Sutton Forest Sand Quarry

Uploaded as an attachment

uploaded pdf

Please see the attached PDF.

I have made my submission by way of the attached letter

As attached - Forestry Corporation Sutton Forest Quarry EIS submission

Ref:
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6334

I make this submission on behalf of the 2/14 Battalion Association
Inc. This submission represents the views and concerns of the 450+
members of the Association, being WW2 veterans, widows, families,
friends and students of schools associated with honouring the memory
of Pte. Bruce Kingsbury VC.

I make this submission with respect to the proposals impact on a
significant historical commemorative feature, and the lack of
recognition of this in the Environmental Impact Statement. In
particular, the proposal makes no recognition at all, other than to
recognise by name, that the Kingsbury VC Rest Area exists in the
vicinity affected by roadworks and subsequent traffic.

In 1995, as part of the celebrations to mark the 50th Anniversary of
the end of World War Two and titled Australia Remembers, a program was
developed to construct a number of rest areas along the Remembrance
Driveway between Sydney and Canberra. This consisted of the
construction of a spaced series of off-freeway areas for drivers to
take necessary road safety, meal or comfort rest breaks at the
provided facilities.

Each of these areas was dedicated to the memory of an Australian
serviceman who had been awarded a Victoria Cross during the
Remembrance period with each area having a commemorative information
plaque to describe the bravery of each of the dedicated servicemen.
One of the first constructed and dedicated in 1995 was at Sutton
Forest to the memory of Private Bruce Kingsbury VC of the 2/14
battalion AIF.

Kingsbury was a member of the 2/14 Battalion AIF which was the first
of the AIF troops to return from the Middle East and reinforce the CMF
troops on the Kokoda Track. On 29 August 1942, after several days of
sustained Japanese attacks against the Australian positions at
Isurava, a Japanese attack penetrated the defences and threatened the
Battalion headquarters. Kingsbury was in a party that rushed forward
to repel the attack. He charged forward with a Bren light machinegun
killing a number of the enemy and breaking up the enemy party until he
was killed by a sniper.

Whilst the Kokoda Track is widely recognised in Australian military
history and folklore, what is little understood or recognised is that
the Kokoda Track was in what was then known as the Australian
Territory of Papua.

This makes Kingsbury's VC arguably the most significant bravery award
in Australian military history, being the first Victoria Cross ever
won on Australian soil and the first awarded in the South Pacific
theatre.

Bruce Kingsbury is honoured in many ways including a suburb in
Melbourne and a school named after him. There are Kingsbury
scholarships provided to outstanding students at four schools and his
valour and courage is featured in a vast body of written and
documentary work.

The Kingsbury VC Rest Area at Sutton Forest has also become a place of
honour for many Australians with a sense of history and pride. I am
aware of many people, including Kingsbury's Kokoda comrades and their
families, including my father, who have regularly and specifically
used that rest stop. It provides an opportunity for people to not only
undertake a comfort stop, but to do so in surroundings that provide an
environment of honour and respect for a very significant Australian
hero. A number of simple and personal tributes to Bruce Kingsbury take
place here every year.

The revised route proposal provides little detail on how the Kingsbury
site will be affected in terms of amenity, access to the rest area and
egress back to the Hume freeway. That raises serious concerns amongst
our wider membership.

The placement of any access road through the Kingsbury VC Rest Area is
viewed by our members as somewhere between vandalism and desecration
of a memorial site worthy of considerable protection.

I strongly urge that an extension of time be granted for all parties
to more fully assess the significant impacts of the project.

Craig A Iskov
President 2/14 Battalion Association Inc.
www.2nd14battalion.org.au
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/214association

My objection to the proposal is detailed in the attached pdf.

Please see our submission attached below

I have attached a response to the Sand Quarry.

Please read attached pdf regarding Air Quality. Thank you.

Submission attached

please find attached reasons

***please note***
this submission overwrites previous from myself at 11:59pm 20th June

Previous had formatting errors

Please I urge you as a visitor to the Shrine who has received so much
personal grace from this place not to allow a mine next door.

No one is going to want to visit the place if noise, air and
subterranean pollution affect it. Hundreds of pilgrims visit the site
every month.

It is home to hundreds of hand-made Catholic built shrines that
communities have raised funds for to create.

My submission on they EIS is attached. I believe approval should be
denied based on the inadequate information provided and the
environmental risks of the project.

Submission - also uploaded as pdf file

My wife and I are the property owners at 160 Hanging Rock Rd, our
property adjoins the property that is proposed for the Sand Mine.
This is my initial submission of objection regarding this development.
Further information and documentation will follow this submission
regarding the specific areas of concern noted.
My objection will try to remain factual and objective, but I will say
from a personal perspective that my wife and I have plans to shortly
retire and build a new home at our Hanging Rock Rd property, and
regrettably these plans will certainly not proceed if this Sand Mine
development goes ahead.
Firstly I would like to express my concerns over the lack of
consultation regarding this development proposal.
A letter from the NSW Planning Dept (rep David Kitto) dated Feb 2014,
(copy of letter in EIS under Appendix 1 and Cover) requests the
Developer to "consult during the preparation of the EIS and to show
evidence that all issues raised during consultation with the community
have been addressed."
So what has the Developer done to consult since 2014? Answer - Very
little.
I can honestly say that the first I ever knew about this proposed Sand
Mine was from reading a RW Corkery Consultant letter, addressed to
"the Householder", that had been jammed into the timber palings on the
front gate on my property, in March this year, 2018. I attended a
public information session held by Developer (after the lodgement of
the EIS), at the Sutton Forest Winery on 2nd June, 2018, where I
raised some of my concerns with their representatives. I only knew
about this session because one of the neighbours had informed me about
it, certainly not because I had been informed by the Developer. I have
never had anyone representing this Mine development contact me, other
than the one letter stuck in my front gate.
This `last minute' consultation by the Developer is tokenism. No
genuine effort has been made to consult with the neighbours, nor the
community as requested by NSW Planning.
The other main areas of concern that I have regarding this development
relate to (but are not limited to) the impact on :
* Noise
* Traffic
* Airborn Dust
* Groundwater
* Long Swamp Creek

NOISE
I have read through the "Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" Vol 1
Part 4, part of the EIS submission.
I have some real concerns regarding the information contained in this
report.
I have extracted the following summary information from the report to
make my point of view:
* 32dbA - Penrose Park 2013 average Background Noise Level RBL (night)
, Table 7, considered same as 2018.
* 37dbA - Project Noise Trigger Level LAeq, Table 7. This is regarded
as the Intrusive Noise Level under the NPI (NSW Noise Policy)
* 52dbA - Max Noise Level allowable , Table 8
* 28dbA - Predicted Noise Level at Penrose Park (night) during Mining
operations, Table 14
The summary of the above data shows that the noise level at Penrose
Park will be less (28dbA) once the Mine is in operation , compared to
now (32dbA). How can this be possible?
Consider this also, information from the report states:
* Figure 9 Noise Contour model shows a 50dbA contour reading at the
mine excavation site (Scenario 1)
* Scenario 1 - 2xBulldozers (121dbA each), 1xExcavator(112dbA), 2xHaul
Trucks(113dbA each),2xfront End Loaders(109dbA each), Truck movements
in/out of Quarry(109dbA each), operating Wash Plant and operating
Screening Plant (??dbA), with all of these machines producing between
121dbA and 109dbA
* Surely all the combined noise from this machinery will be at least
125dbA?
* Yet the Report says the reading at the Mine excavation area would be
50dbA.
Now do the simple maths, let's just take 1 Komatsu Bulldozer
* Komatsu 475 Specification claims operating noise is 110dbA at 16m
distance (ISO6395)
* As a general guide, sound reduction decreases with doubling the
distance by 3 to 6dbA, so lets use 6dbA (best case) as an example,
o 110dbA at 16m distance, equates to
o 104dbA at 32m
o 98dbA at 64m
o 92dbA at 128m
o 86dbA at 256m
o 80dbA at 512m
o 74dbA at 1024m
o 68dbA at 2048 m
* So in rough terms, even 1km away, the sound level would be around
70dbA, way above the 52dbA Max Noise Level allowable , Table 8.
The above data is for consideration of the modelling in the Noise
impact Assessment report which shows totally unrealistic readings of
noise. Even given the variation in land height, hills, forests etc
protecting or muting noise, the information in the report does not
seem to have any credibility.
As previously stated, the combined noise from the machinery at the
Mine site will be at least 125dbA, possibly more, yet the report
claims a 50dbA reading at the Mine site, THIS IS NONSENSE and must be
challenged or completely overruled.
No consideration in the Noise report has been given to the
neighbouring properties that are elevated above the tested areas. My
property residence is at least 20m+ elevation above where the noise
readings were taken at Penrose Park. From experience, the noise heard
from the Hume highway is far greater at this higher level of my
residence due to the fact that sound travels over the forest tree
line. There is little obstructions for the noise to be mitigated and
hence the noise from the Mine site will be heard easily for residences
R18 and R19, which have elevated building locations.
I intend to gather more data regarding this (including noise readings)
to challenge the Noise Report further. I believe the Noise Report is
biased and does not present true facts.
We can, from our property residence, clearly hear trucks on the Hume
highway in the vicinity of the proposed Mine site entrance, especially
at night and with a S-E breeze. The noise is often quite loud, enough
to wake you from your sleep. So I have no question in my mind that we
will hear the noise from the Sand Mine , especially during times when
there is a S-E breeze, which is quite a large portion of the year.

TRAFFIC
We don't need another 50 B-Double Heavy Haulage Trucks on our roads
every hour. Apart from the noise these trucks will generate, there are
other issues that need further consideration.
* Trucks leaving the Mine site will merge into the north bound Hume
H'way. This merge area will be at the same location where up to 130
vehicles per hour traveling north exit the Hume H'Way to stop at the
Sally's Corner (Shell Service station and McDonalds). This could
generate an unsafe situation with vehicles exiting the Hume and trucks
entering the Hume at differing speeds.
* The is a large discrepancy between the quoted Heavy vehicle numbers
using the Hume highway in the EIS reports
o The Noise Impact Assessment quotes 240 heavy vehicles per hour (page
4-6)
o The Traffic Impact Assessment states the number of Heavy vehicles is
116 to 135 per hour (page 1-23)
* 240 vs 135, that a big difference. How can these Impact Assessment's
be considered credible, when the data is so different?

DUST
I am not a dust expert, but I have seen first hand, machinery ripping
/ digging through sandstone. This process generates quite a lot of
dust , very light dust that seems to float in the air.
I cannot see anywhere in the EIS that the mine proposes to instigate
robust measures to control dust generated in the excavation process or
in the crushing process.

GROUNDWATER
The Groundwater Impact Assessment states that ground water flow into
the Mine excavation hole will reach 0.2ML per day, that's 200,000
litres per day.
My concern relates to the validity of this number, as I believe it
should be far greater than this number.
Groundwater Impact Assessment Table 6 refers to Registered Bores
within the area. The registered allowable drawdown from 10 bores
within a 2km distance from the Mine site is 627 ML per annum, that
equates to 1.7 million litres per day.
Even if these bores only take one quarter (1/4) of their licence
allowance, the combined total would be 430,000 litres per day
The question I pose here is this:
If 10 small bore holes can withdraw water at roughly 430,000litres per
day, then how can it possibly be true that a massive hole in the
ground (the Sand Mine), roughly 1km long x 500m wide, will only leak
water (from the same aquifer) at a rate of 200,000 litres per day.
These numbers defy logic.
And if it turns out that the Mine leaks far greater water than the
report states, then do all the local Bores dry up?
I respect that the theory and science of groundwater flows etc are
complex, but the details in the Report need to be agreed by many
experts before anything should be approved.
Aside from all this, who knows what the future contamination will be
to the Groundwater when the Mine is backfilled with uncontrolled
waste.
We owe it to our future generations to stop this from happening where
we can not 100% guarantee the outcomes.

LONG SWAMP CREEK
The local area often receives intense rainfall, and the excess run off
from rainfall or water used at the Mine site for washing, screening
etc would ultimately flow to Long Swamp Creek, which is part of our
water catchment system. This is a concern for the wider community.
Water from the area of the 47ha Mine site currently runs to Long Swamp
Creek, however, this rainwater runoff will be contained within site
for re-use. In addition to this the Mine site will require an
additional 33ML of water per year for processing etc which the
Developer states they need to acquire.
There appears to be a lot of unanswered questions regarding Surface
Water.

I am personally making a submission to oppose the proposed Sutton Forest
mine project Application: SSD 6334
For the following reasons:

*The mine is located less than 1km from our family farm and will most
likely disrupt the tranquil environment (we chose to surround ourself
with when we purchased the property) with dust, ground vibrations,
noise pollution and have other adverse impacts from such devastation
of the natural environment and wilderness.

*our family is deeply distressed by reasonable concern for ensuing
silica exposure that occurs in mining regions

*our family feels this mine project has been ill planned with an
inappropriate position within within The Great Western Wildlife
Corridor region. An unconscionable place for an open cut mine- NO
Environment Minister could consciously allow unnecessary devastation
of such wildlife significance; 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.

Please refer to attached PDF regarding sections EIS Section 5.14.5 and
5.14.6

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached my submission (first document) and supporting
document (1 additional document)
Regards
James O'Reilly

I oppose this proposal. Please see attached PDF document.