By Bonny Burrows
Residents against the planned Bunyip North Quarry feel “fobbed off” by the project’s final scoping documents which they argue ignored many “serious” community concerns.
The Minister for Planning has signed off on the controversial project’s final scoping documents following community consultation as part of an assessment process investigating the 34-hectare granite quarry’s environmental impacts.
The minister, Richard Wynne, in 2015 ordered that an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) to investigate these impacts should be completed before a decision could be made on Hanson Constructions’ plans for the quarry, which is planned for a Sanders Road site about 500 metres from local icon Mount Cannibal.
The recent consultation stage was local residents’ chance to voice any concerns regarding the controversial project, which would see Hanson extract an estimated 70 to 100 million tonnes of granite from the site over a period of about 80 to 120 years, and many took up the opportunity.
But despite more than 20 community submissions, as well as an extensive 24-page contribution from the Mt Cannibal and District Preservation Group (MCDPG), just 56 words were changed between the draft Environmental Effects Statement (EES) scoping document and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s final report, which was approved by Planning Minister Richard Wynne.
Mt Cannibal and District Preservation Group spokesperson David Bywater said it was upsetting to see that despite community members attending “pretty intensive” workshops with Environmental Justice Australia on how to craft their submissions, their concerns were “fobbed off” by the department.
“People are shattered, they really put everything into it,” Mr Bywater said.
“Our group’s 24-page submission carefully followed ministerial guidelines and made well-reasoned suggestions about elements that were missed or not clearly stated in the draft document, so it’s deeply disappointing to see just 56 words changed between the draft and final documents.”
Mr Bywater said there was “pretty much no significant material change” between the draft and final document.
“If it were 56 good words, we’d be happy, but they’ve completely disregarded our concerns,” he said.
As part of the MCDPG submission, its members requested a peer review – the appointment of an independent organisation to review the final EES document and determine whether it was fair.
“We’re just dumb farmers, we don’t think we have the ability to understand the technicalities and wanted an outside body to assist,” Mr Bywater said.
“But we didn’t get a guernsey, so now when it comes out we will quickly have to hire in people to review the document because it’s beyond us.”
The group also requested it have a community representative on the technical reference group “in light of Hanson’s history”.
“The community has lived in the shadow of this proposal for over 10 years with almost no consultation or information,” Mr Bywater said.
He said Hanson had “repeatedly made misleading statements and it is imperative that there is an opportunity to correct that as and when it occurs”.
“A lot of things put in there are ignorantly wrong or deliberately wrong,” Mr Bywater said.
He said the environmental impact assessment process was broken.
“To re-engage with the community, residents must have representation on the Technical Reference Group,” Mr Bywater said.
Environment Justice Australia (EJA), which received State Government funding to help local residents make submissions to the scoping guidelines, said the community had every right to be upset with the guidelines approved by the Planning Minister.
“People engaged in this process constructively and in good faith and they have been almost completely ignored,” EJA lawyer Brendan Sydes said.
He said the minister owed it to his department to explain how the community could have any confidence in a process “when the things they want to see considered seem to have been ruled out from the start”.
“Why would anyone engage in a deeply flawed process that seems to be geared toward delivery the tick of approval for Hanson and its quarry?” Mr Sydes said.
“To be respected, public environmental impact assessment processes need to be fair and the views of the local community must be heard, otherwise people feel shut out and ignored.”
A State Government spokesperson said all submissions made during the draft scoping requirements would be provided to the proponent, so that they understand what needs to be addressed by an EES.
“The proponent must give due regard to any matters raised in submissions as they prepare the EES,” the spokesperson said.
“Importantly, the public will have another chance to provide their views once the final EES is exhibited.”
Hanson Constructions was contacted by the Gazette but declined to comment.
