Links & Reference Information

There are numerous documents and resources that relate to Martins Creek Quarry past and present, below are a few links of information that provide detail on the current approvals, the NSW Land & Environment Court decisions against Daracon on current operations at the site, NSW Supreme Court appeal decision against Daracon, the recent extraction rates and MCQAG's public submissions opposing the proposed expansion plans.

 

This document contains the current Dungog Shire Council (DSC) 1991 consent conditions granted over the Western Pit (Lot 5 & 6) . The consent authorized the development of a quarry for the winning of material primarily for railway ballast, condition no.1 required that the development not to interfere with the amenity of the neighborhood. Condition no.6 limited transport by road to 30% (with the other 70% to be via the existing rail loading facility). Condition 7 required that all environmental safeguards proposed for the development are enforced.  

 

This document was lodged with the original development application by the land owner of Lot 5 & 6. The EIS comprehensively details the proposed quarrying operations and impacts associated with an operational scale of 24 truck movements per day and 300,000 tonne per year extraction from a proposed 5ha pit located within Lot 5. The EIS also includes proposed environmental safeguards at the site under chapter 4 many of which are being ignored by the current operator (Daracon). Our committee's view is that this document is incorporated into the 1991 consent via condition 7 in the DSC consent conditions. It is also MCQAG committee's view that any reputable corporate citizen would refer to this document to clarify exactly what parameters and operations were envisaged by State Rail and council as having been approved. 

 

In November 2016 Daracon moved a motion in the NSW Land & Environment Court in an attempt to delay the main proceeding brought by Dungog Shire Council against Daracon [Dungog Shire Council have commenced court proceedings to clarify the legality of operations at the site]. His Honor Justice Sheahan ruled in favor of the council and consequently the main court case was heard between February and April 2017. Of particular interest in Justice Sheahan's judgement were the following points he has noted during the hearing at par. 80 The respondents [Daracon] appear to not even accept the veracity of the community’s complaints, detailed in many affidavits from local residents and par. 127 that The current operation of the quarry is “larger”, in material respects, than it was in 1990 –1991, but any additional post-1991 impacts have never been assessed under the EPA Act and at par. 129 the present DA seeks is not a regularization of current operations, but approval to significantly expand them.

 

This link contains the MCQAG’s 2016 submission made to the NSW Department of Planning following the exhibition of Daracon's State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for the proposed expansion of Martins Creek Quarry. As detailed in Justice Sheahan's judgement above, Daracon's SSDA seeks not to regularize the current operations but seeks approval to significantly expand them. With the advice and input from experts in the fields of geology, planning, hydrogeology, acoustics & vibration, social impacts and law; MCQAG's submission states the case as to why the expansion proposal should not be allowed to proceed and highlights numerous errors and omissions from Daracon's exhibited EIS. 

  • NSW Land & Environment Court Judgement by Acting Justice Molesworth - Dungog Shire Council v Daracon

    This link contains the NSW Land & Environment Court judgement by his Honor Acting Justice Molesworth on the matter Dungog Shire Council v Hunter Industrial Rental Equipment (Daracon). This decision handed down on the 12th of October 2018 in favour of Dungog Shire Council with costs awarded. It confirms what residents and Dungog Shire Council have been saying for years that the Railcorp and now Daracon operations at the site are largely unlawful being operated contrary to the Environment Planning & Assessment Act. The judgement was noted as being the largest judgement in the court’s history owing to the number and complexity of issues argued in court. The judgement has done two things 1) when the orders come into effect in mid January 2019 the operations will be restrained in accordance with the 1991 consent conditions that apply to the site restoring rural and village amenity to many impacted residents and 2) The judgement confirms and clarifies what the lawfulness of current operations are and therefore confirms and clarifies what the base lines are for environmental assessments during the ongoing State Significant Development Application.

In May 2019 an appeal was made by Daracon in the NSW Court of Appeal regarding the Land & Environment Court decision made against them by Justice Molesworth in October 2018. This link contains the appeal which was largely dismissed by the Supreme Court Justices (unanimously) and now confirms that the current 1991 consent over the Western Lands did not permit the use of the western land for the purposes of extractive industry, otherwise than for winning material primarily for railway ballast, and that the purpose had not applied for some years and that “not greatly more than 30%” of the quarry products resulting from extraction on the western land were permitted to be transported by road, and that the existing operations were being conducted in breach of condition 6.

  • NSW Land & Environment Court Judgement by Justuce Duggan - Dungog Shire Council v Daracon

    This link contains the NSW Land & Environment Court decision made by Justice Duggan on an application made by Daracon to the Court in August 2019. By a Notice of Motion the application sought orders from the Land & Environment Court to modify Order 6 by extending the Stay previously granted in the NSW Court of Appeal for a further period of 12 months. In simple terms on the 20th of September 2019 Daracon is required to comply with the NSW Court of Appeal orders and consent conditions. Daracon was in effect asking the Court to grant a further extension (stay) of time to enable the quarry to operate outside the terms of the 1991 consent and earlier Court orders. The application was refused by her Honour.