Joint Regional Planning Panel refuses Tiyces Lane quarry

On Wednesday the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) unanimously refused a development application from Jasminco Resources Pty Ltd for the basalt quarry at 288 Tiyces Lane, some 5km due east of Goulburn and 1.8km along the thoroughfare from the Hume Highway.

The company, directed by Madeleine Miller, wanted to extract 30,0000 cubic metres of basalt per annum over 5.9 years and construct associated infrastructure.

But residents have been opposed to the project since it was first lodged in 2009 by Figtree Reserve Trust, of which Peter Miller, Miss Miller’s father was a former director. The council refused the DA in 2011. Residents’ concerns about noise, dust and amenity impacts, as well as road safety continued when the plan was re-lodged (by Argyle NSW Pty Ltd) with the council as a designated development in 2013.

The JRPP refused that application in July, 2015 on four grounds, including inadequate information, road safety and doubts that the material could be extracted without breaching EPA noise limits. The applicants have twice challenged the rejections in the NSW Land and Environment Court, one of which upheld the council’s refusal. The company discontinued a second appeal in March, 2017.

On Wednesday, despite a lengthy defence by Mr Miller, the panel again refused the DA. It did so on the grounds that members were not satisfied the applicant had landowners’ consent to widen part of Tiyces Lane, some of which fell on private land. They also found that there was a lack of adequate information to assess the environmental impact of roadworks and questioned the appropriateness of the quarry in an E3 environmental zone.

Panel member Renata Brooks said while Mr Miller’s explanation gave some comfort, she was not reassured that further information would be forthcoming if the matter was deferred, as he’d requested. 

Panel chair, Alison McCabe told Mr Miller he didn’t have a good “track record” in providing requested information.

The council’s planning director, Louise Wakefield said she wasn’t comfortable with deferral and argued her department had given the applicants ample opportunity to supply outstanding information. The council had recommended refusal.

Mr Miller described the council report as “negative on negative” and accused planners of having a “mindset against the project.”

“This plan is very little changed from the one the council (previously) wholeheartedly recommended for approval so I ask, what has changed?” he said.

“Are the environmental measures and road upgrade plans worth nothing?”

Mr Miller also questioned why the council had rezoned the land from RU2 Rural Landscape to E3 Environmental in 2012.

He rejected suggestions a rock breaker would be needed to extract the basalt, describing it as “highly fractured.” 

Mr Miller told the panel it made no difference whether they included the condition that explosives, a crusher and rock breaker could not be used.

He described the material as a high-grade resource that was in demand for road work, wind farms and by farmers.

But the panel heard from five residents. Rod Lang, whose house is 268 metres from the planned quarry, said a report prepared for the applicant specifically mentioned use of a rock breaker.

“Why was it omitted from a noise impact study...when it is louder than any of the machinery that was included in the assessment?” he asked.

“This DA relies heavily on buffer zones being ignored on the basis of no loss of amenity to those in the zone.”

Mr Lang said he was one of the closest neighbours but he was omitted in the proponent’s notification of the DA to residents.

Another Tiyces Lane landowner, Debbie Polley said she was worried about the volume of trucks on Tiyces Lane and around its intersection with the Hume Highway.

“We also have to contend with trucks from the Divall’s Quarry (on the highway),” she said.

“On Tiyces Lane we have a lot of kids on P-plates. Someone will get hurt.”

Kylie Barnes said with bus stops on either side of the highway at Tiyces Lane, any changes to the intersection with Tiyces Lane would make it more dangerous.

This was in response to the company’s plans to install acceleration and deceleration lanes at the intersection for its proposed 22 trucks daily.

But Mrs Barnes also said she simply didn’t want to live next door to a quarry.

Tony Egan feared the impact of trucks on Tiyces Lane.

“It’s fine for light vehicles but as soon as heavy trucks get on it, it breaks up immediately,” he said.

“Really, from the highway, the road should be re-done. There’s no way it will stand up to quarry trucks.”

Martin Webb claimed many of the company’s consultancy reports were out of date or inadequate, particularly on noise and dust impacts.

Renee Ward also spoke about road safety and impact on amenity.

After the meeting, Mr Lang said he was very pleased with the outcome.

“I’m hoping they don’t lodge this again but I wouldn’t rule it out,” he said.

Mr Miller declined comment, including on whether he would take further court action.