Mod 3 - Crushing System

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.

Corkery's proposal seems deliberately understated to avoid drawing attention to how Hanson's operations will change as a result of the installation of a rock crusher and the planned almost doubling of production from 250 thousand tonnes to 400 thousand tonnes every year. It appears, now that the quarry has been refused permission to expand to the South, they have decided to go deeper into the aquifer, and possibly to also make themselves a processing center for quarries in the local area. It is noted that they do not rule out the future use of explosives to remove hard sandstone which, with the new crusher, they will have the ability to process. None of this is permitted by their existing Terms of Consent. If they wish to apply to move in this direction, they should be required to declare the details of their plans and spend the money and time to properly assess the potential for environmental harm from doing so properly. I have read and agree with all the points made by the Walkabout Wildlife Conservation Foundation in their submission. I have attached a copy as I want it to be put on record that my submission includes all points made by the Foundation.

Walkabout Park is an eco-tourism establishment that includes a working wildlife sanctuary and which is committed to both environmental and cultural conservation through education. Walkabout Park is concerned about how Hanson's operations will change and how these changes will affect the availability of water to the environment and to other residents, how vibration from increasing production volumes and ripping more hard sandstone might damage the fragile sandstone Aboriginal sites only meters from the quarry operations, how increased traffic on Peats Ridge Road will affect tourists, how any changes in activity will affect noise impacts at Walkabout Park from where the quarry, with existing operations, is regularly clearly audible and an irritation to overnight guests, and the effects of the possible future use of explosives to extract hard sandstone. Walkabout Park notes Hanson's complete failure to consult with the Aboriginal community at all on this matter, and the lies in Hanson's EIS about consultation with local residents. These are described in detail in the attached submission.

see attached file

attached

To Whom It May Concern,

Please find attached a submission concerning the Hanson Quarry proposed sand mine at Calga.

Regards

See attached

See attached

See attached