Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates 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.
General
On the very few occasions they did communicate with us, man X, man Y and CASACIR said that they would contact us “with an answer shortly”, but then did not do so. So, saying that they would answer questions was actually not honest because they showed that they had very little (if any) intention of actually having open and honest communication because they rarely did so. Subsequently it changed to just ignoring my communications other than for predominantly legal requirements, and even then it was through their solicitors.
In addition, man X, man Y and CASACIR determined that site visits for proper and reasonable purposes, and following proper procedure, were “trespass”.
Permit condition 59 states that they are required to have two meetings a year, yet they knowingly stated within their work plan that they would only have one per year – and council endorsed and DPI approved that work plan with the stated intended breach of that condition!! Further, man X, man Y and CASACIR did only have one community consultation in both 2009 and in 2010!! Two were held in 2011, but only one was held in other years, and man X, man Y and CASACIR requested Peter’s permission to go back to the one meeting a year they said they would have – having had to sell our property in 2014, I don’t know if they succeeded, but it is my best guess that they will have.
In mentioning man Y below, up until we sold our property, he had not physically attended any of the community meetings, but his son, Heath did attend to represent him, and regardless, man Y was responsible for everything that was said given that he is also a director of CASACIR. Man Y swore at the Supreme Court that: “One of [man X or Kraan has usually spoken to me after the various meetings, as long as I’m informed so I have some idea of what’s taking place, I believe that’s sufficient involvement[1]” – proving that he was in full knowledge of what had taken place and was said on his behalf, and Southall submitted to Pagone J as absolute fact that “On a couple of occasions [Heath] actually attended those community meetings by way of support for [man X] and his father, [man Y][2]”.
Meeting held 21 October 2009
In the Record of Discussions for the meeting held 21 October 2009 it is shown that man X, man Y and CASACIR made misleading statements and concealed facts as follows: “Prior to the use commencing, Casacir has had to do a number of things including:”
a) “[provide a] A flow and water quality monitoring program for the springs to the west of Stage 1 and the north-east spring – Completed & Approved”. Later the question was asked: “What are the figures from the water flow and monitoring program?” and the answer came back “No figures at this stage. The monitoring program has been approved by West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. So far, weekly monitoring has taken place and the monitoring of flows will be continuous and quality will be tested several times per annum.” There are a number of issues here:
- The authority responsible (WGCMA) stated two days after man X, man Y and CASACIR stated that the program had been approved by WGCMA, that they (WGCMA) had not yet received it to approve the program. In fact, they did not approve it until 9 February 2010 (111 days after Jack Kraan said (and man X, man Y and CASACIR approved Kraan saying) it was already approved).
- The permit condition requires that the monitoring was in place prior to works commencing and continued until stage 2, so the failure to have figures contradicts this condition requirement.
- To state that “So far, weekly monitoring has taken place and the monitoring of flows will be continuous” is contradicting the first comment of “no figures” because either the monitoring had been taking place in which case there would have been figures, or the monitoring had not taken place. In fact, the flow monitoring did not commence until October 2009, and the water quality monitoring did not commence until 18 December 2009 (so it had not even commenced when Kraan said it had); and
- It is difficult to conceive how it could be “continuous” at that point because the continuous monitoring gauge had not been installed and was not installed until later in 2010. This is confirmed by their own hydrologist’s report dated 7 June 2010 (page 22) “… then infers that continuous flow monitoring should have been required and installed to properly monitor surface flow and that the current monitoring regime “fails to provide monitoring for flow quantity and none of the results of the aforesaid monitoring have been provided”… it is my opinion that continuous flow monitoring would offer insufficient extra value to offset the added cost and complexity.” Clearly it was not installed at the time of his report!
b) “[provide a] Contingency plan for the storage or removal of contaminated water in the event that storage capacity / retention ponds become full – Completed & Approved” This is spite of Peter stating he did not approve it until 10 February 2010 (112 days after Kraan said it was “Completed & Approved”).
c) “Construction of southern bund – Substantially completed – further widening, tidying up and planting to be undertaken in the near future” This is in spite of the bund was acknowledged as still not having been completed as at 27 September 2010 (11 months later) and still not having been provided with council’s “satisfaction” required in order to commence use (which arguably commenced in mid-August 2009, definitely commenced 10 September 2009, and was acknowledged by man X, man Y and CASACIR as having commenced as at 13 November 2009).
d) “Landscaping along northern & western boundaries, south of Pearce Road and north & south of existing clean water dam – Some areas completed – balance to be completed prior to use starting” In spite of the “use” having definitely commenced on 10 September 2009 (and arguably in mid-August 2009) the landscaping to the northern boundary was still not planted as at 15 July 2011, some of the areas on the southern edge of the site were still not planted as at 15 July 2011 and, in addition, there are areas on the western boundary that were still not planted as at 15 July 2011) i.e. 22 months later, and the immediate northern, western and southern edges of the [so-called] “existing clean water dam” were still not planted as at July 2021.
The question was put to CASACIR: “When will the construction phase of the quarry be completed?” Kraan’s response was: “Soon, upon removal of overburden at base of pit, completion of access road into pit and other required works. Casacir can then commence extraction of rock.” However, rock extraction had been going on for some time at the time of this statement (from at least 10 September 2009), and they later admitted in September 2010 that they had still not finished the bund.
Representatives of DPI and council were at that meeting and neither of those representatives corrected the number of errors and mis-statements made by man X, man Y and CASACIR and its representative.
Meeting held 27 September 2010
The relevant condition contains the requirement for the issuing documentation to be “Meeting Minutes”, which have a formal procedure, including allowing for corrections and acceptance of the Minutes. However, the document presented is, again, provided as a “Record of Discussions” – and they refused to accept corrections to the previous “record”.
After the welcome by Andrew Dunning, a question was asked, and it requested that the question be logged in the Minutes (“I want it logged on the minutes to state that last time there was a considerable amount of inaccurate information”) – it has not been logged. However, the question asked was and remains: “Jack last year you provided inaccurate and misleading information, can we expect the same this time?” No answer was provided to this question, but the answer is clear regardless because of the number of answers that were not accurate, both verbally, and in the “record of discussions” that are provided in lieu of the required “Minutes”.
“Establishment of the quarry”
The first bullet point under this heading states [emphasis mine]: “The WA and Planning Permit required certain works and matters to be undertaken prior to the commercial extraction of rock commencing. This was essentially the construction phase of the quarry prior to the commercial operation of the quarry which I will refer to as the use”, and the third bullet point acknowledges the breach: “The construction phase commenced in August 2009 and ran into early 2010. The first commercial rock was removed from the site on 13th November 2009. Some construction activities overlapped with commercial rock extraction into early 2010”.
In the fourth bullet point, Kraan states, “in summary”, the following “construction activities” performed included: *“Construction of an earthen & rock bund along the northern side of Pearce Road.” In order to correct the “record”, the rock bund had not been constructed and has never been constructed, and they have changed the construction type without requesting a work plan variation. *“Construction and sealing of Neerim North Road along the quarry property frontage.” In order to correct the “record”, the section of road along the frontage of the quarry was not “constructed” at all and was not been fully constructed, nor were the drainage mechanisms, culverts or shoulder provided until well over a year after they should have been. Further, the poor sealing that had been performed by man Y’s company, Quality Roads (which had to be repaired and the repairs had to be repaired and those repairs had to be repaired, …) was removed in early December 2010 and the road still was not been resealed as until December 2011. *“Establishment of temporary office and amenity building”. In order to correct the “record”, the required building information was not supplied, the buildings were not those as presented to the tribunal in 2008 and the amenities block was not that presented in the work plan, and the office building fails the conditions visual test. *“Landscaping in various locations” In order to correct the “record”, the landscaping still was not completed (as at 15 July 2011), in spite of the conditions requiring it “as early as possible” and definitely before the use commenced. In addition, much of what has been planted has not been planted in the required manner, or the required amount.
“Impacts on surface and groundwater”: The second bullet point states [emphasis mine]: “Surface waters are monitored at two springs on the property, the sump at the bottom of the quarry hole and the clean water dam at the south east corner of the property. Flow from the springs is monitored continuously…” In order to correct the “record”, the flow had not been monitored continuously according to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own hydrologist, and they had only recently had a continuous monitor installed.
The third bullet point states: “Groundwater is monitored from 3 Groundwater bores on a monthly basis”. In order to correct the “record”, the groundwater was not being monitored in (what is assumed to be) bore hole no. 2, because it was acknowledged as “ineffectual” by man X, man Y and CASACIR a year previously – but they pulled it out without decommissioning it, and they did not replaced it until 24 June 2011!!
The fifth and sixth bullet points state: “The monitoring at present is building up background data from which accurate long term trends can be deduced” and “To date the data collected is considered to be representative of natural conditions – there has not been anything that indicates any impact from the quarry”. In order to correct the “record”, there was no “continuation of monitoring” throughout 2009. The flow monitoring did not commence until the quarry had been open and operating for over 2 months, and the core and other analytes (quality testing) were not monitored until the quarry had been open and operating for 4 months with the result that probable significant detrimental impacts avoided being logged. Further, Kraan’s comment that “The monitoring at present is building up background data from which accurate long term trends can be deduced” proves that they didn’t have background data before the quarry commenced its works and I contend that they didn’t take background samples because then it would be proved that the quarry had significantly detrimentally affected the surface and groundwater systems! Hence waiting until the water had been polluted and they are using that as the control or background levels against which to asess any further pollution.
“Traffic”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but not logged in the “record”, that the trucks, instead of carrying the 28 tonnes presented to the 2008 tribunal as fact, were carrying 38 to 40 tonnes – no wonder the road keeps falling apart!
The “record” shows that Kraan stated: “Under its planning permit, Casacir were required to construct and seal that section of Neerim North Road between Palmer Road and the quarry entrance. This was done in mid 2009. Unfortunately with the wet weather this winter, the sub-pavement became saturated and the pavement failed. Casacir will have the road reconstructed and sealed when the conditions become dry enough. They have recently had some drainage works undertaken as a pre-curser to this” – those grossly unsatisfactory works were done by man Y’s company, Quality Roads. In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting, but not logged in the “record”, that the drainage works were required by the permit to have been completed prior to the use commencing – but had not been performed until over a year after they were supposed to have been!! In addition, the initial poor road sealing was pulled up early December 2010 and the road still was not re-sealed until December 2011. Further, when the road was supposed to be constructed we were still in the drought and it was not too wet back then!
The “record” shows that Kraan said “For that section of Neerim North Road between the Main Neerim Road and Palmer Road, Casacir are obliged to pay for its maintenance. Council instructs its road contractor to undertake the maintenance work and then sends the bill to Casacir for payment”. But, as came out in question time (but is not logged in the “record”, Man X, man Y and CASACIR required that council (rate-payers) provide a significantly upgraded road to replace the one damaged (by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own traffic). Even as late as July 2019 the road is not being maintained and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s trucks keep wrecking it, and it was not satisfactorily sealed until sometime in 2021.
Question regarding “Jack’s notes”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”, that the question was asked “Will you make available the update report that you have just presented?” – the answer provided by Kraan, after clarification, was “I have no objection to providing anyone who wanted a copy of those notes with a copy”. The clear implication from Kraan was that the notes were to be provided “with”, not “in”, the minutes – but they were not provided and have not been provided in spite of requests for them. It would appear that Kraan, in fact, had no real intention of providing them at all.
Questions regarding “Noise Monitoring”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”:
a. that when Kraan stated that an “independent” acoustic expert had performed the noise monitoring, upon questioning, he had had to admit that they were the same experts who presented to the 2008 tribunal on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s behalf – and the questioner then cast doubts over their “independence”;
b. that the noise impact reports failed to provide the assessment for the construction period, which is a clear requirement of the condition. Further, in order to correct the “record”, Kraan acknowledged that there had to be such an assessment;
c. that it was identified that the noise monitoring report had to provide results for all the table listings relevant to that stage. However, only two of the 6 assessments were provided, and even those did not have the required monitoring for 565 Neerim North Road – it appears that man X, man Y and CASACIR do not care about the impacts on their friends, Gordon and Margaret Lockett, who sold them the land!
d. that Anne Bignell of DPI had said that the monitoring for the reports had to be performed on days where the noise was the most conducive to noise propagation – however, this was not the case on the days when monitoring took place because the days were stated as “calm” while the weather should have been with 3m/sec winds;
e. that significant time was spent on the contention that DPI had not taken the noise monitoring seriously and had, in fact, not “monitored” the noise at all;
f. that Anne has in the past, misled the questioner by inferring that she had performed noise monitoring when she admitted at the meeting that she had not, and it was identified but not noted in the “record” that Anne just “listens” to the noise to try to assess whether it is within the limits;. The “record” accurately states [emphasis mine] that Anne said that she was “not qualified to do the testing”, but the “record” fails to state or clarify that the testing she said she was not qualified to perform was the simple operation of a monitoring unit. It is also not noted in the “record” that when Anne was asked at the meeting how loud 45dB(A) was that she was unable to say, which poses the question of how she was able to listen and determine that the noise was under the limit!
g. that in response the Anne’s implication that EPA had been out to the site a number of times, it was identified that EPA had, in fact, only come out once, and that they did not perform the monitoring for an Leq at any location;
h. that DPI have noted in field reports that EPA should be required to perform noise monitoring in relation to certain activities and that DPI have not required that this be done.
Questions in relation to “water monitoring”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”:
a. that Kraan said that the monitoring reports “are publicly available” – but they had not been publicly available to that point, and initially we had to fight to obtain them;
b. that Kraan had said that he was happy for the reports to be released upon request;
c. that Adam Dunn of WGCMA actually said that: “[He has] always been happy to release them and that they were only released to [me] under FOI because [I] asked for them through FOI”. He then went on to say that they were available without FOI and proof of this is an email I received since the 27 September meeting where he said that he would forward me a copy after WGCMA had approved it. Thus the “record” is clearly in error in saying that it could only be released from WGCMA under FOI!!
d. that groundwater is not monitored in what is assumed to be bore hole no. 2, because it was acknowledged as “ineffectual” by man X, man Y and CASACIR a year earlier. This bore was soon ripped out without being decommissioned (and had been ripped out prior to this meeting), but no-one cared about any impacts on groundwater or the fact that it was illegal to just rip it out.
Questions in relation to “dust monitoring”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, the questions asked included the fact that the dust had to be contained within the site. The “record” is inaccurate because Kraan did not say that it was contained within the site boundaries – he claimed that it was required to be contained within the boundaries of the property and that this was done. This is inaccurate and misleading on at least two fronts:
a. The requirement is for the dust to be contained within the site but it isn’t, and
b. the dust is provably not even kept within the boundaries of the property. A s110 Notice for release of dust was served on man X, man Y and CASACIR later in August 2011 as the result of my former website. In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”, it was pointed out that when dust exits the site (as it does on many occasions), and the exit point only has to be a little to the west of the house at 140 Pearce Road (which it frequently is), then the monitors do not pick it up the fact that significant dust has escaped, thus implying that little dust is exiting the site.
Questions in relation to “driver’s Code of Conduct in relation to quarry drivers”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”:
a. that it was stressed that there have been photos provided that substantiate claims of drivers over unbroken lines and on the wrong side of the road;
b. that, in spite of photographic evidence, Kraan stated that the claim was unsubstantiated and was merely “alleged“;
c. that there are others who have witnessed the drivers’ breaches of the Code. In fact, another person at the meeting identified the fact that she had also witnessed this behaviour and had taken note of the registration number of the truck – but the “report” failed to note this additional complaint and observation!!
Questions in relation to “standard of Neerim North Road near intersection with Main Neerim Road”
The “record” has this heading incorrect in that the questions and discussions related to the entire Neerim North Road [from the Main Neerim Road to 5 metres past the quarry entrance] and not specifically in relation to the Main Neerim Road end.
In order to correct the “record”, it was put to Kraan at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”:
a. that the Neerim North Road did not break up until man X, man Y and CASACIR used it for heavy haulage of excavators, front end loaders, haul trucks, and the like, and the transport of material;
b. that Kraan agreed that there had been repairs that needed repairs, with needed repairs to the repairs to the works performed by man Y’s “Quality” Roads (who had “repaired” and/or “maintained” the road in that appalling condition);
c. that man X, man Y and CASACIR were not insisting that Quality Roads actually create a quality road by performing quality repairs;
d. that road works were requested over last summer and the excuse of it being “too wet” had no actual substance;
e. that if their reasoning of it being “too wet” was valid, then this could be used as the reasoning every year for delays in road repairs and maintenance.
Questions in relation to “construction of the bund”
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”, that the matter of the northern bund was addressed and that Kraan said that:
a. “it was already constructed to the correct height, namely two to three metres high” – even though it is not to the required height and is not to the length it is supposed to be, and
b. “it had been planted out and the plantings were being maintained and that Casacir was required to replant or replace if there was death of plants”. However, neither the bund nor the northern boundary had been planted at the time when Kraan made the inaccurate comment, and as at 15 July 2011 still had not been planted (unless they had planted thistles).
In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but was not noted in the “record”, that the work on the southern bund is a breach of the permit because the bund was required to be finished before the “use” commenced. Not only did the construction admittedly “cross-over” with the use, but it was further acknowledged by Kraan (but is also not noted in the “record”) that the construction was still not finished over a year after it was required to be, but was proposed to be finished “in the next month or so”.
Questions in relation to “community consultation meetings”
It was noted in the “record”, in the “purpose” section, that “This meeting has been called as a result of a condition in the planning permit that requires the quarry operator to conduct annual community consultation meetings”, and there was no identification of the permit requirement for two such meetings a year. In order to correct the “record”, it was identified at the meeting but is not noted in the “record”, that Kraan stated, when confronted with not having complied with the condition by failing to hold an in-between meeting, “I wasn’t aware. The way the conditions were, it was an oversight. It refers to an annual meeting then it refers to two meetings” [the relevant section of the condition is clear enough: “The operator of the quarry hereby approved must hold a minimum of two community consultations per annum”]. The “record” then fails to state that it was pointed out that Kraan himself had identified the fact that there was a requirement for two community meeting at the community meeting held 21 October 2009 (and he agreed to this fact when confronted about it on 27 September). In fact, Kraan must have had a very short term memory problem because Peter McWhinney of council had written to him on 27 August 2010 (one month earlier than the current meeting) and said “I was wondering what was happening in relation to Condition 59 – two per annum?” to which Kraan had relied on 7 September 2010 (only 20 days prior to the current meeting) “I have been reminding [man X] of this for some time…” – thus proving that he most certainly did know and it was therefore no oversight, and he contradicted himself and lied to the community – with man X sitting next to him! Further, Kraan does a lot, if not most, of the arrangements for man X, man Y and CASACIR. Sadly the lack of honesty has been both amazing and sadly predictable.
Conclusion in relation to that meeting
Representatives of WGCMA, DPI and council were at that meeting and none of those representatives corrected the number of errors made by man X, man Y and CASACIR and their representatives. Again, one has to ask the question: “why?”
Meeting held 5 April 2011
Accuracy
Kraan still hasn’t provided his notes from the last meeting even though he said he would – not surprising.
Kraan MC’d the meeting and, again, provided some inaccurate information – again, not surprising.
I identified that man X had sworn under oath (in affidavits and at the tribunal) that certain things had been done when they had not been done, and that Peter McWhinney (council) had implied to the tribunal that there were no breaches even though there provably were, that Anne Bignell (DPI) had refused to say whether there were breaches or not, and that the tribunal seemed to ignore over 200 pages of photos and FOI results and, instead, believed statements that were inaccurate and therefore misleading.
Drainage
I asked if there were any silt or sediment traps installed yet and they said that there did not have to be, and Anne Bignell (DPI) stood up and said that she was happy with the water quality (but I understand that she is neither a hydrologist or hydrogeologist and she had previously provided provably inaccurate statements about Kookaburra Creek until challenged about failing to act in good faith). Further, she would not answer as to whether there were any sediment traps or not, and neither would Kraan (he kept saying that the access track kept changing so the location of a trap today could be different tomorrow – but aerial photos show no change and that there is still not one silt or sediment trap anywhere in the site and there has never been any sign of the existence of any – drainage is just discharging straight into the quarry sump, which, according to Anne, is seeping out into Kookaburra Creek!!)
Water
The question was asked about the impacts on groundwater and Kraan said that they had monitored, and were currently monitoring, the 3 groundwater bores. However, the reality is that the GW2 bore (near the south-east corner of the site, on the north side of the dirty dam, and now under all the stockpiles of overburden) had not even existed for a number of months at the time of Kraan’s statement (it was ripped out without it having been decommissioned) – but Kraan failed to mention that when he said that all 3 bores were being monitored!! Also, none of the bores are in the locations (or within the required 20m of the locations) that SRW approved or as required by the conditions of the SRW licence.
In addition, man X, man Y and CASACIR failed to provide any background groundwater quality results (because they were not taken) prior to any works being performed on the site (so there is no way of knowing what impact there has been). There was no surface water quality testing prior to any works on the site (in spite of being required by the permit) – so there is no way of knowing what impact there has been – other than the water used to be clear and now it is brown (hmmm)). Kraan also said that there would be a 4th bore drilled shortly, to replace GW2. He said that they would continue to monitor GW2 – but this is a bit difficult because they had already ripped it out without officially decommissioning the bore!
GW4 was drilled on 24 June 2011 and left considerable muck in an area where it could wash into Kookaburra creek – but “who cares” seems to continue to be their attitude.
Plantings
I asked when the plantings were planted on the northern boundary, on the northern, western and immediate southern edges of the dirty dam. Man X (again “inaccurately”) said that they were planted “18 months ago”. I then clarified that I was asking about the ones on the northern boundary and bund, and around the immediate north, west and south sides of the dirty dam and He tried to allude to the ones on the other side of Pearce Road. I clarified again and Kraan, pulling out a copy of Figure 3 plan, and (even though he is a planning specialist and supposed to be able to read the plans) said that he could not see where it showed that there was planting supposed to be in the locations I had specified, so I showed him the green hatching and identified to him that this was to identify “plantings”. Man X then had to agree that there were no plants planted on the northern boundary or around the dam.
Peter agreed that the permit had to be complied with (e.g. if it says that plants were to be planted in locations, then they had to be planted [but weren’t and aren’t]) – which shows he (Peter) misled the tribunal by saying there were no such breaches. I asked Peter if he was satisfied that there were no plantings in certain locations that the plan showed had to have plantings and he reiterated that the plantings had to be planted and the conditions met (I think it must have been an “emperor’s clothes scenario).
Air quality
Kraan said that the air quality was being met i.e. the 4g per m2 per month average, BUT: man X, man Y and CASACIR has failed to provide (and council has not made them provide) any background air quality (prior to any works on the site) so they are using a much higher allowance than they are entitled to use (i.e. up to double that allowed).
Roads
Kraan said that the section of the Neerim North Road from Palmer Road to just past the quarry entrance would be sealed “the next time QR had their equipment in the area” BUT: QR had already had their equipment in the area because they had recently sealed at least 6 largish areas along a different section of the road, but the section that man X, man Y and CASACIR had to pay for was not re-sealed until December 2011. Jack further said that section at the end of Murphy’s Road [destroyed by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s trucks] was going to be done in the next week (with council (i.e. rate-payers) paying for it)!! It is interesting that man X, man Y and CASACIR think that it is fair that rate-payers have to pay for the road destruction caused by their trucks, and in contradiction to their permit condition.
I asked the question of whether he (Kraan), and their traffic specialist, and council engineers had been accurate in their assessment of the quality of the road prior to quarry use, but he refused to specify and said that the road had been repaired. I said that they had all specified that the Neerim North Road was “well constructed and in good condition” (which was accurate at the time of stating it but the trucks have since destroyed parts of it) and “…both [Main Neerim and Neerim North] roads are of sufficient standard to cater for the increased usage”. I wanted to know if they did not know what they were talking about or were the trucks too heavy for the road and he would not answer.
Septic tank / holding tank
I asked them if they had obtained their holding tank permit yet, and Kraan said that they did not have to have a holding tank permit and did not have to have one – but they did and do have to have a “holding tank permit” but didn’t have one. I informed them that they had to have one, but they still hadn’t applied for one!
Overburden
Their own documentation says that they don’t have enough overburden for rehabilitation but they were selling it! They initially denied selling it until I said that I had proof, then man X admitted that at least 6 truck loads had been sold!! Further supplies of overburden have been sold since then.
Staff and traffic
Kraan said that all drivers have to see, and abide by the Code of Conduct for drivers [but they don’t]. There was a complaint made that the driver of the truck with the red stripes is not keeping to the rules. Man X said that he would be spoken to [but, based on past performance, we shouldn’t be surprised if nothing changes] – many trucks drive on the wrong side of the road when going over hills and around blind corners and man X, man Y and CASACIR do nothing obvious about it.
Blasting
Kraan said that the blasting was always monitored and was within the limits [but there have been blasts that have notbeen monitored, even though they were under a DPI s110 Notice requiring it!! (the s110 Notice was for breaches of blasting)].
Use
Kraan stuck to his guns and stated that the use started on 13 November 2009 and not when it actually did start, namely on or before 10 September 2009 (two months earlier than stated) – (1) according to the sworn information provided by man X at the tribunal hearing in November 2010, and (2) according to Kraan himself in a letter to council where he detailed that it has already commenced well before 13 November 2009.
Noise
Kraan said that the noise was being complied with, even though it is not – the levels of noise at our dwelling are over the limit on many occasions.
Dislike of having issues raised that they don’t want to address
It is noted in the “record” of the meeting that Kraan made the claim that “[I] was continuing to bring up old issues that had been already determined by VCAT. …. [and that I] had made some 6 applications to VCAT with one being settled and the remainder being withdrawn, dismissed or refused. At the recent Enforcement Order application hearing [I had] made 36 allegations of Casacir not complying with their planning permit conditions. Not one of these had been substantiated and the Tribunal refused to make any enforcement orders against Casacir. He asked that [I] not reintroduce these trivial issues that are unfounded and untrue.” However:
a. any question in relation to the current state of affairs of any topic that was raised at the enforcement hearing evokes the response that “[I] was continuing to bring up old issues that had been already determined by VCAT” (ignoring the latest status, or lack of status);
b. as we have seen in other pages on this site, what I have said is true, but appears to have been ignored by everyone;
c. even though ~200 pages of photos and FOI results were provided to the tribunal, and it was requested that the tribunal members attend the site to see the truth for themselves, the proofs were ignored, and they declined to attend the site – but the photos shown in the various web pages attested to the facts.
d. with regard to the “one being settled”, we had to threaten to take further legal action (months after they were supposed to have completed the works) to get them to finally do what they had consented to do, under a formal “Agreement” at the tribunal – however, man X, man Y and CASACIR committed blatant and deliberate fraud by signing a document that they had no intention of complying with in the short-term (until I threatened further legal action) certainly not in the long-term (it would have meant an end to the quarry and the loss of some $140m-$165m, (or more)) and they committed this fraud (i) in order to get out of the legal proceedings set too commence the next day, and (ii) in order to convince me of their sincerity (which like an idiot I believed until it was soon revealed to have been lies).
e. that just because enforcement orders did not issue does not mean that there were no breaches.
Conclusion regarding that meeting
Representatives of DPI and council were at that meeting and neither of those representatives corrected the number of errors and misleading statements made man X, man Y and CASACIR and their representative/s.
Other meetings
There have been subsequent meetings, but they follow a similar lack of honesty. There have been other issues such as insufficient notice of the meeting (not in the Gazette as required by the condition and not otherwise advertised until a day or two prior by a sign on the local shop window), and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s refusal to answer any of my questions, and their refusal to allow anyone else to ask the questions I wanted to ask (they did not like being called to account and their refusal was further breaches of their conditions.
But, suffice it to say, the above set the groundwork for the examples of their conduct.
[1] T271:20-23 (before Pagone J on 12 April 2013)
[2] T111:9-12 (before Pagone J on 10 April 2013)