ShUTip.com

Page under construction (Hydrology and geology statement to be added)

Approximately 19 people spoke at the 4 hour briefing representing: The applicant, various community groups and individuals. Notably, the DECCW was invited but declined to appear. Below is a general excerpt of the Shut Brief. See also JRPP Briefing Notes.

ShUT Introduction:
Firstly I would like to welcome you all to Tomerong Hall on behalf of the Tomerong community - this is much-loved community owned space and this proposal has brought the community  together like no other.

Past, present & future custodians are acknowledged, particularly future generations whose welfare and country we must protect now.
The future community will have to live with the ramifications of your decision on this proposal.
 
Also on behalf of the 300 members and 1000 friends of ShUT Inc, not to mention the 770 people who wrote submissions, we would like to thank the Joint Regional Planning Panel for facilitating this meeting and welcome you and the departmental representatives to Tomerong.
This however is not just a Tomerong issue and will have a cumulative impact across the whole region.
There has been no planning for this proposal, none at all, and we are disappointed that the Department of Planning was not invited to be here.
We would also like to note that calling such a public meeting at such short notice on a weekday at such a small venue disenfranchised the majority of the community from attending & speaking.
That said we are appreciative of the opportunity to address the panel prior to the determination hearing and hope to convince you of our case.
We have much information to give you and ask that you give us the time we require to present it to you.
We will only be touching on the most important issues here today and have documented our research for you to peruse and digest later.
 
We intend to present to you today an overwhelming case against the tip and to point out that the almost total opposition and just the sheer weight of public opinion against the proposal demonstrates overwhelmingly that it is not in the public interest.
Why the applicant is continuing to try to run rough-shod over the community on this and why anyone would approve of a development that literally NO-ONE apart from the applicant wants is beyond us.
We feel that it is important to reiterate to you that this proposal is not for a waste facility in a benign and convenient hole in the ground somewhere safe.
Not only is this not even a hole in the ground but will end up as a hill of waste, this site is in the immediate catchment of both Jervis Bay and St Georges Basin and I assume that I don't have to point out to you all how environmentally sensitive and precious these two bodies of water and their catchments are.
At present both Jervis Bay & St Georges Basin are free from any polluting industry and that is the way it should stay.
 
ShUT does not agree with the Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water's position that there can be an engineered outcome to this proposal which can satisfy the requirements to allow a license; that as long as certain benchmarks and objectives are met then there is nothing they can do to stop it.
We aim to demonstrate that under their own guidelines there are site specific hindrances fatal to this application.
Quite frankly the community is shocked by the issuing of General Terms of Approval indicating DECCW's preparedness to issue a license and we find it a dismal failure of the legislation to protect the environment and communities from just this sort of proposal.
The community has put in thousands of hours of unpaid work in assessing and protesting this application and thousands of dollars of our own money on independent specialist advice and reports to expose the inadequacies of both the application and DECCW's assessment.
This is not the way things should happen.
The taxpayer funds the government and its departments to do this work yet we seem to have found ourselves as the frontline of defence.
The community should not have to do the Department of Environment's own work for them to protect itself from inappropriate development.
 
We have several unanswered questions about whether or not DECCW staff have even been on-site and if they have whether or not all the officers responsible for assessing the site specific facets of the application have done a thorough on-site investigation.
Because if not, how can they have assessed the application responsibly.
In our documentation we believe we have demonstrated that DECCW has not applied sufficient rigour or thoroughness in assessing this application; that there has been a failure in due diligence and understanding of the department's own legislation.
 
Is DECCW treating this as a site specific application with unique site specific issues as they are required to or just as a generic tick-the-box type application?
The EPA's own Environmental Guidelines for Solid Waste Landfills in Environmentally Sensitive Areas - & I hope no-one is going to argue that this is not an environmentally sensitive area, being in the catchments of a SEPP14 wetland, a Marine Park due to be World Heritage listed and the largest weedbed & fish breeding lake on the South Coast of NSW closed to commercial fishing to protect it - the EPA's own guidelines state that if a site is near any such environmentally sensitive area and if in particular it is located within 40 metres from a permanent or intermittent waterbody or in an area overlying an aquifer which contains ground water which has a high vulnerability to pollution from the proposal then the site is unsuitable.
This proposal fails all those conditions therefore these prohibitions alone should be fatal.
 
Both Duck Creek originating on the site and Tomerong Creek running through it are designated Streams of Significance by the Department as they run directly into Jervis Bay & St Georges Basin.
The applicant and the Department make much of the fact that acceptable benchmarks are being met on tip liners, leachate ponds and contamination management.
No benchmark on leachate management is going to provide a neutral or beneficial outcome in the long-term.
Eventually there will be a problem, the effect can only be negative and no amount of pollution running off this site is acceptable.
 
What is DECCW's position on the fact that there will be a 6 million litre leachate pond sitting in an existing and what would seem to be unauthorised dam built through what appears to be unauthorised clearing and in all likelihood illegal removal of Melaleuca biconvexa, this dam sitting right in the headwaters of Duck Creek running into a SEPP14 wetland and sanctuary zone of a marine park, this dam that in the proponent's own EIS is acknowledged that is already leaking and will contain a leachate pond with liners designed to "minimise" leaking of leachate into it?
Is DECCW proposing to allow a leaking leachate pond to be built in a dam leaking into Jervis Bay and why has this "significant estuarine tributary" - Duck Creek - been totally ignored by both the proponent and DECCW?
What will happen when the leachate pond and tip linings eventually fail - & it must be stressed that one day in the near or distant future that will happen - everything breaks down - and toxic leachate will be released in to these precious ecosystems?

Further, DECCW does not appear to have assessed this application with regards to Ecologically Sustainable Development, a mandatory requirement yet no tick in that box.
We are talking about the Dept of Environment and Climate Change here yet there appears to have been a complete failure to assess the impact of long distance waste haulage across communities with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint and the environmental cost considering only 5% of this waste will be generated in the Shoalhaven and 95% trucked in from elsewhere in the state.
Let Wollongong deal with its own waste.
This is all about a private operator running out of space at his tip at West Dapto and seeking to prolong the profitable income from that tip by exporting the 100,000 tonnes a year of the industrial waste that remains after recyclables have been removed to us.
That is like the developed world exporting its toxic waste to the Third World except we won't get paid for it - it is a disgusting and unsustainable proposal.
We will have to bear all the pain for the operator to make all the gain.
There are long lines of trucks at 7 am every morning waiting for the West Dapto tip to open - is this what the residents of Gumden Lane can expect?
We don't want Wollongong's unrecyclable rubbish and it shouldn't be inflicted on us.
 
It is offensive to propose trucking 100,000 tonnes a year of someone else's contaminated waste through several communities by long-distance truck haulage, then dumping it on to an old quarry site with fractured geology from decades of blasting at the headwaters of extremely sensitive and protected waterways where the leachate will be endlessly recycled becoming more and more concentrated and toxic until one day the system fails and we have toxic leachate escaping into the ecosystem.
Who thinks that's a good idea?
This is an entirely unsuitable site for such a proposal and the Precautionary Principle must be applied.
 
Have DECCW done anything about assessing the cumulative impacts of this proposal; the impact on local residents, on planned & approved residential developments adjacent to the site, on long term environmental impacts, traffic, noise, air & water quality impacts off site.
DECCW's own Best Practise guidelines require the Department to assess the impacts of any proposal on the total catchment, in particular to assess the wider and cumulative impacts on the whole of catchment yet they appear to have confined their assessments to on-site only.

DECCW's own requirements state that "the assessment of water quality impacts need to be undertaken in a total catchment management context to provide a wide perspective on development impacts, in particular cumulative impacts".
Has this been done and how is DECCW satisfied that it has been without any stormwater or groundwater modelling results or data as admitted in the proponent's own Environmental Impact Statement?
 
Why are DECCW prepared to issue a license in the absence of a rehabilitation plan on closure?
The ability of the applicant to demonstrate how the site will be rehabilitated and the environment protected should be crucial to the determination on whether this is an environmentally responsible proposal or not.
 
Has DECCW assessed the full impact of this proposal on the federally and state protected Melaleuca Biconvexa, considering that there are less plants every time it is assessed on this site, mapping is inadequate, flora and fauna studies are flawed and the area outside the quarry lease, around the bridge, new sediment ponds and noise attenuation barrier are in lands of Ecological Significance yet have not been included in the EIS?
 
And finally from me, and I stress that we have extensive documentation to support everything that we say today, we have concerns that DECCW ticked the fit & proper person box without even investigating and finding out that the applicant has already broken the law on this site.
I will hand over to my colleague to address our concerns in this regard.


ShUT DA 09/2077 General Issues:

  DECCW stated at a meeting on 23rd July 2010 that they have applied “Best Practse “ Principles in assessing this application and are confident that the Proponent has demonstrated that they will implement and  apply Best Practise procedures and benchmarks to the proposed landfill . ShUT Inc has concerns as listed.
   ShUT Inc concerns re DECCW “Best Practise” and Assessment re: General Terms Of Approval (GTA's or GTOA).
DECC requires this information to be addressed by the proponent to enable DECC to undertake a complete and timely assessment of the proposal” Julian Thompson Unit Head Waste Operations.
       Reference Documents;   D.G. Dept of Planning Requirements, 3 pages [including mandatory issues Attachment No1]
      
Why did DECCW not assess this application with regards to ESD [Ecological Sustainable Development as mentioned
Why did DECCW fail to assess the impact, of long distance waste haulage with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint and the environmental cost considering only 5% of this waste will be generated by the Shoalhaven and 95% will impact on waste miles and public safety. What is DECCW’s position in regard to the new SEPP Amendment “land use Conflict”  “Whether the transport to the landfill are optimised to reduce the environmental and social impacts associated with transporting waste to the Landfill?”
DECCW concurred that they have not read Cowman Stoddart’s submission for the adjoining landowner. T.E. Davis properties P/L.  A copy of the “expert opinion “Submission was hand delivered to DECCW at the meeting on 23rd July. Has DECCW assessed this information and what are their findings? It is disappointing to note that on their checklist the DECCW says it assessed approx 880 submissions.
Has DECCW assessed the Culmative Impacts? Environmental Impacts, long term air, noise and water quality objectives for the region and infrastructure and traffic impacts.
Rehabilitation “Outline considerations for site maintenance, and proposed plans for the final condition of the site [ensuring its suitability for future uses].” Will DECCW site the rehabilitation plan prior to issuing a licence?
Environmental Concerns Water some quotes “Identify and describe the state of the receiving waters”, “ NOTE: The assessment of water quality impacts need to be undertaken in a total catchment management context to provide a wide perspective on development impacts, in particular culmative impacts”]. Has DECCW taken all of the water requirement issues into consideration and also in regard to the ANZECC 2000 guidelines? If so how did they do this without any stormwater and groundwater results or data. Without this data how did DECCW calculate the size of the Leachate Dam?  i.e. 6 million litre  we hope it is not surely the comments in the documents from DECCW which state “Anyway I’ve suggested 6,000m3 because it is what was required at Glenfield. They may baulk at this but all they have to do is make the dam a bit deeper”.
What is DECCW’s position on the Leachate Dam [6 million litres] sitting in a dam on the immediate catchment of Duck Ck?
This creek runs through a SEPP14 wetland and into a sanctuary zone of the Jervis Bay Marine Park [Moona Moona Ck]. More importantly the leachate dam has a maximum allowable leakage rate of 1,150 litre/hectare per day. So DECCW concur by their own documentation that the leachate dam is going to leak. What is also concerning is that the proponent’s EIS states that the dams [one of which holds the leachate dam] are leaking. [EIS pg 98 “the leakage of two dams north of the quarry”.  [EIS pg 94 “Dam overflows and adjacent surface water drainage is to the east to a ‘unnamed creek’ “ etc.. Does DECCW support the leaking of the leachate dam into a leaking dam which flows into Jervis Bay?
These dams are the catchment for surface water, and by the latest Lands dept map, form the Headwaters of Duck Creek which has been totally ignored by the Proponent’s EIS and DECCW in this proposal. DECCW have only addressed Tomerong creek. ShUT Inc also reminds the Panel that these dams form part of the proposal including the leachate dam and fall within the area deemed as Environmentally Sensitive areas [areas which are considered inappropriate for landfilling]. [Reference; POEO Act 1997 Schedule 1 as amended Table A9 in Environmental Guidelines Part A : Vulnerable areas “In or within 40 metres from a permanent or intermittent waterbody” “In a area overlying a aquifer which contains groundwater which has high or very high vulnerability to pollution”

Has DECCW assessed the  full culmative impact on the Federal and State listed threatened species Maleluca Biconvexa considering that there are less plants in the current mapping assessment [ which is over two years old] than on a previous assessment regarding DA04/2121 and noted by SCC {Shoalhaven City Council]. ShUT Inc is of the opinion the flora and fauna surveys are flawed and inadequately mapped, and the area around the bridge, noise attenuation barrier and additional sediment dams are in “Land of Ecological Significance” and require an assessment of significance to be applied to the whole EIS over the whole of the affected property Lot 4 DP775296 296.2 Ha. We also believe that information critical to an assessment under S5A of the EP&A Act has not been provided by the proponent.
A full report on the inadequacies of the EIS and Flora and Fauna will be forth coming.
DECCW stated that the applicant is a fit and proper person as referred to in S83, we now express our concerns in that regard.
     Inaccuracies in EIS Executive Summary 
Who operates quarry... Shoalhaven Quarries not Tomerong Quarry as per EIS.
Who holds quarry licence  SCE Recycling [Nowra] P/L not Tomerong Quarries as per EIS.
Who hold lease of property Tomerong Properties P/L not Tomerong Quarries As per EIS.
Boundary of lease  Whole of folio 4 DP 775296  not 32 Ha as per EIS.
Directors have not taken ownership of application, no duty of care by correcting above, or is it a deliberate ploy to deceive? The companies above were in operation and/or registered for a number of years before the EIS was compiled. In either case how can we trust any of the other statements in the EIS, are they purely cut and paste.
Previous History of Tomerong Quarry, Shoalhaven Quarry & Directors of Tomerong Waste Pty Ltd.
Tomerong Waste Pty Ltd has two Directors.
One is a director of Tomerong Quarry, The other is a Director of SCE Recycling [Nowra] Pty Ltd  t/as Shoalhaven Quarries, this Director is also the sole Director of Tomerong Properties P/L [ lease holder] and also the Director of the Ultimate Holding Company SCE Aust Pty Ltd.
Both Tomerong Quarry [1996-2007] and Shoalhaven Quarry [2007 – onwards] have been or are operating the Quarry at Bellfield Tomerong. 
In their own consultant’s documentation we found 1 licence  and 4 peak overpressure blasting non-compliance's
Tomerong Quarry fined $15,000.00 in July 2007 for illegal removal of a Federal and State listed threatened species, by NSW Dept of Environment & Climate Change [this is DECCW’s own dept ]
SCC [Shoalhaven City Council] has numerous records of complaints re dust, noise, operating out of hours, failure to notify of a blast etc, exceeding their daily extraction rate etc. The current operators of the quarry have not carried out repairs to Parnell Rd this February. This is a DA condition.

There are various letters from EPA [Now DECCW] with concerns raised re inspection 3rd Nov 2000 reported that “However there is  one significant issue which we believe requires immediate action, that is the degradation of Tomerong creek resulting from the operation and maintenance of the causeway used by the quarry vehicles” It was also observed that the natural flow [and quality of water] of the creek has been impacted because of gravel and rocks placed in the creek to support the causeway” “ Mr. Todd’s manager advised EPA officer Veronica Boland that quarry management are currently preparing to submit a DA to construct a bridge over the creek.”
2010 and still no bridge.
This is demonstrating “Best Practise” benchmarks and implementation?
The water quantity and quality of Tomerong Creek which is a CAT3 creek has been noted as an ongoing concern that has not been addressed by former and previous quarry operators who are the two Directors of Tomerong Waste P/L. Letters from EPA & Land and Water Conservation and SCC expressing their concerns have been sighted.
There are also letters expressing concern over noise levels from the hammer rig, stormwater management and erosion control on-site, Dam management [sediment control dams overtopped] vegetation on Dam embankment. Threatened species in a gully adjacent the sediment dam near a fence line which has been cleared was also a concern.
DS02/1087 Sec 96 modification states “Construction of a new crossing over Tomerong Creek within 2 years from the date of this modified consent”
DS03/ 1325 Sec96 modification to DA90/1912 amended 6th Feb 2004. Condition 14i] [c] Construction of a new crossing over Tomerong Creek within 27 months from the date of this modified consent. Despite a permit being granted by Dept of Natural Resources in 2005 the Directors of the Quarry operations have not complied with this operational consent  and are currently in breach of such.
DS06/1039 Sec 96 modification Extension of quarry operation from 2010 to 2020. This Sec 96 modification was conditional on “all other conditions remain unaltered” Still no bridge construction.
By the proponent’s documentation a new dam was built in 2006, we can find no documentation or consent to support the construction of this dam, which is the very dam into which they propose to build the Leachate Dam. More concerning is the illegal clearing and possible removal of a Federal and State listed threatened species to enable this dam to be built. No consent or licence under the NSW Water Act of 1912 has been granted for either of these dams which are used for dust suppression in the quarry.  

ShUT Inc is also concerned about the clearing that has occurred since 2006-2010 around the dam areas. We inform the panel that DA07/1075 “Extension of Tomerong Quarry Extraction Area” submitted 23/01/2007 which was assessed by Council and withdrawn. ShUT Inc questions whether clearing was carried out regardless of the DA being withdrawn and informs the Panel that we believe the area cleared is outside the boundaries of DA90/1912 “Rehabilitation Final Landform after year 5, contrary to advice given by council staff. 
Boundary of EIS Documentation. ShUT Inc questions the boundary of the EIS and supporting documentation, especially in regard to the bridge, connecting roadway between bridge and quarry and the additional noise attenuation barrier and sediment dams that now form part of the proposal. With regards to the Culmative affects of water flow, air, dust etc and that the subject land is impacted by a wildlife corridor [Jervis Bay Regional Environmental Plan] and is deemed Land of Ecological Sensitivity [Shoalhaven LEP] the EIS should be over the whole of the subject land as per “Notification of A Regional Development Application” affected land 146 Parnell Rd, Tomerong –Lot 4 –DP775296. The applicant’s EIS documentation is no longer relevant to these amendments and they have mentioned the whole property when it suits and then only the project area when it suits as well. They can’t have it both ways; it must be over the whole property to take in all ramifications.

ShUT Hydrology and Geology issues:
(under construction)

ShUT Tourism, Justification and Not in the Public Interest issues:

Impact on Tourism   

#   Tourism is worth over $629 million per year to the Shoalhaven economy and generates over 6000 jobs (directly and indirectly) in the community
#   Shoalhaven City has a population of 97,000 which swells to 320,000 during the peak Christmas holiday period. 
#   Annually the Shoalhaven sees 3,219,000 domestic visitors and 96,000 international. This is more than any other NSW region including the North Coast and the Hunter.
(Source: Shoalhaven City Council Tourism Profile and Statement of Economic Impact Year ending 31/12/08 Published 14/4/09)

The importance of this income flowing through the local economy can not be overstated. It is fundamental to the economic, social and cultural life of the region. The Shoalhaven is recognised world wide as a place of stunning natural beauty; a destination with pure, clean water, white sand, protected land and marine life and world famous national parks. It is a State asset of immeasurable value and as custodians; we have a responsibility to generations that follow to protect both the unique environment and the income generating asset. The future of the Shoalhaven lies in the industry of tourism, not waste disposal. 

In relation to the EIS for the proposal, the Director General of Planning specified that the following documents be considered:  Jervis Bay Regional Environment Plan 1996, Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy 2005 and the South Coast Regional Strategy 2007. This proposal is inconsistent with these documents.  In particular, the South Coast Regional Strategy requires among other things that, “The economic value of natural resources and natural environments in the South Coast will be recognised as an employment generator due to its importance to tourism and primary industries including agriculture, forestry and fisheries.”


This development is not in the public interest

#   Fall in land values reflect social cost                                                                                                                                  The real costs of landfill as a waste disposal means  are often ignored due to either the lack of awareness of future environmental liability or the difficulty of quantification: eg: the cost of groundwater contamination by landfill leachate, the cost of air pollution…dust, gas emission and the cost of social impacts on the host community such as  traffic, odour, noise, aesthetic degradation and property devaluation. Hedonic price property studies are an effective way to measure the social and environmental impact of landfill because they reflect in monetary terms the fall in amenity of an area.
(“Measuring the Environmental Cost of Landfill”, Xinlei, Rudolph and Greenfield, Dept of Chem Eng, Uni of QLD 1995)    
                                                                                              
It would be expected that property values within 500 metres of the Tomerong site would fall by 10% to 20% if the development was approved. This figure would diminish with distance from the site. (K.D. Wood Valuations Aust Pty. Ltd. quoted on the Orchard Hills Community Info site in relation to a proposed landfill site near Blaxland Creek in western Sydney)
 
#   Increased heavy vehicle traffic
    Dust, noise, residual rubbish, wear and tear on inadequate feeder roads, increased danger of fatality on the inadequate Princes Highway
    Increased danger in small villages such as Kangaroo Valley, Berry, Milton, Narooma and Moruya.
    The proposed noise abatement wall may help one property but what of the others in Gumden Lane and Island point Road

#   Risk of future expansion of the amenity                                                                                                                           The lease is over the whole 296.2 ha and it would appear that the lessor is a compliant one.

#   Inappropriate mechanism of government                                                                                                                       Should this facility go ahead, would its existence be the result of good planning principles?  Such high impact land use should only be followed after comprehensive research into current and future landfill needs, study of appropriate sites and strenuous consultation. Instead we have none of the above….but rather a system where a community is thrown into turmoil because a private business sees the chance to make some money filling a quarry.  There appears to be no obligation on the part of the proponent to investigate alternative sites.
(Refer to “Armadale Regional Landfill - Preliminary Environmental Assessment prepared by Maunsell Aust. Pty.Ltd. October 2008 for an example of how the evaluation of possible landfill sites should operate.)

#    Who pays?                                                                                                                                                                       What will be the legacy of this tip to the people of the Shoalhaven when and if it closes in 20 years. Who will be responsible for leachate pollution when the liner breaks down?                                                                                          (Refer Daily Telegraph 9/10/09 re legal dispute Commonwealth Govt and Brambles)


#   Does the DA comply with zoning?
    Among others, Zone1 (d) (General Rural) lists objectives as; (a) to provide opportunities for a range of rural land uses and other development, including those which by virtue of their character require siting away from urban areas; and (c) to ensure that wherever possible the location, design and management of development is consistent with: (1) the protection of important natural and cultural environments; and (4) minimising conflict between land uses.
Zone 1 (d) prohibits among other things, industries, which according to the Australian Oxford dictionary means “business activity”. It defies logic that a business activity involving thousands of truck movements per year would not be entitled to be called “industry”
    The draft Shoalhaven LEP is soon to be released for public comment.  In view of the massive public opposition to this proposal it is not in the public interest that the assessment of such a contentious DA comes before broad discussion of the draft LEP which under Ministerial Directive No. 30, 2007 “Implementation of Regional Strategies” requires that the revised LEP be consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy. The revised LEP should also be consistent with the statutory Jervis Bay Regional Environment Plan which dictates that the natural, social and economic values of the area should not be compromised.
    The existing LEP was gazetted in May 1985. Is a 25 year old LEP a worthy instrument?

#   DECCW in its General Terms of Approval allows for leachate pollution into waterways. Is this in the public interest when there is none at the moment?                                                                                                                                       --   Recent changes to Infrastructure SEPP – Determination of Landfill Applications issued by Sam Haddad, Director General NSW Planning mean that there is more emphasis on improved environmental outcomes. Will the Panel be instructing DECCW to review their General Terms of Approval in the light of these changes?

#   The EIS claims positives for the environment which are spurious, contrived and of no value to the public: for example; helping other Councils and; providing permanent flow of Tomerong Creek (this was required anyway under the terms of approval for the quarry); and what about filling the quarry void and providing a “complimentary hill” and parkland. Remediating the quarry site was also required under its terms of approval. [Current operating DA90/1912 and amendments do not require the quarry to be filled, it states that the walls to be slumped and a gentle slope formed with overburden to restore land to its pastoral integrity.]

#   The DA is not demand driven. The proponent makes much of the need for more non-putrescible landfill capacity by the Southern Group of Councils, ShUT disputes this. Shoalhaven Council produces only 4,800 tonnes annually. To make this private operation viable, the owners will need to actively seek rubbish donors from hundreds of kilometres away. John Britton, Senior Environmental Building Surveyor with SCC in answer to a question; “Will Wollongong, Shellharbour, Kiama and Councils of the like be likely to send loads to the Tomerong site? Answered; “Information has been received that they see it as not viable; they would prefer a site further north. However, the application relies on imported material from other areas to achieve the tonnage expected”
(Refer Shoalhaven City Council Regional Development Committee Meeting Minutes 9/11/09)

Minutes of a Bega Valley Shire Council Corporate Management Committee Meeting on 16/6/09 mentioned Southern Council Group board discussions on waste management and it was noted that “Recently Council (Bega Valley) received information from Southern Councils Group that the proposed alternative waste technology providing for transport of waste from the far south coast Councils to central facilities in Eurobodalla or Shoalhaven were economically and environmentally unsustainable”

#   An island of rubbish in a sea of housing development                                                                                                                                                                                Encroaching residential development will be adversely affected by tip
    Polluted dust washing into water tanks
    Truck noise
    Odour from concentrating leachate. There is no odour assessment in the EIS.
    Risk from illegally dumped substances. There is no plan in the EIS to police what finds its way into the tip.
    Increase risk of fire in a fire prone area.
-     The facility will be unavailable to those who bear the dislocation and diminished amenity in their area.                This is a private commercial operation which prohibits public use.

#   Inter-generational Equity
Approval of the tip would go against the principle of equity between people alive today and future generations. This principle implies that unsustainable production, consumption and land use by today’s society will degrade the ecological social and economic basis for tomorrow’s society.
(Refer Hub Action Group Incorporated V Minister for Planning and Orange City Council (2008) NSWLEC 116)
Should this development be approved it will be a new and polluting land use on Tomerong Creek and Duck Creek.

#   Intra- generational Equity
Potential damage to a world valued natural resource for the short term advantage of a few does not take into account the needs and sensibilities of a far broader community.  There are at least two businesses within a kilometre of the quarry site registered as organic producers and there are several bee keepers using forests adjacent to the site.    High value waterways will be at risk, sacrificed to opportunistic development. Intra-generational equity should apply.

#   The Precautionary Principle                                                                                                                                       Approval of this development would go against the Precautionary principle…If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty (relating to that damage) should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.                                                                                (See  Hon. Justice Brian J. Preston, Chief Judge NSW Land & Environment Court, Presentation to the National Trust Corporate Breakfast 23/11/06)

#   ESD Principles                                                                                                                                                                     The waste facility does not satisfy the definition of environmentally sustainable development….it does not meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The conclusions of a study by GeoSciences Australia, “St Georges Basin Nutrient Survey – Results Summary for SCC – Professional opinion 2004” indicate that impacts of the proposed waste facility on St Georges Basin would not be within sustainable limits. Further, the report and the then NSW Department of Natural Resources (DNR) question the effectiveness of water pollution control measures in protecting sensitive water bodies such as St Georges Basin/Erowal Bay. In its submission to the 2006 sensitive Urban Lands Review, the DNR stated that; “Even when conditions have been followed and best practice used, the (NSW) Dept of Natural Resources has publicly stated ‘even with today’s technology and new (supposedly) efficient water control methods, the flow of stormwaters cannot be contained on development sites. No matter what contractors do, stormwater will find a way to enter waterways taking with it pollutants.”

#   Public confidence                                                                                                                                                     Conditions of consent have not been enforced in relation to the existing quarry operation. What confidence can the public have that they would be enforced with a dangerous landfill site taking toxic substances?

#   Consultation                                                                                                                                                                           -   In a letter to the proponent 20/8/07 the Dept of Planning outlined the Director General’s requirements for the preparation of the EIS which included consulting community groups, surrounding landowners and occupiers. There was no consultation and the public interest was ignored.
-   Public feeling has now been made clear…..150 people at an initial public meeting on 12/9/09, 770 submissions to SCC, ShUT’s 300 strong membership and 1,000 face book friends the 350 who attended the Vincentia public meeting on 1/10/09. ….massive interest in the local media. Not one Federal, State or Local representative has expressed support for this proposal.

The Shoalhaven hinterland is a national environment and tourism asset and deserves far better care than the proponent and his proposed toxic waste dump would confer. However small the risk claimed in the EIS….some risks are just not worth taking.


ShUT Summary and Conclusion:
In Conclusion.
I would like to say that my preceding colleagues have raised many issues with the application.

I would like to Summarise our issues with the application:

The Land ownership statement within the application is untested.
The company structure is so complex that the person or entity ultimately responsible is unclear.
There is NO need for the facility, as it is NOT demand driven.
The fundamental principal behind the application is flawed,
THAT IS, The Southern Councils Group letter, is misinterpreted.
There is an existing remediation plan to slump the Quarry, so there is NO NEED for a landfill to remediate the Quarry.
The Hydrology & Geological Assessment is inadequate, AS IS, the Flora and Fauna Study.
The site is NOT a hole, NOT a hole, BUT, an open pan shape, draining towards Tomerong Creek.
The site will spill outside the TIGHT 32 Ha mining lease, with silt and stormwater basins and stockpiles etc.. AND so should the environmental studies.
There has been no proper site evaluation for alternative sites.
There is no genuine intergenerational equity considered especially for the people this land was intended to benefit, or, our children's swimming and play-haven where Moona Moona Creek meets Jervis Bay.
The application is not an Ecological Sustainable Development as admitted by the DECCW, AND, this one of the Director Generals Requirement's.
There has been no Community Consultation, instead a seemingly veiled misinformation campaign.
The proposal will directly conflict and diminish the existing local Tourism and residential plans and aspirations.
The land HAS Traditional Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage value as stated by the Indigenous Lands Council. We have a Letter from a indigenous elder and we would like the JRPP to be aware of this, and it will be tabled later.
The application is not in the public interest.
The proponent director's track record relating to consent compliancy is questionable at best. Rewarding and Entrusting great environmental responsibility to a management that has a history of breaking consent conditions will not give the Shoalhaven community any confidence in the planning and consent process.
The Environmental Impact Statement is omissive, misleading, and we suggest untrue in parts.

NO amount of words should be able to fit a 'SQUARE PEG' application, into a 'ROUND HOLE' guideline.

Please accept our promotional Magazine 'Jervis Bay, A Visual Celebration' showcasing our true income earning assets. We have a justifiable need to preserve the pristine assets of our Bay & Basin and our existing Tourism Industry, that is GENUINELY demand driven.

We would like to thank many of our unseen volunteer researchers for the thousands of hours of work to help defend the pristine integrity of the Bay & Basin area.

Please note that if this application is approved in any shape or form, it is likely that a class action will be considered by the residents of the Bay and Basin area, the community will NOT accept this facility, and the fight will continue.

In Closing, I would like to reiterate a quote from the Director Generals Requirement's [NSW EPA, Environmental Guidelines, Solid Waste Landfills 3.2.1]:

 “JUDICIOUS LOCATION of a land fill is the SINGLE most effective ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT tool”.

“JUDICIOUS LOCATION of a land fill is the SINGLE most effective ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT tool”.

THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.

Thank you.