Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I object to the wwllarah 2 coal project

I object to the wallarah 2 coal project

I support the Wallarah 2 Coal Project for the following reasons:
* the project will provide hundreds of employment opportunities within the region where there is high unemployment.
* the mine will foster economic growth in the region across a range of industries, including hospitality, retail and transport.
*the mine will provide state revenue that will lead to better infrastructure and services for the community.
* the mine will support, sponsor and contribute economically to local schools, business and charities.
* the benefits to the local community will far exceed the environmental impacts.

My family has a property in Little Jilliby that backs onto Jilliby Conservation Area. Our farm is in the worst affected area with subsidence forecasts of 2.5m. I have previously made a submission but am now making a further submission as new and concerning issues keep coming to light.

The challenge of reviewing the documentation relating to this proposal is overwhelming for the average home owner. The EIS main report alone is 313 pages. It has 28 appendices. It was in Appendix H (another 295 pages) that I discovered our house is not even recognized. The three buildings which make up our residence are all marked as sheds. How is this possible when we are one of the worst affected properties? Why does a property owner have to go through hundreds of pages of documentation to find their house in not included in the statistics? How many other houses have been conveniently overlooked? I think this brings into question the integrity of the EIS report and the forecast impact on the local community.

The EIS report goes to great length to justify the innovative modeling used to predict the likely subsidence effect on the area. The reason such innovation is necessary being that empirical modeling can't be used as there are no comparative mines with similar geological features, similar depth cover and the extracted seam thickness of 4.5m. Essentially, there are a number of negative geological factors and the desired seam thickness is 50% greater than the usual 3m. Consequently it is extremely challenging to forecast the outcome so untested models are created to predict what is most likely.

The confidence in these outcomes and the range of potential error are not provided. But there is plenty of support for the fallibility of the predictions. So, given the only controllable variable is the extracted seam thickness, why is the project aggressively targeting 4.5m? We know the subsidence damage on the surface will directly relate to the width of extraction. As the affected area is residential and conservation land, the margin of error in forecasting should be minimized by keeping the seam thickness within parameters where outcomes are better understood. Otherwise it is just gambling with people's lives and homes.

It is ironic that the best example of the fallibility of these predictive models is contemporary to this discussion, happening just an hour away and had the same predicted subsidence as this proposal. The damage occurring at Sugarloaf Conservation Area is shocking. Crevices over 100m by 17m, landslides, rock falls, parts of the area likely to be closed for over a decade due to ongoing danger. The mining company has pleaded guilty to the damage and is sorry it was `unpredicted'. The parks authority laments they don't know the ongoing extent of damage as the original predictions were fundamentally flawed.

The Sugarloaf experience can provide evidence for empirical modeling. The damage is occurring after the EIS report for this project was submitted. The EIS modeling should be revised with the new evidence at hand of how disastrous a 2.5m predicted subsidence can actually turn out to be. In light of the poor predictability of subsidence modeling and the experience at Sugarloaf, it does not seem possible that the proposer can give assurances to residents as to the safety of their families and property with a reasonable level of confidence in their predictions.

Finally, I would like to understand how the ongoing damage to property suffered by residents would be dealt with. The proposer's response to concerns during the first round of submissions invariably stated something along the lines of damage being able to be addressed using conventional building techniques. However, how does this work in practice? With the mining occurring over 28 years, and properties like ours having three long walls pass underneath, how does the ongoing damage actually get addressed? If our fences fail we can't go through a claims process while our stock wander off. If our water tanks crack, if our driveway becomes impassable, if our doors jam and our windows won't shut, they need to be addressed immediately. How are residents compensated for the ongoing inconvenience and expense, compounded by having to prove that it was the subsidence that did it? Would anyone wish this on their neighbours?

In summary, I strongly object to the proposal. I don't think the EIS accurately reflects the impact on the community. It has not been prepared diligently as evidenced by the mis-classification of our house, it does not address the inconvenience and distress the ongoing subsidence damage has on residents, and the models it uses may be `best practice' but they are unproven and prone to significant error as evidenced by the scale of the `unpredicted' damage at Sugarloaf. Please reject this proposal.

SUBMISSION LETTER OPPOSING WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT




The Director, Planning Services

Department of Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

5th September 2016

RE: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application


I wish to record my non-consent to the current Amended Development Application on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. This application is very deceiving, in that KORES has taken the opportunity to portray the over-exaggerated economic benefits to the region, for the whole project, and has not confined itself alone to the terms of this Amendment.

As a resident of the Central Coast...
as a local to the Wyong Valley's whom are at direct threat from this mine...
as a mother of children whom will be the direct inheritors of these decisions made here & now...
and as a human being with a conscience...
I am writing to you today, to go on record as saying that.....

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the South Korean Government-owned company KORES (or any other foreign-owned mine) doing business of any kind in our local area, in our beautiful region, nor in our country, at all.

~I DO NOT CONSENT in any way to this Amended Proposal, (nor to the original proposal as it was presented), for any mining activities to go ahead in any part of the Central Coast countryside, farmlands, drinking water catchment area, or sacred Indigenous landscapes. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR SUCH DESTRUCTIVE MINES OR MINING ACTIVITIES IN OUR BACKYARD.

~I DO NOT CONSENT, (whether it be in the hands of the local Council, the State or Federal Governments), to any mining activity of this magnitude, to be allowed to go ahead, and to put at risk the Water Aquifers and accompanying Groundwater-Dependent Eco-systems, that would see the current and future drinking water supply put at risk, in any way. Something like 80% of the Central Coast's drinking water comes from these valleys in the Wyong Shire that the Wallarah 2 mine will rip through.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to an assessment process, whereby a mining company that is already known publicly to be in huge debt globally, and to be poor stewards of respectful business practises, is even considered to be eligible to lodge such applications for business in our region or country. The citizens and businesses of the Central Coast have already stood up and spoken out publicly against the first Wallarah 2 Development Application to say, THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THIS MINE GOING AHEAD. It does not matter which way the application has been tweaked to make it look different - the damage to land, water and air quality - and communities - is still the same.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to such a company with such a poor track record globally, being given social license to enter our region and to cause such distress to our lands, our communities, our locals whom are custodians of this land in question. When these huge mines come in to an area, it totally fractures everything in it's path, with no regard for Person, Place, Significance, Sacredness, or Relationships. These lands, these communities, and this ancient sacredness - that we are all custodians of - deserves our FULL PROTECTION.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the possibility that such a company as KORES, whom is in such a disintegrating financial state, would be trusted in any way with the promises that they will make, to Rehabilitate and Repair the environments of the Wyong Valley's, after they have taken all they can take, and have left our region. All public reports point to the fact, that KORES does not even know where the funding is coming from for this project. HOW CAN WE TRUST THEY WILL BE HERE LONG ENOUGH TO REHABILITATE?

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the illusion that mining companies and some Governments can operate under, when they believe that you can dig a massive crater in the landscape, removing all vegetation in it's path, every square inch of Water Aquifer, every piece of habitat for the local Indigenous wildlife, and every molecule of livingness that contributes to a massive Eco-System (more complex and inter-connected than we can even fathom), and then think it is possible to come close to REHABILITATING OR REPAIRING this damage ?? This is not a case of removing a tree, and trusting that another will grow in its place. The Wallarah 2 mine WILL REMOVE THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE, NEVER TO RETURN TO THAT VALLEY. This is unthinkable, and unacceptable, and as a Mother (whom takes their role as custodian of the future seriously and committedly), I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO STOP THIS MINE GOING AHEAD, SHOULD THE DECISION-MAKERS LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SANITY, AND ALLOW THIS MINE TO BE APPROVED FOR OPERATION.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the acceptance of the concept, that the benefits of income and jobs, far outweigh any losses to the community and the landscape, that the Wallarah 2 mine would cause. There are Sustainable ways that our local communities, our region and our country, can contribute to and support a flourishing economy. As is always the case with these applications, the mining company's version of 'financial benefits and jobs' is grossly over-inflated, and intentionally misleading. Apparently the only thing being assessed at the moment by the Office of Planning, is the "Amendment" to the original application, however KORES has included income and employment figures for the project as a whole, not the amended area of the project, intentionally misleading the figures for the "Amendment" as it stands alone to be assessed.
Those making important decisions for the future of the Central Coast, need to see, that Economics is not only about money. The most sustaining economy - that moves a community, a region, a country forward in true prosperity and real wealth- is an "Economics of Happiness and Sustainable Futures" (a concept brought to Australia by Helena Norberg-Hodge, and modelled beautifully by the Government of Bhutan). The communities of the Wyong Valley's and the wider surrounding areas of the Central Coast, are not only "unhappy" with this mine, these communities (and the landscapes and environments that they belong to), will BECOME FRACTURED BY THIS MINE. An economy that cannot sustain the health, well-being and goodwill of its people, is an economy cursed to disintegration. Saying yes to this mine, will bring an economy that is working at odds with its own community, for the sake of bringing affluence to foreign corporations.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to Governmental approval of any project or corporate entity performing functions upon the land, water and air, that will disrupt Nature's perfectly balanced system of managing the atmospheric temperatures. The current Science is demonstrating, that it is in the disrupting of our water cycles, of our bushlands (that act as atmospheric coolers, rehydrators, perspirators and toxin-filters), and disturbance to the in-ground networks of temperature regulators, that we create widespread Changes to our Climate, locally and therefore, globally. When the science is there shining a floodlight on the path we must avoid, to avert Climate Change that is irreversible, what authorities trusted to act for the benefit of all of its citizens, and all of its non-human residents, would ignore such science?

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the physical health of my children, and all the children in our communities, being put at risk. The huge amounts of coal dust that will be released to the winds every single day, from the dozens of uncovered coal wagons coming and going (each with the potential of pulling up to 100 coal carriages), is something that the people of the Central Coast should not be subjected to. There are dozens of damning reports being released globally (and in particular, in response to the coal dust disaster going on in Newcastle, where this coal will be headed to each and every day), finding that particulate air pollution is a serious problem, causing much damage. The evidence is mounting on just how damaging to our health it is, for the air to be contaminated with coal dust. This coal belongs in the ground. It has a job to do there. We need to leave it there, or the health of our children and our communities will pay the price.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to there being ANY acceptable level of possible subsidence for the dwellings, the farmlands and especially for the natural water catchment systems that would be impacted by the mining and excavation activities. If the underground water table completely collapses - causing destruction of the naturally occurring landscape systems for managing such water flow - then whom can predict how widespread will be the damage to the Central Coasts drinking water? The local landscapes will also suffer, becoming dried out and increasing the threats of wildfires, and bringing barren croplands and bushlands. THIS LEVEL OF SUBSIDENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the breach of Constitutional Law, that states that no person, group or corporate entity has the right to interfere with the community accessing clean land, air and water.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to this mine being up for assessment yet again, when it has already been refused, based on the failure of the company KORES to adequately address the concerns raised by the community, and by professional experts, to this mine projects major impacts on Ecology, Heritage, and Water Quality.


Thereby above, I have stated the reasons why this Wallarah 2 mine project, and the Amended Development Application SSD 4974, MUST NOT BE APPROVED

SUBMISSION LETTER OPPOSING WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT



Email to: [email protected]

The Director, Planning Services

Department of Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

5th September 2016

RE: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application


I wish to record my non-consent to the current Amended Development Application on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. This application is very deceiving, in that KORES has taken the opportunity to portray the over-exaggerated economic benefits to the region, for the whole project, and has not confined itself alone to the terms of this Amendment.

As a resident of the Central Coast...
as a local to the Wyong Valley's whom are at direct threat from this mine...
as a mother of children whom will be the direct inheritors of these decisions made here & now...
and as a human being with a conscience...
I am writing to you today, to go on record as saying that.....

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the South Korean Government-owned company KORES (or any other foreign-owned mine) doing business of any kind in our local area, in our beautiful region, nor in our country, at all.

~I DO NOT CONSENT in any way to this Amended Proposal, (nor to the original proposal as it was presented), for any mining activities to go ahead in any part of the Central Coast countryside, farmlands, drinking water catchment area, or sacred Indigenous landscapes. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR SUCH DESTRUCTIVE MINES OR MINING ACTIVITIES IN OUR BACKYARD.

~I DO NOT CONSENT, (whether it be in the hands of the local Council, the State or Federal Governments), to any mining activity of this magnitude, to be allowed to go ahead, and to put at risk the Water Aquifers and accompanying Groundwater-Dependent Eco-systems, that would see the current and future drinking water supply put at risk, in any way. Something like 80% of the Central Coast's drinking water comes from these valleys in the Wyong Shire that the Wallarah 2 mine will rip through.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to an assessment process, whereby a mining company that is already known publicly to be in huge debt globally, and to be poor stewards of respectful business practises, is even considered to be eligible to lodge such applications for business in our region or country. The citizens and businesses of the Central Coast have already stood up and spoken out publicly against the first Wallarah 2 Development Application to say, THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THIS MINE GOING AHEAD. It does not matter which way the application has been tweaked to make it look different - the damage to land, water and air quality - and communities - is still the same.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to such a company with such a poor track record globally, being given social license to enter our region and to cause such distress to our lands, our communities, our locals whom are custodians of this land in question. When these huge mines come in to an area, it totally fractures everything in it's path, with no regard for Person, Place, Significance, Sacredness, or Relationships. These lands, these communities, and this ancient sacredness - that we are all custodians of - deserves our FULL PROTECTION.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the possibility that such a company as KORES, whom is in such a disintegrating financial state, would be trusted in any way with the promises that they will make, to Rehabilitate and Repair the environments of the Wyong Valley's, after they have taken all they can take, and have left our region. All public reports point to the fact, that KORES does not even know where the funding is coming from for this project. HOW CAN WE TRUST THEY WILL BE HERE LONG ENOUGH TO REHABILITATE?

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the illusion that mining companies and some Governments can operate under, when they believe that you can dig a massive crater in the landscape, removing all vegetation in it's path, every square inch of Water Aquifer, every piece of habitat for the local Indigenous wildlife, and every molecule of livingness that contributes to a massive Eco-System (more complex and inter-connected than we can even fathom), and then think it is possible to come close to REHABILITATING OR REPAIRING this damage ?? This is not a case of removing a tree, and trusting that another will grow in its place. The Wallarah 2 mine WILL REMOVE THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE, NEVER TO RETURN TO THAT VALLEY. This is unthinkable, and unacceptable, and as a Mother (whom takes their role as custodian of the future seriously and committedly), I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO STOP THIS MINE GOING AHEAD, SHOULD THE DECISION-MAKERS LOSE THEIR SENSE OF SANITY, AND ALLOW THIS MINE TO BE APPROVED FOR OPERATION.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the acceptance of the concept, that the benefits of income and jobs, far outweigh any losses to the community and the landscape, that the Wallarah 2 mine would cause. There are Sustainable ways that our local communities, our region and our country, can contribute to and support a flourishing economy. As is always the case with these applications, the mining company's version of 'financial benefits and jobs' is grossly over-inflated, and intentionally misleading. Apparently the only thing being assessed at the moment by the Office of Planning, is the "Amendment" to the original application, however KORES has included income and employment figures for the project as a whole, not the amended area of the project, intentionally misleading the figures for the "Amendment" as it stands alone to be assessed.
Those making important decisions for the future of the Central Coast, need to see, that Economics is not only about money. The most sustaining economy - that moves a community, a region, a country forward in true prosperity and real wealth- is an "Economics of Happiness and Sustainable Futures" (a concept brought to Australia by Helena Norberg-Hodge, and modelled beautifully by the Government of Bhutan). The communities of the Wyong Valley's and the wider surrounding areas of the Central Coast, are not only "unhappy" with this mine, these communities (and the landscapes and environments that they belong to), will BECOME FRACTURED BY THIS MINE. An economy that cannot sustain the health, well-being and goodwill of its people, is an economy cursed to disintegration. Saying yes to this mine, will bring an economy that is working at odds with its own community, for the sake of bringing affluence to foreign corporations.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to Governmental approval of any project or corporate entity performing functions upon the land, water and air, that will disrupt Nature's perfectly balanced system of managing the atmospheric temperatures. The current Science is demonstrating, that it is in the disrupting of our water cycles, of our bushlands (that act as atmospheric coolers, rehydrators, perspirators and toxin-filters), and disturbance to the in-ground networks of temperature regulators, that we create widespread Changes to our Climate, locally and therefore, globally. When the science is there shining a floodlight on the path we must avoid, to avert Climate Change that is irreversible, what authorities trusted to act for the benefit of all of its citizens, and all of its non-human residents, would ignore such science?

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the physical health of my children, and all the children in our communities, being put at risk. The huge amounts of coal dust that will be released to the winds every single day, from the dozens of uncovered coal wagons coming and going (each with the potential of pulling up to 100 coal carriages), is something that the people of the Central Coast should not be subjected to. There are dozens of damning reports being released globally (and in particular, in response to the coal dust disaster going on in Newcastle, where this coal will be headed to each and every day), finding that particulate air pollution is a serious problem, causing much damage. The evidence is mounting on just how damaging to our health it is, for the air to be contaminated with coal dust. This coal belongs in the ground. It has a job to do there. We need to leave it there, or the health of our children and our communities will pay the price.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to there being ANY acceptable level of possible subsidence for the dwellings, the farmlands and especially for the natural water catchment systems that would be impacted by the mining and excavation activities. If the underground water table completely collapses - causing destruction of the naturally occurring landscape systems for managing such water flow - then whom can predict how widespread will be the damage to the Central Coasts drinking water? The local landscapes will also suffer, becoming dried out and increasing the threats of wildfires, and bringing barren croplands and bushlands. THIS LEVEL OF SUBSIDENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to the breach of Constitutional Law, that states that no person, group or corporate entity has the right to interfere with the community accessing clean land, air and water.

~I DO NOT CONSENT to this mine being up for assessment yet again, when it has already been refused, based on the failure of the company KORES to adequately address the concerns raised by the community, and by professional experts, to this mine projects major impacts on Ecology, Heritage, and Water Quality.


Thereby above, I have stated the reasons why this Wallarah 2 mine project, and the Amended Development Application SSD 4974, MUST NOT BE APPROVED.

I wish to object, in the strongest possible terms I can, to the latest amended DA lodged by the Wallarah Coal Project.
It is time for this proposal to be rejected in its entirety and for the NSW Government to honour the "no ifs, no buts" promise made by former leader Barry O'Farrell to the Central Coast community that this proposal would never be allowed to go ahead.
In addition to our well documented community's concerns with the original proposal, re effects on our water catchments, likely subsidence issues, flora and fauna and other environmental damage issues from long wall mining in our beautiful Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys, this latest amended proposal raises the prospect of people's health being put at significant risk as a result of coal dust concerns from coal being carried on open conveyor belts so close to residential areas.
NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD AGREE TO THIS.
It is time for the Baird Government to take stock of things and step in to stop once and for all such folly from occurring.
It is obvious the company behind this proposal is simply trying to position itself to on-sell the exploration licence it holds in relation to this proposal.
As a community member approaching my three score and ten, and a faithful Liberal supporter for all my adult life, I am looking to the Baird Government of NSW to show it truly stands for the people of this State by buying back this exploration licence and ripping it up forever.

Dear Director Planning Services,
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition as well as to the further progression of the mine proposal. 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 and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
Points of Objection
Cost/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 $200M, which equates to just over $7M 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.
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. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as dose 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 schoois, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
* Please refer 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.
Unesolved issue from the EIS 2014
* Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents ELS affect 245 homes and their infrastnjcture, 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 12 metres fail 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 Jillilby 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.

The Director, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development of the Wallarah 2 coal mine currently under submission. Below I have outlined the reasons for my opposition to this mine.

* Climate Change: Climate Change is a reality and the people of the Central Coast, NSW and indeed the world cannot afford for more coal to be mined and burnt, causing further carbon emissions. As our elected leaders we need you to take action to reduce carbon emissions and protect us from Climate Change.
* Health and Well-being: The proposed mine will have significant negative impacts on the health and well-being of local residents the coal dust, noise and light pollution. People will die from the coal dust the transportation of the coal will produce and many others will suffer loss of well-being from coal dust associated respiratory problems.
o How will those people whose health is damaged from this business undertaking be identified and compensated?
o Will the government be exposed to expensive compensation claims if it approves this mine?
* Proximity to Local Population Centres: The coal stockpile, conveyor and loader are unacceptably close to existing residences. The makes the location totally unsuitable for industrial development. This area of the Central Coast is also slated for significant population growth and residential development under the state's own planning. Developing a mine in this area is not compatible with that plan.
* Lack of Firm Details of Proposed Coal Loader: The proposal does not give specifics regarding the height, nature and workings of the coal loader. This could end up being a very large structure that is visible from nearby residences and the suburb of Blue Haven, and that also spreads toxic coal dust particles further around the local and regional area. The extra visual and noise pollution from this loading structure could significantly affect local residents, but no details are contained upon which to assess this.
* Danger to Central Coast Water Supply:The water security of the whole Central Coast will be put at risk by the mine as the area that it will be under is the catchment for the majority of the Coast's residential water supply. This will impact over 300 000 people.
* Lack of Real Benefit: The mine will not provide the claimed employment and financial benefits to the local residents and economy. The costs in the way of climate change, health, well-being, water and environmental degradation as well as rehabilitation of the mine and associated sites at the end of the mine's life will far outweigh any financial gains the state may receive. The negative health impacts will also increase financial costs to the public health system and social security system. Will Wyong Coal be contributing to these increased costs to State and Federal budgets?
* Local home owners will suffer significant losses in the value of their properties. Property ownership is the most significant assets providing financial security for Australians. Loss of home value may lead to increased numbers of people being more reliant on social security in their retirement years.

Coal has no future moving forward in our modern world and we need to quickly and purposefully move to renewable energy sources. Approving more coal mines ties us to the past and creates a future of worse Climate Change impacts.
The local residents living near this proposed mine will suffer significant, direct, health, well-being and financial costs while receiving no direct benefit from the mine. Central Coast residents will suffer the degradation of their water supply and local environment, and the whole world will suffer the impact of Climate Change. Indirect benefits to the Central Coast will be minimal in comparison to the costs.
The direct and indirect costs of this mine are too great to allow it to proceed in any form.
Reject this proposal and buy back the exploration license from Wyong Coal to secure the future of Central Coast residents.

The Director, Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

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 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. 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 with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and 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 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.

The Director, Planning Services
Dept.of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39, SYDNEY 2001

REFERENCE: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
Dear Sir,

I am a land owner within the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project area.

Kores Australia is proposing to construct a longwall coal mine beneath my property and the water catchment valleys of Wyong. The predicted impacts from this proposal are both significant and far reaching.

I wish to object to the construction of this longwall mine for the reasons outlined below;

1. It is predicted that over 245 houses, including my own, are in the direct zone of mining and will suffer significant subsidence. The predicted subsidence is within a range of 1 metre to 2.3 metres. I understand it is the Mine Subsidence Boards responsibility to deal with compensation due to the impact of mining, however we doubt they will be willing to take action and do not believe the MSB can be used as a solution to any impact of mine subsidence. These estimated subsidence figures shall significantly impact residents and the Jilliby Conservation Area. This should provoke real concern to those undertaking the assessment process. The impact of this subsidence cannot be underestimated. The stress and concern this places on families is difficult to measure as it is not a tangible quantity, but it is real, families do suffer.

2. Having read a number of articles, I understand over 50% of the water catchment for the entire Central Coast directly comes from the Dooralong and Yarramalong valley system. A proposed mine subsidence within this area will directly impact on this catchment area and has the genuine potential to destroy river system flows and underground aquifers. Two thirds the of the valleys rivers are feed by these aquifers. Any alteration to water flow would cause significant change in the ecosystem, resulting in substantial environmental risk to the ecological balance. It has been indicated that this would result in the estuarine habitat of 11 species of endangered, migratory birds, which are protected under treaties with China and Japan, to be at risk of degradation or even destruction.

3. The impact on the residence of Bluehaven and Wyee shall also be significant. Unacceptable levels of noise and emission of coal dust from the coal loading facility will have both short term and long term effects on the health of these residents. Operating 24 hours, 7 days a week, the proposed loading facility is situated only 200 meters from residents in this area and only 5 km from several Schools, Preschools and Child minding facilities. The loading area is also adjacent to the largest urban growth area on the Central Coast and will impact on the new Warnervale Township and Wyong Employment zone. I am aware of reports detailing the effect of dust emissions on the growing population in this area. Such effects can result in ill health such as wheezing, increase effects of asthma and breathlessness. This is unacceptable in such a fast growing and densely populated area and the true cost to the public health within the community cannot be overlooked.

The NSW Government has a responsibility to represent not only the majority but also all those individuals that make up the majority.

In our modern western society, I believe the Government has a responsibility to consider something that effects one, should be considered just as important as something that effects all.

I write this in hope that you will consider my objections to this proposal.

Regards

The Director
Planning Services
Dept of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001

Re: SSD 4974 Amended Development Application WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT - Submission of Objection

Dear Sir / Madam,

My submission objects to the Amended Development Application cited above and to any furthering of the Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

My objections are based on the inadequacy of the proponent's case for managing the risks of:
1. loss of the aquifer,
2. loss of fresh water supplies,
3. mine subsidence,
4. failure to restore environmental damage,
5. long-term damage to human health and
6. climate change.

The reasons for the first three listed objections are a failure of the proponent to adequately address these issues as raised in the detailed submission to the Planning Assessment Commissions made by Professor Philip Pells in 2010.

With regard to the risk of failure to restore environmental damage, it has come to light that the South Korean Government is now concentrating on energy systems other than coal. This means that this coal project is not likely to extend for many years. Lack of long-term funding presents a real risk that the damage that will be caused during the mining process will not be repaired. Wyong Coal Pty Ltd is a $400 paid up company. The NSW Government must ask for a bond equal to the entire cost of restoration to be deposited prior to any work commencing.

The fifth objection deals with health effects. Coal dust presents a risk to the health of people in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There has been no undertaking to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all the communities along the line through Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. The community based study of coal trains (Higginbottom et.al) recently showed alarming PM10 depositions particularly from empty wagons. Dr.Peter Lewis, former Area Director for Public Health, made submissions in 2010 and 2013 regarding potential harm to the respiratory systems of children. These have not been adequately addressed.

In addition, noise exceedences will be problematic for all those living in the nearby communities. The health impacts of insomnia and depression associated with constant noise must be adequately addressed. The proponent has not done so.

The 6th objection addresses climate change. The United Nations and the vast majority of countries have agreed that the exploitation of coal is linked to inordinate changes in the world's climate. This proposed development is incompatible with international recognition of the need to curtail coal mining.

I submit that the subject Amended Development Application be rejected.


Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to object to the modification to the application for the Wallarah 2 Coal Project (SSD -4974). I am a Central Coast resident and am concerned, therefore, that we have a reliable water supply system that operates in an unpolluted environment.

I have examined the PAC's Review of the previous application and I understand that the modification would affect the mode of transfer of coal from the mine to the railway loading system. My objection, however, concerns the impacts of the proposed mine on the water catchment of Jilliby Creek, Little Jilliby Creek and the Wyong River.

The PAC confirmed in its conclusions that the mine would have the following impacts on the water catchments:

1. Risk of reduced water for the Central Coast Water Supply system.

2. Water supply risks for landowners in the catchment of the two creeks.

3. Impacts on the stream morphology of the two creeks, especially if a major flood event coincides with subsidence changes in the creek beds.

4. Delays in emergency access to properties in major floods.

5. Impacts on aquatic ecology.

With regard to the first impact, the PAC recommended (3.3.1.5) that:
(i) the project be required to meet a no net impact performance outcome on catchment water resources during the life of the mine;
(ii) consideration be given to augmentation of CCWS supply by return of sufficient minewater treated to the required standards for raw water supply to compensate for estimated losses during the life of the mine;
(iii) the principles governing this augmentation of CCWS supply be as described in section 3.3.1.4 of this review report;
(iv) mining beyond LW 5N not be permitted until the mechanism to compensate for potential impacts on water availability for CCWS is operational;
(v) no compensation be required beyond mine closure for the predicted 36.5 ML/y loss provided that a review prior to mine closure confirms that the loss does not exceed 36.5 ML/y.

The conclusion of the PAC's Executive Summary is places great emphasis on these recommendations concerning the potential impacts on the water catchments:

If the recommendations are either not adopted, or adopted only in part, then the Commission's position would probably change in favour of a precautionary approach. This particularly applies to water-related impacts.

I strongly support the conclusion of the PAC that a precautionary approach should be adopted if the proponent is unable to meet all the PAC recommendations concerning the water-related impacts.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Conroy

I Denis Dewberry 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 "intersectional 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, 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 exceedence is 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 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.
When are the politicians, who are supposed to be representing the people, going to do the right thing and crush, rather than support the chance of damage to the local environment, particularly water tables?
In my 40+ years in the transport industry, covering vast areas of the country I have repeatedly seen the destruction of creeks, which feed our rivers, as a result of both open and underground mining.
I don't need any engineers' reports to confirm what I have seen!!!!
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully
Denis Dewberry

To The Director, Planning Services

As a citizen of the Central Coast, and as a youth, I strongly object to any Coal mine being constructed on the Central Coast.
This is a dangerous, foolish move, and as a young person of 24 years of age, I still have a long time on this planet to be concerned about the state of the air, water and the land. I also plan to have children, who will most likely have children and live in this area so it is to me of upmost importance we conserve the future and you listen to us, your future leaders and your unborn great-great grandchildren.


My questions are as follows

What will be the noise impact on the Central Coast?
How does Wallarah 2 plan to mitigate such noise?
What will be the vibration effects on the Central Coast? What are the mitigation measures put into place for this?
How will air quality within a 50km radius of the mine be monitored? How do KORE plan to maintain a healthy standard of air quality? How do KORE plan to take responsibility for people in the area, including but not exclusive to worker, when lung damage begins to occur through coal dust air pollution?
How does KORE plan to maintain a suitable healthy standard of drinking water? How will the mine impact the water? How much water will be contaminated-in distance and quality? How many water ways will be impacted? How will water be used on site? How will KORE dispose of their contaminated water?
Approximately how much coal will be extracted daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? How much of this will be returned to the Australian economy? How much will be sent to Korea? How much profit will the mine make daily? weekly? monthly? annually? who will be the consumers of the coal extracted? How long do KORE intend to mine the area? How much coal will be extracted?
How do the government plan to compulsorily acquire the land from the Darkinjung Land Council? Seeing this is a privately owned enterprise, under what jurisdiction can the government compulsorily acquire land for a private enterprise? How much will the government obtain for this land? Who are the Minister responsible? What are the details of the DA? How many counsellors voted in favour for this?


How many species of animal exist within the site? How many species of flora exist within the site? What are the Federally listed endangered/threatened and/or vulnerable animals listed on site? How have they been surveyed? Please send me a copy of the environmental studies citing this. How do KORE plan to protect the species within the area.
What laws are in breach regarding the animals that will be impacted through this development-not excluding the flow on effect the mine will have on surrounding areas and waterways.

What are the Federally listed endangered/threatened and/or vulnerable plants listed on site?
What are the Federally listed endangered/threatened and/or vulnerable plants listed on site? How have they been surveyed? Please send me a copy of the environmental studies citing this. How do KORE plan to protect the species within the area.

How much was the land sold for?
How will roads be affected? How many workers on site? Will the Syd/Newcastle gas pipeline be used? If so-what for? What will happen to all the excess gas extracted by the process? How much will workers be paid? Will workers be from the area and if so, give proof substantiating that claim. How many vehicles will go to work? How many hours per day will the mine be operational? How much methane will it release into the air? How much CO2 per annum, with results and scientific studies attached will the mine produced, including ALL extraction and transport use? How much CO2 will be produced, as a total figure, from the extraction, transporting and the burning process of the coal? I need total sums and figures, with aformentioned scientific studies attached that are KORES own documents.

How much will this heat up the atmosphere? How much CO2 does Wallarah 2 expect to produce per annum? How much will this amount contribute to global warming? How much will this percentage, in scientific proof, raise the sea level? How much will this amount-with scientific proof-contribute towards coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef?

Approximately how much energy will KORE produce per annum? How much is this when paralleled with the amount of energy produced by the actual extraction/cleaning/transporting process of the coal to a usable level?
How much is coal on the share market? What is its predicted rate of inflation? What is its predicted rate of deflation? How much profit is produced when compared to an investment such as a wind farm and a solar farm (with both results attached and accounted for)? How much for, 10 years? How much for 50 years? How much time do studies show we can live on this planet in its current condition?


I require an answer to each of the questions present.

Ursula Silva

Attention: The Director, Planning Services
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.
This proposal flows underneath the private property of a dear friend of mine and is a preposterous proposition to even entertain.
My objections are as follows:
* 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.
* Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
* The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Couirt and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW.
* Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Dept suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time
* Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative 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 with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and 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.
* 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.
* Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
* 5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"
* The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.
* The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.
* Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project
* Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven.
Yours faithfully

The Director, Planning Services
Dept.of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001


REFERENCE: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
I strongly object to the current ADA on exhibition and the construction of the mine as per the above reference on the following grounds;
This proposal is situated in the major catchment area which supplies water for the residence of the Central Coast region. This project puts at risk the availability of water from this area and will significantly reduce the catchment yield. There is genuine risk to the catchment area as a result of the predicted mine subsidence.
It is predicted that over 245 house in the direct zone of mining will suffer significant subsidence, with 86 of those homes predicted to drop within a range of 1 metre to a massive 2.3 metres. The past reputation of the Mine Subsidence Board to deal with compensation due to the impact of mining is woeful and should not be taken as a solution to any impact of mine subsidence.
These estimated subsidence figures are massive and the impact to residents and to the Jilliby Conservation Area should provoke real concern. The impact of this subsidence cannot be underestimated and this mine will potentially put every resident on the Central Coast at risk.

While increased employment has been advocated as an advantage for the progression of the mine, the projected economic benefits have been significantly overstated. The true cost to the community with the associated health issues, subsidence, and impact to water catchment areas cannot be overlooked. Any financial gain cannot outweigh these significant life threatening impacts to the community. The compensation for health related issues and proposed mine subsidence to local residences will be a costly burdened on public funds.
Due to the amended proposal, there will also be significantly less employment opportunities then stated in pages 86 and 87 of the Amendment. The replacement of the rail link with the conveyor system as proposed in this amendments means that there will be less employees required and the figures included in the proposal are therefore misleading and inflated.
The land specifically owned by the Darkinjung ALC, will be affected significantly and this affects the future residential project development. The flow on effect of hundreds of jobs within the construction sector being loss due the devaluation of this land should also be taken into account when financial benefits/ disadvantages are being addressed.
Health issues such as dust inhalation cannot be dismissed. The lack of real evidence and predicted impact on the emissions from this proposed mine is a serious issue and should be addressed. Residence of Blue Haven, Wyee, which in some instances are only a distance of 200 and 400 respectively from the new proposed coal loading site, will suffer major impact to their health. Direct contact with coal dust emissions and noise from the proposed coal loader will be a risk to these residence 24 hours a day. The dust emissions from the proposed loading hopper will be placing many children in schools, pre-schools and day cares situated within this area at a high risk of issues detrimental to their health. These risks have been outlined by in a submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast.
Excessive noise generated from this site will also impact severely ion the residence of this area. Greatest impact will be on residences to the north of Bushell's Ridge Road at Wyee, with general noise 24 hours of the per day impacting those residents living in Blue Haven and Wyee. This noise pollution should be of major concern and consideration.
The above items are of genuine concern and will cause significant impact on not only those within the mining zone but the vast majority of residents on the Central Coast. The significant impacts to the water catchment area, public health and decrease in employment must be considered and this proposal should be rejected immediately.
As a concerned citizen and tax payer I am pleading for you to consider the concerns of the people and act accordingly.

Dear Director,

I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the amended proposal to mine coal on the NSW Central Coast at Wallarah2.

The new amended proposal will have significant negative impacts on the region. The proposal to move the coal loading area will mean that people living in Wyee and Blue Haven particularly, will be exposed to significant dust, noise and light pollution. The health and wellbeing impacts for the community are likely to be severe. This is totally unacceptable.

I am also opposed to the proposed mining under the water catchment valleys. Threats to this catchment could negatively impact on the whole region and its 300,000 plus population and is therefore an unacceptable risk. I remember very clearly living with severe water restrictions for several years prior to the construction of the Mardi Dam pipeline which draws from exactly the catchment that this proposed mine would threaten. This is also totally unacceptable.

I also believe that we need to stop mining coal. We should certainly not be entertaining this very risky, socially and environmentally damaging amended proposal to assist a Korean Company who is looking to divest itself of its coal "assets".

I do not believe that the Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application begins to address any of my concerns. There is no relevant EIS study, nor any social impact information, nor modelling of the pollution impacts for the community.

I strongly urge you to reject this application.

Yours sincerely,
Cath Connor

RE: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application

We 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.

We do not believe there has been enough community consultation regarding this project and how it will affect the residents of Blue Haven. As parents of very young children - one who is an asthmatic - we are deeply concerned about the impact this project will have on the health of our family. Furthermore, as first homebuyers in the newly subdivided Menindee Ridge Estate, we were very disappointed to discover that the house we worked hard to save for and build has now potentially lost value based simply on the fact that this project may go ahead.

POINTS OF OBJECTION

Dust, Health Issues, 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. 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 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 BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

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 "inter-sectoral 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.

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
Pamela Acton-Ward and Travis Ward

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to any attempt by the KORES company to continue resurrecting the mine proposal year after year.
Any proposed benefits to the NSW economy are completely negated by the huge impacts that will be felt in the health sector as well as environmental degradation of water supply and land subsidence. This will adversaly effect many communities across the central coast and especially the most vulnerable due to air quality issues. Children, the elderly and those with respiratory diseases will experience a dramatic decrease in quality of life that will be felt for decades in terms of respiratory health.
In my career as a research scientist in the field of Cancer Research it was common knowledge amoungst the medical research community that poor air quality (such as will be seen across the central coast from this coal mine) has a direct correlation with increase in cancer rates. This has to be of great concern to the government. The people of towns like Wyee which will be directly in the path of the coal dust are left with little options but to move to protect their children, thus destroying their thriving communities.
The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence with unknown effects to a vital water resource. My husbands family has been part of the area directly effected by the mine for 6 generations and in that time has seen the development of industies from forresty to citrus and dairy farms to now varied farming, and prime real estate developments. Who knows what future employment opportunites will now be threatened across these communities, not just in the building industry but tourism and hospitality.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully
Angela Bailey