Shut JRPP determination presentation
SHUT PRESENTATION TO JRPP 21.10.10
At the public meeting in Tomerong in August we presented a comprehensive & damning case against this tip but due to time constraints it was only about half of what we had.
Since then we have found out so much more but once again we can only present about half of the new information we have and that in a concise form.
We have tried to triage that information into what we believe are fatal points against the proposal rather than just adverse.
A new development proposal cannot benefit from past illegal activity.
As we have stated previously we believe that the second dam on the quarry site - which is to hold the leachate pond - was built illegally and the endangered species melaleuca biconvexa illegally cleared to build it.
We believe we have the photographic evidence to prove this.
And yet DECCW shows no interest in this.
Nor do they show any interest in the complete lack of current mapping for biconvexa below the dam in the catchment of Duck Creek , prime biconvexa habitat, yet no studies have been conducted to show that the proposal will protect this threatened species or any other below the leaking dam.
The Federal Dept of Environment has asked for more information from the applicants so that they can properly assess the risk to biconvexa but this has not been forthcoming.
Not only that but the quarry owners hold no water license for this dam - something that the NSW Office of Water is investigating - nor is there any mention of the required license in this application.
DECCW's incompetence was demonstrated when they told us they knew nothing about such things.
The Office of Water is also investigating the alleged illegality of the second dam and apparent illegal clearing as is Shoalhaven City Council who have struggled to bring the quarry operators into line for many years.
The quarry operation on which this proposal relies, and which will continue in tandem with the tip by the same operators - yes blasting right next to the fragile leachate pond -, has been beset with breaches of the law, breaches of compliance and unauthorised activity for years.
This is aboriginal land and the land grant was based on its cultural & heritage values yet in this application we see the land owner stating that there are no aboriginal cultural or heritage values on site.
A waste facility on site is inconsistent with the requirements of the land grant - it is just not allowed and there is a caveat on the land grant that would see ownership being relinquished if such a facility was built.
Future generations of indigenous people will not be able to use the land and the traditional ownership of the land is also in dispute.
The lease ownership is stated as the wrong entity at the beginning of the EIS.
The lease is invalid as the transfer is not signed by the lessor representative.
The EIS describes the wrong area of the lease and the wrong area of the land to be affected by the development - it is 296 ha not 32.
At every turn the applicants have tried to belittle the impact of this proposal.
The quarry operators are incorrectly named in the EIS and all this gives no confidence that any entity would take responsibility for compliance or when something goes wrong.
We have no confidence in the applicant's intent to comply with operating & consent conditions.
For example the operational conditions of the quarry required a bridge to be built in 2002 and despite two license renewals repeating that requirement it is still not built.
There have been ongoing compliance issues and investigations of illegal activity on this site for years.
History gives us no reason to think that will change.
We also have no idea what will be dumped on this site and we have grave concerns over the operators' self-monitoring and DECCW's ability to enforce conditions of consent.
In trying to justify this proposal much has been made about the claim that it is demand driven and there have been several incorrect statements made by both the applicant and the Federal Member for Gilmore, both of whom knew better, trying to influence government ministers and attempting to justify it to the community by claiming that this proposal has been driven by the Southern Group of Councils looking for new landfill sites.
This is untrue and we have written evidence to prove it.
It has been claimed that first it was an initiative of the Southern Councils Group (SCG), then that it was in response to a request from them, then that it had the support of these councils but none of this is true.
The SCG has never initiated, discussed or supported this proposal nor are they looking for new landfill sites.
This is all about an opportunistic attempt by a private operator to make big bucks at the expense of the well-being of this community and the environment in which it lives.
There is no justification for it nor have the proponents attempted to justify it.
We don't even know where the waste is coming from or what it will be.
One of the applicants makes his living from dealing with slag at Port Kembla.
There is a very real possibility that this is all about a dump site for slag removal from Port Kembla for the new port facility there.
What toxic materials are in that slag?
There has been no social impact study, no accurate mapping of melaleuca biconvexa, no gatecheck risk screening assessment, no formal study to assess aboriginal significance, no justification, inadequate blasting and groundwater studies, inadequate environmental studies, inadequate noise, odour & dust studies, no EIS or flood study for the noise attenuation barrier, no EIS addressing the risk to threatened species below the dam in Duck Creek and is inconsistent with just about every act, policy & planning law applying to it.
There has been no review of the application under the new Landfill SEPP amendment and if a fire occurs in the landfill it would require a Hazmat brigade to attend - our nearest Hazmat brigades are at Shellharbour and Batemans Bay - one & a half hours away.
and finally DECCW has been thrown into even more disrepute by their refusal to hand over their documents justifying their initial refusal.
First they told us there weren't any, then that they couldn't find them, then that we couldn't have them, and now - because we refused to let them off the hook - they have finally agreed to let us have them but not until after this hearing.
They have obstructed our right to this information at every turn and I call for an inquiry into DECCW's handling of this case.
thank you - we know that despite this overwhelming mountain of evidence against this proposal you still have the ability to approve this application with conditions. We will never give up the fight against this as we know it to be entirely wrong.
We ask you to exercise your planning powers in the best interests of the community - support us, Council staff & the elected Council who are all united in their opposition.
In the interest of the community, the environment, sound planning and responsible government we urge you to let us all get on with our lives and refuse it outright.
At the public meeting in Tomerong in August we presented a comprehensive & damning case against this tip but due to time constraints it was only about half of what we had.
Since then we have found out so much more but once again we can only present about half of the new information we have and that in a concise form.
We have tried to triage that information into what we believe are fatal points against the proposal rather than just adverse.
A new development proposal cannot benefit from past illegal activity.
As we have stated previously we believe that the second dam on the quarry site - which is to hold the leachate pond - was built illegally and the endangered species melaleuca biconvexa illegally cleared to build it.
We believe we have the photographic evidence to prove this.
And yet DECCW shows no interest in this.
Nor do they show any interest in the complete lack of current mapping for biconvexa below the dam in the catchment of Duck Creek , prime biconvexa habitat, yet no studies have been conducted to show that the proposal will protect this threatened species or any other below the leaking dam.
The Federal Dept of Environment has asked for more information from the applicants so that they can properly assess the risk to biconvexa but this has not been forthcoming.
Not only that but the quarry owners hold no water license for this dam - something that the NSW Office of Water is investigating - nor is there any mention of the required license in this application.
DECCW's incompetence was demonstrated when they told us they knew nothing about such things.
The Office of Water is also investigating the alleged illegality of the second dam and apparent illegal clearing as is Shoalhaven City Council who have struggled to bring the quarry operators into line for many years.
The quarry operation on which this proposal relies, and which will continue in tandem with the tip by the same operators - yes blasting right next to the fragile leachate pond -, has been beset with breaches of the law, breaches of compliance and unauthorised activity for years.
This is aboriginal land and the land grant was based on its cultural & heritage values yet in this application we see the land owner stating that there are no aboriginal cultural or heritage values on site.
A waste facility on site is inconsistent with the requirements of the land grant - it is just not allowed and there is a caveat on the land grant that would see ownership being relinquished if such a facility was built.
Future generations of indigenous people will not be able to use the land and the traditional ownership of the land is also in dispute.
The lease ownership is stated as the wrong entity at the beginning of the EIS.
The lease is invalid as the transfer is not signed by the lessor representative.
The EIS describes the wrong area of the lease and the wrong area of the land to be affected by the development - it is 296 ha not 32.
At every turn the applicants have tried to belittle the impact of this proposal.
The quarry operators are incorrectly named in the EIS and all this gives no confidence that any entity would take responsibility for compliance or when something goes wrong.
We have no confidence in the applicant's intent to comply with operating & consent conditions.
For example the operational conditions of the quarry required a bridge to be built in 2002 and despite two license renewals repeating that requirement it is still not built.
There have been ongoing compliance issues and investigations of illegal activity on this site for years.
History gives us no reason to think that will change.
We also have no idea what will be dumped on this site and we have grave concerns over the operators' self-monitoring and DECCW's ability to enforce conditions of consent.
In trying to justify this proposal much has been made about the claim that it is demand driven and there have been several incorrect statements made by both the applicant and the Federal Member for Gilmore, both of whom knew better, trying to influence government ministers and attempting to justify it to the community by claiming that this proposal has been driven by the Southern Group of Councils looking for new landfill sites.
This is untrue and we have written evidence to prove it.
It has been claimed that first it was an initiative of the Southern Councils Group (SCG), then that it was in response to a request from them, then that it had the support of these councils but none of this is true.
The SCG has never initiated, discussed or supported this proposal nor are they looking for new landfill sites.
This is all about an opportunistic attempt by a private operator to make big bucks at the expense of the well-being of this community and the environment in which it lives.
There is no justification for it nor have the proponents attempted to justify it.
We don't even know where the waste is coming from or what it will be.
One of the applicants makes his living from dealing with slag at Port Kembla.
There is a very real possibility that this is all about a dump site for slag removal from Port Kembla for the new port facility there.
What toxic materials are in that slag?
There has been no social impact study, no accurate mapping of melaleuca biconvexa, no gatecheck risk screening assessment, no formal study to assess aboriginal significance, no justification, inadequate blasting and groundwater studies, inadequate environmental studies, inadequate noise, odour & dust studies, no EIS or flood study for the noise attenuation barrier, no EIS addressing the risk to threatened species below the dam in Duck Creek and is inconsistent with just about every act, policy & planning law applying to it.
There has been no review of the application under the new Landfill SEPP amendment and if a fire occurs in the landfill it would require a Hazmat brigade to attend - our nearest Hazmat brigades are at Shellharbour and Batemans Bay - one & a half hours away.
and finally DECCW has been thrown into even more disrepute by their refusal to hand over their documents justifying their initial refusal.
First they told us there weren't any, then that they couldn't find them, then that we couldn't have them, and now - because we refused to let them off the hook - they have finally agreed to let us have them but not until after this hearing.
They have obstructed our right to this information at every turn and I call for an inquiry into DECCW's handling of this case.
thank you - we know that despite this overwhelming mountain of evidence against this proposal you still have the ability to approve this application with conditions. We will never give up the fight against this as we know it to be entirely wrong.
We ask you to exercise your planning powers in the best interests of the community - support us, Council staff & the elected Council who are all united in their opposition.
In the interest of the community, the environment, sound planning and responsible government we urge you to let us all get on with our lives and refuse it outright.
