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.
25 November 2011
Out to the site again: still no plantings on the northern boundary, the northern edge of the dirty dam, the western edge of the dirty dam, the southern edge of the dirty dam, on the Neerim North Road south of the quarry entrance, south of Pearce Road, on the first corner in Pearce Road, and at a number of other locations. The plantings are still generally about 10% of the width they have to be. Dead plants have not been replaced. There are many placed from which you would still have to have x-ray vision to see the next marked post from the last, even if you were sitting in a car, or, alternatively you could use your imagination. The Neerim North Road between Main Neerim Road and Palmer Road continues to shows the [lack of] quality of road repairs by the road repairer (man Y’s Quality Roads), and the section between Palmer Road to 5m past the quarry entrance continues to be unsealed. There is still no drainage line on the haul road, there are no silt or sediment traps on the access or haul roads. And, and, and… (tiresome isn’t it, it just goes on and on!!)
The dirty dam is even dirtier (probably from the unauthorised storage of overburden to the east of the site – which, even though they have been told to remove it, they have moved even more to that location in disregard to instructions and to what they are allowed and not allowed to do!)
On a sort of side issue, before the 2008 tribunal hearing, someone(!) arranged for: (1)Neerim North Road (from Palmer Road to Pearce Road – what was then (and still is) a gravel road), (2) Pearce Road, and (3)Palmer Road, to all be widened and graded at rate-payer’s cost– presumably so that, when the tribunal did a site inspection, they would be convinced that the roads were in good order and that there would be no impact on them. After the hearing, Neerim North Road grew grass on the sides again, as did Pearce and Palmer Roads, and all roads again went back to their previous condition! Interestingly, such grading and widening had not been done before (in the time since we bought our property in 2002) and had not been done since (apart from the very belated works on Neerim North Road as part of the permit condition 31). Palmer Road and Pearce Road were, again, just single lane dirt roads, and bore very little resemblance to the roads as presented to the 2008 tribunal.
22 November 2011
We recently went away for a trip interstate and ended up at Roxby Downs, near the Olympic Dam Mine, in South Australia. I could not help but be amazed at the differences in attitudes between the mine at Olympic Dam and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry.
The mine watered and sealed roads to ensure that there was no dust. Contrast that with the fact that, up until issued with a 110 Notice with regard to dust, man X, man Y, CASACIR and the Neerim North quarry appeared to rarely water the dirt and stone surfaces (thereby frequently allowing significant dust to exit the site – in blatant disregard for legislation, undertakings, permit conditions, work authority conditions, …); and I have never seen any sign of watering of the section of Neerim North Road that man X, man Y and CASACIR had left unsealed for almost a year (in total disregard to the permit conditions), no matter how windy or dusty it was.
The Olympic Dam mine took safety so seriously that if safety was deemed to have been breached, a person can be subject to immediate sacking. Opposed to that, the Neerim North quarry seemed to have failed to take it seriously at all – (1) it did not secure the site (the front gate was comprised of a grid that could easily be climbed through; a number of other gates were either left wide open or unlocked; loose wire fencing in a number of locations, … – and it thus allowed anyone to enter at will because of that serious lack of security); (2) it did not provide the “safety bunds” on the edges of each bench (as depicted on the Figure 5 plans – required *if they are going to comply with the work plan Figures (which is a legal requirement) – *to stop personnel from going over the edge); (3) drivers are (figuratively) “all over the road” (over unbroken lines, including around bends and over crests); *I was told that Norm, the alternate quarry manager at Neerim North, apparently offered a slab of beer to anyone who would run me off the road(!), and, and, and.
The Olympic Dam mine had “family days” where it supplied free giveaways (information, bottles of water, stationary supplies, …), had other information booths, had people to answer questions, had associated companies there to answer questions, and hid nothing. Man X, man Y, CASACIR and the Neerim North quarry, on the other hand, do not even have the number of “community meetings” that were required by the permit – and even then were not honest about the reasons why – and seemed to have tried to keep the meetings as hidden as they could recently, and provided many inaccurate facts at those few meetings.
The Olympic Dam mine bought out neighbours who would be affected by its activities, whereas man X, man Y, CASACIR and the Neerim North quarry refuse to see that to allow dust to exit the site may cause a problem to anyone else; or to see that to illegally remove the water supply from another person’s property might cause them to be unable to operate their property as they had prior to the quarry; or to see that causing significant (and over the limit) noise, nuisance, loss of amenity, and the many other beaches of the planning scheme and other relevant legislation could be a problem to others; or that the loss of what had been (up to the arrival of the quarry) a pleasant property might be considered a severe detrimental impact. Man X, man Y, CASACIR and the Neerim North quarry claimed and maintained an attitude that the quarry would only cause benefit and an increase in well-being and lifestyle to everyone around it. This is, in my opinion, a grossly ignorant, selfish, irrational, and arrogant attitude. Two of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s most vocal representatives, Jack Kraan (Focus Creative Development Solutions) and Graeme Peake (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s former barrister) have stated: (Jack:) that the quarry would provide “… a higher standard of living for local residents and a more vibrant community”, that it “… Will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way of noise; Will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way of airborne particulates; Will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way ground vibration, airblast or flyrock; Will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way of traffic movements; Will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way visual impacts; Will not cause detrimental impacts on surface waters or groundwater; Will not cause detrimental impacts on agricultural activities in the area; Will not cause detrimental impacts on tourism in the area; Will not have a detrimental impact on public safety; Will not have detrimental impacts on native flora and fauna”, and “that stone can be extracted from the subject land without adverse impact on environmental values of the area or adverse amenity impacts on nearby sensitive uses”. Also, that it “does not create any adverse environmental and amenity impacts on the site and neighbouring properties”, will not adversely impact on the quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater in the area. Nor will there be any significant impacts on the catchment, waterways or water bodies”, “will result in a net benefit for the community, the economy and the environment” and that it “will not have any significant impact on the amenity or environmental values of the surrounding area”) and (Graeme:) “It is submitted that there will be no unacceptable adverse amenity impacts on any nearby dwelling… It will not have any unacceptable impact on the amenity of any nearby rural dwelling”). Reality is vastly different to man X, man Y and CASACIR and their representatives’ undertakings and the statements (written and verbal) made to the various authorities and to the tribunal as absolute fact. Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s “care factor”? Next best thing to nil, as evidenced by their lack of doing much, if anything, about it (until forced to), and their continued denials of anything wrong – such as man X’s sworn affidavits and testimony under oath (in spite of many facts to the contrary) – man Y and CASACIR authorised and approved what was falsely sworn by man X.
What a contrast in attitudes and behaviour! Then again, I understand that this is pretty typical; the really big companies seem to know how to behave and know what they have to do and how to work with those who would be affected – while there are others such as man X, man Y and CASACIR who try to get away with what they can, and deny that there is even a problem (unless that “problem” is someone who is showing them up for what they are doing wrong – and then they feel they can blame the person revealing it instead of facing, and taking responsibility, for what they themselves are doing wrong).
20 November 2011
Safety and security: Being Sunday, the quarry was supposedly closed. However, although the front entrance gate was closed: *you could easily climb through the large grid-work of the front gate without any effort if you wanted to; *the northern gate on Neerim North Road was not locked (and is constructed of just loose wire and I have never seen it locked); *the twin gates to the immediate north of the entrance were not only unlocked, but were wide open(!) (and I have never seen it locked); *the gate on the corner of Pearce and Neerim North Roads did not have a lock on it (and I have never seen it locked); *the first gate in Pearce Road did not have a lock on it (and I have never seen it locked); *the gate close to the eastern end of Pearce Road had a lock on it but the lock is just hanging there and the gate is unlocked (as it has been for the past few weeks). In addition to those failures to secure the site: *there was a long section of loose fencing on Pearce Road, where anyone could climb through or under); *the fencing to the right and left of the gate on Palmer Road was three loose strands (the gate also had substantial holes in it), and *the fencing further to the east on the boundary between 27 Palmer Road and the quarry site contained sections of loose wire. All that ignored the fact that anyone can come up from the Latrobe River and meet very little in the way of barriers when entering the site. It is my observation that all of the above could presumably be considered by man X, man Y, CASACIR and some of the authorities (if not all of them) as some of the security “features” of the site.
This is apparently how man X, man Y and Casacir consider a quarry site safe and secure. This is apparently how Peter McWhinney (council) and Anne Bignell (DPI) consider a quarry site safe and secure. In addition, at the enforcement hearing and in the subsequent order, Russell Byard (a senior member of VCAT) did not appear concerned about the lack of safety and security. So the fact that anyone can access the site from a significant number of locations, at will, is apparently deemed not to be an issue by anyone but me! This must be remembered in case of any accident – because not just man X, man Y and CASACIR would be liable for any injuries.
Other issues: Apart from the fact that there is the first stockpile of soil near the quarry entrance, and additional soil and overburden has been further unlawfully added (and further unlawfully compacted) on the area to the north of the dirty dam (where it is not permitted or authorised to be by the permit or work authority), everything appeared much the same: *failure to have the site secure as identified above; *there were still no plants in the many locations previously identified (in spite of man X having sworn under oath that they were planted); * the plantings that were regimented remained regimented; the plantings that were planted were not of the depth shown on the endorsed Figures 3 & 5; *the section of Neerim North Road that man X, man Y and CASACIR had to construct and seal prior to the quarry commencing was still not sealed and required more maintenance; *the weeds were not contained; * the main part of Neerim North Road was not maintained; *the many posts that could not be seen from the next marked one; *the northern bund remained constructed of quality topsoil; things were not done in accordance with the permit and work authority; and, and, and – all this is in spite of man X swearing under oath that everything isdone in accordance with the work plan and permit!
13 November 2011
Only one month to go for the determination as to costs. If only the tribunal knew how they had been deliberately misled by man X, man Y and CASACIR! Things sworn that were not true, making the tribunal believe things that were not so. Some people appear to live in a fantasy land.
12 November 2011
One has to wonder: how can anyone with integrity, and man X claims he does, adamantly swear to things so clearly and unequivocally not true? It is now over 14 months since man X swore in his first affidavit, and over one year since he swore in his second affidavit, that things were done that were still not done, and just 14 days short of a year after the date at which man X adamantly put his hand on the bible and swore that what he would say was true, all true and nothing but true. Does man X need glasses? Does he need some help to come to terms with reality? Something seems to be the matter because anybody who wants to know the truth can go to the site and readily see reality for themselves – but man X did not seem to have been able to do so, and nor, it appears, have the authorities (nor man Y and CASACIR who admittedly approved and authorised man X’s false written and verbal testimony). It seems to me to be a similar situation to the old fairytale of the emperor’s clothes – man X did not seem to see that he in is that sort of make-believe situation and no-one wanted to be the one to tell him the truth.
If others won’t tell him the truth, I’ll do it. Man X: if you think that there are plants planted on the northern boundary (where you were required to have planted them as early as possible, and certainly “prior to commencement of the use” which commenced over two years ago) – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that there are plants planted on the immediate northern edge of the dirty dam (where you were required to have planted them as early as possible, and certainly “prior to commencement of the use” which commenced over two years ago) – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that there are plants planted on the immediate southern edge of the dirty dam (where you were required to have planted them as early as possible, and certainly “prior to commencement of the use” which commenced over two years ago) – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that there are plants planted on the immediate western edge of the dirty dam (where you were required to have planted them as early as possible, and certainly “prior to commencement of the use” which commenced over two years ago) – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that there are plants planted in a number of other locations (where you were required to have planted them as early as possible, and certainly “prior to commencement of the use” which commenced over two years ago) – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that there are plants replacing the many dead plants in a number of locations (where you were required to have replaced them as soon as possible – you are very much mistaken, there are none; if you think that you have “un-regimented” the plants that were regimented (that peter told the tribunal you had agreed to “un-regiment” over a year ago – you are very much mistaken, because they are still regimented; if you think that plantings some 10% of the width you undertook in your documentation to plant is sufficient – you are very much mistaken, and makes a further laughing stock of you, man Y and CASACIR being unable to calculate distances (on a par with saying 370 Neerim North road is 1000m from the closest point of impact from the quarry when you know that it is ~300m!); if you think that the section of the Neerim North Road (from Palmer Road to 5m past the quarry entrance), which you are required to have constructed and sealed prior to the use commencing (over two years ago), is sealed – you are very much mistaken because, as you know, it has been unsealed for almost 12 months; if you think that all the posts are able to be seen from the next one – you are very much mistaken (unless you have x-ray vision to see through hills and trees), because there are many from which the next cannot be seen, even when sitting in a car!; if you think that saying that you will only contribute $5,000-00 to the road repairs that are required on Neerim North Road is sufficient when the condition says that you have to pay for all the road repairs – you are very much mistaken, but it possibly accounts for the terrible state of the road (unless we also blame man Y’s Quality Roads for the shocking job); if you think that the northern bund is made from overburden – you are very much mistaken, it is made from class 1 agricultural soil; if you think that you are controlling the weeds – you are very much mistaken, they abound; if you think that having gates unlocked and loose wire on fences makes your site secure – you are very much mistaken, there are many places someone can access the site without any problem (Ihave not done so, just to clarify); if you think that saying one thing and doing another is acceptable, then you are mistaken, it only makes you look exceedingly unprofessional and as if you are trying to hide your your real; if you think that not having a permit to use the septic tank as a septic tank or as a holding tank is not required (ifyou are using it as a holding tank) – you are very much mistaken, you have the legal requirement for such permits, as it has been previously pointed out to you; and, and, and.
If you see things differently man X, then if I could suggest a trip to the site with open eyes might be in order.
11 November 2011
Out to the site again for blasting. There was no obvious stopping of work for Remembrance at the quarry, trucks arrived and were loaded over this 11.00 am time period.
The blast took place at ~1.20 pm on a bench out of sight, but looked to be up towards the northern end (significant dust exiting the site in breach pf conditions).
Today’s blast is a typical time for blasting and further shows that their claim of having to stop the blasting because of me flying overhead at 11.15 am on 28 April 2011 was pure fabrication – the road was not closed today until 1.00 pm and the road had not been closed at the time of my flyover. They were still using machinery until 1.08 pm today and they were still using machinery at the tine of my flyover. They did not blast until after they had cleared the site today (I heard machinery being still moved at 1.13 pm) and they had not cleared the site at the time of my flyover (there were still at least 6 people working, 1 excavator (operating), 1 truck, 1 dozer, 4 utes and 2 cars in close proximity to the location of the proposed blast at the time of my flyover, all of which had to be removed before any such blast could take place). As I said: their claim was pure and clear fabrication, which is sadly not unusual.
Jack Kraan claimed (in his planning report clause 3.11 (endorsed as part of the planning permit), and his “statement of evidence” clause 4.10 (required to be accurate)) that “The quarry’s neighbours will be notified in advance of an impending blast. [CASACIR] have a standard procedure for doing this. 24 hours before the blast is scheduled, quarry staff ring all neighbours to advise them of the impending blast. They are also advised that they will be notified again approximately 1 hour prior to the blast being detonated. On the day of the blast, at least 1 hour before the blast, quarry staff will ring the neighbours informing them of the time of the blast.” Further, Casacir provided a letter to council dated 11 December 2009 in which it says: “Casacir’s Company Policy requires us to notify neighbours 24 hours ahead and 2 to 3 hours ahead of any blast”. Thus it was presented to the 2008 tribunal and council as absolute and unequivocal fact that there would be the additional notifications to neighbours (presumably to indicate that man X, man Y and CASACIR would be considerate and responsible, and give neighbours fair warning to allow them to access or leave their properties before a blast (if required), rather than being caught when they have to go out). However, the claim of this additional notification was a clearly misleading and a false statement and was a concealment of the fact that they had absolutely no intention of providing such additional notification – because they haven’t and, in fact, when I talked to Paul Kemp, the stated quarry manager, he said that he knew nothing about it!! This problem was clearly exemplified today when the person on the next property wanted to leave his property at 1.00 pm, immediately after the road had been closed, but was forced to wait until after the blast. If he had received the notice that Jack, man X, man Y and CASACIR clearly and repeatedly stated would be provided with, the neighbour would have been able to arrange for his departure prior to the road being closed and would therefore would not have been forced to wait.
Thus it is evident that either: (1) CASACIR was blatantly ignoring its own standard operating procedures, or (2) man X, man Y, CASACIR and Jack were deceptive in saying that they have such a standard operating procedure for Neerim North at all – and, if that is the case (which it seems it is since the quarry manager knows nothing about it) then Jack, man X, man Y and CASACIR have, again, provided false and misleading information leading to a mistaken expectation of such notice, and concealed the fact that there would be no such additional information or notification.
In addition, the road was not opened again until 1.29 pm: 29 minutes closed – yet man X, man Y and CASACIR told council in their 11 December 2009 letter that the road would not be closed for more than 15 minutes! So much for their accuracy – and this is not the first time it has happened – it seems to be a somewhat frequent occurrence (I am coming across more and more examples).
Further, monitoring took place at 541 Neerim North Road, but did not take place at 140 Pearce Road, the closest and most impacted property)!!
In addition, the employee who closed the road swore at me for taking his photo. How very strange that he did not like it – since he has taken my photo on another such occasion. It seems that what is good for him to do is not good for me to do. One set of rules for him and one for me. Not surprising that he is a valued employee of man X, man Y and CASACIR.
At the site, all else is the same as was noted two days ago, on 9 November 2011 – no surprises there – still failing to comply on many fronts, including dust exiting the site today (even with the sometime attempted dust control). Breaches, breaches, breaches – but who cares, right? Certainly not man X, man Y and/or CASACIR (if they did care they would have complied) and, it would appear, not the authorities (if they cared they would have required compliance with the permit, work authority, the planning scheme and other legislation).
10 November 2011
Man X, man Y and CASACIR, and at least some of their specialists have provided information at various times that is inaccurate and/or misleading (including, but certainly not limited to, to the tribunal), and man X, man Y, CASACIR and those specialists seem to find nothing wrong with that – and certainly the authorities seem to find nothing wrong with it for some reason (again the question: why are they so prepared to look the other way??)!
I have gathered a folder listing no less than 67 pages of such “inaccuracies” and misleading information by, and/or for, man X, man Y and CASACIR – and it is only getting bigger as time goes on. When all is said and done I will put it all on the site at some time in the future so you can all see what I mean – how they say one thing to sound good, but then (in a large number of cases) do something very different. It makes for fascinating (but appalling) reading!
9 November 2011
Out to the site again, no surprises: still no plantings where there were none (including but not limited to: the northern boundary, on the north, west and south edges of the dirty dam, …); the plantings that were in regimented lines are still in regimented lines; there is still no sealing of the section of Neerim North Road between Palmer Road to at least 5m past the entrance; the remainder of Neerim North Road is still in a shocking state of disrepair; the many posts from which you can’t see the next still can’t be seen from the next; there is still a considerable weeds problem; there are still no drainage lines or silt or sediment traps on the haul and access roads; and, and, and.
One change is that they are still working on the southern bund, but which was a condition of the permit that it be completed before “use” commenced (which was in August/September 2009). So, over two years after it had to be completed they are still working on it!
Another change is that they have moved and compacted further materials into an area not permitted or authorised by the permit or work authority and which contributes to the pollution of the already filthy dam – yet man X states that he does not perform works not in accordance with the permit and work authority! Hmm, sadly there are many examples.
It constantly amazes me that man X was able to swear to things so blatantly “inaccurate”. It also constantly amazes me that Jack Kraan has been able to repeatedly tell everyone at community meetings that things have been done that have not been done (even over two years after first saying they were done!!) It constantly amazes me that Peter McWhinney and Anne Bignell, amongst many others, have for over two years turned a blind eye to the failures of the quarry to comply – if they are not incompetent (which I don’t think they are) then you have to wonder that benefit they get by being so willing to look so inept (note that I am not accusing them (or anyone else) of corruption or anything like that, but people only do what works for them – so something must be happening that works for them). One has to wonder about the respective people’s attitude to integrity. And council, man X, man Y and CASACIR want costs against us for them lying to and/or misleading the tribunal! Wonder what Russell Byard would make of having been grossly and deliberately misled by man X, man Y and CASACIR, or if he would even care!! If he would not be upset then it would seem that there is something strange happening on that front too.
As noted late last month, the intersection of Neerim North Road and Murphy Road was recently sealed (after many months of being unsealed) but is already breaking up! One thing remains certain, it is caused by either the “quality” of the road contractor, or of the material used, both of which are related to Casacir. This road failure could be contributed to this being yet another example of the level of so called “quality” of road works performed by man Y’s Quality Roads (a also CASACIR associated company by sharing man Y as a director), as previously exampled on Neerim North Road and on other roads!! Or, alternatively, perhaps it is the “quality” of the stone used, remembering what man X (one of the directors of CASACIR) told a number of us in regard to another of their quarries, … and regarding his admission as to the full meaning of the acronym of the name of the company (see “CASACIR” page for details, but I am not making accusations in regard to the name or stone quality, just quoting man X).
The various people, including but not limited to Peter McWhinney (council) and Adam Dunn (WGCMA) are refusing to answer correspondence. Adam Dunn is refusing to provide me with a copy of the quarterly water monitoring report (which he said at the community meeting in September 2010 he would do). They are also hiding the first quarterly monitoring report for 2011 – it really does make you wonder what they are all trying to hide – especially when you look at the dirty dam and how much filthier it is now than I have ever seen it and I have seen it in a appalling condition!!
Why are man X, man Y and CASACIR able to tell the authorities what they will and won’t do and get away with it? Why are man X, man Y and CASACIR able to not comply with the permit, the work authority, the planning scheme, the Water Act 1989 (and other legislation), and get away with it? What gives them the right to run the show? Hmm.
1 November 2011
The date for the costs hearing is 13 December 2011. It was difficult to get the date set. Why(?), who knows. But, having been told that there would be no further adjournments it was then made difficult if any of the barristers had other cases come up before Russell Byard (or whoever set the date) finally got around to making the decision! One has to question why it took 3 weeks for a decision to be made!