I object to the BHQ EIS in it's current format.

Whilst my household is not directly effected by the proposal I utilize the roads proposed to be used in this development, I live in the general locality of the proposal and I have close friends (on Brandy Hill Dr) who are currently impacted and will be further impacted by the proposal.

I object to the proposal on the following grounds;

1. the road network proposed to be utilized for the expansion of BHQ includes local gov roads (local roads and subarterial roads) that have not be designed or constructed for the proposed magnitude of heavy haulage. No assessment has been made as to the current pavement adequacy for the proposed increase in heavy haulage. The current brandy hill drive pavement is deteriorating rapidly and is completely inadequate for the proposed expansion

2. Night time transport of product proposed is absolutely ludicrous, the community and neighborhood through which trucks are proposed to travel is a rural residential community whose amenity is built around nature and rural tranquility particularity in evenings and night time when background noise is made up of inspects and wildlife only (NOT TRUCKS and TRAFFIC).

3. relying on a 1980's consent that is reliant on the fact that the consent is silent on operating hours and therefore provides an enduring right to the proponent to commence/continue night time transport or operations is miss leading. The facility does not currently export at night.

4. The current condition of road pavement where surface pot holes and surface types change and transition contributes significantly to noise from empty quarry trucks. The Noise Impact Assessment incorrectly asserts that compliance with the RNP. The RNP is based upon continuous traffic stream noise models and does not allow or account for the instantaneous noise that occurs from empty quarry trucks hitting pot holes and pavement transitions nor does the RNP account for engine noise and engine breaking noise from heavy vehilces which is a significant "real" contributor to noise distrubance of heavy vehilces. The actual impacts from night time transport will be far greater than is "construed" in the proponents EIS.

5. there has been no real assessment on impacts to amenity within the EIS aside from dust and noise. Amenity is in fact a subjective term and means different things to different people, in the context of BHQ the communities amenity means pleasant rural environments and serenity. No assessment as to the impacts on amenity have been made in the EIS. Why should the local community "pay" for loss of amenity for the commercial "gain" of a business. It is this business who has chosen to exploit a resource 10 to 20km away from arterial transport infrastructure, if the resource is so important to their business and the state then the proponent should be required to make sincere commitments to improve infrastructure (including roads) to get the resource to market.

6. no assessment has been as to the feasibility of rail transport or dedicated new haul roads of product form the site to eliminate the need to utilize local roads

7. no assessment has been made as to feasibility of constructing a new haulage road/bypass that eliminates the need for heavy vehicles to travel along brandy hill drive. An obvious solution is to construct a a heavy vehilce bypass through Lot 1,2 & 3 of DP822187 (refer attachment)

8. the Seaham, Brandy Hill Dr, BHQ entrance intersection is completely inadequate and is not compliant with ausroad standards now let alone with a proposed increase of truck use age. It is common knowledge (as shown by the position of the BHQ stop sign at the quarry entrance, that trucks have to take a "run up" to cross the intersection to avoid 100km/hr traffic travelling East/West.

9. No assessment has been made of the haulage route currently used by BHQ heavy haulage traffic through Woodville, Largs, Flat Road and Lorn. Noting that this route requires the use of a one-way heritage listed bridge at Woodville

10. no real assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of BHQ and Martins Creek Quarry peak traffic impacts. The worst case scenario should be assessed i.e. peak transport form MCQ and BHQ via Raymond Terrace.

My submission objecting to the scale of the proposal is attached.

Refer attached