Lea Wells
Object
Lea Wells
Object
Lismore
,
New South Wales
Message
I believe that the proposed increased vehicle movements will have
significant unacceptable impact on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala
Population and that the proposal will also impose unacceptable impacts
on the local traffic network and amenity of residents along the
trucking route.
significant unacceptable impact on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala
Population and that the proposal will also impose unacceptable impacts
on the local traffic network and amenity of residents along the
trucking route.
Lynette Dickinson
Object
Lynette Dickinson
Object
Pottsville
,
New South Wales
Message
TO: The NSW Department of Planning and Environment
(Attention: Director - Resource Assessments)
MODIFICATION REQUEST: Holcim Dunloe Sands Modification 2 to Project
Approval 06/-0030, Application No MP 06_0030 MOD 2, Proponent: Holcim
( Australia ) Pty Ltd, Location: Pottsville-Moobal Road, Pottsville.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION: The modification seeks to amend
consent conditions to allow an increase in the number of daily vehicle
movements in and out of the site, from 80 to 240 Monday to Friday and
40 to 120 on Saturdays.
I OBJECT to the above proposal for the following reasons:-
The proposal has not adequately addressed overall amenity impacts
associated with such an increase in peak truck movements from a
general road user and local residential amenity perspective for
dwellings adjacent to the quarry and along the haul route.
There has been no consideration of the effects of the increase in
truck movements in the context of future traffic conditions over a 10
year horizon.
The Traffic Impact Assessment should have considered background
traffic growth along the identified transport route and the cumulative
impact of planned developments in the area, including the
master-planned Dunloe Urban Development which is proposed to house
6000 people.
There has been no consideration of interaction with the traffic
generated by the Splendour in the Grass and Falls festivals.
There has been no assessment of the likely impacts on the natural
environment.
There has been no consideration of impacts on the Tweed-Brunswick
endangered koala population status.
The proposal is inconsistent with the development provisions of the
Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management.
There has been no consideration of potential impacts of additional
truck movements (koala mortality) both within the site and on
Pottsville-Moobal Road.
It is unacceptable that the Tweed Shire Council and Tweed Shire rate
payers will have to pay for road maintenance resulting from the extra
use of Council roads by the proposed increase in truck movements.
(Attention: Director - Resource Assessments)
MODIFICATION REQUEST: Holcim Dunloe Sands Modification 2 to Project
Approval 06/-0030, Application No MP 06_0030 MOD 2, Proponent: Holcim
( Australia ) Pty Ltd, Location: Pottsville-Moobal Road, Pottsville.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION: The modification seeks to amend
consent conditions to allow an increase in the number of daily vehicle
movements in and out of the site, from 80 to 240 Monday to Friday and
40 to 120 on Saturdays.
I OBJECT to the above proposal for the following reasons:-
The proposal has not adequately addressed overall amenity impacts
associated with such an increase in peak truck movements from a
general road user and local residential amenity perspective for
dwellings adjacent to the quarry and along the haul route.
There has been no consideration of the effects of the increase in
truck movements in the context of future traffic conditions over a 10
year horizon.
The Traffic Impact Assessment should have considered background
traffic growth along the identified transport route and the cumulative
impact of planned developments in the area, including the
master-planned Dunloe Urban Development which is proposed to house
6000 people.
There has been no consideration of interaction with the traffic
generated by the Splendour in the Grass and Falls festivals.
There has been no assessment of the likely impacts on the natural
environment.
There has been no consideration of impacts on the Tweed-Brunswick
endangered koala population status.
The proposal is inconsistent with the development provisions of the
Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management.
There has been no consideration of potential impacts of additional
truck movements (koala mortality) both within the site and on
Pottsville-Moobal Road.
It is unacceptable that the Tweed Shire Council and Tweed Shire rate
payers will have to pay for road maintenance resulting from the extra
use of Council roads by the proposed increase in truck movements.
Michael Lyon
Object
Michael Lyon
Object
The Pocket
,
New South Wales
Message
This proposal does not enjoy community support.
The proposed increased vehicle movements will have significant
unacceptable impacts on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala Population.
The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the local traffic
network and the amenity of residents living along the trucking route.
The proposed increased vehicle movements will have significant
unacceptable impacts on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala Population.
The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the local traffic
network and the amenity of residents living along the trucking route.
Joan Vickers
Object
Joan Vickers
Object
Toowoomba
,
Queensland
Message
The Dunloe Sand Park Quarry Mod 2 should not be permitted to proceed.
I believe that the proposed increased vehicle movements will have
significant unacceptable impact on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala
Population and that the proposal will also impose unacceptable impacts
on the local traffic network and amenity of residents along the
trucking route.
Their Environmental Assessment for flora and fauna is limited to the
following statement:
"The proposed modification will not involve any construction or
demolition works, therefore there will be no impacts to flora and
fauna as a result of the proposed modification. Existing flora and
fauna measures will continue to be employed to mitigate any potential
impacts. No additional assessment or mitigation is required."
Where is their evidence for thier implied claim that only construction
and demolition works impact endangered koalas? I believe that
increased noise and traffic will adversely affect them.
The dwindling koala population in this area should not be exposed to
this additional noise, general commotion, stress, and danger of being
hit by a truck on the road.
I believe that the proposed increased vehicle movements will have
significant unacceptable impact on the endangered Tweed Coast Koala
Population and that the proposal will also impose unacceptable impacts
on the local traffic network and amenity of residents along the
trucking route.
Their Environmental Assessment for flora and fauna is limited to the
following statement:
"The proposed modification will not involve any construction or
demolition works, therefore there will be no impacts to flora and
fauna as a result of the proposed modification. Existing flora and
fauna measures will continue to be employed to mitigate any potential
impacts. No additional assessment or mitigation is required."
Where is their evidence for thier implied claim that only construction
and demolition works impact endangered koalas? I believe that
increased noise and traffic will adversely affect them.
The dwindling koala population in this area should not be exposed to
this additional noise, general commotion, stress, and danger of being
hit by a truck on the road.
Not Provided
Object
Not Provided
Object
,
Message
Dear Mr Freeman,
RE: P 07_0087 EXTENSION OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL AREA FOR OUT-OF-PIT OVERBURDEN EMPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION, ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROAD AND POWERLINE RELOCATION
I am writing to object to this modification currently on exhibition. My reasons for objecting centre around the misrepresentation of the level of consultation with the local community. I particularly object to the inference that I have been made aware of the modifications via the Bloomfield Consultative Committee and have raised no objection to the further impacts about to be foist on my local community:
 The Director-General?s Requirements include the need to consult with ?community groups or affected landowners?. The only community consultation appears to be via the Bloomfield Community Consultative Committee, of which I am a member, together with two other community representatives. The minutes of the meeting from 3.5.10 record ?KH advised that a variation (Section 75W) would be submitted in the next month to cover some minor changes to the design of spoil placement and rehabilitation, upgrade of an existing road to allow coal haulage and the realignment of a powerline. The modification will allow improvements to some areas that were rehabilitated over 20 years ago so they meet current criteria in terms of slope and final landform.? The discussion lasted approx 5 mins and made no reference to the Air Quality Assessment, the Noise Impact Assessment or the Biodiversity Assessment or the visual impact of the modifications.
 In October, I happened to see the ad in a local paper notifying the Modification was on exhibition. I asked Keren Halliday from Bloomfield for a hard copy, which she delivered the next day ? 14.10.10. I believe that members of the Community Consultative Committee should have been issued with a hard copy of any material on exhibition at the START of the exhibition period. Our presence on the Committee surely demonstrates our interest in the impact of the mine on our communities. Prior to appointment, we were asked to demonstrate our links to the community, to facilitate dissemination of information. Surely when modifications to consents are being made, we should be given ready access to information to consult with our community?
 The Black Hill Environment Protection Group has been in existence for approx 28 years and has reviewed most development proposals and planning policies for our area in that time. I believe that community groups such as the Black Hill Environment Protection Group should have been consulted by Bloomfield DURING the preparation of the Modification Application, as per the Director General?s Requirements.
In the limited time available to review the Modification Application, I note the following concerns:
 The relocation of the power line requires the removal of an additional 10 hectares of native vegetation, including 7 Ha of LHSGIF EEC to ?enable the infrastructure to connect the power supply to site equipment, namely transformers, earth leakage grids and cables?. This seems to be excessive clearing when the infrastructure referred to is not even apparent on Fig 2 Overview of Mine Area and Activities.
 Table 9 in Section 6.1.4 shows noise levels for various heights of the dump in area B. Figures are shown for heights from 75m to 100m. These heights seem inconsistent with the original topography. The ?mountain? that has been built along the southern boundary has been a cause for complaint from locals objecting to the loss of visual amenity and the fact that these high dumps allow more carryover of dust on windy days. The height also allows noise to travel more readily to residential receptors to the south, as evidenced by the exceedences predicted at Residence M on John Renshaw Drive. Exceedences at Browns Rd and Black Hill Rd are also predicted once the height exceeds 84m. Are these heights really necessary? The application includes Photograph 6 View towards Bloomfield Mine site from Tipperary Drive, Ashtonfield. I wonder if they are aware that the overburden dumps are visible on the horizon from Neath hill, a distance of some 17km away?
 The Modification Application states in section 6.2.1 Existing Rehabilitation and Final Landform Strategies ?Overburden dumps will be reshaped with a maximum slope of 18 degrees.? Again, this topic has come up in the Consultative Committee meetings, where LM advised the area in question has been tree seeded and is at the final height. The slope of the final landform has been designed at10 degrees. It was noted that historically up to 18 degrees had occurred but current approach limited to 10 degrees. The community wants a final landform that is similar to their original view, not something that will look like an overburden dump forever, incapable of rehabilitation due to erosion on too-steep slopes.
 Section 6.6 Noise suggests that in the South-Eastern area (Area E) noise mitigation measures will include Dumping and rehabilitation during the daytime period only (7.00am to 6pm Mondays to Saturdays, 8am to 6pm Sundays).As ?Operational noise levels for Area E are predicted to exceed Approval criteria at locations E, F and M during the daytime period?, surely this operation could be limited to the daytime period during Monday to Friday, when fewer people are home? Bloomfield?s mining operations normally occur Monday to Friday, so why seek permission to perform an operation that exceeds your approval conditions on days when you don?t normally operate??
 Figures 8-10 in the Air Quality Assessment, looking at the impact of Bloomfield Colliery and other sources all show a ?hotspot? of increased concentrations inside the Donaldson boundary to the north-east of residence F. While the concentrations at residence F do not exceed the impact assessment criteria, one can?t help but wonder whether they are exceeded over 25% of that privately owned land on which residence F sits ( as required by Consent condition 15)? It is also unclear to me what emissions and values have been included in the cumulative assessment, as the letter from PAEHolmes says ?Emissions from these common facilities have only been included in the cumulative assessment. It was assumed that annual average concentrations due to emissions from distant mines and other sources, including the shared CHPP are?These data are consistent with values used in recent assessments?.
While I applaud some aspects of Bloomfield?s Modification Application ie a desire to properly rehabilitate areas not done properly before and the reduction in fuel use by shortening haul routes, I urge Planning to ensure that these aims are not at the expense of the environment and surrounding community. I also urge Planning to further clarify with Bloomfield (and other miners) the need for genuine consultation with the community within which it operates.
Yours faithfully,
Janet Murray
25 Old Buttai Rd,
Buttai
Name: Janet Murray
Address:
25 Old Buttai Rd,
Buttai.2323.
IP Address: - 59.154.42.231
Submission for Job: #3662 Bloomfield Coal Project - Mod 1
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=3662
Site: #905 Bloomfield Coal Project
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=905
RE: P 07_0087 EXTENSION OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL AREA FOR OUT-OF-PIT OVERBURDEN EMPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION, ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROAD AND POWERLINE RELOCATION
I am writing to object to this modification currently on exhibition. My reasons for objecting centre around the misrepresentation of the level of consultation with the local community. I particularly object to the inference that I have been made aware of the modifications via the Bloomfield Consultative Committee and have raised no objection to the further impacts about to be foist on my local community:
 The Director-General?s Requirements include the need to consult with ?community groups or affected landowners?. The only community consultation appears to be via the Bloomfield Community Consultative Committee, of which I am a member, together with two other community representatives. The minutes of the meeting from 3.5.10 record ?KH advised that a variation (Section 75W) would be submitted in the next month to cover some minor changes to the design of spoil placement and rehabilitation, upgrade of an existing road to allow coal haulage and the realignment of a powerline. The modification will allow improvements to some areas that were rehabilitated over 20 years ago so they meet current criteria in terms of slope and final landform.? The discussion lasted approx 5 mins and made no reference to the Air Quality Assessment, the Noise Impact Assessment or the Biodiversity Assessment or the visual impact of the modifications.
 In October, I happened to see the ad in a local paper notifying the Modification was on exhibition. I asked Keren Halliday from Bloomfield for a hard copy, which she delivered the next day ? 14.10.10. I believe that members of the Community Consultative Committee should have been issued with a hard copy of any material on exhibition at the START of the exhibition period. Our presence on the Committee surely demonstrates our interest in the impact of the mine on our communities. Prior to appointment, we were asked to demonstrate our links to the community, to facilitate dissemination of information. Surely when modifications to consents are being made, we should be given ready access to information to consult with our community?
 The Black Hill Environment Protection Group has been in existence for approx 28 years and has reviewed most development proposals and planning policies for our area in that time. I believe that community groups such as the Black Hill Environment Protection Group should have been consulted by Bloomfield DURING the preparation of the Modification Application, as per the Director General?s Requirements.
In the limited time available to review the Modification Application, I note the following concerns:
 The relocation of the power line requires the removal of an additional 10 hectares of native vegetation, including 7 Ha of LHSGIF EEC to ?enable the infrastructure to connect the power supply to site equipment, namely transformers, earth leakage grids and cables?. This seems to be excessive clearing when the infrastructure referred to is not even apparent on Fig 2 Overview of Mine Area and Activities.
 Table 9 in Section 6.1.4 shows noise levels for various heights of the dump in area B. Figures are shown for heights from 75m to 100m. These heights seem inconsistent with the original topography. The ?mountain? that has been built along the southern boundary has been a cause for complaint from locals objecting to the loss of visual amenity and the fact that these high dumps allow more carryover of dust on windy days. The height also allows noise to travel more readily to residential receptors to the south, as evidenced by the exceedences predicted at Residence M on John Renshaw Drive. Exceedences at Browns Rd and Black Hill Rd are also predicted once the height exceeds 84m. Are these heights really necessary? The application includes Photograph 6 View towards Bloomfield Mine site from Tipperary Drive, Ashtonfield. I wonder if they are aware that the overburden dumps are visible on the horizon from Neath hill, a distance of some 17km away?
 The Modification Application states in section 6.2.1 Existing Rehabilitation and Final Landform Strategies ?Overburden dumps will be reshaped with a maximum slope of 18 degrees.? Again, this topic has come up in the Consultative Committee meetings, where LM advised the area in question has been tree seeded and is at the final height. The slope of the final landform has been designed at10 degrees. It was noted that historically up to 18 degrees had occurred but current approach limited to 10 degrees. The community wants a final landform that is similar to their original view, not something that will look like an overburden dump forever, incapable of rehabilitation due to erosion on too-steep slopes.
 Section 6.6 Noise suggests that in the South-Eastern area (Area E) noise mitigation measures will include Dumping and rehabilitation during the daytime period only (7.00am to 6pm Mondays to Saturdays, 8am to 6pm Sundays).As ?Operational noise levels for Area E are predicted to exceed Approval criteria at locations E, F and M during the daytime period?, surely this operation could be limited to the daytime period during Monday to Friday, when fewer people are home? Bloomfield?s mining operations normally occur Monday to Friday, so why seek permission to perform an operation that exceeds your approval conditions on days when you don?t normally operate??
 Figures 8-10 in the Air Quality Assessment, looking at the impact of Bloomfield Colliery and other sources all show a ?hotspot? of increased concentrations inside the Donaldson boundary to the north-east of residence F. While the concentrations at residence F do not exceed the impact assessment criteria, one can?t help but wonder whether they are exceeded over 25% of that privately owned land on which residence F sits ( as required by Consent condition 15)? It is also unclear to me what emissions and values have been included in the cumulative assessment, as the letter from PAEHolmes says ?Emissions from these common facilities have only been included in the cumulative assessment. It was assumed that annual average concentrations due to emissions from distant mines and other sources, including the shared CHPP are?These data are consistent with values used in recent assessments?.
While I applaud some aspects of Bloomfield?s Modification Application ie a desire to properly rehabilitate areas not done properly before and the reduction in fuel use by shortening haul routes, I urge Planning to ensure that these aims are not at the expense of the environment and surrounding community. I also urge Planning to further clarify with Bloomfield (and other miners) the need for genuine consultation with the community within which it operates.
Yours faithfully,
Janet Murray
25 Old Buttai Rd,
Buttai
Name: Janet Murray
Address:
25 Old Buttai Rd,
Buttai.2323.
IP Address: - 59.154.42.231
Submission for Job: #3662 Bloomfield Coal Project - Mod 1
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=3662
Site: #905 Bloomfield Coal Project
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=905
Comment
Comment
Bathurst
,
New South Wales
Message
see attached
Attachments
Comment
Comment
Sydney
,
New South Wales
Message
see attached
Attachments
Comment
Comment
Parramatta
,
New South Wales
Message
see attached