Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relate to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
31 December 2011
We received the costs order stating that we had to pay man X, man Y and CASACIR’s costs, as well as council’s costs, for taking out the enforcement application [i.e. an application to try to get the tribunal to do what the authorities refused to do: make man X, man Y and CASACIR comply – and the application where the VCAT member Russell Board had told us no less than 5 times was the appropriate way to handle the breaches]. As previously stated, (1) man X, man Y and CASACIR were demanding almost $70,000-00 (including costs totally unrelated to that application – sadly typical! – later changing it to a claim for in excess of $82,000, plus appeal costs of $74,732.20) and (2) council were demanding costs of in excess of $15,000 for work they did not have to do but chose to do, especially since they said they were never a party! All because the member, Russell Byard (believing the lies he was presented with by Peake, Smith and man X) decided to ignore the proofs provided by me against the lies (he even admitted that he had not read or looked at the 200 pages of proofs I had supplied), refused to go to the site to see for himself, and had taken the side of man X, man Y and CASACIR in every application. So this was no real surprise – although we had hoped for fairness in spite of his previous bias against us. He issued this order in the middle of the holidays, presumably to hinder us taking it on appeal to the Supreme Court (for the right to take it back to the tribunal – as if that would work!!)
I had hoped (but based on the previous few years, sadly not realistically): (1) that the authorities would commence to start to take their duties seriously by enforcing compliance under their respective obligations and stop overlooking things that should not be overlooked (such as the need for permits); and (2) man X, man Y and CASACIR would comply with their entire permit, work plan, work authority, and the requirements of legislation (including the planning scheme), and their own undertakings – and not just the selected bits. Just as well that I didn’t hold my breath for any of that! They certainly did not change, and why would any of them decide to change – they had not only gotten away with it, but had been handsomely rewarded for their conduct.
30 December 2011
Out to the site again. No surprises, in contradiction to what was sworn to: there were still no plants on the northern boundary; there were still no plants on the northern, western or southern edges of the filthy dam; there were still no plants in a number of other places; there were still many marked posts that could not be seen from the adjacent one; the site was still not secure; the new section of road constructed by man Y’s Quality Roads near Murphies Road was starting to fall apart (no surprises there); the remainder of Neerim North Road was still not maintained or repaired (in spite of Jack (on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s behalf) assuring everyone at the 7 December 2011 community meeting that man X, man Y and CASACIR were going to pay for big sections of the road being pulled up and properly rebuilt, reconstructed and sealed (I don’t believe that is what occurred at all given that man X had previously stated that CASACIR was “willing” to contribute only $5,000-00 to road repairs in spite of their planning permit stating that CASACIR had to pay for the entire repairs and maintenance of the road!); the new section from Palmer Road was not to 5m past the entrance (which was the permit requirement, but following what seems to be usual form, were determined by man X, man Y and CASACIR to only have to be to the end of the entrance); the un-regimenting of plantings that Peter McWhinney told the tribunal that man X, man Y and CASACIR had agreed would be un-regimented immanently, still had not been done over a year later (but man X, man Y and CASACIR’s interpretation was apparently that this (as with many other conditions) did not have to be complied with until, and if, they wanted to); and, and, and.
Seriously though, why would they comply when they don’t have to? Council was not making them, DPI was not making them, WGCMA ignored illegal works and duck-shoved responsibility for requiring the works on waterway permit application onto council (who ignored them), …
There was a calf in the site that had been there for two weeks, poor thing – but who cares, right? Who cares if it falls over the edge of a bench, or drinks the filthy hydrocarbon and Ecoli contaminated water or got hit by a truck, or … (it and it’s mother were in plain sight of anyone within the quarry – but it certainly seemed that no-one did anything about it).
In my previous website I also had provided a picture of the (lack of) planting on the northern boundary, with the weeds in various stages of lifecycle since the beginning of the quarry activities (under “Issues”, see the page on plantings).
I had also provided pictures of one of the many areas showing lack of security on the site (under “Issues”, see the page on security).
I had also provided a picture of just one of the posts that were purportedly painted white, and if you can see the next marked and identified post along from it, then you must have x-ray vision as man X seemed to and as he would need to do so in order to see through the hill – yet he swore that he could see each marked post from the next (under “Issues” see the page on posts).
27 December 2011
It appears that man X, man Y and CASACIR did not have fixed water sprays from early on (a requirement), but installed them later – and did not use them as often as they should have (as identified in DPI audit reports). Sometimes the sprays were not even connected – one doesn’t have to wonder how much good they would do if not connected or used – yet they declared as absolute fact to the Supreme Court that the sprays had always been connected and used (DPI officers must be liars then!)!
For those who have missed where I have said what the purpose of this website is, it is for public benefit, interest and information – to keep people informed – whether it be in regard to this quarry or in regard to any other, or about the resulting injustice system. People have a right to know what they could possibly expect if they move to the country, if they were dealing with quarry operators (like this one), if they were wanting to know what help they would (or would not) get from authorities, etc.
The funny thing is, if all the people involved in the current situation had done what they were supposed to do, then I would have had nothing to write about! But, according to them (it seems they love to victim blame), they say that it was all my fault! How can it be my fault if they break the law, act in bad faith, fail to comply, or fail to ensure compliance, with the permits and work authority? Strange how one can justify things, isn’t it.
21 December 2011
I have just been out to the site again. The new section of Neerim North Road (finally sealed by Quality Roads) still does not meet the condition (but no surprises there)! The remainder of Neerim North Road was still falling apart (even more) and had not been repaired or maintained (unless you call the almost constant state of severe disrepair “being maintained” (the lack of quality supplied by man Y’s Quality Roads) – but that is what you get when man X limited the amount of money he, man Y and CASACIR were “willing” to spend on the roads)! There were still no plants in a number of locations in spite of being required in the conditions and work plan figures (and there has never been any sign of plants in those locations). There were still a number of marked posts that were not able to be sighted from the next. Weeds were prolific. The site was still not secure. There were still no drainage facilities on the haul road, noise was too loud at times, and, and, and. They just did not seem to want to comply, and no-one, especially Peter and Anne, seemed interested on taking them on and making them comply.
Trees were still regimented in spite of man X swearing that the plants had been un-regimented prior to the hearing a year earlier, and Peter saying that an agreement had been made to have the plants un-regimented soon (again, over a year earlier) – contradicting each other. But the reality was shown in photos – no surprises there.
Their idea of complying with the “Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991)” was to lay a pipe on top of the traps, compressing them and making them almost useless – fat lot of good that is! Mind you, this was the previous bed and banks of Kookaburra Creek that man X, man Y and CASACIR turned into a drainage line – without permission under the Water Act – but all the authorities ignored that!
There was a cow and her calf in the site, and they have been from at least Sunday – so much for caring about the welfare and safety of those animals. They would be able to be clearly seen, but were ignored. It seems to me to be a case of “who cares?”
Letters and emails I have sent to Peter (and others) were ignored, so this morning I went and saw Peter McWhinney, the manager of statutory planning, and he agreed that man X, man Y and CASACIR were in breach of the permit, but said that he did not think that it was a quite as “severe” as I contended (for him to say that, I have to say that I don’t believe that he can have looked at the permit conditions and the photos together – he did say that he had not been out to the site since the beginning of September!)
Also, in addition to the quarry permit application specifying the requirement for plans, schedules, colours, sizes, styles etc of proposed building, the planning scheme also required an “application” for such buildings (as was noted by the original tribunal members. However, in Peter’s view, even though the work plan failed to provide the information required by the quarry permit (planning condition 1(ii) “Before the use/development starts, the approved work plan and work plan conditions approved by the responsible authority which will form part of this permit must include the following amendments to the endorsed work plan and/or the draft work plan conditions submitted with the application…the location and scale of buildings and fixed plant and equipment, elevations of all buildings and a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours and protection signage“), they did not have to actually do so! Again things were just sliding through and no-one was allowed any right to say anything about what was proposed – even though it would presumably be in clear view from Pearce Road, even from the entry to our property.
One seriously has to ask is how and why man X, man Y and CASACIR have so much sway over council decisions!
I have told you about man X, man Y and CASACIR filing a defamation case against me, but I don’t think they really thought this through.
18 December 2011
The costs hearing was 13 December. One has to ask why man X, man Y and CASACIR chose to serve me with the Summons, Writ and Claim when they did. It was my belief that it was because they did not want Russell Byard (VCAT member) to know about it – otherwise why would they wait for a further 8 days (they apparently tried to serve it the evening after the costs hearing (but we weren’t home), so it was swerved two days after the costs hearing, in spite of having been filed on 7 December (6 days prior to the costs hearing)! Further, if they wanted Byard to know about it, they would have told him, especially since they mentioned my former website at the hearing – they had a golden opportunity and passed it up (presumably to keep it hidden).
Went out to the site again. Nothing changed: there were still no sign of a single plant having been planted in a number of locations (including, but not limited to: the northern boundary, the northern, western and southern edges of the dirty dam, the southern end of Neerim North Road, the first bend in Pearce Road, just south of the quarry entrance, …); marked posts still could not be seen from the one next to it in a number of locations; the site was still not secure (gates unlocked, fencing loose and in places only three loose wires); Neerim North Road was still not maintained from Main Neerim Road to Palmer Road (and was continuing to badly fall apart – part of the “upgrading” by man Y’s Quality Roads where repairs fell apart, were repaired, fell apart and had to be repaired, and so on); the section of Neerim North Road that was required to be constructed and sealed from Palmer Road to at least 5m past the quarry entrance (although just having been sealed after over a year of being unsealed) still did not comply(!!), and, and, and. Interestingly, man X said that he had not said that the site was secure – which explains why he seems to find that having the site unsecured, in spite of the work authority’s requirement to have it secured, was somehow okay.
They have commenced stage 2 without having performed the prerequisites for it.
Sadly, no surprises in all that.
16 December 2011
One of the issues in the claim that man X, man Y and CASACIR served on me, was in regard to information provided at community meetings.
I intend to demonstrate at court that many “inaccuracies” have been communicated at community meetings by CASACIR’s representatives, be they Jack and/or man X. The Summons served on the evening of the 15th (last evening) infers that man X was not at the meetings to talk on CASACIR’s behalf, and further falsely states that he did not provide any input and only answered questions directly addressed to him (“[man X] only addressed those meetings if requested to do so in response to specific questions.”).
The Summons also clearly identified Jack Kraan as the spokesperson for CASACIR (“At each of the community meetings addressed by Casacir, Mr Jack Krann, a town planning expert retained on behalf of Casacir, principally addressed the attendees”).
This distancing of the Summons’ plaintiffs (man X, man Y and CASACIR) from Jack seems to be to imply that any “inaccuracies” communicated by Jack were his sole responsibility – not true because man X would not proactively correct any misrepresentations made by Jack. From this it would appear that man X, man Y and CASACIR were “washing their hands” of any responsibility for any “inaccuracies” and “sheeting the blame” on to Jack. To me this seems to be to be “throwing Jack under the bus” so to speak!
15 December 2011
7.30pm today I was served with a Summons to the Supreme Court from man X, man Y and CASACIR. They were objecting to my former website. Amongst other things, they were claiming that the content of that website was defamatory, and that it had damaged their business. It was my understanding that for communication to be rightly considered as defamatory, it must be false. I contend that the contents of my former site was, as is this website, solidly based on truth and facts.
Further, they attributed motives to me that were not mine (I don’t know why they try to be mind readers, because they fail terribly!) – I have made it very clear as to why my previous website existed, and why this one also exists, and it was not for any of the reasons they gave. They were entitled to make observations – but of facts(!!!) – they have no basis for claiming what they wrongly presume to be my motives, particularly when it was their claims that were defamatory and false.
We live in a land that cherishes free speech where it conveys the truth. Many around the world value the Internet as a medium for expression – a voice for the little people. Truthful expression should never be suppressed by large corporations just because the truth was not to their advantage.
Summary of the costs hearing 13 December 2011
Legal attendees: Peake (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s barrister), Louisa Alampi (council’s barrister), Rob (our barrister), and Byard (tribunal member – where was Ian Potts who also sat at the enforcement application hearing?)
Peake tried to persuade Byard that I had been vexatious in bringing the application. It seems funny the amount of people who try to be mind readers (but fail – as I have repeatedly stated: my application was all about protecting our pre-existing legislated rights (i.e. rights we had prior to the quarry). However, Peake did concede that he considered that we had not conducted the hearing vexatiously (wish I could say the same thing the other way around!)
The subject of the website was brought up by Peake in an apparent attempt to make me look vexatious. Byard did say that, no matter what the website said, it would not sway him – that was interesting, and a surprise (but I don’t believe it)! However, if he did go to the website for a look, he will see that he was “misled” by Peake, man X, man Y and CASACIR about what had and had really happened, and that man X’s sworn testimony had been proved to be false in many some regards (but he probably won’t care).
Peake, on behalf of man X, man Y and CASACIR, was claiming costs for a number of things that did not even relate to that case – but no surprise there, they’ve done it before.
Both Peake and Louisa erroneously stated that there had been no non-compliances with the permit – in spite of the fact that there were many things that were still not complied with over a year after the enforcement hearing!!
Louisa tried to get a case up for costs, regardless of the fact that council had never been made a party, did not want to be a party, and we had acknowledged that they were not and had not ever been (in our opinion) a party. However, council did have responsibilities to rate-payers and the like and, although having apparently baulked at performing those responsibilities themselves, wanted us to pay for the fact that we tried to do what they refused to do.
Louisa did not want Peter McWhinney’s file note submitted (the note shows that he had said that there were other things that had not been complied with – so no wonder she didn’t want it exhibited). She said that it should have been put in an affidavit so that they would have had time to go over it and she could have received instructions regarding it. That was interesting because if we had done that and given, say, a business day’s opportunity to go through any such affidavit, I feel sure that she would have requested that it not be allowed, yet this were exactly what her instructing solicitor (Christine Albanis of Williams Winter) did – but that was considered acceptable! Further, Louisa stated that her instructions were that there had been no failures to comply other than the regimented rows (in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary)!
Rob put a reasonable case, showing that the tribunal had noted in its previous Orders that there were other breaches that had been committed (in spite of no enforcement Orders), and that man X had acknowledged some of the breaches during his testimony and in his affidavits.
You never know where you were with Byard until the Orders come down. He appeared open, and even helpful at one point today, but then that has happened before and yet it has all turned around “to bite us”. The reality is, if Byard follows his own words he really cannot put costs against us. But, so far he has sided with Peake, man X, man Y and CASACIR in every case, no matter what – and this time was no different.
While waiting for the Orders to come down, man X, man Y and CASACIR continued to ignore compliance, and council continued to ignore the many on-going breaches.
What man X, man Y, CASACIR, council and the tribunal were all ignoring were the fact that if man X, man Y and CASACIR had actually complied with the permit, work authority, work plans and legislation (including the planning scheme), and their own undertakings, we would not have had a case and could not have provided 200 pages of photos and FoI results.
11 December 2011
Out to the site again and there were no surprises (including, but not limited to): the gates were still unlocked in spite of the quarry being closed; the sections of fencing that were loose were still loose; the front gate was still able to be climbed through; the trees were still not planted where I said that they were not (or not replanted since man X, man Y and CASACIR were claiming to have planted in those locations no less than three times (with absolutely no proof and no sign of there ever having been any plantings in those locations)); the trees were still regimented; the marked posts still don’t comply, there were still none of the drainage mechanisms on the haul and access roads required to meet compliance with that part of the work plan; Quality Roads’ works on the Neerim North Road between Palmer Road and Main Neerim Road was even worse now than before;…. The one change was the section of Neerim North Road between Palmer Road and the quarry entrance. Last week (“which just “happened” to be less than a week before the costs hearing was heard), the section of Neerim North Road was finally sealed – after over a year of being unsealed in blatant breach of the permit and in blatant breach of that which was sworn as absolute fact before the tribunal. This was also in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR having told everyone at a community meeting earlier in April that the sealing would be done the next time Quality Roads was in the area (but man Y’s Quality Roads had been in the area at least twice doing serious repairs to their shoddy work in 8 or 9 locations before this!). However, the road were still not as designated in the permit!! Why aren’t we surprised by that! So, either Quality Roads ignored instructions by man X, man Y and CASACIR, or man X, man Y and CASACIR did not give Quality Roads proper instructions! It was easy to see why the road was only just sealed – I propose one of two scenarios as the reasons (or both may apply): (1) the road was done because they wanted to be able to say at the hearing that it was done; and/or (2) the road will not have had quite enough time to have fallen apart again yet (it may need another couple of weeks, based on other works done by man Y’s Quality Roads). It was not logical, in my opinion, to even vaguely believe that the road just happened to be sealed at this time because: (1) it had been unsealed for over a year, and (2) one of the reasons previously given was that the road had been too wet (but it had been raining for the past few days – making the road wet and thereby eliminating that as a valid excuse), and (3) Quality Roads had been in the area a number of times doing other road works and had not done this section until now.
One of the claims made at the community meeting held last Wednesday, was that the reason for the (not permitted) dumping of the soil and overburden on the east side (in a forbidden location) was because it was too wet to get it over to the west side. However, it was not too wet to get truck-loads of the same material, from the same area, over to the west when it was for removed for sale – during the same time period. In addition, they could have used the haul trucks which, according to man X: “handle wet slippery muddy conditions, that’s what they are designed for and that’s what we used them for”. But, no, unless the material was being sold, they put it where it suited them regardless of the lack of permission or authorisation, and the fact that it was illegal according to their permit and work authority. And, regardless of having been told to remove it, they continued to add to and compact it! I will be very amazed if it was removed before it was used for rehabilitation – another blind eye seemingly being turned, and another clear “don’t care” attitude.
I have been going through some of the prolific number of documents that I have in my possession, and it was very interesting how some of the representatives of the various authorities say one thing when man X and Jack were not around, and say the opposite when they were around. What gives? We can suppose, of course, but only they know the real reason – but it was far too profuse to be coincidental. Still, for some reason they were happy to continue to do it.
Whilst I have told the absolute truth and have the photographic and documented proofs of what I have said, it seems to me that truth from other sources has been one of the casualties in this fight.
7 December 2011
Well, the second community meeting for 2011 was held tonight. No surprises (other than the fact that there was a second meeting this year).
Jack said that the purpose of the meeting was to explain where the quarry was up to and to hear any concerns of people in relation to the quarry.
However, I am forbidden to ask about topics that have been discussed at VCAT (over a year ago) without being soundly “reprimanded” about it by Jack. He thinks that there was no possibility of any further dust exiting the site in the past year (or presumably in the future) – in spite of there having been a 110 Notice issued in regard to the contravention of too much dust!!! Also, he ignored the 110 Notice. When I had the “gall” to address the fact that significant dust had continued to billow off site (resulting in the Section 110 Notice from DPI – presumably issued because they became aware of my former website – otherwise it was a huge coincidence because DPI had ignored the dust issue for 2 years before that!) I was very disappointed with Bob Duncan (the DPI office who attended the meeting and who was the one who wrote out the 110 Notice served on man X, man Y and CASACIR. I had previously considered Bob to be relatively fair, but with his statements about the Notice I feel disabused of any such notion: I asked fairly and squarely if the Section 110 Notice was the result of dust exiting the site. Bob’s response was that it was the dust within the site that had concerned him, with the possible health impacts on quarry personnel and that was the reason for the Notice. However, looking at the Notice (that Bob wrote!!), I note that it says [emphasis mine]: “The act or omission which is likely to result in a risk to the environment” / “Description of the contravention or non-compliance”: “The act/ omission is,[sic] release of fugitive dust beyond the boundary of the Work Authority and is likely to result in a risk to the environment from, [sic] producing adverse impacts on sensitive locations and residents. The holder of the authority has, [sic] not complied with a condition applying to the carrying out of the approved work plan by, [sic] allowing fugitive dust generated by truck traffic and portable crushing plant to exit the Work Authority” and “Directions as to the measures to be taken to remedy the risk or contravention”: “I hereby direct that the holder of the authority / former licensee must, consistently suppress or eliminate the generation of dust during working hours on the pit entry road and at the crushing plant such that fugitive dust is not released from the work authority.” One really has to question why Bob said what he did, because it proved he told an absolute and deliberate lie. Was it because man X was there? Was he too afraid to give the real reason, or did he just “forget” why he wrote it? In addition, Bob also effectively said that dust can exit the site and it doesn’t matter how much as long as it meets the requirements at dwellings. There were a number of issues there! (1) the planning scheme (which man X, man Y and CASACIR must comply with – but don’t) says [emphasis mine]: *(clause 13.04-2) that the air quality has to be protected and, where possible, improved (this was certainly not happening around at the Neerim North quarry – the air quality was not protected and was certainly not improved but was greatly degraded!) and *(clause 52.9) “To ensure that use and development of land for extractive industry does not adversely affect the environment or amenity of the area during or after extraction…..[one of the decision guidelines:] The ability of the extractive industry operation to contain any resultant industrial emissions within the boundaries of the subject land in accordance with the Regulations associated with the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and other relevant regulations”; (2) the work authority (condition 18.1) says “The Work Authority holder must prevent a dust release that causes adverse impacts to the surrounding area and residents” and (3) the dust monitoring plan (endorsed as part of the planning permit) had to be complied with and it had not been complied with.
Jack said that the stone output was much the same as at the previous community meeting, but he must have forgotten what he said at that meeting because it was up by more than 15% according to the figures he gave.
Jack said that they would be moving into stage 2 by middle of next year, or possibly end of next year, and that plans had been submitted for permanent office and amenities and weighbridge.
Jack said that the so-called “clean” water dam (in reality the “filthy” water dam) was not in use at this stage (but it was used to catch the runoff that was contaminated by the storage of materials where they were not permitted to be stored, and then the overflow from there goes down to the Latrobe River), and that it won’t be used until they “remove” (in reality destroy) the spring (at the head of Kookaburra Creek), the “replacement flow” (in reality, the quarry drainage and wastewater) would be pumped up to this particular filthy dam then passed through a (so-called) water treatment area (which in reality were a narrow, shallow open drain of a significant slope) that was to be constructed, and then to be discharged to (what he calls the) the “drainage line” (in reality what was Kookaburra Creek before they polluted it). There were a number of issues here: (1) you would think as a town planner that Jack would be able to read plans, and maps, and the Vicmap 8122-3-3, which all identify the creek as a watercourse, not a drainage line, (2) the Water Act’s determination of what was a waterway, (3) our legal right to what had been the clean flow of Kookaburra Creek, and (4) Jack revealed and proved man X, man Y and CASACIR’s real intentions: i.e. that when they signed a binding Terms agreement in the tribunal that they would never interfere with the flow again, that they had actually committed deliberate fraud, a sham and a hoax, that it was signed in the full knowledge that they had no intention of complying with it, and that it was signed simply to get out of the legal action that had been taken against them for their illegal works which robbed us of the benefit of the flow to which we were legally entitled.
Jack seemed convinced that commencing water monitoring well after the quarry commenced works and after the water had been significantly polluted by the quarry works, was giving an accurate background data level – how on earth can they possibly know what impacts the quarry has had? They couldn’t, and it seems very obvious that they don’t want to know because if they had wanted to know they would have started the testing well before hand.
Rabbits and deer have apparently been so prolific that they have (according to man X, Jack, Peter McWhinney and Bob Duncan) eaten every sign of plantings that have purportedly been planted three times on the northern boundary, on the northern, western and southern edges of the dam, and in other locations (where there has been absolutely no sign of any plantings at all that I have been able to see – and I have taken pictures at least once a week, and sometimes twice a week) – but there were no pictures provided or available by Jack, man X, man Y, CASACIR, council or DPI to substantiate their claim! Further, such a pest problem were also evidence of at least two other breaches of conditions: permit conditions 22 and 23 which require that “(22)… The vegetation must be replaced if death or dieback occurs. (23) … The vegetation must be maintained in good health and must be replaced if death or dieback occurs”, and work authority condition 17 which requires “(17.1) The Work Authority holder must establish and implement a program to control and/or eradicate noxious weeds and pest animals within the Work Authority area. (17.2) The Work Authority holder must take measures to prevent the spread of declared noxious weeds, pest animals and plant diseases within the Work Authority area”. If what they say were true (and we will have to take their word for that because there is so much evidence to the contrary), then they have clearly failed to *control the “pest animals”, and *replace the vegetation when death occurred – in clear breach of conditions.
I said that there was no sign of any plants ever having been planted in those and other locations, and suggested that we all get in cars to take a look, right then and there, but this was refused! Wonder why (ornot)!
Jack said that all blasting was being monitored at the closest residences. When questioned over this, man X admitted that this was not so and it was at “the site” that the blasts were monitored, not at the residences.
Jack said that all blasting had complied with the blasting limits – but this was not so because there was at least one blast that was “an exceedence of 115dB(L) which equates to 20% of blasts conducted to date”, and there was at least one subsequent blast that was over the limit since then. Interesting to note that Anne Bignell said earlier in the day that the s110 Notice for blasting was not in relation to an actual exceedence, but the above quote seems to show that either she was hiding the facts, lying, or did not know what she was talking about, just as Jack seemed to be!
Jack effectively admitted that there was no monitoring at 565 Neerim North Road by saying that it was done at the 3 nearest dwellings (presumably he was referring to 140 Pearce Road, 27 Palmer Road and 541 Neerim North Road) – this was in breach of the permit conditions, but who cares, right?.
I asked man X what material the northern bund was constructed of. Jack appeared to be trying to me by telling me to watch what I was accusing man X of (all I had asked, a couple of times because it appeared that he didn’t want to answer, was: “You swore to the northern bund being constructed of a certain material. What was it constructed of?” – what’s accusatory about that??) However, man X finally admitted (after being asked a number of times) that the northern bund was made of topsoil and (purportedly) some subsoil, but did not say that it was made of overburden. It was his claim in his first sworn affidavit that the bund was constructed of entirely of overburden and rock and that “Topsoil has not been used in the construction of the bund”. He also said tonight that the material used was “adjacent to the bund” (which it was) but he swore in his first affidavit that the material effectively came from the “old quarry” (about 300m away) because “Stripping of material had to date only occurred within the old quarry location”.
Man X admitted that the bund would never be built across Palmer Road and he therefore admits his own, man Y and CASACIR’s failure to meet Figures 3, 5 & 6 of the work plan endorsed as part of their permit.
Man X said that it had been too wet to stockpile the overburden and soil on the west (where it was required to be stockpiled) and that was why it was compacted on the east. However, it was not too wet to have trucks taking material for sale from the very same location. My guess was that it was simply easier to move the material to the east and this was just another time of doing what they want, regardless of being allowed to do it or not! Further, in spite of being told that it had to be removed, they have compacted it, supposedly so that it would dry out faster! This was in spite of logic telling you that loose material would dry faster!
There were the usual excuses of why the Neerim North Road was not maintained and why the section that man X, man Y and CASACIR had to pay for had not been sealed. The section of Neerim North Road that man X, man Y and CASACIR had to pay for was finally to be sealed this week (over a year after it was supposed to be sealed) – interesting timing with the costs case coming up! Jack said that CASACIR couldn’t just go and fix the Neerim North Road because it was a council road and they had to ask permission. This was an excuse as far as I am concerned because Casacir does not do road repairs – it was man Y’s Quality Roads who just go and do the work because they were the council road contractor! It was all just excuses, in my opinion, for not doing what they were required by their permit to do – because why would council object to a road being repaired when it was not council who was paying for it – unless there was something else going on! Jack said that there has to be repairs to the remainder of Neerim North Road where it will have to be pulled up and replaced, but that this will be done at CASACIR’s cost. We’ll see.
I also went out to the site and same old, same old. No surprises, no changes, same ongoing breaches.
2 December 2011
Out to the site again and “same old, same old” – same ongoing breaches.
However, I finally get it: Council (e.g. Peter McWhinney), DPI (e.g. Anne Bignell and Bob Duncan), SRW (e.g. Vince Lopardi & Trevor McDevitt), EPA (e.g. Jaclyn Figas) and WGCMA (e.g. Adam Dunn) really were happy to have legislation ignored, dust coming off the site regardless of a s110 Notice, no planting in many of the required locations, no sealing of the required section of Neerim North Road, no (or exceedingly little) maintenance of Neerim North Road, no clearly defined buffers (which were required by the planning scheme), no requirement to have Casacir “own or control” the buffers (which were required by the planning scheme), others’ visual amenity significantly impaired, unacceptable noise, illegal and unauthorised works performed, breaches of the permit and work authority conditions, to have commenced stage 2 without having finished stage 1 or done the many pre-requisites for it, to have the site not secured, to cover for man X, man Y and CASACIR’s breaches, mistakes and errors, to ignore failures to perform what man X, man Y and CASACIR said they would do, to ignore the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR do what they said they would not do, and to have man X and Jack Kraan provide provably “inaccurate” information. And the list goes on and on and on. I can say this because, if they really did want to enforce legislation (including the planning scheme), the permit conditions, the work authority conditions, the work plan, the work plan figures (identifying what had to be done where), legislation, etc, they would have done so. Their failure to do so shows that they were “satisfied” in all aspects, and shows their failure to act in good faith and failure to fulfill their responsibilities properly. Man X, man Y and CASACIR can only “call the tune” and get the authorities to “jump to” if they were allowed to do so (and they were certainly allowed to do so). Man X, man Y and CASACIR could only get away with what they were allowed to get away with – and they were allowed to get away with an awful lot. (Again, one does have to wonder: “why?”)