Response from Ms Prue Mansfield

On 25 November, we received the following letter from Ms Prue Mansfield in response to our letter of 19 November.

 

How Ms Mansfield could even think, let alone "believe" that she had "previously answered the other questions" we had raised actually beggars belief. We have never communicated before this exchange. 

She has ignored all and any questions regarding dust, noise, vapour, toxic water, dangerous trucks, pollution, smell, the Precautionary Principle, adverse amenity and so much more. 

Total evasion.

Works commenced on Lot 1 a week prior to those on Lot 2. No notice was provided for the commencement of works on Lot 1 which was not at that time on the Permit. This oversight was utilised by the DSDBI and EPA to allow Lot 1 preparatory works to commence prior to those on Lot 2 without the required monitoring. The conditions for Lot 1 from the VCAT decision are the same as those for Lot 2. Thus, the VCAT conditions were contravened. It may be a clerical error, but what is that indicative of? 

(This should not be a surprise. The original permit application situated the Splitters Creek Facility on Cochranes Rd, Costerfield, rather than the South Costerfield-Graytown Road.) 

At no stage does Ms Mansfield address the incremental expansion of the mine or even suggest that it is under consideration or has been addressed by Council.

We also asked to be provided with a copy of the EPA-Appointed Environmental Auditor's Certificate. 

Not forthcoming.

Total evasion.

We ask here once more for a copy of that Certificate as well as a copy of the Emerson Dispersive Test and a copy of the geotechnical testing performed on the clay in Lot 2 that is supposed, as per Condition 14 of the Permit, to be in Council's possession prior to works commencing there.

We also ask Ms Mansfield to provide us with a definition of a "rehabilitated pit". The Brunswick Tailings Dam has not been rehabilitated. If it had, there would be trees on top and no room for stormwater runoff to be stored.