Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project

I am shocked to read about the 50.95ha of native vegetation to be impacted by the mine and note the Serious and Irreversible Impact to EPBC Act Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEEC's) being removal of 25.71ha of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest. This forest is close to extinction and this project will be impacting on a high percentage of this species. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) states the action will have or is highly likely to result in a significant impact of national environmental significance. This matter should be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for determination of the Serious & Irreversible Impacts on our CEEC's including the 35.7ha Shale Sandstone Transition Forest to be removed. This project is proposing to remove over 80% of the Sandstone Transition Forest that grows on this site. This is good condition remnant forest and needs to be preserved.

The BDAR also states that "it will cause a substantial reduction in the quality and integrity of an Ecological Community" which is unacceptable when this government knows how much extinction is being caused due to mining, logging and fossil fuels production.

This project will have a devastating impact on the Protected Native Fauna living in this location including several Vulnerable and Endangered Threatened Species, including the Broad Headed Snake and the Dural Land Snail as well as impacting adversely on a vast array of bird, mammal and reptile species. This proposal cannot be considered without a comprehensive Fauna Management Plan to mitigate the injury and suffering for the wildlife that presently call this Critically Endangered forest home. Appropriate animal welfare protocols would need to be put in place for any and all vegetation clearing. Native fauna in NSW is protected by LAW.

Any and all handling of native fauna, especially Threatened Species, needs to be carried out by trained and/or experienced fauna handlers and must be in accordance with the Codes of Practice for Sick, Injured and Orphaned Protected Fauna, NSW and under the appropriate licences for these works.

The adverse effects on Infrastructure in the district around Maroota and Wisemans Ferry locale need to be independently assessed. The ferry service is small and presently just manages to cope with the transport requirements of the local community.

The adverse impacts on the waterways should also be considered as this area has just been affected by severe flooding and the removal of such vast swathes of forest areas and the runoff from the mining itself will only cause more degradation and soil erosion which will be detrimental for the surrounding communities. The runoff will adversely affect the waterways of the district and could cause significant issues for the future. The construction of the dam that will be 10 metres high will be a massive issue for the area and considering the significant weather event of recent weeks which has seen devastation for people, livestock and residential and business populations, this mine will be a safety issue for the locals. A 50m buffer for the Maroota Sands Swamp Forest is insufficient.

Extraction depths being limited to 2m above the wet-weather high groundwater levels should be reassessed considering the recent significant flooding of the East Coast of NSW that is predicted to occur more often. This mitigating measure is insufficient.

To consider this project which will Seriously and Irreversibly Impact on so many Endangered Communities and cause fragmentation of the remnants that will remain is short sighted and must be rejected. It will adversely affect the remaining Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna which are all struggling for survival in this current climate of destruction of our native habitats.

I would recommend an independent review by Independent Ecologists to ascertain the true destruction that is being suggested in this proposal.

This is likely to be an issue of national environmental significance and cannot be approved. I am shocked to see that this project is being proposed by the Aboriginal Land Council that purports to care for country.

Critically Endangered Ecological Communities are under attack by this government and are areas that by their very name, "CRITICALLY ENDANGERED" means they are on the brink of extinction. These areas should not be touched. The NSW Chief Scientific Committee have made this determination and it needs to be followed not ignored for short-term, highly-destructive projects such as this one.

I strongly object to the direct removal of 50.95 ha of native vegetation and indirect impact on 9.97 ha of vegetation. I strongly object to the removal of 28.8 ha of EPBC Act critically endangered Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest (SSTF). This forest is critically endangered and must not be removed because the more that is removed, the closer this ecosystem gets to extinction. As stated on page 165 "the action will have or is highly likely to result in a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance." The matters of national significance being the Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and the Dural Land Snail. This is unacceptable and the project should not succeed.

The project proposes to remove 80% of the critically endangered SSTF existing on or close to the site and severely fragment the ecosystem. Pollutants from the action will leak into the remaining SSTF on the patch an negatively affect what remains of the SSTF. Criteron 3) on page 66 states that the proposed action will adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of this ecological community. The ecosystem will not recover and we need to protect all of these remaining critically endangered ecosystems, allow them to thrive and grow. We should not be mining this ecologically rare area. This area is more important than short term profit from mining, this area is irreplaceable.

I am concerned regarding the potential size of the project based on the adjacent land that is also owned to the proposed project. They say they have had community feedback but as part of that community I haven't seen any evidence of this nor can I find anyone else who has. I don't feel there has been enough community consultation based on the Facebook feedback regarding the proposal when it was posted to a local group page. We already have 2 large sand mines and a few smaller ones in the area. The truck traffic is non-stop on the roads from 5am until 6:30pm, it is not unusual to pass a group of 10 trucks at a time at 5am already. These roads are not up to having an extra 120 trucks on them daily.

To Whom it may concern,

firstly I would like to state I am a current landowner of property directly adjoining this project. I would like to state at no time has any person, company nor organisation mad any contact nor inform me of such a large scale project which will impact on my property, family, animals and endangered fauna and wildlife to which inhabits my property. I think this in its self is a major concern and any should be investigated to ensure the correct procedures have taken place.

Objection number One. I own and reside in a rural property directly adjoining the proposed Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction project. First and for most I would like to object to this project on the grounds that the areas to which this project will take place is land covered with Native Vegetation including but not limited too Melaleuca deanei, Tetratheca glandulosa,Darwinia fascicularis and Kunzel rupestris all identified within this project and listed as threatened Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC).

Objection number 2. This project on the grounds to which the proposed project will be contravene Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 as some but not limited to species indentified hereafter are located in the Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project area;
Koala
Yellow Bellied Glider
Spotted Tailed Quoll
Eastern Free tail Bat
Common planigale
Platypus
White-footed Dunnart
Regent Honeyeater
Glossy Black Cockatoo
Swift Parrot
Powerful Owl
Masked Owl
Sooty Owl
Freckled Duck
Black Bittern
to name some but not all of the species located with in this land holding.

Objection number 3. The Maroota Sandstone Extraction Project has indicated using groundwater in extreme volumes for onsite application including installation of a large Dam 12000 square metre. This ground water usage will affect current landowners access to ground water currently used for farming, various animals and local wildlife.

Objection number 4. The Maroota Sandstone Extraction Project bore water and retentions water use in the quarry will impact on the Associated Wetlands preserved under the current preservations and conservation acts. These Wetlands include but are not limited to Wetlands Number 88 and Jacksons Swamp area.

Objection number 5. The Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project has indicated an extra 120 heavy truck movements Monday to Friday with 60 heavy truck movements Saturday. This is a concern to the current road structure being mostly single lane, various gradient, various road base material road with extremely limited over taking capacity. The road is currently damaged due to the recent March 2022 flood impact. This flood indicated shut road use to only one road in and out of the area via Glenorie. over the past three years a number of accidents included heavy vehicles. I will also mention that all access roads have primary schools with 40km hour operation areas.

Objection Number 6. A number of Aboriginal archeological including potential sites have been found in the stated areas.

Objection Number 7. Dust mitigation strategy. The site due to its overwhelming size will encounter dust from excavation equipment, transfer and loading process. This site is also open to the south and southwest areas which will also distribute dust to neighbouring properties. The neighbouring properties rely on tank water collected from rooftop collection process. The likelihood of dust polluting such water source relied on is high. Bearing in mind the area does not have access to city water.

Objection Number 8. The Maroota Sandstone Extraction Project if approved will land lock and cease the movement of current proected and threatened species migrating and foraging along the native areas of Maroota. This should be looked at as a major loss to the Maroota and surrounding areas.

I am indicating I was only notified by local community the Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project was in for submission stage one day ago. This gave me three days to submitted an objection which I find extremely poor to say the least. This are has so much critical habitat and endangered species it is so disturbing of the lack of community knowledge of such a project.

Kind regards

The Glenorie Progress Association objects to the project scale and impact on the environment:
Our view is that this project should not go ahead. We are against the destruction of the natural environment that could never be remediated. The additional truck traffic on Old Northern Road, already congested, is unacceptable. Already, more people are using ONR. So the added truck traffic will cause additional damage to the road and increase the delays and disruptions that road repair and ‘traffic safety management’ incurs. Of course, ONR is too narrow, does not include a continuous cycle track, has power poles and power wires and trees too close to the road edge. The new and existing truck traffic is/will be driven with an objective of speedy delivery and return-to-refill and as such constitutes a constant safety risk to all other traffic. While this area appears to be ‘rural’ there are many houses fronting ONR in addition to the various villages. As such, ONR is really a road through a residential area which is not amenable to an industrial truck traffic flow.
Our full reasons for the objection are outlined in the attached document.

To whom it may concern,
As a resident within 1km of the proposed mine. I`m basing my objection to the mine in 3 parts. Social, Environmental and Traffic
1. Social & Economic Impacts, reference the submission prepared by Design Collaborative July 2021 on behalf of the applicant Deerunbbin Land Council, the applicant.
pg. 82 quote, The project will have a will have the most adverse impact on the immediate vicinity, being occupiers and landowners within 1km of the project site. Potential adverse impacts to the residents within close proximity includes impacts on there way of life, such as noise, vibration and dust. Other potential impacts such such as economic , heritage and biodiversity have a potential adverse impact on a much boarder community being being aboriginal groups, residents and workers in the LGA. The highest risk lies in operational noise and biodiversity. Along with the removal of 50 ha of native bushland will have unavoidable disturbance to flora and fauna
The has been no community engagement as outlined in section 5.2 of the report , reference email dated 17th April 2020 from Collin Phillips Team leader Energy and Resource assessment to delay community engagement committed due to COVID 19. The CCC would be established by way of a consent condition. There are approximately 61 landholder's directly impacted by the proposed mine as such the mine approval process should be placed on stop the clock provision until such time the community has been fully informed of the project and the implications of the project and the possibility of compulsory land acquisition
2 Environmental, The EIS clearly demonstrates the adverse impacts on sensitives wetlands to the North, West and South of the proposed mine. Native wildlife that currently occupies the site will be devastated by the clearing of the mine , these species include Snake, southern quolls, possum's, owls and parrots.
By way of biodiversity offsets this will protect these species however the area has not been identified .Proposed remediation of the site has a estimated allowance of $1.4mil equivalent to $3.00 per sqm which is clearly inadequate.
3 Traffic Generation, notwithstanding the traffic study, facts remain that 120 truck movement of local roads will have a material impact to local road users, un signalized intersections at Patricia Fay Drive and the intersection at Wisemans ferry Rd and Old Northern Rd poses a significant risk to life safety.

Glenorie Maroota Bioregional Forum submission to SSD-10410 Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project

Glenorie Maroota Bioregional Forum is a group that formed to progress initiatives toward a sustainable future for Sydney’s North West. This forum has grown from a local lobby group primarily concerned with the conservation of the ex-Maroota State Forest, to a forum with a broader focus on environmental, cultural and social issues in the Glenorie-Maroota area.



Please find below the following comments regarding the DA SSD-10410.



A significant increase to 120 heavy vehicle movements per day and 60 on Saturday - impact on both Wiseman’s Ferry Rd and Old Northern Rd and the local community that travel on these roads.

The water requirements for the quarry will be supplied by bore water and surface water. A 12,000 square metre dam with a 10 metre high embankment will be constructed and retain water for use in the quarry. Both the bore water consumption and retention of water in the dam will affect the downstream water flow and impact the important downstream wetland (Jacksons Swamp). A greater understanding of the long and short term impacts of this strategy, how they will be monitored and reported to the community and who will take action if Jackson’s Swamp is negatively impacted is required. How Jackson’s Swamp will be impacted and how those impacts will be mitigated and reported on is critical to decision making

Platypus exist in the area. There may be platypus in the Jacksons Swamp Catchment that would be adversely affected by water removal from the catchment. Surveys for this species are required and a management strategy developed to cover for the scenario where they are discovered during the works

Koalas are not listed in the threatened species list (they are endangered) despite a probable scat being found and a range of koala food trees including swamp mahogany occurring on the site, as well as Hills-Hornsby Rural Koala Project (HHRKP) maps showing koala presence in the surrounding areas. This lack of awareness of local records and apparent lack of consultation with the local koala conservation group, HHRKP is concerning. Additional work is required to assess the presence of Koalas in the locality and how the potential impacts on their habitat will be mitigated.

It is noted that 24 aboriginal archaeological and 2 potential aboriginal sites have been found and that they will be protected. Have the Darug groups been notified about these sites?

Details of the land to be conserved under the biodiversity stewardship are not clear and the full impact of the land to be extracted has not been fully evaluated in terms of animal species present and associated impacts.

It is noted in figure 11 that DLALC owned 1100 ha to the west of the extraction site which is the subject of this DA. This 1100ha is described as potentially extractable land and that this land is a potential source of sand for the future to be used when other reserves are exhausted. It seems from this that over time the whole of the Jacksons Swamp Catchment will become a quarry site of approximately 1100ha. This in itself is reason to say enough is enough no more quarry approvals in this area. The cumulative impacts urgently need to be considered and made clear, if this is stage one of a much larger development it should be treated as such.

The consultation process seems to have missed a number of people and groups. What was the process used to identify stakeholders? How will this be addressed prior to a decision being made on this application?

Animals such as the yellow bellied glider which is not listed in the EIS but is found widely throughout the Maroota area (and has been known in the area for over 20 years) is an indication that the species list is not extensive enough and there has been a failure to consider other surveys in the area that could inform the ecological assessment. The ecological assessment needs to be urgently updated with input from the local community and other studies from the local area that reveal a greater number of significant species.



Yours faithfully



Carolyn Hall,



Chair person

Glenorie Maroota Bioregional Forum

I firmly object to this project for a number of reasons addressed in detail in my attachment letter. Firstly, as a noted receiver on adverse noise impact in the proposal we will be impacted to increase the level of noise we can already hear from PF Formation, as the current landscape ridges that provide a buffer for the current noise and silica dust particles will be those that the applicant plans to extract from. It will also significantly reduce the value of our property. There was a failure to inform the community, include those, like us, that are directly impacted and noted - therefore not providing a fair opportunity for residence to address concerns. The Traffic Report is grossly misleading and only provides a very minimal amount of the impacted roads the truck travel. In the last year only, I am aware of 3 trucks and trailers have overturned on these roads and pilling their loads - one in Pitt Town enroute to Maroota mines, one on Wisemans Ferry Road near the Stonehouse Cafe, Maroota, and one on Old Northern Road in Forest Glen!! Adding an additional 240 journeys on these roads is dangerous, especially seeing that number of other Maroota Sand Mining projects I see are requesting to expand, or extend, or increase their permissible number of trucks - Surely, these can sufficiently provide sand for the area without adding the biggest yet mine in close proximity to residential homes. I should add that my husband is a builder in Sydney and there is a shortages of many materials due to covid etc.; however, there is certainly NOT a shortage of sand. It is untrue for the applicant to claim their mine is to address a sand shortage when there is not a shortage and the expansion of existing mines would address any future needs. The applicant does not intend to rehabilitate the land despite The Hills Council's DCP requirement, stating that they are not required to do so by the state government. This is pretty disgusting considering we're in a climate crisis to allow for the continual rape and disrespect of our native land - all the while residential homes nearby are require to regenerate the land. I'm quick disgusted that the applicant is an 'Aboriginal Council' and it's a poor reflection upon Aboriginal values to Country. This mine will encroach upon residents and be a stones through away. There are many OTHER ALTERNATIVE ridges that could be mined and expanded from existing mines that extend into the bushland wilderness, without mines that adversely impact upon residential home owners. It is completely unnecessary and inconsiderate, and The Hills Council should be doing more to protect residential rate payers. Please read my attachment letter, which will discuss my objection more clearly. I ABSOLUTELY OBJECT TO THIS ENORMOUS MINE, AND FOR IT TO BE IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES!!

23.3.22

Submission concerning application SSD-10410 Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project

I have lived and owned land in the Maroota area for the last 40 years and during that time I have become aware of the immense biodiversity of the bushland in the Maroota region. There was a huge push for Maroota Forest to become a National Park and as a result of that process there were many studies done on the extraordinary biodiversity of the area. Because of this awareness the value of the Maroota lands has been a dominating theme with many conservation organisations. The sand mining has always been controversial and in particular, the current friable sand mining proposal indicates what a huge and long term impact sand mining will have in the area over the coming decades.

Figure 11 shows that DLALC owns 1100 ha to the west of the extraction site which is the subject of this DA. This 1100ha is described as potentially extractable land and that this land is a potential source of sand for the future to be used when other reserves are exhausted. It seems from this that over time the whole of the Jacksons Swamp Catchment will become a quarry site of approximately 1100ha. Is this stage one of a much larger development? If so, what consideration is being given to cumulative impact?

The downstream impacts of water removal from the catchment has not been addressed. The water requirements for the quarry will be large and as noted in the EIS, supplied by bore water and surface water. A 12,000 square metre dam with a 10 metre high embankment will be constructed and retain water for use in the quarry. In drier years, these water systems are hugely important for the maintenance of biodiversity. What studies have been done to reveal the impact of withdrawing and retaining water from this catchment? Again, this is a cumulative impact additional to the other quarry sites in the area.

The presence of platypus have recently been confirmed through DNA studies in Cattai and Little Cattai Creeks. There may be platypus in the Jacksons Swamp Catchment that would be adversely affected by water removal from the catchment.

Koalas are not listed in the threatened species list (they should be listed as endangered) despite a probable scat being found and a range of koala food trees including swamp mahogany occurring on the site. Koalas have been identified in the surrounding areas.

nimals such as the yellow bellied glider which is not listed in the EIS but is found widely throughout the Maroota area is perhaps and indication that’s the species list is not extensive enough.



Offset - Details of the land to be conserved under the biodiversity stewardship are not clear and the full impact of the land to be extracted has not been fully evaluated in terms of animal species present and associated impacts. Shouldn’t the offset surveys be completed and visible to the public at the same time as the development proposal?


It is noted that 24 aboriginal archaeological sites and 2 potential aboriginal sites have been found and that they will be protected. I’m not aware of Darug groups having been notified about these sites. Have any Darug groups been contacted regarding this proposal?

The consultation process seems to have missed a number of people and groups. What was the process used to identify stakeholders?

Thank you for considering this submission

Kind Regards,

Pat Schwartz

Cattai Hills Environment Network CHEN is the peak community voice for the environment in Little Cattai catchment, CHEN laments that the rights of nature are not part of the planning process.

CHEN opposes this development because:

.platypus, koala, sugar glider are but a few of the species found in the area, the significant wetland Jackson Swamp will be adversely impacted

-Brewongle Environmental Education Centre will be adversely impacted

.120 heavy vehicle movements per day and 60 on Saturday add cumulatively to the impact on both Wiseman’s Ferry Rd and Old Northern Rd of trucks on those roads.

. The water requirements for the quarry will be supplied by bore water and surface water. A 12,000 square metre dam with a 10 metre high embankment will be constructed and retain water for use in the quarry. Both the bore water consumption and retention of water in the dam will effect the downstream water flow and impact the important down stream wetland (Jacksons Swamp).

. The presence of platypus have recently been confirmed through DNA studies in Cattai and Little Cattai Creeks. There may be platypus in the Jacksons Swamp Catchment that would be adversely affected by water removal from the catchment.

. Koalas are not listed in the threatened species list despite a probable scat being found and a range of koala food trees including swamp mahogany occurring on the site. Koalas have been identified in the surrounding areas.

. It is noted that 24 aboriginal archaeological and 2 potential aboriginal sites have been found and that they will be protected. Have the Darug groups been notified about these sites?

. Details of the land to be conserved under the biodiversity stewardship are not clear and the full impact of the land to be extracted has not been fully evaluated in terms of animal species present and associated impacts.

. It is noted in figure 11 that DLALC owned 1100 ha to the west of the extraction site which is the subject of this DA. This 1100ha is described as potentially extractable land and that this land is a potential source of sand for the future to be used when other reserves are exhausted. It seems from this that over time the whole of the Jacksons Swamp Catchment will become a quarry site of approximately 1100ha. This in itself is reason to say enough is enough no more quarry approvals in this area.

. The consultation process seems to have missed a number of people and groups. What was the process used to identify stakeholders?

.Animals such as the yellow bellied glider which is not listed in the EIS but is found widely through out the Maroota area is perhaps and indication that’s the species list is not extensive enough.

-does this contravene the COP26 Forest Agreement that Australia signed in November 2021

-does this contravene the Kunming Convention that Australia signed as part of COP15 UN Biodiversity conference

we welcome the right of Deerubbin LALC to seek employment opportunity on this land but would like to see eco tourism with platypus and koala as the way the land is developed https://deerubbin.org.au/business-enterprise-investment/

sand for Sydney can be extracted through other less impactful ways

Submission concerning application SSD-10410 Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project

I am writing to express serious concern and objection to the development application for the Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project.

This covers an important biodiverse area with threatened and endangered species, as well as the potential impact to waterways in the entire catchment, because of the proposed dam on site.

Two species listed on the EIS are endangered – the Dural Land Snail and the Koala.
The EIS does not appear to list the koala as endangered – can this be updated?

As we study koalas in the local area, please see below some additional information related to the importance of the entire Maroota region and the proposed development site:

*Koala habitat may be richer than what seems to be acknowledged on the EIS – The EIS acknowledges that the proposed site is koala habitat. This is evident with the range of bloodwoods and the grey gums on the site. However, the EIS includes trees that are not always officially recognised for their importance to koalas, and I am not convinced that the survey took those species into account.

These trees include the smooth barked apple (A Costata) and the brown stringybark (E Capitella). On page 58 the EIS references the document used to survey the site for koala habitat – this is ‘A review of koala tree use across NSW’ by the DPIE (2018). While this is a wonderful and in depth document by the DPIE, it does not list the smooth barked apple (A Costata) as a high use food tree in the KMA 2 area. It also lists the brown stringybark (E Capitella) as ‘irregular use’.

Contrary to what is listed on the DPIE ‘koala tree use’ document, Anyon-Smith and Kristensen (2021) demonstrate that in Healthcote National Park both the Smooth Barked Apple (Angophora Costata) and the brown stringybark are high or important use trees. This is particularly so for the smooth barked apple which along with the grey gum, had the majority of scratch marks, scats and koala sightings. The brown stringybark was used more in areas where there were no grey gums, brown stringybark use is documented through scratch marks and scats below the trees. What I am saying here, is that it is likely that the koala habitat on the proposed site is even more important to our local koalas than is recognised in the EIS.


* The EIS states that the swamp mahoganies on site (another primary koala tree) will be protected, but swamp mahoganies on their own are not an adequate food source for koalas, it is well documented that koalas need a variety of food trees, and they regularly go between different species to get their nutrients and keep their gut healthy. These particular swamp mahoganies are in close enough proximity to the trees at the proposed site, that it would be very reasonable to expect koalas in the area to be traveling between the bloodwood, grey gum, smooth barked apple trees, across to the swamp mahoganies and the supplementary trees of the swamp. This site has the benefit of multiple species of primary and secondary food use in close proximity, very important habitat that could directly impact koala ranges

*Endangered koalas exist in the area! The EIS survey found a probable koala scat, and our Hills-Hornsby Rural Koala Project maps show koala presence in the surrounding areas of the proposed site. Koalas are an endangered species and there is good evidence (presence, scat and habitat) to suggest that koalas are on this site or that this site is part of their range.

*Finally, I want to reiterate that the proposed dam is very troubling. The creeks are the life of the ecosystems in this area – ecosystems which include wombats, platypus, yellow bellied gliders and many vulnerable species. Water must not be stopped from flowing into them


*Offset Credits questions:
– why is Yellow Bloodwood only worth 286 credits when Red Bloodwood and Greygum are 536? Yellow Bloodwood is a high use koala food tree.
-Why are smooth barked apple and peppermint only 182? The importance of the smooth barked apple for koala habitat is mentioned above.
-Why are koalas not given an offset credit number on the EIS?


*Probable future sand mining (refer to figure 11 on EIS DLALC Landholdings)- Another concern is fear for how much the sand mining may extend in future as well, as the entire area below is rich in biodiversity and important habitat for endangered and threatened species.

The entire area along the Deerubbin (Hawkesbury) up to Canoelands, Maroota and beyond is rich in Dharug history. The proposed site has culturally significant sites according to the EIS. It is likely that the broader area in red below has far more.




*Final point - ENDANGERED, ICONIC Australian species exist on this site! The site impacts the waterways. These things cannot be replaced by an offset. The flora and fauna of this region are largely overlooked and highly biodiverse.
Can we find a way to work together to find a way that the owners of the proposed site can still make money, but that we keep safe our incredibly important biodiverse areas?

Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.
With trust and hope,
Lilly Schwartz
On behalf of Hills-Hornsby Rural Koala Project

There is no Pitt Town bypass built yet despite 40 years of waiting and promises every state election.
there are constantly accidents and the road is in a constant state of disrepair. More truck movements will only add to this.

See attached document titled Objection Submission - SSD 10410

I am objecting to the proposal to expand sandmining in Maroota. Firstly, as a landowner in Maroota, it is a disgrace that I was not informed directly rather than learning about this on google news. This reeks of a political coverup and is frankly another example of regular widespread governmental failure, all three! My objections include, but not limited to: 1. I am currently building a retirement home in Maroota, unfortunately reasonably close to the new proposed mining. We potentially face ruin if the value of our property is devalued due to this development. 2.At times, I can already hear noise from the existing mine. I object to additional noise and air pollution that will undoubtedly increase due to closer proximity to our property and poor controls by the operation. We cannot rely on P F Formation purchasing state of the art, noise dampened equipment, as they will undoubtedly cut corners for a 'least cost outcome' to the detriment of the locals. 3. I object to all setbacks noted and insufficient vegetation management plans, both need to be increased and improved. 4. ! object to the proposal to use excessive amounts of bore water that can potentially affect to Maroota aquifer. Also the plans for water treatment systems, with potential spills entering the Hawkesbury river, which is already silted up. Just review the sand spills at the intersection of Wisemans Ferry and Patricia Fay roads and this will indicate the future attention to detail and compliance . 5. The assumption that 20 Maroota locals will be employed is rubbish, there is no guarantee this will occur. 6. I don't believe there has been any successful rehabilitation carried out following sand mining, this still needs to be enforced, but when? 7. I see 2 aboriginal sites of importance are noted, does this mean the local land council is OK to destroy these for the sake of income? 8. There are endangered species on the site, which I assume cannot be relocated? Again, is it OK to destroy these or will common sense prevail? 9. The traffic management report indicates both truck routes are satisfactory, they are not! I note there are no stats presented to show the existing number of serious sand truck accidents, 3 of which occurred in the last 6 months? The movement statistics are also false and do not necessarily include sandstone log trucks, the report needs to be resubmitted with the missing statistics. Wisemans Ferry / Cattai road is totally unsuitable for the increasing size of sand trucks. There is no police presence or surveillance, sand trucks speed, intimidate, regularly cross centrelines. 10. All access roads need to be completely upgraded between the mine and Windsor/Castle Hill. 11. There needs to be an operational limit placed on the site to 5 days, 8 hours per day. 12. All landholders and stakeholders within the Maroota area need to be advised, consulted and involved in community meetings. There needs to be complete disclosure rather than orchestrated, misleading, secretive and selective information after the event! Further, the rapid increase in truck movements affects not only affects local people (noise is excessive already), but everyone on both major truck routes, both of which are extremely dangerous in their current form. How any reasonable thinking person can suggest the routes are satisfactory is farcical at best. Lastly, could I have confirmation the proposed development is within the original boundaries or if this is an extension? Regards.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to put forward my great concern regarding the submission that is for consideration.
My concerns include the effects that this mining will have to our quiet enjoyment, directly to the land, flora and fauna and environment around us, the health implications and also the potential significant decrease in value to our property.
Our property currently has more than 3 sand mines that function within DA guidelines located around us. Our property is a private residence, we do not run a business from our property in any way but do understand that part of the primary production zoning meant that sandmines were present and trading around us, as well as the crop farmers, meat works, heavy machinery plants etc. The sand mines form a large part of the noise pollution that effects the properties within proximity of the mines, with heavy machinery running for roughly 10 hours per day, minimum 60 trucks coming and going from each of the the sites and water transfer pumps can be heard throughout most nights. This noise will increase substantially, as will the volume of trucks using our main road which is a one lane road that supplies thoroughfare from Wisemans Ferry and beyond to South Maroota and beyond as one of only two access roads to Glenorie, Hornsby and the CBD of Sydney. The dust from these trucks and the extraction during differing winds may impact on our ability to capture drinkable water and with no other option available this is a major concern to local population.
The property that I live with my partner and four children backs onto the land that is earmarked to be used for sand mining in the near and long term future. The land that runs directly behind our property is virgin bushland and houses many protected and endangered flora and fauna, many of which i believe are recorded as being present in the areas set to be mined, such as endangered colonies of koalas, kangaroos and swamp wallabies, birds such as migratory wetland species , powerful owl, masked owl, feathertailed glider, as well as many endangered fauna species, some of which are only located in this area . The land that is under consideration also runs directly to the main ocean feeder being the Hawkesbury, with little accounted for how this will effect the river, the people that live along its edge and its infastructure. Maroota is very well known for its name as it means "much water" due to its many natural springs. It has also been documented that the land itself that will be mined is actually sand swamp forest, wetlands 88 and very specific to the area.
The loss of this land we believe will be devestating to the local area, which is iconic in its views showing virgin bushland from Old Northern Rd that spans uninterrupted right through to the base of the Blue Mountain and Hawkesbury River, one of the many reasons that we love where we live and that we, as well as many others, stand to lose. History has shown that the impact of the sand mines to the land they mine, is one that is long lasting, with regeneration processes falling short of supplying back an environment that resembles its original form.
For your consideration please.

We are strongly opposing this project on the grounds of:
No more trucks on Old Northern Road. There are far too many at present an extra 61 in 61 out is unacceptable. The road at presnt is a hazard (Multiple potholes make the road dangerous)
Noise/Air pollution - again more trucks, more dust.
Concerns with expansion once this is approved.
Value of property will decrease with additional trucks, noise, dust loss of bushland.

I am making this submission on behalf of Hawkesbury Environment Network who has recently participated in a study of 30 wetlands in the catchment of the Hawkesbury River in the LGA's of Hills and Hawkesbury. While Jackson Swamp was not included in this study, we know it to be a very significant freshwater floodplain. A REP-20 wetland.
A study of this swamp was conducted under the Natural Assets Assessments Project - Wetlands Study in May 2002.

We understand that the sandstone extraction project would sit above/impact Jackson Swamp open wetland with swamp forest dominated by Swamp Mahogany trees.
Open-water vegetation includes Eliocharis sphacelate and Ludwigia peploides; Reedland includes Phragmites australis; Sedgeland contains Juncus usitatus and at least 12 other species; Closed-scrub includes 2 species of Leptospermum; Swamp Woodland includes Meleleuca linariifolia, Eucalyptus robusta and more leptospermum.
This whole vegetation community is consistent with Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest (SCESF) which is listed as an ENDANGERED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY under TSCA.
Jackson Swamp is in good condition above River Road due to the exclusion of agriculture over a long period which allowed regeneration of wetland vegetation. Native species dominate with high floristic diversity.

Hawkesbury Environment Network urges the State Government not to allow the mining/extraction of sand in Maroota Forest. Preservation of the natural environment in areas surrounding and adjacent to many valuable wetlands in sensitive forests must be a priority of governments in 2022.

We would like to outline the following concerns in relation to this application “Maroota Friable Sandstone Extraction Project” (SSD-10410). For the reasons set out below we object to this proposal.
When we purchased our property in 2013 the land outlined in the above application was Crown Land. We made enquiries with Hills Council, Crown Lands Department and Department of Lands and purchased our property based on those enquiries and the understanding that the property was natural bush land and not mined or under any application. We feel it is unfair that our property, our investment, and most importantly our home will be negatively impacted by something that will take away from the natural beauty of the surrounding area our property looks upon and the reason we purchased our property in the first place. We are a family with young children and the proposed plans will have a significant and lasting impact on our family, our lifestyle and possibly our health.
We also raise the further concerns:

Road Traffic Noise and Safety

Wisemans Ferry Road and Old Northern Road are already very busy at peak times of the day and the proposed number of trucks accessing the site raises concerns around the affect this will have on vehicle noise and road safety and how this will be managed to minimise any effect on the community.
This application proposes a significant increase in truck movements, and will not only affect our home, and residents along Wisemans Ferry Road and Old Northern Road in Maroota but other surrounding areas such Glenorie and Pitt Town. Areas where traffic must travel along roads where schools and residentials communities are located.
Glenorie Public School has limited parking and cars must park along Old Northern Road, there are no other options. Suburban streets are already full and the one carpark located parallel to the school is overcrowded and unsafe during morning drop off and afternoon pick up periods. Old Northern Road is lined with cars during these peak times. The area is already quite dangerous during this time with so many cars passing the school where the road is only one lane each way with cars parked along each side. Increased traffic to this area especially trucks, will only add to an already congested area putting families safety at risk.

Dust

This is of great concern to us as we have young children who will be living in close proximity to the extraction site and we are concerned about any increased risk to their health.
We note that our property is already in close vicinity to two PF Formation sites on Wisemans Ferry Road and a Dixons Sands site is also located adjacent to our property and we are concerned about the impacts that an additional mining site will have on dust levels.
The site is a very vast area and we can not understand how the applicant can possibly control the dust on this site from impacting neighbouring properties. We have been told many times from other mining sites that areas will be watered down if it is a windy day but this simply does not happen on weekends or weekdays. We therefore can’t see how this site will be any different. How can the operator possibly tell residents that they can assure no dust will effect neighbouring properties. Will sprinklers be installed?? Will someone be hired to watch over dust 7 days a week? We would think not. So how would this be managed and not impact neighbouring properties.

Noise and Vibrations

We have serious concerns over the noise and vibrations that will be generated from processing equipment, loaders and other cutting machinery not to mention noise associated with the ongoing clearing of vegetation, disposal of vegetation and removal of sandstone via bull dozer or excavators.
Our property is in an elevated position and noise travels to our home where we can regularly hear the Maroota Public School bell and distant machinery from quarries which are located further than the proposed quarry outlined in this application. We can’t see how this proposed application will not affect us if we can already hear mining works from quarries twice the distance or more from our property than this proposed application.

Visual Impact

As noted above our property is at an elevated level and we currently have a pleasant, peaceful outlook and in addition to the noise concerns we are also concerned about any visual impacts this application will have on our outlook. It is not clear in this application if our outlook has been considered. It is noted in the application that access could not be gained to our property. This because the gates are locked and no attempt was made by the applicate to make a time to discuss visual impacts was made with us. What will be done to ensure we are not impacted negatively?

Mines in the Area

We note our property is already in close proximity to the Dixon Sand’s Heares Road site and two other PF Formation sites both on Wisemans Ferry Road. Our property is already exposed to noise and dust of all three quarries at close range any further mining sites will only increase our exposure and negatively affect ambience. We are concerned that this could make living on our property very uncomfortable and affect our lifestyle.

Wildlife

This corridor is also home to much wildlife including birds something we have had the pleasure of enjoying. It saddens us to think that this vast area of natural untouched bushland will now be destroyed on such a large scale. We often have wallabies and kangaroos come to our back fence that borders the land mentioned in your application. Their home will be now be destroyed.

We ask that all of the above issues are considered during your review process.

While supporting appropriate development within Pitt Town and the surrounding district, the Pitt Town Progress Association strongly objects to any development that increases traffic flow through Pitt Town and along Main Road 181 to McGraths Hill until the Pitt Town bypass, road shoulders and intersection upgrades are provided along Pitt Town Road between Mitchell Road and Windsor Road. There are currently more than 840 heavy vehicle movements per day (according to RMS survey), many of which are truck and dog combinations carrying sand for construction works throughout Sydney. These vehicle constitute serious safety issues, noise and pollution. The Pitt Town bypass, widened road shoulders and intersection upgrades were supposed to be delivered as part of the residential development of Pitt Town that commenced around 2008 and was covered by the 2006 Planning Agreement between the state government and the developer. There have been some intersection upgrades but the critical bypass and road shoulders remain undelivered. The safety of the Pitt Town community, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users must not be further jeopardised by increased heavy vehicle movements until all the above items of infrastructure are delivered.

I object to the project based on the following reasons:

- Noise and disturbance: There are already as significant number of trucks using Pitt Town Road/Bathurst Street creating a lot of noise
- Safety: Trucks frequently exceed the 60 km/ph speed limit which is dangerous
- Safety: Due to the increase of trucks there have been at least 2 accidents in the past 12 months, one in which a truck cause damage to a house.
- Noise and disturbance: Drivers use their exhaust breaks at all hours causing much noise and disturbance
- Traffic Generation: Further increase to the number of vehicles using Pitt Town Road/Bathurst Street will add to the congestion
- Road Access: Difficult for cars entering and exiting driveways
- Safety: There are no pathways to walk on and pedestrians currently use the road to walk, an increase in the number trucks will cause safety issue for pedestrians
- Health: Pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment, increased number will be harmful for residents of Pitt Town.
- Environment: Extraction of sandstone will cause irreversible ecological damage
- Archaeology: Cultural & Heritage should be addressed as a part of this project and Traditional Custodians (Darug) people should be consulted as a part of this project to ensure that this is not a significant site.

I do have CCTV footage which may assist in further investigations into the number or trucks currently using the road, if required.

The Pitt Town Bypass would address and remedy some, if not all of the above issues.