Quarry concerns

Like so many others, I was shocked and devastated by the approval reported in last week’s paper.

It appears that the concerns of council, environmental groups, the Wettenhall Report on the dangers to Western Port and the community have been disregarded.

However, I was not surprised. We were up against it from the start. The applicant was preparing the application and organising expert witnesses for many months. The public had about two weeks to access complex information online and submit objections to council.

Before council had the chance to consider those objections, the Minister ‘called in’ the application, at the request of the applicant, and referred the matter to an independent planning panel.

Council then had to spend time and money preparing its position and hiring legal advice. The proponent had a barrister and a raft of ‘experts’ supporting its proposal. Relevant council policies were discounted on a technicality as they had not yet been incorporated into the Planning Framework so could not be considered.

Objectors were eligible to speak at the public hearings but several were openly scorned by the barrister for not having any expertise to back up our submissions! We had no ‘experts’ to counter those of the proponent.

The panel’s report to the Minister found the natural vegetation corridor (biolink) was likely to be ‘irreversibly damaged’ by clearing and that ‘ongoing connectivity’ was ‘critical’. This was our bottom line – to save that biolink. However, the Minister seems to have disregarded that too.

The panel concluded that, ‘There is a direct tension particularly between policies relating to extractive industries and native vegetation’.

A government spokesperson is quoted in your article as saying: ‘The final approval was shaped by community feedback, with protections in place to ensure we can maintain access to these vital resources without compromising the environment’.

Weasel words! What does ‘shaped’ mean? I don’t see any of the changes I wanted. ‘Vital resources?’ Maybe, but they don’t have to come from that particular place. ‘Compromising the environment’? Complete and utter destruction would be more accurate, with at least 40 years before it can be ‘rehabilitated’. Good luck with that!

This whole legalistic process is weighted in favour of proponents with deep pockets. Although the planning panel appears to have been sympathetic to some of our objections, it was constrained by its terms of reference and the current legislative/regulatory planning framework.

We were up against it all the way through. A friend reminded me, ‘After all, it is called the ‘approvals process’. The chances of protecting any remnant vegetation under the current planning regime are remote and the changes suggested via the DAL process are unlikely to help. Shame on you, Mr Wynne. What a legacy to leave as you retire.

Anne Heath Mennell, Tenby Point.

Editor: Shortened due to space.