Sancrox Quarry Expansion Project

The Department of Primary Industries has reviewed the proposal and has no comments.

See response attached. Please note that Roads & Maritime Services is now within the Department of Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

Are you out of your mind???? Have you not been hearing, reading or watching the news? Port Macquaire has just faced terrible bush fires that have killed hundreds of the Koala bear population. Where you are proposing to have this site is home to the only Koala bear population in Port Macquaire. 40ha of prime koala habitat that hasn't been affected by the recent bushfires that is going to be cleared to make way for your selfish consumerism antics. This project needs to be stopped. You are a part of the problem, you will have blood on your hands

I live within the vicinity of this project & I currently hear the operation during daylight hours, so for this to operate on a 24 hour 7 days a week basis would be totally intolerable. With the ever increasing Sovereign Hills residential development, also within earshot the future complaints would be massive. As I said, I am totally against any further operating hours or days for this current operation.

I believe that the development is of benefit to the community, even if the minority of some residents do not agree with it.

In view of the recent bush fires I feel that it it imperative to conserve as much native forest as possible. See attached completed submission document with further objections.

I'm making this submission on behalf of my elderly mother-in-law who has asked me do so as she is not computer literate. She owns land on Riverpark Sancrox Estate, Sancrox Road, NSW 2444. This is a 142 Lot Sub-division which is currently being constructed, the eastern boundary of which is only 600 metres from the edge of the proposed new quarry pit. I believe that the Hanson Environmental Impact Statement (ERM Ref. 0418291) on exhibition until 26th November does not properly address the potential issues and in fact appears to ignore and/or omit many factors that should affect the application. In fact several statements within that EIS, I consider to be grossly inaccurate.
Instances of some of the inaccurate statements, mistruths, and omissions are listed below
• Hanson states that this application is for an extension of the existing quarry. In reality it is for a NEW quarry on adjacent land owned by Hanson.
• Hanson states that there are no supplies of similar rock in the area or a quarry within 200km. That is patently untrue and in fact Hanson owns land within 20km which contain adequate high quality rock which is adjacent to a recently approved new quarry. There are also many other competitors’ quarries in the close vicinity
• Hanson states that the new quarry will not impact on any local existing and future land uses. This is a gross mistruth. Currently there are many houses situated within 300m to 1000m of the edge of the new quarry pit. In addition, no mention is made of the142 Lot Riverpark Sancrox Estate, the eastern edge of which is only 600m from the edge of the proposed new quarry pit. No mention either is made of the proposed new residential sub-division proposed on Le Clos Sancrox, the edge of which will be only 300m away or the proposed need for expansion of residential development being proposed by the Port Macquarie Hastings Council in the Port Macquarie to Wauchope corridor of which Le Clos Sancrox is the first part.
• No mention is made of the fact that there is an Endangered biological corridor (identified in 2015) which runs right through the middle of the new quarry pit nor of the fact that the new pit will wipe out a “high and medium use” koala habitat as well as destroy significant swamp oak and eucalypt open forest areas which include several ecologically sensitive hollow bearing trees.
• No mention is made of the fact that the corridor for the proposed East Coast High Speed Rail line runs right through the middle of the new quarry pit.
• No real details have been included of mitigation measures – in fact no bund is proposed to be built to protect any development to the south (i.e. on Le Clos Sancrox). Will any proposed bund be sufficient anyway to mitigate the noise and dust?
It is proposed that this new quarry (which includes an asphalt plant) operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Hanson’s previous record of adhering to good practice operating conditions (imposed as conditions of ongoing consent) with the existing quarry is not good so how, without some remarkable change in culture, can we all be sure that any local residences will not be subjected to serious noise, vibration and dust problems bearing in mind that the new quarry is situated to the east of my land and the general prevailing wind is from the east.

I am opposed to this project on mainly environmental grounds but also personal grounds as I have just purchased a lot at Sancrox to build my new home on.
I’m also very suspicious of the way this project has been kept quiet from the local community and councils. The Mayor and our local MP weren’t even aware of this project.
Firstly, I believe the few pockets of undeveloped bush land we have remaining in the area need to be maintained for native species that we have put under so much stress.
Secondly, I am building my home in a location just 2km from the proposed expansion site. There would be some noise and vibration that would impact me and other residents of Sancrox. For residents living closer to the site, I see that voluntary acquisitions can be made for their properties so I take from that the fact that the expansion of this quarry could make those properties unliveable.
The reasons for the expansion don’t add up either. The pacific hwy upgrade has been completed For well over 100km in either direction from Sancrox making the carting of product for the hwy unviable. We have Bago Quarry to the south west and Hitec Quarry at Bonny Hills on the coast to the south. This project is simply not needed for this area unless it’s for more building of housing estates on paperbark swamps and coastal swamps which also should not continue in any area not just the hastings.
Please look into this project further and make public the real reason for the expansion.
Thank you for your time.
Regards. Mike.

Please see attached submission for Heritage Council of NSW.

Please refer to the attached file for details of my submission.

Division of Resources & Geoscience advice attached.

I live on Sancrox Rd and object to this enormous increase in the size of this quarry on the following grounds
1. Increased volume of traffic with accompanying noise and fumes on Rawdon Island Rd. The road is in poor shape now and increased volume of heavy vehicles will cause its further deterioration. This again leads to increased noise.
2. Dust both from the quarry and vehicles transporting the mined materials.
3. Increased risk to native animals from the increased truck volume. We are in a koala transit area. We have many other native animals near the roadway.
4. Rawdon Island Rd in not a major road. A change in traffic volume will lessen my enjoyment of my property, And cause a deterioration of my property’s value. The design of the road is not appropriate for increased vehicle volume.

Dear Ms Anderson,

Re: Objection to Sancrox Quarry Expansion Project

Please see attached our letter of objection to the above matter.

Kind Regards

Kevin Debreceny

This project has significant biodiversity impacts on a number of native flora and fauna populations. According to Annex C: Biodiversity Assessment Report, their is "Potential koala habitat (SEPP 44) present on site." With many recent bushfires destroying koala habitat in the surrounding area, this land has potential to become critical koala breeding habitat and therefore be essential for the continuation of the local population.

I wish to formally object to the Sancrox Quarry Expansion project. I am appalled that the proponent seeks to expand the current quarry by 31.43 hectares – an area just under twice the size of the existing quarry area, to extend the hours of operation to 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and to emit 48.4 million tonnes of CO2-e into the atmosphere over the project lifecycle.

According to the EIS, the project will result in the:
• clearing of 43.1 ha of native forest vegetation, which includes 0.55 ha of the Subtropical coastal floodplain forest Threatened Ecological Community;
• loss of hollow-bearing trees, some of which may provide potential roost sites and breeding habitat for a selection of bird, arboreal mammal, reptile and microchiropteran bat species; and
• removal of foraging habitat for locally occurring native fauna, in particular for threatened microchiropteran bats species, ground mammals, arboreal mammals and a range of bird species.
The proposed offset site is a mere 49 hectares - not even a 2:1 offset, as required by most projects, particularly those that involve tree planting. Furthermore, of the vegetation associations identified in the project area, two are not included in the proposed offset area and an inadequate amount of a third (Tallowwood -Small-fruited Grey Gum dry grassy open forest).

The loss of hollow-bearing trees is another concern – it takes 75-100 years for a eucalypt to form a hollow. I note that most of the hollow bearing trees recorded in the Biodiversity Assessment Report occur in the Spotted Gum - Grey Ironbark open forest – this association does not occur in the proposed offset area. Furthermore, I note that no hollow-bearing trees were recorded in the proposed offset area and there is no mention of the provision of nest boxes as part of the proposed offset strategy. How does the proponent plan to address the lost of habitat for hollow-dependent species recorded in the project area?
The removal of Spotted Gum (winter flowering), Grey Ironbark (winter, spring and summer flowering), Blackbutt (spring - summer flowering) and Pink Bloodwood (summer - autumn flowering) species from the local area will result in the loss of crucial winter and autumn flowering species. Paying into a fund will not compensate the fauna of the local area for the loss of valuable feed species.

Furthermore, I note that the project area falls directly within a sub-regional biodiversity corridor. It is absurd to suggest that the loss of vegetation in the project area will not result in habitat fragmentation or the loss of connectivity between the proposed offset area and the remaining vegetation south of the project area. The figures in Appendix E of the Biodiversity Assessment are incomplete – widths are missing, and they seem to suggest that Connecting Link 2 will persist despite the clearance of all vegetation and the presence of machinery. The removal of the vegetation in the project area will effectively isolate fauna that remain in the proposed offset area and the disconnection the offset area will greatly reduce its ecological viability.

According to the Biodiversity report:
‘Approximately 44ha (44%) native vegetation will remain within the inner assessment circle after clearing for the proposed development and around 411ha (41%) of native vegetation will remain in the outer assessment circle after development’
One can therefore conclude that 56% of native vegetation within a 100ha buffer of the centroid of the project area and 59% of vegetation within a 1000ha buffer of the centroid of the project area will be cleared. The Biodiversity Report has not considered the cumulative impact of vegetation clearance within a regional context and the continued fragmentation of remaining vegetation across the landscape. This project is yet another example of how biodiversity in the region is suffering ‘death by 1000 cuts’. The loss of 59% of native vegetation within 1000ha of the project area is not acceptable, particularly when the vegetation to be cleared is intact bushland.

I am also appalled that the project ‘over its entire life cycle is estimated to release approximately 48.4 million tonnes of CO2-e into the atmosphere’ – 2.5 million tonnes less than Sweden’s total emissions in 2017(1). It is disgusting that the proponent seeks to contribute greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere equivalent to those of an entire country at a time when the planet is warming, and the effects of climate change are affecting all life on earth. Around the world people are racing against time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before positive feedback loops set in place unstoppable warming, yet this project will counteract the efforts of others. Does the proponent intend to purchase certified carbon offsets to mitigate its emissions? I couldn’t find any reference as such in the EIS. The planet can ill-afford to continue ‘business as usual’ and as such, the Sancrox Quarry Expansion should be refused approval based on its significant contribution to global warming and its effect on the biodiversity of region.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Due to the recent bushfires that have impacted the Mid North Coast and parts of Queensland, including the area where the proposed project is due to happen, we have lost significant habitats that are essential for the survival of native fauna and flora eg. koala corridors and substantial burning of Linfield park.
The proposed quarry expansion of 40 hectares into native bushland further depleting koala corridors and having negative impacts on our collective human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples to land and resources held collectively, the right to pass land and resources down through the generations and the right to a healthy environment are not being met. There has been a Climate Change Emergency declared by our Major Peter Pinson a representative of our local council Port Macquarie Hastings Council (PMHC) a individual who represents the community and its interests and values, the expansion of this quarry would be in direct violation with community interests (Sancrox and Surrounding Areas) in recent light of the Climate Change Emergency. The Port Macquarie Koala Hospital has declared Hundreds of thousands of hectares inland from the coast have been scorched including vital koala habitat in the Lake Innes Nature Reserve which surrounds the town. The further destruction to native habitats, essential to the survival of our native animals would see results such as fauna drop into the endangered species area , where they are unable to reproduce at levels that are essential to their species as is happening now, with wild koala breeding program set to take place after the deadly fires claim an estimated 350 koala lives and essential koala habitats.
With the proposed 24/7 quarry expansion it will affect areas of concern eg. increased blasting that can be heard 2kms away in the Sancrox community, noise and vibration pollution that will worsen with a 24/7 operation as proposed, and the air quality of sancrox.
Even without the recent bush fire epidemic it would be wrong to push for such expansion that not only would affect the community's interests and values and human rights.

Our region has recently lost well over 1 million hectares of habitat. And this, frighteningly, is before the bush fire season even starts for the year. I hold great fears for our flora and fauna's ability to recover from these events. The extraordinary fund raising success of the Koala Hospital highlights the international attention currently being focused on this region and koalas in particular. This is certainly not the time to be considering an application that requires habitat removal.

I personally believe it would never be appropriate to remove intact and vital habitat for koalas and all associated flora and fauna. Offsets cannot replace the biodiversity values of existing trees.

I do not support the quarry expansion and I hope the government can see that our community and our biodiversity cannot cope with further clearing of habitat.

The environmental impact of this project is serious and irreversible.Primarily, the company undertaking and operating this project site has an extremely poor track record of environmental compliance, being fined $15,000 by the environmental protection authority in 2016 for breaches to water management operational obligations. (Ref: EPA 24.03.2016). The Area suggested for this extension not only affects the west alluvial flood plains of the Hastings River (considering the companies poor water management practices) but also significantly impacts the ground water sources available to the community. This water source not only supports native flora and fauna but further supplies the surrounding agricultural lands for which farmers use to provide drinking water to their live stock.

The proposed development will irreversibly impact the biodiversity existing on the mid-north coast, which has already been severely depleted by recent bush fires in the region. A total of 26 threatened species identified so far including 17 birds and 9 mammals require this corridor and native vegetation to combat possible extinction. (Ref https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-vegetation/why-is-native-vegetation-important ).

On the 1st of october 2019 Mayor Peta Pinson of Wauchope Council explained the local council's stance on climate change. She states "That as a council, looking after our planet and the local environment is always the priority. We demonstrate this through our land use and planning decisions, the design of new developments, minimising waste, being water-wise, looking after the health of our rivers and the ocean, protecting our flora and fauna... and the list goes on." Mayor Peta Pinson goes on to promote that "as a council, we must manage our resources wisely, and in the best interests of our ratepayers and community. We need to stay focused on the projects and services which only council can deliver to our growing community, and as Mayor, I am committed to ensuring that council works with our community to ensure that our environment is cared for as sustainably as possible." (Ref: https://www.portnews.com.au/story/6415012/a-big-picture-approach-to-climate-policy-is-needed/). Following this herself and 13 other Mayors of fire stricken areas have signed a statement calling on the Australian Government to acknowledge the link that climate change has grave costs for our community that can no longer be ignored. (Ref: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/joint-statement-climate-change-has-grave-costs-for-our-community/). I submit that if the local Port Macquarie Hastings Council truly believes in implementing these direct documented statements, how does a project such as this reach this level of approval, without proper community/rate payer consultation?

Finally, regarding the plight for which local fauna faces due to recent bushfire events, 'The Port Macquarie Koala Hospital' already faces a functional extinction crises with the rehabilitation of the local genus of Koala. Despite the expected reduced numbers directly attributed to the natural disasters experienced in the mid-north coast, native food sources and vegetation have been extremely impacted, which makes the existing vegetation encompassed in the suggested development area extremely important for the rehabilitation of the iconic species. This is not the time to implement such a project, by a company who has a proven track record for environmental infringement, in a time of such devastation to life in the area. It is just not the time.

The environmental impact of this project is serious and irreversible.Primarily, the company undertaking and operating this project site has an extremely poor track record of environmental compliance, being fined $15,000 by the environmental protection authority in 2016 for breaches to water management operational obligations. (Ref: EPA 24.03.2016). The Area suggested for this extension not only affects the west alluvial flood plains of the Hastings River (considering the companies poor water management practices) but also significantly impacts the ground water sources available to the community. This water source not only supports native flora and fauna but further supplies the surrounding agricultural lands for which farmers use to provide drinking water to their live stock.

The proposed development will irreversibly impact the biodiversity existing on the mid-north coast, which has already been severely depleted by recent bush fires in the region. A total of 26 threatened species identified so far including 17 birds and 9 mammals require this corridor and native vegetation to combat possible extinction. (Ref https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-vegetation/why-is-native-vegetation-important ).

On the 1st of october 2019 Mayor Peta Pinson of Wauchope Council explained the local council's stance on climate change. She states "That as a council, looking after our planet and the local environment is always the priority. We demonstrate this through our land use and planning decisions, the design of new developments, minimising waste, being water-wise, looking after the health of our rivers and the ocean, protecting our flora and fauna... and the list goes on." Mayor Peta Pinson goes on to promote that "as a council, we must manage our resources wisely, and in the best interests of our ratepayers and community. We need to stay focused on the projects and services which only council can deliver to our growing community, and as Mayor, I am committed to ensuring that council works with our community to ensure that our environment is cared for as sustainably as possible." (Ref: https://www.portnews.com.au/story/6415012/a-big-picture-approach-to-climate-policy-is-needed/). Following this herself and 13 other Mayors of fire stricken areas have signed a statement calling on the Australian Government to acknowledge the link that climate change has grave costs for our community that can no longer be ignored. (Ref: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/joint-statement-climate-change-has-grave-costs-for-our-community/). I submit that if the local Port Macquarie Hastings Council truly believes in implementing these direct documented statements, how does a project such as this reach this level of approval, without proper community/rate payer consultation?

Finally, regarding the plight for which local fauna faces due to recent bushfire events, 'The Port Macquarie Koala Hospital' already faces a functional extinction crises with the rehabilitation of the local genus of Koala. Despite the expected reduced numbers directly attributed to the natural disasters experienced in the mid-north coast, native food sources and vegetation have been extremely impacted, which makes the existing vegetation encompassed in the suggested development area extremely important for the rehabilitation of the iconic species. This is not the time to implement such a project, by a company who has a proven track record for environmental infringement, in a time of such devastation to life in the area. It is just not the time.