Not even a last minute request by the developer to temporarily withdraw the application could sway councillors at their recent meeting. They voted seven to two to reject Figtree Reserve Trust’s bid for a basalt quarry in Curlewin Lane, off Tiyces Lane, 10km north of Goulburn. Rod Lang, a member of the Marianvale Action Group, hopes this is the end of the matter.

“He (the developer, Peter Miller) has three months to appeal it but I don’t think he will. That’s my gut feeling,” he said.

“Council got legal advice which confirmed our view that the quarry was a designated development (requiring state government assessment.

“He may rework his plans and resubmit but if he does, we’ll still fight it because it doesn’t comply with Council’s development control plan.”

Mr Lang said if the council hadn’t refused the development, his group had money set aside for a NSW Land and Environment Court appeal. The quarry would have extracted 181,900 cubic metres from the basalt pit and 30,000 cubic metres (about 60,000 tonnes) of gravel over its estimated seven-year life, generating 22 trucks daily.

The application was lodged with Council two years ago but has been delayed by submissions and the need for further information. Councillors last Tuesday weren’t prepared to wait any longer. Laterals Planning consultant Keith Allen, acting for Figtree Reserve Trust, asked the item be withdrawn in light of planners’ recommendation to refuse the proposal.

His client wanted more time to consider council legal advice, sought about the application’s merits. “We (councillors) have done a site inspection, we’ve asked for further information (from the developer) and it hasn’t been forthcoming,” Cr Andrew Banfield said.

“…This is an ongoing saga and surely if there’s extra relevant information, it should have been supplied by now. It’s affecting residents.”

‘Safe legal ground’

Council planners sought legal advice on the back of residents’ concerns, expressed in numerous submissions.

The Marianvale Action Group for one argued the planned quarry covered more than two hectares, making it a ‘designated development’ and triggering state government assessment and an environmental impact statement (EIS). The State must also assess the plan if it involves blasting.

While the company said it didn’t, industry sources and residents have doubted this statement. Secondly, the group maintained that Figtree Reserve Trust did not have authority to lodge the DA, given receivers and liquidators were appointed to Millerview Constructions Ptd Ltd, the land’s registered owners, in 2007 and 2008 respectively.

Bowral developer Peter Miller was a director of both companies, but not now, according to Mr Allen. The action group also argued the quarry was too close to homes and didn’t comply with Council’s own development standards regarding setbacks.

Legal advice tendered to Tuesday’s meeting confirmed, despite arguments to the contrary, that the quarry should be assessed by the state government, given the site area. Solicitors recommended Council seek further information on whether blasting would occur, which they had already.

The advice also revealed that while liquidators, as the land’s owners, hadn’t signed the original development application form, this was not fatal. But they had to consent to the making of the DA before it was determined.

“If the liquidators do not consent and do not respond by the time the DA is determined, then in our view, (Council) does not have the power to grant consent to the DA and it must be refused,” the advice stated.

Planning director Chris Stewart told deputy mayor Bob Kirk that the liquidators still hadn’t replied. It confirmed to Cr Kirk at least that Council was on safe legal ground in rejecting the quarry. But Crs Geoff Peterson and Nina Dillon urged caution, given the proponent could take Council to the NSW Land and Environment Court.

“For us to refuse this serves no purpose,” Cr Peterson told the meeting. “This may be encouraging a legal challenge when all we’re being asked to do is defer the matter.”

But the seven other councillors voted to refuse the DA on the grounds it was a designated development and that there was “insufficient” supporting information to permit a “full and proper assessment”. Mr Allen could not be reached for comment.