Mod 3 - Crushing System

Where do I start the sandstone in those Mountains is actually the aquifer it supports the critically endangered flora and fauna of that area during drought and reduces bushfire hazard it builds head pressure to irrigate the many Orchards and market gardens in that district significant cultural sites are far more numerous in the proposed site then found anywhere else in Australia Central Coast is a tight neck Community working together very hard to Embrace and preserve the natural beauty and habitat as well at finding solutions for growth and building I believe this proposal is unnecessary and would exacerbate The Decline of the natural beauty within this part of Australia

It seems that Hanson is hoping that the Planning Department will accept that the quarry will be operating within the existing Conditions of Consent (2005 amended 2012) so there is no need to declare, let alone assess the environmental impact of, any changes to operations as a result of using a crusher.

However, the existing 2005 Conditions of Consent requires that Hanson operates the quarry in accordance with the 2004 EIS. It is not sufficient that Hanson merely complies with the conditions imposed. The conditions must be read in conjunction with the EIS.

The 2005 Conditions of Consent state "The Applicant shall carry out the development in accordance with the (a) DA 94-4-2004; (b) EIS titled Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Calga Sand Quarry Extension, dated May 2004; (c) Amended Report titled Amendment to the Proposal Submitted as Development Application (DA 94-4-2004) for a Extension to the Calga Sand Quarry, dated June 2005; and (d) conditions of this development consent."

In the 2004 EIS Rocla claimed that they would continue operating the quarry "for the life of the quarry" in the way it had always operated and described the operations in great detail including ripping, washing and sorting. Nowhere in the EIS or any supporting documentation did they mention the possibility of crushing. No modelling was done on the environmental impacts of crushing.

The existing Conditions of Consent were based on the 2004 Environmental Impact Study THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRUSHER which meant that, when deciding what the Conditions of Consent would be in 2005, the Planning Department must have anticipated that:
1. There would be no hard rock crushing plant.
2. The quarry would not be digging down into the hard rock of the aquifer.
3. The 'up to 400,000 ton per year' of product produced by the quarry would not include the hardest friable sandstone.
4. The overall output of the quarry over its lifetime and, therefore, its environmental impacts, would be limited by the fact that deeper (harder) materials could not be processed so would not be extracted.
5. There would be no noise, dust or vibration from ripping into the lower hard layers of sandstone.
6. Blasting was not a necessary as there was no means to process hard sandstone, so was not a consideration.
7. Water take would be limited by the amount of material that could feasibly be processed without a crusher.
8. Water take modelling on softer materials would be representative throughout the life of the quarry as large volumes of harder materials were not anticipated.
9. Quarry depth would be limited by the layer of hard rock on the current `floor' of the cells.
10. There were no significant Aboriginal sites nearby (notably the 2004 EIS said the Women's Site was known but was "lost" or "misplaced") that need protection from noise, vibration, dust and water deprivation.
11. No significant volumes of materials would be brought on site from elsewhere, so traffic volumes were based merely on what was extracted from the site.

It is relevant to this application to note that, when the 2005 Conditions of Consent were modified in 2012:
A. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent were ostensibly to permit the moving of the administration centre so that the area where it had been situated could be quarried.
B. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent increased the allowable noise levels, ostensibly to `correct for' background noise levels.
C. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent changed it so that the quarry only has to attempt to comply with the (increased) permitted noise levels, but does not have to actually comply, and there are no consequences for non compliance.
D. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent also removed the consequences for exceeding the (unchanged) permitted dust levels.

The 2012 modifications described in C. and D. above pose additional risk should a crushing plant be installed, in that safeguards written in to the 2005 Conditions of Consent no longer exist.

In summary, the following is required:

1. Before this application can be assessed, Hanson must complete and submit an EIS (a) explaining exactly what is going to change operationally and what equipment will be used, (b) detailing the environmental risks of the operational changes, not just of the actual new machine, and (c) modelling the environmental impacts of the changes in operations, as well as the new machine.

2. If, based on an adequate EIS, the hard crushing plant is approved, there must be reinstatement of consequences for exceeding noise and dust criteria in the Conditions of Consent, as well as the imposition of other necessary conditions considering the new potential environmental impacts, such as prohibiting blasting or bringing materials on site, and specifying the maximum depths, or depths relative to the aquifer, that can be extracted.

This is a personal submission and not on behalf of Guringai Tribal Link who will be submitting an objection for the organisation. I strongly object to the DA Hansoms are proposing for the land.
1: The destruction of my ancestors land, sacred sites, water ways, and environment.
2: Once again works will be to close the sacred engraving area that entails the Woman and Daramulan. We went through this with the Rocla event in the Land and Environment Court, so refer to the result.
3: I object also on the volume of water that will be needed and used to operate this crushing plant. The amount will but an enormous strain on the water table in the area, thus drying up water ways that also contain Aboriginal Heritage Sites in and beside the water way, and lowering the table for the residents living in the said area.
4: The dust that this plant will create will damage heritage sites, damage the air that not only the local community uses but also visitors to Calga Walkabout Park, and not the visitors to the park but the animals in the park.
5: The movement of land and cracking of stone the vibrating from this plant could cause, this may impact on the sacred site mentioned above, vibration from Grants Road Quarry at Somersby has to monitored because of very important Aboriginal Reserve (Howe's Aboriginal Area) that is close to the quarry, in fact not as close as this plant will be to the engraving site on the land at Calga.

That hard rock crushing will be a lot noisier and dustier, and produce much more vibration, and use more water, and process much deeper (harder) materials, than the sandstone washing that Hanson (previously Rocla) have always done onsite.

This is a sensitive receptor site and should be protected from noise in the same way as a church or school, and is already experiencing noise levels that exceed these. This new DA is applying for permission to make even more noise.

I am a traditional owener of this area and I know of all the sites in your area are very fragile .any rock crushing will cause more vibration the any previous works that have been going on there.i can't believe you would even think of doing this on this site after all the trouble that rocla has just gone through .o hope you can rethink you strategy .regards Laurie bimson

-Before this application can be assessed, Hanson must complete and submit an EIS (a) explaining exactly what is going to change operationally and what equipment will be used, (b) detailing the environmental risks of the operational changes, not just of the actual new machine, and (c) modelling the environmental impacts of the changes in operations, as well as the new machine.

_If, based on an adequate EIS, the hard crushing plant is approved, there must be reinstatement of consequences for exceeding noise and dust criteria in the Conditions of Consent, as well as the imposition of other necessary conditions considering the new potential environmental impacts, such as prohibiting blasting or bringing materials on site, and specifying the maximum depths, or depths relative to the aquifer, that can be extracted.

Before this application can be assessed, Hanson must complete and submit an EIS (a) explaining exactly what is going to change operationally and what equipment will be used, (b) detailing the environmental risks of the operational changes, not just of the actual new machine, and (c) modelling the environmental impacts of the changes in operations, as well as the new machine.

If, based on an adequate EIS, the hard crushing plant is approved, there must be reinstatement of consequences for exceeding noise and dust criteria in the Conditions of Consent, as well as the imposition of other necessary conditions considering the new potential environmental impacts, such as prohibiting blasting or bringing materials on site, and specifying the maximum depths, depths relative to the aquifer, or increased water take that can be extracted.

I wish to support the submission of Tassin Barnard (quoted below) ie Hanson must do a full EIS as crushing was not mentioned in 2004 EIS,which is relied on in the existing conditions of consent.

"It seems that Hanson is hoping that the Planning Department will accept that the quarry will be operating within the existing Conditions of Consent (2005 amended 2012) so there is no need to declare, let alone assess the environmental impact of, any changes to operations as a result of using a crusher.

However, the existing 2005 Conditions of Consent requires that Hanson operates the quarry in accordance with the 2004 EIS. It is not sufficient that Hanson merely complies with the conditions imposed. The conditions must be read in conjunction with the EIS.

The 2005 Conditions of Consent state "The Applicant shall carry out the development in accordance with the (a) DA 94-4-2004; (b) EIS titled Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Calga Sand Quarry Extension, dated May 2004; (c) Amended Report titled Amendment to the Proposal Submitted as Development Application (DA 94-4-2004) for a Extension to the Calga Sand Quarry, dated June 2005; and (d) conditions of this development consent."

In the 2004 EIS Rocla claimed that they would continue operating the quarry "for the life of the quarry" in the way it had always operated and described the operations in great detail including ripping, washing and sorting. Nowhere in the EIS or any supporting documentation did they mention the possibility of crushing. No modelling was done on the environmental impacts of crushing.

The existing Conditions of Consent were based on the 2004 Environmental Impact Study THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRUSHER which meant that, when deciding what the Conditions of Consent would be in 2005, the Planning Department must have anticipated that:
* There would be no hard rock crushing plant.
* The quarry would not be digging down into the hard rock of the aquifer.
* The 'up to 400,000 ton per year' of product produced by the quarry would not include the hardest friable sandstone.
* The overall output of the quarry over its lifetime and, therefore, its environmental impacts, would be limited by the fact that deeper (harder) materials could not be processed so would not be extracted.
* There would be no noise, dust or vibration from ripping into the lower hard layers of sandstone.
* Blasting was not a necessary as there was no means to process hard sandstone, so was not a consideration.
* Water take would be limited by the amount of material that could feasibly be processed without a crusher.
* Water take modelling on softer materials would be representative throughout the life of the quarry as large volumes of harder materials were not anticipated.
* Quarry depth would be limited by the layer of hard rock on the current `floor' of the cells.
* There were no significant Aboriginal sites nearby (notably the 2004 EIS said the Women's Site was known but was "lost" or "misplaced") that need protection from noise, vibration, dust and water deprivation.
* No significant volumes of materials would be brought on site from elsewhere, so traffic volumes were based merely on what was extracted from the site.

It is relevant to this application to note that, when the 2005 Conditions of Consent were modified in 2012:
* The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent were ostensibly to permit the moving of the administration centre so that the area where it had been situated could be quarried.
* The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent increased the allowable noise levels, ostensibly to `correct for' background noise levels.
* The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent changed it so that the quarry only has to attempt to comply with the (increased) permitted noise levels, but does not have to actually comply, and there are no consequences for non compliance.
* The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent also removed the consequences for exceeding the (unchanged) permitted dust levels.

The 2012 modifications described in C. and D. above pose additional risk should a crushing plant be installed, in that safeguards written in to the 2005 Conditions of Consent no longer exist."

It seems that Hanson is hoping that the Planning Department will accept that the quarry will be operating within the existing Conditions of Consent (2005 amended 2012) so there is no need to declare, let alone assess the environmental impact of, any changes to operations as a result of using a crusher.

However, the existing 2005 Conditions of Consent requires that Hanson operates the quarry in accordance with the 2004 EIS. It is not sufficient that Hanson merely complies with the conditions imposed. The conditions must be read in conjunction with the EIS.

The 2005 Conditions of Consent state "The Applicant shall carry out the development in accordance with the (a) DA 94-4-2004; (b) EIS titled Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Calga Sand Quarry Extension, dated May 2004; (c) Amended Report titled Amendment to the Proposal Submitted as Development Application (DA 94-4-2004) for a Extension to the Calga Sand Quarry, dated June 2005; and (d) conditions of this development consent."

In the 2004 EIS Rocla claimed that they would continue operating the quarry "for the life of the quarry" in the way it had always operated and described the operations in great detail including ripping, washing and sorting. Nowhere in the EIS or any supporting documentation did they mention the possibility of crushing. No modelling was done on the environmental impacts of crushing.

The existing Conditions of Consent were based on the 2004 Environmental Impact Study THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRUSHER which meant that, when deciding what the Conditions of Consent would be in 2005, the Planning Department must have anticipated that:
1. There would be no hard rock crushing plant.
2. The quarry would not be digging down into the hard rock of the aquifer.
3. The 'up to 400,000 ton per year' of product produced by the quarry would not include the hardest friable sandstone.
4. The overall output of the quarry over its lifetime and, therefore, its environmental impacts, would be limited by the fact that deeper (harder) materials could not be processed so would not be extracted.
5. There would be no noise, dust or vibration from ripping into the lower hard layers of sandstone.
6. Blasting was not a necessary as there was no means to process hard sandstone, so was not a consideration.
7. Water take would be limited by the amount of material that could feasibly be processed without a crusher.
8. Water take modelling on softer materials would be representative throughout the life of the quarry as large volumes of harder materials were not anticipated.
9. Quarry depth would be limited by the layer of hard rock on the current `floor' of the cells.
10. There were no significant Aboriginal sites nearby (notably the 2004 EIS said the Women's Site was known but was "lost" or "misplaced") that need protection from noise, vibration, dust and water deprivation.
11. No significant volumes of materials would be brought on site from elsewhere, so traffic volumes were based merely on what was extracted from the site.

It is relevant to this application to note that, when the 2005 Conditions of Consent were modified in 2012:
A. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent were ostensibly to permit the moving of the administration centre so that the area where it had been situated could be quarried.
B. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent increased the allowable noise levels, ostensibly to `correct for' background noise levels.
C. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent changed it so that the quarry only has to attempt to comply with the (increased) permitted noise levels, but does not have to actually comply, and there are no consequences for non compliance.
D. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent also removed the consequences for exceeding the (unchanged) permitted dust levels.

The 2012 modifications described in C. and D. above pose additional risk should a crushing plant be installed, in that safeguards written in to the 2005 Conditions of Consent no longer exist.

In summary, the following is required:

1. Before this application can be assessed, Hanson must complete and submit an EIS (a) explaining exactly what is going to change operationally and what equipment will be used, (b) detailing the environmental risks of the operational changes, not just of the actual new machine, and (c) modelling the environmental impacts of the changes in operations, as well as the new machine.

2. If, based on an adequate EIS, the hard crushing plant is approved, there must be reinstatement of consequences for exceeding noise and dust criteria in the Conditions of Consent, as well as the imposition of other necessary conditions considering the new potential environmental impacts, such as prohibiting blasting or bringing materials on site, and specifying the maximum depths, or depths relative to the aquifer, that can be extracted.

It seems that Hanson is hoping that the Planning Department will accept that the quarry will be operating within the existing Conditions of Consent (2005 amended 2012) so there is no need to declare, let alone assess the environmental impact of, any changes to operations as a result of using a crusher.

However, the existing 2005 Conditions of Consent requires that Hanson operates the quarry in accordance with the 2004 EIS. It is not sufficient that Hanson merely complies with the conditions imposed. The conditions must be read in conjunction with the EIS.

The 2005 Conditions of Consent state "The Applicant shall carry out the development in accordance with the (a) DA 94-4-2004; (b) EIS titled Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Calga Sand Quarry Extension, dated May 2004; (c) Amended Report titled Amendment to the Proposal Submitted as Development Application (DA 94-4-2004) for a Extension to the Calga Sand Quarry, dated June 2005; and (d) conditions of this development consent."

In the 2004 EIS Rocla claimed that they would continue operating the quarry "for the life of the quarry" in the way it had always operated and described the operations in great detail including ripping, washing and sorting. Nowhere in the EIS or any supporting documentation did they mention the possibility of crushing. No modelling was done on the environmental impacts of crushing.

The existing Conditions of Consent were based on the 2004 Environmental Impact Study THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRUSHER which meant that, when deciding what the Conditions of Consent would be in 2005, the Planning Department must have anticipated that:
1. There would be no hard rock crushing plant.
2. The quarry would not be digging down into the hard rock of the aquifer.
3. The 'up to 400,000 ton per year' of product produced by the quarry would not include the hardest friable sandstone.
4. The overall output of the quarry over its lifetime and, therefore, its environmental impacts, would be limited by the fact that deeper (harder) materials could not be processed so would not be extracted.
5. There would be no noise, dust or vibration from ripping into the lower hard layers of sandstone.
6. Blasting was not a necessary as there was no means to process hard sandstone, so was not a consideration.
7. Water take would be limited by the amount of material that could feasibly be processed without a crusher.
8. Water take modelling on softer materials would be representative throughout the life of the quarry as large volumes of harder materials were not anticipated.
9. Quarry depth would be limited by the layer of hard rock on the current `floor' of the cells.
10. There were no significant Aboriginal sites nearby (notably the 2004 EIS said the Women's Site was known but was "lost" or "misplaced") that need protection from noise, vibration, dust and water deprivation.
11. No significant volumes of materials would be brought on site from elsewhere, so traffic volumes were based merely on what was extracted from the site.

It is relevant to this application to note that, when the 2005 Conditions of Consent were modified in 2012:
A. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent were ostensibly to permit the moving of the administration centre so that the area where it had been situated could be quarried.
B. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent increased the allowable noise levels, ostensibly to `correct for' background noise levels.
C. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent changed it so that the quarry only has to attempt to comply with the (increased) permitted noise levels, but does not have to actually comply, and there are no consequences for non compliance.
D. The 2012 Modifications to the Conditions of Consent also removed the consequences for exceeding the (unchanged) permitted dust levels.

The 2012 modifications described in C. and D. above pose additional risk should a crushing plant be installed, in that safeguards written in to the 2005 Conditions of Consent no longer exist.

In summary, the following is required:

1. Before this application can be assessed, Hanson must complete and submit an EIS (a) explaining exactly what is going to change operationally and what equipment will be used, (b) detailing the environmental risks of the operational changes, not just of the actual new machine, and (c) modelling the environmental impacts of the changes in operations, as well as the new machine.

2. If, based on an adequate EIS, the hard crushing plant is approved, there must be reinstatement of consequences for exceeding noise and dust criteria in the Conditions of Consent, as well as the imposition of other necessary conditions considering the new potential environmental impacts, such as prohibiting blasting or bringing materials on site, and specifying the maximum depths, or depths relative to the aquifer, that can be extracted.

I don't agree with the mining at Galga. please protect the special aboriginal women's place and the Animals at the walkabout park and for the future

Submission letter opposing Calga Quarry (DA 94-4-2004) MOD 2 - Crushing System (Part4Mod)




Assessing Officer and/or

Director of Resource Assessments,

Department of Planning & Environment

GPO Box 39 SYDNEY

NSW 2001




11th September 2016



I wish to record my non-consent to the current Development Application Modification on exhibition, and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.


As a resident of the Central Coast, I have only just recently moved away from the village of Calga where I was living for 3 years. In the same way that I opposed the Calga Sand Quarry's application for an expansion (under the ownership of Rocla), I also oppose Calga Sand Quarry's application for a Rock Crushing System (under the ownership of Hanson), and these are some of my reasons.....


~I am opposed to the application for a large Rock Crushing System, because hard rock being crushed will be a lot noisier and dustier, it will produce much more vibration, will use more water, and process much deeper (harder) materials, than the sandstone washing that Hanson (previously Rocla) have always done on-site.


~I do not consent to this application being approved, because there has been no consultation with the local Indigenous peoples. No Indigenous individual, organisation, agency or representative group has been consulted. To my knowledge, no Elders have been consulted as to the potential impacts that this kind of expansion to Hanson's activities, will have on the sacred and archaeologically-significant Women's Site.


~ I do not consent to this application being approved, when Hanson and their advisors Corkery, have blatantly disregarded the consultation process with the Indigenous communities. Following the rulings of the recent Land and Environment Court case, (where Calga Sand Quarry [Rocla] applied for an expansion), the expansion was denied on several grounds, but the most significant reason being, that the "whole landscape" within this area at Calga was proven to have immense Cultural Heritage, and worth protecting from ANY and ALL risks to its conservation and integrity.

~ As a community member committed to protecting these culturally significant areas around Calga, Peats Ridge and Mangrove Mountain, I was hoping that Calga Sand Quarry being under new management (Hanson) might mean that there would be a change in the professional conduct towards the Indigenous communities, and the residents in the surrounding villages. To move forward with such a huge change in Mining activity, within 100 metres of the sacred Women's Site (and no consultation with the Indigenous communities), has shown me, that it is only a change of name that has occurred, not an improvement in professional standards.


~Commissioner Sullivan in the Land and Environment Court stated in her findings that the Cultural Landscape must be protected, and that the Women's Site is a sensitive receptor area that needs to be shielded from damage caused by noise, in the same way that other sacred places like churches are protected. The existing quarry activities are already exceeding the restricted levels needed to ensure no damage, and yet the Indigenous community is now having to consider even more noise damage occurring to their sacred site. I do not consent to the behaviour of such wanton disrespect for this country's Cultural Heritage, in the wake of such important rulings in the Land and Environment Court.


~I do not consent to this application being approved, because I am of the belief that thorough Community Consultation has not occurred, in the way that is being portrayed in Hanson's DA documents. From my understanding of why a "Community Consultation Committee" is required by law to regularly meet (wherever there is a mine in operation within a community) is to ensure that at all times, the community is being informed ahead of time of any proposed changes to operations, and that the community is being given the space to communicate the impacts of such proposals, thus both engaging in a fully professional relationship where the local people, environment and community come first, not profits. Why would this proposed change in Mining activity not be considered worth communicating about, within the prime appointment that the Government has set up, to require Hanson to communicate about such matters? All it demonstrates is sneaky backdoor tactics. It is unacceptable community relations, that the first time many local community members know of this change in Mining activity, is to receive a phone call from a distressed neighbour asking "Did you see the DA listing in the newspaper for Calga??"


~It is unacceptable and shoddy business practise, for Hanson personnel to fail to enter into thorough communications with the Walkabout Wildlife Park (well before lodging a DA), about their proposed change in Mining activities, when this same quarry has already been in a long drawn out court case with the Walkabout Wildlife Park, involving the exact same concerns that such proposed activities will be causing again. Tassin, Gerald, the committed staff members, and the Wildlife that reside within the Sanctuary, are Hanson's most direct neighbours, and those for whom ANY change in Noise, Dust, Water, Traffic, Vibration has serious consequences. There is no reason (that could be considered transparent and professional), to excuse the failure of Hanson to communicate thoroughly with the Walkabout Park. It should be of utmost importance to those persons in Management of Hanson corporation, to be knocking on Walkabout Park's door relentlessly (if need be) until they engage in thorough communications about matters of such importance as this. To my knowledge, this has not occurred. Hand-delivering a glossy piece of junk mail, does not constitute "consultation".


~I do not consent to this application being approved, because the Environmental Impact Statement used to justify this proposal is extremely flawed in these many ways.....


*It would seem on first skimming of this document, that this Application is for a minor alteration to existing operations. However, when you read more thoroughly into the outcomes of the proposed Modification, Hanson's intentions become more apparent. The EIS talks about making the process quicker AND extending the quarry life, which can only mean that more materials will be extracted and/or materials will be brought in from other quarries. Otherwise, how could merely processing what they are already extracting more quickly, extend the life of the quarry? Hanson needs to explicity state, what materials they will be processing, and where they will come from.


*The EIS does not offer to monitor breathable tiny particles of PM2.5 crushed silica sand, nor to stay within healthy levels. It only deals with large PM10 particles which are not dangerous to health. This is despite the fact that the quarry (then Rocla) agreed to measure PM2.5 / PM4 if the quarry was extended, so they clearly do appreciate its health impacts.

*The EIS does not deal with noise, dust or vibration on the Women's Site itself, or on visitors to the Women's Site, or on the surrounding Cultural Landscape.

*The EIS does not deal with noise, dust, vibration or water impacts of blasting or other techniques for removing harder materials.


*The EIS does not deal with noise, dust, vibration or water impacts of excavating hard rock (it deals with crushing only, not excavating).


*The EIS does not deal with noise, dust, vibration or water impacts, including water deprivation for the surrounding plants and animals, of going deeper into the aquifer to get more materials.


*The EIS does not deal with the traffic, noise, dust or vibration impacts of bringing materials in from other quarries.


*The EIS does not deal with noise, dust or vibration impacts from the extra truck movements to transport the extra materials on site.


*The EIS does not deal with extra traffic movements on Peats Ridge Road and the M1 for bringing in materials.

*The EIS does not deal with extra traffic movements on Peats Ridge Road and the M1 for transporting out the increased production levels.


*The EIS does not deal with the need for extra water use to wash the additional materials produced.


*The EIS does not deal with extra water taken out in the extraction process as they remove harder materials previously left in situ.


*The EIS does not deal with the extra water lost in increased materials leaving the site.

*The EIS does not deal with additional water licensing.



~If approval is given - and a lot more work needs to be done (see above) before there is any consideration of an approval - any approval should explicitly...


- exclude Hanson from bringing any materials on site,


- exclude Hanson from using the Calga site as a processing centre for materials from other quarries either because the other quarries don't have any onsite processing, or because other quarries can't do hard rock crushing,


- exclude Hanson from opening up cells on the Calga site that have already been worked,


- exclude Hanson from going into the hard rock at the bottom of the last remaining active cell.






Thereby above, I have stated the reasons why the Hanson-owned Calga Sand Quarry Development Application for Modification 3 (DA 94-4-2004), MUST NOT BE APPROVED.

Not F...ING Again is all I can say.

Another Attempt at trying to destroy our beautiful Central Coast. If they think that we aren't interested in what happens, or won't say anything about another back door attempt and we are are not watching WELL YOUR WRONG.

What damage will be caused and what Consequences this development will have on the environment, has anyone been consulted, given evidence that their will be no impact NOOOO but we will throw money at getting these developments approved.

As a resident of the Central Coast, I oppose this proposal, In the same way that I opposed the Calga Sand Quarry's application for an expansion (under the ownership of Rocla), I also oppose Calga Sand Quarry's application for a Rock Crushing System.


I wish to record my non-consent to the current Development Application Modification on exhibition, and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.

~I am opposed to the application for a large Rock Crushing System,

~I do not consent to this application being approved, because there has been no consultation with the local Indigenous peoples.
When Hanson and their advisors Corkery, have blatantly disregarded the consultation process with the Indigenous communities

~ As a member of this community I am committed to protecting these culturally significant areas around Calga, Peats Ridge and Mangrove Mountain,

~I do not consent to this application being approved, because I am of the belief that thorough Community Consultation has not occurred, in the way that is being portrayed in Hanson's DA documents.

~I do not consent to this application being approved, because the Environmental Impact Statement used to justify this proposal is extremely flawed in these many ways.....

Regards

Maria Zotos

Im 13 years old and know what is right and what is wrong, well this is wrong if only for the animals that will be frightened from their homes, the drinking water can be polluted and disrespecting the Aborigines
I OBJECT

Dear P&E

I provide a personal submission with respect to potential impacts to tangible and intangible Aboriginal heritage sites and values, associated with the wider landscape, connected to and immediately surrounding the extant Calga quarry.

My expertise and comment on this matter are founded by my representation to the NSW Land and Environment Court, during the Class 1 proceedings, Hunter Environmental Lobby Inc v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2) - [2014] NSWLEC 129, as one of the Aboriginal heritage expert witness.

The findings of the LEC on the matter of Aboriginal heritage, its tangible and intangible values, are clear and indisputable. I have attached these findings to this submission, however, I assume that P&E are fully aware of the outcome.

With respect to the current submission, the EA for the proposal (RW Corkery & Co Pty Ltd August 2016) does not consider Aboriginal heritage - the word 'heritage' is not present within the document. There is also no evidence of consultation with the local Aboriginal community with respect to this proposal.

The absence of the identification and consequential assessment of Aboriginal heritage impact means that Aboriginal heritage is not considered in any respect by the proposal. Given the finding of the LEC the absence of acknowledgement for Aboriginal heritage and assessment of impact cannot assumed to be an oversight. I further note that the OEH is currently in the process of listing the landscape associated with this area as an Aboriginal place. There is no consideration of this listing or evidence of consultation with the OEH with respect to the DA submission.

Whilst the EA has not made any consideration of the potential impact or otherwise on the known tangible or intangible Aboriginal heritage values, it does present a suite of aspects which could be considered as impacts to the Aboriginal heritage. The following aspects should be considered through the EA:

Noise - this has the potential to directly impact aesthetic Aboriginal heritage, notably in those locations associated with key women's business. An increase in the noise levels has not been made in connection with relevant landscape locations and thus impacts resultant from the proposal are unknown.

Visibility - the Aboriginal heritage landscape connections extent along the ridgeline which form the southern boundary of the extant quarry. Therefore from certain locations the proposed crushing system would be entirely visible. The impact of this visibility on Aboriginal social and intangible values is unknown and not assessed.

Air Quality - the proposal does not appear to present a change, and thus impacts beyond those currently observed would not increase.

There is no mention of vibration impacts, light intrusion or changes in access requirements, which all hold the potential for impact to Aboriginal heritage value. The effect on sandstone stability and cracking are not discussed.

On the basis that Aboriginal heritage has not been considered by the EA, application by P&E should see the OEH's precautionary approach (OEH Operational Policy 2009, pp 26 - see below) and the Burra Charter's Cautious Approach applied. The LEC finding have defined the high Aboriginal values of this area, and the until assessed correctly, OEH policy would determine that "the proposal involves a risk of serious or irreversible damage to Aboriginal objects or places or to the value of those objects or places" (OEH 2009: 26)

Until such time that appropriate Aboriginal community consultation, assessment of Aboriginal heritage impact (undertaken by a reputable and independent Aboriginal heritage expert) and management for continued use through the plant upgrade process, is made, I do not support this DA or the current application.

Regards
Dr Tim Owen


OEH [DECC] 2009: 26 states:

"The precautionary principle states that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

I object to a crushing system being installed at the Calga Sand Quarry. Please see uploaded submission.

Has been uploaded

I have emailed a Submission to [email protected]
objecting to Calga Quarry Application Number DA 94-4-2004 MOD 3

Submission attached.

The EIS is grossly insufficient in that it does not deal with the potential environmental harm that is likely to arise from changes to processes and extraction methods that will likely arise from the new capabilities once a rock crushing plant is installed and operational, and the planned increases in production levels. The existing Conditions of Consent do not permit what is now being proposed as they require that the quarry operate in accordance with what was proposed in the 2004 EIS. The 2004 EIS did not contemplate these new operational impacts. This is a whole new business with an emphasis on processing materials and the potential for an open cut mine. Hanson should be required to properly disclose the details of how their operations will change, and to do full assessments of all of the environmental impacts of these changes. I have read the Walkabout Wildlife Conservation Foundation submission, and concur with everything it submits. Rather than wasting the Department's time saying all that it contains again, I have included a copy of the WWCF submission for ease of reference.