Sutton Forest Sand Quarry

I wish to make a supplementary submission raising an issue of which I
have just become aware, namely:
The EIS completely overlooks the possibility that the site might be a
'staging post' for the critically endangered Regents Honeyeater which
migrates from Victoria to the Burragorang, Hunter, and Capertee
Valleys in the Winter, not October 2012, and which, according to the
Wingecarribee Shire Council website and links, feeds on the kind of
vegetation apparently found on the site.
So the statements in various places in the EIS to the import that the
surveys conducted in October have all year validity are plainly
fatuous, if not just nonsensical and calculated to mislead the
ignorant.
This proposal deserves to be rejected out of hand. Not only because
the EIS is fatally flawed, in neither covering all the environmental
impacts of the proposal, nor doing so competently and forthrightly,
but also because the sand mine, potentially, does just too much damage
to the environment that it is not

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I personally object to the Sutton Forest Mine Project Application: SSD
6334

I strongly oppose the proposal to destroy 67.9 hectares of native bush
land for a sand mine at Sutton Forest. The potential irreversible
environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise pollution, health
risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sutton Forest Mine Proposal. This is an ill
conceived plan that is environmentally, socially and morally
irresponsible. This is not the place for a sand mine of this size and
every step should be made to protect this pristine native area.
Australia is a big, arid country. There is a lot of sand in remote
regions that will not be as environmentally fragile as this. Our water
supply, a precious commodity in our dry land, must remain clean. Our
flora and fauna must be protected. Destruction now is irreversible.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the Sutton Forest Mine Proposal. This is an ill
conceived plan that is environmentally, socially and morally
irresponsible. This is not the place for a sand mine of this size and
every step should be made to protect this pristine native area.
Australia is a big, arid country. There is a lot of sand in remote
regions that will not be as environmentally fragile as this. Our water
supply, a precious commodity in our dry land, must remain clean. Our
flora and fauna must be protected. Destruction now is irreversible.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to destroy 67.9 Hectares of native
bushland for a sand mine at Sutton Forrest. The potential for
irreversible environmental damage, water and air pollution, noise
pollution, health risks and traffic hazards is of great concern.

M. Director
I am a registered European parrots breeder living in Provence, in
southern France and I have expert knowledge of Australian parrots.
I saw the story in the Australian media of the endangered
calyptorhynchus lathami (Glossy Black Cockatoo). I learnt of this plan
to remove an area of old Australian native forest for mining. I
immediately recognized the location of the mine in Sutton Forrest.
Indeed, a few years ago, I travelled to Australia and visited the
precise location.
I had the privilege to observe many of these black parrots in this
area where I also contemplated many other Australian mammals. There is
a lot of vegetation that support the limited diet of that cockatoo
specially. I also observed in that area Callocephalon fimbriatum
(GangGang Cackatoo) and these are becoming less populous. Many
calyptorhynchus funereus, the yellow tail black cockatoo, are now
there the dominant species as they live on the nearby pine forests,
which is not the case for the other species (Glossy Black Cockatoo and
the GangGang Cackatoo) that live specifically in the native forest.
Thus, the actual situation is already endangering the number of Glossy
Black Cockatoo and the GangGang Cackatoo.
Australian parrot species are UNIQUE in the world in particular
because of the strict regulation imposed by the Australian government
that does not allow any exportation of wild animals. Today, many
populations of parrots are declining quickly mainly due to their
environment alteration.
The Australian government is well known around the world for the
protection of its native animal as well as vegetal species. Then, it's
difficult to understand this project that will directly impact the
major source of food for black cockatoos and the cavity of the trees
for breed and increase the risk of pollution of the environment. The
vanishment of the vegetation in this area might most certainly lead to
the extinction of the parrots around the mine. This quarry is going to
be a disaster to this especially important area of natural Australian
ecology and is significantly large enough to host populations of these
species. This mine should never be allowed to happen, and this land
should be made a permanent nature reserve if we want our children to
be able to see the beauty of the Australian parrots in their natural
living environment and not in zoos only.
Dr Fabrice JOULIA
Maitre de Conference
Universite de Toulon

I wish to make a personal objection to the Sutton Forest Mine Project
Application: SSD 6334

I feel the proposed mine is inappropriately located within the area of
the Great Western Wildlife Corridor; Any area within The Great Western
Wildlife Corridor is an inappropriate place for an open cut mine.
The Great Western Wildlife Corridor lies between Bullio and Bungonia
and is the only vegetated habitat corridor between the Southern Blue
Mountains and Morton National Park @ Sutton Forest, New South Wales

As a part time resident of Moss Vale up the road, and as a human being
that simply things of the big picture, and acts with precaution until
all the facts are known, I beg you to reconsider this mine. Clearly,
there are people with deep knowledge of the subject putting up BIG RED
FLAGS and when are we going to learn that proceeding for a quick buck
here and revenue opportunity there, does NOT mean a long term health
bottom line and most often means an environment left in far worse
condition than when the mine was established. Commission FULL study of
the potential effects before proceeding and then? Don't proceed. I
appreciate your reading my objection and taking the time to consider
the local community and its surrounds, as well as our precious planet.

I strongly oppose the proposed Sand mine at sutton's Forrest. I am very
concerned about the impact on the local environment and community.

Refer attached letter objecting to the proposal

See attached pdf document titled 'Submissions 130618'

I strongly OPPOSE the proposed sand mine at Sutton Forest. This rural
area contains residences, small farms, state forests and places of
worship spread I cannot agree to the ecology of the area been seen as
secondary to the destructive mining process. I also fear that the
extra trucks on the road will make this a very accident prone area.


The removal of sandstone and its critical biological role in filtering
water will affect the purity of water not just in the area but the
water flowing into the Nepean Catchment area, which forms part of The
Sydney water supply. We should be confident that our water supply
remains clean and free from contaminants and should not be under any
threat at all from contamination. There are always mishaps that are a
threat to our environment. This area should not be risked.





The increase in heavy trucking on the Hume Highway will cause
additional stress on an already busy and dangerous road. As a
motorbike rider I have had first hand experience of difficulties faced
when travelling with trucks. In congested traffic, trucks tend to
change lanes and are not often aware there is a bike in their blind
spot. An increase in heavy, sand laden trucks will just increase this
risk. That part of the Highway is notorious for truck accidents. South
of the truck exit onto the highway there is a slight incline where
trucks, cars and motorbikes roar up there doing at least 110km/hour.
The trucks would exit in between this incline and the Sally's Corner
Service Centre where vehicles slow to change lanes and exit the
Highway. An extra 300 trucks a day exiting onto the Highway and
increasing speed as cars slow and change lanes to exit puts the lives
of motorists at risk. This should not be considered a safe exit for
trucks. It might look a really easy solution on paper but in reality
it is very far from it.


The Monastery at Penrose Park is under threat. Why is there no
consideration that this is a sacred place for thousands of people? How
can a mining company put in a proposal to create a huge mine with all
its associated noise, air and water pollution so close to an
established place of worship? I strongly object to a well established,
place (viewed as sacred by so many local, national and international
visitors) being put as secondary over the mining company . This is not
an acceptable place for a sand mine.


My friends and I are regular visitors to the Highlands as the pace of
life is so much more relaxed than city living. We breathe the fresh
air, enjoy all the bush walks in the area and visit wineries and other
tourist attractions. All this is about to change and I am concerned on
the effects of mining on tourism in the area. The livelihood of not
just the farmers, but local business owners is under threat from the
air, water and noise pollution created by the mine.


This proposal should be rejected outright. This is not the place for a
huge sand mine. It is residential rural country and should remain that
way.

To Whom it may concern

I am writing to you to express our objection to the proposed Sand
Quarry by Sutton Forest Quarries Pty Ltd application number SSD 6334

We are in the final stages of purchasing land on Canyonleigh Road (lot
14, which is part of the sub-division of folio 12/861916, 21/1049146,
1/1053805, 23/1095888 and 3/1176628)

This site, marked number 34 on the attached land ownership map adjoins
Long Swamp Creek and the proposed Quarry site

The concerns are as follows

1. The aquifer and the water table being (a) reduced in height with
local bores being severely affected, (b) contamination of the water
table which feeds the Nepean water catchment
2. Double the proposed out going 344 daily truck movements as there is
no planned truck tipper wash out facility (their Water projections
don't allow for a wash out facility) to decontaminate the incoming
trucks delivering the landfill as the sand cannot be contaminated for
its destined use
3. Dust levels are modelled on the lower truck movements
4. Noise levels are underestimated, due to the proposed machinery for
their method of extraction (not including Blasting) generates noise
levels between 80 to 95 Db and point 2
5. Blasting within 250 meters of a major gas pipe line, other Quarries
placed at a greater distance from the pipe line were not allowed to
blast
6. Only 20 jobs will be created
7. Tax payer money will be required to complete the 2 proposed (north
side only) ramps onto the Hume highway with no south bound ramps, thus
requiring all south bound deliveries to complete a U turn at the
Canyonleigh road/Illawarra exit bridge, which doesn't allow for long
vehicles to turn right from the right turn lane
8. 19 sand quarries in NSW are non compliant (based on an 2016 audit)
what guarantees/assurances/bonds are in place for this quarry to
comply
9. Removal of 63 hectares of native trees and shrubs
10. 24 hour 7 day opperation

In conclusion as this proposed Sand Quarry is only a small operation
by quarry standards, it therefore begs the question as to why their
proposal is being considered, due to the many existing residences,
businesses, bottled water supplier, farms and wineries being greatly
affected by this proposal it would be considered to be out of
character for a quarry to be allowed and would argue as there are more
than 28 sand quarries within NSW this proposed quarry be rejected

Kind regards

Sara and Roger Pratt

Roger X Pratt
Hadley Australia Pty Ltd
Series Australia Pty Ltd
ph 61 2 9986 3878
fx 61 2 9986 3879
mob 0412085982
skype rogerxhadley
[email protected]
www.hadleyaustralia.com.au

Please refer to the attached letter

I write in my capacity as a consulting civil engineer located not far
from the proposed Sutton Forest Quarry project. I have serious
technical reservations regarding the project and respectfully suggest
that this project should not be approved.

My first concern relates to ground water. I understand that this
mining proposal will excavate to a depth of 39m below the current
water table. I am aware that many land holders, including myself,
depend on ground water for their livelihood, and that the quality of
this ground water is impacted by natural filtering through the
Hawkesbury Sandstone. Surely, the extraction and crushing of
sandstone, removal of the sands, and eventual replacement with
imported filling material will permanently and irreversibly impact the
ground water in this area. Surely, these impacts will have adverse
consequences for the Sydney drinking water catchment?

Another of my concerns relates to traffic impacts. I understand that a
new overpass will be constructed that eliminates the rest area on the
Hume Highway. This obtrusive structure will forever change the amenity
and appearance of the area and will place up to an additional 400
trucks per day onto an already stressed road network. The haul road
proposed is very close to existing residences and is unacceptable.

The impacts of noise, dust, and blasting are significant. I understand
that continual noise and blasting activities will happen within a
short distance of the Shrine of Our Lady of Mercy and other residents.
In particular, the Shrine of Our Lady of Mercy has been a place of
quiet tranquillity and worship since 1984. It is a centre of great
cultural diversity with many shrines constructed very close to the
proposed quarry on the northern boundary. I understand that on some
days the shrine attracts 5,000 visitors, and around 50,000 visitors
per year. Surely, any proposed mining operation is incompatible with
the established land uses immediately south of the site. Further to
the impacts of noise and vibration, surely there are many hazards in
airborne particles associated with sand mining, which will have
detrimental health impacts on residents and visitors to the area?

The points mentioned above merely "scratch the surface" of many
technical reasons why this proposal is inappropriate in this location.
The short exhibition period has not afforded the opportunity for me to
closely examine the technical detail in the EIS. A proponent has many
years to engage experts and to assemble technical data in favour of an
application. Why is it that the people whom this proposal impacts have
only 1 month to assemble a detailed response to complex technical and
environmental matters? I request the opportunity to lodge a further
submission once I have had the opportunity to examine the technical
information in detail.

Please refer to the attachment. Further details may be forwarded at a
later date.

Refer to uploaded submission