Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

A mine in the middle of a residential area is remarkably absurd. I just can't even fathom the short siteness of humans. We all go gaga over the promise of a few jobs and money to the coast, yet we will be destroying our water catchment, our land and our health in return.
What are we leaving our kids.
I have read a lot of submissions supporting this mine, saying its only the older generation opposing this mine. This couldn't be further from the truth. I am a young father with a family who passionately opposes this mine and will fight it to the bitter end.
We do not want the dust, pollution, health risks, destruction of our water supply, noise, traffic, and environmental degradation.

Dear Government,
I am a 4 year old boy. I live at Jilliby on my farm.
My Dad told me they want to put a mine in our town.
I think this is wrong and we don't want it here.
I oppose this mine.
I want to be a farmer one day and I won't be able to if they hurt our farm.
Rhye Kelly

The Director, Planning Services,
I Kylie Kelly wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
To make matters worse the coal is being shipped over to Korea. Mining our country for another's country's greed is beyond belief.
POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
.Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
Employment
.Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
. Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.
Dust and Health and Noise
.Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community
. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
.Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
.Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
.Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.
.The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.
."The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

I want to look back on my time on this earth, and the responsibility we all have to nuture our environment for our children and their children and be proud. For all that support this mine on the coast, shame on you and your lack of backbone and forward thinking. For the sake of some wildly sprouted job prospects for the coast, we will sacrifice our soul.

I passionately object. Kylie

Being an underground coal miner myself and knowing what the industry has just gone through in the last 5 years, I think it is great that a new one close to home will be opening up soon.

29 August 2016

Alexia Martinez
Resident of Beaven Lane Jilliby 2259
PO Box 5335
Chittaway Bay NSW 2261


The Director
Resource Assessments
Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Subject: Wallarah 2 amended Development Application (DA), number SSD 4974

I write to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application. Below are my reasons:
Water Catchment
Wyong Water Catchment is protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950. The water systems of the Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys account for 50% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast.

"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield".

The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

Subsidence
The extent of predicted subsidence is staggering (over 1000mm on average, 2000- 2250m for our farm - 245 homes, 420 dams, 755 farm structures) - this item of subsidence alone brings too many risks for the local community and the local environment. Too many remediation strategies will need to be devised at the emotional cost and the monetary cost of the local community and tax payers.
The study area is crisscrossed with rivulets, dams, ponds, bogs, wetland and rivers, most are tributaries to the Jilliby Jilliby Creek and Wyong Creek. The risk to incur any subsidence underneath these water resources is far greater than what the Central Coast can take, and the predicted water loss is far greater than the recharge capacity or the Jilliby Jilliby Creek river flow. The Central Coast is in constant need for clean drinking water. Risking pollution by gases or shortages due to seepage is not a risk I want my community to bear.
The alluvial valleys are fertile because of ground and surface water storages. Many businesses, farms, families depend on these natural passive water storages, including fire fighting brigades. Risking loosing or damaging these water resources because of this Project is not a risk that I want to take for the sustainability of my farm operations and that of my colleagues. I already have climate change to worry about and I invest a lot in building dams to store any precious water that fall on our roofs. I don't want to see those natural passive water storages nor our man-made water resources drain any single drop of water to mining.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

Flooding
Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding.

The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

Costs/Benefits
Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long-term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Pollution by dust, noise and emissions
Dust still remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons, which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.

Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.

Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014

Employment
Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger `intersectoral' linkages job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.

Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.

330 kV Transmission Lines
I am greatly concerned with Wallarah 2's opinion that Transgrid should reinforce the footings of the tension towers (especially those on our land and adjacent to it which span is of over 1km) as means to avoid coal sterilisation. The work required to replace those towers with other subsidence-proof tower (should they exist) as suggested by Wallarah 2 on page 100 of Appendix H will have enormous negative collateral impacts which are not assessed in theEIA. I cannot therefore promote this Project for these reasons as Wallarah 2 is not amiable to coal sterilisation, and is privileging profit over common-sense.

Bush Fires
The valleys are naturally wet. All the time. The forested hills are naturally wet too. Remnants of rainforest or rainforest regrowth are strong, healthy and thriving with life (fauna & flora) because they are wet. All the time. Our floodplains are wet. All the time. This humidity is possible thanks to a healthy recharge area from the forested hills down to the aquifers, ground storage and surface water storage. This humidity is a major damper to bush fires as confirmed to me by the SCA Park Management representative. This protects assets both public and private, this protects wildlife and this sustains the natural features of our coastal hinterland (pastures, farmland, estuary, etc). The EIS does not take into account the amount of work and resources the rural fire brigades will need to undertake when bush fires become more prevalent. I am not saying mining will cause bush fires. It will however gradually rob the ground of its natural moisture. And with climate change becoming more apparent every season, we need to increase our chances to protect our land and our assets. Thus I cannot promote this Project as it will undermine our land and our community's bush fire safety.

Safety
I am greatly concerned about the behaviour of subsidence especially when they are predicted to reach 2.2 meters or more. Despite the fact that we sit on a proposed panel that is predicted to subside by 2.25m, we also do extensive bush hiking in the SCA and State Forest. We also walk our paddocks every day. We drive our cars and tractors through roads that are predicted to subside. We cross bridges that sit over subsidence area. Are we at risk of falling in a big hole on day? Will my living room disappear by 2.25m? The EIA doesn't address the predicted behaviour of subsidence of our specific geological landscape.

I write to object to the Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application. Below are my reasons:

Subsidence
The extent of predicted subsidence is staggering (over 1000mm on average, 2000- 2250m for our farm - 245 homes, 420 dams, 755 farm structures) - this item of subsidence alone brings too many risks for the local community and the local environment. Too many remediation strategies will need to be devised at the emotional cost and the monetary cost of the local community and tax payers.
The study area is crisscrossed with rivulets, dams, ponds, bogs, wetland and rivers, most are tributaries to the Jilliby Jilliby Creek and Wyong Creek. The risk to incur any subsidence underneath these water resources is far greater than what the Central Coast can take, and the predicted water loss is far greater than the recharge capacity or the Jilliby Jilliby Creek river flow. The Central Coast is in constant need for clean drinking water. Risking pollution by gases or shortages due to seepage is not a risk I want my community to bear.
The alluvial valleys are fertile because of ground and surface water storages. Many businesses, farms, families depend on these natural passive water storages, including fire fighting brigades. Risking loosing or damaging these water resources because of this Project is not a risk that I want to take for the sustainability of my farm operations and that of my colleagues. I already have climate change to worry about and I invest a lot in building dams to store any precious water that fall on our roofs. I don't want to see those natural passive water storages nor our man-made water resources drain any single drop of water to mining.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

Water Catchment
Wyong Water Catchment is protected under a proclaimed NSW Statute in 1950. The water systems of the Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys account for 50% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast.

"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield".

The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

Flooding
Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding.

The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

Costs/Benefits
Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long-term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Pollution by dust, noise and emissions
Dust still remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons, which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.

Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.

Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014

Employment
Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger `intersectoral' linkages job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.

Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.

coal is a non-renewable resource. it will only last for so long! why not use renewable energy such as solar power? the mining would not only pollute the atmosphere, but it would destroy the environment as well.

I have been an owner of a residential property on Ruttleys Road Wyee Point for nearly 20 years and, for the 10 years prior to that time was a very regular visitor to Wyong Shire. Over that period I have observed not only the generally low socio-economic standing of the area but the dramatic changes that have occurred, particularly in terms of residential development and the ever increasing trend for the area to be a residential base by people who then travel to Sydney for employment due to the failure of local employment opportunities to keep pace with residential growth.
With the projected continuation of this growth as a consequence of the ever increasing cost of housing in Sydney, the decline in the coal industry elsewhere in the local area (with its flow-on effects) and the decision to ban open cut mining in the Lake Macquarie LGA, it is imperative that developments such as the Wallarah 2 Coal Project be approved. The Project will create direct employment for large numbers of people during construction and operations as well as encourage the development of new businesses or the expansion or retention of existing businesses.
I have previously read the Wallarah 2 Coal Project EIS in its entirety and was supportive of that application. After reviewing the amendments made to the Project to reflect the LEC decision and again considering the EIS content, the Project's design and the measures put in place to minimize impacts, I remain firmly of the opinion that because of the short and long-term benefits, the ability of the Project to make the Wyong area a place where people can both live and work, the proposal should be supported at all levels and approved.
Inevitably there will be some negative impacts. However, I believe that these are manageable and that overall the positives far outweigh any negatives that may arise.

The Central Coast does not want a coal mine that will cause health risks and contamination of drinking water. There is no benefit to our local community or state and this has been declined in the past. The government made a promise that no coal mines would be allowed in this area - why has NSW government changed their mind? The site is not only opposed bv the Darkinjung traditional owners but poses risks to the health of our community.

As a concerned citizen of this planet, I openly oppose all new coal mining projects and ask the government to move towards a sustainable future with zero net carbon pollution by 2050. Moreover, as a local I oppose this particular project in light of the agricultural land use in the region.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

- Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

- Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

- Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

- Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy.

The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

I wish to object to the current ADA and on the entire mine proposal.

How many times do Kores have to be told that the people of the Central Coast and the rest of the state - make that the rest of the country - do not want this mine to go ahead? every time we think that the proposal has been knocked on the head back it comes . THIS MINE CANNOT GO AHEAD!!

Kores is withdrawing from other projects overseas due the enormous debt, coal mining elsewhere is in decline yet an ammended application is put forward. They think they can get it approved no doubt so that they can sell to some other mining company. No matter what their new ideas are the fact remains that our area at Jilliby and the surrounding valleys will most definitely be ruined.

Subsidence will, by their own admission , affect 245 homes plus infrastructure and farming land by as much as 2.6 metres. this could also potentially cause human (and livestock) fatalities if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The pathetic record of the Mine Subsidence Board shows compensation to only a quarter of claims and the to houses only , not sheds or pools etc. The proposed "second workings" of coal seams would mean even further and greater subsidence over time.

The valleys of Dooralong and Yarramalong supply most of the water supply to the rest of the Central Coast. WATER ! Essential to life! The very real possibility of destroyed aquifers means no more water except what immediatly falls as rain and we all know droughts are a regular occurrence in Australia. The multi million dollar pipeline between Mangrove Mountain and Mardi Dam was constructed just a few years back to safeguard against water shortages in dry times - all for noyhing if there is no water in the aqifers. And that damage would be permanent - nothing can repair it ever!


So no matter how Kores tweak their plans - relocating the conveyor system so that it bypasses Darkinjung ALC land, installing an air monitor at Wyong Racecourse which is nowhere near the outlet at Wyee so will give false readings (that won't stop people dying will it Kores?), royalties to the State over 28 years $200 million when the life of the mine is said to be 40 plus years - it basically comes back to the fact that a longwall coal mine like this is just out and out destructive in every way.

To add insult to injury - and it is very insulting - Premier Baird has removed our democratic right to go straight to the Land and Environment Court to argue our cases whether it be coal or gas. Mr Baird is by all reports a Christian ,as am I, but if this mine is approved I and all other Christians will be ashamed to have the same "label". He should have another read of Genesis where God says we are to be the caretakers of our environment. Coal mining most certainly does not take care of it. Coal is yesterday's fuel. Today and tomorrow's fuel must be renewables from the sun and the wind so that our grandchildren still have a world to look after.

This amended proposal must be rejected - now and for ever!

Yours faithfully
Peggy Mansfield

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
Dear Sirs: I, Shirley Goodbar, cannot improve on the explanation of facts given below in this letter. They are accurate to my understanding and, as a resident of more than fifteen years in this Central Coast, including five years in Little Jilliby, I protest vehemently to the proposal to mine coal or any other mineral in or under the valley. A few local jobs is not equal to the destruction of our valley, the infrastructure, the ecology, or the health of our residents. Our future belongs to us, not to a mining company.
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.
PREAMBLE
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates, this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
Employment
Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.
The conveyor system landlocks Darkinjung ALC land, downgrades value and restricts projected developments and therefore threatens hundreds of valuable jobs in construction which is totally unacceptable.
Dust and Health and Noise
Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions.
Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims state-wide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" . The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully, Shirley Goodbar,

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have been a property owner for the last 30 years in Dunks Lane, Jilliby where I have 2 titles at 143 and 131 Dunks Lane and I have recently purchased 87 Dunks Lane as well. A total holding of approximately 131 acres. To say I object strongly to the current ADA on exhibition is an understatement. It puts my whole property at risk and my cattle operation also.

It undoubtedly possibly puts at risk the water catchment area that impacts the whole of the Central Coast - NOBODY can guarantee that it will not. To take such a risk is ridiculous. If, after the event, it does create havoc, who will be responsible for such a treacherous decision that would impact a huge area of the Central Coast and NEVER be able to be corrected? How this absolutely critical element of water supply can be so easily dismissed is definitely irresponsible, to say the least.

How can this be proposed within 1 hour and 15 minutes of the CBD of Sydney?

All of this risk for such minimal estimated benefit - P. 85 of the AFA states that State Royalties over the proposed and improbable 28-year life of the mine is $200 million which is just over $7million per annum!!! This questionable benefit would be far outweighed by costs of repair and rehabilitation required following subsidence that is anticipated to occur. In addition, the long term costs to public health and other risks to the population certainly makes the outcome appear significantly negative.

Other concerns are as follows:

- Employment benefits appear to be significantly overstated. In addition, the definite precarious financial position of the proponent Kores itself and the current market conditions for coal must make the whole project somewhat marginal anyway.
- The proposed development definitely lowers land value and restricts projected developments and the flow on will have considerable impact on valuable jobs in construction and much needed development in the area.
- Dust and noise matters are a real issue and again, NOBODY can guarantee that they will not occur. As and when they do occur, as is expected to be the case, the impact on the Blue Haven and Wyee townships will be disastrous. Dr Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public health for Northern Sydney and the Central Coast has made a submission in which he outlined greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region if this project went ahead.

Of particular concern to me is the massive subsidence figures represented in the proponent's EIS. This states that 245 homes will possibly be affected and 86 of these are destined to suffer a metre or more drop up to 2.3 metres. In addition, the Valley floor faces subsidence of up to 1.8 metres fall. The areas outlined as being subject to this definite risk include my properties in Dunks Lane, Jilliby.

Having built a new house on my property some 7 years ago, my builder estimated that the requirements of the Mine Subsidence Board at the time added between $250,000 -$300,000 additional construction cost to the build. I was disgusted by this requirement and now the whole property is being put at risk by the proposal being considered. Furthermore, I don't think anyone has confidence in the performance of the Mine Subsidence Board who have a track record of refusing the vast majority of claims for subsidence.

Finally, the risks are definitely too great, and the benefits too marginal - the facts make that very clear.

Let me ask you a final question - "if you had chosen a property 30 years ago some 1 hour 15 minutes from the CBD, that in subsequent years you added to until you had accumulated 130 acres to enjoy as an operating rural property, how would you feel to subsequently have all of that put at risk for a possible marginal benefit, if any - HOW WOULD YOU FEEL?"

However, it's not just me and my situation, it is the definite impact and possible significant impact on a community of thousands of people that is being put at risk.

The Politicians have played political football with this issue for many years and the local communities voice has only become significantly louder over that period of time in objecting to the project.

In Opposition, Barry O'Farrell agreed with all the logic being presented when he stood in a local park before the 2015 elections and said that the Liberal party would NOT let the coal mine go ahead for the reasons outlined. Now to see the Liberal Government continually resuscitate this proposal for such marginal possible benefit at such great risk to the community is a genuine tragedy. The Labour Party are now the ones crowing that the project should NOT proceed - how come Politicians can see how valid the local community's objections are when they are in Opposition, but not when they are in Government?

It defies fairness and logic - all at the possible expense of the local community who live there and not in Macquarie Street.

After having gone on for many years now, it's time to kill the proposal once and for all for the reasons outlined. The Community deserves that from their political leadership that are elected to serve them.

Yours faithfully
Bob Mansfield

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

The fact that KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
.Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
Employment
.Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.
Dust and Health and Noise
.Dust remains a huge issue for the health and wellbeing of residents in Blue Haven and Wyee despite the so called partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.
Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site. The areas of Blue Haven and Wyee is full of many young families who have moved to the coast for a better and healthier lifestyle. The building of this mine will certainly ruin this and increase health risks for our families..
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
We moved to the Central Coast to get away from the pollution and noise that the cities had. Please do not let anyone spoil this beautiful area and risk the health of our families and the families of the future.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully
Tracy Mathison

The Director, Planning Services

I fully support the Amended Application for the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

The project has undergone extensive and rigorous review by the Planning and Assessment Commission which has determined that the project can be safely developed without significant impact to the environment and community.

This amendment provides an improved development approach, a reduces the development footprint and provides better utilisation of the world's resources.

The local community and the nation as a whole requires projects that provide export earnings to create local job opportunities, reduce our nation's debt and provide the prosperity for this and future generations.

I look forward to your announcement that the amendment does not materially change the previous Planning Assessment and that the project is approved to proceed. This will mean that the minority of anti-development voices have not achieved a disproportionate influence on the process.

Yours Sincerely
John Hammett

The former Wyong Shire LGA is a substantial growth area but one in which there are inadequate local jobs. The Wallarah 2 Coal Project will provide an important and long term stimulation to the local economy through both directly and indirectly through construction and operational jobs. It will also result in a significant economic contribution to the State which in turn will assist in the provision of essential services to the local and broader community.

Though there will be some impacts, as there are with any development, I believe that Wyong Coal has done all it can that is reasonable and feasible to overcome them and that overall the benefits will outweigh any environmental, social or other costs.
The Wallarah 2 Coal Project represents a continuation of a long and important tradition of coal mining in the central coast /Wyong region.

As a resident of the central coast region, I wish to object to this development.

Re: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.
The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

PREAMBLE
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
.Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Valley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Employment
.Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.

. Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.The conveyor system land-locks Darkinjung ALC land, downgrades value and restricts projected developments and therefore threatens hundreds of valuable jobs in construction which is totally unacceptable.

Dust and Health and Noise
.Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions.
Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

.Please refer back to the submission by Dr. Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.

.Noise exceedances are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
.Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

.The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

."The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project extinguished due to the many areas of risk above.


THIS IS A TOURIST AREA not for COAL MINING!


If you are serious about creating real Employment for the Wyong Shire please visit & promote: http://www.casarpark.org.au/
I would prefer to see the development of Casar Park instead. This would be a far more positive project for the area creating a whole industry with substantially greater employment in the related spin off industries... Driver Education, Go Karts, Drag Racing, Motorcycle Racing, Drift Cars, Catering, Mechanical, Engineering etc

Just look at Sydney Motorsport Park and investigate the employment & revenue it brings to their local area & state, along with Western Sydney International Dragway, also known as WSID, which is a $30 million, purpose built quarter mile drag racing facility that opened in February, 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Motorsport_Park
http://www.sydneydragway.com.au/


Additionally please visit:
https://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/b7ac3195-655f-4ded-bafc-3f2c0626d06f/Additional-Item-3-11-Update-on-Tourism-in-the-Wyong-Shire.pdf.aspx

Yours Sincerely,

Bryan Carter
2 Dryden Court Rd,
San Remo NSW 2262

Founding Member:
San Remo Tidy Towns
Northlakes Landcare
San Remo Community Garden

Former Committee Member:
WSC Precinct
San Remo Neighbourhood Centre 355