I object as per the attached file attachment.

Ardmore Park Quarry Modification MP 07_Mod 3 PA 07_0155 Proposes
We only received this letter of Notification a few days ago and note
dated 21st February 2018
And wish to express concern about the lack of time to respond to the
above modification.

We have 2 properties on 4018 Oallen Ford Road, and 3814 Oallen Ford
Road Windellama 2580 and also commute on a regular basis to Wollongong
and have been doing so over the past 15 years.

Safety
Jerrara Rd, even with its planned improvements, is still only a basic
connecting country road, not designed for excessive truck movements,
with increased movements and weight limits the road condition will
deteriorate rapidly, who will be responsible for its upkeep? The
shoulders will still be rough and broken, accidents will happen.
The roadworks being undertaken on Jerrara Road has been spasmodic all
along the Road between Marulan and Bungonia, without little or no
notification of the stages of future works that are to be undertaken
in sections. The illuminated signs are inconsistent to the length of
road work being undertaken.
Major Road Works Signs about the stages of proposed works at both end
of Jerrara Road are non-existent.
Most major roads works projects have permanent signage to inform the
general public of the stages of works and the persons who has endorsed
/directed / funded and time frame for the major works conducted.
Is NSW Government subsidising the Multiquip Company? If so this should
also be disclosed.
Who is the engineering company contracted for the road works and where
is their name displayed professionally?
The people working on the site are often clearly not seen with the
colour clothing they wear. We express concerns for their own safety.

Extraction and further mining.
The company has not provided current sufficient information to the
general public, about the environmental impact.
An up to date drone aerial photo view would at least outline the
precise boundaries of the site’s progression, and display ongoing
impingement to the environment should at least be provided to
neighbouring properties and provide open disclosure to the general
public.
Ground water issues are still a major concern as flows on some
adjoining properties have significantly reduced over recent years.
These properties have operated for over a hundred years relying on
ground water flows and may become unviable if these flows reduce
further, where does this leave the property owners?
Noise and environmental pollution from product and transportation
should be further addressed. The owner does not appear to live
onsite, which means only those living on neighbouring properties will
be greatly affected.
Increased truck movements
Due to increased production will rip up the road, compromising safety
to the general public leaving continual road works to be undertaken.
Who benefits from unsafe roads?
Operational Bitumen pre- coating Plant on the Quarry Site
There is insufficient information provided about how this will be
undertaken. Again where is the professional requirement and conditions
to the amenity of the land and environment?
Is Ardmore Park proposing a factory site for bitumen production?
Risks Hazzard Pollution, Toxins and Fire.

Extending the life of the Quarry
This mean more traffic movements. Safety is compromised to the
general public and community..
What does the term Excavated Natural Mineral as back fill material
mean ? Insufficient information given professionally to the general
public and community. Does this also involve excess truck movements on
the public road?
Extending the life of the Quarry by 8 years
Extended road safety concerns.

What does the term Performance Based Scheme Trucks mean?
No information provided. More truck movements?.....

We object to the proposal of Ardmore Park Quarry Modification MP
07_Mod 3 PA 07_0155 Proposes.

My brothers and I have been training racehorse at Randwick for the past
50 years with the intention of breeding horses and spelling our horse
there so if you allow the quarry to go ahead my farm would be useless
knowing that there would be truck flying up and down jerrara road all
day as our horses would be in the price of $100.000 dollars plus ..
the road is that narrow that there has been roughly about 7 Deaths on
jerrara road secondly what about health issues with people like myself
that suffer from asthma little alone the elderly people that have
health issues Having 40 ton truck flying up and down jerrara road will
only cause my death as these truck drivers don't care To allow this
Quarry to run its trucks up and down jerrara road would be a bad
mistake clearly 1 being the health of every person that lives in
jerrara road 2 the road is not wide enough it will be very dangerous
for residents leaving there home and returning home knowing there will
be trucks speeding up to 80k hour little alone the wild life that will
be killed because of these trucks do you really believe a truck driver
would stop and help the injured wild life No 3 is the Quarry going to
help pay for the cleaning of owners houses because of all the Dust
little alone the dust which will land in the dams which we rely on for
our horses to drink from plus the water from the dams we use to wash
ourselves and our clothing 4 This Quarry must not be approved for
health reasons to residents life’s also our wildlife these are the
Questions that need to be answered is the Quarry willing to pay land
owners companstion for lost of value to there land I also believe
speed cameras should be in stored at the Quarry expense so when one of
the land owners are killed the Quarry can be held responsible And I
believe you Mr Herbert should be asking the NSW police for there
advice and the health minister advice about health issues to the land
owners And the roads authorities to investigate weather the road would
be safe enough for the residents of jerrara road

We, Dean & Anne MIreylees appose the modified application as follows *
The extension to transport hours, we do not want to hear trucks going
past our farm at 0500hrs every day of the week or so late at night
till 2200hrs. In a normal town setting no lawn mowers are to start
till 0800 and everything to stop at 2000hrs. We are very concerned
about the proposed 0500hrs on the Saturday due to the increased
traffic of our area without trucks being added to the equation. we
chose to live here in Bungonia on our little farm for the quiet life,
we moved away from the urban dwelling for that reason. * we have a
concern regarding the larger trucks have the current upgrade of the
roads accomodated these larger size( width) and increase in capacity
(weight) *we feel that the addition of a bitumen pre-coating plant at
the quarry doesn't support the locals who already have this business
up and running in Goulburn. they should be supporting local business
and those who have jobs there. we are sure that this addition to the
quarry would mean more truck movements that don't come under any
proposal. * we don't want an increase in the number of truck movements
per day. this is a substantial increase from 88 up[ to 124 movements
per day. it is our understanding that these bigger better more
improved trucks carry a larger load than the previously proposed
trucks. these new trucks carry 53tonne as apposed to the previous
trucks capacity of 33tonnes . therefore we don't understand why he
needs to increase the hours or the truck movements( my wife had a
visit from Mick Rogers the company liaison coincidently after making
comments on facebook about the quarry - talking with locals. in the
middle of the day he found out who we were and where we lived invading
our privacy to tell us if we have an issues about the quarry to call
him. he informed my wife that there wouldn't be 124 truck movements
every day only 88 if the weather was fine but if there was some rainy
days then they would have to make up their loses on the subsequent
days.- so if we have say a week of rain then the next week they will
have 124 truck movements every day thereafter till they reach their
quota ?? So that could mean a whole week or more of 124 truck
movements everyday. * also we don't understand what the 'amending the
wording of several administrative conditions ' means or how it will
affect us on our farm. in closing we moved onto our farm for the quiet
life of living off the land to raise our children amongst farm animals
and the beautiful wildlife of the Bungonia area. we didn't buy our
farm so that we could listen toe 124 trucks going past our property
daily. lifestyle farm not truck haul route.

I have just returned after several weeks away, and therefore have not had
a chance to thoroughly go into this whole Modification Request Ardmore
Park Quarry. Application No. MP 07_0155 MOD 3, so therefore will be
only able to respond to the obvious parts that immediately hit me as
potential problems. (1) Obviously, the water table under the ground
that all surrounding properties rely on for their stock and their own
crop growing. The massive amount of this water being used by the
quarry, specially if increased loads rise another 1/3rd more than
current rate. (2) The longer hours of operation - 17 hrs (5am to 10pm)
M-F and 5am to 5 pm sat. ... all sound is magnified in quiet rural
areas, specially in early morning hours and after 7pm. The increased
volume of Traffic from Sydney, etc, going to the coast, and weekend
visitors who come through Bungonia any time from around 3pm to
midnight will not be expecting large dog and trailer trucks at 5am,
nor after 8pm at night on unlit country roads. (3) The increased
volume of trucks, from 88 movements per day to 124 movements. Equates
to more than 7 each hour and carrying 50 tonnes instead of original 30
Tonnes. They will be coming back fully laden with backfill and stock
piled (3) The quarry wants to mine another 180,000 Tonnes, over the
current allowance, and also extend the life of the quarry over another
8 yrs. (4) A big issue will also be the haul route on Jerrara Road.
The new widening, and resurfacing, is breaking down already, as is
evident in several placees. The thin layer of Ashphalt is going to be
worthless in a couple of months. That road needs strong , thick
bitumen edge to edge, to support larger trucks. The surfacing being
done right now, definitety is not going to last.

As a young family living on Jerrara Road we strongly oppose the proposed
modification to PA 07_0155. In particular, we object the proposal to
increase the annual production limit from 400,000tpa to 580,000tpa
(and the associated increase in tuck loads to 50.3t per load) as well
as, the increase in hours of operation for product loading and
transportation (from 5am to 10pm on Monday to Friday and 5am to 5pm on
Saturday). As residents with driveway access onto Jerrara Road and
regular users of Jerrara Road, we are already very concerned by the
number of trucks that travel along Jerrara Road(currently 88 truck
movements per day) as well as the times during the day when the trucks
travel along Jerrara Road (with 56 `approved quarry heavy' trucks
currently travelling along Jerrara Road during school bus hours).
These concerns, as well as the condition of Jerrara Road (which
remains substandard despite the ongoing roadworks to widen the road)
deterred us from enrolling our school age child at Marulan Public
School (our closest school and the school we are zoned to) as we
didn't want our children travelling on Jerrara Road twice a day. Now
that there are the proposed modifications to increase the truck
movements to 124 per day, increase the vehicle size to 25.3 metres and
increase the hours of operation - makes us extremely worried for the
safety of our family on Jerrara Road and we already avoid using
Jerrara Road as much as possible - preferring to travel a longer
distance (via Mountain Ash Road to Goulburn) to avoid sharing the road
with such a number of large trucks. Based on these concerns for the
safety of our family on Jerrara Road, we strongly oppose the proposed
modification to PA 07_0155 particularly until the road is widened and
meets council regulations. Given the current state of Jerrara Road and
stipulations that the road be completed by March 2018, Jerrara Road is
simply not up to standard to support an increase in the number of
truck movements, an increase in the size of the trucks and to have
trucks travelling in the dark from 5am to 10pm. We are extremely
concerned local residents and hope the concerns for the safety of our
family travelling on Jerrara Road - and those of other drivers on the
road - are taken seriously into consideration.

We live in a rural residential area. My kids go to sleep at 8:30 to go to
school. It will be very hard on them to sleep with trucks still going
up and down the street till 10:30 and starting again at 5:30. There is
not enough water supply long term in the area for farmers like
ourselves let along to run a quarry. The extra production they want
there is no longevity with water supply or the roads. We live in a
rural eviromentally protected area not a industrial area or the city.

Good morning. Thanks for the extension of time, it's allowed us to read
more about the hydrology report on Ardmore Park quarry, and to express
our dismay at the proposal to increase groundwater extraction by 100%.
Firstly, I note on page 45 there is a reference to a recent approval
under a state government "controlled allocation order " of 100ml. Is
this in addition to the 100ml approved originally, and what was the
procedure for this approval.. was it sought by the proponent or
arbitrarily granted by the state government with no consultation with
surrounding landowners? This would make a mockery of the water
management act 2000, and as we've just received a statement of
approval from that department, it proves that they're aware of
surrounding bores close to the quarry. It is noted in the Cook report
that the local aquifers are primarily recharged by rainfall.. this
area is often (currently) affected by low to non existent rainfall and
with climate change will become more unreliable. It's also noted on
page 44 by the proponent's own consultant, that there is a potential
for the water extraction by the quarry bores to lower the water tables
in the basalt aquifer. This would result in failure of the bores on
surrounding properties, as the bores on the quarry are significantly
deeper than the domestic bores along inverary rd. We are only 1km from
the quarry as the crow flies and there has been NO efforts by the
proponent to contact us, via mail or roadside letterboxing, to
enlighten us on his plan for a vast expansion of usage of a scarce
resource. We all feel that this has been a deliberate plan of
exclusion of those most likely to be adversely affected by the
quarry's proposed expansion. Given the admission by the consultant
that the water table will be likely impacted adversely, and the very
sketchy details available on repercussions for the proponent for
impacts caused by his quarry, it appears that the onus will be on
local landowners to engage and fund their own research to establish
the role of the quarry in the loss of an essential element for
production and livestock watering. This would be beyond the scope of a
common farmer, and would be most unfair to not have government funding
available to assist those losing their livelihoods due to bore
failure. We have a bore commissioned in 2004 at a common level of
about 80 metres.. it's been producing a reliable 24hr ( when required)
supply of 1000 litres per hour, and the livestock on the property rely
on this water as the dams often dry up or fall too low and become
dangerous for stock. Should this rate fall ( if this allocation is
taken in ful by the quarry) it will be because of the excessive water
extraction by the quarry, provable because of the reliability and
consistency of our flows for 14 years. It's noted that the proponent
has only installed test bores to the south and west of his property;
there is no certainty where the aquifers cross/conjoin or interact,
and this was revealed in the original DA in 2009. Why has there been
no test bore to the north or west in this case? We can only conclude
that the proponent is aware that there could be possible adverse
effects from his water extraction and is unwilling to examine the
potential for interference with our bores. I know that the aquifer
interference legislation should deal with this but I'm getting a
feeling that the legislation may require landowners to do the work of
identifying problems before they get involved. That's completely
unsuitable. In closing, I'd make the strong point that if there's ANY
doubt about the increasing extraction and impacts on others in the
area, then this increase must be refused on public interest/social
impacts growth kinds. It's no ones fault that the proponent has
commenced a project which is unviable under the original terms of
approval; it's not anyone's fault that they need to value-add and
increase production to be viable; and it's grossly unfair to
constantly subject us to these proposals which have zero benefit to
the community adversely affected by the operations. The proponent, if
successful, will continue to apply to extend/add industries (concrete
batching) if allowed to proceed with this modification. Please refuse
it.

We have an olive plantation and Oil extraction plant and heavily rely on
our bore water to irrigate our 10,000 approx, olive trees. The
proximity of the mine and the additional water allocation is of grave
concern to us. Also of concern are the amount of trucks on the roads
due to the mine. Despite being made slightly wider in the past year/s
the road is still to narrow for the amount of truck movements. It is
only a matter of time before a serious incident occurs.