An application for a 10-year approval for a quarry near Cooma, in the Snowy Monaro region, has failed. Photo: Google Earth.
A proposed new quarry in the Monaro region has been refused after a lengthy debate about its suitability.
Applicant Cooma Sand and Concrete Pty Ltd put forward plans with Snowy Monaro Regional Council (SMRC) for an extractive industry development (a quarry) on Middle Flat Road.
According to council documents, the quarry’s proposed site was about two kilometres east of Polo Flat, Cooma.
The site is currently vacant.
Rock and gravel would have been extracted, with a total of about 65,000 cubic metres over the quarry’s life, with the gravel crushed off-site.
During the discussion, Councillor John Rooney urged his councillors to accept what he called a “generally compliant” development, saying it would support construction projects and provide local jobs.
“If we can’t supply our own gravel and rock for building purposes, where does it come from, councillors?
“Well, it’ll come from adjacent or further afield regional areas – it’ll have to be trucked in at higher cost.”
The quarry was expected to operate for three to five years, though the applicant was seeking a 10-year approval.
Councillor Ruben Rose pushed back on the argument that it was “generally compliant”, pointing to concerns around inconsistency with the site’s zoning, increased traffic it would bring, the quarry’s long-term environmental impacts (including the need for land rehabilitation) and conflicts with nearby land users.
“We’d be very unwise to approve this, because all the requirements aren’t being met,” he said.
His traffic concern was also echoed by Councillor Bob Stewart, who said the road quality was a major concern.
“There is nothing there for the developer to upgrade the road up to a certain standard,” he said.
The meeting heard that road contributions were included in the draft conditions of consent.
“We have actually put that as a requirement [for the applicant to do if the development was to go ahead],” said general manager Noreen Vu.
The proposed quarry was planned for a site about 450 metres down Middle Flat Road, an unsealed road. Photo: Gunlake Quarry.
In her comments, Councillor Narelle Davis said the distance to nearby residential properties was simply too small and that the quarry’s operation risked noise and dust contamination to nearby properties.
“130 metres is not very far – that’s the equivalent to my back shed,” she said.
The council documents state that an exemption to the Development Control Plan was being sought because of the nearby dwellings (this includes a provision that would normally block any proposals where dwellings are within 500 metres).
After the staff recommendation – which was to approve the quarry – failed to pass, councillors turned their attention to a foreshadowed motion from Councillor Rose.
He called on SMRC to formally reject it on several grounds, including inconsistency with the site’s zoning, the presence of nearby dwellings and traffic concerns.
During the discussion, Councillor Tricia Hopkins said the nearby “houses are already there”, making conflict between land users in the area too big a risk.
“Whilst I can see there are a lot of merits in the proposal … at this stage, it would be foolish for council to approve the development,” she said.
Councillor Rooney argued that part of this motion, which described the development as inconsistent with zoning, was inaccurate.
He said the site’s zoning did allow extractive industries to occur.
“The quarry makes maximum value of the resource in the ground … By locking up the resource on that land, we are not making full value out of that resource,” he said.
He also pointed to the developer’s plan to level and revegetate the site once quarry operations finished, which would have made it “superior” to its current state.
The proposal was ultimately knocked back, after councillors unanimously voted on the foreshadowed motion.
