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.
29 October 2011
Out to the site this afternoon and still nothing done (no plantings, post visability, weed control, etc) – other than the section of Neerim North Road where it joins Murphy Road is now finally sealed (but no line markings even though they did the remainder of the road about two weeks ago) – this section was paid for by rate-payers apparently, even though it was severely detrimentally impacted by quarry trucks. In addition, the remainder of the road, including very close to that intersection, was left not repaired!
Further, the section that man X, man Y and CASACIR had to pay for the construction and sealing of (from Palmer Road to 5m past the quarry entrance), and about which Jack Kraan said would be sealed when “Quality Roads” was next in the area – is still not sealed (even though “Quality [?] Roads” was in the area a number of times over the past year, and in particular the last month) and this section of road had not been sealed for the past 11 months!!
In addition, even though the site was closed for the day, the site was unsecured – as is normal practice, in spite of what man X swore to. Not only were a number of gates unlocked, but the one to the direct north of the quarry entrance was standing wide open!
It still amazes me that council (Peter McWhinney) and DPI (Anne Bignell) are happy with all the failures to comply – one still has to ponder the reason(s) why.
25 October 2011
I have just been to the site again and am not the least bit surprised to see that, in contradiction to what man X swore under oath: there are still no trees planted in various locations; there are still many posts that cannot be seen one from the next; Neerim North Road is still not maintained and the section that man X, man Y and CASACIR has to pay for is still not sealed; and, and, and.
It is absolutely amazing that Peter (McWhinney) and Anne (Bignell) are so satisfied with the failures that they consider that man X, man Y and CASACIR are compliant – they really should check the work plan, work authority, the permit against reality, without rose coloured glasses. And, maybe if they took their responsibilities seriously it might make a difference.
Gawdy and Margaret have moved the buckets out of the creek for the moment (after I got EPA and WGCMA to force them to do so), and just dumped them in the paddock – but man X, man Y and CASACIR are obviously happy with what their lessee does – including leaving the site unsecured when the quarry is closed.
20 October 2011
Went out again and they still have not complied – nothing apparent has changed – all the previous failures to comply are still failures to comply!! Yet they are concerned that I am casting aspersions on their credibility! They, themselves, have done that by actually swearing under oath to having done things that they have not done… 11 months later!!
11 October 2011
Out to the site again. The only things that I could see that had changed were:
There were some repairs to the main section of Neerim North Road (which was very interesting since small areas were repaired (including over new line work) while major areas requiring repairs were ignored – but man Y’s Quality Roads have done this same thing before so no surprises there).
The remainder remain unchanged in spite of sworn testimony to the contrary: no plantings in a number of locations; no secure site in a number of locations; no ability to see a number of posts from the next; and, and, and. Isn’t it horrific that someone can swear to things that are not so and apparently feel justified and no compunction in doing so.
This is also Peter McWhinney and Anne Bignell at work “ensuring” compliance [or lack thereof]!!
5 October 2011
Went out to the site again today and still nothing seems to have changed in spite of sworn testimony to the contrary: still no plantings in some of the locations (e.g. none on the northern bund or boundary, none on the northern edge of the dirty dam, none on the western edge of the dirty dam, none on the southern edge of the dirty dam, none on the Neerim North Road south of Pearce Road, etc); many posts still cannot be seen from the one next to it; the Neerim North Road is still not maintained (and Quality Roads have just put new lines on the road, including over the cracks and pot holes that they are supposed to fix!); the section of Neerim North Road that man X, man Y and CASACIR are required by the conditions of their permit to pay for the sealing of is still not sealed over 10 months after having ripped up the road surface (and it is not properly maintained); the noise is still over the limit, and, and, and. This shows that not only was the tribunal deceived by the verbal and affidavit sworn evidence, but man X, man Y and CASACIR seem to have no qualms about the continued failure to comply with sworn testimony and conditions and undertakings!
The dust was under control today – obviously the result of the very belated DPI 110 Notice. If DPI had taken the issue seriously from the beginning instead of continually ignoring the issue for over 2 years (lack of acting in good faith) then we would not have had such a problem, and obviously man X, man Y and CASACIR required having a 110 Notice issued on them in order to take the issue seriously!
How very pathetic, but not surprising because man X, man Y and CASACIR know (based on past history) that it is very unlikely that anyone will do anything about their lack of compliance unless forced to!
4 October 2011
VCAT issued an Order dated 16 September 2011, which set a date for an administrative mention on 6 October 2011. Sadly, this is one of the dates we had twice previously advised the tribunal, man X, man Y and CASACIR that our barrister would not be available, should his presence have been required – which, as it turned out, it wasn’t.
Those Orders stated in paragraphs 7 & 8“(7) As the representatives of Casacir Pty Ltd have initiated this latest adjournment, its solicitors should take the initiative in working out a suitable date with the other parties interested. This must include … parties associated with that company…. (8) The ascertaining of several dates suitable to all parties who wish to participate becomes the responsibility of the solicitors for Casacir Pty Ltd”.
In blatant disregard to the Order, we were not approached by man X, man Y, CASACIR or their solicitor, or by any other representative of theirs regarding any dates appropriate to us for a future costs hearing, and did not have a list of alternative dates provided to us for consideration – in spite of time now running out. So, since man X, man Y and CASACIR had not done so, I had to, yet again, enclose a further updated list of dates not suitable for the applicant.
I was not attempting to delay the hearing, and this is shown by both my preparedness to proceed with the hearing on 21 September 2011 and my active objection to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s second adjournment request. There is no urgency for a hearing as exemplified by the significant delay in requesting a hearing at all.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR did not comply – again – this time with the Order. The excuse they provided today was that we had previously given dates [which they had not!] and therefore implied that they felt that they had the right to ignore that part of the Order. How very pathetic, and again, interpreting things how they wanted to.