Reply to Ms White Re Works Commencing At Splitters Creek

Yesterday Mr Colin Leask and Ms Pam King received this reply to their letter. As a community we have prepared the following response and post it here with Mr Leask's and Ms King's permission. 

A table detailing the current status of compliance with the VCAT Decision in King vs City of Greater Bendigo and the resultant, and obviously hastily compiled Planning Permit (there's an election coming up - or perhaps the Amendments to the Code of Practice come into effect - quick, rush it through!) can be found here. It's not a pretty sight.

***

Dear Ms White,

As a Community we have, of course, been privy to your answer to the recent email from Mr Leask and Ms King who thank you for your rapid response and with whom we have conferred and consulted in order to make this collaborative, community reply. 


On the very first page of the VCAT Decision regarding King v City of Greater Bendigo Council it specifically identifies the land that is subject to the decision. Note the Subject Land on this scan of the document.

Lot 1 became an issue when, as per Order 1 of the Decision:

By consent, the application is amended to provide for the pipeline to pass through Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 206672R rather than along the road reserve beside that lot.

 

That's correct. The original application drawn up and approved by your Department and City of Greater Bendigo Council, the mis-named Responsible Authority, had allowed for a pipe transporting waste water from the mine to the evaporation facility to run along a road reserve, but the direction hearing at VCAT prior to the full hearing, determined that it was a ludicrous thing to do. 

Still Council got it wrong.

(In case you did not know, the EPA didn't need to get involved too much because by pumping the toxic water through plastic piping from one place owned by the mine through Crown Land and along a road reserve to another place owned by the mine five kilometres away, it was deemed that said toxic water will not 'leave the site'. There should probably be a Pollution Abatement Notice applicable here. Or it shouldn't be allowed at all.)

   
So when the mine began "moving equipment", it wasn't onto the "freehold land next to their tenement, MIN5567" as you so disingenuously and ignorantly wrote in your reply. Rather, it was onto Subject Land - according to the VCAT decision. Here it is again:

Permit for "Use and Development". 

Your officers have drawn up the Work Plan and somehow forgotten to mention most of the Subject Land. If it had been run past the ERC as is supposed to happen, then undoubtedly one of the residents - who all seem to know more about this mine than all of you put together - would have picked up this glaring error and all of this angst could have been avoided.

The evaporation facility encompasses much more land than just Lot 2 according to VCAT, Ms White.

And the "Use and Development" have already commenced on the Subject Land. The mine is using the land already to store the earthmoving equipment for the project, and to do so they have commenced development; earthmoving works.

Earthmoving works that have not only contravened the explicit instructions in the King v City of Greater Bendigo Council VCAT decision, but have also generated unmonitored dust. 

We have been having a problem with dust out here, in case you hadn't heard; we reckon it's been caused by the mine's activities while the regulators looked the other way; oblivious. 
Why would we think that?

And at the same time, these works have potentially disrupted and interfered with the dust monitoring regime currently being conducted by Golder Associates for the 'whole of government' that we have been trying to have instituted for months!

Well done. 

Please advise us how to construct a dirt road in Costerfield without generating dust.

The fence was cut, a road was carved into the hill and a work pad sculpted out of the dusty soils to arrange the earthmoving equipment in the most intimidating manner possible before the already distressed residents of Costerfield. Does the mine have nowhere else to store its equipment?


Work has commenced on the Subject Land. Ask if chainsaws were used.

Please do try to keep on top of all the details. This is quite important to us.

What are you going to do about this most recent example of the continuing display of incompetence by your Department's officers?

Is dust monitoring equipment to be installed for the laying of the pipeline? What about for the inevitable heavy vehicle traffic along the South Costerfield-Graytown Road?

Of course, your Department can't be wholly to blame, because, as you say: "The City of Greater Bendigo is responsible for confirming compliance with the requirements of the planning permit as the responsible authority and their input is essential in DSDBI determining if the work plan and conditions are consistent with the planning permit and appropriate." 

Essential input from COGB... oh, that's just wonderful news.

 And the EPA is MIA again.

So everyone is at fault.

Just for a change.