Dear Don,

Outrageous mismanagement of our coastal environment

Yes, Council has known about the sand extraction and that it required development consent.

Sand extraction is also a designated development requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.

Boral were extracting sand at Belmont and was not required to restore their Belmont Site because BHP did not want them to.

This was revealed when we had to take Boral and the Port Stephens Council to task ten years ago for sand extraction without consent at Cox's Lane Fullerton Cove. (see Letter Attached)

They and the Council has claimed an existing use right which we were able to show was not in fact correct it took nearly five years of campaign work and we still has a lousy outcome.

You may recall we finally made them prepare an EIS and we took it to a public inquiry.

We wanted the commissioner to inspect Belmont so that the Inquiry could see at first hand what sand extraction would do to the pristine environment we had at that time around Cox's Lane.

Boral protested through their solicitors stating that they were not required by the BHP the owners of the land to restore the area.

I raised the matter of the enlargement of the area being quarried for sand at Belmont with the Council early last year and they were unable to find consent. Sally Croxton wrote it up in the Newcastle Herald.

The law makes a distinction between mining and sand extraction.

Mining comes under the Mining Act. and sand extraction is a quarrying operation controlled by the local council.

All miners had to register under a SEPP No ? I’ve forgotten and if they were to enlarge their operations they were required to prepare an EIS and seek consent.

What is happening at Belmont has been clearly unlawful since the SEPP was promulgated.

However they have just about destroyed all the restoration work that was ever done by the rutile miners in the sixties up to within 500 metres of the beachfront.

The operator has cleared another 3 hectares late last year at the southern end.

We should be calling for a halt to all unauthorised sand extraction still taking place and Furthermore demanding that the BHP pay to restore all the destroyed landscape caused by the sand extraction operations on their land that followed the restoration that had been done by the rutile miners.

The rutile miners were required by the mines department to restore the land after the mining had been completed but the Lake Macquarie Council has never required the sand extraction industry to restore anything after they have finished. They reduced everything to about a metre above the water table.

About one third of the BHP holding at Belmont is a bloody mess and BHP is the culprit in the first instance and the regulator (Lake Macquarie Council) for closing its eyes for twenty years.

The latest aerial photos show clearly the extent of the environmental destruction.

This letter below which was in reply to Cr Patterson Ncle Council sets out what has happened at Port Stephens.

Incidentally the absolute pristine area of the Bight is still being destroyed at an increasing rate.

Doug.

Sunday, 31 January 1999

The Editor Newcastle Herald
Bolton Street Newcastle

Dear Sir,

Industry Local Government & Environment

Matters raised by Elaine Patterson (Opinions NH 28/1/99) concerning Boral’s Stockton SandPit at Fullerton Cove need correction.

As a Local Government Councillor Ms Patterson should know that the Local Council is the Consent Authority and that Sand Extraction is a Designated Development requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.

None of the six bodies listed by Ms Patterson have the power to give consent.

It was the Council that allowed the development to proceed without environmental assessment or development consent. The Council closed its eyes to the destruction of the WWII Radar Station and to the unlawful removal of Crown Reserve No.170039.

Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd acquired the Fullerton Cove site in 1987 and because of the laxity of Council obtained an unfair advantage at the expense of the environment and the ratepayers.

Local residents had informed Council of the problems on many occasions.

All authorities including the Minister for Planning & Environment strangely failed to notice the development until we initiated proceedings through our solicitors, Environmental Defenders Office in October 1993.

However Council allowed the company to continue quarrying and the D A. and EIS was not submitted until December 1995.

The essential finding by the Commission of Inquiry (January 1996) was that the forested high dune be protected but this was deleted from the Development Consent given by Council in April 1996.

The Council’s part in allowing the development to proceed without valid consent was the subject of an Inquiry by the NSW Ombudsman who found Council’s conduct to be unreasonable on all counts.

The facts are documented in the Ombudsman’s Report (3/5/96) and in the Annual Reports to Parliament.

Councillors are ultimately responsible for their Council and should act ethically at all times.

Doug Lithgow. President.

Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc. Phone No.02 4943 1781

----- Original Message ----- From: Don Owers To: DOUGLAS LITHGOW Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:56 PM Subject: Re: Mining without consent.

Hi Doug,

It appears that we have run into the same problem that you had withstand miners. Apparently the bastards have been mining since 1993 without consent. Council knew about it because they (with BHP!) get a slice of the revenue. According to a lawyer at EDO, we have to check if the mining does need Development Consent -- if it's been going on for years and years it may not. If it started when the LEP did not require consent it may be able to continue at the Same Rate. Which of course we know has increased but can we prove that? Have you got any info from the battle with the mineral sand miners at Tomago?

Best for the New Year, its got to get better soon.

Don