my property value will be adversely affected.
And do not get me started on who is paying for any road upgrades, it must be Multiquip NOT ratepayers. If I have to pay a weight tax on my little car just to register it because of the damage it causes to the road, Multiquip must be made to upgrade and maintain any haul routes it uses in our local area, and BEFORE starting the truck movements.

Attention: Director Mining and Industry Projects
Development Assessment Systems and Approvals
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ARDMORE PARK QUARRY MODIFICATION proposal
S75W Modification of PA 07_0155 June 2013

I object to the proposed modification for the following reasons:-
1/ the request changes fundamentally the conditions under which the Quarry was granted approval;
2/if granted, there is de-facto access to the Sydney/ Canberra corridor ,without any provision to supply a dedicated haul route as required the conditions of consent for the Quarry approval.
3/ a "campaign" of deliveries will see the operation of a specific haul route for a major supply chain and should be treated as a major change to the existing conditions of consent for the Ardmore Park Quarry and trigger the need for a new DA .
4/ the approval conditions specifically state that there shall be no transport of product from the Quarry until such time as the Bungonia by-pass is in place.
5/ there was inadequate consultation with the residents and others take holders along any/all of the proposed route changes;
6/ the environmental assessment of provided with the application is not detailed enough ,and not extensive enough.
7/culverts,deep erosion channels close to the road verges have not been assessed by engineers for stability under sustained heavy road transport such as would come from a "campaign" of deliveries.
8/causeways e.g. at Jacqua crossing, 4 main causeways on Lumley Road , are at high risk of complete breakdown with regular sustained heavy truck traffic, whatever the weather, and have not been provided with an engineers assessment.

Quoted Details;
"Project Approval
Section 75J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
I approve the project referred to in Schedule 1, subject to the conditions set out in Schedules 2 to 5.

Terms of Approval
2. The Proponent shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the:
(a) EA;
(a1) EA (Mod 1);
(b) statement of commitments; and
(c) conditions of this approval.
Notes:
*The layout of the project is shown in the figure in Appendix 1; and
*The statement of commitments is included in Appendix 2.
3. If there is any inconsistency between the above documents, the most recent document shall prevail to
the extent of the inconsistency. However, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency."


ON this basis, I object to the Quarry new proposed haul routes. They are changed from the original approval which saw the Haul route as an integral component of the Quarry operations.
* Under this approval NO product is to be transported UNTIL the Haul route is constructed - and then by stages the amounts of product allowed to be hauled are tied to continuing INFRASTRUCTURE improvements to the road.
This point is reinforced in CEAL Limited v Minister for Planning & Ors(2007) (10245 of 2006) where Jagot J states at "Position of the Minister and Council":
"The quarry was interdependent with the haul route ..."

* This proposal is creating another Haul route -sufficient to give the Proponent access to the Sydney/ Canberra Corridor ,via unimproved local roads whose capacity to take heavy truck traffic has had cursory examination by the proponents' staff.

I object that this is a de-facto new haul route

- it is a proposed operational haul route for a major supply chain and should be treated as a major change to the existing conditions of consent for the Ardmore Park Quarry . I say that this is not 'local deliveries for the occasional driveway'

* The proponent states an interest in supplying the wind farm on Kialla Rd Gunning ;
Mr Micosic stated ---Multiquip was supplying to sub-contractors of the Gullen Wind farm" " "Goulburn Post 31 May: extract supplied in Appendix 2 of this proposal
Gullen Range Wind Farm
The proposed Gullen Range Wind Farm (GRWF) is located approximately 20km West of Goulburn, NSW. Seventy-three (73) wind turbines were given planning approval in August 2010 and will be constructed.
The site is broadly broken into two sections with the Kialla and Bannister sections to the north and the Pomeroy and Gurrundah sections to the south. Situated on the Great Dividing Range on a generally north-south oriented ridgeline, the distance from the northernmost proposed turbine location in the Kialla region, to the southernmost location in the Gurrundah region is 22km. The turbines are strategically located on elevated ground or on ridges for the best wind exposure.
The NSW State Government issued planning permits for the wind farm in August 2010 with a period of 5 years before it will lapse. The project was declared a Major Project under section 75B(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/project-sectors/transport-communications-energy--water/generation-of-electricity-or-heat-or-co-generation/?action=view_job&job_id=1310


Therefore there is at least a 2 Year campaign of supply being considered -assuming no construction delays-with - as Mr Micosic state himself " the amount of material could increase as Multiquip was supplying to sub-contractors of the Gullen Wind farm" " "Goulburn Post 31 May: extract supplied in Appendix 2 of this proposal.
This statement is a clear indication that
a/ the truck movements requested will be subject of further upward pressure over time,
and
b/ that contrary to the conditions of consent Mr Micosic says he is currently supplying ---i.e. operating the Quarry and possibly even moving material out of the Quarry site.
Furthermore there seems to be a specific Haul route.
c/ Mr Micosic's suggestion that the location of the sub-contractor was " a neighbour in Windellema" would indicate that there is a definite proposed route to that specific destination ;


If there is a specific destination for stockpiling, and/or for haulage destinations and the bulk of traffic would go to these sites , then this should trigger a new DA application for a new quarry designated Part 3 A Haul route matching the Part 3 A consent for the Quarry ; It should be assessed as such ,and advertised to all the impacted people.

Traffic.
the traffic analysis in the appendix 3 traffic impact assessment was reviewed on the basis of one single weeks monitoring May 2013; WINTER AS Mr Hallam suggested many vehicles are also recreational in his count a Winter ,non school holiday time count would show least impact from this type of traffic.
* accurate monitoring requires a traffic count for 1 month minimum before any real deductions or projections except the most flimsy can be made. It is an inadequate period to provide data for reliable of imp[acts along the haul route.
* 1,300 extra operational truck movements per year will easily push the numbers up during warmer months of the year
* EACH traffic count and analysis is related to North South movement ; there are NO East West traffic monitoring or calculations.
* other road impacts e.g. Windellema road ; Braidwood road are not calculated.
* There are no traffic counts along the other rural roads associated with this application.
* The traffic flow data for Jerrara road is unrelated and immaterial to this application as it falls within the conditions of consent already in place for the legal operations of the Quarry and its associated haul route.
* There is no intersection assessment for the numerous rural driveways and local roads along the routes now chosen.



Inadequate consultation

There has been no widespread community consultation regarding the proposed routes
Listed is :-
Appendix2 Community Consultation
1 Multiquip local deliveries community consultation letter
2 Goulburn Post Extract 31 May 2013

No 1 stated "we are conducting meetings with community members through out May 2013 to identify any issues that may arise during this application ;the Goulburn Post article

Mr S MIcosic stated that he "didn't see the need for any community meetings beyond his discussions with Windellema school regarding school bus times"
This attitude toward consultation is borne out by what
Mr Micosic cites as 'consultation' .
The Placement of few hard copies or discs at Johnno's" shop-a tiny isolated takeaway and convenience store which serves emergency local supplies, and the through-travellers' weekend needs. Its customer base does not cover the wide expanse of the main rural road network and the residents likely to be impacted by any regular movement of Haul trucks through their neighbourhood.
There was no quarry representative contact directly to Windellema Progress Association , nor Tarago ,nor to the districts of Bronte ,Lake Bathurst areas in Goulburn likely to be affected e.g., Tirranaville etc nor major other peak road users e.g. the Goulburn Showground ,the Wool stores, ABBATOIRS, the saleyards nor were there community meetings held to have the proposal presented in any detail, no opportunity discuss the issues as communities and then have further consultative meetings with the proponent, as people realised the implications for themselves.


furthermore :An article in a newspaper does not constitute consultation, nor answer the requirement to consult ,as consultation implies interactive processes between the parties.

Justification
The Proponent presents a Justification is that there is a need for this material and for this Quarry to supply it .
There is no justification for this move into either 'wind-farm' supply chain or into supposed " local " supplies..
Originally in the Consented Ardmore Park quarry his application's major aim was to service the Sydney/Canberra constructions markets,-- and the specific quarry haul route integral to that development was approved
Two vast Quarries at Marulan Linwood and Boral as well as Southern ,also recently consented ;all make the same or equivalent use products; they are situated on substantial and high grade road and rail infrastructure corridors and have no need to interfere with residential areas or rural road users.
One year of their output dwarfs the entire lifetime output as projected for this development.
They are ideally placed to provide material to all the wind farm developments along major arteries to any wind farm sites.

Locally there are numerous other suppliers e.g. Divall's , Goulburn Sand and soil, Rocky Hill Sand and supplies; Southern Highlands Landscape supplies, Packsons Quarries, Highland sand and gravel; Burgess sand and gravel., easily able to supply a local market;
They are not Part 3 A approved and are small local operations .Local needs are easily supplied by these competing operators.

Other environmental impacts;
The Larbert tree. at the egress from the Ardmore Park site is listed on the Goulburn Mulwarree Council LEP as a heritage item and its continued health and growth is to be supported and protected . It has stood as the post box since the earliest European movements in the area.
There is no mention in the EA of the protections that would be in place in the current environmental analyses.

I commend my issues to your attention
sincerely
A Wiggan

I strongly object to the changes in the Development as this will again cause a lot of grief to the many residences and ratepayers in this area .It will ultimately make the area more unsafe and only benefit the blow in developers . The long term residents have come to this area for a reasonable country lifestyle and to hold there lives to continued ransom over this controversial development is unethical and completely unfair .Major developments like these must be sustainable and benefit the local community and these changes don't..A government that continually changes parameters for developers over the long term ratepayers will
be seen to be weak and susceptible to corruption .I would ask you to consider the many residents concerns .

I am saddened to see the lack of support and concern by the operators of Ardmore Park Quarry and government departments on the health and safety of the residents and truck drivers in the surrounding areas of the quarry.
Since the proposal for the establishment of the quarry to the issues of today I have seen all concerns of the residents eroded away to nothing.
Firstly it was proposed that a mine be allowed at Ardmore Park and the majority of residents opposed it on grounds that it would change the tranquil lifestyle the residents are enjoying and it would also present a significant risk to the road users in the area. This was soon trampled on with a proposal to build an alternate route to alleviate the road safety issue. The residents reluctantly accepted the compromise which meant giving up their tranquility for the sake of "progress".
The the goal posts were then moved to allow the trucks to use existing roads for the cartage of the mined products with the compromise of upgrading the roads to make them suitable for use by the trucks. Again the compromise has been compromised. It has now been stated that:
"the proponent now intends not to use the designated truck haul route. These works could be avoided if he can put trucks on the local roads in an unimproved state".
My main concern is and has always been the safety of the residents in the surrounding areas. I have personally experienced a near miss by a truck using the existing roads. Due to the time constraints placed on drivers and the assumption that almost no one uses the local roads, truck drivers WILL literally cut corners to keep the tight schedules that will be imposed on them.
The roads are hardly wide enough to accommodate two cars passing in opposite directions let alone trucks entering the equation. In my case it did involve a truck who needed most of his side of the road and half of my side to negotiate a curve on Jerrara road the consequences of which put me off the road and only by the grace of God I managed not to hit any obstacles that line the road.
Due to complacency of the government departments that should be responsible and the proponents of the mine, I can only see that any action to avoid a disaster will only happen after the disaster. The "we will learn by our mistakes" attitude is not acceptable and can now be deemed as culpable rather than an oversight. Is a human life worth less than a truck-full of sand?
In summary I would like to say I strongly object to trucks using any existing roads in the area on grounds of safety. The roads are not designed to carry such loads let alone the volume of heavy traffic that will result from the mining. A quick inspection of the local roads will reveal even to the untrained eye, that the roads are in a poor state and are not fit to carry the proposed traffic.
I have and always will object to the mine being in the area. We purchased our property in the Bungonia area for its quiet rural life style which will now be disrupted. Will we be compensated for this loss? I doubt it. Will we be safe using the surrounding roads? I doubt it. Will the proponents of the mine keep their promises? No, they have reneged on every promise so far which has now set a precedence to keep breaking agreements.
I trust that common sense will prevail for once and the proposal/modification be discarded.