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.
27 September 2012
On 7 September 2012 I sent the following to Baw Baw Shire Council and received no response [emphasis in original]: “Your website tells us to send emails to this email address if we would like to report a problem with a local road. From the middle of 2009 the Neerim North Road has become degraded and has been getting steadily worse. This as a result of the Casacir trucks that are too heavy for it, including heavy haulage trucks (carting multiple crushers, excavators, drills, conveyors, front-end loaders, graders, haul trucks, and the like) and trucks carrying rock and stone of up to 40 tonne (and I am told that there are some that have been over that figure, too). The road repairs, such as they are, have fallen apart in many cases, and many have only had pathetic patches (see attached for a few examples). It is my opinion that council needs to require that a new contractor be accepted because, judging from the consistent lack of quality of the current road repairer, Quality Roads is a misnomer. Most of the length of the road urgently needs to be pulled up, re-constructed and then sealed with a thick sealing and, in order to maintain any such new surface, there needs to be a limit to the weight that the quarry trucks can carry. I note that there was an earlier letter from council to Casacir advising them that they were only allowed to use trucks up to 40 tonne as long as they did not cause damage – they have caused damage, so the size should be reduced back to the 28 – 30 tonne that they told the tribunal they would be using. Further, I note that council told Casacir in November 2011 (10 months ago) to repair the road and it still has not been done. There has been a further letter months ago telling them to complete the road construction past the quarry entrance and this has still not been done either. Also, please urgently have a white line marked down the centre of the road between Palmer road and the quarry entrance, and have the shoulders line-marked – I am tired of the quarry trucks driving “all over the road” (including over hills and around bends), making it very dangerous driving for everyone else. Casacir, the quarry owner and operator, has the sole responsibility to pay for all road repairs and maintenance, and must do so, particularly because the damage is caused by them, their permit requires it, and because they told a community meeting in December 2011 that they would do the works and pay for it (that was 9 months ago and it is still not done despite the undertaking to do the works)! Please identify your level of satisfaction as regards to each of the photos attached (they show the current standard along various parts of Neerim North Road). From where I sit, it certainly looks as if Casacir runs the show (the failure to meet the road work conditions of their planning permit are just one of the many failures to comply that are being ignored by Casacir and council). Casacir has continued to treat council’s instructions (and their own undertakings) with what looks to me like contempt, and council has continued to let them get away with it. Why is that please? Is it that council does not have the clout or is there some other reason? While waiting on answers to the above questions, can we immediately have the road fully and properly fixed, properly and continuously maintained – and all at the cost of Casacir as is in accordance with their planning permit”.
On 18 September I asked for a response. On 23 September I entered an amount of information in my previous www.quarryfight.com website.
Interestingly though is the fact that on the same day the Warragul & Drounin Gazette came out with a letter on the topic of the road situation by my husband, I finally received an email “answer” to my questions, which stated “As previously advised Council has inspected Neerim North Road and written to CASACIR regarding pavement repairs required on this road. CASACIR have also been instructed to construct and seal 5 metres past the quarry entrance and I have been advised this work will be carried out in October”. I replied asking “Exactly what have Casacir agreed to do in October please” but have not received an answer (again). [letter dated 16 November 2011 and the works are still not done, further letter of 12 July 2012 and the works are still not done]
So, council instructions and undertakings are ignored for over 10 months and there are no repercussions! The people who have to use Neerim North Road have to continue to suffer the deplorable condition of the road and man X, man Y and CASACIR continuing to ignore permit conditions, man Y’s Quality Roads being slapped on the back and yet paid for disgusting road works by rate-payers, and is council not taking the matter seriously enough to enforce the permit!
Seriously, what really gives?? However, I should thank them for the enlightening (non) reply.
23 September 2012
The saga continues (no surprises there) – and the following are certainly not the entire list of ongoing issues and breaches.
Security and safety (or lack of it)
The site is still not secure in at least 6 different locations (how’s that for concern over safety?? – there is absolutely no excuse because these failures are not caused by the farmer (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s previous excuse) – this is a clear and simple failure to secure against direct access into the site even when not attended (and it does not take into consideration that a stock fence is hardly suitable for securing the boundaries of a quarry with high benches and rocks at the bottom). In addition, the stockpiles at the edge of the excavation remain well over the previously mentioned 2m maximum allowed and undertaken height, and are very close to where machinery is operating in the shadow of it. There appear to be no benches which have safety bunds even though the endorsed Figure 5 shows that the claimed “typical method of working” had them on all benches. All safety issues (but only some of them)!!
Overburden storage
The overburden and topsoil that was compacted where it was not allowed to be stored (on the east section of the work authority in direct and deliberate violation of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan as well as their planning permit and work authority, and in violation of direct and very clear repeated instructions from both DPI and council to remove it) remains there (in spite of Kraan telling council that (4 November 2011) “Overburden placed here with conditions were too wet to move elsewhere. This will be removed to south west bund when site conditions are suitable” and (20 January 2012) “Overburden placed here when conditions were too wet to move to it to its final location. This is to be removed to south west bund area. Stripping of topsoil in the south west area has commenced. Anticipated that will begin relocating overburden next week” – “next week” – that was 8 months ago and not a barrow-load has been seen to have been moved. The south west bund is now complete and has been complete for months, and not one bit of the not permitted stored and compacted overburden that was undertaken to be removed and used for the bund has been removed or used for it. And yet, Krann’s words seem to be taken as gospel – there is obviously no accounting for what some people will choose to believe in contradiction to facts (of course, some of the failure lies with council and DPI who ask if something has been done and believe the lies instead of seeking the truth for themselves).
Because the plantings were not planted in a timely fashion and were not planted to the depth shown on the Figures 3 & 5 of the work plan, the overburden that is stockpiled on the western side is clearly visible from Old Fumina Road, and from many locations along Neerim North Road (from Old Fumina Road to the south-eastern end of it), and from a number of properties.
Plantings
If there have been plants planted in a number of locations (although I have never seen any sign of such plantings in those locations), then it is man X, man Y and CASACIR’s choice of whether it is either that the plants were never planted in those locations (a breach of one condition for each location not planted) or that the feral animals have not been controlled and man X, man Y and CASACIR have then failed to replant plants that have died (making it a breach of two separate condition for each location plants have not been replaced). This is also in spite of a number of claims contained in the abovementioned letters from Kraan to council dated 4 November 2011 and 20 January 2012 that the plants have been planted.
The south-west bund has not been vegetated (unless they have been planting weeds – which would be a breach of a further condition. Or perhaps they have fully planted it, just like other areas, and the uncontrolled feral animals have eaten those plants too – making a further two breaches instead of one) and, because it is not vegetated, it is still one of the causes of pollution from the quarry site of the tributary to Kookaburra Creek.
The view from on our dwelling clearly shows the stockpiles around the excavation area, the south-west bund, and the machinery that built the bund and stockpiles was clearly visible and audible – in spite of the claims that there would be nodetrimental visual or noise impacts.
Noise
There is an almost constant level of noise during operational hours that is far beyond “just” nuisance or annoying, and which is certainly significantly and detrimentally impacting the noise environment in spite of the undeniable and indisputable claim that man X, man Y and CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry absolutely “will not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way of noise” [highlighting mine].
The document Noise, Vibration and Airblast Control – Best Practice Environmental Management in Miningstates “Provision of sound walls … is generally effective when plant is operating at ground level in close proximity to the bund wall. … However, the use of bunding becomes less effective the further the noise source and the receiver are located from the bund”. The excavation works are up on benches that are higher (~450m AHD) than the bund (~431m AHD) and the works are approximately 260m from the bund – making the impact of the bund minimal to say the least.
That document further states “The effects of noise and vibration on the health of people exposed to excessive levels have been extensively documented. Investigations have found that prolonged exposure can adversely affect mental and physical health. In addition to effects on the body, noise and vibration also cause psychological reactions. The psychological response is determined by personal factors and by factors associated with the noise or vibration itself. The attitude or mood of the person, his or her environment, the degree of arousal or distraction and whether the noise or vibration is felt to be an invasion of privacy or disruptive (particularly involving concentration such as studying, etc) will dictate personal response. The importance of the task being performed, the relationship of the noise or vibration to personal activity, its predicability and how frequently it occurs will also influence the reaction. There are very specific ways that noise produces psychological effects. These are, essentially, interference with communication and concentration, sleep disturbance and in inspiring fear. These factors lead to irritability which is the first sign of the psychological impact of noise. … sources of much higher levels of vibration (eg wind, domestic appliances, people walking on floors, slamming of doors etc) are readily accepted due to their day to day familiarity or because they are “within the control” of the occupant…. unusual noise, in combination with close proximity visual stimulation, is enough to disturb any animal, including man, and cause panic”.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR are still using machinery and equipment that have not got the broadband reversing alarms (further from bund, higher up, undertaking/requirement for best practice, …)
Drainage
There is still no “rock spalls drain across the quarry entrance road” in spite of council’s assertions that Kraan, on behalf of man X, man Y and CASACIR, claimed that it absolutely existed.
None of my suggestions for control of their discharge of drainage (discharged in breach of their undertaking for a closed, retention and re-use site) have been implemented.
Neerim North Road
The Neerim North Road saga goes on and on.
3 weeks after the tribunal order providing the conditions came down giving very clear instructions as to how the road was to be done, a letter sent from man X, man Y and CASACIR to council dated 4 Feb 2009 clearly states and undertakes that they “We will construct Neerim North Road from the end of the existing seal to 5 metres past our present entrance (approx. 750m long, 6 metres wide pavement and 0.9 metre shoulders with 14mm primerseal) and culverts widening where necessary. We propose to add 50mm depth of Class 3 crushed rock for regulation and shape this giving as a pavement depth on average 250mm with recent dippings averaging 200mm [sic]. Our preference is not to rip or disturb existing pavement as most is 40mm plus well-compacted crushed rock. We will also asphalt the entrance to the quarry as this will aid turning traffic. The asphalting will be completed to meet VicRoads Standard Drawing 2062 (21.8 metres long constructed to the boundary line of entrance). All other works including signage will be carried out according to the planning permit conditions”.
Sounds good doesn’t it! However, the relevant planning condition states that, [emphasis mine] “Prior to commencement of the use the applicant must construct Neerim North Road from the end of the existing sealed pavement to a point at least 5 metres past the proposed entrance to the quarry”. Firstly, the road was only primer-sealed and was not constructed prior to the use commencing (and, indeed, for 13 months) and, because it was not constructed as the conditions demanded, it fell apart and such repairs as there were fell apart and those repairs fell apart and had to be repaired (etc). Further, the road has not been constructed and/or sealed “to a point at least 5 metres past the proposed entrance to the quarry”, let alone having been done “prior to commencement of the use” (and the “use” commenced on at least (and arguably before) 10 September 2009 according to the 2008 tribunal’s definition contained in the planning permit conditions) – and such work has still not been done in spite of a direct instruction by council to do so by letter earlier this year. Further, the conditions require that there be “roadside table drains and crossroad culverts as appropriate”. In spite of the requirement of the condition, not only were the “roadside table drains” not even addressed in man X, man Y and CASACIR’s letter to council (above), but the drains were not done until well over a year later (conveniently just before the 2010 tribunal hearing that was held because of the observed lack of compliance (with this and other conditions), and the sealing of the road was notperformed in 2010 when undertaken to be performed, but was finally, and “conveniently”, done only days before the costs hearing on or about 10 December 2011!) There have been no “crossroad culverts” installed at all in spite of the quarry entrance and, arguably, Palmer Road requiring them. In addition, while man X, man Y and CASACIR argue that the “VicRoads Standard Drawing 2062” does not have to be met for the width of the entrance (and they did not met that width requirement), the entrance, far from aiding truck traffic, has caused, and continues to cause, the quarry trucks to drive on the wrong side of the road (in fact I recently had to wait while a truck used the entire of my side of the road to turn into the quarry entrance)! While they did initially seal to the old entrance gate (which was over 21.8 metres), it appears that the location of the new gate (very close to the road and certainly not sufficient for a truck and trailer to be off the road while waiting for the gates to open) is not sealed, or if it is sealed then it has been covered by material – has it been dropped by trucks in spite of saying that there would not be any such droppage and that any such droppage “will be cleaned up immediately”?)), making the entry dusty and the cause of drainage-laden run-off and a cause of pollution to Kookaburra Creek via its nearby tributary. [photo to come]
Man X, man Y and CASACIR also stated in the letter above that: “All other works including signage will be carried out according to the planning permit conditions”. However, a number of the other conditions have not been met and are still not being met, including but certainly not limited to the maintenance and repairs on Neerim North Road.
The section of the Neerim North Road from Main Neerim Road to Palmer Road is still in such bad repair that a Roads Maintenance Audit, presumably compiled by man Y’s Quality Roads, contains 13 listings of “Pavement Failure” in various sections of the road, including one which states “SAFETY HAZ – URGENT”. It must be remembered that council engineers as well as man X, man Y and CASACIR’s traffic specialist, said that the road (prior to the commencement of man X, man Y and CASACIR using it for their quarry traffic), was in excellent conditions and capable of carrying the loads man X, man Y and CASACIR said would be carried. Five of those listings are marked as being “large”. Further, 12 of the listings were noted on 14 September 2011, with the “urgent” one being targeted for 15 September (the next day but still not done over a year later) and 7 were marked as being targeted to be done on 23 September 2011 (a week later but are still not done a year later). Then there are the further 4 that are targeted for 26 December 2012 (over 15 months after they were flagged as problems, and they are still not done) – ah, the lack of quality works of man Y’s Quality Roads! Then there is the classic, being the one that was identified on 2 February 2012 (nearly 3 months after having been instructed in no uncertain terms to do the works) but is not targeted until 20 May 2013 (well over 15 months after having been identified). The question is: have man X, man Y and CASACIR refused to pay for the works, or is it that man Y’s Quality Roads is just not willing to do the works? Whatever the reason, it would certainly appear that they don’t care about the failures in the road and therefore I contend that it is more than arguable that the care-factor for the compliance with the VCAT condition and council’s instructions could be determined to be almost nil because, even though man X, man Y and CASACIR were instructed in writing on 12 August 2010 and 16 November 2011 (and possibly other times as well) to repair the road at man X, man Y and CASACIR’s cost, and man X, man Y and CASACIR undertook on 7 December 2011 to do so, the pavement failures have not been remedied and have further deteriorated. In addition, FOI requests have been unable to unearth the required man X, man Y and CASACIR works programs for any proposed repairs and/or maintenance.
In fact, the Warragul & Drouin Gazette has had a number of articles in it recently regarding the severe problems with man Y’s Quality Roads and man Y’s attempts at justification (a purported lack of funding by council) for failures of road works performed by “Quality” Roads. It should be noted that there is no such viable excuse for the Neerim North Road to be in such bad repair since the repairs and maintenance have to be paid for by man X, man Y and CASACIR. It must be noted again that both Quality Roads and CASACIR share a director (man Y) and two shareholders (man Y and his son Heath) – so the mutual director only has to get himself to agree to pay the for the works, and then instruct himself to do the works, and to then do them properly, and all would then be well on that front (until man X, man Y and CASACIR’s trucks wreck the road yet again and the cycle would then commence again).
Reasons for failure to act?
The authorities are clearly either too intimidated, incompetent or just simply can’t be bothered to do anything, or they have some sort of benefit (e.g. warm fuzzies or pats on the back) for choosing to not enforce man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit, work authority, work plan and/or other legislation. It is clearly man X, man Y and CASACIR calling the shots and no-one does anything about it – no wonder they and the authorities all hate me for trying to get all, or even any, of them to do what they clearly don’t want to do. Status quo works for them, but not for those impacted by their failures.
18 September 2012
This month is the third anniversary of blasting – it is man X, man Y and CASACIR’s claim that the blasting was not a “use” activity but a construction activity – in spite of the very crystal clear permit condition (contained in the tribunal order brought down 19 January 2009) that [emphasis mine] “For the purpose of this condition ‘construction activities’ are any activities that are not part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing and breaking) and transporting rock”. It therefore seems very strange that man X, man Y and CASACIR can then tell the Supreme Court that “[they] did not interpret orders made by VCAT how [they] wanted to interpret them rather than how they should be interpreted” and “It is incorrect to allege that Casacir has interpreted orders made by the Tribunal how it wanted to interpret them rather than how they should be interpreted. All orders made by VCAT were implemented and followed”!
It seems to me that, since the tribunal made the clear determination of what was a “construction” activity and what was not, then such orders need to be followed and not changed to suit whatever suited man X, man Y and CASACIR and what they want it to mean.
Today is also the 3rd anniversary of when we first tried to fight for our legislated rights, and of Byard’s apparent decision that man X, man Y and CASACIR were right no matter what, regardless of what proof I produced.
I asked some questions of Vince Lopardi of SRW a while ago. It took 5 weeks until I received what effectively turned out to be a non-answer, and even then it was from a different person.
I noted that the hydrogeological assessment did not comply with the SRW conditions 54(i) and 54(ii) (amongst others) contained in the planning permit, and therefore asked about the following: (1) in relation to what is actually the west spring (the one to the west of the stage 1 works, and which is erroneously referred to as the “south-west” spring in the monitoring reports, and which is the head of Kookaburra Creek), we urgently requested the following details: (a) how and when they were going to require that we were going to be “identified” as being “affected” by the impacts upon that spring (a requirement of condition 54i), and (b) because that spring had already been identified as being severely impacted (as it was and is intended for total destruction in blatant defiance of a terms of settlement agreement, making the signing of the agreement by man X, man Y and CASACIR a clear case of deliberate and premeditated fraud), and how and when SRW would ensure that man X, man Y and CASACIR will compensate us for the loss of the natural spring flow and flow quality, and how that compensation will be determined (a requirement of condition 54ii), and I especially wanted to know SRW and/or man X, man Y and CASACIR’s proposed process for consultation with us regarding it.
I also requested details of when and how SRW would require an assessment of the real “south-west” spring (the one to the south of Pearce Road, close to the Neerim North Road and which provides additional flow to Kookaburra Creek), and (a) how and when they would ensure that it is actually mapped (a requirement of condition 54i), (b) how and when we were going to be “identified” as being “affected” by the impacts upon it (a requirement of condition 54i), and (c) because it has already been identified as being impacted, what the impact is determined to be, how and when they would ensure that man X, man Y and CASACIR compensated us for the loss of the natural spring flow and flow quality, and how that compensation will be determined (a requirement of condition 54ii), and especially wanted to know their proposed consultation process with us regarding it.
SRW, in eventually responding to the questions about the conditions they put on the planning permit for the quarry, didn’t actually answer the questions! As noted above, I asked how and when we were going to be identified as being affected but the question was by-passed and ignored. The claim by SRW was that “thehydrogeological assessment prepared for Casacir Pty Ltd (Casacir) by Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd was reviewed by Southern Rural Water (SRW). It addresses SRW’s requirements under the Baw Baw Planning Permit and is of an appropriate technical standard”! How very interesting since it does not identify all of the aquifers in the extraction area – this is possibly deliberate since such identification could mean that man X, man Y and CASACIR could not quarry there. Especially since the stratigraphy that was supplied in the hydrogeological assessment was vastlydifferent to that produced to the 2008 tribunal (by the same specialist – John Nolan of Hyder) – which clearly showed the regional watertable, as well as a number of other flows/aquifers, to be well and truly within upper levels of the extraction area. It was horrific to us to hear Peake (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s then barrister) asking something like “so what if the regional aquifer is breached?” – I would have to listen to the recordings of that part of the hearing to find the exact quote.
It seems very convenient to me that the locations of the groundwater systems changed significantly since John Nolan, the Hyder representative at the 2008 tribunal hearing, presented his testimony to the tribunal. I wonder if he had his butt kicked for revealing too much since he is no longer doing the hydrogeological work, or whether is was because he gave fraudulent misrepresentations and otherwise erroneous information!
Regardless, SRW are not only satisfied with their own conditions not having been met, but a document that is such a failure, according to SRW, “is of an appropriate technical standard”!
16 September 2012
The more I delve, the more I find of great and significant “interest”, and am horrified, frustrated and depressed by it all. I have previously contended that it appeared as if there could be collusion and I have further contended that the authorities were repeatedly choosing to look the other way in regards to requirements and compliance. Here is a prime example of where Peter McWhinney of Baw Baw Shire Council seems to have, and Anne Bignell of DPI has, openly supported man X, man Y and CASACIR in not having to comply with a legislatively binding State Environmental Planning Policy (in this case, the PEM [Protocol for Environmental Management: Mining and Extractive Industries – Publication 1191 December 2007]), to the significant detriment of neighbours [emphasis below is mine].
Peter said in a letter to man X, man Y and CASACIR dated 6 July 2009: “The Environmental Protection Authority has noted that the revised Work Plan does not specify that background monitoring is to be carried out before commencement of work as required under the Protocol for Environmental Management: Mining and Extractive Industries. This needs to be done.” Then he failed to require it be done – why was he so willing to not demand compliance, but endorsed the noted substandard work plan as part of the planning permit the same day, regardless?
The PEM actually states that: [emphasis mine] “The requirements for each level of assessment are discussed in detail in the following sections …. Table 1 shows an overview of the requirements for determining the level of assessment for …extractive industries” . “Level 2” of the table states: a “Medium … quarry [is] between 150,000 tonnes/yr and 500,000 tonnes/yr extraction” and applies to “Rural areas close to residences(less than 500m from the limit of work described in the approved DPI work plan…)”.
Firstly, let’s look at the reality of the distances from the quarry to the closest residences. It was acknowledged in the first work plan that “The nearest sensitive receptor is 140m from the southern boundary” (this is but one of the many recordings of the fact that Pearce Road is the confirmed southern boundary of the “site” and the location of some of the dustiest activities – and is our old residence (at the admitted 140 from the site). It is also noted that “A dwelling is being constructed approximately 180 metres south of the previous quarry area” (the area that was to be and has now been, uncovered and extracted – and is our new dwelling) – further, this new dwelling had its application in at council before man X, man Y and CASACIR had even submitted their documentation to DPI and many months before they submitted its application to council) – in other words, man X, man Y and CASACIR acknowledged that they decided to apply for a quarry knowing that there was an existing house 140m away and a new dwelling was being constructed 180m away from the area they proposed to open a quarry in. There were and are also acknowledged existing residences at 300m, 320m, and 340m away (considerably less than the 500m required – although they claim that one dwelling 300m away is 1km away (they should learn how to read a tape measure).
Secondly, it is important to look at the amount of material being removed from, or moved on, the site. The PEM goes on to say that “For the purposes of this PEM extraction means: *for quarries the amount of soil and rock that is moved or extracted per year” i.e. all material: e.g. soil, overburden, resource, fill, etc. The first work plan identified that ”It is expected production will increase over time to approximately 400,000tpa [tonnes per annum]” (subsequent information has indicated that the conservative amount would be 200,000tpa (this is possibly to give the impression of lesser impacts), but they have also clearly stated that there is no upper limit (so the 400,000tpa or more is more than likely). Indeed, all the work plans (there have been 3 of them) agree that the amount of material being removed is 16.5 million tonne and the amount of other material being moved is 1.2 million cubic metres – and man X, man Y and CASACIR seem to be trying to extract and move and remove material as fast as they can. In addition, man X, man Y and CASACIR told the community that there are currently an average of 20 trucks removing material from the site – so, taking an average of 30 tonne per truck (and many of them are apparently close to or over 40 tonne), that is a total of 165,000 tonne per annum, and that is being conservative. That figure also does not include the soil, overburden, fill materials, etc. All that information needed to be taken into consideration according to the PEM, but wasn’t.
“Irrespective of the level of assessment emissions must be controlled by the application of best practice and where Class 3 indicators are emitted these must be controlled to the Maximum Extent Achievable (MEA). In some situations extensive monitoring and modeling data may be required to assess the level of impact that emissions from the operations on site may have on the beneficial uses of the air environment defined in the policy.” Emissions are not controlled at all times because significant amounts of dust frequently billow off site – so “best practice” is certainly not employed at all times, nor do council, EPA or DPI require that it is.
The PEM goes on to say further, that [emphasis mine] “As many dusts from quarrying … can be expected to contain silica, the MEA provisions apply to those activities that give rise to emissions of silica (eg crushing)”, and “The identification of indicators that may be present at individual sites needs to be undertaken in the early stages of planning and priorto the air quality assessment being commenced to ensure that the appropriate indicators are included in the assessment. Advice from EPA should be obtained at this early stage. Schedule A of the SEPP (AQM) should be consulted to identify potential substances that may require assessment. If an assessment is not to be undertaken for key indicators, such as respirable crystalline silica, then supporting evidence needs to be provided to show why an assessment is not required. Identification of all indicators of concern and assessment of these indicators must be conducted. In doing this assessment allsources need to be considered includingemissions from haul roads, crushers, generators, processing operations (including leaching), [extractive] operations and any other plant operations on the site. The type of rock and soil also needs to be considered. For Level 1 and 2 assessments mobile sources (such as trucks and graders) also need to be included. For large area-based sources of emissions such as … quarries the majority of emissions from the site arise from many ground level sources such as disturbance of soil due to earth moving equipment and vehicle emissions. It is appropriate that the criteria used to assess the potential impacts from these operations are directly related to the protection of the health of the surrounding population and sensitive land uses.” There was no such assessment and there was no supporting evidence produced – it seems to be basically a case of “just trust me” in spite of the legislated requirement! Man X, man Y and CASACIR have maintained that there is no silica producing material on the site, and that may well be true. However, we have quartz on our property, including close to the point that has been identified as being 140m from the quarry site’s southern boundary, and has been assessed by WorkSafe as being silica. I find it quite extraordinary that we would have silica producing material that close to the quarry site, but that they would not – having said that, I am not a geologist, just an observant and severely detrimentally impacted neighbour.
The PEM continues [emphasis mine]:
“To enable an assessment of air quality impacts through modelling an understanding of existingair quality (ie., background) in the area is required. The data requirements for each level of assessment are:… • Level 2 — Continuous representative 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 data for a 12-month period, representative analysis of crystalline silica (PM2.5 fraction) and heavy metal content of PM10”
“The responsibility lies with the generators of air emissions to identify and undertake appropriate air emissions control and management initiatives and demonstrate that the requirements for application of best practice and maximum extent achievable have been met and the beneficial uses of the air environment as specified in the SEPP (AQM) are protected… Deposited dust is an indicator of the effectiveness of site management practices and the potential for offsite nuisance. Deposited dust should be monitored at the site boundary for most operations. Monitoring is conducted with dust deposition gauges that should be located both upwind and downwind of the site to reflect the impact of the … quarry operations during the most predominant wind directions. Results of monitoring should not exceed 4g/m2/month (no more than 2g/m2/month above background) as a monthly average.” However, man X, man Y and CASACIR, being the “generators of air emissions” have failed to “undertake appropriate air emissions control and management initiatives” or the “application of best practice” at all times. Further, the “Deposited dust” is not “monitored at the site boundary” and they unlawfully use the full “4g/m2/month” and not the required “2g/m2/month”.
“The criteria for deposited dust has been used in Victoria for many years to protect the amenity of populations near … quarries. The averaging period is set at a monthly average to enable an assessment of nuisance dust in a timely manner to ensure that people’s amenity is not adversely impacted.” But our amenity has not been protected but has been adversely impacted, and continues to be detrimentally impacted, because Anne will not do anything to make CASACIR control the dust (DPI did put a s110 Notice on CASACIR to try to make them control the dust but when she has proof that the dust is still exiting the site she does nothing to make them control it). Anne’s response is that the dust is not an issue, and that no additional monitors are needed, and that none were required on the actual site boundary on the south (in spite of Anne, herself, having previously stated that the “WA1347 proposal is that this criteria* is met at the WA boundary or within” (i.e. the WA is the work authority boundary and is also the “site” boundary) [*the performance standards, e.g. dust and other air emissions, as well as noise, blasting, etc].
As far as the actual monitors go, there are only two dust deposition monitors (one on the northern “site” boundary and one approximately 135m to the south of the “site” boundary – i.e. not on or at the “site” boundary) and only one“real-time” monitor very belatedly installed, and which worked only sporadically (again approximately 135m to the south of the “site” boundary – i.e. not on or at the “site” boundary) – and that is in spite of Anne Bignell having previously seen and acknowledged that dust exited the site that was not captured by the dust monitors. Also, even though the works commenced on or before 4 August 2009, the dust deposition monitors were not installed until almost 3 months after the works commenced, and the one “real-time” monitor was not installed until almost 4 months after the works commenced (and did not work for more than about 20 days in the first 14 months, and even then not for a number of months at a later time), and all that met Anne’s apparent satisfaction too!
In order to further protect neighbours, the PEM states that “Proponents must demonstrate that consideration has been given to greenhouse and energy efficiency issues in their proposal”, but this information was not provided and Anne did not require such information.
We have seen from the above that the Level man X, man Y and CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry should have come under was at least a Level 2 assessment – i.e. the amount of material removed is admitted to be morethan the lower figure of 150,000tpa, and there are no less than 4 dwellings that are considerably less than the 500m required. Now we look at what Level Anne Bignell put it under and why. In spite of all the above, Anne Bignell’s comments to Peter McWhinney (email dated 9 July 2009) “…according to the PEM we think it is not needed and it is quite an issue because if they fall under a Level 2 assessment then background dust monitoring is required for 12 months prior to commencement of works! Our interpretation is that they require a Level 3 assessment which doesn’t require background dust monitoring”. Note the exclamation mark after the comment about the 12 month assessment time before works can commence! Clearly Anne didn’t want to have man X, man Y and CASACIR have to wait before commencing works or to have to produce a report that would show the real impacts. One really does, yet again, have to ask “why is she so very cooperative with Mann X, man Y and CASACIR rather than legislation?”
12 September 2012
Interesting the people you meet. I recently met a neighbour for the first time. Remembering that I am merely relaying what he told me (therefore obviously hearsay), he said that his family was informed by man X that the quarry would only be operating for 10 years because all the material that they wanted would be taken out by then and that it would be restored to parkland.
I find such stories as this absolutely enthralling. Why would someone spend so much money having plans drawn up for a development that would take around 80 years based on their own figures (which, admittedly, have been known to be extremely faulty), and show at least two further stages than could be excavated within 10 years, only to then “restore the land to parkland” with all that purported resource available? If something doesn’t make sense, then… It is my considered opinion that the director deliberately lied to the neighbour so that he would not complain – in the first 10 years at least.
My guess is that, if (and I say if) it is man X, man Y and CASACIR’s intention to only extract for 10 years, then that is possibly the reason that they claimed, under “Overarching Obligations Certification” and “Proper Basis Certification” (legally binding on telling the truth) to the Supreme Court that “… [man X, man Y and CASACIR] have suffered loss and damage:…Devaluation of Casacir’s business and goodwill by reason of the adverse publicity created in and by the website publication to the quarry market in Victoria, in particular the south eastern regions, causing diminution in value of the Casacir quarry operation and the Casacir quarry land, if placed on the market”, “Casacir’s business has become unsaleable on the open market by reason of the harm caused by the website publication, alternatively saleable at a nominal value only” and “The Casacir quarry land has become unsaleable on the open market by reason of the harm caused by the website publication, alternatively saleable at a nominal value only” – meaning that, at the end of 10 years, rather than “restoring the land to parkland” they would be far more likely to sell to someone else to operate since they have flagged the valuations as a concern.
It does, however, raise the issue of why tell someone who was planning on buying land adjacent to a planned quarry, that the impacts would only be for a very short time if they were not going to be.
In fact, there was a community meeting held on 2 June 2008, and the Minutes taken by council record man X told the community that “On 200,000t [tonne per annum, and being the stated expected higher end of the rate of extraction] into 20,000,000t (16.5million t*) we will be old before we see the end of it. We will never see the end. It will take a lot of years to use”. [*the 16.5 million is the actual forecast amount of resource, the 20,000,000 was presumed to be a rounding up to show that it would be about a 100 year time period] – proving that, if the neighbour was right about what was claimed, man X deliberately lied to the neighbour.
The previous owners of the land bought by the neighbour’s family had tried to pressure us into not advising any potential purchasers of the intended quarry. Our integrity, however, would not allow someone to fall into a similar situation as we had been put into, especially given that by law they had to be told that the application was going before DPI for consideration.
On a separate note, it seems strange that man X and Kraan can’t seem to align their stories. Kraan is recorded in the above mentioned Minutes as having said “Trucks were different in the earlier days when the quarry used to operate”, while man X is recorded as having said “Trucks will be the same as used back then. There are no plans to use B-double trucks, Truck and trailers will be used which are the same as what has been used”. So they are the same but different? Further, the road traffic specialist, Norman Russell Symons of Ratio, stated “Existing quarry operations by Casacir Pty Ltd elsewhere utilise truck and dog trailers, with average payloads of about 28-30 tonnes, for road haulage”, thus indicating less impact on the roads. Yet man X, man Y and CASACIR quickly moved to using 38 tonne payload “quad dog & trailers”, but I have been told that it is not uncommon for the loads to be over 39 tonne, or even up to 50 tonne. There is an old saying about “not being able to lie straight in bed” … hmmm.
11 September 2012
The only topsoil stockpiles I have been able to find on site on the access road that swings down to the intersection with Kookaburra Creek and the haul road, where there is no apparent protection for the creek water, and with none of the promised silt or sediment traps. That means that the drainage run-off from those stockpiles could or would cause further contamination of Kookaburra Creek and/or the dam – that is unless the drainage from that area also does not follow gravity and goes elsewhere and man X, man Y and CASACIR seem to believe. The leaching from the dam into Kookaburra Creek has been identified by both Anne Bignell and Bob Duncan (both officers in DPI). Man X, man Y and CASACIR‘s own work plan also indicated that this is a more than likely scenario: “The stored water [in the dam] maintained a fairly constant level, with ground water escaping into fractures in the ground …it appears that any sub surface water originating from the north of the road (ie within the proposed quarry development area) flows along permeable horizons towards the south trending [Kookaburra Creek]”. In addition, the stockpiles appear to be far higher than the 2m allowed. Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work authority conditions specifically and explicitly demands that“… the Work Authority holder must ensure that topsoil to a depth of 150mm below the natural surface is removed and placed in stockpiles not exceeding 2m in height”. Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan undertakes that “The height of the topsoil mounds will be limited to approximately 2m high to assist in maintaining soil viability.” Their work plan also undertakesthat “All top soil will remain on site for use in rehabilitation” – but some has been used in the underlying construction of the bunds (i.e. buried under overburden and not used for rehabilitation purposes), and it is believed that some may have been sold off-site as “red sand” (although that could be overburden that has been screened and sold in spite of the full knowledge that “The site does no generate enough overburden to completely rehabilitate all quarry faces”).
The stockpiled and compacted topsoil (along with a significant amount of overburden) still remains (for well over 18 months now) where it was and is not permitted to be, andin spite of a number of requests by authorities to remove it, andin spite of the undertaking that it would be removed. Further, it was compacted regardless of the work authority’s clear and concise demand that “The Work Authority holder must ensure that topsoil stockpiles are protected from … compaction”.
The dust comes off the site in the area of the crushing plants in spite of the fact that we and the tribunal were assured that “… sprays are used to dampen … the mobile crusher” and “Water sprays had been used on the crushing plants since the start of the work”, and which we and the Supreme Court have been assured that “Any statement made on behalf of Casacir that there was a fixed spray over the crushers at the Casacir quarry operation was true and correct. There are, and at all relevant times have been, fixed sprays erected and in operation over crushers at the Casacir quarry operation since its commencement”… and the dust billowing off-site is in spite of a s110 Notice for dust exiting the site.
10 September 2012
Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the first day that man X, man Y and CASACIR admitted that they drilled on site. The drilling is just one of the major differences in opinion between man X, man Y and CASACIR and us. They put to the tribunal members that the definition of “use” activities should be when trucks take material out the gate and everything else before that is construction. The members disputed that and they directed that the definition relate to specific activities. Thus they created condition 10 of the planning permit, which clearly states that [emphasis mine] “For the purpose of this condition ‘construction activities’ are any activities that are not part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing and breaking) and transporting rock”. By this we can see that the “use” activities are “any activities that” are “part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing and breaking) and transporting rock” – this makes it clear that drilling is part of the “use” activities – yet man X, man Y and CASACIR claimed that the “use” did not start until 13 November 2009 – being the date they said was the first that material “went out the gate”. Then, in spite of the clear definition of the tribunal members, the authorities have ignored the condition’s definition and agreed with man X, man Y and CASACIR. I don’t understand why people chose to be obtuse about facts. And they say that I interpret things how I want when I simply take things literally!
Thus, I contend that the “use” absolutely commenced 3 years ago today (in fact, I contend that it commenced even earlier based on the definition and other documentation)!
8 September 2012
Did we fail to get the breaches complied with? Yes (and we are still failing to get them complied with!). However, good can come out of that failure, which is why I have tried to require accountability from man X, man Y and CASACIR and the authorities. The authorities can do better, and they will, if they’re honest about it and learn from their mistakes. What they have not realised is that they are part of something much larger than what is apparent and there is a lot at stake for all parties, both personally and corporately.
In the making and updating of my www.quarryfight.com website, I created a record of underlying discrimination against us, the kind that some could easily dismiss as minor or irrelevant. Some would possibly say such nonsense as: ‘they didn’t meant it’ or ‘they don’t understand’ – those sort of comments are not true because all parties are fully aware of what they are doing and not doing.
For me it’s really just a matter of claiming our legislated rights and thereby standing up for a cause I believe in – as Mahatma Ghandi said “You must be the change you want to see in the world”. I know it’s valuable to record what happened, and is happening, so that others learn what to expect and what can happen. I have found that I am contributing to the bigger picture, because there are many others out there in our situation.
It’s strange, but until Byard (a senior member of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) tried to severely denigrate my character for standing up for our rights, I had not had my honour or integrity questioned. In spite of never having met me other than from his seat at the bench, but he has acted as if he knew me – but by making such false assumptions and comments showed that not only did he not know me, but that he was not even a good judge of character. Further, he then used the fact that I had acted on behalf of our company (in trying to have our pre-existing rights protected and the breaches of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry dealt with), to jump to assumptions. As a result of his wrong conclusions he has accused me of personally being vexatious. Byard had been, and I daresay remains, a critic (there is nothing wrong with that per se), but I have found his criticisms cruelly, ruthlessly, and relentlessly, biased, vindictive, and extremely personal – in fact, he bullied me – and none of that is acceptable. If someone wants to question my actions that’s fine – demand honest accounting if you want to, but please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that there were and are no breaches and/or that nothing has happened to impact our property and our ability to operate an agricultural enterprise, and don’t try to intimidate or bully me into saying or believing that nothing happened.
What do I want? Not just in our situation, but generally, I want the authorities (including the tribunal) to change, to own up to their mistakes and actually be a force for justice, honour, compliance and protection, as is their duty. They need to step up to the mark and take responsibility instead of bowing to what big business, and people such as man X and man Y want. Aristotle said: “The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” Are there none who would be brave enough to step out from the group actively supporting man X, man Y and CASACIR and rise to the challenge?
6 September 2012
I note that any and all discharge of drainage (whether intentional or not) is in breach of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s multiple undertakings to have a totally “closed, retention and re-use system”. Such undertakings were made to the 2008 tribunal (and may have been part of the tribunal’s decision to grant a permit), and in the documentation endorsed as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit and which is the basis of their work authority. For example, two of the many such undertakings were [emphasis mine]: “These controls will ensure a closed system with no off site discharge” and “The drainage system ensures there will be no discharge of surface drainage water”).
In view of Peter (on behalf of council) having blatantly excused things (as noted in relation to the discharge of drainage in his letters shown in my updates of 1 August and 5 September 2012), and having failed to even suggest any changes that would even try to reduce the amount of drainage discharging from the site, I have sent Peter some suggestions, so let’s see if anything gets done now to start to remedy the situation. I suggested, for starters that he:
(1) immediately insist that the entrance to the paddock that was, and is being, used for the stockpiling of overburden (in spite of Peter’s claim to the contrary) have a layer of stone at least 100mm deep pressed into the entire bare earth area – that may help slow the discharge from the stockpiles that exits the site;
(2) require the so-called “catch drain” collection point be immediately and regularly emptied (and not into the drain or off-site);
(3) require the non-existent but (according to Peter) claimed “rock spalls drain across the quarry entrance road” actually be immediately installed.
Isn’t a shame that I have to make suggestions when it is man X, man Y and CASACIR’s job to comply with legislation, their own undertakings (including to the tribunal), and their work plan (and other documentation), and when it is Peter’s job to (1) ensure compliance and (2) make sure that we are not detrimentally impacted!
Perhaps if Peter and the engineers had taken along a copy of the conditions of the permit (which includes compliance with the work authority) when they went out to the site, and if they had assessed reality against the conditions it might have enlightened them to some of the obligations that have been, and are being, not complied with.
I have nothing to base it on, but I get the very real feeling that man X, man Y and CASACIR, council, DPI are allowing all these things to take place before the Works on Waterway application is applied for (if it will be applied for before the impacting works take place – remembering that such illegal actions have happened before and we were forced to fight for our water to be restored to us, and remembering that they all worked together to reassign the boundaries of stage 1 so that the prerequisites that had to be performed well before the end of the stage did not have to be done for some time).
These matters are not just significant, but are vital, to our property and the ability of our company to be able to operate a farming enterprise. Our rights are being ignored, as are the requirements and protections of the planning scheme and other legislation.
5 September 2012
Late yesterday afternoon I received a letter, dated 31 August, from Peter McWhinney (the manager of statutory planning for Baw Baw Shire Council). The letter is in response to the repeated complaints I have made in regard to the drainage that is being discharged from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry site. Interestingly, after an initial response (see updates for 1 August 2012) that was purported to quote man X, man Y and CASACIR, and contained Peter and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s denial in the face of photographic proof), there had been no response to the proof of the area being used for quarry use in spite of the apparent denial of it – until I posted the photo on the web (in the updates for 18 August 2012). In the letter received yesterday, Peter states: “… an inspection was carried out with council engineers. The inspection was carried out after a period of heavy rainfall. Stormwater run-off was channelling down Neerim North Road around the corner into Pearce Road and through the culvert into the paddock opposite the quarry where it eventually made its way across to the headwaters of a tributary to [Kookaburra] creek. The water was carrying sediment. From the inspection the water was coming down Neerim North Road and not off the recently constructed southern bund where a catch drain at the base collects any stormwater runoff from the bund. The origin of the water was what was collecting off the road surface and emanating from the driveway to the quarry and the driveway crossing into the paddock to the west. The recently piled soil/bund in that paddock appears to contribute very little, if any, to the water running down the road. Our opinion was that the flow and the extent of sediment therein was not unusual for an unsealed rural road with unsealed crossings entering. …. The headwaters of the tributary were not inspected. The water ran over pasture for some distance, which would act to trap the sediment, as was occurring further down Pearce Road, and the swampy area at the headwaters would likewise filter the flow. … There was no apparent issue further down Pearce Road. Contact was made with other relevant authorities, which also indicated they had received like correspondence from you on this issue. Their opinion of the situation accorded with that of council. This likewise accords with council’s previous advice. I hope this alleviates your concerns.”
Sounds fine and responsible, doesn’t it – in fact, if it was not so very sad, concerning, and frustrating, it would almost be laughable. How could my concerns be alleviated with a letter containing inaccuracies, selective observations and contradictions from what he said previously? I could respond to them all, or even some of them, but I’ll keep it all for future use.
I note also that in order to have a proper assessment it would have been valuable for them to ask me to attend so that I could see what they were seeing and show the many more photos I have (I had made repeated offers to meet Peter at any time and date of his choosing – which he always refused) – but I guess that would have undermined what they wanted to respond with.
4 September 2012
Peter McWhinney, council manager of statutory planning at Baw Baw Shire Council, stated on page 20 of his recommendation to council dated 11 June 2008, that: “The scenario of allowing the quarry to set up and then to have to close it down because it can’t comply is almost as untenable as allowing it to continue to breach the guidelines and unreasonably impact upon residents’ amenity because it can’t comply after having allowed it”.
Sounds good doesn’t it! Reality is though that, in spite of being fully aware that the quarry would (and indeed has) significantly, detrimentally and “unreasonably impact upon residents’ amenity … after having allowed it”, Peter (on behalf of council), DPI, EPA, WGCMA, SRW, and others (including the tribunal), have continued to allow not only the continued impacts (in breach of the planning scheme and therefore in breach of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit and their work authority), but have actively supported man X, man Y and CASACIR and the quarry in the failures to comply.
If you are fighting a quarry or other like business, be prepared for people to say what sounds good, but which is very likely to be a lot of hot air. Be prepared also that, if you try to have your pre-existing legislated protections enforced, you (not those responsible for the breaches or those responsible for not enforcing compliance) will likely be taken to the tribunal or court for costs for trying to get the protections and legislated requirements enforced – that is what is happening in our case.
There appears to be no such thing as justice when fighting big business. This is particularly shown in scenarios where the authorities become like mates to them – helping, supporting and aligning with them instead of performing their responsibilities properly.
Some of the requirements contained in the planning scheme are as follows (the Mineral Resource (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (the Act under which man X, man Y and CASACIR have and retain theirs work authority), states that they have to be complied with in order to maintain a work authority) [emphasis mine]:
- (clause 01) “To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”
- (clause 13.04-1): “Ensure that … community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using … land use separation techniquesas appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area”.
- (clause 13.04-2): To “assist the protection and improvement of air quality” and “Ensure that land-use planning … provision contributes to improved air quality by: … [ensuring], wherever possible, that there is suitable separation between land uses that reduce amenity and sensitive land uses”.
- (clause 14.03-2): “Provide buffer areas between new extractive industries and sensitive land uses, determined on the following principles: *Clearly defined buffer areas appropriate to the nature of the proposed extractive uses, which are to be owned or controlled by the proponent of an extractive industry, are specified in an application for permit”.
- (clause 17.02-2): “Provide adequate separation and buffer areas between sensitive uses and offensive or dangerous industries and quarries to ensure that residents are not affected by adverse environmental effects, nuisance or exposure to hazards”.
- (clause 14.02-1): “To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater”.
- (clause 14.02-2): “To protect water quality”.
- (clause 22.01 (Baw Baw Shire Council)): “Policy– It is policy that: * The co-ordinated and planned development of land should be pursued in order to achieveeconomic growth, sustainable management of the environment, a continuing increase in the quality of life for all residents”.
- (clause 52.09): “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”.
- andmany others (just for example, but not limited to: air quality (which is listed previously) – including the need to retain any emissions within the site; land values; agricultural continuation; land use conflicts; …).
The reality is that the area surroundingman X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry is not “pleasant”, is not a “safe working, living” or “recreational environment” for the residents. Our air quality has been significantly reduced–not protected, or improved; and the noise amenity is significantly “reduced”. There are noproper or adequate “land use separation techniques” because we are being detrimentally impacted, the buffer is not “specified”, and it and is not “owned or controlled” by the “proponent” (the now owner and operator of the quarry, being man X, man Y and CASACIR). Water (surface water, catchment and groundwater) is not protected either by quality or quantity (man X, man Y and CASACIR are discharging their drainage to and through the watercourse and our property, and they intend to destroy a catchment area, along with the surface and groundwater that we rely upon, in the face of having signed a document declaring they would not do so, and thereby committing deliberate fraud). The “amenity of the area” is “adversely affected”, and will continue to be “adversely affected”.
But, who cares other than those impacted? Certainly none of those responsible for, or for allowing, the impacts, have shown any enough concern to have stopped the impacts.
3 September 2012
Out to the site again. We want to get ready to have cattle again (the matter ought to be determined in the not too distant future – but will sadly require another fight based on past performance. They said they would rather fight and have proved that to be abundantly true – they can run their business but, because of what they do (and the authorities don’t do), we can’t run ours).
I could not help but notice the *noise (too noisy again today – and can clearly be heard over a kilometre away!) and *dust (billowing off site again today). This is in addition to the water contamination from the quarry site and the water quality subsequently not being suitable for the cattle in spite of the undertaking that they “will ensure that the adjacent landowner(s) are not adversely impacted by the loss of the spring water”. One wonders how the contamination of the spring water, and its intended permanent removal with the proposed uncertain replacement of it by the quarry wastewater and drainage, would equate to clean, clear spring water that we had been used to prior to the arrival of man X, man Y and CASACIR and their quarry commencement (and subsequent severe detrimental impacts)!
Then, there are also: *the visual impacts (there are still plants not planted that have to be planted, and the stockpiles and works are not hidden but are very obvious from many different locations – including from dwellings (and other locations on other properties), from a number of roads, etc), *the impacts of Neerim North Road on tyres (the road surface is still falling apart and getting worse all the time in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR being repeatedly told by council to repair it, and undertaking to do so back in December 2011 – with next to nothing having been done, and what has been done generally needs further repairs), *trucks kicking up (or dropping) dust and stones which can cause sand-blasting on windows and duco, *and so on.
There are the additional things that don’t directly affect us, but could affect visitors, such as the site still not being secure in a number of locations, and the properly still not being properly marked or identified.
I note further things such as, in addition to the overburden and topsoil that remains where they are not permitted to remain (on the eastern side of the site) – and it has been compacted when not allowed to be compacted(!), the overburden is also stockpiled at the very edge of the excavation at a height that the fully extended arm of a large excavator would only just reach the top (very safe I would think – or not)! Additional overburden is stockpiled on the western side of the site – including over the drain they dug (with full visibility from a number of locations).
The list goes on – yet the authorities continue to fail to act in good faith and continue to look the other way. I guess if they are looking the other way they can’t see what is going on under their watch – whatever reward they get must be worth it, be it just warm fuzzies and pats on the back.
1 September 2012
I have just finished reading a wonderful book by Dean Koontz: A Big Little Life. In it there are many gems, two of them are (from pages 7 & 35 respectively):
“Truth is stranger than fiction” and “The most important quality anyone can possess is character. If a person has true character – which always includes a sense of honor and duty, as well as a tough set of personal standards – he or she will not fail you”.
The fact is, that truth in the scenario of the quarry is stranger than fiction – it is absolutely unbelievable! Further, while not making any accusations or implications, I wonder how the various parties involved would assess themselves against the second quote because not one of them has evidenced a sense of honour or duty that is willing to take action against the unfairness and lies. I know that I have tried to protect and help others (even when it has not seemed appreciated), have only produced factual information (based mostly on FOI results, photos and observations) and have stood up and told the truth, regardless of the cost.
On a totally different tack, looking at the CASACIR website (www.casacir.com.au) under “Neerim North Quarry”, I note a number of “inaccuracies”. The site states that [emphasis mine] “CASACIR purchased the [Neerim North] land in 2003” – this is very strange since (1) man X told the community 2 years later, in 2005, that they were in negotiations to purchase the property, (2) all the documentation shows that the property was not bought until 2006 (3 years after their website says that CASACIR purchased it), and (3) the land was personally purchased by man X and man Y and not CASACIR itself – so what gives?? Further, the website states that they “re-opened the site in early 2009” – again very strange in that they did not have the right to commence until 20 July 2009 (the middle of the year), i.e. when they obtained the work authority. In addition, they told the tribunal that they hadn’t commenced work at the site until 16 August 2009, even though they sent us a letter dated 10 August telling us that they had commenced a few days earlier (which is true, they commenced on or about 4 August 2009). So, if they actually “re-opened the site” in early 2009, that would have been before the work authority was granted and in breach of the law. So, is the website correct (and they would have been in breach of legislation), or is this yet more inaccurate information? It must also be remembered that CASACIR is the admitted acronym for Crush Any Shit And Call It Rock and that they don’t care who knows it – the name says a lot about them, doesn’t it!
I refer again to the section of the CASACIR website which talks about the fact that they do “road construction”. I note that they state that they do “asphalt patching”, “asphalt overlays” and “seal coating”. That being so, there is absolutely no excuse for the state of the Neerim North Road – they have the sole responsibility to repair and maintain the road and pay for all works required. Why don’t they do it, especially since it is a condition of their planning permit that they do so!