Ganian Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

[2000] NSWLEC 200

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Ganian Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2000] NSWLEC 200
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ganian Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Blacktown City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10942 of 1999
CORAM:	Sheahan J
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- designated development - extractive industry and landfill - refusal by Council - amendment of proposal - environmental impact - consent granted - conditions
LEGISLATION CITED:	Birds and Animals Protection Act 1918-1930 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.19 - Rouse Hill Development Area Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2 - 1997) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.9 -Extractive Industry (No.2) Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988
CASES CITED:	Architectural Property Services Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [1999] NSWLEC 83; Golden Quarries v Coffs Harbour City Council (1991) 72 LGERA 104; Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Kira Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor (1996) 90 LGERA 68; International Study Programs Pty Ltd & Ors v Greater Lithgow City Council & Anor [2000[ NSWLEC 91; Jarasius v Forestry Commission of NSW (1988) 71 LGRA 79 at 93; J Murphy & Sons Pty Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment & Anor [1973] 1 WLR 560; Nerasko Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council [No.2] (1990) 70 LGRA 50; Prineas v Forestry Commission of NSW & Ors (1983) 49 LGRA 402; Tiocliff Pty Ltd v Yarrowlumla Shire Council [1998] NSWLEC 13
DATES OF HEARING:	29/05/2000-31/05/2000, 1/6/2000-2/6/2000, 5/6/2000-9/6/2000, 07/07/2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	09/07/2000
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Barrister Mr T Hale SC with Mr T Thawley Solicitors Minter Ellison RESPONDENT Barrister Mr M Craig QC Solicitors Michell Sillar

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No: 10942 of 1999

ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Sheahan J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES 7 September 2000

GANIAN PTY LTD

Applicant

v

BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an appeal by the applicant (“ Ganian ”) against a refusal by Blacktown City Council (“ Council ”) of development application (“ DA ”) No. 98/2962, for designated development, comprising “ extractive industry and landfill ”, on 236 ha of land owned by Ganian at Richmond Road, Marsden Park (“ the subject site ”).

2. The DA ( Exhibit C20 fol 60-63) was lodged in May 1998, following a survey by Ganian of potential alternative sources of roadbase material, preferably on a site which could be rehabilitated as a landfill close to the Sydney region. Ganian’s drilling showed considerable reserves of quarry material remaining on the site, and Ganian believes the Marsden Park site to be the only remaining volcanic “ neck ” (diatreme) in the Sydney region, close to developing areas, and capable of economic development.

3. The DA was supported by an environmental impact statement (“ EIS ”) compiled by Enviro-Managers Pty Ltd ( Exhibits C8-C10 ).

4. The proposal is permissible with consent; it has been described in Council’s internal documents as “ continuation of quarrying, landfilling and site restoration of the existing quarry site ”, “ an extractive industry for the quarrying of road base materials and clay/shale for brickmaking ”, and “ a solid waste (class 2) landfill as defined by the EPA ”.

5. It is common ground that the proposal falls to be comprehensively considered under s 90 of the pre-amendment Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (“ the EP&A Act ”), notwithstanding the view of Mr Hale SC, for Ganian, that it poses fewer problems than many other quarry and/or landfill proposals, and notwithstanding also the substantial agreement reached between the parties on many of the Council’s suggested conditions of consent.

6. A substantial caravan park development, the “Town and Country Van & Mobile Home Park” (“ the caravan park ”), adjoins the site to its south. This is a non-conforming use but it must be considered in the s 90 assessment of the Ganian proposal. Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Kira Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor (1996) 90 LGERA 68.

7. Ganian (which is also referred to in some of the documents as “ Blacktown Waste Services ”) apparently has the same shareholders, in the same proportions, as Penrith Waste Services Pty Ltd (“ PWS ”).

8. Both companies are essentially owned by three family groups, with 50% of them owned by Robert and Adrian Wearn. The Wearn family are long-established quarry, excavation, mining and transport operators in the Penrith area. They own an old quarry site in Mulgoa Road, Penrith, adjoining the major PWS landfill operation, and an operational quarry in Bradley Street, some 3km away. The PWS operation in Mulgoa Road is primarily a landfill but with some complementary extraction works (T8.6.00 pp 518, 551-3). The Wearns have been involved in PWS since 1990 (T p 528-9).

9. Part of the subject site is reported to have been used as a quarry between 1964 and the 1980’s, supplying quarry products principally for use in road construction. After quarrying ceased, the quarry site was used for the processing of river gravel for a time, and then the quarry area was abandoned and has been left unrehabilitated. The quarry area is certainly in a very degraded state, and the whole property is currently used only for sporadic grazing and a night soil operation.

10. The materials proposed to be quarried for use or sale are volcanic breccia and clay/shale. The applicant has identified 1.8 million cubic metres of breccia (4.6 million tonnes at a conversion rate of 2.5), and 962 cubic metres of shale material (2.2 million tonnes at a conversion rate of 2.5).

11. 360,000 tonnes of material will be extracted per annum, and 300,000 tonnes of it will be sold. Some non-premium-quality shale and some eroded or weathered breccia will be used on site for making bunds and later covering the landfill.

12. The landfill operations are to follow the quarrying operations to fill the quarry void. Landfills are licensed and controlled by the Environment Protection Authority (“ EPA ”), which insists upon landfill environmental management plans (“ LEMP ”).

13. The breccia would be used not for major freeways and such, where more expensive material would be required, but for roads in, e.g., residential subdivisions, where it would be blended with other material for added strength, and for road shoulder works.

14. The shale is to be used for bricks and tiles, etc., and some of it has been proven up to be of the apparently more desirable “ light firing ” variety.

15. I record that I had the benefit of a comprehensive site inspection, including visits to the PWS site and operations in Mulgoa Road, and to the caravan park, and the Azzopardi property next door to it.

The relevant statutory provisions and instruments

EPAA s 90(1)

16. Apart from the various instruments to which I will shortly refer [s 90(1)(a)], the following considerations in s 90(1) would appear to be relevant to this proposal:

…
(b) the impact of that development on the environment (whether or not the subject of an environmental impact statement) and, where harm to the environment is likely to be caused, any means that may be employed to protect the environment or to mitigate that harm,
(c) the effect of that development on the landscape or scenic quality of the locality,
…
(c2) the effect of that development on critical habitat,
(c3) whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats,
…
(d) the social effect and the economic effect of that development in the locality,
(e) the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of that development,
(f) the size and shape of the land to which that development application relates, the siting of any building or works thereon and the area to be occupied by that development,
(g) whether the land to which that development application relates is unsuitable for that development by reason of its being, or being likely to be, subject to flooding, tidal inundation, subsidence, slip or bush fire or to any other risk,
(h) the relationship of that development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality,
(i) whether the proposed means of entrance to and exit from that development and the land to which that development application relates are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles within that development or on that land,
(j) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect of that traffic on the movement of traffic on that road system,
…
(m) whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which that development application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved,
…
(n) any representations made by a public authority in relation to that development application, or to the development of the area, and the rights and powers of that public authority,
(o) the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood,
(p) any submission made under section 87,
…
(q) the circumstances of the case,
(r) the public interest,…

Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988

17. This plan (“ the LEP ”) was originally gazetted on 28 October 1988 ( Exhibit C2 ), and it is common ground that the subject site is zoned 1(a) (General Rural Zone) (see Zoning Map Exhibit C3 ) by the LEP.

18. Clause 9(3) of the LEP provides:

Except as otherwise provided by this plan, the consent authority shall not grant consent to the carrying out of development on land to which this plan applies unless the consent authority is of the opinion that the carrying out of development is generally consistent with one or more of the objectives of the plan and one or more of the objectives of the zone within which the development is proposed to be carried out.

19. The objectives of the LEP are set out in cl 2(2)

(a) to allow for a variety of rural based activities while maintaining the urban potential of relevant rural land;

(b) to allow for a variety of residential lifestyles;

(c) to allow for a variety of business uses while consolidating existing commercial centres;
(d) to enable a variety of uses in industrial areas while protecting the viability of existing retail centres;
(e) to prohibit offensive or hazardous industries;
(f) to ensure space is provided for community services and facilities;
(g) to ensure space is provided for recreational activities and facilities;
(h) to ensure land is available to accommodate all required special land uses in the most effective manner; and
(i) to protect Blacktown’s environmental heritage.

20. Clause 6 defines “ Caravan Park ” as follows:

“caravan park” means land used for the purpose of:

(a) placing moveable dwellings, including tents, caravans, other vans or other portable devices (whether on wheels or not) used for human habitation, for permanent accommodation or for temporary accommodation by tourists and includes a place commonly known as a mobile home park, but does not include a manufactured home estate as defined elsewhere for the purpose of this plan;

(b) the erection, assembly or placement of cabins for temporary accommodation by tourists.

21. The objectives of Zone 1(a) (General Rural Zone), as set out in the tables to cl 9, are:

(a) to ensure that actual or potential agriculturally productive land is not withdrawn unnecessarily from production;
(b) to ensure that development in rural areas is carried out in a manner that minimises risks from natural hazards and does not unreasonably increase demand for public services;
(c) to provide for urban support functions; and
(d) to ensure that development within the rural zones does not hinder the proper and orderly development of any future urban lands.

22. Among the list of uses “ prohibited ” in Zone 1(a) are “ caravan parks ” and “ industries (other than rural industries or extractive industries)”. Permitted without development consent are uses such as agriculture, family day care and home-based child care. All other uses, which would necessarily include landfill and extractive industries, are permissible “ only with development consent ”. “ Caravan Parks ” are prohibited also in various industrial zones.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.19 - Rouse Hill Development Area

23. This site sits entirely within, and generally towards the south-western corner of, the so-called “ Rouse Hill Development Area ” (see map in Exhibit C5 ) established by this plan (“ SREP 19 ”- Exhibit C4 ), which was gazetted on 30 June 1989, and prevails in the event of any inconsistency with another environmental planning instrument.

24. Its general aim is “ to accommodate part of the long-term growth of the Sydney Region by providing a mechanism for identifying land suitable for urban purposes and by providing for the orderly and economic development of that land ”. Clause 2 identifies specific objectives and aims for the physical environment, economic activity, provision of physical services and facilities, and provision of housing and human services within the Rouse Hill Development Area. It provides (in cl 6) that the Minister may declare areas of land to be “ a release area ” where any of the land subject to SREP19 is in his opinion “ required for urban development ”.

25. It is common ground that the SREP19 designates the subject site as included in an area of the Rouse Hill Development Area referred to as an “ employment area ”. Clause 7 of SREP19 provides that any draft LEPs regarding such “ employment areas ” are to nominate the following objectives for such areas:

(a) to create job opportunities, well-served by public transport, by allowing development for the purposes of industry, warehousing, bulky retailing and associated purposes; and
(b) to promote development for the purpose of offices - primarily for those ancillary to development for the purposes of industry, warehousing, bulky retailing or other purposes carried out within the Employment Area, except in the Schofield Road Area where freestanding offices will be permitted.

26. The southern boundary of the development area, and the southern-most boundary of the subject site, abut the northern edge of the land designated for the proposed Ryde-Castlereagh Freeway. Existing special uses within the development area to the east of the subject site, between Richmond Road and Old Windsor Road, known generally as Quakers Hill, include a defence aerodrome and a prison ( Exhibit C5 ).

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No.2 - 1997)

27. SREP20 ( Exhibit C6 ) was gazetted on 21 October 1997. Its aim, as expressed in cl 3, is “ to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context ”, and the plan goes on to deal with the application of general planning considerations, specific planning policies and recommended strategies.

28. Clause 5 provides for the following “ general planning considerations ”:

(a) the aim of this plan, and
(b) the strategies listed in the Action Plan of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Environmental Planning Strategy, and
(c) whether there are any feasible alternatives to the development or other proposal concerned, and
(d) the relationship between the different impacts of the development or other proposal and the environment, and how those impacts will be addressed and monitored.

29. Clause 6 provides for a number and range of “ specific planning policies ” and “ recommended strategies ”, including total catchment management, environmentally sensitive areas, water quality and quantity, cultural heritage, flora and fauna, riverine scenic quality, agriculture/aquaculture and fishing, rural residential development, urban development, recreation and tourism, and metropolitan strategy. The section on flora and fauna includes a strategy to the effect that the ability of wetlands to improve the quality of water entering the river must be maintained through the filtering of sediments and the absorption of nutrients. The appropriate management of wetlands, including monitoring and weed control, is to be encouraged, and development is to be controlled in their catchment.

30. Various development controls are spelled out in Part 3 of the plan (cl 11). Those referable to extractive industries do not apply to this particular proposal, but those in regard to “ filling ” and “ waste management facilities or works ” do. Consent is required in respect of both uses and, in respect of waste management facilities or works, the development consent authority must consult with the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust and take into account (cl 11 (18)):

(a) Any potential for groundwater contamination.
(b) The adequacy of the proposed leachate management system and surface water controls.
(c) The long-term stability of the final landform and the adequacy of the site management plant.
(d) If extraction of material is involved in the creation or other development of the waste management site, whether the extractive operation will have an adverse impact on the river system.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.9 - Extractive Industry (No.2)

31. SREP9 (No.2) was gazetted on 12 September 1995, to repeal and replace the earlier version made in 1986. Its aims and objectives are set out in cl 2 as follows:

(a) to facilitate the development of extractive resources in proximity to the population of the Sydney Metropolitan Area by identifying land which contains extractive material of regional significance; and
(b) to permit, with the consent of the council, development for the purpose of extractive industries on land described in Schedule 1 or 2; and
(c) to ensure consideration is given to the impact of encroaching development on the ability of extractive industries to realise their full potential; and
(d) to promote the carrying out of development for the purpose of extractive industries in an environmentally acceptable manner; and
(e) to prohibit development for the purpose of extractive industry on the land described in Schedule 3 in the Macdonald, Colo, Hawkesbury and Nepean Rivers, being land which is environmentally sensitive.

32. None of the subject site is now included in the list of areas of significance under this plan and the evidence discussed in some detail, the circumstances concerning the failure to list it. The old quarry site was apparently listed in the original version, as gazetted in 1986, as a “quarry site of regional significance ” (due to the presence of volcanic breccia), but in the 1995 version that site was deleted. It is said by the applicant that the then operator asked for the deletion, as it considered the deposit had “ no further economic potential at the time ”.

33. The clay/shale deposits on the site have never been recognised as being a significant resource under SREP9.

The evolution of the current proposal

The original DA exhibited

34. Council placed the May 1998 DA and EIS on exhibition.

35. Council invited submissions from neighbours (see Exhibit C23 fol 107-109) and received numerous (185?) letters of objection (see Exhibit C19 fol 1-160 and 170-216, and Exhibit C23 fol 5-106, to which list should now be added Exhibit C33 ).

36. Also in evidence are various newspaper articles ( Exhibit C19 fol 161-169 and Exhibit C23 fol 1) recording the strong objections made, and “ political ” action taken, by nearby residents, and the Council.

37. Council also sought and obtained responses from various public authorities (see Exhibit C18 fol 1-29 and Exhibit C23 fol 2-4).

The Applicant responds to submissions

38. Enviro-Managers Pty Ltd formally responded on 28 August 1998 to a summary of the submissions that the Council had received. (See Exhibit C20 fols 2-20).

39. The old quarry excavation, now full of water, was to be emptied, and then deepened and extended to the north, east and south. The quarrying operations were to progressively proceed in a southerly direction for approximately 400m, extracting both breccia and clay/shale. Up to 300,000 tonnes of material was to be extracted per annum and the breccia was to be processed on site.

40. Up to 30,000 tonnes per month of class 2 waste (non putrescible) was to be landfilled. Class 2 solid waste includes no animal products.

41. Blasting was to be employed to loosen the materials. The quarry had an expected life of 15-20 years and the proposed landfill approximately 20 years. Access for both elements of the operation was to be via Richmond Road (see Exhibit C20 fol 43).

The Council refuses consent

42. The Council officers prepared a report ( Exhibit C18 fol 30-81) and Council at its ordinary meeting on 3 February 1999 adopted their recommendation (fol 60) that the DA be refused on the following grounds:

(a) The proposed quarry/landfill operations will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the local residents and farm operators by virtue of noise exceedance levels above Environment Protection Authority standards.
(b) The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to assess the potential noise impact of operations on livestock prominent in the immediate locality.
(c) The proposed blasting operation will have adverse noise and vibration impacts on adjoining properties. The EIS fails to identify the impact from blasting activities upon the residents of Bidwill.
(d) The subject site is not deemed to be an ‘extractive resource’ pursuant to Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.9(2) - Extractive Industry - Schedule 1.
(e) The proposed development would be out-of-keeping and inimical with the essentially quiet rural residential and farming nature of the locality.
(f) The proposal to re-open the quarry and introduce a landfill operation on the site would not be in the public interest.
(g) The ability of the quarry to co-exist with adjoining residential or employment land uses without causing adverse impacts, should this part of the Rouse Hill Development Area be released for urban development, is extremely questionable.

43. Council’s letter to the applicant dated 4 February 1999 ( Exhibit C20 fol 64) indicated that Council resolved in support of that recommended refusal, following submissions made to Council’s Development Committee (see e.g. Exhibit C20 fol 26-28, re a meeting 27 January 1999).

44. A formal notice of determination (No.016140) issued on 5 February 1999 specifying the seven grounds of refusal.

Ganian reconsiders its proposal and lodges this appeal

45. During 1999, consequent upon the February refusal by Council, Ganian reviewed Council’s seven major concerns, and other issues raised by the various statutory authorities and the community, and proposed several additional “ controls ”, namely, restriction on hours of operation, a total ban on blasting, a location of the processing plant to the north-east of the quarry site adjoining the access road, and more extensive noise control bunding.

46. Ganian had a document prepared in November 1999, by Enviro-Managers and Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd, referred to in evidence as “ the response document ” ( Exhibit C11 ). It would appear that the response document was not lodged with the Council prior to its service as a document supporting this appeal. (Nothing appears to turn on that fact, except that it is some background for a dispute about a proposed condition covering the detail to be required in the quarry plan of management).

47. On 11 November 1999, Ganian commenced this appeal, and the hearing proceeded on the basis that the current proposal is as described in that response document, read in conjunction with the EIS.

48. The additional environmental “ controls ” incorporated into the proposal by the response document included:

·

extraction by ripping, with no blasting

· processing to occur north-east of quarry site in an area adjoining the access road

· additional bund walls as proposed by its acoustic consultant, Richard Heggie Associates Pty Ltd

· reduced operating hours

· reducing extent of quarrying to the south by approximately 150m by reorienting the direction of quarrying and landfilling from “ north to south ” to “ generally west-south-west to east-north-east ”.

49. Effectively, the price to be paid for avoiding quarry operations to the south, in the direction of the caravan park, and the existing suburbs south of the freeway reservation, is the loss of some of the woodland east of the old quarry.

50. The response document also spelt out in detail the key features of the proposed “ solid waste class 2 ” landfill operation.

51. The subject site falls within the region covered by the Western Sydney Waste Board which predicts continued growth in the amount of solid waste being sent to landfill and is said to have advised Ganian that there is “ basic demand for waste handling/recycling/landfill operations in the Western Sydney Region ” (see Exhibit A1 , p7). Ganian intends the subject site to replace the Penrith Waste Services site at Mulgoa. It also contends it is better placed to attract waste from other developing regions to which it is closer.

52. The lodgement of a further development application, supported by an EIS, seeking approval for the establishment of a recycling facility on the site, is foreshadowed in the documents.

The subject matter of this appeal

53. The development application which is stated (and accepted by Council) to be the subject of this appeal has been defined to include:

· the DA document,

· the EIS,

· Council’s letter of refusal,

· Council’s notice of determination, and

· “ the response document ”.

54. I am satisfied that, despite the alleged inadequacies of the EIS, I have before me, in this collection of documents, an adequately comprehensive description of the proposal “ sufficiently specific to direct a reasonably intelligent and informed mind to the possible or potential environmental consequences ” of the proposal. Prineas v Forestry Commission of NSW & Ors (1983) 49 LGRA 402. See also International Study Programs Pty Ltd & Ors v Greater Lithgow City Council & Anor [2000] NSWLEC 91 at pars 66-75 and 184-185, and the cases therein discussed.

The subject site in its context

55. The subject site comprises an area of 236.85ha, being lots 8-16, 26-29, 32-36, and 47 in DP 262886. It is all now owned by the applicant or related interests, and is located in what has been described as “ an urban fringe area ”, characterised by rural-residential development, approximately 9km north-west of Blacktown.

56. Because of its history, the site is known locally as “ Fitzy’s Bush ”, after the name of its original grantee. Ganian purchased it from the Watt(?) brothers, and considers it “ an excellent site ”, because of its “ geographical location ” in relation to the plans for Western Sydney (i.e. operationally), and “ the area of land and the lay of the land” (i.e. environmentally) (T8.6.00 p 531-2).

57. The court has been assisted by a comprehensive site inspection, by an aerial photograph of the site and its environs, flown September 1999 ( Exhibit C1 ), by a coloured plan dated 28 October 1997, used to good effect during the site inspection ( Exhibit C10 ), and by a lot layout drawing, frequently found in the various exhibits, but tendered specifically as Exhibit C27 .

58. Lot 47 is central to the site and has an area of 39 ha, but in a very irregular battle-axe shape running south to the boundary of the proposed freeway, and virtually surrounding the caravan park on lot 25. Lot 36 to the south-west of lot 47 also has an irregular area of 16.95 ha, but all other lots have fairly regular shapes and areas of approximately 10-12 ha (“ 25 acres ”) and frontages to one of South Street, Fulton Road, Richmond Road or Hollinsworth Road, which almost completely “ surround ” the subject site.

59. The proposed quarrying and landfill operations are to be located primarily on lot 47 and access to that part of the subject site would be direct from Richmond Road across lots 11, 12 and 28. The northern area of lot 47 is the site of the old quarry and much of the proposed activity will take place there. Some of lot 28 will be quite involved also because it includes several dams. Access, administration and weighbridge activities will focus on lot 11, and access will also be needed across lots 12 and 28.

60. On the site plan ( Exhibit C27 ), the principal access to lot 47 is shown as a narrow “ lane ” between lots 25 and 26, running off Hollinsworth Road near the entrance to the caravan park on lot 25, and running very close to several mobile home sites (see Exhibit C23 fol 16).

61. The water which fills the old quarry to a level 4m below the surrounding ground level (43AHD), is partly surface water, but largely rainwater. It covers an area of about 3.3ha. The floor of this “ dam ” is at RL35, and the dam contains 214,500 cubic metres of water, which has been tested and found clean and suitable for discharge. It is to be pumped into natural watercourses, but the water table is not immediately below the floor of the dam. The base of the new “ pit ” will be 30m lower.

62. The shortest boundaries from the key operational area of the subject site are the caravan park to the south (lot 25), and two lots, 30 and 31 (including on 31 a poultry farm owned by a Saliba family) facing South Street to their north. As can be seen from the aerial photograph ( Exhibit C1 ) these three lots “ intrude ” into the symmetry of the Ganian landholdings as a potential buffer zone surrounding the proposed development, and directly “ address ” lot 47 and the key area of it proposed for quarry and landfill operations.

63. The volcanic “ neck ” on the subject site comprises ash, tuff and breccia, and the surrounding “ country rock ” is comprised of lower Bringelly shales, underlain by Ashfield Shale. Bringelly Shales comprise a series of claystones, siltstones, laminites and littic sandstone units, with occasional minor sequences of carbonaceous material.

64. There are two creeks on the site. One on the east side flows under Richmond Road and joins Bells Creek, and one on the west side flows westward to join South Creek. The Council also suggests that there is a gully that drains water northward across Fulton Road to South Creek.

65. The south-eastern boundary of the subject site is Hollinsworth Road. To the north of the road as one travels west, one passes the boundaries of lots 14, 13, 15, 16, 28, 27 and 26, which are part of the subject site. The road terminates at the junction of lots 24 and 25, and lot 25 is occupied by the caravan park. Figure 2 in Thomson’s Report ( Exhibit A2 ) would indicate that greenhouses and grazing occupy the space south of Hollinsworth Road west of Richmond Road and north of the proposed Castlereagh Freeway site.

66. A significant mosque and associated facilities are also situated in that area south of Hollinsworth Road. The local Muslim community acquired 28 acres of land and plans to build a full-time school on their site (see Exhibit C19 fols 182-3, Exhibit C19 fols 85 and 137, and Exhibit C23 fol 87).

67. Some nightsoil activities continue in the north-east area of the subject site, and there is a former night soil depot in the south-western corner. North of that old area has been used for cattle grazing. North-west of the old quarry site, but not within the subject site, is a cattle feedlot/piggery. Immediately east, and both south-east and north-east of the old quarry, are woodland areas. To the north and north-east of the north-eastern boundary is a poultry farm and factory, and a plant nursery. Further to the direct north of the old quarry and a chicken farm across South Street is another waste disposal depot, and further to the west some rural residential uses and a pistol range.

68. To the east of Richmond Road, due east of the caravan park, is a training track and associated sheds and to its north on the eastern side of Richmond Road, more or less opposite the quarry site, is a landscape supply business, at the back of which is a brickworks and associated extractive activity.

69. Blacktown Equestrian Centre is on the eastern side of Richmond Road, due east of the intersection of South Street and Fulton Road. There are dog boarding kennels to the east of the quarry, on the eastern side of Richmond Road.

70. South of the freeway reservation, approximately 1km south of the main relevant part of the site, are the suburbs of Bidwill and Hassall Grove (see also map Figure 1 Exhibit C14 ).

71. The subject site is crossed by two 33kw electricity transmission lines, one slightly east of north, generally parallel to South Street along the western boundary of the site, and one emanating from the same point at the intersection of the proposed Castlereagh Freeway, and heading directly north-east along the north-western boundary of the existing area of lot 25 which is currently utilised by the caravan park and crossing the subject site, and then Richmond Road.

The Caravan Park

72. The Caravan Park is located on lot 25 ( Exhibit C22 ), adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, and covers an area between 190m ( Exhibit C20 fol 27) and 300m from the main quarry site.

73. Although caravan parks are not seen usually as a permanent residential use, but more of a tourist use (Thomson T5.6.00 p306 lines 34ff and p 315 lines 35ff), this operation is focussed more on the leasing, for relatively long periods, of small areas of serviced land for the erection by the lessees, on a semi-permanent basis, of substantial transportable homes, rather than on providing sites for the parking of traditional caravans, towed on to the park, often by sedan-type vehicles, for relatively short, often tourist-related, periods of time.

74. It is common ground that the existing caravan park use is “ non-conforming ”. The park is owned and operated by the Peate family, and Mr Alfred Peate gave oral evidence in this appeal, as well as making several written objections (See Exhibit C19 fols 191-7 and Exhibit C23 fols 16-22).

75. The park currently provides accommodation for 500 residents, most of whom (“ close to 100% ”) are “ permanent ”. Some of the residents have been there since 1983. Some have acknowledged health problems, including asthma and other respiratory ailments, and a number do shift work, requiring relative quiet to enable them to sleep during the day. Many residents are elderly but about 50 are under 12 and the park is “ the largest contributor to Marsden Park Primary School ” ( Exhibit 23 fol 17).

76. Many of the park residents expressed their opposition to the applicant’s proposal.

77. The caravan park operation has had the benefit of development consent since December 1983 when “ minor quarrying ” was apparently still occurring on the subject site, causing residents a degree of noise and dust irritation. Its current 5 year licence is dated 31 August 1999 (see Exhibit C32 ). Additions to the park were approved on 17 September 1986 and 15 March 1988.

78. The Peate family would like to expand its operations to the unused area of lot 25 north-west of the electricity easement, more immediately adjacent to the subject site.

The current proposal in more detail

79. The quarry/landfill operations are to be located high on the block, and, will occupy an area of approximately 13ha out of the total site area of 236.85ha (5.5%).

80. The material to be extracted comprises both volcanic breccia and clay/shale. The breccia is to be processed on site, whereby on site crushing and screening is to produce a range of blended quarry products for road making purposes. Some of the clay/shale is suitable for brickmaking and will be sold to brickmaking manufacturing plants.

81. Up to 300,000 tonnes of material would be extracted per annum, and landfill operations would follow behind the quarrying operations to fill the void. Up to 30,000 tonnes per month of class 2 non-putrescible solid waste would be landfilled. The access arrangements would take advantage of the alignment of the road used by the former night soil disposal operator. The road would be upgraded and sealed.

82. On site facilities are to include a portable office/amenities building, parking for site operators, and a secure compound for mobile equipment. Administration offices are proposed for near the entrance to the sites on Richmond Road, and a weighbridge is also proposed for a location on the access road near the site entrance.

83. The operations are expected to provide direct on-site employment for 6-7 personnel in the quarrying/landfill operations and an additional 5 administration staff (see Volume 1 of EIS in Exhibit C8 at p 1-1). The applicant sees the quarrying operation as a necessary source of cashflow to fund the development of the site as a landfill, and then its subsequent restoration (T8.6.00 p 536).

84. The objectives of the proposal were stated as follows:

·

To provide additional quarry products to meet the demand for quarry products within economic transport distance of the Sydney market. Volcanic breccia is a principal road making material used throughout the Sydney Region. Accessible reserves are dwindling and quarrying companies are needing to source more distant materials to supply the Sydney Region demand at increasing costs to the community. Development of the remaining reserves of volcanic breccia on this site will maximise a valuable resource and provide quarry products at a reasonable cost to the community.

· To provide high quality light-firing clay/shale material to the Sydney brick making industry. Reserves of light-firing clay/shale within economic transport distance to the Sydney region are in short-supply. Development of this site will ensure the continued supply of a valuable resource material.

· To provide a replacement disposal site for the existing Mulgoa Road landfill. An associated Company, Penrith Waste Services Pty Ltd, currently operates a non-putrescible landfill at Mulgoa. The life of this operation is limited and the Company seeks to extend its operations by the establishment of a landfill at Marsden Park. The Marsden Park landfill will ultimately replace the Company’s Mulgoa operations as the latter site is filled and rehabilitated. Landfill sites within the Sydney Region are rapidly being filled and alternative locations will be needed to accommodate wastes generated through commercial, industrial, building and domestic activities.

· To provide a final landform and use that will be a benefit to the community and City of Blacktown. The site is currently degraded and unrehabilitated. The backfilling of the quarry void with compacted solid waste, removal of the stockpiles, topdressing, and development of the site as a golf course surrounded by rural-residential development will provide a community asset for future generations.

85. Section 3.0 of the EIS ( Exhibit C8 ) dealt with the “ justification for the development ”.

86. The proponent relied upon advice from the Department of Mineral Resources dated 22 July 1997 in the following terms ( Exhibit C9 Appendix 1):

The subject site, although now abandoned, was identified in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 9 - Extractive Industry as being a hard rock deposit of regional significance. This site has not been included in SREP9(2). However, there may still be extractable material available even though the site was abandoned. The possible sterilisation of any remaining resource will need to be justified in the EIS.

It is noted from your preliminary diagram that the proposed waste site will be approximately 30% larger than the abandoned quarry, and material excess to the proponent’s needs may be sold. Should the quality of the saleable material be in the order of thousands of tonnes then the EIS will have to be written from the point of view of an extractive and landfill operation.

Hard rock (breccia) is not a prescribed mineral under the Mining Act, 1992. Therefore, the Department of Mineral Resources has no statutory authority over the extraction of this commodity, apart from its role under the Mines Inspection Act, 1901 (as amended) with respect to the safe operation of mines and quarries. However, this Department is the principal government authority responsible for assessing the State’s resources of construction materials and for advising State and local government on their planning and management.

87. In the EIS ( Exhibit C8 p3-1), the proponent noted as follows:

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 9 Extractive Industry
…
SREP9 defines, as far as possible, the location and extent of regionally important construction material resources including ‘coarse aggregate’, sand, clay/shale, loam, peat, dimension stone, and bush rock/flagging stone.

The Marsden park quarry site was identified in SREP9 as a quarry site of regional significance due to the presence of high quality volcanic breccia (coarse aggregate). The plan recommended that the regionally significant quarry sites identified in the plan be protected from alternative land uses that could detrimentally affect quarry operations.

During a revision of SREP9 in 1995, the Marsden Park quarry was deleted from the Plan as it was thought that reserves of volcanic breccia on the site had been largely exhausted. Drilling undertaken by Ganian has shown that substantial reserves of volcanic breccia remain on site, and as recommended by the NSW Department of Mineral Resources (see Appendix 1) Ganian seeks to maximise the resources remaining on the site and prevent their sterilisation by alternative, non-compatible land uses.

88. The EIS ( Exhibit C8 p 3-3) goes on to give details of the estimates of future demand and the adequacy of current sources and notes as follows:

The redevelopment of the former SREP9 Marsden Park quarry, will provide small but additional reserves of volcanic breccia to assist in addressing the predicted shortfall in road base materials expected to occur by the year 2020. Its development is also in accordance with Recommendation 2 of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1995).

89. The EIS goes on to discuss the justification for the landfill. In s 3.2.2 at p3-5 of Exhibit C8 the EIS notes as follows:

The Western Sydney Waste Board (WSWB) has released a Draft Regional Waste Plan for the Western Sydney Region (1997) in response to the Government’s objective of 60% waste reduction per capita by the year 2000. The Western Sydney Waste Board region covers the local Government areas of Blacktown, Baulkham Hills, Bankstown, Holroyd, Hawkesbury, Fairfield, Penrith, Parramatta and Liverpool and is projected to be the expected catchment area for the Marsden Park site. It is a rapidly growing area comprising some 1.3 million people; about one third of the total population of Greater Sydney. It is projected that this area will increase in population by approximately 13% by the year 2001.

The Board has examined the issue of waste generation within the region. It has found that long term trends (over 20 years) show that in parallel with Sydney’s growing population the amount of solid waste being sent to landfill has been growing. In the past five years, the level of waste produced per person in Sydney has been relatively static.

90. The response document ( Exhibit C11 ) defines the amended proposal as follows:

Quarrying will commence in the southern portion of the existing abandoned quarry. The existing excavation will be deepened and extended to the north and east. The operations will progressively proceed in a northerly then easterly direction for a distance of approximately 600m. The material to be extracted comprises both volcanic breccia and clay/shale. The volcanic breccia will be processed in an on-site crushing and screening plant to produce a range of blended quarry products for road making purposes. The clay/shale is suitable for brick-making and will be sold to brick manufacturing plants. Up to 300,000 tonnes of material will be extracted per annum.

91. The quarry will operate Monday-Friday 7am-6pm and on Saturdays 7am-12 noon. There will be no quarry operations on Sunday. Maintenance of plant and equipment will take place on Saturday afternoons up to 6pm.

92. The staging of the quarry development is set out in par 2.3.3:

Stage 1 (Figure 2)
An existing perimeter road will be retained to the north and west to provide fire and service access.

Quarrying will commence at the southern end with all remaining material in the area shown extracted down to about 35m. RL’s indicate that the surface level between the rim of the existing quarry and on the top of the existing northern bund wall is an average of about 45m RL. Contours around the base of the water filled excavation are at about 38m RL. The existing floor of the quarry is estimated to be at about 30-33m RL, ie, about 5-8m of water.

Material to be extracted will in part be clay/shale and the balance volcanic breccia. Material not suitable for use as roadbase and/or brickmaking will be stockpiled to the east. This volume is not expected to be large as most material will be marketed at this stage.

Quarry material will be hauled out of the eastern side of the quarry and then in a northerly direction to the adjoining processing plant.

Stage 2 (Figure 3)
Quarrying will continue down into the floor of the existing excavation to an RL of approximately 0m. Benches will be 10m high and 10m wide. Most material will be volcanic breccia and suitable for roadbase. Very little stockpiling of overburden will occur. Quarry material will be hauled to the plant in the northeast corner.

Once the final floor at 0m is reached, the stepped 10m high benches to the south will be quarried back to the original face providing a suitable commencement point for acceptance of landfill material.

Quarrying will continue to the north in a series of 10m high benches as shown. Quarried material will be principally volcanic breccia, which will be processed in the plant and sold.

Stage 3 (Figure 4)
At this stage, landfill emplacement will commence against the southern wall. A distance of about 100m will be maintained between the quarry and the landfill operations. Cover material for the landfill will be derived from the original old stockpiles on site and any material stockpiled during the initial stages of quarry development.

Quarrying will continue in a northerly direction in a series of 10m high benches before the quarry operations are reoriented in an easterly direction. Most of the material extracted will be volcanic breccia which will be processed and sold.

Landfill traffic will be separated from quarry traffic. Landfill traffic will circle the quarry operations to the north and follow the perimeter road to the west before descending into the void for emplacement at the southern end.

Stage 4 (Figure 5)
Quarry operations will continue to the east with quarried material processed at the adjoining plant. Material quarried during this stage will be clay/shale which, if not sold as brickmaking material will be used as cover material. At this stage priority will be given to retaining cover material for the landfill operation. Additional cover material occurring in the old former stockpiles on site will be utilised for landfill cover.

Stage 5 (Figure 6)
At this stage, the full extent of the quarry will be reached and quarrying will cease. Landfilling will continue to fill the void left by the quarry until the site completion.

93. The project is to have a life of 25 years (draft agreed Condition 1A). Extraction activities are expected to last for 22.5 years, to be followed by completion of the landfill operation, and then of the final site restoration works (T6.6.00 p 385).

94. The landfill proposal is described in further detail in section 3.0 (see also Exhibit A1 ):

Landfilling of the quarry void is proposed as the means of rehabilitating the Marsden Park site. As the quarry site progresses in a northerly direction (see Section 2.0), the void will begin to accept solid wastes. A distance of 100m is proposed to be retained between the landfill and quarry operations to provide for adequate traffic management and site control.

Landfilling will commence at the southern end of the quarry void. A landfill liner will be installed on the floor and southern slope of the finished quarry face (see Section 3.4.1) prior to waste receival. This liner will be extended in a northerly direction across the floor and up the side slopes below the landfill as filling proceeds.

The landfill will be constructed to a similar height as existing stockpiles on site in the central portion of the area, i.e., approximately 50m AHD but will grade to natural ground level in the eastern portion of the site (approximately 45m AHD).

95. When the landfill operation is concluded and the landfill is to be closed (see s 7.14 of Exhibit C8 ), the formal closure plan will require approval of the EPA. The final clearance requires a certified statement to the effect that site remediation work has been completed and further environmental management is not required.

96. Exhibit C10 includes Figure 23 showing the eventual intention to establish a golf course in the vicinity of the quarry site, once it has been filled and closed. Figure 22 shows the final land form with contours in the general quarry area at RL50, its original elevation.

97. Section 7.15 of the EIS says:

The aim of the rehabilitation plan is to return the landfill as far as practical to a landform that will provide a recreational use to the surrounding population. In this regard, Ganian proposes to establish a golf course on those disturbed portions of the site and develop the surrounding undisturbed buffer for residential purposes. The development of the adjoining land for residential use is in accordance with the concepts developed in the Rouse Hill Development Area.

The landfill will be unsuitable for building for either residential or industrial use. The proposed quarry/landfill and final land use of the site will be an appropriate means of rehabilitating the existing degraded and derelict site. The concept of a golf course accessible to the public will ensure that the land will be made available for future generations. Figure 23 shows a conceptual design for the golf course.

The issues before the court

98. In the “ Final Statement of Issues ” filed on behalf of the respondent Council on 24 January 2000, more than 21 separate issues were raised, covering (in broad terms):

(a) Amenity impacts through dust, odour and noise.
(b) Whether approval can be obtained from DLWC for proposed dams.
(c) Whether development is appropriate for the site, with the rural residential and farming nature of the locality and the likely post-release developments there.
(d) Public interest.
(e) Quality of material to be extracted and market demand for it.
(f) Vermin and pests.
(g) Landfill gas.
(h) Windblown debris and litter.
(i) Unacceptable adverse impact upon remnant Cumberland Plain Woodland located upon the site.
(j) Native flora/fauna and threatened species populations, ecological communities, or habitats.
(k) Demand for landfill in the area?
(l) Stockpile arrangements and related questions of erosion control and salinity.
(m) Whether hydrogeological assessment and proposed water management plans are adequate and satisfactory.
(n) Issues raised by Objectors, including:
(i) Noise and vibration.
(ii) Dust and odour generation.
(iii) Pests and vermin.
(iv) Traffic.
(v) Adverse effects on livestock.
(vi) Adverse effects on flora and fauna.

99. Further and better particulars were provided of the issues raised in the Statement, by the solicitors for the Council in a letter dated 6 March 2000, and the right was reserved for objectors to raise further issues at their discretion. That letter also raised 30 “ reservations ” in respect of the adequacy of the EIS. (See par 54 above).

100. However, as opened by Mr Craig QC, the Council’s major issues remain only as follows:

· Commercial quality of the material and utility of the operation.

· Landfill gas and leachate issues, including plans for the landfill liner.

· Unacceptable odour and dust peaks.

· Cumberland Plain Woodland and other habitat, including the dam nearest the caravan park, which has become an artificial wetland.

· Noise.

· REP 19 - release for employment purposes is not imminent (query not within 5 years); there are no sewer, water and electricity, but, even if release of land is 10-15 years away, a large area is seriously “ quarantined ” for the 25 years’ life of the project.

· Need for landfill?

· Will mound be suitable for golf course purposes?

(The Council did not argue to any extent the last two of these points).

101. Mr Hale complains that the EIS has been criticised, but the Council has never independently assessed the potential impacts and the supporting material assembled by the applicant. He relies on the generally supportive attitude of State authorities.

102. Mr Hale relied also upon the exclusion from Mr Craig’s opening of any issues regarding traffic, and on the agreement between the parties on conditions relating to noise, dust and odour, as taking out of the court’s adjudication all these matters. In his written submissions (par 9) he saw the “ live ” issues for the court as:

· appropriateness for the site, including compatibility with adjoining land uses.

· quality of the quarry product, adequacy of demand for it, and whether or not there is a demand for the landfill facility.

· alleged adverse impact upon flora and fauna.

· hydrogeological and water management issues.

The position taken by the applicant

103. The applicant presented its case on the basis that it has purchased a site, of which, in his submission, Mr Hale can say: “ it is difficult to conceive of an area in which a quarry and landfill would be more in keeping with surrounding uses ”. It is seeking to serve and expand its existing business as a quarrier, as a supplier of fill, roadbase, etc, and as a landfill operator. It has demonstrated that it knows its industry and markets well.

104. The acquired site provides for an “ enormous ” buffer area making it “ ideal ” for the proposed development, particularly in an area planned for employment rather than residential use, and where the site will, as a consequence of the proposed development, be rehabilitated from its past use into an area of greater utility and amenity.

105. Its DA is for a permissible purpose, and the applicant is entitled to a consent to develop the site for that purpose, regardless of the economics of the relevant industries, provided it can show that there is no adverse environmental impact, or none that cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by conditions of consent.

106. The site is in a rural zone which can “ provide urban support functions ”, of which quarries and landfills are two which need not be inconsistent with the area’s rural character. Golden Quarries v Coffs Harbour City Council (1991) 72 LGERA 104 (at 106 per Stein J).

107. Whereas designated developments by their very nature have some amenity and other impacts, but are necessary in the public interest, the environmental impacts of this proposal, while “ almost non-existent ”, and “ not even detectable ” in some instances, even when measured on a cumulative basis, are certainly within goals which prescribe acceptable levels of impact.

108. The relevant public authorities see no impediment to the development, if approved on appropriate conditions, and the objections of nearby residents do not translate into proven significant impacts on the environment. Jarasius v Forestry Commission of NSW (1988) 71 LGRA 79 (at 93 per Hemmings J).

109. The topography, and the amount of land available for an operator-controlled buffer area, are favourable to the project, and there is to be no blasting. All other traditional measures of adverse environmental impact show negligible external impact.

110. In those circumstances, the economic factors going to an assessment of “ proper use of resources ” (EPAA s5) do not arise for determination. As Mr Hale put it, landowners wishing to develop their land in ways which cause no unacceptable impacts “ should not be denied that opportunity due to a perceived lack of social or economic benefit in their endeavours ” (see par 10 of written submissions). Alternatively (as put orally at T9.6.00 p3 lines 30ff):

… while the quality of the resource may be a factor which might tip the scales in favour of permitting a development, notwithstanding the amenity impacts because of the need for the resource, but the converse is not the case … A development which has no or has acceptable amenity impacts would not be refused because the resource is not good enough and there’s perhaps not economic gain to be had from it.

[See J Murphy & Sons Pty Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment & Anor [1973] 1 WLR 560 (at 565 per Ackner J) and Architectural Property Services Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [1999] NSWLEC 83 (at pars 12-13 per Lloyd J)].

111. Here, all the environmental consequences of the proposal can be adequately controlled by conditions, especially those regarding duration of consent, annual extraction quantities, stockpiling, importation of material, final landform, etc.

112. In any event, the applicant claims to have demonstrated by its evidence that there is a market for the materials to be extracted, that much of that market is nearby to the site, and that there is also a need for the additional landfill capacity which will be established by the reopening of quarry operations.

The position taken by the Council

113. The Council , on the other hand, argues primarily that, while one might expect, and allow, such developments in the “ urban fringes ”, here there is intense urban development, “ fundamentally incompatible ” with such development, as close as the site boundary. See Inghams (at 75ff per Cole JA).

114. While some matters of environmental concern might be seen by experts to comply with certain parameters, and be capable of adequate control by conditions, those and other impacts do exist, and they affect the amenity of nearby urban development. They must be “ weighed in the balance ” with the public interest arguably served by the development, and, in this case, it has not been established that there is a reliable market for the extracted material, only a spasmodic demand at the lower end of the “ unspecified fill ” market such that unacceptable stockpiling will be necessary.

115. In addition, the effective “ winning ” of the material, without blasting, has not been demonstrated, and the preferred method of winning the material will itself further reduce its quality and marketability.

116. The evidence shows that the applicant will require landfill capacity at the subject site within 4 to 7 years, to replace PWS’s Mulgoa site, and the court could not be satisfied that the necessary completion of Stage 2 of the quarrying operation will be achieved by then, that only satisfactory stockpiling will have been necessary, and that the landfill operation itself will perform in an environmentally acceptable way.

117. If the project as a whole cannot be shown to be economically viable, the site may be left in a worse state than it is now, or the court may later be asked to approve blasting, as a matter of economic necessity, but with unacceptable environmental consequences. If the applicant or its project fails financially - and Robert Wearn conceded that his family company was financially “ stretched ” (T8.6.00 p 530 lines 45ff) - environmental impacts and rehabilitation costs will be at their peak.

118. The Council supported the local objectors, and also complains that the proposal should fail for its uncertainty (see written submissions sections 3, 4.5(c), (f), (g) and (h)). Mr Craig also reminded the court that any favourable impression gained from the visit to the PWS Mulgoa Road operation cannot be inferred to this proposal, as the site could be on-sold with the benefit of any consent granted.

The Local Objections

119. As noted above (pars 35 and 36), the local citizens have taken a strong, vocal and active position in opposition to this development. The court has studied all their submissions, and many residents from close to the site sat through the entire hearing, several giving oral evidence.

120. Marsden Park Residents Action Group (“ MPRAG ”) was formed specifically to oppose the development ( Exhibit C19 fol 18); it has organised several well attended meetings and protests (see media clippings Exhibit C19 fols 161-9); and it had a deputation to Minister Knowles.

121. MPRAG President, Phillip Wall, and Treasurer, John Saliba, both of whom live in South Street, directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, gave oral evidence at the hearing, as did Alfred Peate, Neil Brewitt, Anthony Robson, and Joann Bromley, all residents of the caravan park, as well as Councillor Daniel Mackin (who represents the relevant ward).

122. I have dealt with Mr Peate ’s submissions and evidence above - see pars 74 to 78. I am satisfied that his evidence evinced a genuine concern about health and amenity issues, rather than any commercial concerns he and his family may have.

123. Councillor Mackin ( Exhibit C19 fol 216) expressed objections on behalf of the residents of Marsden Park, Hassall Grove, Shalvey and Bidwill. He is of the opinion that the area does not need another landfill, and was quoted in the media ( Exhibit C19 fol 161) as describing the proposal as “ environmental vandalism by landfill ”. He testified that, quite unusually, his Council had voted unanimously to refuse the DA.

124. Mr Wall ( Exhibit C19 fols 10 and 170-1, and Exhibit C23 fols 65-6), took the position that there should be “ no more in our backyard ”, given the number of tips, quarries, noxious industries, etc. nearby. His major remaining concerns seemed to be Richmond Road, noise and dust, but he also expressed concern about regulatory supervision, flora/fauna and aboriginal history.

125. Ms Bromley ( Exhibit C19 fols 119 and 173) is a single mother raising two children in her home at the caravan park. She has flora/fauna concerns, and a particular concern about traffic and safety on Richmond Road.

126. Mr Saliba ( Exhibit C19 fols 78-82, 165 and 198-9) has a very long association with the area and farms poultry on his land at 264 South Street. He has had unfortunate experiences with the Grant Avenue landfill behind his property, and is concerned at the “ sandwich effect ” (my term) of having another in front of it. He is particularly concerned about the effects of dust and noise on chicks in his growing sheds.

127. Mr Robson ( Exhibit C19 fol 104) is a retired fitter with serious health problems aggravated by dust, stress and disturbance of daytime rest. He is also concerned about loss of wildlife.

128. Mr Brewitt ( Exhibit C19 fol 108) is a shift-working fireman who needs to sleep through the day. He is also concerned about his formerly asthmatic stepson, dust, odour, noise, traffic, and loss of the area’s rural character.

129. I have earlier referred to the proximity to the primary focus of the proposed activities on the subject site, not only of the caravan park on lot 25 to the south, but also of lots 30 and 31 to the north (see par 62 above).

130. Lot 31 has the street address 311 South Street, and a late written submission from Mr Joe Cauchi , who has lived at 311 for more than 16 years, was tendered separately ( Exhibit C33 ). Other objections from him in July 1998 and May 2000, ( Exhibit C23 folio 69, and Exhibit C19 fol 180) focussed on his allergy to dust, traffic, the impact on land value, and noise. He is now mainly concerned about the sheer proximity of his home to the proposed activities, and lack of screening or buffer in that direction. He concedes that his house is 350m from the old quarry site, but he asks that the leachate be irrigated in a southerly direction.

131. Other objections from members of the Cauchi family (some giving the address 312 South Street) appear at folios 46 and 92 of Exhibit C23 , and are concerned mainly with blasting and land value.

132. Lot 30, and nearby lot 4 Glengarrie Road, belong to members of the Camilleri family ( Exhibit C19 fols 206-7 and Exhibit C23 fols 54 and 56-7). Glengarrie Road runs north-west off South Street, just north-west of the applicant’s land, and south-west of the Grange Avenue landfill. The Camilleris have owned lot 30 for 20 years, and the concerns in their submissions are odour, devaluation, dust, vegetation clearing, proliferation of landfills in the area, blasting, noise and traffic.

133. All the local submissions have some consistent themes. Most of the local residents have chosen to live in the area, e.g., to avoid the “ pollutions of city life ” for a variety of personal reasons. One spoke of a “ nice peaceful rural atmosphere close to work and all amenities” ( Exhibit C19 fol 133), and another said “ we are country out here so we would like it to stay that way” ( Exhibit C19 fol 59). Some objectors are asthma sufferers who moved there looking for clean air, and others sought an area lacking in crime. They use adjectives such as safe, quiet, sound, healthy, quaint, clean, peaceful, rural, spacious, natural, low-paced, and trouble-free, and nouns like peace, tranquillity, parkland, bush, and security.

134. Many of the submissions predate the deletion of blasting from the proposal, and virtually all of them express serious concern about the prospect of blasting, and vibration damage.

135. Many have a flavour of “ enough is enough ”. The Munro submission ( Exhibit C23 fols 36-7) details five closed, current or proposed “ tips ” within 5km of 216 South Street, in addition to Ganian’s proposal. Other quarries, and local industries with some unpopular aspects are detailed above.

136. Traffic concerns - both type and volume - are frequently mentioned, and much is made in the submissions about the local wildlife : Ms Bromley speaks of kookaburras, kangaroos, and swamp hens ( Exhibit C19 fol 173) and of white owls, black cockatoos, and other birds and wildlife (T1.6.00 pp 172, 174 and 175). Long time observers speak of ibis, black swans, spoonbills, pluvers, cormorants, parrots, pelicans and water fowl (e.g. Exhibit C23 fol 106), as well as ducks, geese and lizards, and a schoolgirl provided a long list of birdlife (see Exhibit C23 fol 99) observed on the site.

137. Several objectors lamented possible loss of “ once magnificent and peaceful Cumberland Plain” ( Exhibit C19 fol 71).

138. One caravan park resident complains that the wind already blows odours in the park’s direction from the “ well run ” Steggles chicken factory ( Exhibit C19 fol 53), and expects worse from this proposal.

139. There are concerns expressed in the objections also about the impact of dust on asthma, and on roof-collected rainwater for domestic use, possible lead poisoning, odour, vandalism, theft, possible pollution of Bells Creek used by cattle, the pumping out of “ contaminated ” water from the old quarry, inundation by rats, the possible dumping of nuclear or other dangerous or hazardous waste, danger to school children crossing Richmond Road (to school or bus), damage to market gardens growing strawberries ( Exhibit C19 fol 61) or vegetable crops ( Exhibit C23 fol 184), and damage to aboriginal sites ( Exhibit C19 fol 72) or to “ Marsden Park volcano ” ( Exhibit 23 fol 27).

140. The court has noted all these concerns, and the asserted negative impacts on local institutions like Marsden Park Primary School and the Muslim Mosque.

141. Dr Graeme Wells was the author of a personal objection ( Exhibit C23 fol 58) about ecological matters, and was called to give expert evidence, to which I will return.

The other objections

142. Among the letters of objection (in Exhibit C19 and Exhibit C23 ) there are relevant submissions from:

· Hirst Consulting Services, Lane Cove (14 July 1998, Exhibit C23 fols 53 and 88).

· Steggles Ltd, Beresfield (26 June 1998, Exhibit C19 fol 138)

· Austral Brick Company, Horsley Park (13 July 1998, Exhibit C23 fols 13-14)

· Envirogard Community Waste Management, Erskine Park (14 July 1998, Exhibit C23 fols 43-45)

· CSR Construction Materials, Chatswood (14 July 1998, Exhibit C19 fols 1-6, and Exhibit C23 fols 47-52).

· CSR Building Materials/PGH Clay Bricks and Pavers, Cecil Park (10 July 1998, Exhibit C23 fols 9-12)

143. Most of these submissions follow similar lines.

144. Hirst objected on behalf of clients “ involved in recycling building products ”. The breccia to be extracted “ is of a very low quality resource value ” and 300,000 tonnes of it per annum “ will significantly affect ” the market for the more expensive recycled concrete roadbase and aggregates, contrary to the State Government’s objectives for the recycling of concrete, bricks, etc. to reduce “ waste to landfill ”.

145. Steggles has a “ distribution and packaging operation of chicken products ” 600m from the quarry site and expressed concerns about dust, air quality, odours, vermin and blasting/vibration.

146. Austral was at the time seeking approval for a landfill on its quarry/brickmaking premises at Wallgrove Road, Horsley Park and had in view four more “ similar restoration ” projects. It expressed doubt about the saleability of the Ganian resource, including to Austral, and thought it “ may be detrimental to the image of our industry ”.

147. Envirogard is a CSR/Brambles joint venture “ to restore by landfill methods worked out quarry sites in an environmentally responsible manner ”, and it conducts waste recycling activities at its sites. It proposed a landfill in the quarry void at PGH Schofields site which would suffer from the Ganian proposal relatively nearby. It criticised the quality of Ganian’s breccia, and its possible threat to recycling objectives, and saw “ no justified markets ” for the shale. It alleged adverse noise, dust, flora and other impacts.

148. CSR Construction Materials made a comprehensive objection critical of Ganian’s breccia resource and its likely impact on recycled competitors. It was also critical of the likely quality of the shale material, and of the Ganian landfill’s effect on the Schofields project. Various environmental impacts are also echoed, but need not be repeated here as they are all mentioned elsewhere.

149. The CSR Building Materials submission focussed on the injection of Ganian shale, subject to its doubted quality, into the market which CSR currently self-supplies, and on the landfill proposal’s competition with Schofields.

The expert evidence

150. The applicant relied on the evidence of the following:

Barbara Crossley , of Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd, an environmental consultant specialising in “ public infrastructure, coal mine and quarry projects ” ( Exhibit A1 ).

Janet Thomson , of APT Peddle Thorp, a strategic town planner with senior government and private sector experience ( Exhibit A2 ).

J. Michael Nash , of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, a hydrogeologist ( Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A22 ).

Kerry Holmes , Principal of Holmes Air Sciences, an environmental chemist specialising in air quality (dust and odour) matters ( Exhibit A4 ).

Dick Godson , of Richard Heggie Associates Pty Ltd, an acoustical engineer ( Exhibit A5 ).

F. Dominic Fanning , Principal of Gunninah Environmental Consultants, a biologist specialising in flora and fauna matters ( Exhibit A6 and Exhibit A14 ).

George McLellan , Principal of Gemac Services Pty Ltd, a geologist, now consulting after a long career in industry ( Exhibit A7, Exhibit A19 and Exhibit A20 ).

151. Thomson, Nash, Fanning and McLellan also gave oral evidence, as did Robert Wearn , a director of Ganian Pty Ltd.

152. The respondent Council relied on the evidence of the following:

Peter Stephenson , Principal of Peter Stephenson Environmental Management Australia, an air quality consultant ( Exhibit C12 ).

Steven Cooper , Steven Cooper Acoustics Pty Ltd, a consulting acoustical engineer ( Exhibit C13 ).

Lindsay Fletcher , Gary Shiels & Associates Pty Ltd, a specialist consulting town planner with long experience in local government ( Exhibit C14 ).

Don Reed , Principal of Don Reed & Associates Pty Ltd , an extractive industries consultant (geologist) of long standing ( Exhibit C15 , Exhibit C28, Exhibit C31 and Exhibit A13 ).

Dr Gareme Wells , a schoolteacher and consultant ecologist ( Exhibit C16 ).

Neil Greenwood , Golder Associates Pty Ltd, a consulting hydrogeologist ( Exhibit C17 ).

153. Fletcher, Wells, Reed and Greenwood also gave oral evidence. Council also relied on a report obtained by Mr Peate from Louis Challis , principal of Louis A Challis & Associates Pty Ltd, consulting acoustical engineer, in June 1998 ( Exhibit C19 fols 194-7 and Exhibit C23 fols 19-22).

The views of relevant Statutory Authorities

154. The various public authorities consulted by the Council provided comments which are collected in Exhibit C18 (fol 1-29) and Exhibit C23 (fol 2-4). The contents of all of them need not be abstracted at this point, but the following can be noted (from Exhibit C18 ):

· Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (“ DUAP ”) said on 29 October 1998 (fol 1):

The Department has examined the EIS. The proposal is outside the Riverstone Release Area. The Department considers that the proposal is unlikely to have significant impact on long term land use planning for the region as identified in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.19 …

· The Department of Mineral Resources (“ DMR ”) said on 20 July 1998 (fol 4):

The site of the proposed development was identified in Sydney REP 9(1) but was deleted from REP 9(2) as it was considered by the then quarry owner to have no further economic potential. Extraction of the remaining economically recoverable resources of volcanic breccia from the site is supported as it will optimise the utilisation of these resources which are well located to supply local and regional markets. The proposal could also make available significant quantities of clay and shale for use in brick manufacture.

· The DMR wrote to the Council again on 22 January 1999, and said, inter alia (fol 3):

The Department would like to point out that Marsden Park quarry was originally identified in Sydney REP 9(1) and was deleted from REP 9(2) at the request of the then operator, Rocla Quarry Products, which considered that the deposit had no further economic potential at the time.


The current applicant has demonstrated the existence of additional resources of volcanic breccia and clay which can be economically extracted and the Department strongly supports this aspect of the proposal as the resources which are well located to supply local and regional markets, with road base and brickmaking raw materials.

That these resources are not identified in Sydney REP does not detract from the fact that an important extractable economic resource exists and as such should be utilised for the benefit of the wider community, if other considerations allow. It should not therefore constitute a ground for refusing the application.

This point was emphasised in Sydney REP 9(1) where it was stated in the Planning Report (p 20) that the fact that a resource is not included in the plan ‘does not by itself imply that the site is of no economic significance nor that a Council should not consent to an application to carry out an extractive industry on such a site. Such a proposal should be taken on its merits’.

· The Environment Protection Authority (“ EPA ”) said on 17 July 1998, (fol 6 and 9):

It appears that the matters raised in the EPA’s letter of 20 August 1997 have been taken into account in the EIS. However, when considering this development, Council should be concerned in regard to the effect of noise, dust and increased traffic movements on the adjacent residential premises and the Town and Country Van and Mobile Home Park.

…

Noise exceedances at the proposed Caravan Park do not appear to be justified with the current assessment. Before the higher planning noise levels can be applied both the use of all feasible and cost-effective mitigation measures and socio/economic benefits that result from the development need to be identified.

· The Department of Land & Water Conservation (“DLWC”) made the following comments on 6 October 1998 (fol 12-13):

The Fauna and Flora Assessment Report (FFAR) states that small areas of the Cumberland Plain Woodland are to be removed by the proposed development, but does not quantify the area (hectares) or number of trees proposed to be removed. The FFAR (figure 1) indicates that cleared land is adjacent to the proposed quarry but this has not been considered in the EIS or the FFAR as an alternative to quarrying the remnant woodland.


Considering the Cumberland Plain Woodland is an endangered community and is listed under section 11 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act, the Department does not support the proposed clearing of the remnant Grey Box woodland, particularly as the potential may exist to quarry the cleared land instead of the remnant woodland. The applicant should be demonstrating how they will be enhancing the native local biodiversity of the area within their proposal. The applicant needs to demonstrate why the cleared land to the east of the proposed quarry could not be quarried instead of the remnant woodland.
…
Further details are required to assess the proposed release of quarry water to the surrounding natural watercourses (for example the method of release, location, timing, magnitude and duration of release). The Department further recommends that the applicant consult the DLWC to ascertain what, if any permits are required prior to the release of the water.

The FFAR indicates that the dam to the south of the old quarry provides significant habitat for aquatic species (page 12) but it is not clear if the proposed development is likely to affect the hydrology of this artificial wetland. The EIS states that the wetland will not from (sic) part of the quarry/landfill water management system and that clean water will be diverted to the storage dams (page 7-2) but it does not indicate if surface runoff to this wetland will be modified.
…
The progression of stages for the development have been well documented. Section 5.3.3. (Stage 1) discusses that the non-marketable part of the extracted material will be stockpiled for later use as overburden. While the volume of this stockpile ‘is not expected to be large’, no quantitative measure is given. Furthermore, no information concerning the grainsize of the material to be contained within the stockpile has been stated. Issues regarding batter angles and erosion and sediment control measures to be employed on and around the stockpile (and other such stockpiles) have not been addressed.

Considering that the groundwater is found to be highly saline, it is possible that leaching of stockpiles consisting of crushed bedrock may induce a salinity problem. The Department recommends that the applicant considers this possibility and if such eventuates, that the proponent discusses how such salinity will be isolated from soils and water courses.

(h) indicators that will be used to gauge environmental performance of the activity;
(i) measures proposed to define the area of operation in relation to Cumberland Plain Woodland on the subject site;
(j) the degree of control over waste entering the site.

6. The LEMP shall include a Water Management Plan for the site.

7. The Water Management Plan shall address matters such as:

(a) an assessment as to whether water abstraction in the extraction works will impact upon the ecology of the pond to be retained as a nature sanctuary;
(b) the results of additional testing to demonstrate that the existing quarry water can be disposed of to stream and meet the requirements of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust and the Department of Land and Water Conservation;
(c) provision of adequate water supply for operational and domestic uses;
(d) potentially turbid run-off from disturbed areas;
(e) water requirements and the separating of clean and contaminated run-off before discharge, water treatment, quality and quantity of effluent for disposal;
(f) treatment and disposal of waste material;

8. The applicant shall prepare the LEMP in consultation with the NSW Fire Brigades. The LEMP shall generally include the following:

(a) An outline of all fire prevention, protection and fire fighting measures and equipment;
(b) Emergency plan procedures and compliance to the relevant Australian Standards applicable to the development;
(c) Details of required hydrants and hose reels, together with water supplies, location of connections, rate of application supported by full hydraulic calculations being submitted to the NSW Fire Brigades for compliance to the Building Code of Australia;
(d) Details of all fire water retention;
(e) The Fire Safety Study to comply with the Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 2 Fire Safety Guidelines, by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

9. The LEMP shall be prepared in consultation with Western Sydney Waste Board (the “Waste Board”) and take into account the aims and objectives of the Regional Waste Plan (as required by the regulation to the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995) .

10. The LEMP shall be reviewed and updated annually to incorporate any new landfill management techniques or any change to waste management legislation that may affect the site operations, provided that resultant changes to site practice are consistent with this consent.

11. The operator shall provide an up to date survey of the quarry and its surrounds as part of the annual review of the LEMP and the annual survey shall be reconciled with the approved quarry design.

12. The operator of the land fill shall submit an annual report to Council, the EPA and the Waste Board in conjunction with the annual review of the LEMP setting out full details of all materials received by classification and volumes and certifying the degree of compliance that has been achieved for the previous year’s LEMP. The annual report shall also address the results of any monitoring required by the development consent.

13. Clear, visible signs are to be erected at the site entrance detailing materials that are excluded from being accepted at the site.

14. Any activity carried out in accordance with this approval shall not give rise to offensive odour, offensive noise or pollution of water as defined within the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Plan of Management

15. A Plan of Management for all quarry extraction works shall be prepared and submitted to Council prior to the commencement of development and shall cover the following issues provided that if any stage of extraction is modified following submission of the Plan of Management the Applicant shall modify the Plan of Management accordingly:

(a) quarry boundaries and bench orientation, height, width, inclination etc;

(b) access and haul road routes and gradients;

(c) size and extent of stockpiles;

(d) the stability of stored material;

(e) details of quantities to be extracted;

(f) progressive rehabilitation of the site;

(g) stormwater control;

(h) seepage and leachate control;

(i) provision of adequate water supply for operational and domestic uses;

(j) potentially turbid run off from disturbed areas;

(k) leachate generate, ground water inflow and run off from uncovered waste;

(l) sewage treatment and effluent disposal;

(m) disposal of seepage water, water from any liner pressure relief system and leachate;

(n) the potential for acid water and sulphate contamination in seepage water and any liner pressure relief system;

(o) workshop wastes;

(p) the management of soil erosion and sediment control;

(q) noise reduction measures;

(r) dust control;

(s) landfill gas control;

(t) operating hours;

(u) floodlighting;

(v) traffic;

(w) general site maintenance;

(x) indicators of environmental performance;

(y) measures to protect bordering remnant Cumberland Plain Woodland;

(z) measures to address complaints.

16. An annual independent Environmental Management Monitoring Report shall be prepared for the consideration of the EPA and a copy shall be provided to the Council. The report shall include the results of monitoring, as specified by the EPA, of air quality (including gas emissions, dust control), water quality (including all site discharges) and noise quality (including the monitoring and control of ambient conditions at nearby residences).

Monitoring

17. During operation of the quarry and landfilling operations an air quality monitoring network must be established to the satisfaction of EPA and Council. This monitoring should at lease include 30 day dust deposition and 24 hours (6 day cycle) PM10 monitoring. Odour monitoring shall be conducted one day per month. Sites will be selected in consultation with Council and EPA and should at least include the Town and Country Caravan and Mobile Home Park and a residence in South Street.

18. Within periods not exceeding 6 months from the commencement of extraction, acoustics compliance testing of all mechanical plant and site owned equipment shall be carried out to confirm compliance with noise levels as stated in the conditions of development consent (as stated in conditions 35 and 36).

19. Following the closure of landfill activities at the site, the proponent shall continue monitoring of settlement, stormwater, leachate and groundwater at the site to the satisfaction of EPA and Council. The post-closure monitoring shall continue, in accordance with the EIS, until notification to cease is received from Council and the EPA.

Regeneration and Landscaping

20. All earth mounds proposed in the EIS and Response Document are to be in place prior to the commencement of the proposed quarrying and landfill activities for the approved stages. It will be necessary for revegetation of these mounds to commence immediately to minimise dust and soil erosion.

21. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Management Plan (LMP) to Council for approval at least 21 days prior to the commencement of any construction works in the vicinity of remnant vegetation as identified in Figure 9 of the EIS. The LMP shall be prepared by a person suitably qualified in native vegetation management and rehabilitation. The LMP shall include:

(a) a native vegetation management and restoration plan for the Cumberland Plain Woodland on the site which shall also include a plan for the regeneration, rehabilitation and replanting schemes, using local endemic species;

(b) provision for minimisation of soil erosion and planting of local endemic plant species on regeneration areas;

(c) an indication of the ares of Cumberland Plain Woodland to be removed, or the areas which have reasonable potential to be disturbed;

(d) issues related to the breeding and nesting habitats of species, home range requirements and relocation into the home range of other individuals of the same species, should be considered;

(e) areas that were once woodland which may have the potential to regenerate from seed bank stored in the soil, particularly where disturbances such as grazing, mowing and fire regimes cease (so long as this does not prevent grazing).

22. When landfilling operations cease, a landscape regeneration and site rehabilitation plan shall be submitted to Council for approval to define the future land use and aesthetic appearance of the site.

23. Infrastructure construction shall be managed to minimise potential impacts on habitat, including habitat trees.

Site Management/Operations

24. Potential dust sources on the site shall be minimised through the maintenance of as much vegetation as possible during extraction and filling activities and the use of a water truck to suppress exposed areas during periods of dry (>28oC) and windy weather (>8 metres per second).

25. A water truck capable of supplying a water spray at a rate of 1.51/m2/hour will be used to water the unsealed haul road and other trafficked areas to maintain these in a moist, dust free condition. It will most likely be necessary to operate a second or standby water truck to maintain this condition during hot and windy weather and maintenance of the duty water cart.

26. Dust suppression measures utilising water will be installed to spray and wet exposed material surfaces in the crushing plant, screening plant and stockpiles. The delivery rate should exceed 1.51/m2/hour.

27. In periods of high wind (>8 metres per second), it will be necessary to reprogram dust generating activities which cannot be adequately controlled by water or other means and may cause nuisance to people or property.

28. A “drive-through” type wheel and chassis wash and associated rumble strips shall be installed prior to the exit point of the site to ensure that soil material is contained within the site. The design of which should meet EPA construction which in essence means no transmission of on-site generated mud or soil to the off-site roadways, in particular, Richmond Road. A road sweeper may be required if this Condition cannot be complied with.

29. Measures are to be taken during the course of development to ensure satisfactory stabilisation of exposed areas to prevent soil erosion.

30. During land filling operations the emission of odours from the fill will be addressed by:

(a) non acceptance of putrescible waste;

(b) limiting receipt of other odorous material and biodegradable material (including green waste); and

(c) immediate cover and compaction of cover to 150 millimetre depth after tipping of odorous material and at the end of each working shift.

31. No filling or earthworks carried out on the site shall interfere with the existing natural drainage system unless approved in the Water Management Plan as required by condition 6.

32. Except as provided in conditions 33 and 34 the hours of operation of the extractive industry shall not be outside of the following times:

(a) 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays;

(b) 7am to 12pm Saturdays;

(c) No work is to be carried out on Sundays or public holidays.

33. Product truck loading must not commence before 6:30am and must not take place on Sundays and Public Holidays.

34. The hours of operation of the landfill activity shall not be outside of the following times:

(a) 6am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays;

(b) 7am to 4pm Saturdays;

(c) 9am to 3pm Sundays.

35. Noise emissions from the site under all weather conditions (except during rain, wind speeds greater than 3m/s and, prior to 7am, temperature inversions of 4oC/100m or greater) shall not exceed an LAeq (15minutes) of the sound contribution level of:

(a) 45dBA to residents north of the site;

(b) 39dBA to residents south of the site between the hours of 7am to 6pm and 35dBA between the hours of 6:30am to 7am.

36. During the period of 6am to 7am (which is part of defined night-time) the L(1 minute) noise level contribution when measured outside any bedroom window of any residential premises shall not exceed the L90 background level by more than 15 dBA to protect the sleep amenity of nearby residents.

37. Noise control measures on mobile plant, trucks etc need to be maintained throughout the life of the operation.

38. Compliance with the following requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority:

(a) Site access off Richmond Road is to be provided in accordance with “Option 4” as outlined in the Traffic Report prepared by Chris Hallam and Associates. This access point is located some 600 metres north of Townson Road which was previously used as an access point to a former Council Depot.

(b) Detailed road design plans at this location showing a “seagull island” treatment to Austroad Standards shall be forwarded to the RTA for approval prior to the commencement of any roadworks. However, prior to design plans being forwarded to the RTA, consultation with State Network Services, Blacktown (telephone [phone]) will need to take place to ensure the RTA requirements are satisfied.

(c) It may be noted that a plan checking fee (amount to be advised) and lodgement of a performance bond will be required prior to the release of the approved plans by the RTA.

(d) All roadworks/linemarking associated with the proposal will be at no cost to the RTA.

39. Compliance with the engineering requirements as detailed in Attachment A – Engineering Conditions.

40. All loading and unloading operations are to take place at all times wholly within the confines of the site.

41. Quarry product loading areas are to be sealed, drained and provided with dust suppression facilities. Stock pile areas are to be constructed of suitable materials to minimise dust.

42. The rehabilitation of any disturbed site should be at least to the level of agricultural suitability that existed prior to extraction.

43. Litter fences shall be erected (where appropriate) to contain litter to the landfill area and to ensure that windblown litter does not impact upon surrounding remnant woodland habitat, artificial wetlands and ephemeral creeks. The fence shall be of an adequate height to contain windblown litter.

44. Stock piles of excavated material should be restricted to 145,000m3 and a height limited generally not exceeding 7 metres located within the bund wall enclosures.

45. The applicant shall consult with the Department of Land and Water Conservation to ascertain what, if any permits are required for the release of quarry water to the surrounding natural watercourses. (For example the method of release, location, timing, magnitude and duration of release.)

46. The applicant shall conduct additional chemical testing prior to the commencement of works to confirm that the existing quarry water may be released to streams in accordance with the requirements of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust and the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

47. The applicant shall obtain a Part 3A Permit from DLWC if required for all dams, and particularly to enlarge the existing on-site dam to be used for water/leachate management located in the southwest portion of Lot 47.

48. The dams and watercourses, excluding the operational dams, are to be managed to protect the habitat value for the water birds which are present on the site.

49. Water to be used for operations on the site shall not be sourced from wetlands.

50. The operator shall not carry out any blasting operations on the site.

51. The applicant shall construct a security fence around the full length of the working area of the site.

52. Should any relic or Aboriginal site be found which is likely to be disturbed, consent to destroy must be obtained from the National Parks and Wildlife Service prior to any disturbance occurring.

53. The applicant must comply with the following requirements of TransGrid:

(a) Adequate clearance must be maintained under and near the transmission line;

(b) Access to the transmission line structures shall be available at all times to TransGrid plant and personnel;

(c) In this regard an unobstructed access way shall be retained along the easement. Notwithstanding where vehicle access is not available along the easement for geographic reasons (ie valleys, cliffs, escarpments, rivers, water courses etc) suitable alternative vehicle access (4.5 metres wide) shall be provided. Access gates shall be installed in an agreed location;

(d) Excavation work or other alterations to existing ground levels shall not be carried out within the easement area without the prior written approval of TransGrid. Approval will not normally be granted for such work within 16 metres of any supporting structure;

(e) Obstructions of any type shall not be placed within 15 metres of any part of a transmission line structure;

(f) All proposed activities within the easement area require approval from TransGrid;

(g) Consultation with the Engineering Officer Easements (telephone [phone]) will need to take place to ensure that TransGrid requirements are satisfied.

54. Separate consent must be obtained for:

(a) The proposed recycling facility;

(b) Any gas extraction facility;

(c) The future end use of the site;

(d) Any further development areas covered by Cumberland Plain Woodland not approved by the LMP;

(e) Any other buildings to be erected on the site.

55. A bank guarantee for the sum of $250,000 is to be submitted to Council, unless a similar sum is lodged with the EPA as a condition of an Environment Protection Licence, to ensure the rehabilitation of the site. If paid to Council the bank guarantee will be released 12 months after the satisfactory completion of site rehabilitation works and subject to the establishment and maintenance of satisfactory landscaping following the closure of the approved landfill operations.

ATTACHMENT “A” – ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

(a) The development shall in all respects comply with the applicable requirements of Council’s Adopted Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Policy. Separate details indicating how compliance will be achieved shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of the development;

(b) Existing vegetation must be left undisturbed except where roads, drainage, filling and/or quarry works are proposed;

(c) Re-vegetation must take place on disturbed areas as soon as practical after completion of the works or when directed by Council and must be established to a predetermined schedule which shall be submitted within 4 weeks of the issue of a construction certificate;

(d) Details of the site drainage system must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Engineer prior to commencement of any construction. A 1 in 10 year ARI with a 6 hour duration is to be used for stormwater drainage design. Suitable siltation interceptors shall be provided within the drainage system. Where drainage involves the provision of drainage across land owned by others, evidence of the creation of necessary easements must be lodged with Council with the details of the site drainage system.

(e) Written evidence shall be lodged with Council indicating compliance with the requirements of the Roads and Traffic Authority in regard to access to the site from Richmond Road, including payment of any works supervision fees required by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

(f) Access to the site shall be via Richmond Road only.

(g) The proposed internal access road shall be sealed (two coat tar sealing) for its entire length and maintained in an appropriate manner. Approved “shaker” facilities shall be provided in appropriate locations.

(h) Sediment dams and leachate pond walls which are constructed above natural ground level and are designed to hold water above natural ground level must be compacted in accordance with Council’s “ Works Specification Civil 1997 ” and, if required, provided with approved “liners”.

(i) The sediment dams and leachate ponds must be designed and constructed to permit rapid draining and mechanical removal of solid wastes.

(j) Prior to engineering plan approval, a Maintenance Program to provide for the ongoing maintenance of the sediment dams and leachate ponds shall be prepared by a suitably qualified engineering/environmental consultant and approved by Council’s Development Services Engineer. The maintenance program shall apply for the duration of development approved by this consent.

(k) All vehicles transporting fill/rubbish to/from the site shall have their loads covered at all times.

(l) All plant and equipment powered or propelled by internal combustion or diesel engines used on the site must be properly maintained to ensure exhaust emissions comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

(m) The applicant is to be responsible for the removal, collection and disposal of windblown and casually deposited litter from the site within 1km of the entrance to the site from Richmond Road and along the whole of Hollinsworth and South Street. The applicant is not responsible for the removal, collection and disposal of illegally or deliberately dumped rubbish in the above area, such as cars and items of furniture.

(n) Seven days written notice must be given of the commencement of the engineering works and must be accompanied by evidence of the contractor’s Public Liability and Workers Compensation Insurances.

(o) All Engineering work required by the Director Development & Regulatory Services, MUST be inspected, by Council’s Engineering Development Supervisor who can be contacted by phoning 9830-9717 between 7:00am & 8:00am or 12.30pm & 1.30pm). 24 hours notice must be given. Fees must be paid prior to contact.

(p) NOTE : A separate submission of the details of engineering works required by this Notice must be made to Council’s Director Development & Regulatory Services.

(q) An application for practical completion shall be accompanied by Form SEW20, a copy of which will be sent with the approved engineering plans. A copy can also be found in Council’s “ Engineering Guide for Development 1997 ”.

(r) A work-as-executed plan (to a standard suitable for microfilming) under the hand of a Chartered Professional Engineer or a Registered Surveyor must be lodged when the engineering works are complete. In addition a certificate in Council’s standard format shall be submitted by a Registered Surveyor indicating that all pipelines and associated structures lie wholly within any easements required by the engineering works.

(s) An estimate of the cost of engineering work must be submitted to Council prior to approval of the engineering plans. If engineering works are of value greater than $25,000, documentary proof of the payment of the levy required by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act must also be provided to Council prior to approval of the engineering plans.