I am writing to formally object to the proposed quarry development. As a resident living in close proximity to the proposed site, I have significant concerns about the impact this project will have on the health, safety, environment, and overall wellbeing of our community.

1. Noise and Dust Pollution
The operation of heavy machinery, blasting, and truck movements will generate constant noise and dust. These impacts will significantly reduce the quality of life for residents and pose health risks, particularly to children, the elderly, and people with respiratory conditions.

2. Air Quality and Health Risks
Dust emissions from quarrying activities and increased truck traffic are well documented to worsen respiratory illnesses such as asthma. Prolonged exposure poses unacceptable risks to community health.

3. Traffic and Safety Concerns
A quarry of this size would bring a substantial increase in heavy vehicle movements on local roads that are not designed to support such traffic. This raises concerns about road safety, congestion, and the long-term damage to local infrastructure.

4. Property Values and Community Amenity
The presence of a quarry will inevitably reduce nearby property values. The industrialisation of the area will also diminish the amenity of the local community and permanently change the character of the landscape.

5. Environmental Damage
The quarry will disrupt local ecosystems, destroy wildlife habitats, and may have long-term consequences for soil stability and water resources. The environmental costs are far greater than any proposed short-term benefits.

6. Blasting and Structural Risks
Blasting activities will cause vibrations that may damage nearby homes and water tanks. This also creates stress and anxiety for residents, especially when events are unpredictable.

7. Long-Term Impacts
Approving this quarry will set a precedent for further industrial developments, resulting in ongoing environmental degradation and further loss of community amenity.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the approval of this quarry development. I urge the Council and planning authorities to protect the health, safety, and wellbeing of the community by rejecting this application.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I will be copying my submission to my local Government members for Eden-Monaro (Kirsty McBain and Steve Whan)
I cannot see how the Minister (the Hon. Paul Scully) could approve this proposal. It certainly will not be in the name of community interest. I have not spoken to, or know of a single neighbour who agrees with this proposal, bar one. The neighbour I hear that supports the proposal has an interest and stands to benefit from the “in-principal agreement” to traverse his land to access the Monaro Highway from the quarry. Even then, he said there is nothing in writing.
The Monaro Highway is already extremely busy, particularly during ski season. I note that the traffic study in the submission admits to been very limited. This is the primary southern access road to the A.C.T. and many people have died due to traffic accidents on the stretch of road the quarry is proposing to use. It backs up for kilometres as traffic tries to navigate the single lane roundabout near Calwell in the A.C.T. It has blind corners, and the traffic build up entering the A.C.T. requires heavy braking to avoid a collision. It has been discussed on the local NEWS as being an accident black spot. I fear that fully loaded quarry trucks will cause more deaths on this stretch of road.
Put yourself in the shoes of the people who live in this area. Who in their right mind would want a quarry, concrete processing and road recycling plant as their neighbour? Particularly one of this huge size. It makes me think that there is something untoward happening with this proposal and why it has been deemed a State Significant Project.
There are already numerous quarries in the area, none of which are running out of material or are running at anywhere near capacity (the Cooma Road Quarry; Mugga Quarry; Williamsdale Quarry). This proposal seems to be driven by greed and a desire to control a resource that is readily available elsewhere.
The EPA ACT (section 1.3) was established “to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources”. How can the EPA ACT be ignored as suggested in the proposal? To then wipe out the Ghost Gums and other fantastic flora on Enchanted Hill is tantamount to criminal. A quarry certainly doesn’t benefit the large local community.
All of the people who reside in this neighbourhood chose to do so because the area is zoned rural residential and was advertised as "lifestyle blocks of land". This proposal destroys all of that.
Personally, I go to a lot of trouble and expense to look after the native flora and fauna on our block, how can someone propose to just wipe out hectares of it for greed?
Our family had friends that lived near Williamsdale Quarry. Their house and land value was comparatively far less than ours, mostly due to the quarry. It that area, it is well known that you can’t hang your washing on the line when the wind blows in your direction from the quarry. You have to filter your drinking water (collected from you roof in our area). The electricity “brown-outs” occur when the quarry starts it’s large crusher causing some sensitive appliances to fail.
If this proposal is accepted, I will pursue legal advice seeking compensation to the major change to our neighbourhood and lifestyle.

I am a current resident of Royalla for the past 15 years. Royalla Quarry must be stopped in my opinion for many reasons. I have 4 children, all living here. 2 hold current licences and 2 upcoming in the next year years. I am extremely worried on the current road conditions and if the quarry goes ahead, I cannot express enough how extremely dangerous these roads will become.

https://region.com.au/canberras-most-dangerous-roads-insurance-data-reveals-the-capitals-car-crash-hotspots/701838/

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=22a81b728edc7d18c960200837ec3aaeefb040a964c30781c1d68400d1516bf0JmltdHM9MTc1ODA2NzIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0974ac07-2d98-62b2-3e1c-ba0e2c5e633d&u=a1L2ltYWdlcy9zZWFyY2g_cT1kYW5nZXJvdXMrbW9uYXJvK2hpZ2h3YXkmcXB2dD1kYW5nZXJvdXMrbW9uYXJvK2hpZ2h3YXkmRk9STT1JR1JF

Monaro Highway and Old Cooma Road are in the highest crash incidents area roads in Australia. If you add more heavy trucks and traffic, these roads will become extremely dangerous with fatalities to come.
How can such a negative impact project go ahead when I do not know one resident that supports this. Hold a public hearing to see what residents think?
As for the silica dust - 2 daughters and myself suffer from asthma. This will affect us short and long term. Health wise and money.
Our costs will increase with rates (to repair roads), cleaning costs for house dust and water tank filters, medical costs etc.
I 100% do not support this project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

I live within 3 kilometres from the proposed quarry. I object to this development as this will compromise my air quality and increase environmental noise and be a detriment to the surrounding flora and fauna. This will not only affect me, but my surrounding community as well. I strongly object to this development.

As an ACT resident who lives close to this project and a frequent user of the Monaro Hwy and the Old Cooma Road, I have a number of concerns.

The Monaro Highway Damage.
The substantial increase of heavy trucks on the Highway will have a very detrimental impact on the road. The highway already shows significant degradation with numerous potholes and subsidences to the road shoulders along the stretch from the Old Cooma Road to the Calwell roundabout.
The number of heavy vehicles from the proposed quarry will hasten and increase damages along the this stretch of the highway.
How will the ACT and NSW Governments address the increased damages caused.

Monaro Highway road Safety
It is proposed that the heavily load trucks from the quarry will enter the Monaro Highway from either the Old Cooma Road or just north from the Old Cooma Road. This section of the highway is a single carriageway in either direction with a 100 km speed limit.
The increasing number of heavily laden trucks trying to enter the Monaro Highway will pose a very high traffic accident risk.
What traffic management plans or upgrades to the Monaro Highway will be undertaken to reduce the risk?

The Old Cooma Road Damage.
The substantial increase of heavy trucks on the road will have a very detrimental impact on the road. The road at present caters for passenger vehicles and minimal trucks. When there have been numerous heavy trucks using the road substantial damages have been caused requiring major repairs. The current road will not be able to handle the substantial increase in heavily loaded trucks.
What and how will the NSW Government manage the repairs and upgrades that will be required?

Dust and Noise
The quarry will be due east of a number for the ACT’s suburbs that have been in place for well over 30 years.
These suburbs will now be exposed to the dust and noise from this quarry.

That this project is proposed to be located so close to south Canberra suburbs is outrageous. The south of Canberra is already home an industrial estate and Canberra's Waste Management Centre. The air quality in the Tuggeranong Valley in particular is already poor due to the topography of the valley with Monaro hills to the east and the Brindabellas to the west. This was heavily emphasised during the 2019/20 bushfire season when smoke from the south coast hung in the valley for weeks.
Additionally, the monaro highway is one of the most dangerous roads in Canberra and surrounds due to the limited access roads to the south and already heavy use of commercial vehicles.
Between the extremely concerning effect on the air quality to those in the Tuggeranong Valley, and the increased risk to road users with such a substantial increase in heavy vehicles, the location for this project is completely unacceptable.

This project will deliver significant benefits to the construction industry across NSW and also the ACT. Existing hard-rock quarries in the region are becoming increasingly constrained by both capacity and the quality of materials produced—issues that will intensify as the industry transitions to more sustainable materials such as concrete.
One of the most critical advantages of the Monaro Rock Quarry is its ability to address the local industry problem of alkaline aggregate reaction (AAR) in concrete. AAR can cause concrete seriously to deteriorate, resulting in defective structures. For this reason, TfNSW prohibits the use of rock with AAR unless strict approvals and controls are in place. The industry’s current method of controlling AAR relies on the addition of fly ash to concrete mixes. However, the availability of quality fly ash is declining as coal-fired power stations close or operate under conditions that no longer produce suitable flyash by-products.
We understand that testing confirms that Monaro Rock material is non-reactive and does not require fly ash for AAR control. This reduces dependency on a diminishing resource and avoids the need to transport by-products from outside the region. The result is both a lower carbon footprint and a more reliable, sustainable supply chain for concrete production.
In addition, the new quarry will provide much-needed future supply capacity to the local market, where some of the existing quarries are already showing signs of shortfall in meeting demand for specific rock products.

I object to this project as I believe that the people of the tuggeranong and royalla region should have their health be a priority. I also believe that the environment should be a priority of the government on both a local and federal level. If the NSW government cares about the health of Australians and the Australian environment, they should not go forward with this damaging project

Monaro Rock Quarry Project
SUMMARY
This proposal should be completely rejected as being the wrong project, the wrong place and the wrong time. If it is approved then the companies should be required each year to lodge funds equal to the rehabilitation costs for the site and the on going environmental undertakings to be met as the project proceeds. In addition, the shareholders should be personally liable for any damages that result from failure to meet best practice environmental standards during and at the end of the project.

The companies that have put in this proposal knew at the time of purchasing this land that development was severely restricted; it was priced accordingly. Their proposal will result in all the profits going into their vertically integrated business , increasing its benefits with short and long term detriments (or the costs) borne by the community , immediately by reduced amenity and for ever as once destroyed , we will never have this unique ecology again and residents will suffer the permanent loss of value of homes and health.

There are already three quarries in close proximity that can meet the local area needs for up to 100 years. no new quarry is needed to supply the communities of the local NSW area or the ACT

Background about me

I have lived in Royalla for approximately 22 years. At the time I bought my land I had an environment study done on my block to ensure I protected its values and I maintained the existing high value grasslands and mature trees. I was advised that the remanent yellow box were at least 200 years old; possibly older. The grasslands and understory were of high value with abundant rarer species . I sited my house and fencing to preserve these resources.
The land came with a series of covenants regarding the use of the land relating to the species that could be planted inside and outside the building envelope. In order to change my building envelope to do less pasture damage, I was required to provide a ecological study to the Council. I have a bore that has a limit for stock and domestic use and limits the amount of water I can extract each year. I am restricted to building withing my envelope and restricted as to where septic runoff can go. I am not allowed to have a dam to collect run off.
I selected this area because of the apparent consideration for environmental values that all these things, combined, suggested the ecology was of importance to the council. I bought the land knowing the restrictions on it and accepting them.

Sadly, this would all change if approval is given to one small family company that has decided that the zoning that is applicable to the land it purchased should not apply to it and its plans. The NSW government has an opportunity to send a message that zoning matters.

WHY THE PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED

There are a number of considerations the NSW Government must take into account when assessing proposals under the State significant projects. I am sure you will have received many submissions that adequately cover most aspects of the proposal regarding such things as the destruction of high value ecology on the site, the impact on the only drinking water supply for residents due to contamination from dust , silica particles and other noxious elements that will be carried on prevailing winds. Living just 1 km downwind, I will be particularly badly affected by this.
The effect on traffic flow has been covered in relation to the local roads that are not designed for already increased the local traffic that currently uses them. The Old Cooma road barely has room for two four wheel drive cars to pass, let alone trucks and there are no shoulders for refuge if a car is coming head on. The same can be said for the Monaro highway that has limited shoulders and, at times, heavy traffic and impatient drivers. This month alone I have been confronted by three instances of a car on my side passing head on. The road surfaces of both roads are badly damaged resulting to damage to tyres and axels. A cost borne by insurance companies or sometimes the council.
The Federal government has spent considerable money upgrading the highway at Hume to improve the flow of traffic, additional heavy trucks would negate the benefits of all the work and money already committed and spent by taxpayers.

THE EIS
The EIS proposes possible solutions to some of the concerns raised by residents, This may be a best practice solution but it is a theoretical solution with no guarantees that the company will follow through or that the measures proposed will be adhered to. Sadly, transgressions are often not enforced if cost or impossibly of subsequent rectification is pleaded.
The proposal uses community resources such as roads, electricity infrastructure and water to implement its proposals; none of which it has provided from its own funds.

This is the crux of my main objection.

COST BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSAL

In many if not all proposals of this type and definitely in this one, the benefits seem to go to the entity that develops the proposal and the costs are borne by the community both at local, state and federal level. In this case the company will leave a hole in the ground and we will have lost, forever, a community resource that was zoned to protect it from any development. Instead, it is proposed that the most destructive development should occur that has the maximum negative impact on residents and the longer term future of the area. For example, to suppress dust the community water resource is to be used and inevitably it will be destroyed or contaminated forever. Harmful residues may forever preclude consideration other lower impact plans for housing or shared community amenities,
Electricity will be used from a grid that was developed and paid for, initially by taxpayers/ If it proves the be inadequate to the job, who will suffer the brown outs and pay for the upgrades to the grid. Who pays for the generation of additional non renewable energy being used throughout the day and at peak times in the morning and evening. Who pays for the restoration of the roads and the inevitable upgrades that will result from additional traffic, accidents and delays. Who is adversely affected from silica dust and its health effects and the additional fumes from truck exhausts, use of heavy equipment and bitumen fumes. The community not the company.
In short, the company gets all the benefits and the community at local and state and national level pays the cost.
In order to develop an industrial site with a 30 year life the people of NSW will be paying for life. And when it comes time to make good the site, after a very short lifespan of only 30 years, who will be left. The problems of collecting from companies is already being recognized as they are wound up, assets stripped or sold before they have met long term obligations.

I believe the consultation period for this project has been very short and not publicised enough for people who could be impacted to know about. There should be a much longer consultation period and a lot more detail given out before it is approved. It has the potential to impact the environment and many thousands of people’s lives, health and real estate values. It should not be hidden until the last minute and given a very brief four week consultation period. How can anyone make an informed decision in such a short time?