Newmont claims it has consulted with the community. As a long term pre-mining resident the consultation is becoming less with each modification. Whilst I welcome the drop in sessions these have come at the expense of the public presentation and question and answer sessions. I believe this has been done to try and silence the more educated and vocal affected members of the local community. This is disappointing as it is requires every individual community member to research and educate themselves about every issue that may affect them or their community. I believe there should be more consultation, with the restoration of the presentations/Q and A sessions as a requirement for CCOP.
 
Hydrocyclone sands technology will require 24 hour operation of heavy machinery to build the walls, there will be a significant increase in noise for us and all local residents, and it will continue  and can be expected to increase under CCOP for the life of the mine. Newmont consultation and information has been downplaying scale of what is planned trivialising the size of the impacts on local residents.
As a local resident I do not know what is proposed with the CCOP concept. CCOP has been changed repeatedly, deadlines have been missed by more than a year, expert reports are apparently being rewritten.
How is it acceptable to claim critical elements are the same as CCOP when I don’t know what CCOP is ?
Noise Levels
Noise levels are going to rise at our family home at 59 Lawson Road, Panuara.
I only found this out last week.
Newmont had not consulted with us or told us this would be happening until I asked them specifically.
They stated that yes there would be a rise in noise levels but they decided,without consultation, that the increase is minimal and that we don’t need to worry.
Surely that is to be decided between both affected parties ?
-LThe last modification stated that they would exceed noise levels occasionally and this would be “managed” Again there was no consultation.
Why the lack of consultation ?
Why hasn’t their consultation of affected neighbours improved ?

Newmont has several state of the art modern noise monitoring stations around the mine site.
These monitor mine noise 24hrs day 365 days year providing real time levels indicating noise exceedances or compliance.
However Newmont explains these monitors and their results have nothing to do with compliance.
Compliance monitoring is only conducted once every 2 months, on planned date/s.
Newmont has told us the “monitoring noise” monitors are observed and if exceedances are noticed they can shut down machinery etc to change the noise levels.
It has been suggested that Newmont shut down machinery when compliance monitoring is conducted bi-monthly to ensure compliance during that short period.
Why aren’t their 24hr/365day monitoring systems used for compliance ?
Why do Newmont refuse to do this themselves ?
Please enforce noise monitoring compliance 24hrs day 365 days of the year.

Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the Mod 16 application by Newmont
Mining.

I object to this submission.

• There has been a significant decrease in community consultation over the past 12-24
months. Group residents meeting where residents can ask questions as in previous
Mods have progressed to only drop-in session on offer. Many community members in
the past have attended this Mod sessions to get a complete overview of the
Modification rather than endeavouring to wade through the full Modification
documents online.
• Newmont has not fulfilled proactive dialogue with Q&A in a community forum with
this session. No presentation to the community has been made for Mod 16 bar a
drop-in session around 11 days after the commencement of the public exhibition.
• It is beyond concerning the prospect of a change in Tailings storage technology and
the potential approval of Hydrocyclone Sands Technology. The community has had
no opportunity to ask questions of this technology in relation of this Modification
and appears to be a quick side door entry before the CCOP EIS comes out later in the
year – for which Newmont is seeking to use this technology for the next mine license.
Previously and in relation to CCOP – the community has had loud and clear concerns
to this technology and how this may not work in a high rainfall area, in conjunction
local fault lines that are clearly showing concerns with AMD, light concerns, dust
movements and noise concerns.
• Dust issues from the tailing’s areas, site and vents have been a constant concern for
at least the last 8-10 years for the community. The only technology that should be
being reviewed for this Mod and CCOP is dry stacking. If Regis is considering this for
McPhillamy’s Mine – why can’t Newmont?
• Having delved slightly into the documentation, it appears the sheer scale of what is
being requested re buttressing by Newmont and now with the Hydrocyclone sands
technology, much communication with the community could be viewed as
misleading. Considering the scale of deposition of Hydrocyclone sands suggested,
should this technology change for the tailings dam not be given scrutiny to the level
of CCOP?
• Does Mod 16 comply with Global Industry Standards on Tailings Management
(GISTM)?
• Has Newmont completed a Final Land Form Evolution Model yet? What are the
updated Rehabilitation plans for this Mod and beyond – those presented at CCOP are
inadequate for the community during the licence and post mine closure.

The community is receiving less and less consultation opportunities from Newmont. This is unacceptable.

The community deserves proactive communication and the opportunity to dialogue growing concerns with the company.

My concern over modification 16 is the risk of acid mine discharge associated with hydrocyclone sands. My understanding is once acid mine discharge is triggered the land is irrevocably damaged and there is no recovery. Further I am worried about the leeching of chemicals through the land impacting neighbouring properties epecially farms and waterways in particular the Belubula especially as we have been advised the fish are unsafe to eat.Indeed I find the degradation of a waterway such as the Belubula in a land where water is precious even scarce is a national tragedy. These concerns are enough for me to strongly object to Mod 16.

Mod 16 is a back door approval for a new technology, hydro cyclone sands, which will result in a significant change in the impacts of CVO on the local community. There has been no proper scrutiny of these changes.
Newmont has reduced the level of community consultation to drop in sessions only. We have not received a presentation with a Q&A session for Mod 16. These sessions are poorly attended. Nobody is comfortable turning up and being expected to know enough to ask questions one on one. There has been no proper community consultation on Mod 16.
Community consultation MUST go back to presentation and Q&A style for the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement / CCOP.
Newmont / Cadia is not entitled to claim it has consulted with the community.

I object to the proposal of constructing the largest building. the traffic near the proposed development site is terrible as it is during peak and offpeak hours. Aggression driving is typically observed.

I object the proposed development due to the cumulative impact from all of the recent developments and the local population growth trend on the following:
1) Excessive traffic congestion, especially around the Terminal Place, Merrylands Rd and Pitt St bottleneck.
2) Public transport strain. Currently trains are often at near full capacity when arriving in Merrylands from the west during peak hours.
3) Strain on local infrastructure and services. Concerns that the local infrastructure and services (e.g. emergency services, health services, schools, policing, post office, etc) are not able to keep up with the population growth and density.
4) Street parking overflow. There is a noticeably low parking space to unit ratio. Although the location is close to public transports, people often still need car if they work shifts (outside the regular 9-5) or if the workplace or the places that they need to reach is not well-serviced by public transport.
5) Future sustainability. Concern on the long term impacts if there is no existing plan & commitment to address all of the above.

I oppose :
*The inclusion of retail frontages facing McDonald Street. *the excessive parking provision in the plan.
!. Non-Compliance with Land Zoning
McDonald Street, a quiet residential cul-de-sac, is a residential-only zone unlike Macleay Street that may support mixed-use activities.
2. Impact on Residential Amenity
Placement of retail in McDonald Street would generate increased traffic, commercial deliveries, early morning and late night traffic, all of which would be incompatible with this quiet tree-lined street.
3.excessive car parking provision
60 car spaces is excessive for a development of 44 dwellings and is not supported by a performance-based assessment consistent with the State Significant Development framework. It will encourage additional traffic to the area.

Conclusion
In its current form this proposal is inconsistent with sound planning principles and the intended outcomes of the State Significant Development framework.
I request that the consent authority require these issues to be addressed through substantial amendment to the proposal

Yours sincerely
Jan Hodge
4/6 McDonald Street, Potts Point 2011

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development at 215–229 & 239 Pitt Street, Merrylands.

As a nearby resident, my primary concern is the cumulative impact of this development on local infrastructure, particularly traffic and transport capacity.

Pitt Street and surrounding roads are already experiencing significant congestion during peak periods. In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in high-density apartment developments in the Merrylands area, many comprising several hundred units each. This existing growth has already placed considerable strain on the local road network, public transport, and overall accessibility.

The proposed development will introduce a further concentration of residents, vehicles, and service movements into an already constrained system. This raises serious concerns regarding:

* Increased traffic congestion and longer travel times, particularly during peak hours
* Reduced road safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists
* Spillover traffic into local residential streets not designed for high volumes
* Difficulty for residents to safely enter and exit existing properties

Importantly, I am concerned that the Traffic and Transport Assessment for this project may not adequately account for the cumulative impact of multiple recently approved and completed developments in the surrounding area. Assessing this proposal in isolation does not reflect the current reality on the ground.

In addition to traffic impacts, there is a broader issue of infrastructure capacity. Local roads, public transport services, schools, and community facilities are already under increasing pressure due to rapid densification. Without clear, enforceable commitments to infrastructure upgrades, developments of this scale risk outpacing the area’s ability to support them.

I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

* Undertake a thorough cumulative impact assessment of all recent and proposed developments in the area
* Reassess whether the current road and transport infrastructure can support additional density at this scale
* Require meaningful infrastructure upgrades or traffic mitigation measures as a condition of approval
Without these considerations, the proposal risks significantly reducing the safety, accessibility, and liveability of the local area.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Ajeesh