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.
Focus Creative Design Solutions[1] (“FocusCDS”) is a consultancy company that has stated that its major roles are as town planners, environmental consultants, development consultants and project managers. It goes on to state that the services it provides are in relation to, amongst other things, planning permit applications, statutory approvals, project management of complex approval processes, negotiations with local government & authorities, giving expert evidence to VCAT, panels and courts, as well as advocacy in relation to VCAT & panels, providing due diligence and strategic advice, preparing environmental management plans, and engaging in community consultation. It then goes on to claim in bold letters that “We specialise in extractive industry, landfill, industrial and land development projects”[2].
So now we are forced to look at FocusCDS in what happened and the part it played in relation to the injustice system. Note: some of the issues are duplicated given that they come under a number of topics and areas.
It appears that a number of the problems at the Neerim North quarry should perhaps in part land at the feet of FocusCDS[3]becauseit claimed that it was the “project manager and town planner for the multi-disciplinary team providing services to obtain planning approvals for a basalt quarry at Neerim North”[4]. The fact is that FocusCDSdid indeed act as the project manager at the quarry, and in other capacities, all on behalf of man X, man Y and CASACIR: (1) FocusCDS submitted the quarry application for man X, man Y and CASACIR, and did so fraudulently by claiming that the application was complete when it actually lacked crucial and legally required material: it was premature; it lacked a copy of the mandatory endorsed work plan (because the work plan hadn’t been endorsed at that point); it lacked the required work plan conditions (because the work plan conditions had not been written at that point); it failed to provide all the title details; it failed to provide letters and agreements that the application referred to;, it failed to provide the mandatory clearly defined buffer[5]; and failed to prove that man X, man Y and CASACIR owned or controlled the entirety of the clearly defined buffer (which they did not), and so on. This was my first introduction to FocusCDS and its representative, Kraan; (2) FocusCDS told council as unequivocal and unassailable fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR did not have to own or control the buffer because it was not mandatory. This proved that (a) either FocusCDS was either deliberately being very deceptive, or (b) it really had no idea of the law because it was in fact mandatory that any proponent of a new quarry had to own or control the entirety of the buffers, which man X, man Y and CASACIR did not (one has to question in this case if FocusCDS is the planning specialist company it purports to be); (3) FocusCDS provided 2 planning reports, each with a significant number of fraudulent claims. The second planning report was endorsed as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit and was therefore enforceable – but FocusCDS did not enforce compliance with its own document, let alone with legislation, the planning permit or the work authority; (4) FocusCDS wrote letters of objection to our application for a new house, stating that our house would cause pollution issues (when it was proved that it would not), yet claimed that the proposed quarry would not cause any detrimental issues when it knew full well that it would (and it certainly did, and is still doing); (5) FocusCDS told council as absolute fact that there was no waterway in the proximity of the quarry when its own planning report clearly identified that there was and that it would be excavated through and destroyed; (6) and so on.
On behalf of FocusCDS, Kraan handled the public community meetings. Confirming that, as far as the accusations of false information being handed out at community meetings went, man X and man Y each said that it was Kraan, who made the reports and gave out the information: “At each of the community meetings addressed by Casacir, Mr Jack Kraan, a town planning expert retained on behalf of Casacir, principally addressed the attendees [and] At each of the community meetings held by Casacir, it was Mr Jack Kraan, an expert retained on behalf of Casacir, who principally addressed the attendees”[6]. Additionally, FocusCDS was paid considerable fees for its work for man X, man Y and CASACIR. FocusCDS repeatedly, and without any valid cause or reason, used these community meetings to defame me and assisted in falsely attempting to further discredit me before the community. Kraan, on FocusCDS’ behalf, and on behalf of man X, man Y and CASACIR, repeatedly gave fraudulent information to the community at each of the community meetings, with man X sitting nearby approving it all (see my page on communication and community consultations for some fo the multiplicity of deceitful information handed out as absolute fact).
As it claimed, FocusCDS was in almost constant project management at the quarry, handling the communications between council (and other government departments) and man X, man Y and CASACIR, and overseeing operations and compliance (or rather, the lack of it). FocusCDS was therefore a fundamental part of the quarry problems, but with man X, man Y and CASACIR all authorising and approving of all that was done on their behalf by FocusCDS and Kraan. So, what else did FocusCDS do or not do?
Although claiming to be a planning specialist company, FocusCDS either did not know or did not understand planning law, or was deliberately dishonest in order to cover for man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures. For example, inter alia: FocusCDS (1) told council that the quarry proposal it submitted as fact was “consistent with State Planning Framework” when it was not, and that it “Complies with the policies and provisions of the Baw Baw Planning Scheme” when it did not – meaning that man X, man Y and CASACIR should not therefore have been granted a planning permit or work authority – and should, because of the ongoing failures (some of which are the fault of FocusCDS’s failure in proper and accurate project management), have their planning permit and work authority cancelled; (2) FocusCDS covered for man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failure to own or control the buffers. Whilst quoting many other planning scheme clauses, FocusCDS deliberately failed to note in its planning report the clear demands of the planning scheme, which is law. At the time of FocusCDS writing its planning report, the law stated in the planning scheme: “17.09 Provision for buffer areas between new extractive industries and sensitive land uses should be 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”. However, in direct opposition to the law, FocusCDS stated absolutely that “While it is desirable for quarry operators to own or control the land within a buffer distance, it is not mandatory”. Amazing that FocusCDS knows far better than the legislators because (a) it was clear that man X, man Y and CASACIR not only had to own or control the entire buffers – which they most certainly did not and could not – and (b) that the buffers had to be clearly identified in the application of which FocusCDS was in charge and submitted to council without the legally required clearly defined buffer; and (c) FocusCDS failed to property provide a truthful application for the quarry: FocusCDSsubmitted man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry application before it was legally allowed to do so and submitted it without the legislated mandated buffer plan, with many fraudulent claims, without the mandatory endorsed work authority, without the mandatory work authority conditions, without all the mandatory title details, without the mandatory letters referred to, amongst FocusCDS’s many other project management failures. Such was the quality of FocusCDS’s planning specialist role.
FocusCDS claimed to be an environmental consultantsand project management company and, while acting in those roles, made the fraudulent and emphatic claims that [emphasis mine] “The proposal [for the Neerim North quarry] will not have any adverse environmental impacts” and “The proposed use and development [for the Neerim North quarry], will not cause any detrimental off-site impacts by way of noise; will not cause any detrimental off-site impacts by way of airborne particulates; will not cause any detrimental impacts on surface waters or groundwater; will not cause any detrimental impacts on native flora or fauna”. A number of quotes from the FocusCDS’ planning reports and/or Kraan’s witness statement, together with some of my comments, follow. It must be remembered that man X, man Y and CASACIR approved of all FocusCDS (and/or Kraan acting on behalf of FocusCDS)’s failures and fraudulent and unequivocal claims:
(1) In relation to water, FocusCDS claimed that man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry would meet the demands of legislation but it failed miserably. (a) FocusCDS made such grossly and provably fraudulent claims such as, when it noted that the planning scheme, as it was then, demanded that “15.01 The objective of this clause is: To assist in the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater… Responsible authorities should ensure that works at or near waterways provide for the protection and enhancement of the environmental qualities of waterways and their instream uses … Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that land use activities … protect the quality of surface water… rivers, streams, wetlands.” FocusCDS’s comments on this were to fraudulently claim “There are no watercourses in the immediate vicinity of the extraction area” – it made this fraudulent claim in spite of (1) having noted that there was the waterway: “A surface spring is located to the east of the old dairy site” – this is the headwaters of a waterway locally named Kookaburra Creek – and yet FocusCDS’ project management and environmental oversight roles ensured that the local catchment, waterways and groundwater were not protected but were contaminated and polluted, and would be otherwise destroyed by the quarry excavation. FocusCDS further specificallyclaimed “Nor will there be any significant impacts on the catchment, waterways or water bodies” – this fraudulent claim was made in FocusCDS’s full knowledge that the catchment area of Kookaburra Creek, as well as the aquifers which fed it and the spring which provided the flow, as well as the flow itself, would be excavated and destroyed. Hmmm, so destroying it all would not result in any significant impacts – what a simply amazing attitude. (b) FocusCDSclaimed that there would be absolutely no detrimental impacts on water, but it assisted in the deliberate delay of monitoring the quality of the flow (i.e. delaying the monitoring prior to the polluting and contaminating quarry works commenced), knowing that the delay would mean that a contaminated and polluted result would be used as the baseline for future monitoring. (c) FocusCDS noted and supported man X, man Y and CASACIR’s deliberate intention to steal our flow of what had been (prior to the quarry commencing and operating) clean, clear water from us (in spite our continued objections and in breach of our pre-existing legal rights to the unpolluted and uncontaminated continuation of the pre-existing spring flow) and replace it with filthy quarry wastewater and drainage. FocusCDS stated “A surface spring is located to the east of the old dairy site. This spring will be disturbed during the extraction in Stage 2. …[Man X, man Y and CASACIR] recognises that the quarry development may affect the water flows in [Kookaburra Creek]…. and will quantify if and when these operations change the flow regime from the spring. [Man X, man Y and CASACIR] will [be] replacing any flows lost with clean water from the existing storage dam” (the so-called “clean water” would actually be discharge from a filthy dam that was polluted and contaminated by hydrocarbons from the quarry). (d) FocusCDSclaimed “It is my opinion … that the subject proposal will not adversely impact on the quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater in the area” – this fraudulent claim was made in spite of the full knowledge that the quarry would be polluting and contaminating the surface water and that the groundwater bores, drilled in locations under FocusCDS’s project management, would be in an area that were subject to pollution and contamination. In fact, under the project management of FocusCDS, one of the bores was later ripped out without having been decommissioned. (e) FocusCDS claimed“6.5 General And Particular Provisions Clause 52.09 – Extractive Industry and Extractive Industry Interest Areas Purpose – 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. … Before deciding and application the following must be considered: *The effect of the proposed extractive industry on any native flora and fauna on and near the land. … The effect of the proposed extractive industry on groundwater and quality and the impact on any affected water uses. The impact of the proposed extractive industry on surface drainage and surface water quality”, then he made the comment that: “Comment: The purpose of this Particular Provision is 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. It also aims to ensure that any excavated areas can be appropriately rehabilitated and that areas containing extractive resources are protected for future use. It is my view that all of the above issues have been addressed in the endorsed Work Plan for the operations on the site and the planning permit application. All of the Decision Guidelines at Clause 52.09-3 can be satisfactorily addressed or adhered to”, and “Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines identifies what is required to be considered when assessing an application for use and buildings and works. Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: … *Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water quality. *Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater within and exiting the site”, then he made the comment that: “Comment: In my view, the assessment in Appendix 17 demonstrates that the application complies with the above mentioned guidelines where relevant and that the approval of the application will result in a net benefit for the community, the economy and the environment … It is my view that the WA area is well located for the proposed use and development and the proposed re-establishment of the quarry will not have any significant impact on the amenity or environmental values of the surrounding area. I consider that the proposal is appropriate for the site given that: *The proposal will not have any adverse environmental impacts and can comply with the performance criteria specified in the regulatory framework; *The proposal will provide a net community benefit while not jeopardising environmental values” – ah, so the loss (the theft) of our water (by man X, man Y and CASACIR under the project management of FocusCDS), their excavations through, and the destruction of, the catchment, the aquifers and the spring, as well as the pollution and contamination of the spring and watercourse before they take it again, as well as the additional noise, air quality detrimental impacts all add to a net benefit! Sorry, I had missed that bit of (lack of) logic.
(2) FocusCDS repeatedly claimed that the Neerim North quarry site absolutely was a closed, retention, reuse and recycle site that would not allow for discharge off the site: “The approach is for the management of surface stormwater and any groundwater will be based on the retention, re-use and disposal within the subject land. The approach is to use a closed system so that any surface waters and any groundwater generated within the extraction area will be collected and stored within the primary settling dam (quarry sump) … The water management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system … The water management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system”and “The water management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system”, “The approach for the management of surface storm water and groundwater will be based on the retention, reuse and disposal within the subject land. The approach is to use a closed system so that any surface waters and any groundwater generated within the extraction area will be collected and stored within the primary settling dam”. It made this false claim in the knowledge that it was not and would and could never be such a site, including because FocusCDS, in its project management and environmental oversight roles, allowed and openly excused the continued drainage discharge.
(3) Under FocusCDS’s environmental supervision and project management, native trees were ripped out without concern or permit.
(4) Under FocusCDS’s environmental supervision and project management, the blasting exceeded the allowed maximum for at least one blast (although I believe it was more than one), and then Kraan (on behalf of FocusCDS and man X, man Y and CASACIR) denied it in front of the community when challenged on his claim that all blasting had met the legal requirements, even though the DPI documents had confirmed the breach as fact.
(5) As stated previously, FocusCDS’s project management and environmental oversight assisted in the very specific non-protection of Kookaburra Creek and its spring, as well as the non-protection of other waterways and groundwater, and it did this in a number of ways, including by the lack of control of hydrocarbons as well as drainage. FocusCDS specificallyclaimed to council and the tribunal as absolute fact that there would be environmental controls over the hydrocarbons and that other chemical usage within the siteso that there could be no hydrocarbons spilt because such refuelling and machinery and equipment maintenance was done on a bunded concrete pad with a triple interceptor trap: “Precautions will be undertaken to ensure that hydrocarbons or other chemicals are not spilt within the excavation or around the site. Diesel fuel for the mobile machinery will be stored in a bunded, above ground storage tank in the vicinity of the workshop. Mobile equipment will be re-fuelled out of the excavation near the workshop. This will be undertaken on a bunded concrete pad fitted with a triple interceptor trap. Minor servicing and maintenance tasks ill also be undertaken on this pad or in the workshop which will also be on a concrete surface fitted with a triple interceptor traps. All oils, lubricants, chemicals and acetylene bottle etc, are stored in a secure shed in accordance with the requirements of the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling Act)”.The truth was (and most likely still is) that in spite its own declaration (above) and also in spite of the quarterly monitoring reports continually[7]stating that man X, man Y and CASACIR need to stop refuelling and performing maintenance around the site: (a) the refuelling and maintenance was conducted around the site and not on any bunded concrete pad because, as project manger and environmental oversight, FocusCDS failed to ensure that the concrete pad was built until over a year after the quarry works commenced (thereby allowing hydrocarbons to enter the ground and Kookaburra Creek for all that time), and (b) it failed to ensure that the triple interceptor was actually connected to the very belated pad, and (c) even after the pad was eventually built, FocusCDS failed to ensure that refuelling and maintenance was not performed around the site (because it continued to be performed around the site and in the pit); and (d) when the bunding around the bowser was finally belatedly completed (many months after the quarry commenced works), the “overflow” of the bunding was at the bottom of the tank and not at that top, the result of which ensured that there was an almost constant release of drainage contaminated by hydrocarbons, and (e) there was no spill kit anywhere on site for many years (if there is even one there now).
(6) FocusCDS specificallyclaimed that there would be environmental controls over the quality of run-off within the site: “Within the quarry, surface runoff from the excavation area is directed to concrete sediment traps in the pit floor by pumping or gravity drains…. Water flowing down the access road table drains is intercepted by silt traps and overflow water then drains to the sediment traps. The concrete sediment traps will be designed to allow cleaning with a standard frontend loader. The captured water is detained in the sediment traps for sufficient time to allow coarse sediments to settle out. It is then pumped into the main settling dam”, “Table drains will be provided adjacent to the roads to direct runoff water to the water detention sumps in the floor of the extraction areas”, “Construction of the site drainage system, settling dams and sediment traps will also occur. This will include protection of spring discharge (where the quarry access road crosses the drainage line) by means of culverts under the access road”, “Within the quarry, surface runoff from the excavation area is directed to concrete sediment traps in the pit floor by pumping or gravity drains. Any groundwater that is discharged into the pit is also collected in these traps. Water flowing down the access road table drains is intercepted by silt traps and overflow water then drains to the sediment traps. The concrete sediment traps will be designed to allow cleaning with a standard front end loader. The captured water is detained in the sediment traps for a sufficient time to allow coarse sediments to settle out. It is then pumped into the primary settling dam. The pumping rate will be the minimum necessary to maintain working conditions in the base of the quarry”, but FocusCDS failed to ensure that this happened – because no sediment or silt traps were ever installed (certainly up until 2020). In other words, again FocusCDS failed its environmental supervisory and project management roles because it did not happen.
(7) FocusCDS specificallyclaimed as absolute fact that there absolutely was a rock-lined drain across the main driveway so as to stop drainage exiting the site – but there was no such drain, never had been any such drain, and certainly as at mid 2020 there was no such drain (and no doubt there is still no such drain).
(8) In spite of FocusCDS’s further fraudulent claims that there would be no detrimental noise impacts, and in spite of the legal requirement that there be no lessening of the quietness that existed before the quarry’s commencement, and in spite of the legal need to actually improve the noise environment, under FocusCDS’s environmental oversight and project management, we suffered significantly from the elevation in noise levels when the quarry was operating. This included by FocusCDS allowing construction levels to be used when the quarry was in fact knowingly operating in use/operational mode.
(9) In spite of FocusCDS’s additional fraudulent claims that the air quality would not be detrimentally impacted, and in spite of the legal requirement that there be no lessening of the air quality that existed prior to the commencement of quarry, and the legal need to actually improve the air quality, and in spite of being fully aware that the most dangerous times for dust were in the initial stages, FocusCDS allowed works to proceed without monitoring and noise levels in breach of the law. You might ask how FocusCDS would know that the most dangerous times for dust were in the initial stages: firstly, FocusCDS claimed to have been providing project management and environmental supervision over many projects and would therefore be fully aware of the facts and, secondly, FocusCDS provided instructions to Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to provide an air quality assessment in 2008 (a year prior to the quarry being granted a permit and work authority and commencing works). In that the air quality assessment (produced at FocusCDS’s request, and submitted by FocusCDS to the tribunal as fact), it stated in section 9.1: “The greatest potential for off-site dust emissions associated with the proposal will be during the initial (short-term) site establishment works, when topsoil and overburden will be removed to expose the basalt resource and the perimeter bunds are formed” – thereby proving that FocusCDS absolutely knew the most impacting time would be in the early stages. So, what did FocusCDS do about ensuring that the dust was minimised? In its environmental supervisory and project management roles: (a) it allowed works on windy and/or dusty days, (b) it did not necessitate monitoring for the legally required 12 months prior to any quarry activities commencing so as to obtain a baseline, (c) it failed to insist on precautions required when building the bunds that were supposed to (but failed to) stop the dust, (d) it failed to require the chemical suppressants when required, (e) it allowed the quarry works to continue when the dust deposition monitors were not installed for a period of almost 3 months while some of the dustiest works that ESA foretold were performed, (e) it allowed the quarry to work while the legally mandated real-time monitor (i) was not installed for 4 months while some of the foretold dustiest works were performed, (ii) was not operational for a further in excess of 7 months while some of the foretold dustiest works were performed (iii) was not actually connected to a logger for at least a year (so unless someone was watching at all times, they would not know whether it was operational and/or if levels were exceeded – of course, it is my opinion that this failure was deliberate), (f) it allowed double the dust “allowed”, (g) and so on.
Of course, man X, man Y and CASACIR should have demanded compliance with these issues if FocusCDS was to continue as environmental supervisor and project manager, but either they did not make any such demands or, if they did, FocusCDS ignored those demands. Such was the quality of FocusCDS’s environmental supervision and project management.
FocusCDS was fundamental to the tribunal proceedings, including:
(1) by writing and presenting witness statements to the tribunal in relation to the cases between man X, man Y and CASACIR and me (and/or my related parties). It was bound by the tribunal rules regarding expert witnesses, but repeatedly failed to comply because, as seen, there was much in the witness statements that were untrue, and largely made untrue because, as project manager, FocusCDS failed in its role to ensure compliance; (2) having played the part of quasi-legal representative at the tribunal by acting as instructor in Smith’s stead in the 2008 proceedings and in the 2010 main proceedings, and supported man X, man Y and CASACIR’s fraudulent sworn testimony in the tribunal by not correcting any of it; (3) having provided the grounds in relation to its role in the proceedings at the 2008 – grounds that were largely untrue, yet provided to the tribunal as absolute fact. This included (a) the false claims that there would be absolutely no detrimental impacts on water, agricultural land, the noise environment, the air quality, safety, tourism and so on, and (b) the false claims of an economic and social windfall for all. While the detrimental impacts did certainly occur and the only ones to achieve the economic windfall were man X, man Y and CASACIR, and FocusCDS (for fees paid to it by man X, man Y and CASACIR), as well as the ones who sold the land to man X, man Y and CASACIR by reaping royalties and other rights. As for the social benefits falsely claimed by FocusCDS, the quarry caused many rifts in relationships and angst among community members, not the benefits falsely claimed by FocusCDS; (4) on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s behalf, it assisted in the creation of fraudulent claims and denials before the tribunal, including by writing letters to the tribunal, many of them claiming false “facts” as being absolutely true; (5) gave counsel on my applications, affidavits, exhibits and other required documentation; (6) took pictures and resented them to the tribunal, photos which gave a fraudulent aspect and presented them as factual (which, in my opinion, was a very manipulative and dishonest to say the least); (7) used my efforts to force man X, man Y and CASACIR to comply against me, and thereby applauded, not only their continued failures to comply with the law, their permit, and their work authority conditions, but applauded its own failure to properly project manage the quarry enterprise; (8) was in charge of the exchange of documents and repeatedly failed to produce documents on time: FocusCDS was in charge of the provision of the filing and serving of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s documents; however, in spite of making a big fuss over the fact that the documents had to be provided at least 10 days prior to the hearing, FocusCDS failed to provide most of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s documents on time or even one or two days late; and so on. FocusCDS’ fees have been acknowledged to have been $84,000 just for its work on that case up to and including to the end of the 5-day tribunal hearing (and that was just in relation to the enforcement 2010 hearing[8]).
In relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s attempts against me at the Supreme Court of Victoria (1) FocusCDS didn’t have Kraan give evidence personally, but had Kraan attend court every day of the initial trial (including by attending mediation sessions); (2) FocusCDS had significant sway over the witnesses and who would testify, including by seeking out witnesses and discussing what they would testify to, assessing which of them (i) would be willing to give testimony under oath or affirmation and (ii) who would give viable testimony (and discarding those who would not be providing testimony that man X, man Y and CASACIR and FocusCDS wanted); (3) it liaised with man X, man Y and CASACIR’s legal team and took part in meetings with the legal team and man X, man Y and CASACIR; (4) kept a check on the entries in my former website and was paid tens of thousands of dollars for doing so; (5) was part of the decision making team’s deliberate delaying in finalising the statement of claim so as to try to damage me; (6) didn’t care that Kraan was thrown under the bus by man X, man Y and CASACIR – such was Kraan and FocusCDS’s loyalty to them and disregard to its, or Kraan’s, reputation; (7) oversaw and provided feedback on documents, and was party to the fraudulent content of the responses to my request for further and better particulars; (8) actively spread word of the website around, thereby ensuring it went “viral”; (9) was a crucial part of the entire process and not only assisted in the fraudulent use of material and information; (10) had its representative, Kraan, in court each and every day during the trial, giving his approval and encouragement to his clients; (11) gave counsel on my applications, affidavits, exhibits and other required documentation; and so on.FocusCDS charged significant fees for Kraan in relation to monitoring my former website: – man X, man Y and CASACIR said, just in relation to FocusCDS’s work on my website: “… retention of Mr Jack Kraan of Focus Creative Development Solutions, to monitor and advise upon the website publication, Mr Kraan’s fees in this respect [from August 2011 to 2 March 2012]are $15,215.15 (excluding GST)”[9], and he continued work[10]at that rate (or more) for a further 13 months, i.e. until at least mid-April 2013 (so who knows what the total actually was).
FocusCDS was the general contact company for the regulatory authorities in relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry. FocusCDS: (1) wrote and submitted the application for the quarry when it was premature, was incomplete, made false claims, etc (see previous claims about it); (2) wrote letters to the authorities, many of them claiming false “facts” as being absolutely true. For example, FocusCDS wrote and told council that man X, man Y and CASACIR had completed many required actions they had not completed (and in some circumstances, had not even commenced), and this included letters to council claiming that (a) there was a rock-lined drain across the site entrance to stop drainage going off site when there was no such drain, with or without the rock lining; (b) that works had been done that were not done and were not going to be done; (c) that there was no watercourse where there was one and it knew there was one; (d) it prepared and submitted 2 separate planning reports, each with a multitude of fraudulent claims made as fact (some of which are addressed above and below), with the second planning report being endorsed as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit – making compliance with its claims mandatory; (3) on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s behalf, it assisted in the creation of fraudulent claims and denials to the authorities; (4) it repeatedly lied to and deceived the authorities (one such example was the aforementioned pronouncement to council that certain works had been done when they had not been done); (5) it failed to comply with legislation and told council that compliance with, for example, buffers was not required; (6) told council as absolute fact that the quarry operations and use did not start until 13 November 2009 when it had actually privately acknowledged that the use had started much earlier (thereby allowing man X, man Y and CASACIR to use severely elevated noise levels when they were not allowed to do so); and so on.
By such appalling conduct, FocusCDS thereby was grandly rewarded by being paid significant fees. It is my personal opinion that the above, and other, behaviour was fraudulent, scandalous, and unlawful, as well as at times being very belittling and abusive of me.
The reality is that a recent viewing of the Neerim North quarry via Google Earth (updated on 2 August 2020), reveals that FocusCDS’s oversight, environmental control, and project management has allowed for there to still be no sediment or silt traps, drainage from the carpark going directly into the spring at the commencement of Kookaburra Creek, there are still no plants planted in a number of locations where they are required by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit, man X, man Y and CASACIR are working outside the work authority boundary, there is still no drain “swale” (fraudulently called a “wetland”) in site of it being required in 2011, there are still mountains of product illegally stored in the south-east, man X, man Y and CASACIR are still storing / using machinery and equipment where not allowed, the carpark is still not created where it was to be created (material is stored there instead (where the dust can, and no doubt would, blow off the site on to other’s land), and so on.
Such is the quality of FocusCDS’s project management, environmental supervision, and general oversight, and for which it was paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars as a reward for services rendered and/or failed to render.
[1] And it is verycreative with what it does
[2] Taken from an advertisement placed in the Sand & Stone CMPA issue 77 magazine
[3] Man X, man Y and CASACIR must still take responsibility of what they have allowed and approved of FocusCDS doing
[4] Kraan’s statement of evidence VCAT P481/2014 & P623/2014 for a Proposed Boiler farm in Strathlea
[5] The planning scheme at 14.03-2 stated under Stone resources [emphasis mine] “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”
[6] Claims made by man X, man Y and CASACIR as absolute fact to the Supreme Court of Victoria
[7] Certainly for a number of years (and probably still)
[8] There were action that were taken against man X, man Y and CASACIR for, inter alia(1) the objection to the quarry application; (2) the objection by man X, man Y and CASACIR to the conditions on their permit; (3) their theft of the flow of Kookaburra Creek; (4) their illegal works on Kookaburra Creek; (5) in relation to a stop work application because man X, man Y and CASACIR had indicated that they were going to blast into an aquifer feeding Kookaburra Creek (it must be noted that they did not wait for the tribunal’s decision before blasting anyway), and so on.
[9] A claim made by man X, man Y and CASACIR as absolute fact to the Supreme Court of Victoria
[10] Working with the legal team, finding and monitoring witnesses, taking part in conferences, significant email and phone call communications, sitting in court each and every day, taking part in mediations, and so on.