Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

Dear Sir,

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also the further progression of the mine proposal itself.

Besides the eye sore, the increased traffic, and rail services, the increased noise, the increased pollution to our air, the subsidence caused to land, and that the mined substance is being sold overseas and is not for local use, my main concern is to the damage to our local water ways.

Runoff from the proposed mine in the Jilliby and Dooralong Valleys will run directly into the natural water source that feeds the only water storage facility on the Coast. The water will be contaminated.

I previously lived on Tooheys Road, Bushells Ridge, and was bought out as the coal facility was due to be built there. I then moved to Crestwood Road, Jilliby, and have since moved from there, due to the real potential of mine subsidence and destruction to the local water supply. I now live on Budgewoi Lake. I understand that the proposal down the track is to use the Lake as a dumping ground for the mine debris. I do not want to have to move again. Stop the approval of the application, and allow the beautiful Central Coast to remain so.

If other countries such as France, Pacific Islands and now even China have recognised the damage caused by Coal mining, isn't it about time that Australia followed their lead, and showed countries such as Korea and the USA that coal mining is no longer the way forward for energy production.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. My reasons for objecting include:
* Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
* Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
* Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
* 5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"
* The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.
* The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.
* Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project
* Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven.
More broadly I am concerned that:
* Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated.
* Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
* The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Court and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW.
* Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Dept suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time

I have followed the progression of this Wallarah 2 Coal Project over 10 years and submit that it should not proceed. There are too many risk factors, as brought before Parliament since the proposal was first brought to light.

These key risks include (not inclusive): water table interference; noise and dust impacts on urban areas such as Blue Haven from storage activities and traffic movements generated; and, visual and traffic impacts over all of the project.

There are alternative sites available in NSW for coal mining that are not in an urban region (such as the Central Coast).

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD4974 Amended Development Application (Case 03733252)
Description:

This refers to your enquiry below:
Quote:
I wish to object to the current amended DA (ADA) on exhibition & also to
the further progression of the mine proposal itself.

Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee
precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. *Pm10 emissions
from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing
nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years*. BlueHaven
and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from
the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area
for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead
structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many
schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and
they will suffer from emissions from the site. Pm2.5 is not being assessed,
despite international studies showing these to be of greater significance
to human health concerns (Doctors for the Environment Australia,
Submission no 4 to Senate Community Affairs References Committee,
Parliament of Australia, Impacts on Health of Air Quality in Australia,
2013)
-
*Noise exceedences are admitted* to for "residences to the north of
Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those
living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

- Proposals to have an *air monitor *installed at Wyee have been
diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting
air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants
(pages 2 and 3) says *"Fugitive emissions can be expected during
operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance
of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"*
- The proponents own projections admit that the proposed mine will lead
directly to the deaths of 10-11 residents of the Central Coast per annum.
This is a huge impost on the local economy, health and welfare services in
an already underserviced region

This project needs to be approved for economic benefits to the area and state

I am writing in support of this project and understand that the environmental commitments can co-exist with a safe and responsible operating coal mine
Thank you

I wish to object to the current Amended Development Application (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself
* Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper.
* There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
* Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Dept suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time
* Noise excedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
* Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
* 5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"
* The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.
* Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated.
* The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.
* Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project
* Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven.
* The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Court and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW.

I support mining and the need to provide jobs for the community

I would like to submit my personal support for this project. Our state and indeed our country needs investment for our future and projects like this provide a solid platform for further development.

Local manufacturing, local suppliers from engineering design to component providers and indeed local communities all stand to benefit from such developments.

In addition this project will bring significant benefits to the local economy with many jobs being created.

I also have no doubt that this project will be developed in a responsible manner with due consideration to all factors.

As a local person who has been employed in the mining industry for almost 30 years I think it would be great to see the project go ahead.
The mine will bring direct long term employment opportunities for local people as well benefiting the suppliers of goods and services required to support an operating mine.
The small footprint occupied by the mine surface infrastructure and tight approval conditions limit any negative impacts.

Coal operated power stations belong to a by-gone industrial era when society didn't fully understand their insidious contribution to the direct decay to human health caused from coal dust, and the devastating impact on the environment and the flow-on consequences of raising global temperatures.
I strongly opposed the Wallarah 2 Coal Project and the amended application poses more of a threat to the quality of human health than the previous application. To transport coal in open containers within 200 metres of the Lake Haven community is totally immoral. Supposedly mitigating water vapour sprays will only evaporate quickly. Would you want your children to attend a child-care centre which cannot protect itself from coal particles in the air? Would you want to live in an area where there is no cessation of coal dust? Coal particles entering your lungs every time you breathe! Medical data easily connects respiratory problems to coal dust.
Just over ten years ago the Central Coast experienced a severe draught where residents were placed on extremely strict water restrictions, ie. Level 5, for a long period of time. Consideration was given to importing water because the Mangrove dam could not adequately supply the Central Coast residents with a basic supply of water. In 2009 a solution was achieved at a cost of $120million for a pipeline to extend from the Mardi Dam to Mangrove. The water from the Mardi Dam is the water that supplies the entire Central Coast.
The location of the proposed long wall coal mine is directly under the aquifers of the water catchment area for the Mardi Dam water supply. Where is the logic in doing long wall mining under critical aquifers? The risk of subsidence, no matter what preventive measures are implemented, cannot be guaranteed. Subsidence damage is irreparable! The Nepean River is proof of that. Loss of those aquifers will affect the entire projected fast growing Central Coast population. Three hundred thousand lives are at stake! The quality of drinking water affects human health!
Further, the State Government's economic forecast for royalities still doesn't add up. The capital infrastructure to build the water pipeline was $120million. Projected royalties may reach $200million (which doesn't take into account depreciation of coal prices as a global commodity as the drive for renewables increases). If subsidence does occur under the aquifers, then the $120million pipeline becomes inoperable and a new expense is on the table i.e. importing water for the Central Coast. It would leave very little change if any or possibly more debt! This would impact other public infrastructure and services delivered to the Central Coast community.
Finally, we are in an era where renewables are becoming extremely competitive and their take-up is rapidly increasing, not for the reason of enterprises ticking boxes to have desirable outcomes of recognition as socially responsible operators but because of coal energy is not economically viable. Attitudes on the pricing of carbon is very likely to gain momentum over the next few decades, which will further impact the economic running cost on a mine. Further decreasing the projections of royalities.
The consultant's MER states it will take 500 years before water levels in Jilliby and Wyong Creeks are returned to normal! Is there certainty that the South Korean Government will pay compensation for 500 years? Currently Kores has an Exploration Licence under the guise of Wyong Coal valued at $2. Liabilities are incurred by Wyong coal, therefore Kores can tactfully ignore long term compensation payments for the consequences of its operations. This leaves the State government to meet the expenses of health deterioration and environment degradation for the people of the Central Coast.
You have the opportunity to turn this around. You have the opportunity in the public interest to make a decision favourable to the health of the fast growing population, to the next generation playing in the school grounds, an opportunity to enhance the State's economy by not adding more burdens upon it, and you have an opportunity to protect our precious water in this dry continent and our environment. It is possible. It has already happened in the Liverpool and Northern Rivers regions. It is possible to exclude the Central Coast from the dire burdens of coal mining.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

I don't want my little children being subject to any Health risks by Coal Dust in the air or Water contaminations



The proposed mine:

*Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.


*Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.


*Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.


*Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

I don't want my 2 little children being subject to any Health risks by Coal Dust in the air or Water contaminations. This is detrimental to everyone's health

This also impacts Real Estate Prices in the area and this is penalising people already living here



furthermore the proposed mine:

*Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.


*Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.


*Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.


*Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised

We, Mannering Park Progress, wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. This mine has and is unviable without great and lasting environmental damage from polluting the Central Coast water supply to ruining people's lives, health and residences.

Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Is that really worth compromising the water supply and health of over 350 000 residents?

Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised. All Kores want, in our opinion, is the right to develop the mine then the next purchaser will do the real damage. Can't the Government see this will become a stranded asset as the need for coal becomes less and less. As we understand it, South Korea is moving to hydro and nuclear and getting out of coal to supply energy as quickly as they are able.

The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Couit and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW. This is unacceptable to our community and many others.

Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Department suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time, as if over 2m in areas isn't enough during the initial long wall mine phase.

Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site. Emissions of less than Pm 5 particles, the real killers, are not even measured.

Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern. This is not a reasonable burden for these people to constantly to suffer.

Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. The Office of Environment and Heritage have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear". Can the NSW Government shed some light on the situation please?

The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable, these both form part of the Wyong River catchment and hence feed in to the Coast's water supply.

The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds, fences pools etc are exempt from claims.

Wallarah 2 have continually failed to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project.
Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven which is believed to be 9 storeys in height.

In conclusion, given our previous submission's concerns are not adequately addressed, this just adds to the mine's inability to provide safeguards or any comprehensive plans to deal with all of it's multitudinous serious environmental problems. There is no number of 'conditions' that can be placed on this mine that could conceivably allow it to proceed with any hope that there won't be devastating and long term environmental damage. This development application should be rescinded and the NSW Government should buy back or extinguish the licence.

This project should be approved and proceed. The approval of this project will have a negligible environmental impact on NSW and the local area. The project will create sugnificant benefit to the state and local communiuty in both fiancial terms and jobs. The Central Coast needs opportunities for high skilled anfd long term occupations, that this project will deliver. To not approve this project would mean opportunities for wealth improvement and job satisfaction for a large number of young persons in the area will not be available. The lack of good job opportunities frequently leads to anti=social and criminal beahaviour.

I believe that this project should be approved because it has great benefit for the Central Coast and the state. After many years of diligent research and investigation and having already successfully been through a number of rigorous government and international enquiries there are no longer any negative impacts which should hinder its progress. If the government and the community want this area to prosper and have valuable investment and job opportunities on the coast this project needs to be approved immediately.

I am a local resident of Blue Haven.
I believe being in close proximity to a main highway and motorway and power station and concrete works and large electricity lines running right next to this densely populated area, we are already exposed to enough pollution and noise.The health of the people who live here is already at risk without further adding to that ,with this proposed coal mine.
I wish to voice my objection to the Wallarah 2 Coal Mine.
Surely with all the land in Australia ,there must be somewhere else not as close to this many people to put this?
Maybe one of the many Politician's who make these decisions ,need to have their family members come and live in Blue Haven and then this coal mine would definitely not go ahead.
Please do not do this to the Residents of Blue Haven.
Is there any chance ,we the Australian people can actually be heard ?
Is writing this just a waste of my time?
So ,if nobody cares enough,and the Wallarah 2 coal mine goes ahead and then the noise and pollution is toxic as expected, and people start to get sick and need to leave Blue Haven and then try to sell their houses but can't.......
Is the Government going to:

1. Be held liable for allowing the coal mine to go ahead in the first place?

2.Is the Government going to pay all the medical costs/compensation and relocation costs and buy all the residents houses for full market Value so the residents can then relocate to a healthier environment ,away from the Coal Mine?

Please care about our lives.
Stop this proposed Wallarah 2 Coal mine.

I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.
I have maintained this objection from the initial development application and can see no changes to the unacceptable environmental damage contained within the application.
Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life, as it is more than likely to become a stranded asset, of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated.
Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios. This puts a real question mark around projected figures for future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation, all of which have little hope of being realised. It appears South Korea has already moved on and is investing heavily in hydro and nuclear and moving away from coal.
The reason KORES really wants this development application to proceed is so that it can sell it to a new firm as a going concern. We should not assist the proponent by agreeing to this proposal, it is wrong on every count. It is not economically viable or environmentally sustainable.
As the NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Court and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW, so the community will never know if it would have passed a legal challenge.
Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Department suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time. Given, in places there is currently a 2.5m subsidence risk, further working would completely fail all residents, land and waterways.
Living on the Central Coast we have been very aware and subject to significant mine subsidence from old coal mines; the sinking of the head of the valley in Chain Valley Bay leading to a 25 year battle for rightful compensation by residents with the Mine Subsidence Board; widespread mine subsidence at Buff Point causing much damage; a whole house disappearing down a mine shaft in Catherine Hill Bay, damage at Nords Wharf. The list is extensive and ever growing. The Mine Subsidence Board is not acting in the best interests of those affected by this scourge.
The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Only the house itself is covered, while sheds, fences pools etc are exempt from claims.
Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Less than Pm5 particulate emissions are not even counted. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and loading hopper up to 9 storeys. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from the emissions from this site.
Noise exceedences are admitted to for, "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee", and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says, "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts."
5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. The Office of the Environment and Heritage have expressed concerns re the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear" . Will these semi-solid super salt saturated wastes change the whole ecology of the Tuggerah Lakes or unduly affect the Central Coast Water Supply?
The consultant's suggestion that, "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)", is unacceptable. Jilliby Creek is currently one of our cleanest creeks. This alone should ring enough alarm bells to stop this development application.
Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project. They have also failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven. We, the people directly affected demand transparency from Wallarah 2 and our Government. No deals behind closed doors, the right of appeal and the quashing of this development application.
The only way forward to protect our community, our air, water and the environment is to quash this development application and buy back the exploration licence. We implore the NSW Government to do this on our behalf.
Yours truly
Susan Wynn
24 Montrose Street
Mannering Park 2259
21.08.2016

I support this project as it will promote jobs and business opportunities.

I Think his project would be good for the area as hopefully it will employ some of the out of work miners