Meander Valley Council Agenda - 18 August 2018

ORDINARY AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday 14 August 2018

COUNCIL MEETING VISITORS
Visitors are most welcome to attend Council meetings.
Visitors attending a Council Meeting agree to abide by the following rules:-
 Visitors are required to sign the Visitor Book and provide their name and full
residential address before entering the meeting room.
 Visitors are only allowed to address Council with the permission of the
Chairperson.
 When addressing Council the speaker is asked not to swear or use

threatening language.
 Visitors who refuse to abide by these rules will be asked to leave the meeting
by the Chairperson.
SECURITY PROCEDURES
 Council staff will ensure that all visitors have signed the Visitor Book.
 A visitor who continually interjects during the meeting or uses threatening

language to Councillors or staff, will be asked by the Chairperson to cease
immediately.
 If the visitor fails to abide by the request of the Chairperson, the Chairperson
shall suspend the meeting and ask the visitor to leave the meeting
immediately.
 If the visitor fails to leave the meeting immediately, the General Manager is
to contact Tasmania Police to come and remove the visitor from the building.
 Once the visitor has left the building the Chairperson may resume the
meeting.
 In the case of extreme emergency caused by a visitor, the Chairperson is to

activate the Distress Button immediately and Tasmania Police will be called.
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 2

PO Box 102, Westbury,
Tasmania, 7303
Dear Councillors
I wish to advise that an ordinary meeting of the Meander Valley Council will be
held at the Westbury Council Chambers, 26 Lyall Street, Westbury, on Tuesday 14
August 2018 at 1.30pm.
Martin Gill
GENERAL MANAGER

Table of Contents
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: .................................................................................................................5
COUNCIL WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE THE LAST MEETING: ............................................................5
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR: .....................................................................................................6

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: ..................................................................................................................6
TABLING OF PETITIONS: ..............................................................................................................................6

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ..............................................................................................................................7
COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME .................................................................................................................9

DEPUTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC .................................................................................. 10
NOTICE OF MOTIONS BY COUNCILLORS .......................................................................................... 10

C&DS 1 61 VETERANS ROW, WESTBURY - SUBDIVISION (2 LOTS) ....................................... 12
C&DS 2 432 WESTBURY ROAD, PROSPECT VALE - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING

AND OUTBUILDING ...............................................................................................................125
C&DS3 1240 WEEGENA ROAD AND LAND OFF BEAUMONTS ROAD, DUNORLAN -
EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................151
C&DS 4 DELORAINE & DISTRICTS RECREATION PRECINCT FEASIBILITY STUDY ............743

GOV 1 POLICY REVIEW - NO. 1 RISK MANAGEMENT .............................................................765
CORP 1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW .........................................................771

INFRA 1 STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENT REVIEW & IMPLEMENTATION ..................788
INFRA 2 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ...................................797

INFRA 3 REVIEW OF BUDGETS FOR THE 2018-2019 CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM ........799
ITEMS FOR CLOSED SECTION OF THE MEETING: ....................................................... 805

GOV 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ..........................................................................................805
GOV 3 LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...............................................................................................................805

Evacuation and Safety:
At the commencement of the meeting the Mayor will advise that,
 Evacuation details and information are located on the wall to his right;
 In the unlikelihood of an emergency evacuation an alarm will sound and evacuation wardens
will assist with the evacuation. When directed, everyone will be required to exit in an orderly
fashion through the front doors and go directly to the evacuation point which is in the car-
park at the side of the Town Hall.
Agenda for an Ordinary Meeting of the Meander Valley Council to be held at the
Council Chambers Meeting Room, 26 Lyall Street, Westbury, on Tuesday 14 August
2018 at 1.30pm.
PRESENT:
APOLOGIES:
IN ATTENDANCE:
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:
Councillor xx moved and Councillor xx seconded, “that the minutes of the

Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Tuesday 10 July, 2018, be received and
confirmed.”
COUNCIL WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE THE LAST MEETING:
Date : Items discussed:
24 July 2018  Proposed Sale of Anglican Church Properties

 TasCOSS Poker Machine Reform
 LGAT General Meeting – Items for Decision
 Deloraine & District Recreation Feasibility Study
 Development Plan Strategic Project Implementation
 Swimming Pool Management
 Youth Workshop

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR:
Tuesday 10 July 2018

Blackstone Heights Community news AGM
Wednesday 11 July 2018

NAIDOC Week celebrations
Tuesday 24 July 2018

Council Workshop
Annual Youth Liaison workshop
Wednesday 25 July 2018

LGAT AGM and General Meeting
Thursday 26 July 2018

LGAT Annual Conference
Friday 27 July 2018

LGAT Annual Conference
Wednesday 8 August 2018

Westbury Recreation Ground information session
Thursday 9 August 2018

TasWater owners Quarterly and regional briefing
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:
TABLING OF PETITIONS:

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
General Rules for Question Time:
Public question time will continue for no more than thirty minutes for ‘questions on notice’ and
‘questions without notice’.
At the beginning of public question time, the Chairperson will firstly refer to the questions on notice.
The Chairperson will ask each person who has a question on notice to come forward and state their
name and where they are from (suburb or town) before asking their question(s).
The Chairperson will then ask anyone else with a question without notice to come forward and give
their name and where they are from (suburb or town) before asking their question.
If called upon by the Chairperson, a person asking a question without notice may need to submit a
written copy of their question to the Chairperson in order to clarify the content of the question.
A member of the public may ask a Council officer to read their question for them.
If accepted by the Chairperson, the question will be responded to, or, it may be taken on notice as a
‘question on notice’ for the next Council meeting. Questions will usually be taken on notice in cases
where the questions raised at the meeting require further research or clarification. These questions
will need to be submitted as a written copy to the Chairperson prior to the end of public question
time.
The Chairperson may direct a Councillor or Council officer to provide a response.
All questions and answers must be kept as brief as possible.
There will be no debate on any questions or answers.
In the event that the same or similar question is raised by more than one person, an answer may be
given as a combined response.
Questions on notice and their responses will be minuted.
Questions without notice raised during public question time and the responses to them will not be
minuted or recorded in any way with exception to those questions taken on notice for the next
Council meeting.
Once the allocated time period of thirty minutes has ended, the Chairperson will declare public
question time ended. At this time, any person who has not had the opportunity to put forward a
question will be invited to submit their question in writing for the next meeting.
Notes
 Council officers may be called upon to provide assistance to those wishing to register a
question, particularly those with a disability or from non-English speaking cultures, by typing
their questions.
 The Chairperson may allocate a maximum time for each question, depending on the
complexity of the issue, and on how many questions are asked at the meeting. The
Chairperson may also indicate when sufficient response to a question has been provided.

 Limited Privilege: Members of the public should be reminded that the protection of
parliamentary privilege does not apply to local government, and any statements or discussion
in the Council Chamber or any document, produced are subject to the laws of defamation.
For further information please telephone 6393 5300 or visit www.meander.tas.gov.au
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
1. PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE – JULY 2018
1.1 Mr Frank Nott, Prospect Vale
a) From page 33 of the Budget could I be provided with details on the $216,000
indicated for ongoing costs from 17-18 for –
i. Depreciation
ii. Operations
iii. Maintenance
Response by Jonathan Harmey, Director Corporate Services

Page 33 in the question relates to the July 2018 Council agenda related to item
CORP 1, 2018-19 Budget Estimates, Long Term Financial Plan and Rating
Recommendation. The $216,000 refers to the advice provided to Council in the
May 2017 agenda item INFRA 3, Capital Works Program 2017-18 where the
financial impact of delivering the new and upgraded assets in the program was
anticipated to result in an ongoing increase (each year) in depreciation,
operation and maintenance estimated to be $216,000 per annum. The details of
which are ongoing Depreciation of $78,000 Operating, Maintenance and
Ownership costs of $138,000.
b) With the revenue that is lost (discontinued 278k Tas Water dividends and 43k
NRM –
i. How was this revenue used?
ii. Does Council still need to continue doing it?
Response by Jonathan Harmey, Director Corporate Services

The question relates to two externally provided revenue sources that Council
has been advised will no longer be received as of 1 July 2018.
The Board of TasWater determined that commencing 1 July 2018 it will reduce
and freeze annual distributions to Owner Councils. The removal of one third of
Meander Valley’s shareholder distribution results in a $278,000 reduction of
recurrent revenue to Council from 2018-19. This revenue was contained in the
unallocated function where it is not tied to a specific service Council provides to
the community. It was used in the same manner as general rates whereby are

subsidised those services that run at a net loss to Council such as Stormwater,
Roads and Bridges.
NRM determined that commencing 1 July 2018 it will discontinue all facilitator
support for NRM activities resulting in a $43,000 reduction of recurrent revenue
to Council from 2018-19. This revenue was used to fund NRM (Natural Resource
Management) activities that deliver on the Meander Valley Council NRM
Strategy and support the NRM committee. The expenditure of some NRM
activities have been reduced for 2018-19 following the removal of this funding.
Council considered that this is a service that is valued by the community and
services will continue to be provided.
1.2 Mr Malcolm Eastley, Deloraine
Have the Mayor and Manager passed onto Councillors the concerns raised by small
businesses at meetings with TasWater?
Response by Martin Gill, General Manager

Yes we have
2. PUBLIC QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE – AUGUST 2018
Nil
3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – AUGUST 2018
COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME
1. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE – JULY 2018
1.1 Cr John Temple
Could Council be updated on the steps that are being taken to provide free camping
in the Meander Valley for the upcoming tourist season?
Response by Lynette While, Director Community & Development Services

At the moment we are waiting for the response from the review by the State
Government of the National Competition Policy. This is expected around late
August. On receipt of this information, we would consider the next steps
regarding provision of camping by Council.

2. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE – AUGUST 2018
2.1 Cr Deb White Question
In the July Council meeting agenda, the GM answered a question from Karen Hillman
of MARRA about the proposed Meander Falls Road, saying that the Premier had
turned down the request for co-funding in writing.
Was the correspondence from the Premier included in Council correspondence

forwarded to Councillors, and if not, could it be included the next correspondence
forwarded to Councillors?
Response from Martin Gill, General Manager

The letter from the Premier was included in the weekly elected member
correspondence briefing paper for the week ending 25 May 2018.
3. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – AUGUST 2018
DEPUTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
NOTICE OF MOTIONS BY COUNCILLORS
Nil

CERTIFICATION
“I certify that with respect to all advice, information or recommendation provided to

Council with this agenda:
1. the advice, information or recommendation is given by a person who has the

qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or
recommendation, and
2. where any advice is given directly to Council by a person who does not have
the required qualifications or experience that person has obtained and taken
into account in that person’s general advice the advice from an appropriately
qualified or experienced person.”
Martin Gill
GENERAL MANAGER
“Notes: S65(1) of the Local Government Act requires the General Manager to
ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the Council (or a
Council committee) is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience
necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation. S65(2) forbids
Council from deciding any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person
without considering that advice.”
COUNCIL MEETING AS A PLANNING AUTHORITY
The Mayor advises that for items C&DS 1 to C&DS 3 Council is acting as a Planning
Authority under the provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

C&DS 1 61 VETERANS ROW, WESTBURY - SUBDIVISION (2
LOTS)
1) Introduction
This report considers application PA\18\0256 for Subdivision (2 lots) on land

located at 61 Veterans Row, Westbury (CT: 248138\1).
2) Background
Applicant
D J McCulloch Surveying
Planning Controls
The subject land is controlled by the Meander Valley Interim Planning

Scheme 2013 (referred to in this report as the ‘Scheme’).
Use & Development
This application proposes to subdivide an existing residential property into

two (2) titles suitable for a residential use. Lot 1 will be 4000m 2 in area and
will contain the existing single dwelling and outbuildings. Lot 2 will be a
vacant, internal lot with an area of 5700m2. An indicative plan of the
proposed subdivision is included below, with greater detail of the proposal
included in the attached documents.

Figure
1: plan of subdivision (D J McCulloch Surveying, 2018)
Site & Surrounds
The subject title is located within the residential area of Westbury and
includes a single dwelling and a number of associated outbuildings in the
south-west corner. A hawthorn hedge fronts much of the property,
continuing along the north side boundary and crossing the property behind
the existing house. The remainder of the title is vacant and largely clear of
vegetation.
The neighbouring title to the north is currently vacant. The titles to the east,
south and west all contain single dwellings.

Subject Title
Photo 1: aerial photo of subject title and surrounding land
Photo 2: frontage of 61 Veterans Row, showing the existing dwelling and

hawthorn hedge

Photo 3: existing dwelling at 61 Veterans Row
Photo 4: land to the rear of the existing dwelling, largely comprising

proposed Lot 2
Statutory Timeframes
Date Received: 28 June 2018

Request for further information: Not applicable
Information received: Not applicable
Advertised: 7 July 2018

Closing date for representations: 23 July 2018
Extension of time granted: 26 July 2018
Extension of time expires: 15 August 2018
Decision due: 14 August 2018
3) Strategic/Annual Plan Conformance
Council has a target under the Annual Plan to assess applications within
statutory timeframes.
4) Policy Implications
Not applicable.
5) Statutory Requirements
Council must process and determine the application in accordance with the
Land Use Planning Approval Act 1993 (LUPAA) and its Planning Scheme. The
application is made in accordance with Section 57 of LUPAA.
6) Risk Management
Risk is managed by the inclusion of appropriate conditions on the planning

permit.
7) Consultation with State Government and other Authorities
The application was referred to TasWater. A Submission to Planning

Authority Notice (TWDA 2018/01105 - MVC) was received on 10 July 2018
(attached document).
8) Community Consultation
The application was advertised for the statutory 14-day period.
Five (5) representations were received (attached documents). One (1)

representation is in the form of a petition and includes 69 additional names.
The representations are discussed in the assessment below.
9) Financial Impact
Not applicable.
10) Alternative Options
Council can either approve the application with amended conditions or

refuse the application.

11) Officers Comments
Zone
The subject property is located in the Low Density Residential Zone. The land
surrounding the site is located in the Low Density Residential Zone
Subject Title
Low Density
Residential Zone
Figure 2: zoning of the subject title and surrounding land
Use Class
Table 8.2 of the Scheme, categorises the proposed use class as:
 Residential
A Residential use is specified in Section 12.2 – Low Density Residential Use Table as
being No Permit Required. Subdivision, however, is subject to Performance Criteria,
making it Discretionary.
Applicable Standards
This assessment considers all applicable planning scheme standards.
In accordance with the statutory function of the State Template for Planning
Schemes (Planning Directive 1), where use or development meets the
Acceptable Solutions it complies with the planning scheme, however it may
be conditioned if considered necessary to better meet the objective of the
applicable standard.

Where use or development relies on performance criteria, discretion is
applied for that particular standard only. To determine whether discretion
should be used to grant approval, the proposal must be considered against
the objectives of the applicable standard and the requirements of Section
8.10.
A brief assessment against all applicable Acceptable Solutions of the Low

Density Residential Zone and Codes is provided below. This is followed by a
more detailed discussion of any applicable Performance Criteria and the
objectives relevant to the particular discretion.
Compliance Assessment
The following table is an assessment against the applicable standards of the

Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
Low Density Residential Zone

Scheme Standard Comment Assessment
12.3.1 Amenity
A1 If for permitted or no permit The lot is Complies
required uses. intended to be
used for a
residential use.
This is a
permitted use in
the Low Density
Residential Zone.
A2 Commercial vehicles for Not applicable
discretionary uses must only
operate between 7.00am and
7.00pm Monday to Friday
and 8.00am to 6.00pm
Saturday and Sunday.
12.4.3.1 General Suitability

A1 No Acceptable Solution No Acceptable Relies on
Solution Performance
Criteria
12.4.3.2 Lot Area, Building Envelopes and Frontage
A1 Each lot must: The Acceptable Relies on
Solution for lot Performance
a) have a minimum area
in accordance with size in the Criteria
Westbury Low
Table 12.4.3.1; and

a) be able to contain a 35 Density
metres diameter circle Residential Area
with the centre of the is 5000m2.
circle not more than 35 Proposed lot 1 is
metres from the 4000m2 in area.
frontage; and
b) have new boundaries Due to its internal
aligned from buildings nature, Lot 2 does
that satisfy the relevant not contain a
acceptable solutions for 35m diameter
setbacks; or circle within 35m
c) be required for public of the frontage.
use by the Crown, a an
agency, or a The proposed
corporation all the new boundaries
shares of which are are setback from
held by Councils or a the existing
municipality; or buildings on Lot 1
d) be for the provision of a sufficient
public utilities; or distance to
e) for the consolidation of comply with the
a lot with another lot Acceptable
with no additional titles Solutions for
created; or setbacks (3m
g) to align existing titles from the side
with zone boundaries boundaries and
and no additional lots 5m from the rear
are created. boundaries).
A2 Each lot must have a The proposed Complies

frontage of at least 4 metres. lots both have a
frontage greater
than 4m.
A3 Each lot must be connected The proposed Relies on
to a reticulated: lots are not Performance
connected to a Criteria
a) water supply; and
reticulated water
b) sewerage system.
or sewage
system.
A4 Each lot must be connected The proposed Relies on
to a reticulated stormwater lots will not be Performance
system. connected to a Criteria
reticulated

stormwater
system.
Bushfire-Prone Areas Code

E1.6.1 Subdivision: Provision of hazard management areas
A1 (a) TFS or an accredited The application Complies
includes a
person certifies that there
bushfire hazard
is an insufficient increase
management
in risk from bushfire to
plan prepared by
warrant the provision of
hazard management areas a suitably
as part of a subdivision; or qualified person.
Certified insufficient
The bushfire
increase in risk; or
hazard
(b) The proposed plan of management
subdivision: plan certifies:
(i) shows all lots that -that there is
are within or insufficient risk in
partly within a relation to Lot 1
bushfire-prone to warrant
area, including specific measures.
those developed As such the
at each stage of a development
staged complies with
subdivision; standard A1 (a).
(ii) shows the
building area for -that Lot 2
each lot; provides a
(iii) shows hazard building area with
management BAL 19 in
areas between accordance with
bushfire-prone standard A1 (b).
vegetation and
each building
area that have
dimensions equal
to, or greater
than, the
separation
distances
required for BAL

19 in Table 2.4.4
of Australian
Standard AS 3959
– 2009
Construction of
buildings in
bushfire-prone
areas; and
(iv) is accompanied
by a bushfire
hazard
management plan
that addresses all
the individual lots
and that is
certified by the
TFS or accredited
person, showing
hazard
management
areas equal to, or
greater than, the
separation
distances
required for BAL
19 in Table 2.4.4
of Australian
Standard AS 3959
– 2009
Construction of
buildings in
bushfire-prone
areas; and
(c) If hazard management
areas are to be located on
land external to the
proposed subdivision the
application is
accompanied by the
written consent of the
owner of that land to enter
into an agreement under
section 71 of the Act that

will be registered on the
title of the neighboring
property providing for the
affected land to be
managed in accordance
with the bushfire hazard
management plan.
E1.6.2 Subdivision: public and fire fighting access

A1 (a) TFS or an accredited The bushfire Complies
person certifies Certified hazard
Bushfire Hazard management
Management Plan; or plan certifies:
(b) A proposed plan of -that there is
subdivision showing the insufficient risk in
layout of roads, fire trails relation to Lot 1
and the location of to warrant
property access to specific measures.
building areas is included As such the
in a bushfire hazard development
management plan that: complies with
(i) demonstrates proposed standard A1 (a).
roads will comply with Table
E1, proposed private -that the access
accesses will comply with to Lot 2 complies
Table E2 and proposed fire with Tables E1, E2
trails will comply with Table and E3 and as
E3; and such complies
(ii) is certified by the TFS or with A1 (b).
accredited person.
E1.6.3 Subdivision: Provision of water supply for fire fighting purposes
A1 In areas serviced with Not applicable
reticulated water by
the water corporation…
A2 In areas that are not serviced The bushfire Complies

by reticulated hazard
water by the water management
corporation: plan certifies:
(a) The TFS or an accredited -that there is
person certifies that there insufficient risk in
is an insufficient increase relation to Lot 1
in risk from bushfire to to warrant

warrant provision of a specific measures.
water supply for fire As such the
fighting purposes; development
(b) The TFS or an accredited complies with
person certifies that a standard A2 (a).
proposed plan of
subdivision demonstrates -that the static
that a static water supply, water supply
dedicated to fire fighting, prescribed for Lot
will be provided and 2 complies with
located compliant with Tables E5 and as
Table E5; or such complies
(c) A bushfire hazard with the standard
management plan certified A2 (b).
by the TFS or an
accredited person
demonstrates that the
provision of water supply
for fire fighting purposes
is sufficient to manage the
risks to property and lives
in the event of a bushfire.
Recreation and Open Space Code

E10.6.1 Provision of Public Open Space
A1 The application includes The General Complies
consent in writing from the Manager has
General Manager that no provided consent
land is required for public for a cash
open space but instead there payment in lieu
is to be a cash payment in of public open
lieu. space.
Road and Railway Assets Code

E4.6.1 Use and road or rail infrastructure
A1 Sensitive use within 50m of a Not applicable
category 1 or 2 road with a
speed limit of more than
60km/h, a railway or future
road or railway, does not

increase the annual average
daily traffic movements by
more than 10%.
A2 For roads with a speed limit The proposed Complies

of 60km/h or less the use development is
must not generate more for a residential
than 40 movements per day. subdivision. Each
lot will generate
less than 10
vehicle
movements in
accordance with
the New South
Wales Roads and
Traffic Authority
Guide to Traffic
Generating
Development.
A3 For roads with a speed limit Not applicable
of more than 60km/h the use
must not increase the annual
average daily traffic
movements by more than
10%.
E4.7.2 Management of Road Accesses and Junctions

A1 For roads with a speed limit Lot 2 includes Complies
of 60km/h or less the only one access.
development must include Lot 1 will use the
one access providing both existing access.
entry and exit, or two
accesses providing separate
entry and exit.

of more than 60km/h the
development must not
include a new access or
junction.

E4.7.4 Sight Distance at Accesses, Junctions and Level Crossings
A1 Sight distances at More than 200m Complies
direct sight
a) an access or junction
distance is
must comply with the
available to the
Safe Intersection Sight
north and south
Distance shown in
of the access.
Table E4.7.4; and
b) rail level crossings
must comply with
AS1742.7; or
c) If the access is a
temporary access, the
written consent of the
relevant authority has
been obtained.
Car Parking and Sustainable Transport Code

6.6.1 Car Parking Numbers
A1 The number of car parking Two existing Complies
spaces must not be less than parking spaces
the requirements of: will be retained
a) Table E6.1; or with the existing
b) a parking precinct plan. dwelling. There is
sufficient space
on Lot 2 to
accommodate
the parking
required for a
single dwelling.
Performance Criteria
Low Density Residential Zone

Objective
The division and consolidation of estates and interests in land is to create lots
that are consistent with the purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone.

Performance Criteria P1
Each new lot on a plan must be suitable for use and development in an
arrangement that is consistent with the Zone Purpose, having regard to the
combination of:
a) slope, shape, orientation and topography of land;
b) any established pattern of use and development;
c) connection to the road network;
d) availability of or likely requirements for utilities;
e) any requirement to protect ecological, scientific, historic, cultural or
aesthetic values; and
f) potential exposure to natural hazards.
Comment:
In this instance the Zone Purpose has been directly incorporated in the
Performance Criteria and elevates the Zone Purpose to a standard that must
be satisfied by the proposed development.
The purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone is:
 12.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development on larger lots

in residential areas where there are infrastructure or environmental
constraints that limit development.
 12.1.1.2 To provide for non-residential uses that is compatible with

residential amenity.
 12.1.1.3 To ensure that development respects the natural and

conservation values of the land and is designed to mitigate any visual
impacts of development on public views.
Performance Criteria P1 requires that the subdivision is consistent with the

Zone Purpose by providing larger lots for residential development where
services are limited. Considering that a more specific standard addresses lot
size in the zone (Clause 12.4.3.2 below), in this context “larger lots” is taken
to relate to the size of lots typically provided in other zones, such as the
General Residential Zone or Village Zone where much higher densities
prevail.
With an area of 4000m2 and 5700m2 the proposed lots are substantially
larger than the average residential lots that are typically found within
residential zones that specifically support higher densities, such as the

General Residential Zone or Village Zone. Lots within the Westbury General
Residential Zone, range between 700m2 and 1500m2. Both lots are also
considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate on site wastewater
treatment and stormwater management (see assessment below).
Council could consider conditioning the application to increase the size of

Lot 1 to 4700m2, making it larger. However, the benefits of doing this are
marginal, as the overall density of dwellings and the visual appearance of
the site would not be distinguishable from that resulting from the current
proposal.
The development does not propose a non-residential use. Both lots are
intended to be used for residential purposes.
The land has not been identified as having significant natural or

conservation values. The visual impact of the subdivision alone will not
significantly alter public views. Development facilitated by the subdivision
will be considered if/when an application for additional development is
made. It is noted that development of a dwelling on the proposed title will
not compromise views from the public road. The area is characterised by
clusters of development, comprising dwellings in relatively close proximity
or dwellings and associated outbuildings. Proposed Lot 2 is partially
screened behind the existing developed lot at 61 Veterans Row and
development of the land for residential proposes will not significantly alter
public views.
The slope, orientation, topography, established pattern of development,

servicing, site values and natural hazards do not undermine the ability of the
proposal to comply with the Zone Purpose.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose. The lots are
relatively large, much larger than the average residential lots that are
typically found within other residential zones that allow for higher lot
densities such as the General Residential Zone or Village Zone. Both lots will
have sufficient area to accommodate on-site services.

Objective
To ensure:
a) the area and dimensions of lots are appropriate for the zone; and
b) the conservation of natural values, vegetation and faunal habitats;

and
c) the design of subdivision protects adjoining subdivision from
adverse impacts; and
d) each lot has road, access, and utility services appropriate for the
zone.
Each lot for residential use must provide sufficient useable area and
dimensions to allow for:
a) a dwelling to be erected in a convenient and hazard free location; and
b) on-site parking and manoeuvrability; and
c) adequate private open space; and
d) reasonable vehicular access from the carriageway of the road to a
building area on the lot, if any; and
e) development that would not adversely affect the amenity of, or be out of
character with, surrounding development and the streetscape.
f) additional lots must not be located within the Low Density Residential
Zone at Hadspen, Pumicestone Ridge or Travellers Rest.
Comment:
Proposed Lot 1 is less than 5000m2 in area. Proposed Lot 2 does not have a
35m diameter circle within 35m of the frontage.
Both lots are of sufficient dimensions to allow a dwelling to be erected in a

convenient and hazard free location. Although less than 5000m2 in area, Lot
1 contains an existing single dwelling, wastewater treatment system,
parking, private open space and associated outbuildings. More than 50% of
the lot will remain free from development and the lot has not been
identified as being subject to any significant hazard which would require
additional space to address.
The new boundaries do not compromise the private open space or parking
areas associated with the existing dwelling. Lot 1 maintains a flat, fenced
yard in close proximity to the dwelling with an area greater than 400m2, in
addition to more than 3000m2 of undeveloped land suitable for relaxation
and recreation. The dwelling includes an existing garage and sufficient room
for two (2) parking spaces
Lot 2 is an internal lot with a building area more than 35m from the
frontage, however, this building area is larger than 5000m2 with a minimum
dimension of 68.18m. This is sufficient to provide a convenient and hazard
free location for the erection of a dwelling, and ample opportunity for the

provision of private open space, parking and manoeuvring compliant with
the Acceptable Solutions of the Planning Scheme.
Both lots are provided with reasonable vehicle access. The driveway for Lot 1
is immediately adjacent to the dwelling. The access handle for Lot 2 is 10m
in width and crosses relatively flat ground, free of hazards. The width is
sufficient to accommodate a standard 4m wide all weather access. A new
driveway crossover to Council standards will be required onto Veterans Row.
The development of the lots will not adversely affect the amenity of the area
or be out of character with surrounding development or the streetscape.
The nearest dwelling, 76 Suburb Road, is 45m from the south boundary of
proposed Lot 2, with a fenced private open space area approximately 34m
away. This separation is considered sufficient to ensure the reasonable
privacy and amenity of the neighbouring dwelling and associated private
open space. A similar setback will be maintained between the existing
dwelling on proposed Lot 1 and the west boundary of the vacant Lot 2. It is
likely that separation will be greater once the setbacks and bushfire
requirements for a new dwelling are taken into consideration.
Similar separation distances can be observed between other dwellings in the

surrounding area (further detailed in the attached documents).
Figure 3: separation distances between the proposed Lot 2 (blue) and

existing dwellings at 61 Veterans Row and 76 Suburb Road; along with that
of other dwellings in the area

Figure 4: separation between 201 and 202 Veterans Row
Figure 5: separation distance between 251 Marriot Street, 200 Pensioners

Row and 202 Pensioners Row
As such the proposed lots allow for development which will preserve a
similar degree of amenity to other dwellings in the area.
The proposed lots allow for development which is in keeping with the

character of other developments in the area. Residential lots in this area
generally comprise large detached dwellings. While the area does have a
regular scatter of older character dwellings, they are outnumbered more
than 2:1 by much newer, larger dwellings. Due to the flat topography
dwellings are prominent in the landscape and rarely fully screened from
view. Dwellings are rarely located in isolation and are often within a
development cluster, including outbuildings or close to other dwellings. The
flat topography increases the visibility of dwellings which do not front
Veterans Row, increasing the clustered appearance.
The setbacks of dwellings from Veterans row, varies significantly. The

neighbouring dwelling to the south, 76 Suburb Road, is more than 100m
from its primary frontage on Veterans Row. The neighbouring dwelling to
the north, 16 Allotment Parade, is also approximately 100m from the
Veterans Row frontage. 92 Ritchie Street is more than 214m from its
Veterans Row Frontage. The dwellings at 61 Veterans Row and 193 Veterans
Row are both located less than 6m from the frontage. Although the internal
nature of the lot will result in a dwelling located more than 35m from the
frontage, this is consistent with the scattered pattern of development and
the high variation of setbacks from Veterans Row.
In most instances, the older character dwellings are located close to the
road frontage, with larger, newer dwellings often exhibiting a greater
setback from the road. This pattern is replicated in the proposed
subdivision, with the existing cottage located close to the frontage and the
development area on the vacant lot being more than 68m from the
frontage. A new dwelling, with a significant setback from the frontage, is not
considered to be out of character with the existing pattern of development.
The development of the new lot will not adversely impact the streetscape.
Due to the flat topography dwellings are highly visible in the landscape and
tend to have a clustered appearance when viewed from public roads in the
area. Outbuildings are also a prolific feature of this area and increase the
presence of buildings within the streetscape. A new dwelling on the
proposed vacant lot will not be out of place in the streetscape, given the
high mix of modern and heritage style dwellings.
It is also noted that the application is for subdivision only. Further

assessment of impacts on amenity and character will be assessed when/if an
application for development is submitted on the lots.
The proposed development is consistent with the objective and provides

lots which are appropriate for the zone, having regard to the area and
dimensions, servicing and impact on local amenity.

Lots that are not provided with reticulated water and sewerage services must
be:
a) in a locality for which reticulated services are not available or capable of
being connected; and
b) capable of accommodating an on-site wastewater management system.
Comment:
The subject land is in an area of Westbury where sewer and water services
are not available.
The application includes a wastewater assessment prepared by a suitably

qualified person, demonstrating that the proposed Lot 2 has sufficient area
to accommodate an on-site wastewater treatment system. Lot 1 has an
existing, functioning wastewater system in place. Council's Environmental
Health Officer’s consider the new boundaries are sufficient distance from the
dwelling that they will not interfere with the function of the existing system.
The proposal is consistent with the objective and each lot is capable of
being serviced to a level appropriate to the zone.
Each lot must be capable of disposal of stormwater to a legal discharge point.
Comment:
The subject lots are of sufficient size that they will be able to accommodate
an on-site method of stormwater disposal. Stormwater from the exiting
dwelling is directed to tanks and then discharged to the public drain on
Veterans Row.
It is also noted the land falls toward Veterans Row and the 10m wide access
handle for Lot 2 is sufficient width to accommodate a drain connecting to
the public drain, as well as a driveway. The existing stormwater network in
this area has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional stormwater
concentrated by a single dwelling.
The proposal is consistent with the objective and each lot is capable of
being serviced to a level appropriate to the zone.

Representations
Five (5) representations were received during the advertising period (see
attached documents). One of the representations is in the form of a petition
with 69 additional names, however not all names include a signature. The
representation states:
I/We object to the subdivision of land at 61 Veterans Row,

Westbury, Tasmania, 7303, for the prospect of building purposes.
No specific planning matters are raised by the petition.
A summary of the concerns raised in the representations is as follows:
 The density of dwellings not in keeping with the character of the area;
 The development will impact the heritage values of the area;
 Impact of development on the road network;
 Management of stormwater and wastewater;
 Impact of further subdivision on surrounding primary industry
activities and impacts on neighbouring businesses;
 Internal lot not in character with the area; and
 Property values.
Comment:
Density
Proposed Lot 1 does not comply with the Acceptable Solutions for lot size.
However it is considered to comply with the corresponding Performance
Criteria (see assessment above) and provides sufficient usable area to
accommodate and service a dwelling, in keeping with the character of the
streetscape and surrounding developments, without compromising the
amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
From the ground and neighbouring properties, the proposed titles will not
be distinguishable from a title that complies with the Acceptable Solution.
Council could consider placing a condition on the planning permit to bring
the lot sizes closer to 5000m2, resulting in a 4700m2 lot and a 5000m2 lot,
however there is no obvious benefit of doing so as the density of dwellings
would not vary.
Given the relatively small deviation of the proposal from the Acceptable
Solution of 5000m2, the broad objection from the community to this

proposal appears to imply a more general objection to lots of this
approximate size.
Heritage
The subject title is not on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and is not subject
to the Heritage Code in the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
In 2006 Council undertook a Heritage Study for the entire municipality to
identify properties and buildings with sufficient heritage significance to
warrant listing on the State Heritage Register or a local register to be
regulated through the planning scheme. The subject property was not
identified in this study as having any significant local or State heritage value.
Impact on Road Network
The proposed development will not impact the road network. No changes
are proposed to the road. A new access will be installed for the additional lot,
however it will not impact the safety and efficiency of the road network and
the additional volumes of traffic generated by a new residential lot are not
significant enough to warrant any alterations to the road.
Management of Wastewater and Stormwater
Wastewater and stormwater management have been considered in the

assessment above. It is considered that the lots are of sufficient size that a
wastewater management system suitable for the specific soil conditions of
the site can be accommodated. The area of the proposed vacant lot is also
considered to be sufficient to manage stormwater onsite and is capable of
connecting to the roadside drainage system if it is considered to be
necessary by a plumbing surveyor assessing any future development.
Internal Lot
Although apparent on an aerial photograph or cadastral plan, an internal lot

in this area will have minimal impact on the character of the area
experienced on location, due to the range of setbacks exhibited by dwellings
in relation to Veterans Row and the prevalence of dwellings and other
buildings in the landscape (see assessment above).
The creation of a new access handle at the Veterans Row frontage will have
minimal impact on the street scape and is not considered to be any different
from any other dwelling with a long driveway.

Property Values
Property values are not a planning matter and cannot be considered as part
of this assessment.
Impact on Primary Industry
The Low Density Residential Zone is specifically designed to protect and

accommodate residential forms of use and development. Resource
development uses are not protected in this zone and new resource
development uses are prohibited by the planning scheme. The standards
applicable to subdivision do not require consideration of these types of uses.
Response by the applicant
The landowner has submitted a response to the representations addressing

some of the concerns raised in the representations. It is incorrectly stated
that lots in this area will be able to subdivide down to 1500m2. Although the
public consultation and hearings associated with Meander Valley’s version of
the State Planning Scheme have not been undertaken, it is currently
proposed that this area of Westbury be located in a Specific Area Plan, which
maintains the 5000m2 Acceptable Solution for lot size.
This 5000m2 lot size is consistent with the current provisions for this zone
and will continue to offer significant opportunity to subdivide in this area,
despite the current prevalence of the original 2ha lots.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the application for Use and Development

for subdivision (2 lots) for land located at 61 Veterans Row, Westbury
complies with the applicable standards of the planning scheme and should
be approved.
AUTHOR: Justin Simons

TOWN PLANNER
12) Recommendation
That the application for Use and Development for Subdivision (2 lots) on
land located at 61 Veterans Row, Westbury (CT: 248138\1) by D J
McCulloch Surveying , requiring the following discretions:

12.4.3.2 Not Connected to Reticulated Water, Sewerage or Stormwater

be APPROVED, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans:
a) D J McCulloch Surveying – Job Number 1362-1838, Plan number

3818-01DA, dated 5 June 2018;
b) Rebecca Green & Associates – Bushfire Hazard Assessment Report &
Bushfire Hazard Management Plan – dated 24 June 2018;
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Covenants or similar restrictive controls must not be included on or

otherwise imposed on the titles to the lots created by the
subdivision, permitted by this permit unless:
a) Such covenants or controls are expressly authorised by the
terms of this permit; or
b) Such covenants or similar controls are expressly authorised by
the consent in writing of Council.
c) Such covenants or similar controls are submitted for and receive
written approval by Council prior to submission of a Plan of
Survey and associated title documentation is submitted to
Council for sealing.
2. The vehicular crossover servicing proposed Lot 2 must be

constructed and sealed in accordance with LGAT standard drawing
TSD-R03-V1 and TSD-R04-V1 (attached) and to the satisfaction of
Council’s Director Infrastructure Services.
3. Prior to the sealing of the final plan of survey, the following must be
completed to the satisfaction of Council:
a) The driveway crossover is to be completed, as per Condition 2.
b) The developer must pay to Council $2,348.00, a sum equivalent
to 5% of the unimproved value of the newly created lot, as a
Public Open Space contribution.
4. The development must be in accordance with the Submission to

Planning Authority Notice issued by TasWater (TWDA 2018/01105 -
MVC attached).
Note:
1. Separate consent is required from Council acting at the Road
Authority for any works within the road reserve. Prior to the
commencement of any works within the road reserve, including

the approved driveway crossover, a completed Application for
Works in the Road Reservation form (attached) must be completed
and returned to Council.
2. Any other proposed development and/or use, including

amendments to this proposal, may require a separate planning
application and assessment against the Planning Scheme by
Council. All enquiries can be directed to Council’s Community and
Development Services on 6393 5320 or via email:
[email protected].
3. This permit takes effect after:

a) The 14 day appeal period expires; or
b) Any appeal to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal is abandoned or determined; or.
c) Any other required approvals under this or any other Act are
granted.
4. A planning appeal may be instituted by lodging a notice of appeal with

the Registrar of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal. A planning appeal may be instituted within 14 days of the
date the Corporation serves notice of the decision on the applicant. For
more information see the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal website www.rmpat.tas.gov.au.
5. If an applicant is the only person with a right of appeal pursuant to

section 61 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and
wishes to commence the use or development for which the permit has
been granted within that 14 day period, the Council must be so notified
in writing. A copy of Council’s Notice to Waive Right of Appeal is
attached.
6. This permit is valid for two (2) years only from the date of approval and
will thereafter lapse if the development is not substantially
commenced. An extension may be granted if a request is received.
7. In accordance with the legislation, all permits issued by the permit

authority are public documents. Members of the public will be able to
view this permit (which includes the endorsed documents) on request,
at the Council Office.
8. If any Aboriginal relics are uncovered during works;

a) All works are to cease within a delineated area sufficient to protect
the unearthed and other possible relics from destruction,
b) The presence of a relic is to be reported to Aboriginal Heritage
Tasmania Phone: (03) 6233 6613 or 1300 135 513 (ask for Aboriginal
Heritage Tasmania Fax: (03) 6233 5555 Email:
[email protected]); and
c) The relevant approval processes will apply with state and federal
government agencies.
DECISION:

C&DS 1
Document Set ID: 1096589
1094030
Version: 1, Version Date: 06/07/2018
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
C&DS 1
1094030
28/06/2018
Submission to Planning Authority Notice
Council Planning Council notice
PA\18\0256 04/07/2018
Permit No. date
TasWater details
TasWater
TWDA 2018/01105-MVC Date of response 10/07/2018
Reference No.
TasWater
Amanda Craig Phone No. 03) 6345 6318
Contact
Response issued to
Council name MEANDER VALLEY COUNCIL
Contact details [email protected]
Development details
Address 61 VETERANS ROW, WESTBURY Property ID (PID) 7016566
Description of
Subdivision
development
Schedule of drawings/documents
Prepared by Drawing/document No. Revision No. Date of Issue
D J McCulloch Surveying 3818-01 DA -- 05/06/2018
Conditions
Pursuant to the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (TAS) Section 56P(1) TasWater does not object to
the proposed development and no conditions are imposed.
Advice
Nil
Declaration
The drawings/documents and conditions stated above constitute TasWater’s Submission to Planning
Authority Notice.
Authorised by
Jason Taylor
Development Assessment Manager
TasWater Contact Details
Phone 13 6992 Email [email protected]
Mail GPO Box 1393 Hobart TAS 7001 Web www.taswater.com.au
C&DS 1
Meander
Issue Date:Valley
AugustCouncil
2015 Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 1101 of 1
Page
Uncontrolled when printed Version No: 0.1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
From: Karen Murray
Sent: 20 Jul 2018 11:27:27 +1000
To: Planning @ Meander Valley Council
Subject: Planning Application PA\18\0256
Dated: 21/7/2018
Dear General Manager, Meander Valley Council
I, Beryl Murray of 96 Suburb Road Westbury, Tasmania 7303 object to the subdivision
of land situated at 61 Veterans Row, Westbury Tasmania 7303 for the prospect of
building purposes.
As a permanent long term resident of Westbury and an original land owner of land
adjoining and surrounding the above mentioned address, I do not believe the area is
sustainable to support the number of dwellings intended.
The area in question is zoned low density residential. To me, this means land comprised
mainly of low density housing where the planning objective is to protect the locality's
single dwelling character and landscape setting. These types of dwellings are often
associated with rural residential areas where the housing density is very low.
In the area from Dexter Street heading due south along Veterans Row, from
Colonization Row, Pensioners Row, Allotment Parade there are no dwellings on 1 acre or
less - all other dwellings are on 2 1/2 acres plus per dwelling. The dwelling at 61
Veterans Row was originally 5 acres and from memory was subdivided into 2 x 2 1/2
acre blocks many years ago to pay an outstanding rates bill.
As an original land and property owner of the area, I am a believer that a property owner
should be allowed to do as they wish with their land, however, in this particular instance I
have to agree that this proposal is not in keeping with the character and landscape of the
area.
The area originally known as Queenstown/Pensioners Bush has substantial Historic

Military Importance and should be preserved as such as there is no other area or town like
this. There is so much character in this area, that by allowing property owners to
subdivide, the history and heritage of the area will be forever lost.
Veterans Row from Dexter Street to Suburb Road, Allotment Parade from Marriott Street
to Ritchie Street are dirt. These streets are original and iconic to the area. The potential
for them to be altered in any way, shape or form is not in keeping with the character of
the area.
I have major concerns about the hawthorn hedge which is on the boundary of my land
and 61 Veterans Row. This hedge serves many purposes such as being a windbreak for
my livestock and protection for my crops. To have this altered in any way, shape or form
could potentially have a detrimental effect on my livestock and crops. Not only are these
C&DS 1
hedgerows pretty when in blossom, they are also exceptionally sacred and deserve
Heritage Listing because they are all over 100 years old and extremely typical of the area
when the first grants were given out to the Military Pensioners.
My other major concern with my land that adjoins and surrounds 61 Veterans Row - that
is the drainage and waste water system for intended development. Being such a flat block
and having battleaxe access to the property where is the water going to go? - not to my
block directly adjoining said property or to my land directly opposite I hope.
I would have thought it would be difficult to drain this particular block given the distance
required and nature of the area. I have read the waste water report for intended site and
note this particular property, with the soil types present that it is unsuitable for the
conventional septic tank and soak drainage system. What happens in an extremely wet
year such as 2016?
I also have major concerns with my land that adjoins and surrounds 61Veterans Row is
that I use that land for agricultural purposes. Am I going to have restrictions placed on
me because of the machinery used or the noise my animals make? This is a working
farm. There have been issues with the previous owner over the use of my ATV! I do hope
I don't have to go through that again.
I strongly believe the Meander Valley Council is being very narrow-minded in allowing
such developments to go ahead. What happened to limiting "Urban Sprawl" and keeping
developments closer to the town centre? What happened to involving the rate payers in
these decisions? Do we not have a voice anymore? And since when did the zoning
change? - I certainly was not notified nor anyone else I have spoken with.
I believe a public meeting needs to be held because I believe the Meander Valley Council
has blindsided us all.
People purchase out here so that they can have their own personal space, their own
escape to the country. By allowing these developments to occur we will all be living in
top of each other. Talk about overcrowding and being overlooked.
If any of us wanted bright lights, nosey neighbours, noisy vehicles etc., we would have
sold up years ago.
If council would like to go through their records and see just how long we have all been
living here, I believe that only then will they understand why we live where we do.
Signed: Beryl Murray,

96 Suburb Road,
Westbury. Tasmania. 7303
Contact number: 0488 037 387.
This email sent by Karen Murray (Daughter)

24 Five Acre Row,
Westbury. Tasmania. 7303
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
Get Outlook for iOS
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 1
C&DS 2 432 WESTBURY ROAD, PROSPECT VALE -
DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDING
1) Introduction
This report considers application PA\18\0236 for the demolition of an

existing dwelling and ancillary structures on land located at 432 Westbury
Road, Prospect Vale (CT: 22803/19).
2) Background
Applicant
Meander Valley Council
Planning Controls

Use & Development
The application proposes to demolish an existing dwelling, a large residential

outbuilding and other minor ancillary structures at 432 Westbury Road. The
demolition will not prevent the land from being used in the future for any
use permitted in the General Residential Zone, including single or multiple
dwellings. Dwellings will remain the dominant building form in the area and
the proposal and the creation of a vacant lot will not impact residential
amenity.
Site & Surrounds
The subject property is located within the urban area of Prospect Vale and
has been developed with a single dwelling, residential outbuilding, minor
garden structures and a domestic garden. The land to the north contains
multiple dwellings and the land to the south contains a single dwelling.
Prospect Vale Park is to the immediate west of the title and the Bass Highway
connector is to the immediate east.
Subject Title
Photo 1: aerial photo of subject title and surrounding land
Photo 2: subject dwelling to be demolished
Photo 3: outbuilding and ancillary structures to be demolished
Date Received: 6 June 2018

Advertised: 16 June 2018
Closing date for representations: 2 July 2018
Extension of time granted: 16 July 2018
Extension of time expires: 14 August 2018
Council has a target under the Annual Plan to assess applications within
statutory timeframes.
Not applicable.
6) Risk Management

permit.
The application was referred to TasWater. A Submission to Planning

Authority Notice (TWDA 2018/00948-MVC) was received on 19 June 2018
(attached).
The application was advertised for the statutory 14-day period.
One (1) representation was received during the advertising period from three
(3) property owners (attached documents). The representation is discussed in
the assessment below.
9) Financial Impact
Not applicable.
Council can either approve with amended conditions or refuse the

application.
Zone
The subject property is located in the General Residential Zone. The land
surrounding the site is located in the General Residential, Utilities, Light
Industrial and Recreation zones.
Light Industrial
Zone
Subject Title
Recreation Zone
Utilities Zone
General
Residential Zone
Figure 1: zoning of subject title and surrounding land
Use Class
In accordance with Table 10.2 in the Scheme the proposed use class is:
 Residential
A Residential use is specified in Section 10.2 – General Residential Use Table

as being No Permit Required. Demolition, however, is Discretionary when not
approved as part of another development.
A general discretion is provided for Council to consider the demolition of
buildings. In making its assessment the planning authority may have regard
to the purpose of the zone and any applicable local area objectives or
desired future character statements. The following is an assessment of the
standards of the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 considered
to be most relevant to the application.
Part C –Special Provisions

9.4 Demolition
9.4.1 Unless approved as part of another development or prohibited by
another provision, an application for demolition may be approved
at the discretion of the planning authority having regard to:
(a) the purpose of the applicable zone;
(b) any relevant local area objective or desired future character
statement of the applicable zone;
(c) the purpose of any applicable code; and
(d) the purpose of any applicable specific area plan.
Comment:
The application proposes to demolish an existing dwelling and ancillary
buildings on land used for Residential Purposes. The demolition is not
prohibited by any other provision of the Scheme and is not proposed as part
of any other development at this time. The land will continue to be available
for residential purposes. Any other use and development will require a
separate application and assessment against the planning scheme and zone
purpose.
The demolition is discussed in relation to the General Residential Zone
below.
10.1 Zone Purpose

10.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements
10.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates
a range of dwelling types at suburban densities, where full
infrastructure services are available or can be provided.
10.1.1.2 To provide for compatible non-residential uses that primarily serve
the local community.
10.1.1.3 Non-residential uses are not to be at a level that distorts the
primacy of residential uses within the zones, or adversely affect
residential amenity through noise, activity outside of business
hours traffic generation and movement or other off site impacts.
10.1.1.4 To encourage residential development that respects the
neighbourhood character and provides a high standard of
10.1.2 Local Area Objectives
Prospect Vale
a) Prospect Vale will be maintained as a a) Subdivision design is to
key centre of urban expansion. Where consider the relationship
areas currently zoned General Residential and connectivity to future
adjoin the Particular Purpose Zone, urban growth areas.
development is to provide for the long b) Development design is
term strategic outcomes in the design of to complement any public
urban environment; works to provide
b) Promote opportunities to alter the improved connectivity for
urban environment to make more efficient alternative modes of
use of alternative modes of transport. transport.
10.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
Dwellings are to maintain as the predominant form of development

with some higher densities encouraged near services and the business
area. Some redevelopment sites may also be appropriate for higher
density development. Typical residential and non residential
development is to be detached, rarely exceeding two storeys and be
setback from the street and property boundaries.
COMMENT:
The proposed demolition will not compromise the Purpose, Local Area
Objectives or the Desired Future Character of the General Residential Zone.
The demolition will not prevent the land from being used in the future for
any use permitted in the General Residential Zone, including single or
multiple dwellings. Dwellings will remain the dominant building form in the
area and the proposal and the creation of a vacant lot will not impact
The demolition of the dwelling will require a building permit and will be
overseen by a Building Surveyor and Council Officers, ensuring that it is
undertaken in a responsible manner.
The proposal does not undermine the Local Area Objectives and Prospect
Vale is maintained as a key centre for urban expansion. The proposal does
not preclude new residential development.
There are no codes in the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013
which are considered to be relevant to the demolition of a building on the
subject land.
Representations
One (1) representation was received during the advertising period from three
(3) residents of the unit development at 430A Westbury Road (see attached
document).
A summary of the representation is as follows:

 Concern regarding the treatment of the boundary fence, part of
which is currently made up of the wall of the outbuilding to be
demolished;
 Impacts on the fence; and
 Amenity and inconvenience during demolition.
Comment:
During a site meeting with the representors, Council’s Infrastructure

Department have committed to undertake the following in regard to the
boundary fence:
 Remove the existing boundary fence between 432 and 430A Westbury
Road from the entrance to the property (Westbury Road) to the
outbuilding to be demolished (brick wall).
 Remove the outbuilding from 432 Westbury Road, including the entire
extent of the brick wall;
 Remove all internal, non-boundary fencing from 432 Westbury Road;
 Replace the removed boundary fencing and brick wall with a 2.1m
high lapped timber paling fence; and
 Retain the existing boundary fence from the outbuilding (to be
demolished) for the remainder of the shared property boundary
This information has also been forwarded via email to the representors,
however, a written response definitively indicating their satisfaction with the
proposal has not been received.
Any inconvenience or impacts on amenity during the demolition of the

buildings will be short-lived, restricted to normal business hours and will not
be unreasonable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the application for Use and Development

for the demolition of an existing dwelling and associated outbuildings at 432
Westbury Road, Prospect Vale is an acceptable development for the General
Residential Zone and does not undermine the Zone Purpose, Local Area
Objectives or Desired Future Character for the area.

TOWN PLANNER
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that the application for Use and Development for

demolition of an existing dwelling and ancillary outbuildings on land
located at 432 Westbury Road, Prospect Vale (CT: 22803/19) by Meander
Valley Council, requiring the following discretions:
 9.4 - Demolition
a) Meander Valley Council – 432 Westbury Road- Proposed

Residential Demolition
b) Email dated 11 July 2018 and replacement fence plan.
1. The boundary fence shared with 430A Westbury Road is to be

repaired in accordance with the email dated 11 July 2018, unless
otherwise agreed between all relevant land owners.
2. The development must be in accordance with the Submission to

Planning Authority Notice issued by TasWater (TWDA 2018/00948-
MVC) attached.
Note:
Council. All enquiries can be directed to Council’s Community
and Development Services on 6393 5320 or via email:
[email protected]
2. This permit does not imply that any other approval required
under any other by-law or legislation has been granted. The
following additional approvals may be required before the use
commences:
a) Building approval
All enquiries should be directed to Council’s Permit Authority on

6393 5322 or a Building Surveyor.

granted.
4. A planning appeal may be instituted by lodging a notice of appeal
with the Registrar of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
date the Corporation serves notice of the decision on the applicant.
For more information see the Resource Management and Planning
Appeal Tribunal website www.rmpat.tas.gov.au

section 61 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and
wishes to commence the use or development for which the permit
has been granted within that 14 day period, the Council must be so
notified in writing. A copy of Council’s Notice to Waive Right of
Appeal is attached.
6. This permit is valid for two (2) years only from the date of approval
and will thereafter lapse if the development is not substantially
commenced. An extension may be granted if a request is received.

authority are public documents. Members of the public will be able
to view this permit (which includes the endorsed documents) on
request, at the Council Office.

Tasmania Phone: (03) 6233 6613 or 1300 135 513 (ask for
Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Fax: (03) 6233 5555 Email:
DECISION:
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
Submission to Planning Authority Notice
Council Planning Council notice
PA\18\0236 6/06/2018
Permit No. date
TasWater details
TasWater
TWDA 2018/00948-MVC Date of response 19/06/2018
Reference No.
TasWater
David Boyle Phone No. 6345 6323
Contact
Response issued to
Council name MEANDER VALLEY COUNCIL
Contact details [email protected]
Development details
Address 432 WESTBURY RD, PROSPECT VALE Property ID (PID) 7023563
Description of
Demolition of dwelling & outbuildings
development
Schedule of drawings/documents
Prepared by Drawing/document No. Revision No. Date of Issue
Meander Valley Council Site Plans 5/06/2018
Conditions
Pursuant to the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (TAS) Section 56P(1) TasWater imposes the
following conditions on the permit for this application:
CONNECTIONS, METERING & BACKFLOW
1. Any removal/supply and installation of water meters and/or the removal of redundant and/or
installation of new and modified property service connections must be carried out by TasWater at
the developer’s cost.
Advice:- If the applicant is not removing the property connections they must engage a registered
plumber to temporarily cap and seal internal water (prior to water meter) and sewer (upstream of
the inspection opening) connections under demolition works to protect TasWater’s infrastructure
from contamination.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT FEES
2. The applicant or landowner as the case may be, must pay a development assessment and Consent
to Register a Legal Document fee to TasWater, as approved by the Economic Regulator and the fees
will be indexed, until the date they are paid to TasWater, as follows:
a. $206.97 for development assessment.
The payment is required within 30 days of the issue of an invoice by TasWater.
Advice
General
For information on TasWater development standards, please visit
http://www.taswater.com.au/Development/Development-Standards
For application forms please visit http://www.taswater.com.au/Development/Forms
Declaration
The drawings/documents and conditions stated above constitute TasWater’s Submission to Planning
C&DS 2
Meander
Issue Date:Valley
AugustCouncil
2015 Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 1411 of 2
Page
Uncontrolled when printed Version No: 0.1
Authority Notice.
Authorised by
Jason Taylor
Development Assessment Manager
TasWater Contact Details
Phone 13 6992 Email [email protected]
Mail GPO Box 1393 Hobart TAS 7001 Web www.taswater.com.au
C&DS 2
Issue Date: August 2015 Page 2 of 2
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14Uncontrolled
August 2018 when printed Page 142
Version No: 0.1
From: Debbie Morrison
Sent: 27 Jun 2018 11:20:02 +1000
Subject: ref number PA\18\0236
To whom this may concern

Sandi Scott
We, the residents of 430A Westbury Road. (I live in Unit 1). I am sending this email to
you as we have some concerns about the demolition of the single building and
outbuildings at 342 Westbury Road.
Our driveway runs along the side of the next residence and there is a brick wall about half
the way along this driveway. Will this be knocked down, and if not how safe is it at the
height that it is. Is any of the other part of the adjoining fences going to be affected?
Are the residents at this address going to be inconvenienced while this work is in
progress?
I am able to be contacted between 9am and 2pm week days on 0427621171
Thank you
Mrs Deborah Morrison

1/430A Westbury Road
Prospect Vale
TAS 7250
Sandy Garwood Unit 2

Rose Phundt Unit3
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS 2
C&DS3 1240 WEEGENA ROAD AND LAND OFF
BEAUMONTS ROAD, DUNORLAN - EXTRACTIVE
INDUSTRY
1) Introduction
This report considers the planning application PA\18\0178 for an Extractive

Industry – increase production of two (2) existing quarries for land located at
1240 Weegena Road, Dunorlan (CT 109390/1) and land off Beaumonts Road,
Dunorlan (CT 143292/1), with road works on Beaumonts, Weegena and
Dunorlan Roads.
2) Background
Applicant
Treloar Transport
Planning Controls

The use and development is scheduled as a Level 2 Activity under the

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (EMPCA) 1994, and as
such is subject to the assessment of the Environmental Protection Authority
(EPA) under that Act combined with the assessment under the Scheme.
Development
The proposal is to consolidate two (2) existing quarries located at Punches

Terror Dunorlan and increase production of the existing quarries from
10,000m3 to 20,000m3 per annum. It is anticipated that all of the material will
be crushed and screened. Extraction of 5,000 m3 or more triggers an
assessment as a Level 2 Activity (as per the Environmental Management and
Pollution Control Act 1994) and the applicant has prepared a Development
Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP).
The current and proposed quarrying activities include the following common
features:
1. Excavation and ripping of material for crushing and screening;
2. Blasting;
3. Stockpiling of processed materials;
4. Loading of trucks using an excavator or wheel loader; and
5. The transport of materials by truck.
The proposed days and hours of operation are:

 Monday to Friday 7am – 5pm;
 Saturday 8am-3pm;
 The quarry is not intended to operate on Sunday.
The above operating days/hours are in keeping with the Quarry Code of
Practice 1999, for quarries in the vicinity of a residential premises.
Indicitive plans are provided below, with the proposal more fully described in
the application documents attached.
Figure 1: proposed quarry layout and extraction plan (source: Treloar
Transport, DPEMP page 15)
Vehicles will enter and exit the site via the existing access off Beaumonts
Road. Some works are proposed to improve Council roads along the cartage
route.
The proposal is an expansion of the existing operation and does not propose
any additional parking or site buildings.
Site & Surrounds
The subject titles are located to the south-west of Dunorlan and both contain
existing mining leases, 28M/1990 and 1007P/M (see Figure 2 below).
The surrounding land use is predominately resource development, with some
scattered lifestyle lots.
CT 109390/1
CT 143292/1
Figure 2: shows the subject title boundaries in yellow and the mining leases
(28M/1990 and 1007P/M) in red
Photo 1: existing face of south quarry (lease 1007P/M in Figure 2)
Photo 2: existing face of north quarry (lease 28M\1990 in Figure 1)
Date Environmental Protection Authority

Determination Received: 9 July 2018
Advertised: 24 March 2018
Closing date for representations: 26 April 2018
Extension of time granted: Not applicable
Extension of time expires: Not applicable
Council has a target under the Annual Plan to assess applications for
discretionary uses within statutory timeframes.
Not applicable.
The application is for an extension of existing quarry operations beyond the

threshold for a Level 1 Activity. Section 25(1) of EMPCA requires a planning
authority to refer all Level 2 development applications to the Board of the
EPA for assessment under EMPCA.
The application was advertised in conjunction with written advice from EPA.
One (1) representation was received and forwarded to the EPA.
Subsequently, the EPA completed their Determination (Environmental
Assessment Report and Permit Part B Permit Conditions – Environmental No.
9701), with Council receiving these documents on 12 July 2018.
Statutory timeframes do not commence until the EPA’s Determination has

been received by the planning authority.
Any permit issued by the planning authority must include the EPA
conditions. Permit conditions of the planning authority cannot be
inconsistent or contradict those issued by the EPA. In accordance with
Section 25(2)(f) of EMPCA, the planning authority is not to assess any matter
addressed in the Board’s assessment.
6) Risk Management

permit.
The application was referred to the Board of Environmental Protection

Authority Division on 8 March 2018. As directed by the EPA, the application
was advertised on 24 March 2018 for 28 days. A Determination on the
Environmental Impact Assessment and Permit Conditions were received by
Council on 12 July 2018 (attached document).
The application was advertised for the 28 day period required by the EPA.
One (1) representation was received (attached document). The
representation is discussed in the assessment below.
9) Financial Impact
Not applicable.
Council can either approve the application with amended conditions or

refuse the application.
Zone
The subject property is zoned Rural Resource (see Figure 8 below). The land
surrounding the site is located in the Rural Resource Zone.
CT 143292/1
CT 109390/1
Figure 3: Zoning of subject property and surrounding land
Use Class
In accordance with Table 8.2 in the Scheme the proposed Use Class is:
 Extractive Industry (Level 2 Activity)
In the Rural Resource Zone, this use is listed as discretionary use under
section 26.2 - Use Table. As such, the proposed use is assessed against the
Zone Purpose including the Local Area Objectives and Desired Future
Character Statements. The use standards in the zone and applicable codes
are also considered relative to each applicable issue.
26.1 Zone Purpose
26.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements

26.1.1.1 To provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for
agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries,
including opportunities for resource processing.
26.1.1.2 To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or
conflict with resource development uses.
26.1.1.3 To provide for economic development that is compatible with
primary industry, environmental and landscape values.
26.1.1.4 To provide for tourism-related use and development where the
sustainable development of rural resources will not be compromised.
26.1.2 Local Area Objectives

a) Primary Industries:
Resources for primary industries make a significant contribution to the rural
economy and primary industry uses are to be protected for long-term
sustainability.
The prime and non-prime agricultural land resource provides for variable and
diverse agricultural and primary industry production which will be protected
through individual consideration of the local context.
Processing and services can augment the productivity of primary industries

in a locality and are supported where they are related to primary industry
uses and the long-term sustainability of the resource is not unduly
compromised.
b) Tourism
Tourism is an important contributor to the rural economy and can make a
significant contribution to the value adding of primary industries through
visitor facilities and the downstream processing of produce. The continued
enhancement of tourism facilities with a relationship to primary production is
supported where the long-term sustainability of the resource is not unduly
compromised.
The rural zone provides for important regional and local tourist routes and
destinations such as through the promotion of environmental features and
values, cultural heritage and landscape. The continued enhancement of
tourism facilities that capitalise on these attributes is supported where the
long-term sustainability of primary industry resources is not unduly
compromised.
c) Rural Communities
Services to the rural locality through provision for home-based business can
enhance the sustainability of rural communities. Professional and other
business services that meet the needs of rural populations are supported
where they accompany a residential or other established use and are located
appropriately in relation to settlement activity centres and surrounding
primary industries such that the integrity of the activity centre is not
undermined and primary industries are not unreasonably confined or
restrained.
26.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements

The visual impacts of use and development within the rural landscape are to
be minimised such that the effect is not obtrusive.
Comment:
The application proposes to expand two (2) existing quarries. This is
consistent with the Purpose of the Zone to provide for primary industry and
the sustainable use and development of resources, including for mining. This
use is not considered to constrain resource development on adjoining titles
and provides for economic development which is compatible with primary
industry, environmental and landscape values in the area. The quarries are
fully contained within existing mining leases and are largely surrounded by
standing vegetation. Environmental impacts will be managed by the EPA.
The area of the subject titles has limited capacity for agriculture due to the
topography. As the quarries are within existing mining leases, no additional
land will be converted to non-agricultural uses or further constrained.
The development does not undermine the Local Area Objectives relating to
Community and Tourism. The quarries are largely screened by native
vegetation and are not prominently visible from major roads. Due to
topography and native vegetation screening the development will have
minimal impact on the visual appearance of the rural landscape when viewed
from outside the property.
The proposed use is consistent with the Zone Purpose and provides an
alternative use which does not constrain or conflict with resource
development uses in the area.
This assessment considers all applicable planning scheme standards.
In accordance with the statutory function of the State Template for Planning
Schemes (Planning Directive 1), where use or development meets the
Acceptable Solutions it complies with the planning scheme, however it may
be conditioned if considered necessary to better meet the objective of the
applicable standard.
Where use and development relies on performance criteria, discretion is used
for that particular standard. To determine whether discretion should be
exercised to grant approval, the proposal must be considered against the
objectives of the applicable standard and the requirements of Section 8.10.
A brief assessment against all applicable Acceptable Solutions of the Rural

Resource Zone and applicable Codes is provided below. This is followed by a
more detailed discussion of any applicable Performance Criteria and the
objectives relevant to the particular discretion.
The following table is an assessment against the applicable standards of the

Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
Rural Resource Zone

23.6.1 Uses if not a single dwelling
A1 If for permitted or no permit The proposed use Relies on
required uses. is discretionary. Performance
Criteria
A2 If for permitted or no permit Not applicable
required uses.

Criteria
Criteria
A5 The use must: The proposed use Relies on
is discretionary. Performance
a) be permitted or no
Criteria
permit required; or
b) be located in an
existing building.
26.3.3 Irrigation Districts

A1 Non-agricultural uses are The proposed use Complies
not located within an is not located on
irrigation district proclaimed land within a
under Part 9 of the Water proclaimed
Management Act 1999. irrigation district.
Landslip Code
E.3.6.1 Development on Land Subject to Risk of Landslip
A1 No acceptable solution. The proposed Relies on
work is located in Performance
a landslip prone Criteria
area.

A1 Sensitive use within 50m of a Not applicable
category 1 or 2 road with a
speed limit of more than
60km/h, a railway or future
road or railway, does not
increase the annual average
daily traffic movements by
more than 10%.

of 60km/h or less the use
must not generate more
than 40 movements per day.
A3 For roads with a speed limit

The proposed Relies on
of more than 60km/h the use
development is Performance
must not increase the annual
anticipated to Criteria
average daily traffic result in an
movements by more than increase in the
10%. number of
vehicle
movements at
the access by
more than 10%.
E4.7.2 Management of Road Accesses and Junctions
of 60km/h or less the
development must include
one access providing both
entry and exit, or two
accesses providing separate
entry and exit.
A2 For roads with a speed limit The development Complies

of more than 60km/h the does not include
development must not a new access or
include a new access or junction.
junction.
Car Parking and Sustainable Transport Code

6.6.1 Car Parking Numbers
A1 The number of car parking The application Complies
spaces must not be less than does not propose
the requirements of: any additional
c) Table E6.1; or parking spaces.
d) a parking precinct plan. Both quarries will
be serviced by
the existing
parking areas.
Although not
clearly delineated,
there is sufficient
space for more
than six (6)
vehicles and the
site is not limited
for space should
additional
parking be
required.
Performance Criteria
Rural Resource Zone

23.6.1 Uses if not a single dwelling
Objective
a) To provide for an appropriate mix of uses that support the Local
Area Objectives and the location of discretionary uses in the rural
resources zone does not unnecessarily compromise the
consolidation of commercial and industrial uses to identified nodes
of settlement or purpose built precincts.
b) To protect the long term productive capacity of prime agricultural
land by minimising conversion of the land to non-agricultural uses
or uses not dependent on the soil as a growth medium, unless an
overriding benefit to the region can be demonstrated.
c) To minimise the conversion of non-prime land to a non-primary
industry use except where that land cannot be practically utilised for
primary industry purposes.
d) Uses are located such that they do not unreasonably confine or
restrain the operation of primary industry uses.
e) Uses are suitable within the context of the locality and do not create
an unreasonable adverse impact on existing sensitive uses or local
infrastructure.
f) The visual impacts of use are appropriately managed to integrate
with the surrounding rural landscape.
P1.1
It must be demonstrated that the use is consistent with local area objectives
for the provision of non-primary industry uses in the zone, if applicable; and
P1.2
Business and professional services and general retail and hire must not
exceed a combined gross floor area of 250m2 over the site.
Comment:
The proposed expansion of the existing quarries is consistent with the Local
Area Objective for the provision of primary industry activities. The proposal
maintains the diversity of primary industry activities in the area.
The proposal is consistent with the objective and provides an appropriate

mix of primary industry uses without converting or compromising the
sustainability of prime agricultural land.
The conversion of non-prime agricultural to non-agricultural use must
demonstrate that:
a) the amount of land converted is minimised having regard to:
(i) existing use and development on the land; and
(ii) surrounding use and development; and
(iii) topographical constraints; or
b) the site is practically incapable of supporting an agricultural use or
being included with other land for agricultural or other primary industry
use, due to factors such as:
(i) limitations created by any existing use and/or development
surrounding the site; and
(ii) topographical features; and
(iii) poor capability of the land for primary industry; or
c) the location of the use on the site is reasonably required for operational
efficiency.
Comment:
The proposed development will convert a minimal area of non-prime
agricultural land. The quarry expansions are limited to the areas
immediately adjoining the quarries and within the existing mining leases.
The land has minimal agricultural value due to topography and shallow
soils.
The location is required for operational efficiency due to the location of the
resources and the existing mining leases and infrastructure in place. The
proposal concentrates the extractive industry in an area already being used
for that purpose.
The proposal is consistent with the objective by providing a mix of primary

industry activities while minimising the conversion of agricultural land.
It must demonstrated that:
a) emissions are not likely to cause an environmental nuisance; and
b) primary industry uses will not be unreasonably confined or restrained
from conducting normal operations; and
c) the capacity of the local road network can accommodate the traffic
generated by the use.
Comment:
Emissions from the proposal have been assessed by the EPA and it is
considered that the impacts can be effectively managed to avoid causing an
environmental nuisance or impacting nearby sensitive uses.
Substantial vegetation buffers will be maintained between the quarries and

adjoining primary industry activities and it is not anticipated that the
proposal will increase any restraints on these activities.
The application includes a traffic impact assessment prepared by a suitably

qualified person. The assessment recommends some improvements to
some local roads and intersections to ensure the safe and efficient use of
the network. Impacts on the road network are further discussed below.
The proposed development is consistent with the objectives.
It must be demonstrated that the visual appearance of the use is consistent
with the local area having regard to:
a) the impacts on skylines and ridgelines; and
b) visibility from public roads; and
c) the visual impacts of storage of materials or equipment; and
d) the visual impacts of vegetation clearance or retention; and
e) the desired future character statements.
Comment:
The visual impacts of the use and development are acceptable. The
proposed quarries will not extend beyond existing ridgelines and mature
standing vegetation will be maintained surrounding the quarries.
The quarries are both located on south facing slopes and works will not
extend onto or beyond the ridgelines to the north. As such, the
development will not be visible from public roads and properties to the
north.
While the site may be visible from properties to the south, existing
vegetation cover and separation of more than 700m will largely screen the
site and is sufficient to mitigate the visual impacts of the development.
The development complies with the Performance Criteria and is consistent

with the objective.
Landslip Code
E.3.6.1 Development on Land Subject to Risk of Landslip
Objective
To ensure that development is appropriately located through avoidance of
areas of landslip risk, or where avoidance is not practicable, suitable measures
are available to protect life and property.
Development must demonstrate that the risk to life and property is mitigated
to a low or very low risk level in accordance with the risk assessment in E3.6.2
through submission of a landslip risk management assessment.
Comment:
The application includes a geotechnical assessment prepared by a suitably
qualified geotechnical consultant. Considering the nature of the use and
activities undertaken at the site, the assessment generally assigns a risk
profile of low to very low. Impacts are generally limited to the quarry
operators and will not impact people or property outside of the lease areas.
While it is considered that there is a moderate risk associated with rock fall
on steeper slopes, the geotechnical assessment indicates that the risk can be
mitigated satisfactorily through management prescriptions.
The geotechnical assessment and recommended risk mitigation will be

endorsed as part of any planning permit approved by Council.
The development is consistent with the objective.

Objective
To ensure that the safety and efficiency of road and rail infrastructure is not
reduced by the creation of new accesses and junctions or increased use of
existing accesses and junctions.
For limited access roads and roads with a speed limit of more than 60km/h:
a) access to a category 1 road or limited access road must only be via an
existing access or junction or the use or development must provide a
significant social and economic benefit to the State or region; and
b) any increase in use of an existing access or junction or development of a
new access or junction to a limited access road or a category 1, 2 or 3
road must be for a use that is dependent on the site for its unique
resources, characteristics or locational attributes and an alternate site or
access to a category 4 or 5 road is not practicable; and
c) an access or junction which is increased in use or is a new access or
junction must be designed and located to maintain an adequate level of
safety and efficiency for all road users.
Comment:
The application includes a traffic impact assessment prepared by a suitably
qualified person. The traffic impact assessment demonstrates that, with
minor road improvements, the development will not impact the safety and
efficiency of the road network.
The works include:

a) Improvement of intersection alignment between the quarry road and
Beaumonts Road;
b) Install a Giveway Sign on Chesney Road in advance of the intersection with
Beaumonts Road;
c) Maintain fence lines clear of vegetation at the intersection of Chesney Road
and Beaumonts Road;
d) Install a white hold line and Giveway Sign at the intersection of Dunorlan
Road and Weegena Road;
e) Construct localised pavement widening on the south side of Weegena Road
at the Dunorlan Road intersection;
f) Drainage improvement works on Wegeena Road.
Council’s Works and Infrastructure Departments have committed to undertaking

drainage works on Weegena Road. The other road improvements will be the
responsibility of the applicant and will need to be completed prior to the
commencement of use.
Recommended Condition:
1. Prior to the commencement of use all works recommended in the endorsed
Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by CSE Tasmania Pty Ltd are to be
completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Director Infrastructure Services,
including:
b) Realignment of quarry road/Beaumonts Road intersection;
c) Installation of Give Way Sign on Chesney Road in advance of the
intersection with Beaumonts Road;
d) Maintain fence lines clear of vegetation at the intersection of Chesney Road
and Beaumonts Road;
e) Install a white hold line and Give Way Sign at the intersection of Dunorlan
Road and Weegena Road; and
f) Construct localised pavement widening on the south side of Weegena Road
at the Dunorlan Road intersection.
Recommended Note:
1. Councils Works Department will undertake drainage improvement work in
Weegena Road as per Recommendation 2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment.
2. Separate consent is required from Council acting as the Road Authority for
any works within the road reserve. Prior to the commencement of any
works within the road reserve a completed Application for Works in the
Road Reservation form (attached) must be completed and returned to
Council.
In accordance with the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 - E8

Biodiversity Code, E9 Water Quality Code and E11 Environmental Impacts
and Attenuation Code are not applicable when the use and development is
for a Level 2 activity subject to an assessment by the Board of
Environmental Management and Pollution Control.
Representation
One (1) representation was received during the advertising period (see
attached document). A summary of the representation is as follows:
 Noise from vehicles and quarry operations;

 Risk of rock fall and damage to dwellings caused by blasting;
 Dust emissions from quarry and road surface; and
 Damage to Beaumonts Road caused by truck movements.
COMMENT:
In accordance with the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 - E8

Biodiversity Code, E9 Water Quality Code and E11 Environmental Impacts
and Attenuation Code are not applicable when the use and development is
for a Level 2 activity subject to an assessment by the Board of Environmental
Management and Pollution Control. As such, issues relating to noise, dust
and blasting impacts cannot be considered by the Planning Authority. These
issues have been considered by the EPA and conditions for management and
mitigation they have recommended must be included on the permit (see
attached Environmental Assessment Report by the Board of the EPA dated
July 2018).
Council’s Environmental Health Officer has also reviewed the application and
EPA assessment and has provided the following advice:
The dust management methods committed to by the applicant in the

Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (i.e.
restriction on speed limit for vehicle movements and road dampening)
are listed in the suggested measures within the Quarry Code of
Practice 2017 for air pollution and dust control. Together with
atmospheric permit conditions, namely A1, A2 and A3, it is considered
that adequate measures are in place to mitigate the potential for
nuisance from dust emissions associated with quarry operations and
traffic movements along Beaumonts Road, Dunorlan. If it is
determined that an environmental nuisance is being caused, the EPA
may take regulatory/enforcement action including alteration of the
permit conditions.
Matters raised in the representations that can be addressed by the Planning

Authority are limited to increased traffic and the impacts of the proposal on
the road network. These matters have been discussed in the assessment
above. With the improvement works recommended within the application, it
is considered that the increased production and vehicle movements will not
impact the safety and efficiency of the road network.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the application for an expansion of the

existing quarries at 1240 Wegeena Road and land off Beaumonts Road is an
acceptable development in the Rural Resource Zone, can be effectively
managed by conditions and should be approved.

TOWN PLANNER
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that the application for a use and development for an

Extractive Industry – expansion of quarries, for land located at 1240
Weegena Road, Dunorlan (CT 109390/1) and land off Beaumonts Road,
Dunorlan (CT 143292/1), with road works on Beaumonts, Weegena and
Dunorlan Roads, by Treloar Transport, requiring the following
discretions:
 26.3.1 Uses if not a single dwelling

 E.3.6.1 Development on Land Subject to Risk of Landslip
 E4.6.1 Use and road or rail infrastructure
 E6.7.1 Construction of Car Parking Spaces and Access Strips
 E6.7.2 Design and Layout of Car Parking
a) Treloar Transport – Development Proposal and

Environmental Management Plan;
b) Northbarker Ecosystem Services – Flora and Fauna
Assessment (proposed intensification of use dated 9
September 2016 and new mining lease dated 27 July 2017);
c) CSE Tasmania – Traffic Impact Assessment
d) Tasman Geotechnics – Land Slip Risk Assessment
1. EPA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

The person responsible for the activity must comply with the
Permit Conditions – Environmental No. 9701 contained in
Schedule 2 of Permit Part B, which the Board of the
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has required the
planning authority to include in the permit, pursuant to Section
25(5) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control
Act 1994. Permit Part B is attached together with Schedules 1, 2
and 3 and forms part of this permit.
2. Prior to the commencement of use all works recommended in

the endorsed Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by CSE
Tasmania Pty Ltd are to be completed to the satisfaction of
Council’s Director Infrastructure Services, including:
a) Realignment of quarry road/Beaumonts Road intersection;
b) Installation of Give Way Sign on Chesney Road in advance
of the intersection with Beaumonts Road;
c) Maintain fence lines clear of vegetation at the intersection
of Chesney Road and Beaumonts Road;
d) Install a white hold line and Give Way Sign at the
intersection of Dunorlan Road and Weegena Road; and
e) Construct localised pavement widening on the south side
of Weegena Road at the Dunorlan Road intersection.
Note:
1. Councils Works Department will undertake drainage improvement

work in Weegena Road as per Recommendation 2 of the Traffic
Impact Assessment.
2. Separate consent is required from Council acting as the Road

Authority for any works within the road reserve. Prior to the
commencement of any works within the road reserve a completed
Application for Works in the Road Reservation form (attached)
must be completed and returned to Council.
Council. All enquiries can be directed to Council’s Community and
Development Services on 6393 5320 or via email:
[email protected].

granted.
5. A planning appeal may be instituted by lodging a notice of appeal with

the Registrar of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
date the Corporation serves notice of the decision on the applicant. For
more information see the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal website www.rmpat.tas.gov.au.

section 61 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and wishes
to commence the use or development for which the permit has been
granted within that 14 day period, the Council must be so notified in
writing. A copy of Council’s Notice to Waive Right of Appeal is
attached.
7. This permit is valid for two (2) years only from the date of approval and
will thereafter lapse if the development is not substantially commenced.
An extension may be granted if a request is received.

authority are public documents. Members of the public will be able to
view this permit (which includes the endorsed documents) on request,
at the Council Office.

Tasmania Phone: (03) 6233 6613 or 1300 135 513 (ask for
Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Fax: (03) 6233 5555 Email:
DECISION:
Punches Terror Quarry Expansion
Beaumont’s Road, Dunorlan
(ML 1007 P/M & 28M/1990)
Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan
C&DS 3
Punches Terror Quarry Expansion Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan
This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan was prepared by:
URBAN FOREST CONSULTANCY PTY LTD

PO Box 464
Latrobe 7307
Contact: Carol Steyn

Telephone: 03 6427 3502
E mail: [email protected]
In conjunction with:
TRELOAR TRANSPORT PTY LTD

Registered office
7 Spring St
Sheffield Tasmania 7306
Postal Address
PO Box 21
Sheffield Tasmania 7306
Contact:
Mr John Treloar
TRELOAR TRANSPORT PTY LTD
Telephone: (03) 6491 1686
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.trealortransport.com.au
The DPEMP will be submitted to:
Board of the Environment Protection Authority

GPO Box 1550
Hobart TAS 7001
Issue Date Recipient Organisation

Draft 1 8th December 2017 Internal Urban Forest Consultancy
Draft 2 15th December 2017 J Treloar/T Milham Treloar Transport
Draft 3 19th December 2017 Assessments Section EPA Tasmania
Draft 4 08th January 2018 Assessments Section EPA Tasmania
Draft 5 30th January 2018 Assessments Section EPA Tasmania
Version 1 7th February 2018 Assessments Section EPA Tasmania
TRELOAR TRANSPORT 2|Page
C&DS 3
7 Spring Street, Sheffield Tasmania 7306
Document Set ID: 1066542 www.treloartransport.com.au
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Treloar Transport Pty Ltd (TT) seeks approval to increase production at Punches Terror Quarry, located
at Beaumont’s Road, Dunorlan Tasmania, (level one, located on freehold land - 1007 P/M), by merging
with newly acquired Meander Valley Council (MVC) quarry (level two - 28M/1990) located on Crown
Land. Combined, the proposal is to increase annual production from 11,000m3 to 20,000 m3. This
would incorporate an allowance to blast, crush and screen as a part of usual operations.
There are two threatened species within the vicinity of quarry operations. However, neither species
is expected to be directly affected by quarry operations. Protocols will be implemented to ensure all
personnel, vehicles, plant and machinery remain clear of excluded zones.
Quarry operations are generally expected to be carried out in an easterly direction in both lease areas.
All material within the quarry is chert-conglomerate with no expectation of acidic drainage, and a
requirement for all of the product to be processed through a mobile crushing and/or screening plant.
Operations will be distributed roughly evenly between the two quarry locations, with 28M/1990
becoming the primary quarry within five years as 1007P/M approaches the lease boundaries to the
north and east.
TT has operated the southern lease (1007P/M) since 2001, with no complaints from nearby
residences. With no permanent structures (including fuel storages) on site, all plant and equipment
will be removed at the conclusion of each campaign, with facilities erected, temporary in nature.
Increased production at the site is not expected to impact on the local community or transport
segments. However, there may be some concern that by blasting, possible noise and dust pollution
may affect local residents. TT will put in place control measures including notification of blasts to
residents in the immediate vicinity, carrying out blasts during business hours and times consistent with
the prescribed measures of the Tasmanian Quarry Code of Practice (QCP).
C&DS 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Treloar Transport Pty Ltd Overview ........................................................................................ 7
1.2. Punches Terror Quarry Operational Overview ....................................................................... 8
2. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 10
2.1. GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................... 11
2.3. COMMISSIONING .................................................................................................................. 11
2.4. GENERAL LOCATION MAP ..................................................................................................... 12
2.5. SITE PLAN .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.6. OFF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................................... 18
3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................ 18
4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................ 18
5. THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 18
5.1. PLANNING ASPECTS .............................................................................................................. 18
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS................................................................................................... 19
5.3. SOCIO-ECONOMICAL ASPECTS.............................................................................................. 19
6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 20
6.1. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 20
6.2. SURFACE WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 21
6.3. GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................... 24
6.4. NOISE EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................. 27
6.5. WASTE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 30
6.6. DANGEROUS GOODS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................... 31
6.7. BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL VALUES .................................................................................. 32
6.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES................................ 36
6.9. HERITAGE .............................................................................................................................. 37
6.10. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 37
6.11. VISUAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 38
6.12. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES ................................................................................................. 39
6.13. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ............................................................................................. 39
6.14. HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 40
6.15. FIRE RISK............................................................................................................................ 43
6.16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND OFF-SITE ANCILLARY FACILITIES .................................................. 44
6.17. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .................................................................... 44
6.18. CUMULATIVE AND INTERACTIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................... 44
6.19. TRAFFIC IMPACTS .............................................................................................................. 45
7. MONITORING AND REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 46
7.1. WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................................... 46
7.2. WEEDS ................................................................................................................................... 46
7.3. SETTLING PONDS................................................................................................................... 46
7.4. BLASTING .............................................................................................................................. 46
7.5. COMPLAINTS REGISTER......................................................................................................... 46
7.6. TRUCK/MATERIAL MOVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 46
8. DECOMMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION ................................................................................. 47
9. COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 49
10. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 50
C&DS 3
11. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 55

12. APPENDICIES ................................................................................................................................. 56
12.1. Appendix A – North Barker Report ................................................................................... 57
12.2. Appendix B – Noise Survey ............................................................................................. 129
12.3. Appendix C – Blasting Impacts Report ............................................................................ 148
12.4. Appendix D – Traffic Impacts Study ................................................................................ 165
12.5. Appendix E – Relevant Company Procedures ................................................................. 184
12.6. Appendix F – BOM Wind Rose Data ................................................................................ 204
12.7. Appendix G – Landslip Risk Assessment ......................................................................... 211
12.8. Appendix H – Ground Water Bore Report ...................................................................... 227
12.9. Appendix I – Natural Values Atlas Report ....................................................................... 230
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – site plan showing the area of “The Land” and approximate distances to sensitive receptors
................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2 - quarrying cycle showing the five-stage process from drilling to haul from site................... 10
Figure 3 - general location map showing the proposed site, topographical features, roads to and from
the site, distances to sensitive receptors within one kilometre. .......................................................... 12
Figure 4 - general location map showing surrounding land tenure and land use. All areas within the
plan are zoned "Rural Resource" .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5 - Drainage plan showing ponds, pond outlets, and final drainage direction .......................... 14
Figure 6 - Site plan showing boundary of the sites, major items of equipment, crushed material
stockpiles, mining direction and mining plan ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 7 - detailed mining plan for the Atkins Quarry 1007P/M .......................................................... 16
Figure 8 - detailed mining plan for the ex-Meander Valley Council quarry 28M/1990 ........................ 17
Figure 9 - Shows groundwater bores and ground water dependant ecosystems (GDE)...................... 26
Figure 10 - Noise monitoring locations during Pearu Tert's field assessment in September 2017 ...... 28
Figure 11 - Quarry and nearest residence locations for calculation of environmental (nuisance) noise
.............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 12 - Vegetation communities in the vicinity of the proposed expansion (to be read in
conjunction with Table 8) ..................................................................................................................... 34
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 - Proponent Details .................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2 - X and Y coordinates which define "The Land" ......................................................................... 8
Table 3 - planning details for the proposal ........................................................................................... 19
Table 4 - water quality results for samples collected below 1007P/M on the 21st of September 2017
.............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 5 – Machine power levels and calculated sound power output where available ...................... 27
Table 6 - noise levels at nearest residences calculated by Pearu Terts to be read in conjunction with
plan in Figure 11.................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7 - blast ground vibration from the quarries .............................................................................. 29
Table 8 - VEGCODE values used in Figure 12 ........................................................................................ 33
Table 9 - TT proprietary risk matrix....................................................................................................... 40
Table 10 - Risk assessment for quarrying activities at Punches Terror................................................. 41
Table 11 - suggested monitoring parameters for both final discharge ponds ..................................... 46
Table 12 - mapping and commentary for project specific guidelines (PSG's) ...................................... 50
C&DS 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANFO Ammonium Nitrate, Fuel Oil
BMP Blast Management Plan
BOM Bureau of Meteorology
BPEM Best Practice Environmental Management
DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan
DoSG Department of State Growth
EMPCA Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
Air EPP Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004
Noise EPP Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009
GDE Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems
LOM Life of Mine
LOMP Life of Mine Plan
LUPAA Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
MRT Mineral Resources Tasmania
MVC Meander Valley Council
NBE Services North Barker Ecological Services
PEV Protected Environmental Values
PSG Project Specific Guidelines
QCP Quarry Code of Practice – May 2017
SPWQM State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997
STT Sustainable Timber Tasmania
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TT Treloar Transport
LIST OF DEFINITIONS
Site Leases 28M/1990 and 1007 P/M
Southern Lease/Quarry Area Refers to the land owned by MC & B Atkins and mining lease
1007P/M
Northern Lease/Quarry Area Refers to the newly acquired lease 28M/1990
Spotter A spotter in the context of this proposal is an observer whose sole
responsibility is to ensure that they monitor the high wall during
repair of machinery and alert workers should they feel there is a
risk of rock fall; a reliable form of communication must be
maintained between the worker(s) and the spotter.
C&DS 3
1. INTRODUCTION
This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) provides information for
the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Tasmania and Meander Valley Council to assess this
proposal by proponent Treloar Transport Pty Ltd (TT), to intensify and consolidate quarrying at the
Punches Terror Quarry (leases 1007 P/M and 28M/1990).
Through consolidation of the two quarries, TT expects the mining volume to increase from 10,000 m3
to 20,000 m3 per annum (equating to 50,000 tonnes broken at density of 1.6). It is anticipated that all
of this material will require crushing and screening.
The proposed operations include the following:

• Excavation and ripping of material for crushing and screening
• Blasting
• Stockpiling of processed materials
• Loading of trucks using an excavator or wheel loader
• Transport of material by trucks.
1.1. Treloar Transport Pty Ltd Overview
Table 1 - Proponent Details
Trading name Treloar Transport Pty Ltd

Registered address 7 Spring St, Sheffield 7306
Postal address PO Box 21, Sheffield 7306
ABN 83 009 541 986
ACN 009 541 986
Contact John Treloar
Phone 03 6491 1686
Mobile 0428 140 466
Email [email protected]
Established in 1978, TT is a family owned business currently employing 65 employees, providing

construction, earthmoving and quarrying operations and civil contacting services throughout
Tasmania. TT operates a major quarry and crushing plant for civil construction materials at Shackley
Hill near Sheffield, as well as several smaller intermittently operated quarries.
In addition to existing operations at Punches Terror Quarry, TT has extensive experience in the
following:
• Quarry rehabilitation
• Effluent pond management
• Siltation control
• Landslip control
• Bridge construction
• Storm water control
• Silviculture
• Forestry road construction
• Unsealed road grading and watering
• Earthmoving and earthworks for subdivisions
• Agricultural earthmoving projects
• Department of State Growth (DoSG) and council road works, and
C&DS 3
• Landfill and environmental projects.
Applicable environmental legislation, standards, guidelines and relevant Commonwealth, State and
Local Government policies, strategies, or management plans with which the proposal would be
expected to comply are given throughout the text of this document.
This document has been prepared using the generic and DPEMP Project Specific Guidelines (July 2017)
provided by the EPA Board, following submission of a Notice of Intent in June 2017.
The Meander Valley Council (MVC) has determined the proposal will require a new planning permit
and will be assessed against the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The development
application (supported by this DPEMP) will be publicly advertised as part of the assessment process.
1.2. Punches Terror Quarry Operational Overview
Punches Terror Quarry (M/L 1007 P/M) is an existing level one quarry, which has been operated by TT
since 2001. The quarry is located on freehold land owned by M. C. and B Atkins, C/T109390-1.
TT recently acquired a level two quarry from MVC, which is on Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT)
managed Crown Land (28M/1990). TT seeks to operate these two leases under the same land use
permit, and plans to consolidate the leases into one in the future.
TT has not yet initiated this process with Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT). However, the intention
is for the new land parcel/area to be represented as shown in Figure 1. Table 2 provides a list of the
coordinates which define “The Land”.
The proposed increase in production will not require increased overheads and/or capital expenditure
by TT, with existing operational protocols in place at the quarry sufficiently suited to manage the
increased production. The number of employees expected to be on site during campaigns will remain
as one individual, with heavy vehicle traffic continuing as per existing operations.
Safety protocol is currently in place to ensure the excavator/loader operator parks the machine in a
safe location away from blasting and/or other operations, and is stationed in a safe environment that
allows for servicing and refuelling. The only other vehicles required to be on site are service vehicles
in the event of a breakdown. These vehicles will park adjacent to the broken-down equipment.
The likely markets for the quarry products include construction, road building and project materials
which will see the quarry mined on a campaign basis. There is enough material within the Life of Mine
Plan (LOMP) to increase capacity at the site, with road going access and availability of projects being
the limiting factors with an increased production potential.
The anticipated quarry life for the mine plans as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, is approximately 16
years. The likelihood is that the life will be closer to 20 years given the maximum proposed production
is unlikely to be removed each year.
It is not anticipated that the intensification of use will impact on any other activities in the area.
Table 2 - X and Y coordinates which define "The Land"
X Coordinate Y Coordinate
460059.162 5407099.146
459977.4272 5406596.899
460144.5462 5406380.472
460113.264 5406182.97
459915.125 5406214.062
C&DS 3
X Coordinate Y Coordinate
459665.2097 5406507.576
459376.2866 5406555.072
459479.201 5407203.217
Figure 1 – site plan showing the area of “The Land” and approximate distances to sensitive receptors
C&DS 3
2. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
2.1. GENERAL
The proposal is based on mining between two existing hard rock (chert-conglomerate) quarries of
conventional drill and blast operation. This will consist of benches 6 to 8m high, small topsoil and
overburden stockpiles, drains and settlement ponds as shown in the drainage plan, Figure 5.
Mining will be conducted between both leases, in the mining areas shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 and
Figure 8 show more detailed mining plans. Mining will primarily be contained to existing disturbances
which amounts to less than two hectares between both lease areas. There may be a requirement to
remove a small amount of vegetation above the former MVC quarry to ensure trees do not fall into
the active quarry area.
The quarrying will be a conventional drill and blast benched operation. Figure 2 shows the five-stage
process from drilling to haul from site. The extraction process consists of drilling and blasting, crushing
and screening, stockpiling, load and dispatch. The crusher / screen is a mobile unit that can be
positioned next to the shot rock and fed directly by the face excavator.
Typical equipment on site will be:
• Face loader: 20t Cat excavator

• Crusher: Terex mobile crusher / screen
• Stockpile Loader: Cat 950
• Trucks: Truck and dog combination 30t capacity.
Figure 2 - quarrying cycle showing the five-stage process from drilling to haul from site
Blasting will be conducted on an as-needs basis, with a typical blast liberating about 10,000 m3. At the
maximum annual proposed production rate (20,000 m3), blasting is likely to be carried out twice per
annum. Initial blasts in the northern lease (28M/1990) may need to be smaller in size, potentially only
5,000 m3, to re-establish upper benches. This could mean up to four blasts in the first three years of
mine life, with two blasts per year expected thereafter.
Given the number of sensitive receptors within 1 kilometre of the working areas of the quarries, TT
will endeavour to minimise blasting or conduct blasting at the two quarries simultaneously.
TRELOAR TRANSPORT 10 | P a g e
C&DS 3
Mining volume between the two quarries combined is expected to be 20,000 m3 per annum (or 50,000
tonnes broken based on bank density of 2.6). It is anticipated that all this material will require
crushing.
It is proposed that operating hours will be 0700 to 1700 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1500 on
Saturday. These operating times fall within the recommended hours of operation in the Quarry Code
of Practice (QCP) 2017.
The heaviest concentration of traffic from expanded production would typically be 20 truck
movements a day for several weeks over several campaigns per year.
TT has been operating lease southern lease (1007 P/M) as a level 1 activity for 16 years. This activity
does not have a council permit or regulatory conditions associated with it. TT recently acquired
28M/1990 from MVC; this activity is regulated by permit (former Licence to Operate Scheduled
Premises) 3866. Permitted material movement from 28M/1990 is 10,000 tonnes per annum. TT has
only removed enough material from the quarry to conduct road base testing and start setting up
benches and drainage for future production from the quarry.
2.2. CONSTRUCTION
Both quarries are operational in their existing state, with no construction or permanent structures
required on site.
2.3. COMMISSIONING
No commissioning is required as part of the expansion.
C&DS 3
2.4. GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Figure 3 - general location map showing the proposed site, topographical features, roads to and from the site, distances to
sensitive receptors within one kilometre.
C&DS 3
Figure 4 - general location map showing surrounding land tenure and land use. All areas within the plan are zoned "Rural
Resource"
C&DS 3
2.5. SITE PLAN
Figure 5 - Drainage plan showing ponds, pond outlets, and final drainage direction
C&DS 3
Figure 6 - Site plan showing boundary of the sites, major items of equipment, crushed material stockpiles, mining direction
and mining plan
C&DS 3
Figure 7 - detailed mining plan for the Atkins Quarry 1007P/M
C&DS 3
Figure 8 - detailed mining plan for the ex-Meander Valley Council quarry 28M/1990
C&DS 3
2.6. OFF SITE INFRASTRUCTURE

No additional off-site infrastructure is required to facilitate this development.
3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The site was chosen for development because of the existing quarry (1007P/M), and the recent
acquisition of the former MVC lease 28M/1990, in an area which opens new business opportunities
for TT. The intensification of use is required due to new markets opening up in the Meander Valley
Region.
The material from the quarry is suitable for road, civil and dam construction.
4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The application to intensify use at Punches Terror quarry has included discussions and consultation
with the following surrounding residences and agencies:
• Residents in the region
• MC and B Atkins as the land owner of lease 1007P/M
• STT as land manager of the Crown Land on lease 28M/1190
• Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
• Department of State Growth - Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT)
• Meander Valley Council.
This application is for a Level 2 Activity which is ‘discretionary’ in the Rural Resource Zone, and as such
the application will be advertised to the public. The EPA and the Meander Valley Council will take into
account all comments and representations received through the public consultation period in the
assessment of this proposal.
5. THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

5.1. PLANNING ASPECTS
Mining lease 1007P/M is located on a private parcel owned by MC and B Atkins and 28M/1990 is
Crown Land, managed by STT. The leases fall within the Meander Valley Council Area and is zoned
Rural Resource under the interim planning scheme.
There are no rights of way, easements or covenants affecting the proposal. The leases are off
Beaumont’s Road, to the south-west of the township of Dunorlan. A general locality plan is shown in
Figure 3. The mining lease area and surrounding land is zoned Rural Resource (Figure 4). Mining is a
discretionary use in the Rural Resource zone.
The lease areas are both on sites which have a long history of quarrying and are surrounded by
production forests. The proposed mining areas lie within a low to medium landslide hazard band (LIST:
Landslide Planning Map). A landslip risk assessment has been conducted by Tasman Geotechnics and
is included as Appendix G – Landslip Risk Assessment. This is discussed further in section 6.13.
The site has no permanent structures and the planned development includes only infrastructure which
is transportable in nature. There is no obvious contamination from previous working, nor is
contamination expected to be caused by existing and proposed activities.
There are 19 residences within one kilometre of the lease boundaries, and no other facilities or
businesses in the general locality. The nearest town with hospitals and schools is Deloraine, 10.5
kilometres to the south east. The general locality plan in Figure 3 shows nearest sensitive receptors
and a one-kilometre boundary around the leases.
C&DS 3
Planning details for the proposed quarry are:

Table 3 - planning details for the proposal
Mining Lease 1007P/M 28M/1990

Land Type Private Freehold Crown managed by STT
Property ID 6281755 2531016
Land Zoning Rural Resource
Surrounding land tenure Private Freehold
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

The site is located on the south-western side of a north – south running ridge. The eastern side of the
ridge is classified as plantation in the TASVEG 3.0 layers with agricultural land further to the east. To
the west of the ridge is primarily Crown managed Eucalyptus Amygdalina (TASVEG 3.0) forest. There
is some mapped Eucalyptus Ovata forest, which North Barker Ecological (NBE) Services has described
as low quality and outside the proposed area of disturbance.
The area of vegetation disturbance for re-opening 28M/1990 will be less than one hectare, with the
only established vegetation to be removed around the crest of the old quarry. This vegetation will be
removed to limit the risk of large regrowth falling into the working quarry. NBE Services has assessed
both leases in separate visits over the past 12 months. In the region of 1007P/M, NBE Services
identified one threatened species, Gratiola pubescens, however quarrying is not planned in the vicinity
of the occurrence. With respect to a potential denning site for the Tasmanian Devil was identified on
the north-eastern corner of the lease boundary, NBE Services state:
“Advice from the Policy & Conservation Advice Branch that further exploration into
potential use of the soil mound as a den (through means such as remote camera
surveillance) was not necessary, and that protective buffers are not required for
unconfirmed den sites”
In the region of 28M/1990, NBE Services found that the vegetation was Eucalyptus obliqua
codominant with Eucalyptus amygdalina. No Eucalyptus ovata forest was mapped and the TASVEG
layers were updated. There were no threatened fauna species identified during the survey conducted
by NBE Services within the planned area of disturbance. Both reports are attached as Appendix A.
The leases are situated on a band of thick bedded massive siliceous conglomerates, with minor quartz
sandstone lenses. There are no acid sulphate soils mapped nearby the proposed mining areas. There
is some evidence of a low level of acidity in water pooling on the quarry floor in the southern proposed
mining area, this is discussed further in section 6.2. Climate data collected at Sheffield (farm school)
show the annual median temperature for 2016 ranged from 10.9°C to 24.0°C. The annual median
rainfall at Kimberly (Mersey River) is 969.3mm.
There are no natural processes of particular importance for the maintenance of the existing
environment in the proposed area of mining. There are no reserves located within 500 metres of the
proposed quarry. There are no high-quality areas identified in the Tasmanian Regional Forest
Agreement in the vicinity of the proposed site.
5.3. SOCIO-ECONOMICAL ASPECTS

The population in the vicinity of the proposal comprises generally residences on moderately size rural
living blocks. The township of Dunorlan is around one kilometre to the northeast and there is potential
for the residents to be disturbed by blasting, although impacts are likely to be minimal. The township
is shaded by the ridge. The residents to the west of the proposal are most likely to be affected by
C&DS 3
blasting impacts from the quarry, however there have been no complaints from blasting in 1007P/M
in the past.
6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

6.1. AIR QUALITY
6.1.1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
TT has operated the level 1 quarry (1007P/M) since 2001 with no complaints with respect to dust
emissions in this time.
Wind rose data from BOM sites at Round Hill Burnie and Launceston Airport is shown in Appendix F –
BOM Wind Rose Data. The Launceston data shows predominantly north westerly prevailing winds,
while the Burnie data shows westerly prevailing winds. There is no BOM data nearby the site, however
it is anticipated that the winds will be primarily north westerly to westerly, which means dust is likely
to be dispersed into the ridgeline immediately to the east of the quarry, limiting the potential for dust
nuisance to the nearby sensitive receptors.
Rainfall data in nearby at Kimberly (Mersey River) is 969.3mm, which suggests the site will be
frequently damp, limiting dust emissions due to operations.
6.1.2. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 (EPP) is a framework for management
and regulation of point and diffuse emissions which affect air quality. The EPP is made pursuant to the
provisions of section 96A-96O of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
The environmental values covered by the EPP are:
• The life, health and well-being of humans at present and in the future
• The life, health and well-being of other forms of life, including the present and future health,
wellbeing and integrity of ecosystems and ecological processes
• Visual amenity, and
• The useful life and aesthetic appearance of buildings, structures, property and materials.
6.1.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Dust emissions will occur because all operating surfaces in the quarry are gravel. There are no metals
or other contaminants in the host rock, therefore dust emissions should be benign in nature. Potential
sources of dust within the operations include:
• Stripping of topsoil
• Ripping and dozing of material for stockpiling
• Crushing
• Drilling and blasting
• Stockpiling and loading
• Road use around the quarry
• Exhaust emissions.
6.1.4. AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The quarries will retain a vegetation buffer along transport routes where possible to limit dust
emissions to the receiving environment.
C&DS 3
Trucks will travel at 20 kilometres per hour along the gravel sections of Beaumont’s Road1 to limit dust
emissions. A water cart will be used to dampen the road surface if required during particularly dry
times to limit environmental dust emissions2.
Mobile plant exhaust emissions will be controlled by maintaining plant exhaust systems to the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
6.1.5. ASSESSMENT OF NET IMPACTS

Dust emissions are expected to be low when the above mitigation measures are implemented. The
mitigation measures will ensure that dust emissions do not cause environmental nuisance.
Any impacts which do arise due to poor dampening or vehicles travelling at over 20 km/h are still
unlikely to cause environmental nuisance to residents in the area due to the setback of housing from
the gravel Beaumont’s Road.
Uncontrolled dust emissions from quarrying (crushing/screening and excavating/loading) are likely to
cause environmental nuisance due to the north/south running ridge and predominantly westerly
prevailing winds. Any dust during easterly winds will be mitigated by the vegetative buffer between
the quarry and the nearby residences.
6.2. SURFACE WATER QUALITY

There are no recognised creeks in the vicinity of the proposed mining areas. All water will discharge
from the activity into unnamed tributaries to Lobster Rivulet, around one kilometre to the south west
of 1007P/M. The catchment area below the site is mostly poor value native forest or production
timber areas directly upslope from Lobster Rivulet.
Table 4 - water quality results for samples collected below 1007P/M on the 21st of September 2017
Date 21-09-17 21-09-17

Sample Atkins Pit Floor Atkins Final Pond
Field pH pH unit 3.97 6.91
Field Conductivity µs/cm 166.1 139.3
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 6 13
Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <1 <1
Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <1 <1
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <1 27
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <1 27
Acidity as CaCO3 mg/L 19 6
Sulfate as SO4 Turbidimetric mg/L 19 12
Aluminium mg/L 3.3 1.8
Arsenic mg/L <0.001 0.001
Barium mg/L 0.01 0.009
Cadmium mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001
Chromium mg/L 0.002 0.004
Cobalt mg/L 0.006 0.001
Copper mg/L 0.068 0.006
1
Commitment: Trucks to travel at 20 kilometres per hour to limit dust emissions
2
Commitment: Use water cart as required to dampen road surface
C&DS 3
Date 21-09-17 21-09-17

Sample Atkins Pit Floor Atkins Final Pond
Lead mg/L 0.026 0.006
Manganese mg/L 0.049 0.082
Molybdenum mg/L <0.001 <0.001
Nickel mg/L 0.006 0.004
Selenium mg/L <0.01 <0.01
Zinc mg/L 0.021 0.016
Iron mg/L 0.23 1.77
Given the low pH of the surface water on the quarry floor in the 1007 P/M lease, water quality samples
were collected on the quarry floor and downstream in the discharge pond. The results shown in Table
4 show marginally elevated levels of aluminium, copper and lead on the pit floor, while the discharge
pond has negligible amounts of copper and lead, the aluminium remains elevated in the final pond.
The elevated levels of these elements do not pose a significant environmental risk.
A drainage plan is shown in Figure 5. All drainage from both mining areas will travel via a series of
settling ponds before being discharged into Lobster Rivulet, which reports to the Mersey River
approximately 1 kilometre downstream.
Lobster Rivulet is used for irrigation up stream of the proposed development, however the area
downstream of the development is heavily forested and not likely to be used for agricultural purposes.
The State of the River Report Water on Quality of Rivers in The Mersey Catchment (1997) describes
the Lobster Rivulet at Chudleigh (about 9.5 kilometres upstream of the proposal) as “highly degraded”.
The report suggests that damage has primarily/largely been caused by livestock access to the river,
resulting in poor benthic habitat quality, high turbidity and poor water quality.
The Mersey catchment has various land uses downstream of the Lobster Rivulet including agriculture,
hydroelectric power generation and forestry. The State of River Report on Mersey River Catchment
Index of River Condition (1997) describes the overall river condition as moderately impacted. The
primary drivers of the degraded river condition include:
• Severe erosion due to destruction of streamside zones

• Uncontrolled stock access
• Choking of waterways from exotic species
• Pollution inputs, and
• Forestry practices including extensive plantations with no natural streamside zones and
limited understorey.
The site runoff was estimated using the rational method equation. The estimated runoff on the Atkins
lease (1007P/M) is 1.05ML per day for a 1 in 20-year rainfall event. The existing pond size is
approximately 4.1ML when at full storage capacity. According to the Australian Rainfall and Runoff:
A Guide to Flood Estimation, the calculated minimum size of the pond for 80% removal of sediment
during a 1 in 20 year flood is 1.2ML. The expected detention time is slightly more than three days
during a 1 in 20 year event.

The key legislation and policy requirements pertinent to this DPEMP for management of surface water
quality are:
• Water Management Act 1999

C&DS 3
• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (SPWQM)

• Inland Fisheries Act 1995
• Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and
• Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000.
Protected environmental values (PEV) relevant to this proposal from the SPWQM identified are:
• Recreational Water Quality Aesthetics

o Secondary contact.
• Agricultural Water Uses
o Irrigation
o Stock watering.
The minimum water quality should include management strategies to maintain water quality
guidelines to protect and achieve all of the environmental values for the nominated water body.
The results shown in Table 4 show marginally elevated levels of aluminium, copper and lead on the pit
floor, while the discharge pond has negligible amounts of copper and lead, the aluminium remains
elevated in the final pond. The elevated levels of these elements do not pose a significant
environmental risk.
The metal concentrations were reviewed against the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh
and Marine Water Quality, 2000. The downstream water use is predominantly agricultural, when
compared to the long-term trigger values in section 4.2.6 of the guidelines3, the metal concentrations
are below the trigger values.
The estimated runoff for the ex-MVC lease (28M/1990) is 0.8ML per day for a 1 in 20 year rainfall
event. The calculated required pond size is 0.6ML, with a retention time of just under one day. The
existing pond is undersized and will require enlargement upon approval of this application.
The pond size required can be reduced by using fingers, the use of sediment screens or having a long
pond4.

Surface water monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the proposed schedule in Table 11.
Should the final discharge surface water quality be outside the PEV values, TT will lodge an incident
report and investigate the likely cause.
Surface water will be directed away from both active quarry areas, both to minimise the risk of high
wall failure and to prevent clean water entering the quarry area disturbances. The clean water
redirection will be directed into the final settling ponds to ensure that sediment laden drainage is not
released to the environment.

Monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the commitments made in section 7.1. TT will
undertake periodic inspections of the site, with a section dedicated to run off and surface water
3
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality: The Guidelines, 2000, Volume 1,
Table 4.2.10, pp 4.2–11
4
Commitment: Install larger sediment pond before activity commences
C&DS 3
disposal system. Inspection records will be maintained electronically for a duration of two years and
can be made available on request.
Flood events are most likely to cause discharge water to contain elevated solids by short circuiting the
settling pond network. The ponds have been designed to cater for a once in 20-year flood event,
floods larger than this are likely to have discharge water with elevated suspended solids. This
discharge is not likely to cause environmental harm during large storm events. Under these
conditions, the river networks in the region are likely to have high suspended solids, with volumes
contributed from this proposed intensification unlikely to add any significant solids to the system.
The Southern lease (1007P/M) showed some elevated metals concentration and low pH on the quarry
floor. The large area of watershed around the lease means that the concentrations are likely to be
sufficiently diluted and not a cause for concern.
6.3. GROUNDWATER
The regional geological setting for the proposal has been mapped by MRT as Cambrian aged and
described as “quartzite derived, massive pebble-cobble conglomerate with minor pink quartz arenite
beds” (Chester 2017)5. The ground water feature summary included in Appendix H identifies two main
aquifers present; tertiary basalt and Cambrian aged.
The ground water plans prepared by the Tasmanian Government show that the tertiary basalt is highly
permeable, with many groundwater bores in the region used for residential and stock water. Figure
9 shows the groundwater bores detailed in Appendix H with symbology showing aquifer geology. The
aquifers surrounding the proposed development are almost exclusively tertiary basalt.
The surface water quality is discussed in section 6.2, with the surface water quality not expected to
impact on the groundwater supply. All surface water is and will continue to be directed in a south
westerly direction towards Lobster Rivulet, in the opposite direction of the surrounding residents’
groundwater bores.
The water feature summary (Appendix H) has one bore with a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) value of
380ppm; it is unlikely to expect any large variation from this value for the purpose of this proposal. TT
has operated the site since 2001 and has had no complaints from surrounding residences with regard
to bore water quality degradation or the activity being perceived to draw down the aquifer.
There are no groundwater uses on either lease contained within this proposal. There is no
requirement for use of groundwater for the planned proposal. The depth of excavations is not likely
to intercept groundwater.

The proposal should be consistent with the objectives and requirements of all relevant water
management policies and legislation, including the Water Management Act 1999 and the SPWQM. It
must be demonstrated that the proposal meets the PEV outlined in section 10.2 of the SPWQM.
The PEV for the proposal with respect to ground water will be for TDS below 1000 (mg/L) as per table
1 in the SPWQM. Environmental protection measures for drinking water quality should be met to
maintain the existing water quality.
5
Chester, 2017, LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT PROPOSED QUARRY, PUNCHES TERROR BEAUMONT'S ROAD,
DUNORLAN, Tasman Geotechnics, Launceston Tasmania.
C&DS 3

The potential effects of the proposal on ground water quality are expected to be very low to negligible.
The quality of surface water runoff shown in Table 4 is of a suitable standard to recharge the
surrounding groundwater without any impact. The drainage will be directed towards the Lobster
Rivulet, thereby avoiding recharge of the aquifers north of the proposed site.
The proposed site is located along the crest of a ridge, above the level of the water in any of the
surrounding bores. The proposed development is not likely to drawdown the aquifer water level. The
site will have no requirement for additional water input as part of normal activities.

Regular monitoring of surface water runoff and ensuring drainage flows in the appropriate direction
will avoid impacts to groundwater quality. Should the surface water quality become consistently
outside the PEV’s in the SPWQM, and TDS remain elevated, TT will contact local residents and conduct
water quality analyses to ensure its operations do not adversely impact the surrounding landholders.
TT will conduct regular surface water quality sampling as discussed in section 7.1 below. TT will advise
the EPA should it feel that groundwater quality has been affected.

The measures outlined above should ensure that potential impacts on groundwater are controlled
and monitored. Groundwater is not likely to be intercepted or affected by activities. Risk to the
environment is considered negligible.
C&DS 3
Figure 9 - Shows groundwater bores and ground water dependant ecosystems (GDE) 6
6
Locations of groundwater bores sourced from http://wrt.tas.gov.au/groundwater-info/ on 2nd January 2018.
Data for Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDE) was sourced and downloaded from
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml on the 2nd January 2018.
C&DS 3
6.4. NOISE EMISSIONS

The site is located on the western side of a north – south running ridge, with north and north-westerly
prevailing winds.
Both proposed quarries are surrounded by some vegetative buffering, with the southern quarry
(1007P/M) the most exposed, however the furthest from nearby residences. Extractive activity will
be on a campaign basis with the activities expected to cause the most noise being crushing/screening
and blasting.
The potential sources of noise emissions are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5 – Machine power levels and calculated sound power output where available
Machine Horse power Sound power output

(calculated by P.
Terts)
Face loader: 20t Cat excavator 748 42 dB(A)
Crusher: Terex mobile crusher / screen 300 112 dB(A)
Stockpile Loader: Cat 950 130
ATLAS COPCO ROC F7 (or similar) 240
Blasting See below with regard to blasting
Consideration has been given to the below listed key legislation and policy guidance documents:
• Quarry Code of Practice 2017

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2014
(EMPCR)
• Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009, and
• Guidelines for Community Noise 1999.
The Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009 (Noise EPP) establishes suitable benchmarks for
acceptable levels of noise so people can enjoy the peace and solitude of Tasmania. The Noise EPP
describes overarching principles and objectives to provide a basis for reducing health risks and
unreasonable interference with human enjoyment of the environment by noise emissions.

Environmental Noise
A noise survey was conducted by Pearu Terts in September 2017 and is included as Appendix B. Two
monitoring locations were used during the survey to record ambient noise. These are shown in Figure
10.
Based on the topographic profiles shown in the report attached and locations in Figure 11, noise levels
were calculated and are listed below in Table 6. The noise levels estimated at the nearest residences
suggest operations at the site are likely to comply with the noise emission criteria of the QCP, namely
a daytime level of 45dB (A).
The quarry operating hours are consistent with the QCP and discussed in section 2.1. The distances
from the quarry operations to the sensitive receptors within 1 kilometre of the quarry are shown in
Figure 1.
C&DS 3
Table 6 - noise levels at nearest residences calculated by Pearu Terts to be read in conjunction with plan in Figure 11
Quarry Residence Calculated Noise Separation Distance (m)

1 1 31.2 dB(A) 734
2 1 30.6 dB(A) 972
1 2 36.9 dB(A) 605
2 2 30.5 dB(A) 1205
1 3 35.6 dB(A) 444
2 3 27.4 dB(A) 1043
Figure 10 - Noise monitoring locations during Pearu Tert's field assessment in September 2017
C&DS 3
Figure 11 - Quarry and nearest residence locations for calculation of environmental (nuisance) noise
Based on the results of the noise study, the potential for noise nuisance to residents in the area is low.
With the mitigation measures described above and the long history of quarrying in the area with no
complaints received, it is anticipated that TT will be able to operate without affecting the residents of
the area. Should quarrying activities be required in the northern section of 28M/1990, TT will conduct
a further noise assessment.7
Blasting
Forze conducted a blasting assessment for the proposal, included as Appendix C – Blasting Impacts
Report. The estimated ground vibration at each of the monitoring points (shown in its report in
Appendix C – Blasting Impacts Report) is listed in Table 7 - blast ground vibration. The estimated air
blast overpressure is 107dBL at 870m from 1007P/M and 114dBL at 390m from 28M/1990.
Table 7 - blast ground vibration from the quarries
Lease Distance from blast Vibration Prediction Vibration Prediction

Site (PPV - mm/s) Monitor (PPV - mm/s)
1007P/M 870 1.09 1.09
28M/1990 390 2.90 2.90
The QCP suggests that blasting should be carried out within the below conditions8:
a) “for 95% of blasts, air blast overpressure must not exceed 115 dB (Lin Peak)
b) air blast overpressure must not exceed 120 dB (Lin Peak) at all
7
Conduct noise assessment if operations are outside those described in Figure 7 and Figure 8
8
Quarry Code of Practice – May 2017, pp19
C&DS 3
c) for 95% of blasts, ground vibration must not exceed 5 mm/s peak particle velocity, and
d) Ground vibration must not exceed 10 mm/s peak particle velocity at all.”
The estimated air blast overpressure for both quarries falls within a and b above at the quoted
distances. The ground vibration is estimated to be below 5mm/s for all blasts at 390m from the blast
location. Only one sensitive receptor lies at about this distance, from the northern quarry. The Forze
report suggests that TT will be able to comply with the blasting requirements of the QCP. TT will
monitor all blasts and keep records for five years, and these will be supplied to the EPA Director upon
request.
TT has, and will continue to, maintain a public complaint register for the duration of the project. There
have been no complaints with respect to noise from operations of the quarry within lease 1007P/M.
Noise impacts will be mitigated by:
• ensuring that a vegetative buffer is maintained around quarrying operations

• operating and blasting within the hours stated in section 2.1
• keeping crusher/screening operations on lower benches
• minimising the frequency of blasting where possible, and
• using low traffic speed with no engine brakes on the gravel section of Beaumont’s Road and
through Dunorlan township.
Blasting will be monitored in accordance with the blast management plan (BMP) attached in Appendix
C – Blasting Impacts Report.

There is likely to be some noise and potential for nuisance to nearby sensitive receptors as a
consequence of this proposal. The most likely noise nuisance during operations at the site will be
caused by blasting. The impact of blasting to nearby residences will be a few minutes up to four times
per year. TT will contact residents prior to blasting to ensure that this inconvenience will not cause
nuisance and, where necessary, attempt to negotiate a more appropriate time to blast, providing this
can be done in accordance with the BMP.
The noise report showed there would be some noise at the closest residences as a result of this
proposal, however the estimated levels are below the noise requirements in the QCP. The level of
noise still has potential to be of nuisance, however the risk of this is considered low.
6.5. WASTE MANAGEMENT

There are no existing waste streams on the sites under existing operations. There are no waste
disposal receptacles provided and there is no intension to do so with the proposed expansion. All
solid and liquid effluent will be removed from site at the end of each day.

The key legislation relevant to the management of solid and controlled waste in Tasmania is the
EMPCA 1994 and its associated regulations, namely EMPCA (Waste Management) Regulations 2010
and EMPCA (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010.
C&DS 3

LIQUID EFFLUENT
There will be no discharge of liquid effluent (excluding stormwater which is discussed above) as part
of the proposal. There will be no permanent site-based amenities.
During mining campaigns, transportable amenities will be installed on site with all wastes removed by
a licensed contractor.
SOLID WASTES
All machinery servicing which produces solid wastes will be conducted at the TT workshop in Sheffield.
Waste generated by repair of equipment breakdowns is and will be removed from site after the repairs
are conducted. Waste generated by workers is and will be removed at the end of the shift each day;
no waste bins are provided on site.

All waste will be removed from site at the conclusion of each day. Controlled waste will be transported
from the TT compound in Sheffield for disposal by a licenced contractor.
Quarry inspections will be conducted periodically to ensure that the workforce is removing all waste
from site.

The measures to be implemented as per above should ensure impacts to the environment are
negligible.
6.6. DANGEROUS GOODS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

There are no existing hazardous materials stored on site.

The proposal will fulfil the requirements of the following legislation and policy in relation to dangerous
goods and hazardous materials:
• Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, Edition 7.5, 2017
• Dangerous Substances (Safe Handling) Act 2005 and associated regulations
• Australian Dangerous Goods Code (7th edition), and
• Relevant Australian Standards (e.g. AS 1940 and AS 3780).

There will be no storage of fuels and oils on site. All fuel and oil will be transported onto site each day
by light vehicle. Each vehicle is equipped with spill kits and TT has a program in place to train
employees in the use of spill kits. The maximum quantity of fuel and oil brought to site at any one
time is 240L and unlikely to cause environmental harm should there be a spill. All chemicals brought
to site will be stored in a bund with capacity 1.5 times greater than the amount transported to site.
Chemicals for the purpose of weed treatment will be on site during the annual weed management
program. Contractor chemical storage will be assessed prior to work commencement on site to ensure
that chemicals are stored appropriately.
C&DS 3
Explosives will be transported to site by the explosives contractor. Loading and firing will occur on the
same day, with no requirement to store explosives on site overnight.
To minimise the risk of toxic fumes from blasting, the contractor will no use Ammonium Nitrate, Fuel
Oil (ANFO) when there is water present; regular density checks will be conducted to ensure product
quality.
Appropriate records will be kept in line with the explosive contractor procedures.

Mitigation of risks associated with dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials are:
• Employee and contractor inductions which will include information on appropriate disposal
methods of waste
• Safety Data Sheets (SDS) will be available and accompany any chemical used on site
• Spill clean-up kits will be available on any light vehicle carrying hazardous materials or in the
vicinity of operating heavy machinery
• Any spills will be reported and cleaned up immediately, and
• Explosives will not be stored on site.
Quarry inspections will be conducted periodically to ensure hazardous materials are stored
appropriately. A public complaints register will be maintained for the term of the proposal.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects from dangerous goods and
environmentally hazardous materials are managed appropriately, monitored and are unlikely to cause
environmental harm.
6.7. BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL VALUES

NBE Services conducted biodiversity assessments during two visits in 2016 and 2017. The freehold
lease, 1007 P/M was surveyed in September 2016. The results of both surveys are attached as
Appendix A in section 12.1. A Natural Values Atlas (NVA) report was obtained from the NVA database
and is attached as Appendix I – Natural Values Atlas Report. The report shows no threatened species
within the lease areas, with the only notable feature within the search boundary a geoconservation
site and threatened communities discussed in the section below. There is one verified listing of
threatened fauna within 500m of the lease boundary, which was green and gold frog (Litoria
raniformis). There have been ten raptor nest sighting within a 5000 km of the lease boundaries
between 1985 and 2016. NBE Services have noted in their report that the habitat surrounding the site
is not of suitable quality for WTE nesting site.
Vegetation Communities
The vegetation communities were mapped by NBE Services. Both lease areas contain the following
TASVEG units:
• Dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest (DOB)

• Dry Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS)*, and
• Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM).
Those units with an asterisk correspond to communities listed as threatened under the Tasmanian
Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NBE Services, 2016).
C&DS 3
The proposed intensification of the southern lease (1007P/M) will result in approximately one-hectare
DAS and 0.4 hectare of DOB of vegetation removal over the life of the proposal. The proposed
intensification of the northern lease (28M/1990) will result in the clearance of up to one hectare of
DAS and no more than 0.2 ha of DOB. NBE Services classified this vegetation removal as insignificant
in a local and regional scale.
The TASVEG layers show E. ovata mapped in the region, however NBE Services made no sightings of
E. ovata during the field survey in either lease, and the TASVEG layers have been updated accordingly.
Table 8 - VEGCODE values used in Figure 12
VEGCODE
(DAC) Eucalyptus amygdalina coastal forest and woodland
(DAS) Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone
(DOB) Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest
(DOV) Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland
(DSC) Eucalyptus amygdalina - Eucalyptus obliqua damp sclerophyll forest
(FAG) Agricultural land
(FPL) Plantations for silviculture
(FPU) Unverified plantations for silviculture
(FUM) Extra-urban miscellaneous
(FUR) Urban areas
(NAD) Acacia dealbata forest
(WOB) Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs
Threatened Species
There was one occurrence of Gratiola pubescens in the vicinity of the final pond of the southern quarry
area (50m SW of the active quarry area of 1007P/M). The area of occurrence will be barricaded9 to
ensure there is no disturbance during pond repairs and cleaning. NBE Services noted that populations
of the species are increasing and there is potential for it to be down listed or delisted.
NBE Services identified a soil mound on the north-western border of the lease 1007 P/M which could
be suitable Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) habitat. NBE Service indicated that since the mound
is removed from the mining area and unlikely to be used, no further studies are required. NBE Services
indicated it would be best to cordon the area off to ensure it is not disturbed10.
Weeds and Pathogens

NBE Services did not map any declared weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999 in the vicinity
of southern lease (1007 P/M) during its field visit. Sue Jennings of Forestry Tasmania also surveyed
the lease for weeds and pathogens during May of 2017 surveying the lease (1007P/M) for weed
species and Phytophthora cinnamomi. There were no weed issues noted during the survey.
Ms Jennings suspected the lease had an infection of P. cinnamomi due to deaths of indicator species.
The sample results shown that there is no infection contained within the lease, however Ms Jennings
made recommendations with regard to soil stockpiles until further testing is conducted in the future.
NBE Services mapped one declared weed, Ulex europaeus (gorse) and one woody environmental
weed, Pinus radiata (radiata pine) during its field visit to the southern lease. TT has undertaken weed
9
Commitment: Delineate area of listed species
10
Commitment: Cordon off potential devil den
C&DS 3
treatment activities on the site since the survey. TT has committed to a corporate weed management
plan as part of this proposal.
Figure 12 - Vegetation communities in the vicinity of the proposed expansion (to be read in conjunction with Table 8)
C&DS 3

The key legislation relevant to protecting flora and ecological communities contained in this proposal
are:
• Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

• Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
• Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999
• Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002
• Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations, and
• Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
In addition to the above legislative requirements, consideration has been given to Australia's
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030, Tasmania’s Nature Conservation Strategy Draft (2001)
and Threatened Species Strategy for Tasmania (2000).

The primary risk to vegetation communities from the proposed activity expansion is vegetation
removal for expansion of the pit. NBE Services did not anticipate that the level of vegetation removal
from either lease would be significant on a local or regional scale. At the conclusion of quarrying
activities, these areas will be rehabilitated.
Threatened Species
NBE Services identified threatened species Gratiola pubescens in the vicinity of the quarry area
(1007P/M). NBE Services makes note in its report that Gratiola pubescens has become more
frequently recorded in Tasmanian and is likely to be nominated for down-listing or de-listing. Should
the area of Gratiola pubescens need to be disturbed, TT will need to apply for a permit to take from
DPIPWE.
A potential Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) den site was observed by NBE Service during its field
study on the northern edge of the mining lease 1007P/M. NBE Services contacted DPIPWE’s Policy &
Conservation Advice Branch, which advised that further investigation of the soil mound was
unnecessary. The habitat surrounding the soil mound is not ideal devil habitat.
Weeds and Pathogens

The weed species present on site are unlikely to have any measurable impacts on the regional
biodiversity. The P. cinnamomi status of the quarry will be monitored biennially into the future.

Vegetation removal will be minimised where possible, and progressive rehabilitation will be
conducted if possible. Soil stockpiles will be maintained along the crest of each quarry, as a safety
windrow and source of rehabilitation material.
Threatened Species
Occurrences of Gratiola pubescens will be flagged for the duration of the proposal and a ground based
observer will be used during pond cleaning to ensure that the excavator operator does not disturb the
occurrences of Gratiola pubescens. If removal is required to maintain drainage, a ‘permit to take’ will
be sought from DPIPWE.
C&DS 3
The soil mound, which is a potential Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) den site will be flagged for
the duration of the proposal.
Weeds and Pathogens

The P. cinnamomic status of the quarry will be monitored biennially into the future. Appropriate weed
management practices will be used to ensure that weed incursions at the site are minimised and
where possible, eradicated.

The removal of vegetation is likely to cause habitat loss to some species, however insignificant to local
populations that might be. The vegetation loss around the proposal has been assessed as low-quality
habitat for any endangered species. The proposed avoidance and mitigation measures will ensure
that the likelihood of environmental harm is negligible.
Threatened Species
There are two species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, and some
likelihood these species may be disturbed (particularly Gratiola pubescens) during quarrying.
However, the net impact would be negligible on a more global scale. NBE Services has noted the
occurrences of Gratiola pubescens are becoming more common in Tasmania.
Weeds and Pathogens

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential impacts from weeds and pathogens
are unlikely to cause environmental harm.
6.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Operation of mobile plant will cause greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions arise from
blasting; as only two to four blasts per year are forecast, greenhouse gas emissions from this source
will be minimal over the life of mine (LOM).
There is minimal need to remove vegetation over the LOM, and with areas being revegetated, overall
vegetation levels at the end of mining should exceed the existing levels, therefore increasing the CO2
consuming potential of vegetated areas.

The impacts of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and targets are set in the Climate Change
State Action Act 2008 and Climate Smart Tasmania: A 2020 Climate Change Strategy. TT does not
meet the thresholds for reporting under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.
The Climate Change State Action Act 2008 sets a limit of 60% below the 1990 greenhouse gas
emissions baseline by 2050.

Exhaust emissions will generate greenhouse gasses within the proposal area and the road corridors
approaching the area of proposed operations. Impacts include respiratory effects on workers and
surrounding residents. TT recognises that its activities product greenhouse gas emissions which
contribute to local, regional and global air sheds.
C&DS 3

Machinery owned and operated by TT is modern and well maintained, which will ensure that
emissions of greenhouse gases are minimised. TT will consider greenhouse gas emissions when
procuring new equipment.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects from greenhouse gas emissions
and ozone depleting substances is managed appropriately, monitored and are a low risk to cause
environmental harm.
6.9. HERITAGE
The Tasmanian Heritage Register has been consulted and there are no listed heritage features within
the vicinity of the leases. The closest heritage features shown on the LIST are in the Dunorlan township
over 2.5 kilometres away.
A search was conducted of the Aboriginal heritage website, which did not identify any registered
Aboriginal relics or apparent risk of affecting Aboriginal relics.

Relevant legislation to protect Aboriginal and European heritage in Tasmania includes:
• Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975

• Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, and
• Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.
In Tasmania, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania provides resources, standards and guidelines for heritage
investigations. European Heritage information is available from the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

The site has no significant Aboriginal or European Heritage or risk of encountering them.

An Unanticipated Discovery Plan will be kept on record by TT to ensure it complies with the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1975 should any aboriginal relics be uncovered during operations.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects to heritage features is managed
appropriately.
6.10. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT

Both mining leases (1007P/M & 28M/1990) are located within the Meander Valley Council planning
area, therefore a planning application to council is required for the proposal. The proposed mining
areas fall within the Rural Resource planning zone under the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme
2013, for which the purpose is:
C&DS 3
• “26.1.1.1 To provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture,
aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries, including opportunities for
resource processing.
• 26.1.1.2 To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with
resource development uses.”
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development includes plantation forestry,
agriculture and residential plots.

The legislative and state policy requirements include:
• Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013, and

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
This proposed activity will require a planning permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act
1993.

The proposed mining areas have several sensitive receptors close by, with the closest, a residence, at
570m north of the mining area in lease 28M/1990. The residences are most likely to be affected by
an increase in traffic passing by on Beaumont’s Road and from blasting events, two to four times per
year. There are some production forest areas to the southwest, which STT does not intend to harvest
in the next three years (STT website).
The proposed quarrying areas are surrounded by agricultural areas; however the ridgeline and
remnant vegetation are unsuitable for conversion into agricultural land. The past quarrying in the
area has also made the ridgeline unsuitable for use as production forest. The best land use outcome
is to mine the land into a suitable landform for safe rehabilitation. The past use and abandonment of
the quarries has left steep slopes, which although stable in appearance, will be difficult to rehabilitate.
TT plans to quarry the areas in accordance with the QCP, to leave stable landforms for rehabilitation
and return to native forest.
There is expected to be no impact on tourism or availability of recreation activities for the public.
There are no industrial activities in the general vicinity.

Traffic impacts are discussed further in section 6.19. However, TT will implement a speed limit
reduction for heavy vehicle traffic on the gravel Beaumont’s Road, which will reduce nuisance dust
and environmental noise for surrounding residents.
6.11. VISUAL IMPACTS

The site is visible to the west from the Gog Range and residences to the west. The visual impact will
be restricted to local residents and keen hikers. It is anticipated that by the end of the quarry life, the
landform will be more visually pleasing than it currently is. The quarrying activities are not visible from
the north, south and east, due to shading from the ridgeline. It is anticipated that with retention of
some vegetative screening the quarrying activities will be difficult to notice from any vantage points,
other than to the west.
C&DS 3

Revegetation and quarry design should be conducted in accordance with the QCP to achieve a
sustainable, stable and rehabilitated final landform.

Quarrying slopes outside the suggested batter angles described in the QCP could leave the site difficult
to rehabilitate and scar the landscape.

TT plans to quarry the slopes to final landform in accordance with the QCP and where possible
progressively rehabilitate. This will limit visual impacts for bushwalkers and the few residents to the
west who can see the quarry operations.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects of this proposal provide a more
visually pleasing landform than currently exists post operations. During operations the impact of this
proposal poses no risk for environmental nuisance.
6.12. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES

Socio-economic issues arising from the proposed increase in production are not expected to be
measurable due to the relatively small-scale nature of the proposal. The quarry is not expected to
have any impact on the labour or construction markets in the region. There is potential for a marginal
increase in employment for the proponent as the quarry provides new business opportunities. The
quarry is expected to be operated with one to two operators and serviced by up to five trucks on an
ad-hoc campaign basis.
6.13. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

TT has operated the southern quarry (1007P/M) since 2001 without any public complaints or
reportable environmental or safety incidents.

TT is committed to ensuring compliance against the Workplace Health and Safety Act 201211 and
associated Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2012. TT plans to manage health and safety risks
by complying with its health and safety management plan, and working in accordance with AS/NZS
4801 procedures. TT has maintained triple International Standards Organisation (ISO) accreditation
since 2014.

In the event that the quarry is not operated in a safe manner, there is risk to worker and community
health and safety. There are a number of health and safety risks associated with the proposed
development. These health and safety risks are controlled with appropriate operator training and
internal procedures, as well as adherence to relevant state and federal legislation.
11
Commitment: Abide by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2012 and Workplace Health and Safety
Regulations 2012
C&DS 3

The appropriate drainage will mitigate storm water runoff, which will result in minimal risk to public
health from the operations of quarry. There will be no fuel storage on site, as discussed in section 6.6.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects to health and safety will not
pose a risk to the environment.
6.14. HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

TT has a long history of quarrying at the site, in particular the southern lease (1007P/M) having
operated there since 2001. There have been no significant safety or environmental incidents at the
site during these operations.

A hazard identification and risk assessment has been undertaken for the proposal based on the
processes outlined in Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk management. The
legislative requirements for the proposal are compliance against the Workplace Health and Safety Act
201212 and associated Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2012.
Major risks were assessed using the proprietary TT risk matrix shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9 - TT proprietary risk matrix
Consequence
Trivial Environmental Material Serial Material High Level

Nuisance or Environmental Environmental Serious
First Aid Harm or Lost Harm or Environmental
Treatment Time Injury Serious Injury Harm or Fatality
Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5
A (Almost Certain) M H H E E
B (Likely) L M H E E
C (Moderate) L M H E E
D (Unlikely) L L M H E
E (Rare) L L M H H
Risk levels are quantified by;
• Material environmental harm is an impact upon health of humans or $5,000 damage

• Serious environmental harm is a high impact or wide scale damage to health or humans or
>$50,000 damage
12
Commitment: Abide by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2012 and Workplace Health and Safety
Regulations 2012
C&DS 3
• High level serious environmental harm is high impact and wide scale damage to the health of
humans or >$50,000 damage.
The below risk assessment summaries the potential hazards, risks, consequences and mitigation
actions for quarrying at Punches Terror.
The highest risks for the quarry are:
• Rock falls and landslips; which will be mitigated in accordance with Appendix G – Landslip Risk
Assessment
• Machinery interaction with personnel and the public; will be managed by operator training,
signage where required
• Blasting: blasting will be managed in accordance with blast contactor procedures defined in
Appendix C – Blasting Impacts Report.
TT has managed these risks for business wide quarry operation and civil works with very few major
incidents. TT has the systems and processes in place to minimise risk to employees and the public.
Table 10 - Risk assessment for quarrying activities at Punches Terror
Event Consequence Risk Mitigation Mitigated

Risk
Rock fall/landslip Consequences of rock fall Extreme Work with bunds Low
can vary from death or established against the
disabling injury to minor highwall where possible.
asset damage Keep bench heights in
compliance with QCP if
possible (note low
benches and slope angle
in the QCP will make this
risk negligible).
Machinery Over turn of machinery. High Ensure machinery Medium
Operation Collision between operators are licenced and
machinery/public. trained to use equipment
Environmental harm (maintain these records).
(spills, fire etc). Loss Maintain hazardous
(Machine damage) material clean-up
equipment on each
site/vehicle carrying
hazardous materials.
Spill of Environmental harm Medium Maintain hazardous Low
hazardous material clean-up
substance equipment on each
site/vehicle carrying
hazardous materials.
Train appropriate
personnel in use of clean-
up gear.
Slips/Trips/Falls Cuts, scrapes and bruises Medium Ensure suitable footwear Low
and stable ground.
C&DS 3
Event Consequence Risk Mitigation Mitigated

Risk
Bites and Stings Major injury or death High Ensure that at least one Medium
(snake bite) to minor person on site is trained to
discomfort (insect bite) provide first aid
treatment. Ensure that
there is consistent access
to first aid supplied (fit to
all machinery/vehicles).
Interaction with Personnel or machinery High Adherence to speed limits, Medium
public interaction with public. reduction in speed limits
Loss of public image, where there is likely
damage to property or interaction between
public vehicles. people and machinery.
Use spotter for personnel
and machinery are
working close proximity to
each other.
Blasting Unplanned explosion, Extreme Adhere to blasting Medium
misfire. contractor management
plan and safety
requirements. Ensure
blasting contactor is
licenced and experienced.
Working alone Difficult to make contact if Medium Maintain UHF/mobile Low
major injury or incident phone contact. Ensure
occurs workers finished work
each day (admin).
Dust Environmental or Medium Maintain low vehicle Low
respirable dust. speed/water road during
Environmental nuisance. high dust times. Ensure
Adverse health outcomes machinery is maintained
for workers and windows remain
closed during dusty
mining.
TT engaged Tasman Geotechnics to conduct a landslip risk assessment; the full report is included as
Appendix G – Landslip Risk Assessment. The risk assessment shows the risk with regard to rock falls
is rated as LOW, which complies with Clause E3.6.1 of the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme
2013.
Tasman Geotechnics recommended the following summary of control measures to alleviate the risk
with respect to rockfalls on the site:
• No public access onto the quarry site, unless visitors are accompanied by Site Foreman.
• No work allowed within 2m of the rock face without a spotter. Where possible, work on a
broken-down vehicle to be carried out such that the vehicle is between the person and the
rock face.
• Faces in soil to be no more than 5m high, and at angle of no steeper than 1V:1H. This will also
assist in rehabilitation of the site.
C&DS 3
• Faces in rock to be no more than 8m high.

• Loose rocks should be ‘cleaned’ from rock faces that are steeper than 1V:1H.
• Surface runoff on benches above soil slopes to be directed away from the slope to open drains.
• Maintenance of surface runoff, vegetation, retaining structures and other measures described
above are the responsibility of the quarry operator.
TT will incorporate the above corrective actions into its induction13 for the quarry and review and
amend relevant procedures as necessary.
Regular safety audits will be conducted and held on record at TT’s head office in Sheffield. TT will
maintain a training register for the duration of the proposal.
A public complaints register will be maintained for the duration of the proposal.

The measures outlined above should ensure that work on site is conducted in a safe manner and
worker health and safety is maintained. TT have had no incidents with respect to rock falls/landslip
on this site and when the control measures listed above are implemented, there is negligible risk to
workers or the environment.
6.15. FIRE RISK

The risk of fire starting on the site is very low, with the nature of TT operations on site unlikely to
provide an ignition source. The potential sources of fire are primarily machinery and vehicles operating
on site; all TT equipment is fitted with fire extinguishers. Both mining areas are surrounded by native
vegetation, however there is more than a 20m buffer around these areas from creating stockpiles or
from previous quarry operations. These buffer zones will provide adequate protection to surrounding
native forest is there is an equipment fire.

The proposed development is required to comply with the Fire Services Act 1979 and the Workplace
Health and Safety Act 2012. The proponent plans to address fire risks emanating from both inside and
outside the site by:
• Maintaining a small vegetation buffer around all active mining areas

• Ensuring that pre-start checks include a check of fire suppression equipment, and
• Ensuring that staff are trained in use of fire suppression equipment.
The site has been reviewed against “Bushfire Prone Areas” according to the Meander Valley Interim
Planning Scheme 2013 LIST layers and no part of the proposed development falls within a “Bushfire
Prone Areas”. According to the LUPAA, the site does not require a specific Bushfire Management Plan.

A fire originating from the site has the potential to affect the surrounding biodiversity values, property,
and agricultural income potential and endanger lives.
13
Commitment: Incorporate risk control measures with regard to rock fall risk into site induction
C&DS 3

The steps to manage a fire on site are described below:
• Assess the risk to site personnel

• Where safe, attempt to extinguish the fire with appropriate extinguisher
• Call 000
• Call site management, and
• Evacuate equipment if safe to do so.
Site activities will cease, and the site will be evacuated if a wildfire is in the region and expected to
pass within a one kilometre radius of the site.
Scheduled maintenance will include review of on board fire suppression components to ensure that
they are well maintained.
Staff will be trained as part of the induction process on fire preparedness. All staff undertake fire
extinguisher training.
6.16. INFRASTRUCTURE AND OFF-SITE ANCILLARY FACILITIES

Increased production from the quarries will primarily impact Beaumont’s Road, Weegena Road and
Dunorlan Road (north and south bound). The increase in traffic and likely impacts are discussed in
section 6.19.
There is no planned permanent infrastructure or offsite ancillary facilities planned to be installed as

part of the increase in production.
6.17. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

6.17.1. OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
TT is ISO 14001 accredited and committed to having sound environmental management systems
(EMS). Some relevant environmental management procedures are included in Appendix E – Relevant
Company Procedures. All employees are trained in relevant EMS during their inductions and onsite
training for job specific tasks.
6.17.2. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The General Manager will be the Management Representative for environmental policy and
implementation, and is responsible for ensuring that the operation is managed in accordance with
Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM).
6.17.3. PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO EMPLOYEES

TT has a comprehensive set of standard operating procedures, with a subset of relevant procedures
included in Appendix E – Relevant Company Procedures. TT has a company induction process, which
is reviewed an updated at least annually. TT is currently rolling out a content management system to
improve its safety, environment and quality outcomes within the business.
6.18. CUMULATIVE AND INTERACTIVE IMPACTS

The proposed development is small in nature. No further impacts are anticipated which have not
already been considered in the rest of this DPEMP. The DPEMP has reviewed socio-economic,
environmental and cultural impacts for this development.
C&DS 3
6.19. TRAFFIC IMPACTS

A traffic impact assessment was conducted by Chris Martin of CRE Tasmania Pty Ltd and is included as
Appendix D – Traffic Impacts Study. The proposed increase in production will result in around 1000
truck movements, an increase of around 450 truck movements per annum. The heaviest truck
movement is anticipated to be 20 truck movements per day during mining campaigns.
The main roads to be affected by the proposal will be Beaumont’s Road, with a right turn onto
Weegena Road, followed by 50% of the traffic turning northbound onto Dunorlan Road and the other
50% of the traffic turning southbound onto Dunorlan Road.

CRE assessed the “site conditions to The Austroads AGRD04A/09 Guide to Road Design Part 4A:
Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections” (Martin, 2017). CRE also used Guide to Road Design Part 3:
Geometric Design section 5.3 to assess stopping conditions.

It is likely that truck movements will create dust, which can be minimised by limiting truck speeds and
dampening of the road surface during dry weather. CRE noted that houses on the transport routes
are well back from the gravelled Beaumont’s Road and are unlikely to be affected by additional noise
or dust.

CRE made a number of recommendations, which include;
• maintain fence lines clear of vegetation, install a give way sign making it clear that the
Chesneys road traffic does not have priority to enter the intersection
• provide adequate table drains to remove water from the pavement at this location
• provide white hold line and a giveway sign at the Dunorlan intersection to formalize priority
to the through road. Extend pavement to reduce edgebreak
These improvements all lie within council responsibility.
TT will mandate heavy vehicle traffic travel at 20 kilometres per hour on the gravel section of
Beaumont’s Road to limit environmental dust and noise. TT will also advise truck drivers to avoid use
of engine brakes around surrounding residences.
TT will include road surface, drainage and signage inspections as part of routine quarry inspections.
A public complaints register will be maintained for the duration of the proposal.

The measures outlined above should ensure that the potential effects of increased traffic are
minimised. TT do not have control over council roads, therefore it is possible/likely that if the CRE
recommendations are not there could be an impact to the local community from the increased traffic.
These impacts are likely to be degradation of the road surface and water accumulation on the road
surface.
C&DS 3
7. MONITORING AND REVIEW

7.1. WATER QUALITY
TT will monitor discharge water quality from the final ponds according to parameters listed in Table
11 below. There is some concern with regard to low pH and marginally elevated metals.
Sampling of selected metals will occur for two years to ascertain if there is a likelihood of
environmental harm any environmental harm from metal contamination.
Table 11 - suggested monitoring parameters for both final discharge ponds
Parameter Frequency
Field pH Quarterly
Field electrical conductivity
Total suspended solids Six monthly
Acidity
Alkalinity
Sulphate
Metals (Cu, Fe, Al, Pb, Mn, Zn) Annually for two years
7.2. WEEDS
TT is currently reviewing its weed management plan.14 However, an annual inspection of the quarry
will allow for inspection of weeds. The southern quarry (1007P/M) has been checked by Sue Jennings
for Phytophthora cinnamomi biennially. This inspection regime will continue for the LOM.
7.3. SETTLING PONDS

TT is implementing a companywide settling pond maintenance and inspection routine15. TT intends
to inspect settling ponds at least biannually16 in autumn and spring, with active operations inspected
monthly to ensure that capacity is maintained for a 1:20 year flood event. All records will be kept in
the TT office and entered into an inspection register.
7.4. BLASTING
TT will monitor all blasts17 for ground vibration and air blast over pressure. Blast monitoring points
will be in accordance with the blast management plan attached in Appendix C – Blasting Impacts
Report.
7.5. COMPLAINTS REGISTER

TT maintains a public complaint register for all operations. To date, this operation has not attracted
any public complaints.
7.6. TRUCK/MATERIAL MOVEMENTS

All TT trucks are fitted with GPS and their movements are tracked using software. TT will monitor
truck movements for the LOM.
All material movements are captured and reportable if requested.
14
Commitment: provide updated Weed Management Plan before 30th June 2018
15
Commitment: ensure 28M/1990 & 1007P/M are inserted into inspection register
16
Commitment: monitor settling ponds biannually to maintain 1:20 year flood capacity
17
Commitment: monitor all blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure in accordance with BMP
C&DS 3
8. DECOMMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION

The site has a long history of quarrying on the western side of the slope, which remains as a steep,
while stable, slope. The existing slopes (batters) are not consistent with the acceptable standards
given in the QCP, and are sparsely vegetated.
TT’s mining plan will lay the slopes back to achieve compliance with the QCP, with revegetation
occurring on benches, which will screen batters. TT will stockpile any top soil18 for future revegetation
works. It may be necessary to import material for rehabilitation of the 28M/1990 lease as there were
no top soil stockpiles at the quarry when TT took over use of it during 2017.
While it is ideal to undertake progressive rehabilitation, TT would like to maintain the option with the
northern lease (28M/1990) to take another 15m wide cut from the face once the existing planned
mining has been completed. The Atkins (1007P/M) pit will be progressively closed according to the
QCP, with top soil spread on the benches and local tree species planted. Initially the sites will be
allowed to naturally seed, with assisted seeding after two years if the natural seed bank does not take.
The primary steps to undertake rehabilitation of the site are:
1. Site clean-up: remove any temporary structures, rip any roadways and prohibit vehicular site
access
2. Site preparation: slopes will be quarried to achieve a final slope which meets the standards
cited in section 8.3.2 of the QCP, top soil will be spread along berms and around quarry crests.
Floor areas will be graded and sloped to ensure that site drainage is contoured and
sustainable. Any topsoil which is imported will be tested for weeds and pathogens such as
Phytophthora cinnamomi
3. Erosion prevention: site drainage infrastructure will be retained, including settling ponds.
Additional drainage will be installed to slow down water and direct it to the settling ponds. A
pond inspection/clean-out regime will be implemented for 12 to 24 months after initial
revegetation. Top soil should be mulched to prevent erosion before vegetation uptake.
4. Revegetation: TT has previously engaged a suitably qualified contractor to review sites
requiring revegetation for seeding rates, species selection and application method. TT will
undertake the same process with respect to revegetation for both quarries contained within
this proposal.
5. Weed control: the quarry will be inspected periodically for weed species, with any treatment
required performed as part of the annual weed management program.
6. Monitoring and maintenance: TT will undertake monitoring at regular intervals during the first
24 months after rehabilitation has taken place, with annual inspections undertaken after that
until MRT is prepared to classify the site as rehabilitated
TT will notify the Director EPA when rehabilitation works are planned with details of seeding mixes,
seeding rates and if imported top soil is required. Rehabilitation works will be monitored biannually
for two years, then annually for a further three years19.
Signage will be placed around the top of both pits with an earthen bund to prevent
unintended/accidental access into the quarry from the east20.
18
Commitment: stockpile top soil where possible
19
Commitment: monitor revegetation biannually for two years, then annually for a further three years
20
Commitment: maintain earthen bund and “open pit” signs after closure
C&DS 3
The site is only visible from the west; it is anticipated that after revegetation works the quarry will
have less visual impact than it currently does. TT plans to finish the mine areas with more aesthetic
appeal than currently exists.
C&DS 3
9. COMMITMENTS
Number Commitment When Who DPEMP
Section
1 Trucks to travel at 20 kilometres per hour on Ongoing J Treloar 6.1
Beaumont’s Road to limit dust emissions
2 Use water cart as required to dampen road Ongoing J Treloar 6.1

surface
3 Install larger sediment pond in lease 28M/1990 before activity J Treloar 6.2
commences
4 Conduct noise assessment if quarry operations If deviation J Treloar 6.4
are likely to occur on northern slope of Punches from mining
Terror plan
5 Delineate areas of listed threatened species before activity J Treloar 6.7
commences
6 Cordon off potential devil den before activity J Treloar 6.7
commences
7 Abide by the Workplace Health and Safety Act Ongoing J Treloar 6.13
2012 and Workplace Health and Safety
Regulations 2012
8 Incorporate risk control measures with regard to before activity J Treloar 6.14
rock fall risk into site induction commences
9 Provide updated weed management plan 30th June 2018 J Treloar 7.2
10 Ensure 28M/1990 & 1007P/M are inserted into 30th June 2018 J Treloar 7.3
inspection register
11 Monitor settling ponds biannually to maintain Bi-annual J Treloar 7.3
1:20 year flood capacity starting March
2018
12 Monitor all blasts for ground vibration and blast Each blast J Treloar 7.4
overpressure
13 Stockpile top soil where possible for the purpose Ongoing J Treloar 8
of rehabilitation
14 Monitor revegetation biannually for two years, Two yearly J Treloar 8
then annually for a further three years
15 Maintain earthen bund and “open pit” signs after Ongoing J Treloar 8
closure
C&DS 3
10. CONCLUSION
The Proponent plans to increase the annual production and consolidate quarrying operations at
Punches Terror Quarry from the existing (combined) annual movement of 11,000m3 to 20,000m3. This
elevates the operations from a Level 1 activity in 1007P/M to a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 of
the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
The operations at 28M/1990 constitute a level 2 activity, however there is no allowance for blasting,
crushing or screening within the existing permit. It is anticipated that the final landform will be more
stable and revegetated appropriately so as not to cause any visual impacts in the region.
There will be a small amount of vegetation removal, primarily to ensure safety of the operation; the
estimated area is about 2.6 hectares between both quarries (site vegetation removal). There are two
endangered species in the region of the proposal, however they are away from the planned operations
area. These areas will be barricaded for the duration of LOM and operations are not expected to have
any impact on either species.
There are no permanent structures required on site. All plant and equipment will be transportable in
nature. All hazardous materials will be stored in compliant containers and there will be no storage
facilities on site. Dust can be minimised by a program of dampening the road surfaces when required
and reducing vehicles speeds as required.
Environmental noise from operations and blasting activities are unlikely to cause community nuisance.
The operational noise at the nearest and most ‘at risk’ residences show that the noise levels expected
are below the noise emission criteria in the QCP. The predicted blasting impacts are low, with ground
vibration below the acceptable standard in the QCP. Noise levels from quarrying may cause
environmental nuisance should quarry operations be conducted on the northern end of the ridge in
28M/1990; should TT wish to quarry in this area, the company will seek the permission of the
Regulator.
Table 12 below includes a list of the PSG’s provided by the EPA in July 2017 and further requirements
from the Meander Valley Council via email on the 10th July 2017. The Proponent has provided some
brief commentary on each guideline.
Table 12 - mapping and commentary for project specific guidelines (PSG's)
DPEMP Project Specific Guideline Commentary

Section
2.1 A statement about the expected life of quarrying Discussed in section 1.2
operations.
2.1 A brief description about the geology/ies being Discussed in section 5.2 and the
quarried. Tasman Geotechnics report
attached as Appendix G – Landslip
Risk Assessment
2.1 Planned operating hours for the site, annual rates Discussed in section Error!
of extraction and production, annual number of Reference source not found.
blasts and estimated number of product haulage
truck movements per day.
C&DS 3

Section
2.1 A description of chosen method(s) for quarrying Discussed in section 2.1
and processing of target material, including a list/
table of all major items of equipment to be used
(e.g. crushers, screens, rock breakers, excavators,
haulage trucks, drill etc.).
2.1 The locations and dimensions of any sediment Shown in Figure 5
ponds and stormwater management
infrastructure. Any off-site infrastructure that may
be used must be detailed.
2.5 A map showing the locations of all mining leases Shown in Figure 5
associated with the proposal.
2.5 A quarry plan which includes, but is not necessarily Shown in Figure 7 for 1007 P/M
limited to; the direction(s) of quarrying, bench and Figure 8 for 28M/1990
heights, working face(s), locations of all major
items of equipment (e.g. crushing machinery),
product storage areas, sediment ponds and
internal haul roads.
2.5 A site plan or map(s) depicting the access routes to Shown in Figure 7 for 1007 P/M
all working areas. and Figure 8 for 28M/1990
2.5 Identification of areas to be progressively No progressive rehab in this mine
rehabilitated during the operating life of quarrying. plan due to steep slopes and rehab
in upper levels causing a safety risk
2.5 A plan of the site drainage, including (where Shown in Figure 5 and more
relevant) principle discharge points from the detailed discharges in Figure 7 for
activity to the receiving environment. 1007 P/M and Figure 8 for
28M/1990
6.1 Identify and describe all major sources of dust Discussed in section 6.1 paragraph
emission contained within the areas of the 1
proposed quarrying expansion. This should include
emissions of dust generated by expansion of
quarrying and should examine activities like
blasting, rock processing (extraction, crushing,
screening), storage of material in stockpiles,
emissions from disturbed areas and from traffic
movements on and off site.
6.1 Measures to minimise the potential impact of dust Discussed in section 6.1 paragraph
generated by the proposal, such as watering or 3
sealing of roads, covering of truck loads, reduced
vehicle speeds, and road maintenance, water
sprays or windbreaks, revegetation/stabilisation.
6.1 Provide details regarding how the potential impact Discussed in section 6.1 paragraph
of dust generation from the activity on nearby 2
sensitive receptors will be minimised.
6.2 A description of the receiving environment for site Discussed in section 6.2 paragraph
runoff. 1
6.2 A suitable figure(s) to show site hydrology/ Shown in Figure 5 and more
drainage and the locations of all cut-off drains detailed discharges in Figure 7 for
C&DS 3

Section
which will serve to separate clean from 1007 P/M and Figure 8 for
contaminated water. 28M/1990
6.2 Management measures to prevent sediment Discussed in section 6.2

movement into water courses. This should include
contingencies in case control measures fail, e.g. a
breach of a sediment pond during heavy rainfall or
flooding.
6.2 Estimation of volume of runoff from the site, the Discussed in section 6.2
treatment capacity of the sediment pond(s) and
expected detention time(s).
6.4 - A noise survey of existing noise in the area Report attached as Appendix B –
operational including measurements of sound level at noise Noise Survey and summarised in
noise sensitive receptors would be an advantage. In the section 6.4
absence of any measurements, limits of 45, 40 and
35 dB (A) for day, evening and night are likely to be Operating hours are discussed in
applied. Major existing sources of noise in the area section 2.1
should be identified.
6.4 - A description of all proposed major noise sources Discussed in section 6.4 and shown
operational (fixed and mobile), e.g. any equipment such as a in Table 5
noise rock drill, rock breaker, crusher, screener, and
activities such as handling of material (i.e. loading
and transportation of the material within the land).
Wherever practicable, for all major equipment,
provide details of make, model, engine power
ratings, sound power output levels, throughput
capacity and any associated noise attenuation.
6.4 - Topographical maps and area plans showing the Report attached as Appendix B –
operational existing and future proposed locations of all major Noise Survey and summarised in
noise noise sources associated with the proposal; section 6.4
potentially affected residences (showing precise
distances between quarries and any noise sensitive
areas for each stage of the proposal).
6.4 - Noise modelling for each phase of the Report attached as Appendix B –
operational development identifying the 30, 35, 40 and 45 dB Noise Survey
noise (A) noise contours and predicted noise levels at
each sensitive premise potentially affected.
6.4 - Operating hours, and details regarding expected Report attached as Appendix B –
operational duration (in days over the course of 12 months) of Noise Survey and summarised in
noise use of all major noise generating equipment on section 6.4
site.
6.4 - Any proposed measures to mitigate noise impacts. Discussed in section 6.4
operational
noise
C&DS 3

Section
6.4 - For all potential noise sensitive receptors, an Report attached as Appendix B –
operational assessment of the potential to cause a noise Noise Survey and summarised in
noise nuisance during any period during the life of section 6.4
quarrying, taking into account any noise survey
data and all the required modelling results.
6.4 - blasting A proposed blasting scheme, including blast size Report attached as Appendix C –
noise and intended blast frequency. Blasting Impacts Report and
summarised in section 6.4
6.4 - blasting A prediction of blast peak particle velocity at Report attached as Appendix C –
noise sensitive receptors within 1 kilometre. Blasting Impacts Report and
6.4 - blasting A map showing contours for peak particle velocity Report attached as Appendix C –
noise of 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10mm/s. Blasting Impacts Report and
6.4 - blasting A prediction of air-blast overpressure at residences Report attached as Appendix C –
noise within 1 kilometre. Blasting Impacts Report and
6.4 - blasting A map showing contours for air-blast overpressure Report attached as Appendix C –
noise of 110, 115 and 120dB (Lin Peak). Blasting Impacts Report and
6.4 - blasting An assessment of blasting impacts on identified Report attached as Appendix C –
noise residences and any other noise and vibration Blasting Impacts Report and
sensitive activities. summarised in section 6.4
6.7 A threatened flora and fauna survey in accordance Surveys conducted on two site
with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys – visits, results discussed in section
Terrestrial Development Proposals must be 6.7 and reports attached as
undertaken for lease 28M/1990. The survey Appendix A – North Barker Report
should include details of the nature and extent (in
hectares) of any vegetation/habitat that is
proposed to be cleared.
6.7 Results and discussion of any ecological surveys Surveys conducted on two site
conducted within the previous five years, relevant visits, results discussed in section
to the proposed areas of extraction, should be 6.7 and reports attached as
included with the results and discussion of the Appendix A – North Barker Report
survey required for lease 28M/1990.
Also addressed email from
Assessments Section relating to
Wedge Tailed Eagle (WTE) sightings
on the day of the site inspection in
the report
6.7 Details of any measures that will be adopted to Surveys conducted on two site
mitigate potential impacts to flora and fauna, visits, results discussed in section
including threatened and vulnerable species. 6.7 and reports attached as
Appendix A – North Barker Report
6.20 Information on traffic associated with the Discussed in sections 2.1, 6.19, and
proposal; vehicle type, expected tonnages and any 7.6. Traffic impacts assessment
alternative access roads (routes). attached as Appendix D – Traffic
Impacts Study
C&DS 3

Section
6.20 Maximum number of vehicle movements per day. Discussed in sections 2.1, 6.19, and
7.6. Traffic impacts assessment
attached as Appendix D – Traffic
Impacts Study
6.20 Discussion of the potential impacts to nearby Discussed in sections 6.1, 6.19, and
residences (noise and dust) due to vehicle 7.6. Traffic impacts assessment
movements to and from the site. attached as Appendix D – Traffic
Impacts Study
6.20 Details of management measures proposed to Discussed in sections 2.1, 6.19, and
mitigate any adverse effects due to traffic. 7.6. Traffic impacts assessment
attached as Appendix D – Traffic
Impacts Study
Council Crown consent for PID 2531016 Will be attached to planning
application
Council Parking for employees Only vehicle required to park is
operator vehicle, discussion around
parking in section 1.2
Council Landslip risk assessment by an appropriately Land slip risk assessment
qualified person completed by Tasman Geotechnics
and included as Appendix G –
Landslip Risk Assessment. The
report is summarised in 6.14
C&DS 3
11. REFERENCES
• Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality: The Guidelines,
2000, Volume 1, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council &
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
• Ball J, Babister M, Nathan R, Weeks W, Weinmann E, Retallick M, Testoni I, (Editors), 2016,
Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation, Commonwealth of Australia
• Berglund, B., Lindvall, T. and Schwela, D.H., 1999, Guidelines for community noise, World
Health Organisation, Geneva
• Bobbi, C., 1997, State of the River Report Water on Quality Of Rivers In The Mersey Catchment,
Land and Water Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Hobart
Tasmania.
• Nelson, M, 1997, State of River Report on Mersey River Catchment Index of River Condition,
Land and Water Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Hobart
Tasmania.
• Environment Protection Authority, 2017, Quarry Code of Practice 3rd Edition, EPA Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania.
C&DS 3
12. APPENDICIES
C&DS 3
12.1. Appendix A – North Barker Report
C&DS 3
Punchs Terror Quarry – Proposed Intensification of Use
FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT
9th September 2016
For Treloar Transport (TRE001)
Andrew North [email protected] Philip Barker [email protected]

163 Campbell Street Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone 03. 6231 9788 Facsimile 03. 6231 9877
C&DS 3
Punchs Terror Quarry Intensification
Flora and Fauna Habitat Assessment
North Barker Ecosystem Services

i
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Summary
The proponent is seeking a permit for the intensification of activities at Punchs Terror
quarry in northern Tasmania. North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) have been
engaged to undertake a threatened flora and fauna assessment. The results will be
used to determine potential impacts of the proposed intensification and any
mitigation measures identified will be applied to minimise impacts on conservation
significant values.
Vegetation
The lease area was found to contain the following TASVEG units:
 dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest (DOB);
 dry Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS)*; and
 extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM).
Those units with an asterisk correspond to communities listed as threatened under the
Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA). None of the units correspond to
communities listed under the EPBCA. No Eucalyptus ovata forest or woodland (DOV)
is found on site.
The proposed intensification will result in the clearance of 1 ha of DAS and 0.4 ha of
DOB, neither of which is considered to be significant at the local, regional, state or
national scale.
Threatened Flora
One threatened flora species is known from the site. Under the regulations of the
Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, if the observed location of
Gratiola pubescens is to be impacted, the proponent is required to obtain a permit to
take from DPIPWE. The current proposal however does not include intensification in
this area and thus the species will not be directly impacted. Mitigation measures have
been provided to prevent inadvertent impacts.
Threatened Fauna
A soil mound on the edge of the lease area has been identified as having potential
as a den site for either the Tasmanian devil or the spotted tailed quoll. The proponent
however cannot impact within 10 m of the edge of their lease and thus will not
destroy this location. Mitigation measures in the form of marking and/or cordoning off
the area have been suggested to prevent inadvertent impacts to the location.
If the location is ever going to be destroyed/impacted, the proponent will be
required to undertake further investigation to establish if the location is used as a den
site and if mitigation or additional compliance is required based on the nature of that
use.
Summary
Our field survey has established that the lease area contains one threatened native
plant community, one threatened plant species, and a potential den site for
threatened fauna. The latter two values will not be directly impacted by actions
under the present proposal and mitigation measures have been provided to reduce
the potential for indirect impacts. Losses of the threatened native plant community
are considered to be negligible.

ii
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Acknowledgments
Project management: Grant Daniels

Field work and photographs: Grant Daniels
Report: Grant Daniels
Mapping: Grant Daniels
Proponent consultation: Nigel Beeke

Specialist flora advice: Richard Schahinger, Threatened Species Section Botanist,
DPIPWE
Specialist advice on mitigation of potential Tasmanian devil dens: Alastair Morton,
Acting Section Head, Conservation Assessment, Policy & Conservation Advice Branch
North Barker Ecosystem Services, 2016. This work is protected under Australian
Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot be used by anyone
for any purpose other than that expressed in the service contract for this report
without the written permission of North Barker- Ecosystem Services.

iii
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Table of Contents
SUMMARY II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
TABLE OF FIGURES V
TABLE OF PLATES V
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Study Area and Methods 1
1.2.1. Study Area 1
1.2.2. Field Survey 3
1.2.3. Limitations 3
2. RESULTS - BIOLOGICAL VALUES 3
2.1. Vegetation 3
2.2. Plant Species of Conservation Significance 8
2.3. Introduced Plants 12
2.4. Plant Pathogens 12
2.5. Fauna Species of Conservation Significance 12
3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NATURAL VALUES 21
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE AND MITIGATION 22
4.1. Threatened Fauna 22
4.2. Weeds and Pathogens 22
4.3. Threatened Flora 22
4.4. Threatened Vegetation Communities 23
4.5. General Natural Values 23
5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 23
5.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 23
5.2. Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 23
5.3. Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 23
5.4. Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 23
6. CONCLUSION 24
REFERENCES 25
APPENDIX A - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES BY COMMUNITY 26
APPENDIX B - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST 27
APPENDIX C – PREVIOUS PC ASSESSMENT 30

iv
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Site location................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Distribution of TASVEG units within the lease area .................................... 4
Figure 3: Threatened flora observations within the lease area................................. 11
Figure 4: Observations of potential threatened fauna habitat within lease area ....... 20
Table of Plates
Plate 1: Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest ....................................................................... 5
Plate 2: Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone.......................... 6
Plate 3: Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone.......................... 6
Plate 4: The current active quarry area – mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous ...... 7
Plate 5: An area of past quarrying disturbance within the lease area ......................... 7
Plate 6: Mat-forming Gratiola pubescens................................................................... 8
Plate 7: Healthy Epacris impressa plants ................................................................ 12
Plate 8: Smaller entrance in soil mound, with pen for scale ..................................... 13
Plate 9: Larger entrance, with A4 clipboard for scale ............................................... 14
Plate 10: General location of larger entrance, amongst bracken.............................. 14
Plate 11: Pademelon skull and fresh patches of fur near larger entrance ................ 15

v
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
1. Introduction and Methods

1.1. Background
The proponent is seeking to increase the licenced production of crushed rock from
Mining Lease 1007 P/M. The lessee currently operates a level one quarry with a
permitted output of 5000 m3 of crushed rock per annum. An application has been
made to increase the permitted production to 20,000 m3 of crushed rock per annum,
which would constitute a level two operation. As part of their assessment of
environmental effects under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control
Act 1994, the board of the Environment Protection Authority have requested the
proponent undertake a threatened flora and fauna survey in accordance with the
Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys – Terrestrial Development Proposals1.
The proponent has commissioned North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) to

undertake the present survey to fulfil the requirements of the threatened flora and
fauna assessment. The results will be used to determine potential impacts of the
proposed works and any mitigation measures identified will be applied to minimise
impacts on conservation significant values.
1.2. Study Area and Methods
1.2.1. Study Area

The existing quarry, known as Punchs Terror Quarry (or the Atkin’s Pit), is located off
Beaumont’s Road, Weegena, (Figure 1), approximately 4.5 km southwest of Elizabeth
Town. The mining lease of 4 ha is on freehold land: C/T109390-1. Existing operations
cover around 1 ha (with additional disturbance from past operations in the lease
covering < 1 ha). Following the proposed intensification, the total potential disturbed
land within the lease will be around 3.15 ha. The land is zoned Rural Resource under
the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and is part of the Tasmanian
Northern Slopes bioregion2.
The quarry is located on the western side of a north to south trending ridge. Site
geology is dominated by quartz sandstone and chert conglomerate talus derived
from Owen Group correlates. The lease also includes pink pebble-cobble siliceous
conglomerate, with quartz sandstone lenses (Roland conglomerate or correlate).
Altitude across the study area is between 300 and 350 m AHD. Average annual
rainfall is around 1050 mm3.
1
Natural and Cultural Heritage Division, 2015
2
IBRA7 - Commonwealth of Australia 2012
3
Sheffield, Northwest Coast, Tasmania; 41.3886 ° S, 146.3219 ° E, 294 m AMSL; commenced 1996

1
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Figure 1: Site location

2
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
1.2.2. Field Survey

Field work was undertaken on foot by one observer on the 17 th of August, 2016.
Vegetation was mapped throughout the entire lease in accordance with units
defined in TASVEG 3.04. Within all vegetation types, plant species lists were compiled
according to nomenclature within the current census of Tasmanian plant census 5,
using a meandering area search based on the Timed Meander Search Procedure6.
Observations of habitat suitability for fauna, as well as direct or indirect indicators of
presence (i.e. sightings, scats, tracks, dens, etc.) were made concurrently.
Disproportionate survey effort was applied to the proposed intensification area and
areas considered suitable for threatened values.
Observations of elements that would later be mapped, including threatened species

(Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 [TSPA] and/ or the
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
[EPBCA]) and their habitats, were recorded with a handheld GPS.
1.2.3. Limitations
Due to seasonal variations in detectability and identification, there may be some
species present within the study area that have been overlooked. To compensate for
these limitations to some degree, data from the present survey are supplemented
with data from the Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas 7 (NVA) and the EPBC Significant
Matters database (PMST_ S3CHQK). From these sources, all threatened species known
to occur in the local area (5 km) are considered in terms of habitat suitability on site.
2. Results - Biological Values

2.1. Vegetation
Our survey has resulted in some corrections to the community data held within the
TASVEG v3.0 database. Specifically, we established that there is no Eucalyptus ovata
forest and woodland (DOV) present on site, with the area mapped as this community
actually being dominated by Eucalyptus obliqua; in addition, we made boundary
corrections to the areas of other communities. The lease was found to contain three
community units:
communities listed under the EPBCA.
Distributions of TASVEG units within the lease are presented in Figure 2. Floristics are
presented in Appendix A, while each unit is described briefly below, with
representative photos in Plates 1-4.
The site has no likelihood of supporting alpine sphagnum bogs and associated fens,
as predicted as possible by the EPBC protected matters database.
4
Kitchener and Harris 2013
5
de Salas and Baker 2015
6
Goff et al. 1982
7
nvr_3_11-August-2016

3
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Figure 2: Distribution of TASVEG units within the lease area – note that the proposed
limit of intensification (provided by the proponent) is indicative only and, in
accordance with the requirements of mining lease agreements, no disturbance will
occur within 10 m of the lease boundary

4
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest (DOB) – Plate 1

The occurrences of this community on site are highly typical examples of the moist
facies of the community that occurs in the transition zone between wet and dry
forest. The canopy is almost exclusively dominated by Eucalyptus obliqua, with only
occasional E. amygdalina, particularly on patch margins. No E. ovata were observed
and it is unlikely any meaningful patches of this species were overlooked. The
understorey of this community was shrub dominated with a mix of tall and short
species, both broad leaved and sclerophyllous. Frequent species included Pultenaea
juniperina, Exocarpos cupressiformis, Acacia terminalis, Monotoca glauca, Cassinia
aculeata, Olearia lirata and Acacia melanoxylon. Ground layer vegetation was
dominated by Pteridium esculentum, with lesser patches of more moisture reliant
ferns, as well as Lomandra longifolia and various herbs and graminoids.
Dry Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS) – Plates 2 and 3
The occurrences of this community on site are relatively species poor in contrast to
examples of the community on Tertiary sandstone elsewhere in the State, but not
atypical for examples on conglomerate. The canopy is almost exclusively dominated
by Eucalyptus amygdalina, with only occasional E. obliqua, particularly on patch
margins. The understorey of this community was largely dominated by Pteridium
esculentum, with occasional tall patches of Leptospermum. Other frequent shrubs
included Leucopogon collinus, Allocasuarina monilifera and Monotoca glauca. Small
species included Amperea xiphoclada, Hibbertia procumbens, Dianella tasmanica
and Aotus ericoides.
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) – Plates 4 and 5
This community includes the active quarry face and an area of past disturbance in
which near surface material was extracted. Resultantly, vegetation in this area is
largely dominated by ruderal exotics such as Conium maculatum, Silybum marianum
and Brassica x napus. Native species within the area of FUM are largely adventive
individuals that have colonised the area from the adjacent native communities,
although it does also include some disturbance colonising natives that were not
observed in the forests, including Acaena novae-zealandiae and the listed species
Gratiola pubescens.
Plate 1: Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest on the edge of the proposed intensification area

5
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Plate 2: Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone within the proposed
intensification area

6
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Plate 4: The current active quarry area – mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous
Plate 5: An area of past quarrying disturbance within the lease area, including a
settling pond – all of which was mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous

7
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
2.2. Plant Species of Conservation Significance

In total, 59 species of vascular plants were recorded during our field survey (Appendix
A). This included one species listed as threatened under the schedules of the TSPA
(Table 1, Figure 3). This species, Gratiola pubescens (TSPA vulnerable), occurred in two
patches on the edge of the settling pond within the area of past disturbance (Plate
5); extent of occurrence was 4 m2, with percentage cover between 10 and 25 %
(Plate 6). As this area has had rock extracted in the past, the proponent does not
intend to intensify operations within this area as part of the current proposal. In any
case, this species has become much more frequently recorded in Tasmania in the
past 15 years. The increased number of records and expanded known distribution has
prompted discussions that it should be nominated for down-listing or delisting from the
TSPA. It is frequently a disturbance coloniser and can persist within a variety of
human-modified environments.
Several other threatened species have previously been recorded within 5 km of the
site8, or have the potential to do so based on habitat mapping. None of these
species are considered likely to have been overlooked to any meaningful degree
and thus have a very low likelihood of impact from the proposed works (Table 1).
Plate 6: Mat-forming Gratiola pubescens on the edge of the settling pond within a
previously disturbed area mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous
8

8
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Table 1: Flora species of conservation significance known within a 5 km radius of the

study area, or predicted by habitat mapping9
Status TSPA / Potential to

Species EPBCA occur if not Observations and preferred habitat10
observed
KNOWN FROM STUDY AREA
A small, mat-forming herb that colonises

bare ground disturbance niches within
saturated soils. Frequently observed in
Gratiola pubescens Vulnerable/ highly modified environments such as the
-
hairy brooklime - present quarry. Re-assessment of its
status under the TSPA is likely to occur in
the near future and the species is likely to
be down-listed or delisted from the Act.
REPORTED FROM WITHIN 5 km11
Habitat within the forest on site is suitable,

but the highly distinctive species is
Desmodium gunnii Vulnerable/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
Very low
southern ticktrefoil - present in very low numbers or in a highly
discreet location. Suitable habitat extends
beyond the proposed intensification area.
A floriferous perennial herb of creeks and

swamps, particularly in the north of the
Epilobium pallidiflorum Rare/ State. Settling pond on site is very low in
None suitability and the species is unlikely to
showy willowherb -
have been overlooked within it. No
suitable habitat was observed elsewhere
on site.

Glycine microphylla Vulnerable/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
Very low
small leaf glycine - present in very low numbers or in a highly
No suitable riparian habitat present. A

Gynatrix pulchella Rare/
None highly distinctive species unlikely to have
fragrant hempbush -
been overlooked.

Pimelea curviflora (incl. but the highly distinctive species is
var. gracilis) Rare/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
None
(slender) curved rice - present in very low numbers or in a highly
flower discreet location. Suitable habitat extends
9
10
Includes statements from Threatened Species Link summaries and note sheets
11

9
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

Species EPBCA occur if not Observations and preferred habitat10
observed
PREDICTED AS POSSIBLE BY HABITAT MAPPING ONLY12
Barbarea australis is a riparian plant

species found near river margins, creek
beds and along flood channels adjacent
to the river. It has not been found on
steeper sections of rivers, and tends to
favour slower reaches. It occurs in
Barbarea australis Endangered/ shallow alluvial silt deposited on rock
None
native wintercress ENDANGERED slabs or rocky ledges, or between large
cobbles on sites frequently disturbed by
fluvial processes. Some of the sites are a
considerable distance from the river in
flood channels scoured by previous flood
action, exposing river pebbles.
No suitable habitat occurs on site.
Caladenia caudata (tailed spider-orchid) is

a terrestrial orchid, found mainly in dry
heathland and heathy woodland habitats,
in lowland areas of northern, eastern and
Caladenia caudata Vulnerable/
Very low south-eastern Tasmania.
tailed spider orchid VULNERABLE
Habitat on site is suitable within the DAS
community, but none of the orchid leaves
observed during the survey could possibly
belong to this species.
Typically a species of grassy habitats, but

can occur on rocky knolls. Some suitable
Colobanthus curtisiae Rare/ habitat (of the latter type) present on site,
Very low
grassland cupflower VULNERABLE but the species was not observed and is
not likely to have been overlooked even
outside of the flowering season.
Strictly a riparian species of dolerite

Epacris exserta Endangered/
None substrates.
South Esk heath ENDANGERED
No suitable habitat present on site.
Glycine latrobeana Vulnerable/ Habitat low in suitability. Can be detected

None by foliage at any time of the year and is
clover glycine VULNERABLE
not likely to have been overlooked.
Occurs in the growth suppression zone of

Lepidium hyssopifolium Endangered/
None large trees in grassy areas.
peppercress ENDANGERED
No suitable habitat present.
12
EPBCA protected matters report – PMST_S3CHQK

10
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Figure 3: Threatened flora observations within the lease area – note that the proposed

11
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
2.3. Introduced Plants

No declared weeds or woody environmental weeds have been observed on site.
2.4. Plant Pathogens

The quarry has previously been assessed as free of cinnamon root rot fungus
Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) (Appendix B). That assessment did identify one pile of
soil that appeared to exhibit symptomatic evidence of PC, but the location tested
negative. The same location was investigated during our assessment and noted to
support healthy specimens of the PC-sensitive species Epacris impressa (Plate 6).
Much of the habitat within the proposed intensification area is unsuitably well-drained
for PC and no potential symptomatic evidence was observed elsewhere.
Plate 7: Healthy Epacris impressa plants growing on a soil mound previously

suspected (but which tested negative) to support PC
2.5. Fauna Species of Conservation Significance

No threatened fauna species have been directly or indirectly observed on site. A
number of threatened fauna are however known to occur within 5 km of the site, or
have the potential to do so based on habitat mapping13. The majority of these
species are not considered to have viable habitat on site (particularly nesting
habitat) or the habitat is considered to be relatively unimportant to the persistence of
species at even a local scale should they be present (Table 2). Special consideration
was however given to a mound of soil located on the margin of the lease area and
13

12
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
with characteristics that could make it suitable for use as a den site by the Tasmanian
devil or (less likely) the spotted tailed quoll.
The soil mound was observed to have two potential entrance holes. One hole (Plate
8) is considered to be too small for use by either the Tasmanian devil or spotted tailed
quoll; the shape and nature of the excavation suggest it may have been created by
a native rodent, although the size is on the upper limits for likely species such as the
long-tailed mouse Pseudomys higginsi. The second entrance (Plates 9 and 10) is more
suitable in size for a devil or quoll and near the entrance there were fresh fur scraps
and a skull of a Tasmanian pademelon Thylogale billardierii (potential live and/or
scavenged prey of the devil in particular) (Plate 11). The soil mound has other
desirable features from the perspective of denning, in the form of dense surrounding
vegetation for shelter and an adjacent west facing slope with open areas suitable for
sunning.
The location of the soil mound (Figure 4) on the margin of the lease area means that
it will not be destroyed as part of the current proposal (because the proponent is not
permitted to disturb within 10 m of their lease boundary). Given that the location will
not be destroyed, we received advice from the Policy & Conservation Advice Branch
that further exploration into potential use of the soil mound as a den (through means
such as remote camera surveillance) was not necessary, and that protective buffers
are not required for unconfirmed den sites (Alastair Morton pers. comm.).
Plate 8: Smaller entrance in soil mound, with pen for scale

13
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Plate 9: Larger entrance, with A4 clipboard for scale
Plate 10: General location of larger entrance, amongst bracken

14
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Plate 11: Pademelon skull and fresh patches of pademelon fur near larger entrance
Table 2: Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded within a 5 km

radius of the study area, or with the potential to do so based on habitat mapping 14
Status TSPA / Potential to Observations and preferred habitat15

Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
BIRDS
No suitable nesting habitat is found on

Accipiter novaehollandiae Endangered/ site. If the area is used by this species it is
grey goshawk - Very low
only likely to represent a minor part of a
foraging range.
Requires sheltered old-growth trees for

Foraging: nesting. No viable nesting habitat will be
Aquila audax fleayi Endangered/ Very low impacted by the proposal. No nests are
wedge-tail eagle ENDANGERED Nesting: known within 500 m or within 1 km line of
None sight. Nearest known nest is around 3 km
away.
14
15
Bryant & Jackson 1999

15
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
Uncommonly recorded in Tasmania. An

aerial insectivore that would most likely
Apus pacificus -/
Very low only fly over the site if present.
fork-tailed swift MIGRATORY
Potential presence and habitat use would
not be affected by proposal.
A non-breeding migratory wetland

Ardea alba -/
None species.
great egret MIGRATORY

Ardea ibis -/
None species.
cattle egret MIGRATORY
Botaurus poiciloptilus -/
Australasian bittern ENDANGERED None No suitable permanent aquatic habitat.
Ceyx azureus subsp. Species primarily utilises major rivers

Endangered/ within western Tasmania. Nearest
diemenensis None
ENDANGERED suitable habitat is 2.5 km away on the
azure kingfisher
Mersey River.
A wide-ranging shorebird that frequently

-/ utilises the margins of subalpine lakes
Gallinago hardwickii
MARINE – None
Latham’s snipe and tarns, and less frequently farm dams.
MIGRATORY
Requires large coastal or lakeside trees

Haliaeeatus leucogaster Vulnerable/ for nesting. No viable nesting habitat will
white-bellied sea eagle MIGRATORY None be impacted by the proposal. No nests
known within 500 m or within 1 km line of
sight.
An aerial species most likely unaffected

by terrestrial habitat alteration outside of
Hirundapus caudacutus -/
Very low its Northern Hemisphere breeding range.
white-throated needletail MIGRATORY
For nesting, this species requires tree

hollows within 10 km of mature stands of
food plants, which are blue gums (E.
globulus) and black gums (E. ovata).
No food trees have been observed on site
and there is a very low likelihood the site
Lathamus discolor Endangered/ could be utilised for nesting. Given the
Very low
swift parrot ENDANGERED current operations at the site it is
considered highly likely that any hollows
in the area would be occupied by
disturbance tolerant edge species such as
possums and sugar gliders.
Nearest known nest is around 2.5 km
away but NW breeding areas are not

16
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
classified as swift parrot important

breeding areas16.
An interstate migrant of which some of the

population spends the summer breeding
months in Tasmania. Widely distributed
across forested environments but is
Myiagra cyanoleuca -/
Low sensitive to fragmentation and canopy
satin flycatcher MIGRATORY thinning and not generally associated with
small remnants or edge habitats.
Regional populations not likely to be
impacted by a proposal of this scale.
Pterodroma leucoptera
-/ A pelagic species. No suitable habitat
leucoptera None
ENDANGERED present.
Gould’s petrel
The site is within the core habitat range

for this species, which includes all land
below 600 m AHD.
Nesting:
Requires a mosaic of forest and open
Tyto novaehollandiae Endangered/ None
areas for foraging, and large old-growth,
masked owl VULNERABLE Foraging: hollow-bearing trees for nesting.
Low The forest habitat on site is moderately
suitable for foraging, but no viable nesting
hollows were observed nor are likely to
have been overlooked.
Tringa nebularia -/ A shorebird species. No suitable habitat

common greenshank MIGRATORY None
present.
MAMMALS
This naturally rare forest-dweller most

commonly inhabits wet forest but also
occurs in dry forest and occasionally
grassy areas. The study area does not
Dasyurus maculatus ssp. occur within the core range for the
Rare/ Low - species (as defined on the NVA) and only
maculatus
VULNERABLE moderate four records are known from within 5 km.
spotted-tailed quoll
Given that the only viable den site
observed within the lease area will not be
destroyed by this proposal, the species is
unlikely to be measurably impacted by a
proposal of this scale should it be present.
16
Forest Practices Authority 2010

17
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
Species is extinct on mainland Australia

and was recently listed on the EPBCA as
a result of the decline in the Tasmanian
population during the last decade.
Currently the eastern quoll is not listed on
the Tasmanian TSPA and remains
Dasyurus viverrinus -/ widespread across eastern Tasmania in
eastern quoll ENDANGERED Very low particular, with a preference for high soil
fertility and grassy open habitats.
Only two observations of this species are
known within 5 km of the site and the
habitat is low in suitability. If the species is
present it is unlikely to be measurably
Predicted based on habitat mapping only.

Perameles gunnii -/ However, no suitable habitat is present on
None site for this species and it is more likely to
eastern barred bandicoot VULNERABLE
be present in the surrounding rural
landscape.
The study area does not occur within the

core range for the species (as defined on
the NVA) and only six records are known
from within 5 km.
Sarcophilus harrisii Endangered/
Moderate No scats were observed on site. Given
Tasmanian devil ENDANGERED that the only viable den site observed
within the lease area will not be destroyed
by this proposal, the species is unlikely to
be measurably impacted by a proposal of
this scale should it be present.
OTHER SPECIES
Species primarily utilises major rivers

Astacopsis gouldi Vulnerable/ within northern Tasmania. Nearest
None
giant freshwater crayfish VULNERABLE suitable habitat is 2.5 km away on the
Mersey River.
Engaeus granulatus
Endangered/ Predicted based on habitat mapping only.
Central North burrowing None
ENDANGERED Soil conditions not suitable on site.
crayfish
Galaxiella pusilla Vulnerable/

eastern dwarf galaxias VULNERABLE None No suitable aquatic habitat present.
Galaxias fontanus Endangered/

Swan galaxias ENDANGERED None No suitable aquatic habitat present.
Hickmanoxyomma
gibbergunyar Rare/ Only known from caves within the Mole
Mole Creek cave - None Creek karst system. No suitable karst
harvestman habitat is known on site.

18
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
Litoria raniformis Vulnerable/ Occurs in large, permanent, well

Very low vegetated wetlands. No suitable habitat
green and gold frog VULNERABLE
within study area.
Prototroctes marina Vulnerable/

Australian grayling VULNERABLE None No suitable river habitat present.
Occurs in Poa tussock grassland and

Pseudemoia Themeda grassland without trees. Known
Vulnerable/ to occur in the northwest, but not within 5
pagenstecheri None
- km the study area.
tussock skink

19
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Figure 4: Observations of potential threatened fauna habitat within lease area

20
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
3. Summary of Potential Impacts to Natural Values

Our field survey has established that the lease area contains a threatened plant
species, one threatened native plant community, and a potential den site for
threatened fauna. Potential quantitative and qualitative impacts to natural values
are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of potential impacts to natural values from proposed

intensification
Conservation Potential Context17

Significant Value Impacts
Threatened Plants
Gratiola pubescens 2 locations on Widespread across north and east Tasmania, with over 190
hairy brooklime edge of observations lodged on the NVA, representing over 30
settling pond – known sites and hundreds of plants. In excess of three-
TSPA rare quarters of all known sites have been discovered since the
approx. 4 m2
at 10-25 % species was listed in 1995, leading to suggestions that it
cover was under-reported in the past and may not warrant listing
as vulnerable on the TSPA.
The proponent does not intend to include the location of
this plant within their intensification.
Extent of native vegetation communities within intensification area (ha) – asterisk denotes
communities listed as threatened under Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002
(DAS) Eucalyptus 1.0 Total extent in Tasmanian reserve estate: 13,500

amygdalina forest and
Total extent in Tasmania: 42,200
woodland on
sandstone* Total extent in reserves in Meander Valley Council: 3,200
Total extent in Meander Valley Council: 5,200
Total extent in reserves in Northern Slopes bio-region:
4,700
Total extent in Northern Slopes bio-region: 9,100
(DOB) Eucalyptus 0.4 Total extent in Tasmanian reserve estate: 76,900
obliqua dry forest
Total extent in reserves in Meander Valley Council: 2,100
15,500
Total area of potential 1.40 Negligible impacts anticipated at local, regional and
impact to native statewide level.
vegetation
17
Includes statements from Threatened Species Link summaries and note sheets

21
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Conservation Potential Context17

Threatened Fauna Habitat
Potential den site for: Potential den Loss of potential foraging habitat considered to be
site will not be negligible at a local, regional and statewide scale.
Tasmanian devil
impacted
TSPA and EPBCA
Small loss of
endangered
potential
and/or foraging
habitat
spotted tailed quoll
TSPA rare and EPBCA
vulnerable
4. Recommendations for Avoidance, Compliance and

Mitigation
4.1. Threatened Fauna
 To ensure that the potential den site (soil mound) is not inadvertently
impacted, the land manager should make all contractors aware of the
location prior to any works and if necessary mark and/or cordon off the area
with prominent flagging tape or similar.
 If the location of the soil mound is ever to be disturbed the proponent will be
required to undertake additional assessment to ascertain occupation of the
potential den.
4.2. Weeds and Pathogens

 The containment principles of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999
should be sufficiently met with best practice construction hygiene that
prevents the introduction of contaminated material from beyond the study
area, such as tool and machinery wash-down before entry, and by only
importing materials from verified weed and PC free locations.
 The proponent should continue their control of Pampas sp. on adjacent land
in order to prevent incursion of the species, as well as continuing the control of
environmental weeds on site.
4.3. Threatened Flora

 Avoid indirect impacts to locations of threatened flora species, which in this
case are limited to the margins of the settling pond.
 Ensure threatened flora in close proximity to works areas are adequately
flagged or that construction workers are aware of their locations, in order to
avoid inadvertent and unnecessary impact.
 Stockpiling materials has the potential to smother threatened flora. To
minimise potential impacts in relation to this factor we suggest the proponent
avoids stockpiling material within 5 m of the existing settling pond.

22
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
 If this location cannot be avoided at some point in the future (at least while
Gratiola pubescens remains listed under the TSPA), the proponent must apply
for a permit to take from DPIPWE (see section 5).
4.4. Threatened Vegetation Communities

 No mitigation is considered to be necessary given the nature of the proposal
and the potential scale of impacts.
4.5. General Natural Values

 In addition, where possible avoid stockpiling dense material around the base
of retained trees, in order to prevent root smothering.
5. Legislative Requirements
5.1. Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
The EPBCA is structured for self-assessment; the proponent must indicate whether or
not the project is considered a ‘controlled action’, which, if confirmed, would require
approval from the Commonwealth Minister.
A soil mound on site has been identified on site as potential denning habitat for fauna
listed under this Act. However, the soil mound will not be impacted and losses in
potential foraging habitat are considered to be negligible.
Consequently, referral to the Minister is not considered to be necessary for this
proposal.
5.2. Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Any impact on threatened plant species listed under the TSPA will require a ‘permit to
take’ from the Policy and Conservation Assessments Branch (PCAB) at the
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (DPIPWE). Thus, if
the proponent ever intends to intensify or modify management around the settling
pond, they will be required to obtain a permit to take for Gratiola pubescens.
No other threatened flora are likely to be impacted.
Given that the soil mound (potential den site) will not be impacted, the proponent is
not at this point required to obtain a permit to take products of wildlife.
5.3. Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

No declared species are known on site; thus, no action is required to eradicate or
control species under this Act. Appropriate construction hygiene should be applied in
order to avoid the introduction of species listed under this Act. This may include
machinery washdown following use at contaminated sites and before entering the
site.
5.4. Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013

The current proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Biodiversity Code (E8) as it is
a level 2 activity that will be assessed by the Board of Environmental Management
and Pollution Control.

23
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
6. Conclusion
plant community, one threatened plant species, and a potential den site for
threatened fauna. The latter two values will not be directly impacted by actions
under the present proposal and mitigation measures have been provided to reduce
the potential for indirect impacts. Losses of the threatened native plant community
are considered to be negligible at a local, regional and statewide scale.

24
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
References
Commonwealth of Australia (2016). EPBC Protected Matters Database:
http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf Report
PMST – S3CHQK.
Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for
Australia, version 7:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/5b3d2d31-2355-4b60-
820c-e370572b2520/files/bioregions-new.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. No. 91, 1999.
de Salas, M.F. and Baker, M.L. (2015) A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania,
Including Macquarie Island. (Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and
Art Gallery. Hobart) www.tmag.tas.gov.au - ISBN 978-1-921599-82-8 (PDF).
DPIPWE (2016). Natural Values Report_2_11_May_2016, DPIPWE, Natural Values Atlas,
Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment, Hobart.
DPIPWE (2013). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
TASVEG 3.0, Released November 2013. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and
Mapping Program, Resource Management and Conservation Division.
Kitchener, A. and Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of
Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water
and Environment, Tasmania.
Forest Practices Authority (2010). Interim Species Habitat Planning Guideline for the
conservation management of Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) in areas
regulated under the Tasmanian Forest Practices System. Internal report to the
Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.
Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (2015). Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys -
Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment.
Peters, D. & Thackway, R. (1998). A New Biogeographic Regionalisation for Tasmania.
Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No.83
of 1995. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania
Tasmanian State Government (1999). Weed Management Act 1999. No.105 of 1999.
Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania.
Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No.63 of 2002.
Tasmanian State Government (2006). Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened
Native Vegetation Communities) Act 2006. Government Printer, Hobart,
Tasmania.

25
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Appendix A - Vascular Plant Species by Community

DAS
Grid Reference: 460025E, 5406354N
Accuracy: within 50 metres
Recorder: Grant Daniels
Date of Survey: 17 Aug 2016
Trees: Acacia melanoxylon, Eucalyptus amygdalina, Eucalyptus obliqua
Tall Shrubs: Allocasuarina monilifera, Exocarpos cupressiformis, Leptospermum scoparium var.
scoparium, Monotoca glauca
Shrubs: Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada, Epacris impressa, Leptomeria drupacea,
Leucopogon collinus
Low Shrubs: Aotus ericoides, Hibbertia procumbens
Herbs: Acianthus sp., Caladenia sp., Dianella tasmanica, Pterostylis melagramma,
Pterostylis sp., Stylidium graminifolium
Graminoids: Lomandra longifolia
Ferns: Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum
Weeds: Acetosella vulgaris, Cerastium sp., Hypochaeris radicata, Poa annua
DOB
Trees: Acacia melanoxylon, Eucalyptus obliqua
Tall Shrubs: Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata, Banksia marginata, Exocarpos cupressiformis,
Monotoca glauca, Olearia argophylla
Shrubs: Acacia terminalis, Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata, Epacris impressa,
Leptomeria drupacea, Olearia lirata, Pultenaea juniperina
Herbs: Acianthus sp., Euchiton japonicus, Hydrocotyle hirta, Pterostylis sp., Wahlenbergia
Graminoids: Lomandra longifolia, Luzula sp.
Grasses: Ehrharta stipoides
Ferns: Histiopteris incisa, Polystichum proliferum, Pteridium esculentum subsp.
esculentum
Weeds: Hypochaeris radicata
FUM
Trees: Eucalyptus amygdalina, Eucalyptus obliqua
Tall Shrubs: Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium, Pultenaea daphnoides
Shrubs: Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata, Epacris impressa, Pultenaea juniperina
Low Shrubs: Aotus ericoides
Herbs: Acaena novae-zelandiae, Euchiton japonicus, Gratiola pubescens, Oxalis sp.,
Stylidium graminifolium
Graminoids: Juncus procerus, Juncus sarophorus, Schoenus apogon
Grasses: Ehrharta stipoides
Ferns: Blechnum nudum, Histiopteris incisa
Weeds: Acetosella vulgaris, Brassica X napus, Callitriche stagnalis, Cardamine hirsuta,
Centaurium erythraea, Conium maculatum, Dipsacus fullonum, Holcus lanatus,
Lysimachia arvensis, Poa annua, Silybum marianum, Typha latifolia, Verbascum
virgatum, Veronica arvensis

26
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Appendix B - Vascular Plant Species List

Status codes:
ORIGIN NATIONAL SCHEDULE STATE SCHEDULE
i - introduced EPBC Act 1999 TSP Act 1995
d - declared weed WM Act CR - critically endangered e - endangered
en - endemic to Tasmania EN - endangered v - vulnerable
t - within Australia, occurs only in Tas. VU - vulnerable r - rare
Sites:
1 DAS - E460025, N5406354 17-08-2016 Grant Daniels
2 DOB - E460093, N5406237 17-08-2016 Grant Daniels
3 FUM - E459982, N5406326 17-08-2016 Grant Daniels
Site Name Common name

Status
DICOTYLEDONAE
APIACEAE
3 Conium maculatum hemlock i
2 Hydrocotyle hirta hairy pennywort
ASTERACEAE
23 Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata dollybush
23 Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf
12 Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear i
2 Olearia argophylla musk daisybush
2 Olearia lirata forest daisybush
3 Silybum marianum variegated thistle i
BRASSICACEAE
3 Brassica Xnapus rape i
3 Cardamine hirsuta hairy bittercress i
CALLITRICHACEAE
3 Callitriche stagnalis mud waterstarwort i
CAMPANULACEAE
2 Wahlenbergia sp. bluebell
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
1 Cerastium sp. mouse-ear chickweed i
CASUARINACEAE
1 Allocasuarina monilifera necklace sheoak en
DILLENIACEAE
1 Hibbertia procumbens spreading guineaflower
DIPSACACEAE
3 Dipsacus fullonum wild teasel i
EPACRIDACEAE
123 Epacris impressa common heath
1 Leucopogon collinus white beardheath
12 Monotoca glauca goldey wood

27
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
EUPHORBIACEAE
1 Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada broom spurge
FABACEAE
13 Aotus ericoides golden pea
3 Pultenaea daphnoides heartleaf bushpea
23 Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty
GENTIANACEAE
3 Centaurium erythraea common centaury i
MIMOSACEAE
2 Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle
12 Acacia melanoxylon blackwood
2 Acacia terminalis sunshine wattle
MYRTACEAE
13 Eucalyptus amygdalina black peppermint en
13 Eucalyptus obliqua stringybark
13 Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium common teatree
OXALIDACEAE
3 Oxalis sp. woodsorrel
POLYGONACEAE
13 Acetosella vulgaris sheep sorrel i
PRIMULACEAE
3 Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel i
PROTEACEAE
2 Banksia marginata silver banksia
ROSACEAE
3 Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy
SANTALACEAE
12 Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry
12 Leptomeria drupacea erect currantbush
SCROPHULARIACEAE
3 Gratiola pubescens hairy brooklime v
3 Verbascum virgatum twiggy mullein i
3 Veronica arvensis wall speedwell i
STYLIDIACEAE
13 Stylidium graminifolium narrowleaf triggerplant
MONOCOTYLEDONAE
CYPERACEAE
3 Schoenus apogon common bogsedge
JUNCACEAE
3 Juncus procerus tall rush
3 Juncus sarophorus broom rush
2 Luzula sp. luzula
LILIACEAE
1 Dianella tasmanica forest flaxlily
ORCHIDACEAE
12 Acianthus sp. mosquito orchid

28
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
1 Caladenia sp. spider-orchid

1 Pterostylis melagramma blackstripe greenhood
12 Pterostylis sp. greenhood
POACEAE
23 Ehrharta stipoides weeping grass
3 Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog i
13 Poa annua winter grass i
TYPHACEAE
3 Typha latifolia great reedmace i
XANTHORRHOEACEAE
12 Lomandra longifolia sagg
PTERIDOPHYTA
ASPIDIACEAE
2 Polystichum proliferum mother shieldfern
BLECHNACEAE
3 Blechnum nudum fishbone waterfern
DENNSTAEDTIACEAE
23 Histiopteris incisa batswing fern
12 Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum bracken

29
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Appendix C – Previous PC Assessment

30
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001

31
C&DS 3
9_09_2016 TRE001
Punchs Terror Quarry – new mining lease
FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT
27h July 2017
For Treloar Transport (TRE002)
Andrew North [email protected] Philip Barker [email protected]

163 Campbell Street Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone 03. 6231 9788 Facsimile 03. 6231 9877
C&DS 3

i
C&DS 3
TRE002 Punchs Quarry 27/07/2017
Summary
The proponent is seeking a permit for the reactiviation of the one of the quarries
under the recently acquired mining lease (28M/1990) at the Punchs Terror quarry in
northern Tasmania. North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) have been engaged to
undertake a threatened flora and fauna assessment. The results will be used to
determine potential impacts of the proposed reuse and any mitigation measures
identified will be applied to minimise impacts on conservation significant values.
Vegetation
The lease area was found to contain the following TASVEG units:
communities listed under the EPBCA. No Eucalyptus ovata forest or woodland (DOV)
is found on site.
The proposed intensification will result in the clearance of between 0 and 1 ha of DAS
and no more than 0.2 ha of DOB, neither of which is considered to be significant at
the local, regional, state or national scale. The current plan will impact no community
however it is understood the longer term plan will impact higher on the slope hence
we have included a projected upper limit of impact for future activities.
Threatened Flora & Fauna
No threatened flora or significant fauna habitat occurs onsite or close by. Two
wedge-tailed eagles were seen flying in the locality on the day of survey however our
assessment has determined there is no optimal nesting habitat or known nests within
1km of the site.
Summary
plant community, no threatened plant species, and no confirmed habitat for
threatened threatened fauna within 50m of the quarry. Losses of the threatened
native plant community are considered to be negligible at a local, regional and
statewide scale, and the community is not that typical of the threatened vegetation
found on sandstone rock. Weed infestations are minor and can be eradicated by
good weed management planning.

ii
C&DS 3
Acknowledgments
Project management: Dave Sayers

Field work and photographs: Dave Sayers
Report: Dave Sayers
Mapping: Dave Sayers
Proponent consultation: Nigel Beeke
North Barker Ecosystem Services, 2017. This work is protected under Australian
Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot be used by anyone
for any purpose other than that expressed in the service contract for this report
without the written permission of North Barker- Ecosystem Services.

iii
C&DS 3
Table of Contents
SUMMARY II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
TABLE OF FIGURES V
TABLE OF PLATES V
1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Study Area and Methods 1
1.2.1. Study Area 1
1.2.2. Field Survey 2
1.2.3. Limitations 3
2. RESULTS - BIOLOGICAL VALUES 3
2.1. Vegetation 3
2.2. Plant Species of Conservation Significance 8
2.3. Introduced Plants 11
2.4. Plant Pathogens 11
2.5. Fauna Species of Conservation Significance 11
3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NATURAL VALUES 18
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDANCE, COMPLIANCE AND
MITIGATION 19
4.1. Threatened Fauna 19
4.2. Weeds and Pathogens 19
4.3. Threatened Flora 19
4.4. Threatened Vegetation Communities 19
4.5. General Natural Values 19
5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 19
5.1. Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 19
5.2. Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 19
5.3. Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 20
5.4. Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 20
6. CONCLUSION 20
REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX A - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES BY COMMUNITY 23
APPENDIX B - VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST 24
APPENDIX C – PREVIOUS PC ASSESSMENT OF ATKINS PIT 27

iv
C&DS 3
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Site location ............................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Distribution of TASVEG units within the lease area – note that the proposed limit of
intensification (provided by the proponent) is indicative only and, in accordance with the requirements of
mining lease agreements, no disturbance will occur within 10 m of the lease boundary .......................... 4
Figure 3 – WTE habitat modelling surrounding the Punchs Terror quarry. ............................................. 17
Table of Plates
Plate 1: Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest on the southern edge of the proposed intensification area ............ 5
Plate 2: Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone within the proposed intensification
area ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plate 3: Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone within the proposed intensification
area ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plate 4: The current quarry area – mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous ............................................... 7
Plate 5: Part of the old quarry face ............................................................................................................ 7
Plate 6 – Some Pines have been cut and treated however some are still present around the quarry .... 11
Plate 7 - gorse......................................................................................................................................... 11
Plate 8 – Two wedge-tailed eagles seen flying over the study area. ....................................................... 16

v
C&DS 3
1. Introduction and Methods

1.1. Background
The proponent is seeking to begin production of crushed rock from a Mining Lease
28M/1990 recently acquired. The lessee currently operates a quarry just to the south
east of the new lease (Atkins Pit). The proponent has requested a threatened flora
and fauna survey in accordance with the Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys –
Terrestrial Development Proposals1 over the lease focussed around the proposal.
North Barker Ecosystem Services (NBES) has been commissioned to undertake the
present survey to fulfil the requirements of the threatened flora and fauna
assessment. The results will be used to determine potential impacts of the proposed
works and any mitigation measures identified will be applied to minimise impacts on
conservation significant values.
1.2. Study Area and Methods
1.2.1. Study Area

The existing quarry, known as Punchs Terror Quarry, is located off Beaumont’s Road,
Weegena, (Figure 1), approximately 4.5 km southwest of Elizabeth Town. The mining
lease (28M/1990) of 39 ha is owned by Meander Valley Council (category 3 with
lease expiry 19/04/2021). Previous operations cover around 3.6 ha. Following the
proposed re-use and intensification, the total potential disturbed land within the
current proposal will be around 0.7 ha. The land is zoned Rural Resource under the
Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and is part of the Tasmanian Northern
Slopes bioregion2.
The quarry is located on the western side of a north to south trending ridge. Site
geology is dominated by fine grained chert conglomerate composed of sub
rounded to rounded quartzite pebbles and cobbles. The chert is believed to be of
sedimentary origin with pink colourations due to high concentrations of haematite3.
Altitude across the study area is between 260 and 300 m AHD. Average annual
rainfall is around 1050 mm4.
1 Natural and Cultural Heritage Division, 2015

2 IBRA7 - Commonwealth of Australia 2012
3 Coffey (2017) page of Geolgoy sampling report provided by Nigel Beeke
4 Sheffield, Northwest Coast, Tasmania; 41.3886 ° S, 146.3219 ° E, 294 m AMSL; commenced 1996

1
C&DS 3
Figure 1: Site location
1.2.2. Field Survey

Field work was undertaken on foot by one observer on the 10th of July, 2017.
Vegetation was mapped throughout a large portion of the lease in accordance with
units defined in TASVEG 3.0 5. Within all vegetation types, plant species lists were
compiled according to nomenclature within the current census of Tasmanian plant
census6, using a meandering area search based on the Timed Meander Search
Procedure7. Observations of habitat suitability for fauna, as well as direct or indirect
indicators of presence (i.e. sightings, scats, tracks, dens, etc.) were made
concurrently. Disproportionate survey effort was applied to the proposed
intensification area and areas considered suitable for threatened values within 50m
of the proposal. Observations were recorded with a handheld GPS.
5 Kitchener and Harris 2013

6 de Salas and Baker 2015
7 Goff et al. 1982

2
C&DS 3
1.2.3. Limitations
Due to seasonal variations in detectability and identification, there may be some
species present within the study area that have been overlooked. To compensate for
these limitations to some degree, data from the present survey are supplemented
with data from the Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas8 (NVA) and the EPBC Significant
Matters database (PMST_91PQHG). From these sources, all threatened species known
to occur in the local area (5 km) are considered in terms of habitat suitability on site.
2. Results - Biological Values

2.1. Vegetation
Our survey has resulted in some corrections to the community data held within the
TASVEG v3.0 database. Specifically, we established that there is no Eucalyptus ovata
forest and woodland (DOV) present on site, with the area mapped as this community
actually being dominated by Eucalyptus obliqua. Eucalyptus amygdalina on
sandstone (DAS) also is present where Eucalyptus amygdalina – Eucalyptus obliqua
damp sclerophyll forest was mapped albeit this community occurs on chert and is not
the usual example of DAS; in addition, we made boundary corrections to the areas of
communities. The lease was found to contain three community units:
communities listed under the EPBCA.
Distributions of TASVEG units within the lease are presented in Figure 2. Floristics are
presented in Appendix A, while each unit is described briefly below, with
representative photos in Plates 1-4.
The site has no likelihood of supporting alpine sphagnum bogs and associated fens,
as predicted as possible by the EPBC protected matters database.
8 nvr_2_24-July-2017

3
C&DS 3
Figure 2: Distribution of TASVEG units within the lease area – note that the proposed

4
C&DS 3
Dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest (DOB) – Plate 1

The occurrences of this community on site are highly typical examples of the moist
facies of the community that occurs in the transition zone between wet and dry
forest. The canopy is almost exclusively dominated by Eucalyptus obliqua, with only
occasional E. amygdalina, particularly on patch margins. No E. ovata were observed
and it is unlikely any meaningful patches of this species were overlooked. The
understorey of this community was shrub dominated with a mix of tall and short
species, both broad leaved and sclerophyllous. Frequent species included Pultenaea
juniperina, Exocarpos cupressiformis, Acacia terminalis, Monotoca glauca, Cassinia
aculeata, Olearia lirata and Acacia melanoxylon. Ground layer vegetation was
dominated by Pteridium esculentum, with lesser patches of more moisture reliant
ferns, as well as Lomandra longifolia and various herbs and graminoids.
Dry Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS) – Plates 2 and 3
The occurrences of this community on site are relatively species poor in contrast to
examples of the community on Tertiary sandstone elsewhere in the State, but not
atypical for examples on conglomerate. The geology of this community is the
sedimentary rock chert which is not typical of the threatened communities which
occur on sandstone. The canopy is almost exclusively dominated by Eucalyptus
amygdalina, with only occasional E. obliqua, particularly on patch margins on the
lower slopes. The understorey of this community was largely dominated by Pteridium
esculentum, with occasional tall patches of Leptospermum. Other frequent shrubs
included Leucopogon collinus, Allocasuarina monilifera and Monotoca glauca. Small
species included Amperea xiphoclada, Hibbertia species (likely H. procumbens),
Dianella tasmanica and Aotus ericoides.
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) – Plates 4 and 5
This community includes the quarry face and an area of past disturbance in which
near surface material was extracted. Resultantly, vegetation in this area is largely
dominated by exotics such as Cirsium vulgare and native regrowth. Native species
within the area of FUM are largely adventive individuals that have colonised the area
from the adjacent native communities.
Plate 1: Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest on the southern edge of the proposed

5
C&DS 3

6
C&DS 3
Plate 4: The current quarry area – mapped as extra-urban miscellaneous
Plate 5: Part of the old quarry face

7
C&DS 3
2.2. Plant Species of Conservation Significance

In total, 50 species of vascular plants were recorded during our field survey (Appendix
A). This included no species listed as threatened under the schedules of the TSPA.
Several threatened species have previously been recorded within 5 km of the site9, or
have the potential to do so based on habitat mapping. None of these species are
considered likely to have been overlooked to any meaningful degree and thus have
a very low likelihood of impact from the proposed works (Table 1). Gratiola Pubescens
(hairy brookline) was recorded within the Atkins Pit during 2016 surveys however was
not observed within the current survey.
Table 1: Flora species of conservation significance known within a 5 km radius of the
10
study area, or predicted by habitat mapping

11
Species EPBCA occur if not Observations and preferred habitat
observed
KNOWN FROM THE ATKINS PIT JUST SOUTH
A small, mat-forming herb that colonises

bare ground disturbance niches within
saturated soils. Frequently observed in
Not highly modified environments such as the
Gratiola pubescens Vulnerable/ observed,
- Atkins Pit but was not recorded at this
hairy brooklime
site. Re-assessment of its status under
the TSPA is likely to occur in the near
future and the species is likely to be
down-listed or delisted from the Act.
12
REPORTED FROM WITHIN 5 km

Desmodium gunnii Vulnerable/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
Very low
southern ticktrefoil - present in very low numbers or in a highly
A floriferous perennial herb of creeks and

swamps, particularly in the north of the
Epilobium pallidiflorum Rare/ State. Pond on site is very low in
None suitability and the species is unlikely to
showy willowherb -
have been overlooked within it. No
suitable habitat was observed elsewhere
on site.

Glycine microphylla Vulnerable/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
Very low
small leaf glycine - present in very low numbers or in a highly
9 nvr_2_24-July-2017
10 nvr_2_24-July-2017
11 Includes statements from Threatened Species Link summaries and note sheets
12 nvr_2_24-July-2017

8
C&DS 3

11
observed
No suitable riparian habitat present. A

Gynatrix pulchella Rare/
None highly distinctive species unlikely to have
fragrant hempbush -
been overlooked.
Generally found along watercourses,

Hypolepis muelleri Rare/ swampy areas or deep rich alluvial soils.
Very Low
harsh groundfern - Habitat not present onsite and unlikely to
occur.

Pimelea curviflora (incl. but the highly distinctive species is
var. gracilis) Rare/ unlikely to have been overlooked unless
None
(slender) curved rice - present in very low numbers or in a highly
flower discreet location. Suitable habitat extends
13
PREDICTED AS POSSIBLE BY HABITAT MAPPING ONLY
Barbarea australis is a riparian plant

species found near river margins, creek
beds and along flood channels adjacent
to the river. It has not been found on
steeper sections of rivers, and tends to
favour slower reaches. It occurs in
Barbarea australis Endangered/ shallow alluvial silt deposited on rock
None
native wintercress ENDANGERED slabs or rocky ledges, or between large
cobbles on sites frequently disturbed by
fluvial processes. Some of the sites are a
considerable distance from the river in
flood channels scoured by previous flood
action, exposing river pebbles.
No suitable habitat occurs on site.
Caladenia caudata (tailed spider-orchid) is

a terrestrial orchid, found mainly in dry
heathland and heathy woodland habitats,
in lowland areas of northern, eastern and
Caladenia caudata Vulnerable/
Very low south-eastern Tasmania.
tailed spider orchid VULNERABLE
Habitat on site is suitable within the DAS
community, but none of the orchid leaves
observed during the survey could possibly
belong to this species.
Typically a species of grassy habitats, but

can occur on rocky knolls. Some suitable
Colobanthus curtisiae Rare/ habitat (of the latter type) present on site,
Very low
grassland cupflower VULNERABLE but the species was not observed and is
not likely to have been overlooked even
outside of the flowering season.
13 EPBCA protected matters report – PMST_ 91PQHG

9
C&DS 3

11
observed
Strictly a riparian species of dolerite

Epacris exserta Endangered/
None substrates.
South Esk heath ENDANGERED
Glycine latrobeana Vulnerable/ Habitat low in suitability. Can be detected

None by foliage at any time of the year and is
clover glycine VULNERABLE
not likely to have been overlooked.
Occurs in the growth suppression zone of

Lepidium hyssopifolium Endangered/
None large trees in grassy areas.
peppercress ENDANGERED

10
C&DS 3
2.3. Introduced Plants

One declared weed, gorse (Ulex europaeus) and one woody environmental weeds,
radiata pine (Pinus radiata) occur on site. Their distribution is shown in Figure 2.
Unspringingsly there is also a dense patch of spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare).
Plate 6 – Some Pines have been cut and Plate 7 - gorse

treated however some are still present
around the quarry
2.4. Plant Pathogens

The Atkins Pit has previously been assessed as free of cinnamon root rot fungus
Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC). Symptomatic evidence of PC has been recorded
however the location has tested negative twice. Much of the habitat within the
proposed intensification area is unsuitably well-drained for PC and no potential
symptomatic evidence was observed however a detailed PC assessment has not
been undertaken.
2.5. Fauna Species of Conservation Significance

No threatened fauna species have been directly observed on site. A number of
threatened fauna are known to occur within 5 km of the site, or have the potential to
do so based on habitat mapping14. The majority of these species are not considered
to have viable habitat on site (particularly nesting habitat) or the habitat is
considered to be relatively unimportant to the persistence of species at even a local
scale should they be present (Table 2). Potential denning for Tasmanian devils may
be present outside of the area surveyed along the ridgeline within the DAS
community however this is outside of the proposed impact of the quarry.
14 nvr_2_24-July-2017

11
C&DS 3
Table 2: Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded within a 5 km

15
radius of the study area, or with the potential to do so based on habitat mapping
Potential to 16
Status TSPA / Observations and preferred habitat
Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
BIRDS
No suitable nesting habitat is found on

Accipiter novaehollandiae Endangered/ site. If the area is used by this species it is
grey goshawk - Very low
only likely to represent a minor part of a
foraging range.
Requires sheltered old-growth trees for

Foraging: nesting. No viable nesting habitat will be
Aquila audax fleayi Endangered/ low impacted by the proposal. No nests are
wedge-tail eagle ENDANGERED known within 500 m or within 1 km line of
Nesting: sight. Nearest known nest is around 3 km
None away. Two WTE were observed flying on
the day of survey.
Uncommonly recorded in Tasmania. An

aerial insectivore that would most likely
Apus pacificus -/
Very low only fly over the site if present.
fork-tailed swift MIGRATORY

Ardea alba -/
None species.
great egret MIGRATORY

Ardea ibis -/
None species.
cattle egret MIGRATORY
Botaurus poiciloptilus -/
Australasian bittern ENDANGERED None No suitable permanent aquatic habitat.
Ceyx azureus subsp. Species primarily utilises major rivers

Endangered/ within western Tasmania. Nearest
diemenensis None
ENDANGERED suitable habitat is 2.5 km away on the
azure kingfisher
Mersey River.
A wide-ranging shorebird that frequently

-/ utilises the margins of subalpine lakes
Gallinago hardwickii
MARINE – None
Latham’s snipe and tarns, and less frequently farm dams.
MIGRATORY
15 nvr_2_24-July-2017
16 Bryant & Jackson 1999

12
C&DS 3
Potential to 16
Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
Requires large coastal or lakeside trees

Haliaeeatus leucogaster Vulnerable/ for nesting. No viable nesting habitat will
white-bellied sea eagle MIGRATORY None be impacted by the proposal. No nests
known within 500 m or within 1 km line of
sight.
An aerial species most likely unaffected

by terrestrial habitat alteration outside of
Hirundapus caudacutus -/
Very low its Northern Hemisphere breeding range.
white-throated needletail MIGRATORY
For nesting, this species requires tree

hollows within 10 km of mature stands of
food plants, which are blue gums (E.
globulus) and black gums (E. ovata).
No food trees have been observed on site
and there is a very low likelihood the site
Endangered/ could be utilised for nesting. Given the
Lathamus discolor current operations at the site it is
CRITICALLY Very low
swift parrot considered highly likely that any hollows
ENDANGERED
in the area would be occupied by
disturbance tolerant edge species such as
possums and sugar gliders.
Nearest known nest is around 2.5 km
away but NW breeding areas are not
classified as swift parrot important
17
breeding areas .
An interstate migrant of which some of the

population spends the summer breeding
months in Tasmania. Widely distributed
across forested environments but is
Myiagra cyanoleuca -/
Low sensitive to fragmentation and canopy
satin flycatcher MIGRATORY thinning and not generally associated with
small remnants or edge habitats.
Regional populations not likely to be
Pterodroma leucoptera
-/ A pelagic species. No suitable habitat
leucoptera None
ENDANGERED present.
Gould’s petrel
The site is within the core habitat range

for this species, which includes all land
Nesting: below 600 m AHD.
Tyto novaehollandiae Endangered/ None
Requires a mosaic of forest and open
masked owl VULNERABLE Foraging: areas for foraging, and large old-growth,
Low hollow-bearing trees for nesting.
The forest habitat on site is moderately
suitable for foraging, but no viable nesting
17 Forest Practices Authority 2010

13
C&DS 3
Potential to 16
Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
hollows were observed nor are likely to

have been overlooked.
Tringa nebularia -/ A shorebird species. No suitable habitat

common greenshank MIGRATORY None
present.
MAMMALS
This naturally rare forest-dweller most

commonly inhabits wet forest but also
occurs in dry forest and occasionally
Dasyurus maculatus ssp. grassy areas. The study area does not
Rare/ Low - occur within the core range for the
maculatus
VULNERABLE moderate species (as defined on the NVA) and only
spotted-tailed quoll
four records are known from within 5 km.
The species is unlikely to be measurably
impacted by a proposal of this scale
should it be present.
Species is extinct on mainland Australia

and was recently listed on the EPBCA as
a result of the decline in the Tasmanian
population during the last decade.
Currently the eastern quoll is not listed on
the Tasmanian TSPA and remains
Dasyurus viverrinus -/ widespread across eastern Tasmania in
eastern quoll ENDANGERED Very low particular, with a preference for high soil
fertility and grassy open habitats.
Only two observations of this species are
known within 5 km of the site and the
habitat is low in suitability. If the species is
present it is unlikely to be measurably
Predicted based on habitat mapping only.

Perameles gunnii -/ However, no suitable habitat is present on
None site for this species and it is more likely to
eastern barred bandicoot VULNERABLE
be present in the surrounding rural
landscape.
The study area does not occur within the

core range for the species (as defined on
the NVA) and only six records are known
from within 5 km.
Sarcophilus harrisii Endangered/ No scats were observed on site. The
Moderate species is unlikely to be measurably
Tasmanian devil ENDANGERED
impacted by a proposal of this scale
should it be present. Potential denning
habitat higher up the slopes which were
not thoroughly investigated as aprt of this
survey
OTHER SPECIES

14
C&DS 3
Potential to 16
Species occur in
EPBCA
study area
Species primarily utilises major rivers

Astacopsis gouldi Vulnerable/ within northern Tasmania. Nearest
None
giant freshwater crayfish VULNERABLE suitable habitat is 2.5 km away on the
Mersey River.
Engaeus granulatus
Endangered/ Predicted based on habitat mapping only.
Central North burrowing None
ENDANGERED Soil conditions not suitable on site.
crayfish
Galaxiella pusilla Vulnerable/

eastern dwarf galaxias VULNERABLE None No suitable aquatic habitat present.
Galaxias fontanus Endangered/

Swan galaxias ENDANGERED None No suitable aquatic habitat present.
Hickmanoxyomma
gibbergunyar Rare/ Only known from caves within the Mole
Mole Creek cave - None Creek karst system. No suitable karst
harvestman habitat is known on site.
Litoria raniformis Vulnerable/ Occurs in large, permanent, well

Very low vegetated wetlands. No suitable habitat
green and gold frog VULNERABLE
within study area.
Prototroctes marina Vulnerable/

Australian grayling VULNERABLE None No suitable river habitat present.
Occurs in Poa tussock grassland and

Pseudemoia Themeda grassland without trees. Known
Vulnerable/ to occur in the northwest, but not within 5
pagenstecheri None
- km the study area.
tussock skink
Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi)

Survey Results
The nearest known nest record is 3.5km to the south, last confirmed as present in 2015.
This nest is well beyond the range of likely disturbance.
Two wedge-tailed eagles were observed flying in the general locality on the day of
survey. The habitat within the study area and a 1 km buffer is considered to support
low quality eagle habitat 21. Figure 3 shows the study area, known nest locations and
the FPA WTE habitat modelling.
The study area is therefore most likely to be part of a larger foraging territory, but has
a low likelihood of containing nests. The immediate area is considered too exposed to
winds and generally lacks suitable nesting trees.

15
C&DS 3
General discussion
Wedge-tailed eagles nest in a range of old growth native forests and the species is
dependent on forest for nesting. It nests almost exclusively in mature eucalypts
capable of supporting their nests, which can develop after many years of use into
massive structures over 2m in diameter. The eagles choose old growth trees in
relatively sheltered sites for locating their nests. Territories can contain multiple nests
and up to five alternate nests have been located. Nests within a territory are usually
close to each other but may be up to 1 km apart where habitat is locally restricted.
Wedge-tailed eagles prey and scavenge on a wide variety of fauna including fish,
reptiles, birds and mammals.
The Tasmanian subspecies of the wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi) is
regarded as being larger than the mainland birds with a wingspan of 2m and a body
weight up to 5.5kg.18 However, there is an overlap in size between the two
populations. Tasmanian juvenile and immature birds also differ in plumage colour
from mainland birds19, they lack the rufous-brown markings on the nape, hind neck
and wing coverts20. DNA studies21 have been undertaken to resolve the uncertain
taxonomic status of the Tasmanian subspecies. Adults are resident, highly territorial
and have very large home ranges. Although considered to be widespread but
uncommon at the time of European settlement, the population has been estimated
to number less than 1,000 individuals occupying an estimated 220 breeding
territories22.
Plate 8 – Two wedge-tailed eagles seen flying over the study area.
18 Bryan & Jackson (1999)

19 Marchant & Higgins (1993)
20 Marchant & Higgins (1993)
21 Debus (2009)
22 DSEWPC (2012b)

16
C&DS 3
Figure 3 – WTE habitat modelling surrounding the Punchs Terror quarry.

17
C&DS 3
3. Summary of Potential Impacts to Natural Values

plant community (however not typical of the examples of DAS typically protected on
sandstone). No additional threatened flora or fauna habitat occur in or near the
proposal. Potential quantitative and qualitative impacts to natural values are
summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of potential impacts to natural values from proposed

intensification
23
Conservation Potential Context
Extent of native vegetation communities within intensification area (ha) – asterisk denotes
communities listed as threatened under Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002
(DAS) Eucalyptus Minimum 0 but Total extent in Tasmanian reserve estate: 13,500
amygdalina forest and up to 1.0 ha
woodland on potential
sandstone* Total extent in reserves in Meander Valley Council: 3,200
4,700
(DOB) Eucalyptus Max 0.2 ha Total extent in Tasmanian reserve estate: 76,900
obliqua dry forest
Total extent in reserves in Meander Valley Council: 2,100
15,500
Total area of potential 0 to 1.20 ha Negligible impacts anticipated at local, regional and
impact to native statewide level.
vegetation
23 Includes statements from Threatened Species Link summaries and note sheets

18
C&DS 3
4. Recommendations for Avoidance, Compliance and

Mitigation
4.1. Threatened Fauna
 Should works be planned for higher up the ridgeline, a targeted devil den
survey should be carried out to determine suitability of habitat and potential
for dens.
 No mitigation is necessary based on the current proposal.
4.2. Weeds and Pathogens

 The containment principles of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999
should be sufficiently met with best practice construction hygiene that
prevents the introduction of contaminated material from beyond the study
area, such as tool and machinery wash-down before entry, and by only
importing materials from verified weed and PC free locations.
 The proponent should continue weed control in order to prevent incursion of
the species, as well as continuing the control of environmental weeds on this
lease including gorse and radiata pine
 Continue work with PC testing and remediation works as required.
4.3. Threatened Flora

 No threatened flora recorded within the quarry and buffer of this proposal.
4.4. Threatened Vegetation Communities

 No mitigation is considered to be necessary given the nature of the proposal
and the potential scale of impacts.
4.5. General Natural Values

 In addition, where possible avoid stockpiling dense material around the base
of retained trees, in order to prevent root smothering.
5. Legislative Requirements
5.1. Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
The EPBCA is structured for self-assessment; the proponent must indicate whether or
not the project is considered a ‘controlled action’, which, if confirmed, would require
approval from the Commonwealth Minister.
No habitat for EPBCA listed fauna have been identified. Consequently, referral to the
Minister is not considered to be necessary for this proposal.
5.2. Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

No issues identified under this act.

19
C&DS 3
5.3. Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

One declared species (gorse) occurs onsite. This should be eradicated from the site.
Appropriate construction hygiene should be applied in order to avoid the
introduction of species listed under this Act. This may include machinery washdown
following use at contaminated sites and before entering the site.
5.4. Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013

The current proposal is understood to be exempt from the provisions of the
Biodiversity Code (E8) as it is a level 2 activity that will be assessed by the Board of
Environmental Management and Pollution Control.
6. Conclusion
plant community, no threatened plant species, and no confirmed habitat for
threatened threatened fauna within 50m of the quarry. Losses of the threatened
native plant community are considered to be negligible at a local, regional and
statewide scale, and the community is not that typical of the threatened vegetation
found on sandstone rock. Weed infestations are minor and can be eradicated by
good weed management planning.

20
C&DS 3
References
Commonwealth of Australia (2016). EPBC Protected Matters Database:
http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf Report
PMST_ 91PQHG
Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for
Australia, version 7:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/5b3d2d31-2355-4b60-
820c-e370572b2520/files/bioregions-new.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. No. 91, 1999.
de Salas, M.F. and Baker, M.L. (2016) A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania,
Including Macquarie Island. (Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and
Art Gallery. Hobart) www.tmag.tas.gov.au - ISBN 978-1-921599-82-8 (PDF).
Debus, S. (2009). Eagle studies. Wingspan 19: 35-36
DPIPWE (2016). Natural Values Report_2_24-July-2017, DPIPWE, Natural Values Atlas,
Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment, Hobart.
DPIPWE (2013). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
TASVEG 3.0, Released November 2013. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and
Mapping Program, Resource Management and Conservation Division.
DSEWPC (2012b). Aquila audax fleayi — Wedge-tailed Eagle (Tasmanian) in Species
Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Kitchener, A. and Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of
Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water
and Environment, Tasmania.
Forest Practices Authority (2010). Interim Species Habitat Planning Guideline for the
conservation management of Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) in areas
regulated under the Tasmanian Forest Practices System. Internal report to the
Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.
Marchant, S., & P.J. Higgins (eds) 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic Birds. Volume 2: Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Natural and Cultural Heritage Division (2015). Guidelines for Natural Values Surveys -
Terrestrial Development Proposals. Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment.
Peters, D. & Thackway, R. (1998). A New Biogeographic Regionalisation for Tasmania.
Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Tasmanian State Government (1995). Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. No.83
of 1995. Government Printer, Hobart, Tasmania
Tasmanian State Government (1999). Weed Management Act 1999. No.105 of 1999.
Tasmanian State Government (2002). Nature Conservation Act 2002. No.63 of 2002.

21
C&DS 3
Tasmanian State Government (2006). Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened

Native Vegetation Communities) Act 2006. Government Printer, Hobart,
Tasmania.

22
C&DS 3
Appendix A - Vascular Plant Species by Community

Site: 1 Punchs Quarry - DOB
Accuracy: GPS (within 10 metres)
Recorder: Dave Sayers
Date of Survey: 10 Jul 2017
Trees: Acacia melanoxylon, Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa, Eucalyptus amygdalina,
Eucalyptus obliqua
Tall Shrubs: Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata, Acacia mearnsii, Bedfordia salicina, Exocarpos
cupressiformis, Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium, Monotoca glauca,
Olearia argophylla
Shrubs: Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata, Epacris impressa, Leptomeria drupacea,
Olearia lirata, Pimelea linifolia, Pomaderris elliptica, Pultenaea juniperina
Herbs: Euchiton japonicus
Graminoids: Juncus australis, Juncus procerus, Lomandra longifolia, Luzula sp.
Grasses: Deyeuxia sp., Ehrharta distichophylla
Ferns: Gleichenia dicarpa, Histiopteris incisa, Polystichum proliferum, Pteridium
esculentum subsp. esculentum
Weeds: Dactylis glomerata, Hypochaeris radicata
Site: 2 Punchs Quarry - E. amygdalina on sandstone

Tall Shrubs: Allocasuarina monilifera, Exocarpos cupressiformis, Leptospermum scoparium
var. scoparium, Monotoca glauca
Shrubs: Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada, Epacris impressa, Leucopogon collinus
Low Shrubs: Aotus ericoides, Hibbertia sp.
Herbs: Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana, Dianella tasmanica, Libertia pulchella var.
pulchella
Graminoids: Lomandra longifolia
Grasses: Poa sp.
Ferns: Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum
Weeds: Acetosella vulgaris, Centaurium erythraea, Poa annua
Site: 3 Punchs - FUM (cleared areas)

Tall Shrubs: Exocarpos cupressiformis
Shrubs: Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata
Grasses: Poa labillardierei
Weeds: Callitriche stagnalis, Centaurium erythraea, Cerastium sp., Cirsium vulgare,
Lysimachia arvensis, Taraxacum officinale, Ulex europaeus

23
C&DS 3
Appendix B - Vascular Plant Species List

Species list - project: TRE002
Status codes:
ORIGIN NATIONAL SCHEDULE STATE SCHEDULE
i - introduced EPBC Act 1999 TSP Act 1995
d - declared weed WM Act CR - critically endangered e - endangered
en - endemic to Tasmania EN - endangered v - vulnerable
t - within Australia, occurs only in Tas. VU - vulnerable r - rare
Sites:
1 Punches Quarry - DOB - E459584, N5406693 10-07-2017 Dave Sayers
2 Punches Quarry - E. amygdalina on sandstone - E459618, N5406782 10-07-2017 Dave Sayers
3 Punches - FUM (cleared areas) - E459571, N5406743 10-07-2017 Dave Sayers
Site Name Common name Status

DICOTYLEDONAE
ASTERACEAE
1 Bedfordia salicina tasmanian blanketleaf en
13 Cassinia aculeata subsp. aculeata dollybush
3 Cirsium vulgare spear thistle i
1 Euchiton japonicus common cottonleaf
1 Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear i
1 Olearia argophylla musk daisybush
1 Olearia lirata forest daisybush
3 Taraxacum officinale common dandelion i
CALLITRICHACEAE
3 Callitriche stagnalis mud waterstarwort i
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
3 Cerastium sp. mouse-ear chickweed i
CASUARINACEAE
2 Allocasuarina monilifera necklace sheoak en
DILLENIACEAE
2 Hibbertia sp. guinea-flower
EPACRIDACEAE
12 Epacris impressa common heath
2 Leucopogon collinus white beardheath
12 Monotoca glauca goldey wood
EUPHORBIACEAE
2 Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada broom spurge
FABACEAE
2 Aotus ericoides golden pea
1 Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty

24
C&DS 3
3 Ulex europaeus gorse d

GENTIANACEAE
23 Centaurium erythraea common centaury i
MIMOSACEAE
1 Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle
1 Acacia mearnsii black wattle
1 Acacia melanoxylon blackwood
MYRTACEAE
123 Eucalyptus amygdalina black peppermint en
123 Eucalyptus obliqua stringybark
12 Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium common teatree
PITTOSPORACEAE
1 Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box
POLYGONACEAE
2 Acetosella vulgaris sheep sorrel i
PRIMULACEAE
3 Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel i
RHAMNACEAE
1 Pomaderris elliptica yellow dogwood
RUTACEAE
2 Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana mountain correa en
SANTALACEAE
123 Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry
1 Leptomeria drupacea erect currantbush
THYMELAEACEAE
1 Pimelea linifolia greater slender riceflower
MONOCOTYLEDONAE
IRIDACEAE
2 Libertia pulchella var. pulchella pretty grassflag
JUNCACEAE
1 Juncus australis southern rush
1 Juncus procerus tall rush
1 Luzula sp. luzula
LILIACEAE
2 Dianella tasmanica forest flaxlily
POACEAE
1 Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot i
1 Deyeuxia sp. bent grass
1 Ehrharta distichophylla hairy ricegrass
2 Poa annua winter grass i
3 Poa labillardierei silver tussockgrass
2 Poa sp. poa
XANTHORRHOEACEAE
12 Lomandra longifolia sagg
PTERIDOPHYTA

25
C&DS 3
ASPIDIACEAE
1 Polystichum proliferum mother shieldfern
DENNSTAEDTIACEAE
1 Histiopteris incisa batswing fern
12 Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum bracken
GLEICHENIACEAE
1 Gleichenia dicarpa pouched coralfern

26
C&DS 3
Appendix C – Previous PC Assessment of Atkins Pit

27
C&DS 3

28
C&DS 3
12.2. Appendix B – Noise Survey
C&DS 3
1
PEARU TERTS 33 Falcon Rd

BA, Grad. Dip. Env. Stud. (Hons.), MIE Aust., CPENG, MAAS Claremont 7011
Consulting Engineer Tasmania AUSTRALIA
Phone 03 6249 7165

ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS
Fax 03 6249 1296
NOISE CONTROL Email [email protected]
Dunorlan Punch’s Terror Quarry Treloar

22/12/2017
NOISE ISSUES
S U M M A R Y.
1. The measured noise level during calm conditions (quarry not operating) was
L90 = 25.3 dB(A) and Leq = 50.4 dB(A) at gate of 56 Chesneys Road.. House is
about 750 m from the quarry 28M/1990 =Q 1
2. During quarry operations, the calculated Leq is less than 45 dB(A)
3. During quarry operations, at 28 m from the crusher, the following was
measured: L90 = 71.8 dB(A), Leq = 74.6 dB(A) and 86.9 dB(C).
4. The following equipment was operating in the quarry: Jaw Crusher (300 HP)
+Loader (180 HP) + excavator (120 HP) = total 600 HP
5. The operation of the quarry is likely to meet the “Quarry Code of Practice”
requirement that the quarry operation noise level not to exceed 45 dB(A) during the
daytime.
CLIENT: Mr. Nigel Beeke

Treloar Transport
P.O. Box 21
Sheffield
Tasmania 7306
Mobile 0409 067 573

e-mail: [email protected]
Cc Carol Steyn, [email protected]
BRIEF:
Estimate the likely in noise due to a 120 HP P1 320B CAT excavator and a P22 Pegson Jaw
crusher and the wheel loader as reported in the 7/4/2014 noise report. In addition, comment on the
likely compliance of the quarry operation with the requirements of the May 2017 Quarry Code of
Practice.
INTRODUCTION:
Noise annoyance depends on the following factors:
C&DS 3
1
2
1. the level of the existing ambient noise
2. the level of the new noise with the quarry in operation
3. whether the new noise has tonal components
4. whether the new noise has impulsive components
5. the time of the day the new noise occurs
6. whether the new noise carries unwanted intelligence such as waning announcements
7. noise annoyance is also dependent on the listener’s perception of whether the noise is
regretfully caused, imposed in ignorance or inflicted as an act of aggression.
The Tasmania Quarry Code of Practice (May 2017), page 17, paragraph 7.2.2.2 Level of noise
states states: “Noise from quarrying and associated activities, including equipment maintenance,
when measured at any neighbouring sensitive use must not exceed the greater of:
The A-weighted 10 minute L90, excluding noise from the quarry, plus 5 dB(A) , or
45 dB(A) from 0700 to 1900 hours (daytime)…….
when measured as a 10 minute Leq”.
Treloar Transport is submitting a DFPEMP to the EPA seeking permission to blast at this quarry.
DEFINITIONS:
See appendix A.
Background noise is indicated by L90. This L90 is a good descriptor of the base or background
noise level. For example (see page A6, Loc 2, column 3),where L90 = 25.3 dB(A) then that means
that for 90 % of the 10 minute sample, that is, 9 minutes, the noise level was 25.3 dB(A) or more.
Similarly, L10 is a good descriptor of the average of the higher noise events encountered. If, for
example, L10 = 44.5. dB(A) then that means that for 10 % or 1 minute, the noise level was 44.5
dB(A) or more.
Leq is the equivalent ‘A’ weighted noise level. A fluctuating noise having an Leq = 50.4 dB(A)
has the same acoustic energy as a steady noise of 50.4 dB(A).
ESTIMATED BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS:
Australian Standard AS 1055.2-1997 “Acoustics – Description and measurements of

environmental noise Part 2: Application to specific situations,” in Appendix A, the estimated L90
background sound pressure level in areas with low density transportation, between 0700 h to 1800
h, Mon. to Sat. is 45 dB(A ). This estimate is a guide only for use where actual measurements are
not obtained.
RESULTS:
See appendices A and B. The main results are shown on pages A 6.
Previously, (Field Report, Forthside, 27/11/2013) at 28 m from the crusher we measured Leq =
74.6 dB(A), and 86.9 dB(C) and L90 = 71.8 dB(A).
The difference between Leq and L90 = 74.6 – 71.8 = 2.8 dB(A)
C&DS 3
2
3
The difference between the dB(C) and dB(A) is 86.9 – 74.6 = 12.3 dB.
JAW CRUSHER, LOADER and EXCAVATOR
The table on page A 9 ( report of 27/11/2013) gives the results of 10 minute measurements at 28 m
from the crusher which was fed by a loader and excavator as shown on page A 7.
The calculated sound power level is:
SWL = SPL + 20 log r + 8

= 74.6 + 20 log 28 + 8 = 111.54 or say 112 dB(A)
Similarly, the calculated sound power level in terms of dB(C) is:
SWL = 86.9 + 20 log 28 + 8 = 123.8 dB(C) or say 124 dB(C)
The difference between the dB(C) and dB(A) noise levels is 124 – 112 = 12 dB and so no penalty
for low frequency components is applicable.
The P22 Pegson Jaw Crusher is rated at 300 HP. The sound pressure level at 437 m ( see Q 1 to R
3 on pages B 2 and B 5), due only to geometric spreading and NOT taking into account
atmospheric absorption, noise barriers, excess attenuation due to ground cover and trees, would be:
SPL = SWL – 20 log r – 8,

where r is the distance in meters.
SPL = 112 – 20 log 437 – 8 = 51.2 dB(A)
From the above noise level we need to calculate the excess noise attenuation as the sound travels
through the atmosphere and over ground cover and diffracts over natural or man made barriers.
The above noise was calculated using geometric spreading to 437 m
Using the topographic profile on page B 5, the barrier effect was calculated as 15.6 dB
Hence the likely noise level at R 3 is 51.2 – 15.6 = 35.6 dB(A)
The above calculations do not take into account the excess attenuation for sound travelling over the
ground, ground cover and through the atmosphere. These will reduce the noise levels further.
Hence the noise level due to the quarry operation is likely to be 36 dB(A) using the above
mentioned equipment.
Similar calculations were performed for the receivers shown on page B 2 to quarries Q 1 and Q 2.
using the profiles shown on pages B 3 to B 5.
The results are shown on the next page. The calculations assume a crusher height of 3 m and a
receiver height above ground of 1.5 m.:
C&DS 3
3
4
Location Barrier ht Source ht receiver ht Hor source Hor barrier Atten

Q to R metres metres metres barrier dist receiver dist dB
Q 1 to R 3 273 273 216.5 100 337 15.6

Q 2 to R 1 308 307 146.5 30 940 13.7
Q 1 to R 2 272.5 273 201.5 45 535 11.8
Q 2 to R 2 310 309 201.5 55 1130 12.1
Q 2 to R 3 340 373 216.5 385 650 16.3
Q 1 to R 1 272.5 273 146.5 70 660 15.5
The geometric spreading of the noise is calculated as follows for the various above combinations:
Q 1 to R 3 112 – 20 log 437 – 8 – 15.6 = 35.6 dB(A)

Q 2 to R 1 112 – 20 log 970 – 8 – 13.7 = 30.6 dB(A)
Q 1 to R 2 112 – 20 log 580 – 8 – 11.8 = 36.9 dB(A)
Q 2 to R 2 112 – 20 log 1185 – 8 – 12.1 = 30.4 dB (A)
Q 2 to R 3 112 – 20 log 1035 – 8 – 16.3 = 27.4 dB(A)
Q 1 to R 1 112 – 20 log 730 – 8 – 15.5 = 31.2 dB(A)
.
DISCUSSION:
With the calculated noise levels below 45 dB(A), the quarry operation is likely to meet the ‘Quarry
Code of Practice requirement of 45dB(A) during the day time. The quarry operates only during
daylight.
C ONCLUSION:
The calculated noise level based on measured ambient and background noise levels indicate that
the 45 dB(A) daylight requirement of the Quarry Code of Practice, noise level with the quarry
operating, is likely to be met at the nearest neighbour.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guideline for noise levels outside bedrooms is that with
the window open, Leq = 45 dB(A) and Lmax = 60 dB(A). These conditions too, are likely to be
met during the operation of the quarry.
Pearu Terts
C&DS 3
4
A1
Treloar Punchs Terror Quarry, Dunorlan

Preliminary field report for site visit September 2017
Appendix A to be read in conjunction with main report
General
The quarry site at Punchs Terror, Dunorlan appears to have a history, based on maps and the regrowth. The
excavations lie on the western side of the hill, and there are a number of neighbours surrounding the site. The
conglomerate quarry is currently in intermittent use by Treloar.
This report describes the findings of preliminary ambient noise measurements and observations from the site
visit 15:20-17:00, Friday 1/9/2017.
Instruments used
• Brűel & Kjær Sound Level Calibrator Type 4230 s/n 1169836, Laboratory Certified May 2017;
• Norsonic Precision Sound Level Meter Nor131, s/n 1312829, Laboratory Certified May 2017;
• Weather Instruments (Aneroid barometer, Zeal Wet/Dry bulb Psychrometer, Suunto KB-14/360R compass,
Kaindl Windmaster 2 wind speed meter);
Location definitions
The locations for measurements were defined as follows:
Location Definition/comment
Approximate centre of recently used quarry floor, Microphone at 1.2 m height

Loc 1
GR (AMG UTM 1966) 459469 m E, 5406543 m N
Fencepost at road bend, opposite gate to “Whispering Hills Retreat”, 56 Chesneys Rd,
Loc 2
Microphone at 1.2 m height. GR (AMG UTM 1966) 458991 m E, 5407098 m N
Positions plotted on aerial photo and photographs of locations are on the following pages.
Weather observations
Weather observations
Conditions suitable for noise measurements.
Date 1/09/2017
Details are shown alongside.
Location Loc 1
Time 15:30
Temp °C 11
Relative Humidity % 66
Pressure hPa 997
Wind speed average m/s 0.4
Wind speed maximum m/s 3.1
Wind direction NW
Cloud cover x/8 7
[Last revised 5/9/2017]
C&DS 3
Pearu Terts – Field Report – Treloar Punchs Terror Quarry, Dunorlan – September 2017
A2
Location – map showing study site and surrounds
Sourced from MemoryMap; Tasmap 1:25000 series, 30/7/2017
C&DS 3
A3
Location – plotted airphoto indicating monitoring positions
● Loc 2
● Loc 1
Monitoring locations plotted to approximation. Base image sourced from Google 30/7/2017. Note 200 m scale bar.
Changes may have occurred since this image was captured by satellite.
C&DS 3
A4
Panorama photograph
View of sweeping NW-SE arc of quarry from a small stockpile at edge of the floor. Location 1 to right of vehicle, 1/9/2017
Note the 4-photo composite has minor join error and distortion
C&DS 3
A5
Site photograph
View to SE at Location 2, opposite gate to 56 Chesneys Rd, 1/9/2017
Noise descriptions
For this location, ambient noise by source noted during the site visit is listed (in descending order of
significance by loudness, noticeability, duration and incidence):
Location 1
• Breeze in eucalypt trees dominates noise in between calm lulls;
• Bird calls including crows, geese
• Distant traffic including truck
• Sheep
• Aircraft
Location 2
• Two neighbours’ vehicles passed the monitoring location, one diesel 4WD stopped very near by and
idled for a period and the driver engaged us in conversation
• Bird calls including currawongs, crows, wattlebirds, plovers, rooster
• Frogs
• Breeze in trees at times
• Distant traffic
• Horses
Comments
During this preliminary visit some daytime ambient noise measurements were conducted under
suitable conditions.
No machinery was present at the quarry, though fresh caterpillar and truck tracks indicated recent
activity.
The quarry lies on the western side of the ridge, thus it is the western neighbours that have the
potential for exposure to quarrying noise. One of the neighbour sites to the NW was visited; other/s
lying to the W and NW were not visited on this occasion.
C&DS 3
A6
Measurements and statistical analysis of noise over 30 min periods, dB(A)
Statistical analysis of ambient noise levels at Locations 1 and 2,

Punchs Terror Quarry project, Dunorlan, 1/9/2017
70
Location Loc 1 Loc 2
Date 1/9/2017 1/9/2017 Loc 1 1/09/2017 15:24 30 min
65
18000 ambient
Time 15:24 16:15
Duration 30 min 30 min 60
Samples 18000 18000
Test ambient ambient 55 Loc 2 1/09/2017 16:15 30 min
18000 ambient
Lmax 56.3 73.3
Noise level dB(A)
L0.1 48.8 70.6 50
L1 42.3 61.2
L5 38.0 59.7 45
L10 36.1 44.5

40
L50 30.3 29.6
L90 26.5 25.3
35
L95 25.6 24.3
L99 23.1 23.0 30
Lmin 21.7 21.0
Leq A 33.3 50.4 25
20
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Percentage of time noise level exceeded
C&DS 3
A7
Spectral analysis of ambient day time noise
Location Loc 1 Loc 2

Date 1/09/2017 1/09/2017
Time 15:24 16:15
Duration 30 min 30 min
Measure Leq L50 L90 Leq L50 L90
Test ambient ambient background ambient ambient background
Overall A 33.3 30.3 26.5 50.4 29.6 25.3
C 41.6 37.2 34.3 64.8 52.3 42.0
Octave band Hz 31.5 38.5 32.4 28.3 63.5 46.3 37.1
63 34.5 31.3 28.1 61.3 38.5 32.6
125 28.1 26.8 24.9 57.0 32.0 27.2
250 23.8 <24.7 <24.6 48.5 26.1 <24.6
500 23.9 <24.7 <24.6 45.4 <24.7 <24.6
1k 25.6 <24.7 <24.6 43.9 <24.7 <24.6
2k 28.3 24.8 <24.6 45.2 24.8 <24.6
4k 26.8 <24.7 <24.6 34.8 <24.7 <24.6
8k 20.9 <24.7 <24.6 26.5 <24.7 <24.6
Octave band spectra of ambient noise 1/9/2017

Location 1 and 2, Punchs Terrror Quarry, Dunorlan
100
Loc 1 1/09/2017 15:24

90 30 min Leq ambient
80
Loc 1 1/09/2017 15:24
30 min L50 ambient
70
60 Loc 1 1/09/2017 15:24

30 min L90 background
dB 50
Loc 2 1/09/2017 16:15

40 30 min Leq ambient
30
Loc 2 1/09/2017 16:15
30 min L50 ambient
20
10 Loc 2 1/09/2017 16:15

30 min L90 background
0
31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k
Frequency band (Hz)
Note: reporting floor for L50 = 24.7 and L90 = 24.6 dB
C&DS 3
A8
Monitoring trace of day time noise at Location 1
Ambient noise measured at Loc 1, Punchs Terror Quarry floor, 30 minute log starting 15:24, 1/9/2016
Leq, sampled once per second, trace of dB(A)
75
70
65
60
Noise level dB(A)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15:24
1 15:29
301 15:34
601 15:39
901 15:44
1201 15:49
1501 15:54
1801
Time (AEST)
Variation in baseline noise level reflects variation in breeze in eucalypt trees; with superimposed spikes due to bird calls.
Occasional distant traffic events included a truck.
C&DS 3
A9
Monitoring trace of day time noise at Location 2
Ambient noise measured at Loc 2, 56 Chesneys Rd, Dunorlan, 30 minute log starting 16:15, 1/9/2016
Leq, sampled once per second, trace of dB(A)
75
70
65
60
Noise level dB(A)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15:24
1 15:29
301 15:34
601 15:39
901 15:44
1201 15:49
1501 15:54
1801
Time (AEST)
Variation in baseline noise level reflects variation in breeze in trees and distant traffic; with superimposed spikes mainly due to bird calls.
Two significant events were local traffic passes; the first was a hatchback passed the microphone 1 m away.
The second passed 1 m away, a diesel 4WD that stopped about 5 m away and idled for a period while the driver engaged us in conversation before departing.
C&DS 3
B1
Treloar Punchs Terror Quarry, Dunorlan

Topography report December 2017
Appendix B to be read in conjunction with main report
General
The quarry site at Punchs Terror, Dunorlan appears to have a substantial history of operation, based on maps
and the regrowth. The excavations lie on the western side of the hill, and there are a number of neighbours
surrounding the site. The conglomerate quarry is currently in intermittent use by Treloar.
This report describes the findings of topographic interpretation of quarry and nearest receiver sites with
potential exposure to crusher operations, Dec 2017.
The client has provided some mapping data on GIS, and this is used as a basis of this interpretation.
Assumptions based on the site visit to Quarry 1 include there being a 2 m high mound at the lip of each of the
quarry floors where crushers may be located. Any drilling would be at higher bench levels.
[Last revised 14/12/2017]
C&DS 3
Pearu Terts – Topographic Report – Treloar Punchs Terror Quarry, Dunorlan – December 2017
B2
Location – topographic map showing quarry crusher and nearest sensitive receiver locations
Receiver 3
Receiver 2
Quarry 1
Quarry 2
Receiver 1
Sourced from ArcGIS https://arcg.is/1Wvaqm 14/12/2017
C&DS 3
B3
Topographic profiles from Receiver 1 to Northern and Southern quarry crusher positions
400
390
380
370
360 R1-Q1
350
340
R1-Q2
330
320
310
300
Height above sea level (m)
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Distance from Receiver (m)
C&DS 3
B4
400
390
380
370
360 R2-Q1
350
340
R2-Q2
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
C&DS 3
B5
400
390
380
370
360 R3-Q1
350
340
R3-Q2
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
C&DS 3
12.3. Appendix C – Blasting Impacts Report
C&DS 3
FORZE EXPLOSIVE SEVICES
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRELOAR TRANSPORT
MVC QUARRY, DUNORLAN
C&DS 3
CONTENTS
1.0 CUSTOMER DETAILS PAGE 1
1.1 CUSTOMER NAME PAGE 1
1.2 CUSTOMER CONTACT PAGE 1
1.3 CUSTOMER PHONE No. PAGE 1
1.4 CUSTOMER EMAIL PAGE 1
2.0 BLAST SUMMARY PAGE 1
2.1 BLAST DATE PAGE 1
2.2 BLAST TIME PAGE 1
2.3 BLAST LOCATION PAGE 1
2.4 BLAST OBJECTIVE PAGE 1
3.0 INVOLVED PERSONNEL PAGE 1
3.1 FORZE PTY LTD SHOTFIRERS PAGE 1
3.2 FORZE PTY LTD ASSISTANT SHOTFIRERES PAGE 1
4.0 BLAST DESIGN PAGE 1
4.1 MATERIAL TO BE BLASTED PAGE 1
4.2 MATERIAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY PAGE 1
4.3 BCM PAGE 1
4.4 TONNAGE PAGE 1
4.5 No. OF HOLES PAGE 1
4.6 HOLE DIAMETER PAGE 1
4.7 BURDEN PAGE 1
4.8 SPACING PAGE 1
4.9 AVERAGE HOLE DEPTH PAGE 1
4.10 SUBDRILL DEPTH PAGE 1
4.11 STEMMING MATERIAL PAGE 1
4.12 STEMMING HEIGHT PAGE 1
5.0 INITIATION SEQUENCE PAGE 1
6.0 EXPLOSIVE CHARGING PAGE 2
6.1 DOWNHOLE DETONATORS PAGE 2
6.2 PRIMERS PAGE 2
6.3 BULK EXPLOSIVE PAGE 2
6.4 SURFACE DETONATORS PAGE 2
6.5 BLAST TOTALS PAGE 2
7.0 BLAST DEMARCATION AND SIGNAGE PAGE 2
8.0 CUSTOMER/EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY WITHIN BLAST AREA PAGE 2
9.0 COMMUNICTION PAGE 2
9.1 BLAST AREA COMMUNICATION PAGE 2
9.2 EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2
10.0 BLAST EXCLUSION ZONE MAP PAGE 2
11.0 BLAST GUARDING PROCESS PAGE 3
12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS PAGE 3
12.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST STRUCTURE PAGE 3
12.2 DISTANCE TO POWERLINES PAGE 3
12.3 DISTANCE TO UNDERGROUND SERVICES PAGE 3
13.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION LIMITS PAGE 3
13.1 TOXIC FUME MANAGEMENT PAGE 3
13.2 DUST MANAGEMENT PAGE 3
14.0 BLAST AREA PPE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 4
15.0 BLAST RECORDS AND REPORTING PAGE 4
15.1 PRIOR TO ENTERING SITE, FORZE WILL COMPETE THE FOLLOWING PAGE 4
15.2 DURING LOADING AND INITIATION OF BLAST PAGE 4
16.0 REFERENCES PAGE 4
16.1 SDS REGISTER PAGE 4
16.2 PROCEDURES PAGE 4
C&DS 3
PO Box 231, MARGATE, TASMANIA 7054
P. 6267 2288
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN M. 0419 123 388

E. [email protected]
CUSTOMER DETAILS
CUSTOMER NAME: TRELOARS TRANSPORT CUSTOMER CONTACT: Nigel Beeke
CUSTOMER PHONE No: 0409 067 573 CUSTOMER EMAIL: [email protected]
BLAST SUMMRY
BLAST DATE(S): TO BE ADVISED STILL IN PLANNING
BLAST TIME(S): 10:00 - 16:00
BLAST LOCATION: MVC QUARRY, DUNORLAN
BLAST OBJECTIVE: Quarry Blasting - Rock Removal using Explosives
INVOLVED PERSONNEL - FORZE

FOR EACH BLAST, 4 X PERSONEL FROM FORZE PTY LTD WILL BE UTILISED, CONSISTING OF TWO SHOTFIRERS AND TWO ASSISTANT
SHOT FIRERS. TRELOARS WILL ASSIST IN PROVINDING BLAST GUARDS IF REQUIRED. - PROCEDURE ATTACHED.
FORZE PTY LTD SHOTFIRERS
NAME: GEORGE McEVOY SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91562

RESPONSIBLE WORKER ID: 1447010 SSDS PERMIT No: 10008
PHONE NUMBER: 0458 602 803 EMAIL: [email protected]
HR DRIVERS LICENCE: 5632331 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1518463
NAME: DANIEL CRANE SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91146

HR DRIVERS LICENCE: F14501 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1579
NAME: RICHARD GADD SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91106

HR DRIVERS LICENCE: 103 387 797 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1193325
FORZE PTY LTD ASSISTANT SHOTFIRERS

NAME: MARTY ANSELL SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: TBA
RESPONSIBLE WORKER ID: TBA SSDS PERMIT No: 10008
NAME: DAVE SHACKCLOTH SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: N / A

RESPONSIBLE WORKER ID: 9958 894 SSDS PERMIT No: 10008
BLAST DESIGN
MATERIAL TO BE BLASTED: CHERT CONGLOMERATE MATERIAL SG: 2.6 BCM: 5,000 TONNES: 13,000
NUMBER OF HOLES: 135 HOLE DIAMETER: 89mm BURDEN: 2.3m SPACING: 2.5m
AVE HOLE DEPTH: 6.5 SUBDRILL DEPTH: 0.5 STEMMING MATERIAL: 10 mm STEMMING HEIGHT: 2.2
NOTE: THESE PARAMETRES ARE BASED ON FORZE INITIAL DESIGN AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON BLAST RESULTS.
INITIATION SEQUENCE
NOTE: INITIATION PLAN MAY VARY DUE TO CHANGES IN BLAST PARAMETRES, NUMBER OF HOLES LOADED AND CONDITION OF
HOLES. THESE VARIANCES WILL BE MINIMAL AND WILL BE NOTED ON BLAST REPORTS.
C&DS 3
EXPLOSIVE CHARGING
DOWNHOLE DETONATORS
COMPANY: NITRO SIBIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXNEL MS EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 0.135g MSDS: ATTACHED
PRIMERS
COMPANY: MAXAM PRODUCT NAME: RIONEL 150g BOOSTER EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 20.25kg MSDS: ATTACHED
BULK EXPLOSIVE
COMPANY: FORZE P/L PRODUCT NAME: EMULSION EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 4320kg MSDS: ATTACHED
INITIATION
COMPANY: NITRO SABIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXINEL ELECTRIC EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 0.001g MSDS: ATTACHED
SURFACE DETONATORS
COMPANY: NITRO SABIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXNEL EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 0.001g MSDS: ATTACHED
COMPANY: PRODUCT NAME: EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: MSDS:
BLAST TOTALS ( BASED OFF A 135 Blast hole Shot with an Average depth of 6.5m and a 2.2m stem height
TOTAL EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 4,340.5kg MASS INSTANTANEOUS CHARGE (MIC): 64kg POWDER FACTOR: 0.85
NOTE: ACTUAL USAGE MAY VARY DUE TO CHANGES IN BLAST PARAMETRES, NUMBER OF HOLES LOADED AND CONDITION OF
BLAST DEMARCATION AND SIGNAGE
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, FORZE PERSONNEL WILL DEMARCATE THE BLAST AREA USING REFLECTIVE WITCHES HATS
AT A DISTANCE NO MORE THAN 10 METERS APART, AND "BLAST AREA" SIGNS NO MORE THAN 50 METRES APART. ALL LIVE EDGES
WITH A DROP GREATER THAN 1.5 METRES HIGH WILL BE IDENTIFIED WITH PINK MARKER PAINT 1.8 METRES FROM THE FACE. AREAS
PAST THIS LINE ARE "NO GO" AREAS, AND MUST NOT BE ENTERED WITHOUT THE COMPLETION OF A FORZE JHA.
CUSTOMER/EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY WITHIN BLAST AREA

NO CUSTOMER OR EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS ARE TO ENTER THE DEMARCATED BLAST AREA WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM
SHOTFIRER. ANY ACTIVITY PERFORMED INSIDE DEMARCATED BLAST AREA BY CUSTOMER OR EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR MUST BE
WITHIN VIEW OF FORZE EMPLOYEE AT ALL TIMES. STEMMING PLACEMENT SHALL BE ORGANISED PRIOR TO BLAST AREA
COMMUNICATION
BLAST AREA COMMUNICATION
FORZE SHOTFIRER IS TO CARRY UHF AT ALL TIMES, AND MUST ADVISE CUSTOMER OF UHF CHANNEL TO BE USED PRIOR TO
ENTERING BLAST AREA. PHONES CAN BE USED WITHIN BLAST AREA, HOWEVER ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE SEPARATED
FROM ELECTRIC DETONATORS PRIOR TO TIE UP ANDE INITIATION.
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION
PRIOR TO BLASTING, FORZE ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTACT POLICE RADIO ROOM, LOCAL COUNCIL AND WASTE CENTER TO
NOTIFY OF BLAST VIA PHONE AND EMAIL.
BLAST ZONE MAP

NOTE: A VISUAL OF THE BLAST AREA IS REQUIRED BY THE SHOT FIRER AT ALL TIMES( IF SAFE TO DO SO ) WHEN FIRING, TO ENSURE
THAT NO UNAUTHORISED PERSONNEL CAN ENTER BLAST SITE.
C&DS 3
BLAST GUARDING PROCESS
1. UPON COMPLETION OF LOADING BLAST THE SHOTFIRER WILL INSTRUCT THE BLAST GUARDS TO HEAD INTO THERE NOMINATED
POSITIONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRE BLAST MEETING, AND CLOSE OFF ACCESS.
2. ONCE ALL BLAST GUARDS HAVE CONFIRMED THEY ARE IN POSITION WITH THERE ACCESS BLOCKED AND SECURE, THE
SHOTFIRER OR FORZE DELEGATE SHALL CLEAR THE EXCLUSION ZONE, ENSURING ALL AREAS WITHIN THE ZONE ARE CHECKED AND
CLEARED.
3. AFTER FIRING THE BLAST, ALL BLAST GUARDS ARE TO REMAIN IN POSITION UNTIL THE SHOTFIRER GIVES THE ALL CLEAR.
NOTE: ALL RADIO CALLS MADE BY SHOT FIRER AND BLAST GUARDS ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORZE PTY LTD PROCEDURE,
UNLESS OTHERWISE ALTERED WITHIN A SWMS OR JHA.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST STRUCTURE (METRES): 392 m
DISTANCE TO POWERLINES (METRES): N/A
DISTANCE TO UNDERGROUND SERVICES (METRES): N /A
NOISE AND VIBRATION LIMITS
VIBRATION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT
ALL BLASTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BLASTING BEST PRACTICES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (BPEM)
PRINCIPLES, AND MUST BE CARRIED OUT SUCH THAT WHEN MEASURED AT CURTILAGE OF ANY RESIDENCE (OR OTHER NOISE
1. FOR 95% OF BLASTS, AIR PRESSURE MUST NOT EXCEED 115dB (LIN PEAK)
2. AIR BLAST PRESSURE MUST NOT EXCEED 120dB (LIN PEAK);
3. FOR 95% OF BLAST, GROUND VIBRATION MUST NOT EXCEED 5mm/Sec PEAK PARTICLE VELOVITY; AND
4. GROUND VIBRATION MUST NOT EXCEED 10mm/Sec PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY.
ALL MEASUREMENTS OF AIRBLAST OVERPRESSURE AND PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
METHODS SET DOWN IN TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GUIDELINES TO MINIMISE ANNOYANCE DUE TO BLASTING OVERPRESSURE AND
GROUND VIBRATION, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 1990.
TOXIC FUME MANAGEMENT
TOO MINIMISE THE RISK OF NOX FUME, ANFO WILL NOT BE USED WHERE WATER IS PRESENT, REGULAR DENSITY CHECKS WILL BE
PERFORMED FOR BULK PRODUCTS TO ENSURE QUALITY CONTROL, AND A MAXIMUM SLEEP TIME OF 24 HOURS HAS BEEN SET FOR
DUST MANAGEMENT
WHERE DUST IS IDENTIFIED AS A RISK TO HEALTH OR SAFETY, THE ISSUE SHALL BE ADDRESSED VIA THE SATURATION OF STEMMING
MATERIAL USING WATER HOSE, AND IN ADDITION ALL PERSONNEL WITHIN BLAST AREA TO WILL WEAR DUST MASKS.
C&DS 3
BLAST AREA PPE REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM PPE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY INTO DEMARCATED BLAST AREA:
* HIGH VISIBILITY CLOTHING * SAFETY GLASSES
* STEEL CAPPED WORK BOOTS * HARD HAT
BLAST RECORDS AND REPORTING

PRIOR TO ENTERING SITE, FORZE WILL COMPETE THE FOLLOWING
SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT TO BE READ AND REVIEWED ON BENCH PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE COMMUNICATED TO CUSTOMER AND ALL RELEVANT FORZE PERSONNEL.
DRILL PLAN TO BE EMAILED TO DRILLING CONTRACTOR.
BLAST DESIGN TO BE COMPLETED VIA FORZE TECHNICAL SERVICES
DURING LOADING AND INITIATION OF BLAST
DRILL DEPTH LOG TO MEASURE AND RECORD EACH HOLE TO ENSURE CORRECT DEPTH (BACKFILL IF REQUIRED).
LOAD LOG TO RECORD AMOUNT OF PRODUCT LOADED IN EACH HOLE
LOAD MANIFEST TO COMPLETE LOAD MANIFEST DOCUMENT FOR TRANSPORT TO AND FROM SITE.
TO CONSOLIDATE EXPLOSIVE USE PRIOR TO INITIATION TO ENSURE ALL PRODUCT ARE
PRODUCT CONSOLIDATION
ACCOUNTED FOR.
EXPLOSIVE USAGE TO BE COMPLETED AS RECORD OF EXPLOSIVES USED ON BLAST

BLAST REPORT TO BE COMPLETED AS RECORD OF BLAST PARAMETRES AND ACTUAL DESIGN
BLAST VIDEO TO BE REVIEWED FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND SAVED IN RECORDS
REFERENCES
SDS REGISTER
1. FORZE - ANFO SEE ATTACHED
2. ORICA - ENDURADET SEE ATTACHED
3. ORICA PENTEX PRIMER SEE ATTACHED
4. NITRO SIBIR - MAXIDRIVE SEE ATTACHED
5. NITRO SIBIR - INSTANTANEOUS ELECTRIC DETONATOR SEE ATTACHED
PROCEDURES
1. FORZE - BLAST GUARDING PROCEDURE SEE ATTACHED
C&DS 3
Airblast calculator
Charge (kg) 33 Scaled distance D / W^0.5 68

Dist (m) 390
Airblast 114 dBL Using 20 Log* formula

185X1000(Q^.333/R)^1.2 Airblast -unconfined 1 kPa 89 dBL
3.3X1000(Q^.333/R)^1.2 Airblast -in blastholes 0.0 kPa 53 dBL
N.B the airblast predictions are only relevant to free face opencut blasting shots with traditional face burdens and patterns
C&DS 3
Parameters Units
Hole Depth (m) 6.5
Diameter (mm) 89
Stemming (m) 2.2
Burden (m) 2.3
Spacing (m) 2.5
Volume per hole (m3) 37.375
Subdrill (m) 0
Charge Length (m) 4.3
Explosive Density (t/m3) 1.2
Charge per hole (kg) 32.10
Powder Factor (kg/m3) 0.86
Holes firing 8ms Window 2
K factor 1450
b 1.6
Distance to Residence (D) 390
Distance to Monitor (D) 390
MIC (W) 64.20
Vibration House Site (PPV - mm/s) 2.90
Vibration Monitor Location (PPV - mm/s) 2.90
C&DS 3
FORZE EXPLOSIVE SEVICES
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRELOARS TRANSPORT
PUNCHES TERROR QUARRY, DUNORLAN
C&DS 3
CONTENTS
1.0 CUSTOMER DETAILS PAGE 1
1.1 CUSTOMER NAME PAGE 1
1.2 CUSTOMER CONTACT PAGE 1
1.3 CUSTOMER PHONE No. PAGE 1
1.4 CUSTOMER EMAIL PAGE 1
2.0 BLAST SUMMARY PAGE 1
2.1 BLAST DATE PAGE 1
2.2 BLAST TIME PAGE 1
2.3 BLAST LOCATION PAGE 1
2.4 BLAST OBJECTIVE PAGE 1
3.0 INVOLVED PERSONNEL PAGE 1
3.1 FORZE PTY LTD SHOTFIRERS PAGE 1
3.2 FORZE PTY LTD ASSISTANT SHOTFIRERES PAGE 1
4.0 BLAST DESIGN PAGE 1
4.1 MATERIAL TO BE BLASTED PAGE 1
4.2 MATERIAL SPECIFIC GRAVITY PAGE 1
4.3 BCM PAGE 1
4.4 TONNAGE PAGE 1
4.5 No. OF HOLES PAGE 1
4.6 HOLE DIAMETER PAGE 1
4.7 BURDEN PAGE 1
4.8 SPACING PAGE 1
4.9 AVERAGE HOLE DEPTH PAGE 1
4.10 SUBDRILL DEPTH PAGE 1
4.11 STEMMING MATERIAL PAGE 1
4.12 STEMMING HEIGHT PAGE 1
5.0 INITIATION SEQUENCE PAGE 1
6.0 EXPLOSIVE CHARGING PAGE 2
6.1 DOWNHOLE DETONATORS PAGE 2
6.2 PRIMERS PAGE 2
6.3 BULK EXPLOSIVE PAGE 2
6.4 SURFACE DETONATORS PAGE 2
6.5 BLAST TOTALS PAGE 2
7.0 BLAST DEMARCATION AND SIGNAGE PAGE 2
8.0 CUSTOMER/EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY WITHIN BLAST AREA PAGE 2
9.0 COMMUNICTION PAGE 2
9.1 BLAST AREA COMMUNICATION PAGE 2
9.2 EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2
10.0 BLAST EXCLUSION ZONE MAP PAGE 2
11.0 BLAST GUARDING PROCESS PAGE 3
12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS PAGE 3
12.1 DISTANCE TO NEAREST STRUCTURE PAGE 3
12.2 DISTANCE TO POWERLINES PAGE 3
12.3 DISTANCE TO UNDERGROUND SERVICES PAGE 3
13.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION LIMITS PAGE 3
13.1 TOXIC FUME MANAGEMENT PAGE 3
13.2 DUST MANAGEMENT PAGE 3
14.0 BLAST AREA PPE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 4
15.0 BLAST RECORDS AND REPORTING PAGE 4
15.1 PRIOR TO ENTERING SITE, FORZE WILL COMPETE THE FOLLOWING PAGE 4
16.0 REFERENCES PAGE 4
16.1 SDS REGISTER PAGE 4
16.2 PROCEDURES PAGE 4
C&DS 3
PO Box 231, MARGATE, TASMANIA 7054
P. 6267 2288
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN M. 0419 123 388

E. [email protected]
CUSTOMER DETAILS
CUSTOMER NAME: TRELOARS TRANSPORT CUSTOMER CONTACT: Nigel Beeke
CUSTOMER PHONE No: 0409 067 573 CUSTOMER EMAIL: [email protected]
BLAST SUMMRY
BLAST DATE(S): TO BE ADVISED STILL IN PLANNING
BLAST TIME(S): 10:00 - 16:00
BLAST LOCATION: PUNCHES TERROR QUARRY, DUNORLAN
BLAST OBJECTIVE: Quarry Blasting - Rock Removal using Explosives
INVOLVED PERSONNEL - FORZE

FOR EACH BLAST, 4 X PERSONEL FROM FORZE PTY LTD WILL BE UTILISED, CONSISTING OF TWO SHOTFIRERS AND TWO ASSISTANT
SHOT FIRERS. TRELOARS WILL ASSIST IN PROVINDING BLAST GUARDS IF REQUIRED. - PROCEDURE ATTACHED.
FORZE PTY LTD SHOTFIRERS
NAME: GEORGE McEVOY SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91562

HR DRIVERS LICENCE: 5632331 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1518463
NAME: DANIEL CRANE SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91146

HR DRIVERS LICENCE: F14501 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1579
NAME: RICHARD GADD SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: 91106

HR DRIVERS LICENCE: 103 387 797 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENCE: 1193325
FORZE PTY LTD ASSISTANT SHOTFIRERS
NAME: MARTY ANSELL SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: TBA

RESPONSIBLE WORKER ID: TBA SSDS PERMIT No: 10008
NAME: DAVE SHACKCLOTH SHOT FIRER LICENCE No: N / A

RESPONSIBLE WORKER ID: 9958 894 SSDS PERMIT No: 10008
BLAST DESIGN
MATERIAL TO BE BLASTED: CHERT CONGLOMERATE MATERIAL SG: 2.6 BCM: 10,000 TONNES: 26,000
NUMBER OF HOLES: 205 HOLE DIAMETER: 89mm BURDEN: 2.3m SPACING: 2.5m
AVE HOLE DEPTH: 8.5 SUBDRILL DEPTH: 0.5 STEMMING MATERIAL: 10 mm STEMMING HEIGHT: 2.2
NOTE: THESE PARAMETRES ARE BASED ON FORZE INITIAL DESIGN AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON BLAST RESULTS.
INITIATION SEQUENCE
NOTE: INITIATION PLAN MAY VARY DUE TO CHANGES IN BLAST PARAMETRES, NUMBER OF HOLES LOADED AND CONDITION OF
C&DS 3
EXPLOSIVE CHARGING
DOWNHOLE DETONATORS
COMPANY: NITRO SIBIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXNEL MS EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: .205g MSDS: ATTACHED
PRIMERS
COMPANY: MAXAM PRODUCT NAME: RIONEL 150g BOOSTER EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 30.75kg MSDS: ATTACHED
BULK EXPLOSIVE
COMPANY: FORZE P/L PRODUCT NAME: EMULSION EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 9635kg MSDS: ATTACHED
INITIATION
COMPANY: NITRO SABIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXINEL ELECTRIC EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 0.001g MSDS: ATTACHED
SURFACE DETONATORS
COMPANY: NITRO SABIR PRODUCT NAME: MAXNEL EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 0.001g MSDS: ATTACHED
COMPANY: PRODUCT NAME: EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: MSDS:
BLAST TOTALS ( BASED OFF A 205 Blast hole Shot with an Average depth of 8.5m and a 2.2m stem height.
TOTAL EXPLOSIVE CHARGE: 9665kg MASS INSTANTANEOUS CHARGE (MIC): 94.4kg POWDER FACTOR: 0.96
NOTE: ACTUAL USAGE MAY VARY DUE TO CHANGES IN BLAST PARAMETRES, NUMBER OF HOLES LOADED AND CONDITION OF
BLAST DEMARCATION AND SIGNAGE

PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, FORZE PERSONNEL WILL DEMARCATE THE BLAST AREA USING REFLECTIVE WITCHES HATS AT
A DISTANCE NO MORE THAN 10 METERS APART, AND "BLAST AREA" SIGNS NO MORE THAN 50 METRES APART. ALL LIVE EDGES WITH
A DROP GREATER THAN 1.5 METRES HIGH WILL BE IDENTIFIED WITH PINK MARKER PAINT 1.8 METRES FROM THE FACE. AREAS PAST
THIS LINE ARE "NO GO" AREAS, AND MUST NOT BE ENTERED WITHOUT THE COMPLETION OF A FORZE JHA.
CUSTOMER/EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY WITHIN BLAST AREA

NO CUSTOMER OR EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS ARE TO ENTER THE DEMARCATED BLAST AREA WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM SHOTFIRER.
ANY ACTIVITY PERFORMED INSIDE DEMARCATED BLAST AREA BY CUSTOMER OR EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR MUST BE WITHIN VIEW OF
FORZE EMPLOYEE AT ALL TIMES. STEMMING PLACEMENT SHALL BE ORGANISED PRIOR TO BLAST AREA DEMARCATION.
COMMUNICATION
BLAST AREA COMMUNICATION
FORZE SHOTFIRER IS TO CARRY UHF AT ALL TIMES, AND MUST ADVISE CUSTOMER OF UHF CHANNEL TO BE USED PRIOR TO ENTERING
BLAST AREA. PHONES CAN BE USED WITHIN BLAST AREA, HOWEVER ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE SEPARATED FROM ELECTRIC
DETONATORS PRIOR TO TIE UP ANDE INITIATION.
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION
PRIOR TO BLASTING, FORZE ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTACT POLICE RADIO ROOM, LOCAL COUNCIL AND WASTE CENTER TO
NOTIFY OF BLAST VIA PHONE AND EMAIL.
BLAST ZONE MAP

NOTE: A VISUAL OF THE BLAST AREA IS REQUIRED BY THE SHOT FIRER AT ALL TIMES( IF SAFE TO DO SO ) WHEN FIRING, TO ENSURE
THAT NO UNAUTHORISED PERSONNEL CAN ENTER BLAST SITE.
C&DS 3
BLAST GUARDING PROCESS
1. UPON COMPLETION OF LOADING BLAST THE SHOTFIRER WILL INSTRUCT THE BLAST GUARDS TO HEAD INTO THERE NOMINATED
POSITIONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRE BLAST MEETING, AND CLOSE OFF ACCESS.
2. ONCE ALL BLAST GUARDS HAVE CONFIRMED THEY ARE IN POSITION WITH THERE ACCESS BLOCKED AND SECURE, THE SHOTFIRER
OR FORZE DELEGATE SHALL CLEAR THE EXCLUSION ZONE, ENSURING ALL AREAS WITHIN THE ZONE ARE CHECKED AND CLEARED.
3. AFTER FIRING THE BLAST, ALL BLAST GUARDS ARE TO REMAIN IN POSITION UNTIL THE SHOTFIRER GIVES THE ALL CLEAR.
NOTE: ALL RADIO CALLS MADE BY SHOT FIRER AND BLAST GUARDS ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORZE PTY LTD PROCEDURE, UNLESS
OTHERWISE ALTERED WITHIN A SWMS OR JHA.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST STRUCTURE (METRES): 872 m Residential House
DISTANCE TO POWERLINES (METRES): 872m
DISTANCE TO UNDERGROUND SERVICES (METRES): N/A
NOISE AND VIBRATION LIMITS
VIBRATION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT
ALL BLASTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BLASTING BEST PRACTICES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (BPEM)
PRINCIPLES, AND MUST BE CARRIED OUT SUCH THAT WHEN MEASURED AT CURTILAGE OF ANY RESIDENCE (OR OTHER NOISE
SENSITIVE PREMISES) IN OTHER OCCUPATION OR OWNERSHIP, AIR BLAST AND GROUND VIBRATION COMPLY WITH :
1. FOR 95% OF BLASTS, AIR PRESSURE MUST NOT EXCEED 115dB (LIN PEAK)
2. AIR BLAST PRESSURE MUST NOT EXCEED 120dB (LIN PEAK);
3. FOR 95% OF BLAST, GROUND VIBRATION MUST NOT EXCEED 5mm/Sec PEAK PARTICLE VELOVITY; AND
4. GROUND VIBRATION MUST NOT EXCEED 10mm/Sec PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY.
ALL MEASUREMENTS OF AIRBLAST OVERPRESSURE AND PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
METHODS SET DOWN IN TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GUIDELINES TO MINIMISE ANNOYANCE DUE TO BLASTING OVERPRESSURE AND
GROUND VIBRATION, AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 1990.
TOXIC FUME MANAGEMENT
TOO MINIMISE THE RISK OF NOX FUME, ANFO WILL NOT BE USED WHERE WATER IS PRESENT, REGULAR DENSITY CHECKS WILL BE
PERFORMED FOR BULK PRODUCTS TO ENSURE QUALITY CONTROL, AND A MAXIMUM SLEEP TIME OF 24 HOURS HAS BEEN SET FOR
ALL BLASTS FIRED.
DUST MANAGEMENT
WHERE DUST IS IDENTIFIED AS A RISK TO HEALTH OR SAFETY, THE ISSUE SHALL BE ADDRESSED VIA THE SATURATION OF STEMMING
MATERIAL USING WATER HOSE, AND IN ADDITION ALL PERSONNEL WITHIN BLAST AREA TO WILL WEAR DUST MASKS.
C&DS 3
BLAST AREA PPE REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM PPE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY INTO DEMARCATED BLAST AREA:
* HIGH VISIBILITY CLOTHING * SAFETY GLASSES
* STEEL CAPPED WORK BOOTS * HARD HAT
BLAST RECORDS AND REPORTING

PRIOR TO ENTERING SITE, FORZE WILL COMPETE THE FOLLOWING
SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT TO BE READ AND REVIEWED ON BENCH PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
BLAST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE COMMUNICATED TO CUSTOMER AND ALL RELEVANT FORZE PERSONNEL.
DRILL PLAN TO BE EMAILED TO MAXFIELD DRILLING.
BLAST DESIGN TO BE COMPLETED VIA FORZE TECHNICAL SERVICES
DRILL DEPTH LOG TO MEASURE AND RECORD EACH HOLE TO ENSURE CORRECT DEPTH (BACKFILL IF REQUIRED).
LOAD LOG TO RECORD AMOUNT OF PRODUCT LOADED IN EACH HOLE
LOAD MANIFEST TO COMPLETE LOAD MANIFEST DOCUMENT FOR TRANSPORT TO AND FROM SITE.
TO CONSOLIDATE EXPLOSIVE USE PRIOR TO INITIATION TO ENSURE ALL PRODUCT ARE
PRODUCT CONSOLIDATION
ACCOUNTED FOR.
EXPLOSIVE USAGE TO BE COMPLETED AS RECORD OF EXPLOSIVES USED ON BLAST

BLAST REPORT TO BE COMPLETED AS RECORD OF BLAST PARAMETRES AND ACTUAL DESIGN
BLAST VIDEO TO BE REVIEWED FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND SAVED IN RECORDS
REFERENCES
AS REQUIRED
C&DS 3
Airblast calculator
Charge (kg) 48 Scaled distance D / W^0.5 126

Dist (m) 870
Airblast 107 dBL Using 20 Log* formula

185X1000(Q^.333/R)^1.2 Airblast -unconfined 0 kPa 82 dBL
3.3X1000(Q^.333/R)^1.2 Airblast -in blastholes 0.0 kPa 46 dBL
N.B the airblast predictions are only relevant to free face opencut blasting shots with traditional face burdens and patterns
C&DS 3
Parameters Units
Hole Depth (m) 8.5
Diameter (mm) 89
Stemming (m) 2.2
Burden (m) 2.3
Spacing (m) 2.5
Volume per hole (m3) 48.875
Subdrill (m) 0
Charge Length (m) 6.3
Explosive Density (t/m3) 1.2
Charge per hole (kg) 47.03
Powder Factor (kg/m3) 0.96
Holes firing 8ms Window 2
K factor 1450
b 1.6
Distance to Residence (D) 870
Distance to Monitor (D) 870
MIC (W) 94.06
Vibration House Site (PPV - mm/s) 1.09
Vibration Monitor Location (PPV - mm/s) 1.09
C&DS 3
12.4. Appendix D – Traffic Impacts Study
C&DS 3
Treloar Transport
Dunorlan - Punchs Terror Quarry

Expansion
Traffic Impact Assessment
PREPARED BY CHRIS MARTIN MIEAust, NPER3.

Senior Civil Engineer
CSE Tasmania Pty Ltd
Tasmanian Building Act Accreditation Number: CC4109 V.
DATE 16/10/17
C&DS 3
INDEX
1 Introduction & Background .................................................................................. 3
2 Statement of Qualifications and Experience ........................................................ 4
3 Assessment Requirements .................................................................................. 4
4 Location and Transport Routes............................................................................ 6
4.1 Road Network ............................................................................................... 8
5 Proposed Traffic ................................................................................................ 15
6 Traffic Issues ..................................................................................................... 16
7 Accident History ................................................................................................. 17
9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 18
C&DS 3
1 Introduction & Background
Treloar Transport are required to provide information on Traffic Impacts associated
with quarry expansions proposed for their Punchs Terror, Dunorlan quarry
operations occurring at two mining lease sites (lease numbers 28M/1990 and M/L
1007 P/M).
This document should be read alongside the Notice of Intent for the quarry
expansion dated 15th of May 2017. As such the relevant general aspects of the
expansion project are not repeated in this document.
The General Guidelines for the preparation of a Development Proposal and

Environmental Management Plan and the Punchs Terror Project Specific DPEMP
Guidelines detail requirements for the traffic assessment.
These documents state:-
In addition to the matters stipulated in Section 6.20 of the DPEMP General

Guidelines, the DPEMP must contain the following:
 Information on traffic associated with the proposal; vehicle type, expected
tonnages and any alternative access roads (routes).
 Maximum number of vehicle movements per day.
 Discussion of the potential impacts to nearby residences (noise and dust) due to
vehicle movements to and from the site.
 Details of management measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects due
to traffic.
The relevant section of the DPEMP General Guidelines is reproduced below.
C&DS 3
2 Statement of Qualifications and Experience
This TIA has been prepared by an experienced and qualified Civil Engineer with
significant experience in Traffic Impact Assessments and Road Safety Audits in
accordance with the requirements of Council’s Planning Scheme and The
Department of State Growth’s, A Framework for Undertaking Traffic Impact
Assessments, September 2007.
This TIA was prepared by Chris Martin. Chris’s experience and qualifications are
briefly outlined as follows:
 Bachelor of Civil Engineering with Honours, University of Tasmania 1992
 24 years professional experience as a Civil Engineer in infrastructure design
 Master of Business Administration (Technology Management) Latrobe
University 2007
 Career experience includes design of many subdivisions, 2.5 years Council
Engineer, 14 years in civil and structural consulting and 6 years in major
infrastructure engineering positions.
3 Assessment Requirements
I assessed the site conditions to The Austroads AGRD04A/09 Guide to Road Design
Part 4A:Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections. This standard (table 3.2)
requires that Safe Intersection Sight Distances (SISD) of 114, 141, 170 and 201m be
provided for design speeds of 60, 70, 80 and 90 km/hr, a reaction time of 1.5s and
an eye height of 1.1m to a truck at 2.4m. A reaction time of 1.5 seconds is
permitted in this instance as the road is rural and the alignment contains many
horizontal curves.
The Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design section 5.3 discusses the use
of Stopping Site Distance (SSD) as the distance to enable a normally alert driver,
travelling at the design speed on wet pavement, to perceive, react and brake to a
C&DS 3
stop before reaching a hazard on the road ahead. The provision of SSD is a
mandatory design condition for all roads and intersections in the normal design
domain. The Guide nominates SSD for design speeds of 60, 70, 80 and 90km/hr a
coefficient of deceleration of 0.36 and a reaction time of 2s as 73, 92, 114 and 139m.
C&DS 3
4 Location and Transport Routes
The locations of the quarries, off Beaumont’s Rd, Weegena, are shown in Figure 1
below. Figure 4 shows the proposed transport routes.
Figure 1 – Plan showing general location of quarries; “The Land” outlined in yellow and lease boundaries
C&DS 3
Figure 2 - Transport routes shown in a green dashed line, 50% of material moves northbound on Dunorlan road and 50%
moves southbound on Dunorlan Road
C&DS 3
4.1 Road Network
A site inspection on 18/8/2017 examined the existing road Network.
Internal Intersection – Beaumonts Road

Beaumonts road forks on the west side of the mining lease. With traffic heading
south the left term serves the lease and the southern access serves an area of
approx. 770Ha. This area is predominantly utilized for forestry activities and
bounded to the west by the Mersey River and the east by Lobster Rivulet. According
to aerial photos there are 4 houses/farms serviced by the road extending beyond the
intersection to the south.
The east fork of Beaumonts road is the better constructed wider road indicating past
work to accommodate the truck and trailer combinations hauling from the Punchs
Terror quarries.
Beaumonts road at the intersection is similar to the other gravel roads in the area at
4m wide. The trucking route gravel road is in good condition.
The angle of this intersection is nominally 20 degrees which does not comply with
the recommended intersection angles not less than 70 degrees contained in older
versions of the Austroads Part 5 Intersections at Grade. The current Austroads
C&DS 3
AGRD04A 09 Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised
Intersections outlines that intersection should be as close as possible to 90 degrees
to make visibility of the road easier for all parties approaching intersections. The
older driver demographic particularly finds it difficult to look behind for vehicles
approaching.
Chesneys/Beaumonts Road Intersection

The intersection between Chesneys Road
and Beaumonts Road is some 440m
north of the first intersection.
The Chesney Road intersection with

Beaumonts Road occurs as Beaumonts
road turns from a northerly direction 90
degrees to the east. From the
appearance of the gravel surface
Beaumonts Road is the priority road.
Chesneys road serves an additional 3

rural properties that appear to have
occupied houses on them.
Google earth identifies that Chesneys

Road serves the Whispering Hills
retreat and a small number of houses.
Chesneys road loops back to
Weegeena Road.
C&DS 3
Sight line to the south of the intersection runs to 160m before being obscured by
vegetation. Road width on Beaumonts road is 4.5m.
Chesney Road runs to the west of the intersection on a windy narrow gravel road.
Vehicles approaching the intersection will be at low speed climbing a moderate grad
from some tight corners. A Giveway Sign would be beneficial to raise awareness of
Chesneys Road vehicles as the approach the intersection. It is estimated that the
trucks will approach the corner/intersection at about 30km/hr.
Install a
Giveway
sign here
Sight line on Chesney Road to a Giveway sign would be about 90m. Clear views
from Chesney Road along Beaumonts road are available for 160m to the south and
280m to the east. 160m is equivalent to the Safe Intersection Sight Distance for a
design speed of between 70 and 80km per hour which is well in excess of the
approach speed.
C&DS 3
Chesney road is 3.5m gravel width providing a closed environment promoting slow
speeds.
The worst case risk scenario for this intersection is a vehicle travelling east on
Chesneys failing to slow and Giveway to a truck approaching from the south.
Clearance of vegetation on the fenceline in this area would assist in providing
advance warning that vehicles are approaching. The photo below shows that views
on this approach are compromised by vegetation growth only.
Recommendation 1
Maintain fence lines clear of vegetation, Install a give way sign making it clear that
the Chesneys road traffic does not have priority to enter the intersection.
Beaumont Road and Weegeena road intersection

500m east of the Chesney and Beaumont road intersections Beamont road diverts
470m at 90degrees to the north before hitting Weegeena Road. 2 more houses are
serviced by Beaumont road. Beaumont road width varies between 3.6m and 4m of
gravel pavement with limited gravel shoulders.
As Beaumont road approaches Weegena road its width increases to 4.5m.
Weegena Road is sealed at 5.3m width to the east of the intersection.
C&DS 3
Treloar Transport confirmed that trucks are not expected to turn west on Weegena
Road as the road is steep and contains sharp corners leading down to Kimberley.
All trucks turn right to the east travelling 950m before hitting the Dunorlan Road
intersection. The gravel markings in the photo above confirm that the majority of
truck movements are to the east towards Dunorlan.
Design Speed of Weegena Road is expected to be around 90km/hr. There is good

visibility (Exceeds 200m) in both directions at the intersection for a truck looking to
turn onto Weegena Road.
Weegena Road drainage on the south

side of the road between the Beamont
and Dunorlan roads is deficient in that it
allows water to lay in the table drain up
next to the seal during relatively dry
weather. Pavement deformation is not
evident on the south side of the road yet
but can be expected with the heavy truck
loading required from the road in the
future.
C&DS 3
The north side of the road shows
significant deformation in the area
expected to be the top side of the
spring shown in the photos above.
Heavy loading on this will see further
pavement deformation.
Recommendation 2 Provide adequate table drains to remove water from the

pavement at this location.
Dunorlan/Weegena Road
Intersection
The Dunorlan Road Intersection is not
ideal in its geometry – refer aerial
photo below. This intersection is at
aprox 37 degrees. Trucks descend a
hill (Approx grade less than 5%). If
making a sharp left turn and heading
towards Railton it is expected that the
trucks and trailers will cross over the
nominal centre line of one or both
roads at the start and finish of the turn.
The intersection shows a faint white line indicating a past attempt to designate the
straight through road as the priority road. The straight through section consists of
Dunorlan road to the south and Weegena road to the north.
Weegena Road at the start of the intersection is 6.1m wide. Trucks undertaking the
sharp right turn from the Railton direction onto Weegena road are on occasions
running over the edge of the road causing edgebreak.
C&DS 3
Once out of the corner on Dunorlan road the pavement reduces to 5m.
Provide a hold
line
Extend
pavement
Recommendation 3 – provide white hold line and a giveway sign at the Dunorlan
intersection to formalize priority to the through road. Extend pavement to reduce
edgebreak.
Beyond these intersections the road conditions are generally considered too remote
from the development and further assessment of the wider network is not warranted.
C&DS 3
5 Proposed Traffic
The following points are relevant from the Notice of Intent:-
Typical equipment on site will be:

 Face loader: 20t Cat excavator
 Crusher: Terex mobile crusher / screen
 Stockpile Loader: Cat 950
 Trucks: Truck and dog combination 30t capacity
Treloars advise that they seek to increase output about 1.8 times from 17,600
tonnes to 32,000 tonnes. Assuming all cartage is by 32 t capacity truck and
dogs there will be 1000 truck movements out per annum as a maximum. This
represents an increase in truck and dog numbers of 450 per annum.
The heaviest concentration of traffic from expanded production would typically

be 20 truck movements a day for several weeks over several campaigns per
year.
It is proposed that operating hours will be 0700 to 1700 Monday to Friday and
0800 to 1500 on Saturday. This corresponds to normal work hours during
which there is a greater likelihood that the houses in the vicinity of the road
network will not be occupied with occupants at school or work.
Traffic distribution anticipated for the development is 50% sold to the North on
Dunorlan road and 50% to the south.
C&DS 3
6 Traffic Issues
One environmental issue associated with the Traffic will be dust generation
from trucks on the access road during periods of relatively heavy truck traffic
whilst a campaign is in progress. This impact will be reduced in sensitive
areas by limiting vehicle speeds and utilising a water truck when necessary.
Most of the houses along these roads are well away from the road with the
exception of some on Weegena Road and in Dunorlan. These houses are on
a sealed road and will not be significantly impacted by the additional trucking
movements.
The houses in the vicinity of the gravel access Beaumonts Road are well back
from the road and are unlikely to be affected by additional noise or dust.
Traffic Impact Assessment – Punchs Terror Quarry Expansion

P a g e | 16
C&DS 3
7 Accident History
8 Road Safety Performance
Crash data provides valuable information on road safety performance.

Existing road safety deficiencies can be highlighted through the examination
of crash data, which can assist in determining whether traffic generation from
the proposed development may exacerbate any identified issues.
The Department of State Growth DSG accident database collects all accident
data in the state from 2003.
The Manager of Crash Data advised that there is no recorded history of crash
data in the area. He provided the attached showing red dots at past
accidents. All are too remote from the site to provide any indication of
inherent issues which may be exacerbated as a result of the increase in truck
activity from Punchs Terror.
Punchs Terror

P a g e | 17
C&DS 3
9 Conclusion
The increase in truck movements from the quarry proposed by Treloar
Transport will increase the truck loading on the road network particularly
through to Dunorlan which will be used by every truck.
A number of recommendations have been made to improve road structure

and awareness of intersections which are presently not clearly marked.
The issues identified are consistent with the other areas of the rural road
network. Some safety gains will be made if the recommendations are
followed.

P a g e | 18
C&DS 3
12.5. Appendix E – Relevant Company Procedures
C&DS 3
Standard Operating Procedure Document Code: PUC-SOP-27
Version 2: 26/8/16
Fire prevention and control on
Review Date: August 2018
worksites
Purpose: Safe practice to prevent or control fire on worksites to prevent injury to
personnel and minimise damage to property, plant and equipment
Pre-requisites
1. Project risk assessment for each worksite
2. Clear understanding of control measures
3. Emergency assembly area defined for each worksite
4. Evacuation plan in place on all worksites
5. Regular emergency evacuation drills
Hazard management
Ensure appropriate signage is in place
Heavy equipment and
Beware vehicles in the area
Follow safe procedures
Stay alert for vehicular traffic at all times
Train workers in safe Chemical Handling
Procedures
Flammable and combustible
Wear appropriate P.P.E
Flammable substances being handled,
Follow safe evacuation procedures
transported or stored on site
Store dangerous substances appropriately
Ensure warning signs are visible and clear
Dust or
Possibility of fine dust and Follow safe evacuation procedures
smoke heavy smoke in area Wear appropriate P.P.E
inhalation
Manual Using fire fighting Train workers in safe use of fire fighting
Handling equipment equipment
Heat Fighting fires Safe firefighting
Trips, slips Moving around potentially Follow safe procedures

and falls dangerous areas Remain alert for obstacles at all times
P.P.E requirements
High visibility clothing Steel capped boots as required
Other PPE as determined by job/site requirements
Relevant Workplace Documentation

Document code Description
Hazard / Incident Report Form as required
Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
Dangerous goods manifest
Schedule 5 of Dangerous Goods Regulations 1998
C&DS
This Document3
Document Set ID: 1066542 is Uncontrolled if Printed Page 1 of 2
General Principles of fire prevention and control
ALWAYS:
1. Monitor all risks continuously to minimise potential emergencies
2. Prioritise safety of workers at all times
3. Ensure each job site has sufficient fire extinguishers
4. Store flammable liquids safely (refer SOP “Hazardous substances and dangerous
goods”)
5. Store all flammable or combustible liquids/gases in accordance with relevant state Act
and Regulations and the Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations (refer SOP
“Hazardous substances and dangerous goods”)
6. Maintain clear access to firefighting equipment
7. Be familiar with location and use of firefighting equipment and know exit routes from
buildings and work areas
8. Become familiar with which fire extinguishers suit which type of fire
9. Extinguish all matches, cigarettes, cigars or pipe tobacco before discarding
10. Inspect area for live sparks, after using open flame tools
11. Ensure fire extinguishers are readily available when working with all equipment in
environments that are likely to burn, or when total fire ban days are in effect
12. Store flammable substances on equipment or vehicles in suitable containers
13. Avoid using flammable liquids such as petrol, as cleaning agent
NEVER:
1. Remove or tamper with fire extinguishers installed on equipment, vehicles or other
locations
2. Smoke while fuelling equipment, or in close proximity of refuelling areas
3. Leave open fires unattended
Step 1 Emergency evacuation from worksite

1.1 Remain calm and move to a safe location
1.2 Instruct drivers to turn all vehicles off, using 2 way radio, if necessary
1.3 Use fire fighting equipment, if safe to do so and confident to do so, OR
1.4 Move to emergency evacuation area
1.5 Alert all persons nearby
1.6 Seek assistance from closest available person if required
1.7 Call emergency services:
 Fire brigade / Police - 000
1.8 Do not smoke until emergency is over
1.9 Check all personnel and contractors have arrived at emergency evacuation point
1.10 Return to work ONLY when all clear has been provided by emergency services
Step 2 Operate fire extinguisher, if safe to do so

2.1 Ensure fire extinguisher is suitable for type of fire involved
2.2 Check fire extinguisher for details
2.3 Check pressure gauges, where fitted, are in green area
2.4 Pull safety pin
2.5 Test equipment, away from fire at a safe work distance to ensure it is working properly
2.6 Keep low when approaching fire
2.7 Aim at base of fire, from approximately 2 – 3 metres away
2.8 Squeeze trigger and sweep back and forth across base of fire
2.9 Back away from danger / fire area
2.10 Maintain watch
C&DS
This Document3
Standard Operating Procedure Document Code: TT-SOP-31
Version 2: 26/8/16
Storing Fuel & Chemicals Onsite Review Date: August 2018
Purpose: Safe practices when storing fuels and chemicals on site
Pre-requisites
1. Training and supervision in safe chemical handling
2. Approval to handle hazardous substances and dangerous goods from supervisor or
authorised delegate
Hazard management
Train staff in Safe Chemical Handling
procedures
Chronic (e.g. Carcinogens) Wear correct PPE
Health Hazards Store dangerous substances
Certain (e.g. Dermal Irritants) appropriately
Ensure warning signs are visible and
clear
Take care when handling /
Flammable Fuel transporting flammable chemicals
Wear appropriate PPE
Damage to site or water Follow appropriate procedures to
Environmental courses minimise environmental impact
Follow safe manual handling
Manual
Lifting, moving heavy drums procedures
handling Use lifting aids when required
NEVER smoke while in close proximity
No smoking Risk of explosion
to fuel or chemicals
P.P.E requirements
Eye protection as required High visibility clothing
Closed in shoes Waterproof gloves as required
Long sleeve shirt/trousers/overalls Face mask when required

SDS Safety Data Sheet
Dangerous goods manifest
Schedule 5 of Dangerous Goods Regulations 1998
TT-SOP-11 Hazardous Substances and Dangerous Goods SOP
C&DS
This Document3
General Principles of storing fuels and chemicals on site
ALWAYS:
1. Minimise or eliminate storage of fuels and chemicals on site or in vehicles whenever
possible
2. Keep fuels out of direct sunlight when stored on vehicles, where possible
3. Store and handle chemicals in accordance with relevant state Act and Regulations and
the Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations
4. Ensure staff are trained in how to access information to guarantee safe handling of items
5. Ensure all employees understand their responsibilities in relation to Waste Management
and Minimisation procedures
6. Secure storage area to prevent vandalism
7. Keep Hazardous Substances register up to date
8. Ensure current SDS with date of issue not more than five (5) years old is kept on site
9. Ensure signage is displayed in accordance with regulations
10. Storage facilities must be adequate distance from stormwater drains and water ways
where necessary
11. Minimise risk of damage or puncture from plant use when deciding on storage area
12. Remove and replace drums or jerry cans once they have finished being used
13. Ensure adequate clean up materials are readily available on site and clean any spills up,
immediately
1 Storing chemicals or fuels in bunded areas

1.1 Inspect bunds regularly to prevent waste materials overflowing
1.2 Ensure bunds are sufficient size to meet Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations and
ensure spills can be held safely until cleaned up
1.3 Ensure ventilation provides airflow across the storage or handling area
1.4 Ensure bunds are checked and preventative maintenance and integrity testing are
undertaken regularly
1.5 Ensure all containers held in bunds are labelled
1.6 DO NOT store incompatible chemicals together
2 Preventative maintenance measures

2.1 Maintain preventative measures for the duration of chemical or fuel storage on site
2.2 Key requirements are:
 Security
 Housekeeping
 Bund height
 Stormwater control
2.3 Dispose of liquid waste in bunds and waste drums off site as prescribed waste, as soon as
practicable (refer Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations)
2.4 Arrange collection of oils by recyclers when appropriate
C&DS
This Document3
3 Deal with fuel or chemical spills
3.1 Control and contain the spill:
 Identify source of spill
 Assess whether it can be controlled safely
 Protect storm water drains and waterways by placing earth, sand or absorbent
material around entrance points and alongside waterways
 Construct a bund to restrain chemicals, if necessary
3.2 Clean up the spill:
 Use absorbent material to soak up the spill
 Ensure surface is left clean
 Place material used for clean up in drum and clearly label drum with “ Spill Kit
Waste”
 Remove drum from site as controlled waste
 Replace any items used in spill kit as soon as possible
C&DS
This Document3
Version 2: 26/8/16
Minimising Noise, Dust & Air
Pollution
Purpose: Minimise noise, dust and air pollution
Pre-requisites
1. Training and supervision in pollution minimisation

Project management plan
Environmental Regulations
Main causes of noise, dust and air pollution

Pollution relating to dust and airborne pollution is caused by but not limited to:
1 Dust:
1. Plant and equipment movements
2. Wind erosion
a) The amount of dust generated depends on:
 Planning
 Weather
 Activities undertaken
 Materials being worked
 Controls in place
b) Dust must be managed so that there is:
 Dust moved off-site is minimised
 Minimum dust on-site
 Zero complaints from:
 Residents
 Public
 Client
 EPA
 Council
2 Airborne pollution
1. Vehicle exhaust
2. Burning off and fires
3. Odours
4. Toxic gas
C&DS
This Document3
General Principles of minimising noise, dust and air pollution
ALWAYS:
1. Conduct an assessment of pollution risks and control measures before commencing work
and record in Project Management Plan
2. Prevent or control noise, dust and air pollution on projects on site, whenever possible
3. Ensure effective preventative measures are in place before works commence
4. Undertake works during “normal” working hours whenever possible
5. Notify nearby community members who could potentially be affected by works, when
work is planned outside normal working hours
6. Check with local council for specific projects for variance of “normal” work hours
7. Minimise noise by using well maintained plant with efficient mufflers
8. Ensure machinery is serviced regularly
9. Service or replace machinery if it emits smoke continuously for longer than 10 seconds
10. Ensure dust measurement is observed by Team Leader
11. Review any enquiry or complaint from affected residents to assess whether satisfactory
target for minimisation of dust has been met
12. Notify supervisors of incidents or practices that cause pollution of any kind, to enable
them to be adequately controlled
NEVER:
1. Allow dust to accumulate behind dust screens or other controls
1 Prevention or control of noise

1.1 Re-schedule noisy activities to times of least impact
1.2 Use well maintained, modern plant with efficient mufflers
1.3 Use alternative construction methods, forms of communication or machinery
 E.g. Bored piles instead of driven piles
1.4 Erect noise barriers (barriers should be 0.5m above highest noise source)
1.5 Locate noisy activities in non-sensitive areas
1.6 Select equipment based on machinery noise levels
1.7 Ensure trucks / vehicles use designated access roads rather than suburban streets where
possible
1.8 Ensure idling vehicles / trucks are not left running near noise sensitive areas
C&DS
This Document3
2 Prevention or control of dust
2.1 Program work to ensure large sections of bare areas are not exposed at one time
2.2 Use suitable measures to prevent dirt / mud being tracked onto public roads
 Rumble grids
 Crushed rock at vehicle exit points
2.3 Use water carts, sprinkler systems or hand held water sprays on bare areas and
stockpiles
2.4 Limit traffic to haul roads /definition of trafficable areas
2.5 Use street sweepers to keep public and site roads free of dirt when material on road is
dry
2.6 Cover trucks if dust generation from load is potential problem
2.7 Erect dust screens (shade cloth or similar) on boundary fences
2.8 Provide hardstand areas in high traffic zones (e.g. site offices)
2.9 Stabilise areas that would otherwise be left bare for extended periods of time and pose a
dust threat:
 Hydro-seeding
 Spray emulsion
 Hand seeding
 Geo-fabric
2.10 Keep dust suppression equipment on line as required
2.11 Assess whether dust-generating activities should be stopped if preventative measures
are not controlling the problem
 E.g. during periods of high winds
2.12 Mulch vegetation where possible, rather than burning on site
2.13 Ensure fires are not permitted on site without first obtaining necessary approval in line
with council regulations from Tas Fire Commission on 1800 000 699
2.14 Lower wind velocity at soil surface by ripping or leaving smooth surfaces rough
3 Prevention or control of air pollution

3.1 Maintain machinery in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications to comply with the
State Environment Protection Policy (The Air Environment)
3.2 Maintain exhaust and engine systems to reduce exhaust emission
3.3 Replace old machinery when no longer operating efficiently
3.4 Ventilate work area to eliminate odours and toxic gases where necessary (e.g. In live
sewers)
C&DS
This Document3
Version 2: 26/8/16
Environmental Emergency
Procedure
Purpose: Provide uniform control mechanism when an emergency environmental

incident occurs
Pre-requisites
1. Project management Plan for each project
2. All personnel with responsibility for dealing with environmental emergencies must have read
and signed off against this procedure
Hazard management
Dealing with an environmental
Emergency emergency that could be Follow safe practices as outlined in
situation detrimental to people, animals this procedure
or plants
P.P.E requirements
P.P.E. as required for specific work / job site

Incident Report Form
Non Conformance Report
TT-SOP- 31 Storing fuels and chemicals on site procedure
General Principles of dealing with environmental emergencies

ALWAYS:
1. Monitor all risks continuously to minimise potential emergencies
2. Prioritise safety of personnel at all times
3. Attend tool box meetings to determine:
 Environmental issues
 Procedures and instructions that control activities to be undertaken by your
workers, on site
 Control measures that are in place
4. Carry out work site inspections as per inspection calendar
5. Ensure a senior person remains in charge in states of emergency
Step 1 Dealing with spills

1.1 Follow minor spill procedure for minor spills (refer “Storing fuels and chemicals on site
procedure”
1.2 Contact relevant service and request assistance for major spills:
 Veolia Environmental: 6427 4600
 Environmental Systems & Contracting
1.3 Call Head Office, even for minor spills as soon as possible
C&DS
Page 1 of 2 3
Document Set This Document is Uncontrolled if Printed
ID: 1066542
Step 2 Managing an environmental incident
2.1 Stop work immediately
2.2 Ensure a senior person manages the incident until emergency response professionals
arrive, if the initial incident occurs on a worksite under control of your organisation
2.3 Take necessary action to stop the cause or breach and minimise damage and impact
of breach
2.4 Notify construction Project Manager / Team Leader immediately
2.5 If Project Manager is unavailable and the breach is serious and requires additional
resources, notify:
 Local authorities
 EPA
 Nominated environmental specialist to gain specialist assistance
2.6 Report the breach:
 Prepare an incident report
 Put corrective action in place to minimise the risk of the breach re-occurring
C&DS
Page 2 of 2 3
ID: 1066542
Version 2: 26/8/16
Water Quality and Sediment
Control
Purpose: Ensure there is no effect on water quality from projects being undertaken
Pre-requisites
1. Project Management Plan for each project
2. All personnel with responsibility for site protection during operations must have read and
signed off against this procedure
Hazard management
Specific Hazard Management to meet requirements of work / job site
P.P.E requirements
P.P.E. as required for specific work / job site

Project Management plan, including waste management
General Principles of minimising effect of sediment on water quality

ALWAYS:
1. Aim to minimise risk to water quality in domestic water catchment areas, when works are
in or adjacent to catchment areas
2. Take precautions to minimise serious pollution of recreational waterways and blocking of
drains from:
 Increased sediment load in stormwater drains and waterways
 Oil or grease from re-fuelling / workshop / storage areas
 Oil / chemical spillage
 Excavation of soil, resulting in exposure of contaminated soil and leaching into
waterways
 Change in pH levels form concrete or asphalt activities
3. Conduct a baseline assessment of water quality, in sedimentary ponds, and before
commencing work if water quality monitoring is being undertaken
4. Rehabilitate site in accordance with client requirements, OR
 Use local seed to revegetate, where client requirements are not specified
 Use non-native sterile grasses for temporary stabilisation while native flora
becomes established, if necessary
C&DS
Page 1 of 3 3
ID: 1066542
Assess work site
1.1 Assess existing features of land, including:
 Contour
 Existing vegetation
 Stormwater drains and drainage pattern
 Proximity to waterways
 Soil type
1.2 Assess possibility of installing cut off drains to divert clean stormwater around site
1.3 Undertake detailed check of site history and likelihood of contamination to ensure
stockpiling of material with leachable contamination into adjacent waterways is
prevented
1.4 Investigate alternative methods of construction when working in, adjacent to, or over
waterways, if necessary
Develop Waste Management Plan

2.1 Plan works, where possible, to:
 Minimise impact on environment (e.g. Work in waterways during summer
months)
 Limit extent and duration of exposed earth
 Retain vegetation
 Locate stockpiles away from drainage areas and waterways
 Limit access to site to designated areas
 Locate wash down and fuel storage areas away from stormwater drainage lines
and waterways
 Store fuel and chemicals in accordance with relevant standards and guidelines
2.2 Define where risk activities are likely to be located:
 Entry and exit points
 Borrow pits
 Stockpiles
 Haul roads
 Disturbance from construction
2.3 Install soil erosion and sediment control measures before commencing work and re-
assess during works
2.4 Handle vegetation that is to remain on site, according to Flora and Fauna inspection and
protection procedure
2.5 Undertake an assessment during the design phase, to determine any adverse effect
construction may have on local groundwater quality or flow:
 Contaminated groundwater must be handled in accordance with environmental
regulations
 Put measures in place to limit flow of contaminated groundwater into the
excavation, if contaminated groundwater is encountered (e.g. use sheet piles)
 Dispose of groundwater off site, as controlled waste if necessary, or at a sewer
under a Trade Waste Agreement with local water authority (if contaminant
concentration is within acceptable limits)
C&DS
Page 2 of 3 3
ID: 1066542
Minimise soil erosion
3.1 Hydro-seed or mulch stockpiles or areas that will be exposed for longer than three (3)
months
3.2 Use silt fencing if required up-gradient and /or down-gradient of stockpiles
3.3 Compact and trim all fill surfaces before any chance of rain:
 Use a machine on tracks to roughen surface on steep batters to reduce flow
velocities at end of each day, where practical
 Implement progressive treatment on site rather than concentrating control
devices in one location
3.4 Protect areas of concentrated water flow by either:
 Leaving or using existing topsoil with vegetation, OR
 Installing protective matting or fabric
Control sediment
4.1 Filter run off from disturbed areas, before discharging to stormwater or waterways
4.2 Locate sediment control devices up-gradient of sensitive areas such as creeks, steep
embankments and stormwater inlets
4.3 Implement filtration in form of:
 Silt fencing
 Sediment traps
 Gravel bags
 Settling ponds etc
4.4 Ensure all sediment control structures are of adequate size to cope with quantity of water
anticipated and maintained regularly
NOTE: Off line sedimentation basins are preferred to in stream sedimentation basins
4.5 Use water from sediment ponds to irrigate vegetated areas remote from waterways or
use for dust control
4.6 Ensure adequate control measures are in place before washing dirt or mud from roads,
to prevent sediment entering stormwater system
Deal with controlled waste effectively
5.1 Service machinery on site in controlled manner:

 Designate an appropriate area for servicing machinery, away from stormwater,
waterways and sensitive vegetation
 Ensure sealed containers are available for waste materials
 Dispose of waste off site in accordance with legislative requirements
5.2 Control prime, bitumen, concrete and concrete slurry to prevent it entering stormwater
system:
 Ensure spill kits or suitable materials are available on site to respond to spills
immediately
5.3 Filter or treat water being pumped or emptied from dams before discharge to ensure
water quality limits are met
5.4 Test water that appears to be contaminated to ensure it meets EPA criteria before
pumping
C&DS
Page 3 of 3 3
ID: 1066542
Version 2: 29/8/16
Safe fuel dispensing on site Review Date: August 2018
Purpose: To outline safe practices when re-fuelling plant on site
Pre-requisites
1. Training and supervision in safe fuel dispensing
2. Approval to handle fuel from supervisor or authorised delegate
Hazard management
Follow safe procedures when handling
Harmful / transporting fuels
Fuels
substances Wear appropriate PPE
Flammable Fuels / transporting flammable fuels
Plant and Plant and equipment operating Stay alert for vehicular movements at
equipment in area all times
P.P.E requirements - refer SDS (Safety Data Sheet) for specific PPE

Incident Form if Required
C&DS
This Document3
General Principles when refuelling plant on site
ALWAYS:
1. Switch engine OFF on plant before refuelling
2. Ensure no sparks or naked flames are within three (3) metres of plant
3. Take care to prevent spillage of flammable or combustible liquids
4. Clean up any spills immediately
5. Ensure fuel nozzle is clean before placing in fuel tank
6. Wind hose up neatly when fuelling is complete
7. Report any accidents, incidents or near misses involving fuel, to supervisor
immediately
NEVER:
1. Smoke while refuelling
Step 1 Dispensing fuel from vehicle

1.1 Ensure chemical spill kit is close by before dispensing fuel
1.2 Park vehicle close to plant fuel tank
1.3 Ensure plant and vehicle are switched OFF
1.4 Open fuel cap on plant
1.5 Ensure nozzle is clean and place in fuel tank
1.6 Turn pump on and squeeze nozzle to pump fuel into plant, until full
1.7 Turn nozzle off if diesel runs out (steam comes from nozzle), or when tank is full
1.8 Remove nozzle, turn off pump and wind hose up before replacing on fuel tank on vehicle
1.9 Replace fuel cap on plant
1.10 Wipe up any spills as soon as practically possible, using spill kit if required
Photo 1: Check nozzle is clean Photo 2: Place nozzle in fuel tank
Photo 3: Turn pump on Photo 4: Wind hose up neatly upon completion of fuelling
C&DS
This Document3
Version 2: 29/8/16
Safe fuel dispensing at main depot Review Date: August 2018
Purpose: To outline safe practices when dispensing fuel into vehicle fuel tanks or
other heavy plant at Treloar Transport depot
Pre-requisites
1. Training and supervision in Safe Chemical Handling
2. Approval to handle hazardous substances and dangerous goods from supervisor or
authorised delegate
Hazard management
Harmful / transporting fuels
Fuels
substances Wear appropriate PPE
Flammable Fuels / transporting flammable fuels
Plant and Plant and equipment operating Stay alert for vehicular movements at
equipment in area all times
P.P.E requirements - refer SDS (Safety Data Sheet) for specific PPE

Incident Form if Required
Pre-requisites
1. Training and supervision in:
 Procedures to be followed in the event of a spillage, accident or fire
 Location and use of fire fighting equipment
 Correct use of personnel protective equipment provided
 Correct sequence of events to be followed when refuelling
 The location of and essential points included in a Safety Data Sheet
2. Approval to dispense fuel by supervisor or authorised delegate
C&DS
This Document3
Legal responsibilities when dealing with flammable and combustible fuels
ALWAYS:
1. Understand definition of:
 Flammable Liquids – a liquid that is defined in the ADG Code as a Class 3
liquid. Class 3 liquids are divided into the following packaging groups:
– A Class 3 liquid of packaging group 1

– A Class 3 liquid of packaging group II
– A Class 3 liquid of packaging group III
 Combustible Liquid – any liquid other than a flammable liquid that has a flash
point and a fire point less than its boiling point. Combustible liquids are divided
into two classes as follows:
– Class C1 - a combustible liquid that has a flashpoint of 1500C

– Class C2 - a combustible liquid that has a flashpoint exceeding 1500C
2. Store and handle fuels in accordance with relevant state Act and Regulations and the
Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations (refer SOP “Hazardous substances and
Dangerous goods”)
General Principles of dealing with flammable and combustible fuels

ALWAYS:
1. Switch engine OFF on any vehicle or plant before refuelling
2. Ensure no sparks or naked flames are within three (3) metres of fuel pump
3. Take care to prevent spillage of flammable or combustible liquids
4. Clean up any spills immediately
5. Follow the same procedures and safety guidelines when filling petrol motors on floats
or when pumping or decanting petrol or other fuel from drums into any other types of
motor
6. Ensure storage facilities where fuel is dispensed is kept clear of extraneous material
at all times
7. Keep vegetation which may become a fire hazard, clear of pumps at all times
8. Ensure any leaks are rectified immediately
9. Report spills or damage to fuel containers to supervisor
10. Report any accidents, incidents or near misses involving fuel, to supervisor
immediately
NEVER:
1. Smoke in or close to chemical storage area
Step 1 Dispensing fuel from pump

1.1 Ensure chemical spill kit is close by before dispensing fuel
1.2 Drive vehicle/ plant close to fuel pump
1.3 Using supplied fuel card, follow directions on pump
1.4 Open fuel tank on vehicle /plant
1.5 Lift pump handle from cradle
1.6 Place pump nozzle in fuel tank of vehicle /plant
1.7 Pump fuel into vehicle /plant, until full
1.8 Remove pump nozzle and replace on cradle of fuel pump
1.9 Ensure pump handle is secure on fuel pump
1.10 Wipe up any spills as soon as practically possible, using spill kit procedure
C&DS
This Document3
Version 2: 29/8/16
Arranging Blasting Operations Review Date: August 2018
Purpose: To apply safe practices when arranging contractors for blasting operations
Pre-requisites
1. Approval to arrange blasting operations by supervisor or authorised delegate
2. Ensure Blasting Service provides required documentation:
 Current Procedure for Blasting, with full safety details
 Drillers shot pattern
3. Ensure all blast procedures conform to Mines Department and Environment Regulations
4. Competent in operating relevant plant or trucks for transporting material, or suitably
supervised as required
5. Identify hazards and complete a risk assessment where necessary
6. Follow or complete a SWMS as required
7. Clear understanding of responsibility for work tasks and activities to be undertaken
NOTE: During all activity associated blasting, the quarry site and environment is the
responsibility of the contractor
Hazard management
Follow safe operating procedures at all times
Rock and dust particles Ensure all personnel wear appropriate P.P.E
Explosive flying around Ensure all personnel are well clear of
blasting area before firing
Remain vigilant for pedestrians and other
Personnel moving around machinery at all times
area where blasting Ensure all personnel are well clear of
Crushing operations are being blasting area before firing
undertaken Ensure all personnel wear appropriate high
visibility PPE
Slips, Trips Moving around blasting Wear appropriate PPE
or Falls areas Follow safe operating procedures
P.P.E requirements
Steel capped safety boots, in good condition
High visibility clothing
and laced correctly
Hard hat (Outside mobile plant) Safety glasses
Ear protection (Outside mobile plant)

Mines Act 1968
Blasting Services Procedure for Blasting
Drillers Shot pattern
Blast hole exception report
Mines Department and Environment regulations
AS4801 - 4.4.6 Hazard identification, hazard/risk assessment and control of hazards/risks
CP123 Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace Code of Practice
Neighbour contact record
C&DS
This Document3
Definitions
1. STOCK ON THE GROUND
 Quantity of rock released from the quarry face by the blast
2. OVERBREAK
 Shattered rock behind the blast line, which has not fallen to the ground
General Principles for arranging blasting operations

ALWAYS:
1. Always follow guidelines set out in CP123 “Managing risk of plant in the workplace” in
relation to maintenance
2. Operate machines in accordance with Mines Inspection Regulations Act
3. Stay alert for other vehicle and personnel movements at all times
4. Conduct pre-start check on trucks and plant before operating. If unsatisfactory, do not
use, follow Isolation and Tagging procedure and report to Quarry Manager
5. Notify all neighbours in vicinity of quarry, one day before blasting is scheduled or as
required
Step 1 Preliminary arrangements for blasting (Quarry Manager or Supervisor)

1.1 Determine when blasting is required
 Assess existing quarry stock levels
 Consider anticipated sales
1.2 Contact Blasting Services to schedule a provisional day and time for blasting (usually
with one week lead in time)
1.3 Receive provisional information from Blasting Services:
 Planned blast day
 Quarry location
 Size of blast
1.4 Notify neighbours in vicinity of quarry, of planned blast day
1.5 Raise invoice for blast and ensure estimated quantities of rock released are acceptable
1.6 File all documentation related to blast in quarry office
Step 2 Contact neighbours on day of blast

2.1 Contact all neighbours specified by the Department of Environment & Land
Management and listed on the neighbour contact record:
 Confirm time of blast
 Maintain record of contact, on file in quarry office (to be kept for 4 years)
 Visit homes of any occupants who cannot be contacted by phone and record
details of attempts to contact them
2.2 After contact with neighbours has been completed, blasting may commence in
accordance with blasting procedures
NOTE: Ensure all personnel are well clear of blasting area and blast guards and blast monitors
are in place
Step 3 Following blast operations (Quarry Manager)

3.1 Inspect the blast site to:
 Confirm the blast has been performed
 Establish the size and quantity of rock released
3.2 Complete the order for blast and forward to Balsting Services, after ensuring details of
rock volumes are as per blast
3.3 Ensure truck drivers remove over break from quarry face before loading trailer
C&DS
This Document3
12.6. Appendix F – BOM Wind Rose Data
C&DS 3
Launceston Airport Wind Rose
Data extracted: 9th November 2017
C&DS 3
Rose of Wind direction versus Wind speed in km/h (01 Apr 1939 to 17 Jun 2009)
Custom times selected, refer to attached note for details
LAUNCESTON AIRPORT COMPARISON

Site No: 091104 • Opened Jan 1931 • Closed Jun 2009 • Latitude: -41.5397° • Longitude: 147.2033° • Elevation 166m
An asterisk (*) indicates that calm is less than 0.5%.

Other important info about this analysis is available in the accompanying notes.
N CALM km/h
NW NE
W CALM E >= 10 and < 20 >= 30 and < 40

>= 0 and < 10 >= 20 and < 30 >= 40
SW SE
S
9 am
24610 Total Observations
Calm 15%
10%
20%
C&DS 3
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia 2016 . Prepared on 05 Apr 2016
Prepared Ordinary
by the Bureau of Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018
Meteorology. Page 379
Contact us by phone on (03) 9669 4082, by fax on (03) 9669 4515, or by email on [email protected]
Document Set ID: 1066542We have taken all due care but cannot provide any warranty nor accept any liability for this information.
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/03/2018 TCZ9178533 Page 1
Rose of Wind direction versus Wind speed in km/h (01 Apr 1939 to 17 Jun 2009)
LAUNCESTON AIRPORT COMPARISON

Site No: 091104 • Opened Jan 1931 • Closed Jun 2009 • Latitude: -41.5397° • Longitude: 147.2033° • Elevation 166m

N CALM km/h
NW NE
W CALM E >= 10 and < 20 >= 30 and < 40

>= 0 and < 10 >= 20 and < 30 >= 40
SW SE
S
3 pm
Calm 6%
40
%
30
%
20
%
10
%
C&DS 3
Prepared Ordinary
Burnie (Round Hill) Wind Rose
Data extracted: 9th November 2017
C&DS 3
Rose of Wind direction versus Wind speed in km/h (02 Jan 1965 to 05 Apr 2016)
BURNIE (ROUND HILL)

Site No: 091009 • Opened Aug 1944 • Still Open • Latitude: -41.0661° • Longitude: 145.9431° • Elevation 8m

N CALM km/h
NW NE
W CALM E >= 10 and < 20 >= 30 and < 40

>= 0 and < 10 >= 20 and < 30 >= 40
SW SE
S
9 am
Calm 5%
30%
20%
10%
C&DS 3
Prepared Ordinary
Rose of Wind direction versus Wind speed in km/h (02 Jan 1965 to 05 Apr 2016)
BURNIE (ROUND HILL)

Site No: 091009 • Opened Aug 1944 • Still Open • Latitude: -41.0661° • Longitude: 145.9431° • Elevation 8m

N CALM km/h
NW NE
W CALM E >= 10 and < 20 >= 30 and < 40

>= 0 and < 10 >= 20 and < 30 >= 40
SW SE
S
3 pm
Calm 1%
10%
20%
30%
40%
C&DS 3
Prepared Ordinary
12.7. Appendix G – Landslip Risk Assessment
C&DS 3
LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED QUARRY, PUNCHES TERROR
BEAUMONT'S ROAD, DUNORLAN
Prepared for: Treloar Transport

Date: 18 December 2017
Document Reference: TG17244/1 - 01report
Tasman Geotechnics Pty Ltd ABN 96 130 022 589

Level 1, 10 Goodman Court
PO Box 4026, Invermay TAS 7248
M 0427 810 534 T 6332 3750
E [email protected]
C&DS 3
Landslide Risk Assessment, Proposed Quarry, Beaumont's Road
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
2.1 Regional Setting 1
2.2 Geology 1
2.3 Landslide Mapping 1
2.4 Proposed Development 1
2.5 Site Photographs 1
3 SITE CONDITIONS 2
4 LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT 2

4.1 General 2
4.2 Potential Hazards 2
4.3 Risk to Property 3
4.4 Risk to Life 3
4.5 Conclusion 4
5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 4
Important information about your report
Figures
Figure 1 MRT Geology and Landslide Hazard Bands
Appendices
Appendix A Selected Site Photographs
Appendix B Landslide Risk Matrix
Version Date Prepared by Reviewed by Distribution
Original 18 December 2017 Dr Alan Chester Dr Wayne Griffioen Electronic
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Reference: TG17244/1 - 01report i
1 INTRODUCTION
Tasman Geotechnics was commissioned by Urban Forest Consultancy on behalf of Treloar
Transport to carry out a Landslide Risk Assessment for a proposed expansion of quarry activities
at Beaumont’s Road, Dunorlan.
The proponent is Treloar Transport, who wishes to consolidate leases 1007 P/M and 28M/1990
under the same land use permit. A DPEMP has been prepared by Treloar (prepared by Carol
Steyn, Draft 2) and was provided to Tasman Geotechnics. The estimated rate of production is
20,000 bank m3/annum.
A Landslide Risk Assessment is required by Meander Valley Council as part of the Planning
Application process as the development is mapped adjacent to “Medium” hazard band on the
Landslide Planning Map V2 – Hazard Bands overlay on The LIST.
The assessment is consistent with the Landslide Risk Assessment guidelines published by the
Australian Geomechanics Society (2007).
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Regional Setting

The quarry is located on the south-west flank of Punchs Terror, a local hill which rises about
200m above the surrounding areas. The sides of the hill are up to 45° on the south-west facing
slopes, but around 18° on the north-east facing slopes.
The two quarries (northern and southern) are located on the south-west facing side of the hill.
2.2 Geology
The surface geology is mapped by Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) on the 1:25,000 Series
Digital Geological map, Gog and Deloraine Sheets.
The quarry operations are shown to be in Cambrian aged described as “quartzite derived,
massive pebble-cobble conglomerate with minor pink quartzarenite beds”. Parts of the hill slopes
are covered with Quaternary aged talus. An extract of the two MRT geology maps is presented
on Figure 1.
2.3 Landslide Mapping

The site has not been mapped for landslides. However, based on GIS modelling of landslides
elsewhere in the state MRT have developed a hazard rating for landslides based on slope angle.
These are shown on TheLIST map as:
 Medium hazard for areas with slope > 20° and
 Low hazard for areas with slope between 11° and 20°
An extract of TheLIST map is presented on Figure 1.
2.4 Proposed Development

The DPEMP shows of mining will take place at both quarry faces, and be primarily confined to
the existing disturbed areas.
2.5 Site Photographs

No field investigation was carried out by Tasman Geotechnics. However, photographs of the
existing quarries were provided by Carol Steyn. Selected photographs are presented in
Appendix A.
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Reference: TG17244/1 - 01report 1
3 SITE CONDITIONS
The surface conditions at the quarries is very different:
At the northern quarry, the quarry face has been excavated in a series of benches and vegetation
is re-establishing on the slopes separating the benches (see Photo 1). There is some variability
in the material exposed on the slopes: in many places the material is sandy/clayey gravel, in the
upper parts of the quarry the material is intact conglomerate. The conglomerate is high strength
rock, with no clear joint or fracture pattern (see Photo 2).
At the southern quarry, the previous operations resulted in several benches with near-vertical
faces (see Photo 3). The exposed rock is high strength conglomerate.
At both quarries, the natural vegetation begins at the crest of the working face.
It is understood that the future operations of the quarries will be carried out such that the final
faces can be rehabilitated.
4 LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 General
Risk assessment and management principles applied to slopes can be interpreted as answering
the following questions;
 What might happen? (HAZARD IDENTIFICATION).
 How likely is it? (LIKELIHOOD).
 What damage or injury might result? (CONSEQUENCE).
 How important is it? (RISK EVALUATION).
 What can be done about it? (RISK TREATMENT).
The risk is a combination of the likelihood and the consequences for the hazard in question. Thus
both likelihood and consequences are taken into account when evaluating a risk and deciding
whether treatment is required.
The qualitative likelihood, consequence and risk terms used in this report for risk to property are
given in Appendix B and are based on the Landslide Risk Management Guidelines, published by
Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS, 2007) and included in the Meander Valley Council
Planning Scheme. The risk terms are defined by a matrix that brings together different
combinations of likelihood and consequence. Risk matrices help to communicate the results of
risk assessment, rank risks, set priorities and develop transparent approaches to decision
making.
4.2 Potential Hazards

Based on the site observations and available information discussed in the sections above, the
following landslide hazards are identified for the site:
Shallow slides/flows (up to about 3m deep). Such landslides can occur in soil slopes,
where the slopes have been cleared of vegetation, or where surface runoff is allowed to
flow down the slope in a concentrated manner.
There is presently no evidence of soil erosion at the site. Therefore, by maintaining
existing vegetation, or excavating slopes at a “stable” angle with face heights no more
than 5m and minimising runoff on bare slopes, the likelihood of a shallow slide under
current climatic conditions, is assessed to be Unlikely.
Rockfall. Following blasting, the rock is highly fractured and thereby poses a risk of
rockfall. Both vehicles and people are at risk, especially if equipment breaks down while
working near the rock face. The likelihood of rockfalls up to 0.3m diam is assessed to be
Almost Certain when excavating the blasted rock. However, after the blasted rock is
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
removed, the rock face is composed of undisturbed rock. The likelihood of rockfalls on
the rock face is a function of the slope angle, rock/boulder size and extent of ‘cleaning’
carried out. The following table summarises the likelihood of rockfalls assuming no
‘cleaning’ of the rock face
Boulder Size Slope angle steeper than 1V:1H Slope angle flatter than 1V:1H
Less than 0.3m Likely Possible
Greater than 0.3m Possible Unlikely
The identification of the potential hazards considers both the site and nearby properties, and is
necessary to address stability issues that may negatively impact upon the site and influence the
risk to property.
4.3 Risk to Property

The following table summarizes the risk to property of the landslide events in relation to the
proposed quarry as described above, assuming limitations in Section 5 are incorporated.
Table 1. Landslide risk profiles

Scenario Likelihood Consequence Risk Profile
Shallow slide/flow Unlikely if excavated at Minor: debris could impact Low
“stable” angle and no machinery
surface runoff
Rockfall >0.3m diam during Almost Certain, rock has Insignificant: excavator can Low
excavation been broken by blasting control slope of excavation
Rockfall <0.3m diam on rock Likely Insignificant Low
face steeper than 1V:1H
Rockfall >0.3m diam on rock Possible Minor: dent equipment Moderate
face steeper than 1V:1H
Rockfall <0.3m diam on Possible Insignificant: boulder would Very Low
rock face flatter than 1V:1H roll down the rock face
Rockfall >0.3m diam on Unlikely Insignificant: boulder would Very Low
rock face flatter than 1V:1H roll down the rock face
Thus, a Moderate risk profile exists for rockfalls from boulders greater than 0.3m diam hitting
equipment at the base of rock faces steeper than 1V:1H. This assumes no ‘cleaning’ of the rock
face has been carried out. If boulders > 0.3m diam are ‘cleaned’ from the rock face, the
likelihood reduces to Unlikely, and the corresponding risk profile is Low.
4.4 Risk to Life

The risk to life is a function of the likelihood of a rockfall and the probability that a person is
present in the path of the rock. Impacts from larger rocks (>0.3m diam) are more likely to be
“catastrophic” than smaller rocks (less than 0.1m diam). Working at the base of the rock face (for
example repairing a broken-down vehicle) presents a higher risk than walking across the face,
especially if the persons’ attention is not on the rock face but on the task at hand.
The risk of a catastrophic consequence can be minimized by restricting public access onto the
quarry site, and only allowing work to be carried out within 2m of the rock face with a spotter.
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
4.5 Conclusion
The assessment shows that the proposed quarry presents a Low to Very Low level of risk to
property and risk to life, provided the limitations listed in Section 5 are incorporated in the
design. A Moderate level of risk occurs for boulders > 0.3m diam falling from rock faces steeper
than 1V:1H. However, ‘cleaning’ of the rock face reduces the risk to Low.
5 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to ensure the proposed quarry does not change the risk profile above Low for the site, it
is recommended that the following limitations be enforced:
 No public access onto the quarry site, unless visitors are accompanied by Site Foreman.
 No work allowed within 2m of the rock face without a spotter. Where possible, work on a
broken-down vehicle to be carried out such that the vehicle is between the person and
the rock face.
 Faces in soil to be no more than 5m high, and at angle of no steeper than 1V:1H. This
will also assist in rehabilitation of the site.
 Faces in rock to be no more than 8m high.
 Loose rocks should be ‘cleaned’ from rock faces that are steeper than 1V:1H.
 Surface runoff on benches above soil slopes to be directed away from the slope to open
drains.
 Maintenance of surface runoff, vegetation, retaining structures and other measures
described above are the responsibility of the quarry operator.
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Important information about your report
These notes are provided to help you understand the limitations of your
report.
Project Scope
Your report has been developed on the basis of your unique project specific requirements as
understood by Tasman Geotechnics at the time, and applies only to the site investigated.
Tasman Geotechnics should be consulted if there are subsequent changes to the proposed
project, to assess how the changes impact on the report’s recommendations.
Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes and the activity of man.
A site assessment identifies subsurface conditions at discreet locations. Actual conditions at
other locations may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter
how qualified, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time.
Nothing can be done to change the conditions that exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the
impact of unexpected conditions. For this reason, the services of Tasman Geotechnics
should be retained throughout the project, to identify variable conditions, conduct additional
investigation or tests if required and recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.
Advice and Recommendations

Your report contains advice or recommendations which are based on observations,
measurements, calculations and professional interpretation, all of which have a level of
uncertainty attached.
The recommendations are based on the assumption that subsurface conditions encountered
at the discreet locations are indicative of an area. This can not be substantiated until
implementation of the project has commenced. Tasman Geotechnics is familiar with the
background information and should be consulted to assess whether or not the report’s
recommendations are valid, or whether changes should be considered.
The report as a whole presents the findings of the site assessment, and the report should not
be copied in part or altered in any way.
TASMAN GEOTECHNICS Rev 01, May 2008
C&DS 3
NORTH
1 km
Northern quarry
Northern quarry
Medium hazard
band (slope > 20°)
Southern quarry Southern quarry
Low hazard band (slope

between 11° and 20°)
MRT Geology Map Extract
drawn WG client: Treloar Transport
approved WG
Landslide Risk Assessment
project:
Proposed Quarry Minna Rd, Stowport
date 14/12/2017
scale As shown title: MRT Geology and TheLIST Hazard Map Extracts
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August
original2018
size A4 project no: TG17244/1 – 01report figure no:Page 392 1
FIGURE
Appendix A
Selected Site Photographs
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Reference: TG17244/1 - 01report
Landslide Risk Assessment, Beaumont's Road
Photo 1. Northern quarry showing benches and slopes, predominantly in soil
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Photo 2. View of conglomerate rock being quarried
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Photo 3. View of southern quarry.
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Appendix B
Landslide Risk Matrix
Tasman Geotechnics
C&DS 3
Terminology for use in Assessing Risk to Property
These notes are provided to help you understand concepts and terms used in
Landslide Risk Assessment and are based on the “Practice Note Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management 2007” published in Australian Geomechanics Vol 42,
No 1, 2007.
Likelihood Terms
The qualitative likelihood terms have been related to a nominal design life of 50 years. The assessment of
likelihood involves judgment based on the knowledge and experience of the assessor. Different assessors
may make different judgments.
Approximate Implied indicative Description Descriptor Level

Annual Recurrence Interval
Probability
-1
10 10 years The event is expected to occur over the design Almost A
life Certain
-2
10 100 years The event will probably occur under adverse Likely B
conditions over the design life
-3
10 1000 years The event could occur under adverse Possible C
-4
10 10,000 years The event might occur under very adverse Unlikely D
-5
10 100,000 years The event is conceivable but only under Rare E
exceptional circumstances over the design life
-6
10 1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful for the Barely F
design life Credible
Qualitative Measures of Consequence to Property

Indicative Description Descriptor Level
Cost of
Damage
200% Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring Catastrophic 1
major engineering works for stabilisation. Could cause at least one
adjacent property major consequential damage.
60% Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site Major 2
boundaries requiring significant stabilisation works. Could cause at least
one adjacent property medium consequential damage
20% Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site Medium 3
requiring large stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent
property minor consequential damage.
5% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some Minor 4
reinstatement stabilisation works
0.5% Little damage. Insignificant 5
The assessment of consequences involves judgment based on the knowledge and experience of the
assessor. The relative consequence terms are value judgments related to how the potential consequences
may be perceived by those affected by the risk. Explicit descriptions of potential consequences will help
the stakeholders understand the consequences and arrive at their judgment.
C&DS 3
TASMAN GEOTECHNICS Rev 01, June 2008
Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix – Risk to Property
Likelihood Consequences to Property
Approximate 1: 2: 3: 4: 5:
annual Catastrophic Major Medium Minor Insignificant
probability
-1
A: Almost Certain 10 VH VH VH H L
-2
B: Likely 10 VH VH H M L
-3
C: Possible 10 VH H M M VL
-4
D: Unlikely 10 H M L L VL
-5
E: Rare 10 M L L VL VL
-6
F: Barely credible 10 L VL VL VL VL
NOTES:
1. The risk associated with Insignificant consequences, however likely, is defined as Low or Very
Low
2. The main purpose of a risk matrix is to help rank risks and set priorities and help the decision
making process.
Response to Risk
In general, it is the responsibility of the client and/or regulatory and/or others who may be affected to decide
whether to accept or treat the risk. The risk assessor and/or other advisers may assist by making risk
comparisons, discussing treatment options, explaining the risk management process, advising how others
have reacted to risk in similar situations and making recommendations. Attitudes to risk vary widely and
risk evaluation often involves considering more than just property damage (eg environmental effects, public
reaction, business confidence etc).
The following is a guide to typical responses to assessed risk.
Risk Level Example Implications

VH Very High Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and
implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not
practical. Work likely to cost more than the value of the property.
H High Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment
options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value
of the property.
M Moderate May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires
investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low.
Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
L Low Usually accepted by regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level,
ongoing maintenance is required.
VL Very Low Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures
C&DS 3
TASMAN GEOTECHNICS Rev 01, June 2008
12.8. Appendix H – Ground Water Bore Report
C&DS 3
Treloar Transport Punches Terror DPEMP Groundwater Feature Summary Report
Disclaimer and Copyright. Map data is compiled from a variety of sources and hence its accuracy is variable. If you wish to make decisions based on this data you should consult with professional advisers.
Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this report may be copied without the permission of the General Manager, Water and Marine Resources Division, Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, PO Box 41, Hobart, TAS 7001.
C&DS 3
02/01/2018 Page 1
Treloar Transport Punches Terror DPEMP Groundwater Feature Summary Report
Feature Feature Locality Easting Northing Datum

Coordinate Drilled date Drilling company Depth Initial SWL list Last SWL Final Main aquifer Last operating Last operating
id type name accuracy (m) yield date TDS geology status status date
2146 Bore Dunorlan 460913 5407458 GDA94 2000 02/12/1975 Mono Pumps 24.40 1.52 18.3 02/12/1975 Tertiary Basalt functioning 02/12/1975
Australia Pty Ltd
2147 Bore Dunorlan 460913 5407583 GDA94 200 21/10/1981 Gerald Spaulding 33.60 0.63 15.2 21/10/1981 Tertiary Basalt functioning 21/10/1981
Drillers Pty Ltd
2151 Bore Dunorlan 460713 5407433 GDA94 2000 03/12/1975 Mono Pumps 18.30 0.76 4.6 03/12/1975 380 Tertiary Basalt functioning 03/12/1975
Australia Pty Ltd
2198 Bore Dunorlan 459863 5408133 GDA94 2000 01/11/1981 Triffitt 18.30 0.51 10.7 01/11/1981 Tertiary Basalt Unknown 01/11/1981
2199 Bore Dunorlan 458613 5408383 GDA94 2000 01/12/1981 Triffitt 22.90 1.89 .2 01/12/1981 Tertiary Basalt functioning 01/12/1981
2200 Bore Dunorlan 458663 5408433 GDA94 2000 01/12/1981 Triffitt 36.60 0.00 Cambrian Unknown 01/12/1981
2203 Bore Dunorlan 460963 5407533 GDA94 1000 01/01/1982 Triffitt 18.30 6.1 01/01/1982 Tertiary Basalt functioning 01/01/1982
2226 Bore Dunorlan 460113 5407683 GDA94 2000 01/03/1982 Triffitt 17.70 0.38 Tertiary Basalt functioning 01/03/1982
2250 Bore Dunorlan 459813 5407783 GDA94 2000 Phillips 45.70 Tertiary Basalt Unknown
2251 Bore Dunorlan 461063 5407133 GDA94 2000 Phillips 45.80 1.14 Tertiary Basalt Unknown
2276 Bore Dunorlan 460963 5407883 GDA94 2000 20/08/1984 Kelly 15.80 0.25 8.5 20/08/1984 Tertiary Basalt functioning 20/08/1984
3873 Bore Dunorlan 458813 5406883 GDA94 200 McCall 48.80 1.89 9.1 Tertiary Basalt functioning
3947 Bore Dunorlan 459513 5407783 GDA94 2000 21/02/1995 Gerald Spaulding 80.80 Tertiary Basalt functioning 21/02/1995
Drillers Pty Ltd
3969 Bore Dunorlan 460023 5407863 GDA94 1000 02/12/1992 Gerald Spaulding 16.80 0.76 Tertiary Basalt functioning 02/12/1992
Drillers Pty Ltd
3970 Bore Dunorlan 459973 5407813 GDA94 1000 30/11/1992 Gerald Spaulding 30.50 0.51 Tertiary Basalt abandoned 30/11/1992
Drillers Pty Ltd
Drillers Pty Ltd
17693 Bore Dunorlan 460313 5407883 GDA94 2000 McCall 48.80 1.89 9.2 Tertiary Basalt Unknown
Drillers Pty Ltd
18217 Bore Dunorlan 461763 5405733 GDA94 2000 01/01/1995 Moore, P. 19.80 0.63 Tertiary Basalt Unknown 01/01/1995
31430 Bore Dunorlan 461780 5406345 GDA94 25 04/06/2002 Gerald Spaulding 30.00 10.10 1.2 04/06/2002 Cambrian functioning 04/06/2002
Drillers Pty Ltd
41318 Bore Dunorlan 461092 5407367 GDA94 25 05/12/2007 DPIWE 39.50 Tertiary Basalt functioning 05/12/2007
C&DS 3
02/01/2018 Page 2
12.9. Appendix I – Natural Values Atlas Report
C&DS 3
Natural Values Atlas Report
Authoritative, comprehensive information on Tasmania's natural values.
Reference:
Requested For:
Report Type: Summary Report
Timestamp: 10:24:01 AM Thursday 04 January 2018
Threatened Flora: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m
Threatened Fauna: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m
Raptors: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m
Tasmanian Weed Management Act Weeds: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m
Priority Weeds: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m
Geoconservation: buffer 1000m
Acid Sulfate Soils: buffer 1000m
TASVEG: buffer 1000m
Threatened Communities: buffer 1000m
Fire History: buffer 1000m
Tasmanian Reserve Estate: buffer 1000m
Biosecurity Risks: buffer 1000m
The centroid for this query GDA94: 460065.0, 5406541.0 falls within:
Property: 6281755
*** No threatened flora found within 500 metres ***
C&DS 3
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/03/2018 Page 1 of 36
Threatened flora within 5000 metres
464506, 5412536
455609, 5400527
Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales
C&DS 3
Legend: Verified and Unverified observations
Legend: Cadastral Parcels
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count Last Recorded
Desmodium gunnii southern ticktrefoil v n 6 18-Jan-1999
Epilobium pallidiflorum showy willowherb r n 1 26-Feb-1970
Glycine microphylla small-leaf glycine v n 1 12-Nov-1996
Gynatrix pulchella fragrant hempbush r n 2 30-Dec-1998
Hypolepis muelleri harsh groundfern r n 1 01-Aug-1998
Pimelea curviflora curved riceflower p n 2 22-Nov-1999
Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis slender curved riceflower r n 5 19-Sep-1997
Unverified Records
Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count
Pterostylis ziegeleri grassland greenhood v VU e 1
For more information about threatened species, please Threatened Species Enquiries.
Telephone: (03) 6165 4340
Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000
C&DS 3
Threatened fauna within 500 metres
461104, 5408020
459018, 5405043
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 1 11-Dec-1990
Unverified Records
No unverified records were found!

(based on Range Boundaries)
Species Common Name SS NS BO Potential Known Core
Astacopsis gouldi giant freshwater crayfish v VU e 1 0 0
Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 1 0 1
Engaeus granulatus Central North burrowing crayfish e EN e 1 0 0
Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v n 1 0 0
Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU n 1 0 0
Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 1 0 0
Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN n 1 0 0
Galaxiella pusilla eastern dwarf galaxias v VU n 1 0 0
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 1 0 1
Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 1 0 0
Dasyurus viverrinus eastern quoll EN n 0 0 1
Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 1 0 0
Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 1 0 0
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 0 1
Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 1 0 0
Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v n 1 0 0
Alcedo azurea subsp. diemenensis azure kingfisher or azure kingfisher e EN e 0 0 1
(tasmanian)
Telephone: (03) 6165 4340
C&DS 3
464506, 5412536
455609, 5400527
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 27-Mar-1977
Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN n 5 16-Sep-2010
Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 14 16-Nov-2017
Astacopsis gouldi giant freshwater crayfish v VU e 4 01-Jan-1993
Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU n 6 01-Jan-1996
Dasyurus viverrinus eastern quoll EN n 2 01-Jan-1996
Hickmanoxyomma gibbergunyar cave harvestman or Mole Creek cave r e 1 01-Jan-0001
harvestman
Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 32 29-Nov-1995
Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 9 20-Dec-2000
Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 17 21-Sep-1992
Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 1 22-Mar-2004
Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 7 26-Jul-2015
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 8 12-Jun-2016
Unverified Records

Species Common Name SS NS BO Potential Known Core
Astacopsis gouldi giant freshwater crayfish v VU e 1 0 0
Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 1 0 1
Engaeus granulatus Central North burrowing crayfish e EN e 1 0 0
Hickmanoxyomma gibbergunyar cave harvestman or Mole Creek cave r e 1 1 0
harvestman
Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v n 1 0 0
Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU n 1 0 1
Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 1 0 0
Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN n 2 0 0
Galaxiella pusilla eastern dwarf galaxias v VU n 1 0 0
Galaxias fontanus swan galaxias e EN e 1 0 0
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 1 0 1
Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 1 0 0
Dasyurus viverrinus eastern quoll EN n 0 0 1
Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 1 0 0
Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 1 0 0
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 0 1
Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 1 0 0
Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v n 1 0 0
Alcedo azurea subsp. diemenensis azure kingfisher or azure kingfisher e EN e 0 0 1
(tasmanian)
Telephone: (03) 6165 4340
*** No Raptor nests or sightings found within 500 metres. ***
C&DS 3
Raptor nests and sightings within 5000 metres
464506, 5412536
455609, 5400527
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Nest Species Common Name Obs Type Observation Count Last Recorded
Id/Loca
tion
Foreign
Id
1335 Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle Nest 5 16-Sep-2010
1335 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Nest 6 28-Oct-2015
186 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Nest 3 10-Dec-2007
188 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Nest 1 01-Jan-1985
2451 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Nest 2 16-Nov-2017
564 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Nest 1 01-Jan-1985
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk Sighting 1 27-Mar-1977
Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Sighting 2 14-Nov-1996
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Carcass 1 12-Jun-2016
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Sighting 6 12-Jun-2016
Unverified Records

Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core
Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 2 0 0
Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU 1 0 1
Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 1
Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v 1 0 0
For more information about raptor nests, please contact Threatened Species Enquiries.
Telephone: (03) 6165 4340
C&DS 3
Tas Management Act Weeds within 500 m
461104, 5408020
459018, 5405043
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Species Common Name Observation Count Last Recorded
Senecio jacobaea ragwort 1 17-Jan-1994
Unverified Records
For more information about introduced weed species, please visit the following URL for contact details in your area:
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds
C&DS 3
464506, 5412536
455609, 5400527
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Verified Records
Species Common Name Observation Count Last Recorded
Cortaderia sp. pampas grass 1 23-Mar-2011
Erica lusitanica spanish heath 6 24-Oct-2001
Hypericum perforatum subsp. veronense perforated st johns-wort 7 21-Feb-2011
Rubus fruticosus blackberry 10 01-Aug-1998
Senecio jacobaea ragwort 65 21-Feb-2011
Ulex europaeus gorse 5 14-May-2012
Unverified Records
For more information about introduced weed species, please visit the following URL for contact details in your area:
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds
*** No Priority Weeds found within 500 metres ***
*** No Priority Weeds found within 5000 metres ***
C&DS 3
Geoconservation sites within 1000 metres
461482, 5408522
458639, 5404542
C&DS 3
Legend: Geoconservation (NVA)
C&DS 3
Id Name Statement of Significance Geographical Significance Status
2953 Central Highlands This site contains significant glacigene values, including Continent Listed
Cenozoic Glacial Area World Heritage values, however the nature and
distribution of landforms and deposits is incompletely
known or documented.
For more information about the Geoconservation Database, please visit the website: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/geoconservation
or contact the Geoconservation Officer:
Telephone: (03) 6165 4401

*** No Acid Sulfate Soils found within 1000 metres ***
C&DS 3
TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres
461482, 5408522
458639, 5404542
C&DS 3
Legend: TASVEG 3.0
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
Code Community Emergent Species
DAC (DAC) Eucalyptus amygdalina coastal forest and woodland
DAS (DAS) Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone
DAZ (DAZ) Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits
DOB (DOB) Eucalyptus obliqua dry forest
DOV (DOV) Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland
DSC (DSC) Eucalyptus amygdalina - Eucalyptus obliqua damp sclerophyll forest
FAG (FAG) Agricultural land EL
FAG (FAG) Agricultural land EV
FAG (FAG) Agricultural land
FPL (FPL) Plantations for silviculture
FPU (FPU) Unverified plantations for silviculture
FUM (FUM) Extra-urban miscellaneous
FUR (FUR) Urban areas
NAD (NAD) Acacia dealbata forest
NBA (NBA) Bursaria - Acacia woodland and scrub
OAQ (OAQ) Water, sea
WOB (WOB) Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs
WOU (WOU) Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest (undifferentiated)
For more information contact: Coordinator, Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program.
Telephone: (03) 6165 4320
C&DS 3
Threatened Communities (TNVC 2014) within 1000 metres
461482, 5408522
458639, 5404542
C&DS 3
Legend: Threatened Communities
C&DS 3
Scheduled Community Id Scheduled Community Name
14 Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone
15 Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on cainozoic deposits
20 Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland
For more information contact: Coordinator, Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program.
Telephone: (03) 6165 4320
*** No Fire History (All) found within 1000 metres ***
*** No Fire History (Last Burnt) found within 1000 metres ***
C&DS 3
Reserves within 1000 metres
461482, 5408522
458639, 5404542
C&DS 3
Legend: Tasmanian Reserve Estate
C&DS 3
Name Classification Status Area (HA)
Informal Reserve on Permanent Timber Production Zone Land or Informal Reserve 5.280749999
Forestry Tas. managed land 999999
Forestry Tas. managed land
For more information about the Tasmanian Reserve Estate, please contact the Sustainable Land Use and Information Management Branch.
Telephone: (03) 6777 2224
C&DS 3
Known biosecurity risks within 1000 meters
461482, 5408522
458639, 5404542
C&DS 3
Legend: Biosecurity Risk Species
Legend: Hygiene infrastructure
C&DS 3
Verified Species of biosecurity risk
No verified species of biosecurity risk found within 1000 metres
Unverified Species of biosecurity risk

No unverified species of biosecurity risk found within 1000 metres
Generic Biosecurity Guidelines
The level and type of hygiene protocols required will vary depending on the tenure, activity and land use of the area. In all cases adhere to the land manager's
biosecurity (hygiene) protocols. As a minimum always Check / Clean / Dry (Disinfect) clothing and equipment before trips and between sites within a trip as needed
http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene/keeping-it-clean-a-tasmanian-field-hygiene-manual
On Reserved land, the more remote, infrequently visited and undisturbed areas require tighter biosecurity measures.
In addition, where susceptible species and communities are known to occur, tighter biosecurity measures are required.
Apply controls relevant to the area / activity:
- Don't access sites infested with pathogen or weed species unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary to visit, adopt high level hygiene protocols.
- Consider not accessing non-infested sites containing known susceptible species / communities. If it is necessary to visit, adopt high level hygiene protocols.
- Don't undertake activities that might spread pest / pathogen / weed species such as deliberately moving soil or water between areas.
- Modify / restrict activities to reduce the chance of spreading pest / pathogen / weed species e.g. avoid periods when weeds are seeding, avoid clothing/equipment
that excessively collects soil and plant material e.g. Velcro, excessive tread on boots.
- Plan routes to visit clean (uninfested) sites prior to dirty (infested) sites. Do not travel through infested areas when moving between sites.
- Minimise the movement of soil, water, plant material and hitchhiking wildlife between areas by using the Check / Clean / Dry (Disinfect when drying is not possible)
procedure for all clothing, footwear, equipment, hand tools and vehicles http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene
- Neoprene and netting can take 48 hours to dry, use non-porous gear wherever possible.
- Use walking track boot wash stations where available.
- Keep a hygiene kit in the vehicle that includes a scrubbing brush, boot pick, and disinfectant http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene/keeping-it-
clean-a-tasmanian-field-hygiene-manual
- Dispose of all freshwater away from natural water bodies e.g. do not empty water into streams or ponds.
- Dispose of used disinfectant ideally in town though a treatment or septic system. Always keep disinfectant well away from natural water systems.
- Securely contain any high risk pest / pathogen / weed species that must be collected and moved e.g. biological samples.
Hygiene Infrastructure
No known hygiene infrastructure found within 1000 metres
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
C&DS 3
From: Anna Chabry
Sent: 28 Mar 2018 10:43:10 +1100
Subject: PA/18/0178 TRELOAR
Dear Holly Bean,
Yesterday, I received the Council's letter regarding the above mentioned PA and this is
the first time I heard about it. As I read, the application on online, I noticed that TT
mentions that they have consulted with the residents on Beaumonts Road, not such
consultation (by letter or personal visit) has occurred with us, and being at 71 Beaumonts
Road, our residence is very much affected by the continue truck noise and the constant
deterioration of the road, as we have experience of late.
As TT mentions they have already acquired the lease for the second quarry, so I would
have to assume their application is already approved, why acquired when cannot use it?
Therefore,this letter sent by Council is just a make believe, to make it look that Council
has our interests at hand.
.
Very disappointed, but not surprised. As the only ones benefiting from the expansion of
the quarries are the Atkins, Meander Valley Council and of course, TT. I read in their
application that even they produce road base, they are not obliged to fix the road that they
are using to the extreme! Meaning that we rate payers are to pay for the road fixing.
Also, they mention that they will be making sure they water spray the road to reduce dust,
up to date, they have not done so. Who is going to make them do it?
Can Council make sure that TT adheres to their application's statements?
This together with the constant truck noise, will greatly reduced our quality of life and
enjoyment of our place.
Kind regards,
Max S MacAuliffe.
C&DS 3
From: Justin Simons
Sent: 28 Mar 2018 00:41:22 +0000
To: 'Anna Chabry'
Subject: RE: PA/18/0178 TRELOAR
Hi Max
Thank you for your submission regarding this application. Your concerns will be taken into consideration
during the assessment process by Council and the Environment Protection Authority. You will be
notified of the outcome of the application in due course. Should the application be considered at a
Council Meeting an invitation to that meeting will be forwarded to you. As this application is for a Level
2 Activity the process is relatively lengthy and the final date of assessment and decision is not known. If
you would like an update on the process please feel free to call or email.
Please let us know if you have any other preferred means of contact aside from this email address, as
there may be times where we need to contact you at relatively short notice.
Kind regards
From: Anna Chabry [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 10:43 AM
Dear Holly Bean,
Yesterday, I received the Council's letter regarding the above mentioned PA and this is the first
time I heard about it. As I read, the application on online, I noticed that TT mentions that they
have consulted with the residents on Beaumonts Road, not such consultation (by letter or
personal visit) has occurred with us, and being at 71 Beaumonts Road, our residence is very
much affected by the continue truck noise and the constant deterioration of the road, as we have
experience of late.
As TT mentions they have already acquired the lease for the second quarry, so I would have to
assume their application is already approved, why acquired when cannot use it? Therefore,this
letter sent by Council is just a make believe, to make it look that Council has our interests at
hand.
.
Very disappointed, but not surprised. As the only ones benefiting from the expansion of the
quarries are the Atkins, Meander Valley Council and of course, TT. I read in their application
that even they produce road base, they are not obliged to fix the road that they are using to the
extreme! Meaning that we rate payers are to pay for the road fixing.
Also, they mention that they will be making sure they water spray the road to reduce dust, up to
date, they have not done so. Who is going to make them do it?
C&DS 3
This together with the constant truck noise, will greatly reduced our quality of life and enjoyment
of our place.
Kind regards,
Max S MacAuliffe.
C&DS 3
From: Anna Chabry
Sent: 28 Mar 2018 16:28:33 +1100
To: Justin Simons
Subject: Re: PA/18/0178 TRELOAR
Dear Justin,
Thank you for your reply. The other means of communication is by text on mob. 0409
938 178.
Our concern is mainly with lifestyle and health issues. We moved to this lovely cottage
on Beaumonts Rd, expecting to enjoy the peace and good air. I suffer from asthma and
the increased amount of dust that 20 trucks, at least, a day would definitely affect me.
This Summer we had a huge quantity of trucks delivering road base for TT for the
Dunorlan Road works. Then on top, we had the huge timber trucks taking the timber
plantation trees to their destination. As a result, we had to keep all windows/doors closed
to avoid health problems.
TT mentioned in their application that when the weather is dry, as it is in Summer, they
will spray water on the road to minimise the dust problem. This measure was not
implemented this Summer, as we noticed.
Also, the road has been demolished, there is hardly any gravel on the road. The road
signs are gone. My wife spoke to one of your colleagues in the Road Dept and he assured
her that the road would be refurbished. Nothing has been done, up to date.
Would you be so kind to pass these comments to whoever is in charge.
We don't have unreasonable requests, just that TT takes into consideration that rate
payers have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home and to their health.
Kind regards,
Max S MacAuliffe
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Justin Simons <[email protected]>

wrote:

Hi Max
Thank you for your submission regarding this application. Your concerns will be taken into
consideration during the assessment process by Council and the Environment Protection
Authority. You will be notified of the outcome of the application in due course. Should the
C&DS 3
application be considered at a Council Meeting an invitation to that meeting will be
forwarded to you. As this application is for a Level 2 Activity the process is relatively lengthy
and the final date of assessment and decision is not known. If you would like an update on
the process please feel free to call or email.
Please let us know if you have any other preferred means of contact aside from this email
address, as there may be times where we need to contact you at relatively short notice.
Kind regards
From: Anna Chabry [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 10:43 AM
Dear Holly Bean,
Yesterday, I received the Council's letter regarding the above mentioned PA and this is
the first time I heard about it. As I read, the application on online, I noticed that TT
mentions that they have consulted with the residents on Beaumonts Road, not such
consultation (by letter or personal visit) has occurred with us, and being at 71
Beaumonts Road, our residence is very much affected by the continue truck noise and
the constant deterioration of the road, as we have experience of late.
As TT mentions they have already acquired the lease for the second quarry, so I would
have to assume their application is already approved, why acquired when cannot use
it? Therefore,this letter sent by Council is just a make believe, to make it look that
Council has our interests at hand.
Very disappointed, but not surprised. As the only ones benefiting from the expansion
of the quarries are the Atkins, Meander Valley Council and of course, TT. I read in
their application that even they produce road base, they are not obliged to fix the road
that they are using to the extreme! Meaning that we rate payers are to pay for the road
fixing.
C&DS 3
Also, they mention that they will be making sure they water spray the road to reduce
dust, up to date, they have not done so. Who is going to make them do it?
This together with the constant truck noise, will greatly reduced our quality of life and
enjoyment of our place.
Kind regards,
Max S MacAuliffe.
Justin Simons | Town Planner

working together
T: 03 6393 5346 | F: 03 6393 1474 | E: [email protected] | W: www.meander.tas.gov.au

26 Lyall Street (PO Box 102), Westbury, TAS 7303
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Notice of confidential information

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, you are requested not to distribute or
photocopy this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the
original message.
Views and opinions expressed in this transmission are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Meander Valley Council.
C&DS 3
From: Anna Chabry
Sent: 12 Apr 2018 18:15:27 +1000
To: Justin Simons
Subject: Concerns of 71 Beaumonts Rd / Max S MacAuliffe - PA 18/0178
Dear Justin,
First of all, Max and I would like to thank you for your comprehensive consultation
regarding our concerns with PA/18/0178.
Having passed to Max the facts that you explained, our concerns are as follows:
a) Noise and dust pollution during extended periods of time, this would be detrimental
to our health and lifestyle, considering that the area is zoned Residential and not
Industrial.
b) Side-effects of blasting to our property, which sits at the bottom of the mountain,
some 520 metres approx. from the new quarry site. One of the possibly effects would be
the dislodgment and falling of heavy stones, some measuring 200-300 mm in diameter.
Why this is happening, we don’t know, possibly destabilization of the ground due to
water erosion after heavy rainy periods on the very steep slope or the blasts tremors?
c/ Which entity will carry out dully checks to ensure TT complies to their commitments
as stated in their PA, to water spray the road surface, during dry weather, in front of
affected residences.
Having clarifiedwith you the issue of road works, this is all we would like to put forward
to be considered in the Council meeting.
Since probably we will be absent, we would appreciate it if would kindly forward your
input of the meeting via email [email protected]
Kind regards,
Anna Chabry
On behalf of Max S MacAuliffe
C&DS 3
Level 6,134 Macquarie Street, HobartTAS
GPO Box 1550, Hobart, TAS 7001 Australia
Enquiries: Helen Mulligan

Ph: +61361654528
Email: [email protected] ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Web: www.epa.tas.gov.au
Our Ref: EN-EM-EV-DE-244904/H835265\Proponent Letter_6ABC_Decision
9 July 2018
Mr John Treloar
Treloar Transport Co
PO Box 21
SHEFFIELD TAS 7306
Dear Mr Treloar
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION

PUNCHES TERROR QUARRY, (DA 018\0178)
OFF BEAUMONT'S RD, DUNORLAN
I refer to the above application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
(LUPA Act). The environmental impact assessment of the application under the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the EMPC Act) has been completed.
The Board has delegated to me its functions and powers in relation to section 25 of the EMPC Act
in relation to this proposal.
In accordance with Section 25(5) of the EMPCAct, Meander Valley Council has been notified of the
decision and directed to include certain conditions in any permit granted for the activity under the
LUPA Act. A copy of these conditions, and the approved Environmental Assessment Report detailing
the reasons for my decision under delegation, are attached.
Council will advise you of its determination on the above permit application, and of your appeal rights,
in due course.
A once-off assessment fee is payable to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in relation to
the environmental assessment of the application. This fee has been determined in accordance with
the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (General) Regulations 2017 (the Fee
Regulations). An invoice for this fee will be issued once a decision on the permit has been made by
Meander Valley Council.
In the event that Meander Valley Council grants a permit, an annual fee is payable for the activity in
accordance with the Fee Regulations. An invoice for this fee will be issued once the Land Use
Planning and Approvals Act 1993 permit comes into effect.
A partial remission of the annual fee may be available in certain circumstances. Requirements for
fee remissions are described in the Annual Fee Remission Guidelines (refer to
http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/fees/annual-fee-remissions or telephone (03) 6165 4599 for a
printed copy). New activities may apply for a fee remission in the second year following
commencement of commercial operations.
C&DS 3
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Helen Mulligan on (03) 6165 4528.
Yours sincerely
Wes Ford
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Delegate for the Board of the Environment Protection Authority
End.
• Permit Part B - Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 9701
• Environmental Assessment Report
Cc. Mr Martin Gill, General Manager, Meander Valley Council, PO Box 102, Westbury Tas 7303
planning@mvc. tas. gov.au
C&DS 3
PCE9701(r1) 1/22
PERMIT PART B
PERMIT CONDITIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL No. 9701
Issued under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
Activity: The operation of a quarry (ACTIVITY TYPE: Crushing, grinding, Dulling or

separating into different sizes (rocks, ores or minerals))
PUNCHS TERROR QUARRY, ROCKTON 1240 WEEGENA ROAD
DUNORLAN TAS 7304
The above activity has been assessed as a level 2 activity under the Environmental Management
and Pollution Control Act 1994.
Acting under Section 25(5)(a)(i) of the EMPCA, the Board of the Environment Protection
Authority has required that this Permit Part B be included in any Permit granted under the Lan d Use
Planning and Approvals Act 1993 with respect to the above activity.
Municipality: MEANDER VALLEY

Permit Application Reference: DA2018/0178
EPA file reference: 244904
Date conditions approved: 9 July 2018
Signed:
</u^^^
DELEGATE FOR THE BOAJRD OF THE ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION AUTHORITY
C&DS 3
Meander Valley
DELEGATE Council
FOR OrdinaryOF
THE BOARD Meeting Agenda - 14 August
THE ENVIRONMENT 2018
PROTECTION AUTHORm' Page 451
PCE 9701 (r1) 2/22
DEFINITIONS
Unless the contrary appears, words and expressions used in this Permit Part B have the meaning
given to them in Schedule 1 of this Permit and in the EMPCA. If there is any inconsistency
between a definition in the EMPCA and a definition in this Permit Part B, the EMPCA prevails to
the extent of the inconsistency.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The person responsible for the activity must comply with the conditions contained in Schedule 2 of
this Permit Part B.
INFORMATION
Attention is drawn to Schedule 3, which contains important additional information.
9-07-2018
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
OF THEMeeting Agenda - 14PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENT August 2018 AUTHORITY Page 452
PCE 9701 (r1) 3/22
Table Of Contents
Schedule 1: Definitions....................................................................................................................... 5
Schedule 2: Conditions........................................................................................................................6
Maximum Quantities................................................................................................................. 6
Q1 Regulatory limits ..............................................................................................6
General.......................................................................................................................................6
G1 Access to and awareness of conditions and associated documents.................. 6
G2 Incident response...............................................................................................6
G3 No changes without approval............................................................................6
G4 Change of ownership........................................................................................ 6
G5 Complaints register........................................................................................... 6
Atmospheric...............................................................................................................................7
A1 Covering of vehicles......................................................................................... 7
A2 Control of dust emissions..................................................................................7
A3 Control of dust emissions from plant................................................................7
Blasting...................................................................................................................................... 7
B1 Blasting times....................................................................................................7
B2 Blasting - noise and vibration limits................................................................. 7
B3 Notification of blasting......................................................................................8
B4 Blast Management Plan.....................................................................................8
B5 Blast monitoring................................................................................................8
Decommissioning And Rehabilitation.......................................................................................8
DC1 Notification of cessation.................................................................................8
DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil..............................................................................9
DC3 Progressive rehabilitation............................................................................... 9
DC4 Temporary suspension of activity.................................................................. 9
DC5 DRP requirements.......................................................................................... 9
DC6 Rehabilitation following cessation................................................................. 9
Hazardous Substances..............................................................................................................10
H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials................................................. 10
H2 Spill kits.......................................................................................................... 10
H3 Handling of hazardous materials - mobile...................................................... 10
Monitoring............................................................................................................................... 10
M1 Water quality monitoring .............................................................................. 10
M2 Dealing with samples obtained for monitoring.............................................. 11
Noise Control........................................................................................................................... 12
N1 Noise emission limits...................................................................................... 12
N2 Drilling noise emission limits......................................................................... 12
N3 Noise survey requirements..............................................................................12
N4 Noise survey method and reporting requirements.......................................... 12
N5 Operating hours...............................................................................................13
N6 Notification of drilling.................................................................................... 13
Operations................................................................................................................................ 13
OP1 Protection of .................................................................................................13
OP2 Protection of potential den site..................................................................... 14
OP3 Weed management .......................................................................................14
Stormwater Management......................................................................................................... 14
SW1 Perimeter drains or bunds............................................................................ 14
SW2 Stormwater...................................................................................................14
SW3 Design and maintenance of settling ponds...................................................15
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 4/22
Schedule 3: Information.................................................................................................................... 16
Legal Obligations.....................................................................................................................16
LO1 EMPCA........................................................................................................ 16
LO2 Storage and handling of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous
substances............................................................................................................. 16
LO3 Aboriginal relics requirements..................................................................... 16
Other Information.................................................................................................................... 17
OI1 Notification of incidents under section 32 of EMPCA .................................17
OI2 Waste management hierarchy........................................................................17
OI3 Commitments.................................................................................................17
Attachments
Attachment 1: The Land (modified: 28/06/2018 15:39)..............................................................1 page
Attachment 2: Water sampling points (modified: 17/04/2018 15:27)......................................... 1 page
Attachment 3: Threatened species protection plan (modified: 17/04/2018 15:27)......................1 page
Attachment 4: Table of commitments (modified: 17/04/2018 15:32)....................................... 2 pages
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 5/22
Schedule 1: Definitions
In this Permit Part B:-
20,000 cubic metres per year is deemed equivalent to 32,000 tonnes per year.
Aboriginal Relic has the meaning described in section 2(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975.
Activity means any environmentally relevant activity (as defined in Section 3 of EMPCA) to which
this document relates, and includes more than one such activity.
Authorized Officer means an authorized officer under section 20 of EMPCA.
Best Practice Environmental Management or 'BPEM' has the meaning described in Section 4 of
EMPCA.
Director means the Director, Environment Protection Authority holding office under Section 18 of
EMPCA and includes a person authorised in writing by the Director to exercise a power or function
on the Director's behalf.
EMPCA means the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
Environmental Harm and Material Environmental Harm and Serious Environmental Harm
each have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 5 of EMPCA.
Environmental Nuisance and Pollutant each have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 3 of
EMPCA.
Environmentally Hazardous Material means any substance or mixture of substances of a nature

or held in quantities which present a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing serious or material
environmental harm if released to the environment and includes fuels, oils, waste and chemicals but
excludes sewage.
Noise Sensitive Premises means residences and residential zones (whether occupied or not),
schools, hospitals, caravan parks and similar land uses involving the presence of individual people
for extended periods, except in the course of their employment or for recreation.
Person Responsible is any person who is or was responsible for the environmentally relevant
activity to which this document relates and includes the officers, employees, contractors, joint
venture partners and agents of that person, and includes a body corporate.
Stormwater means water traversing the surface of the land as a result of rainfall.
Tasmanian Noise Measurement Procedures Manual means the document titled Noise
Measurement Procedures Manual, by the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the
Arts, dated July 2008, and any amendment to or substitution of this document.
The Land means the land on which the activity to which this document relates may be carried out,
and includes: buildings and other structures permanently fixed to the land, any part of the land
covered with water, and any water covering the land. The Land falls within the area defined by:
1 Certificates of title 143292/1 (PID 2531016) and 109390/1 (PID 6281755); and
2 as further delineated at Attachment 1 as extraction area.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 6/22
Schedule 2: Conditions
Maximum Quantities
Q1 Regulatory limits
1 The activity must not exceed the following limits :
1.1 20,000 cubic metres per year of rocks, ores or minerals processed.
General
G1 Access to and awareness of conditions and associated documents
A copy of these conditions and any associated documents referred to in these conditions must
be held in a location that is known to and accessible to the person responsible for the activity.
The person responsible for the activity must ensure that all persons who are responsible for
undertaking work on The Land, including contractors and sub-contractors, are familiar with
these conditions to the extent relevant to their work.
G2 Incident response
If an incident causing or threatening environmental nuisance, serious environmental harm or
material environmental harm from pollution occurs in the course of the activity, then the
person responsible for the activity must immediately take all reasonable and practicable action
to minimise any adverse environmental effects from the incident.
G3 No changes without approval

1 The following changes, if they may cause or increase the emission of a pollutant which
may cause material or serious environmental harm or environmental nuisance, must
only take place in relation to the activity if such changes have been approved in writing
by the EPA Board following its assessment of an application for a permit under the
Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, or approved in writing by the Director:
1.1 a change to a process used in the course of carrying out the activity; or
1.2 the construction, installation, alteration or removal of any structure or equipment
used in the course of carrying out the activity; or
1.3 a change in the quantity or characteristics of materials used in the course of
carrying out the activity.
G4 Change of ownership
If the owner of The Land upon which the activity is carried out changes or is to change, then,
as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 30 days after becoming aware of the
change or intended change in the ownership of The Land, the person responsible must notify
the Director in writing of the change or intended change of ownership.
G5 Complaints register
1 A public complaints register must be maintained and made available for inspection by
an Authorized Officer upon request. The public complaints register must, as a
minimum, record the following detail in relation to each complaint received in which it
is alleged that environmental harm (including an environmental nuisance) has been
caused by the activity:
1.1 the date and time at which the complaint was received;
1.2 contact details for the complainant (where provided);
1.3 the subject-matter of the complaint;
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 7/22
1.4 any investigations undertaken with regard to the complaint; and

1.5 the manner in which the complaint was resolved, including any mitigation
measures implemented.
2 Complaint records must be maintained for a period of at least 3 years.
Atmospheric
A1 Covering of vehicles
Vehicles carrying loads containing material which may blow or spill must be equipped with
effective control measures to prevent the escape of the materials from the vehicles when they
leave The Land or travel on public roads. Effective control measures may include tarpaulins
or load dampening.
A2 Control of dust emissions

Dust emissions from The Land must be controlled to the extent necessary to prevent
environmental nuisance beyond the boundary of The Land.
A3 Control of dust emissions from plant

1 Dust produced by the operation of all crushing and screening plant must be controlled
by the use of one or more of the following methods to the extent necessary to prevent
environmental nuisance:
1.1 the installation of fixed water sprays at all fixed crushers and at all points where
crushed material changes direction due to belt transfer;
1.2 the installation of dust extraction equipment at all fixed crushers and at all points
where crushed material changes direction due to belt transfer, and the
incorporation of such equipment with all vibrating screens;
1.3 the enclosure of the crushing and screening plant and the treatment of atmospheric
emissions by dust extraction equipment; and
1.4 any other method that has been approved in writing by the Director.
Blasting
B1 Blasting times
Blasting on The Land must take place only between the hours of 1000 hours and 1600 hours
Monday to Friday. Blasting must not take place on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays
unless prior written approval of the Director has been obtained.
B2 Blasting - noise and vibration limits

1 Blasting on The Land must be carried out in accordance with blasting best practice
environmental management (BPEM) principles, and must be carried out such that, when
measured at the curtilage of any residence (or other noise sensitive premises) in other
occupation or ownership, airblast overpressure and ground vibration comply with the
following:
1.1 for 95% of blasts, airblast overpressure must not exceed 115dB (Lin Peak);
1.2 airblast overpressure must not exceed 120dB (Lin Peak);
1.3 for 95% of blasts ground vibration must not exceed 5mm/sec peak particle
velocity; and
1.4 ground vibration must not exceed 10mm/sec peak particle velocity.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 8/22
2 All measurements of airblast overpressure and peak particle velocity must be carried out
in accordance with the methods set down in Technical basis for guidelines to minimise
annoyance due to blasting overpressure and ground vibration, Australian and New
Zealand Environment Council, September 1990.
B3 Notification of blasting
All residents within a 1 km radius of the activity must be notified on each occasion prior to
blasting on The Land. This notification must be given at least 24 hours before such blasting is
due to occur. In the event that the blast(s) cannot take place at the time specified, the
responsible person must advise all those residents within 1 km of the activity of the revised
time at which blasting will take place.
B4 Blast Management Plan

1 Within three months of the date on which these conditions take effect, or by a date
specified in writing by the Director, and prior to any blasting on The Land, a blast
management plan must be submitted to the Director for approval.
2 Without limitation, the plan must include details of the following:
2.1 Name and qualifications of the blasting contractor(s).
2.2 Location(s) of intended blasts.
2.3 Likely impacts beyond the boundary of The Land and within 1km of The Land
and how these will be mitigated.
2.4 Typical blast procedure, including how incidents will be reported and who must
be notified about blasts.
2.5 Blast risk assessment, showing how environmental nuisance to sensitive receptors
beyond the boundary of The Land and within 1km of The Land will be mitigated.
2.6 A monitoring program for air blast overpressure and ground vibrations.
3 The person responsible must not conduct any blasting unless in accordance with an
approved blasting plan.
4 All residents within a 1km radius of the activity must be notified on each occasion prior
to blasting on The Land. This notification must be given at least 24 hours before such
blasting is due to occur. In the event that the blast(s) cannot take place at the time
specified, the responsible person must advise all those residents within 1km of the
activity of the revised time at which blasting will take place.
B5 Blast monitoring
1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, blast monitoring must be
undertaken for each blast that occurs on The Land.
2 Blast monitoring must be carried out at location(s) agreed in writing by the Director.
3 In the event that ground vibration and/or airblast overpressure caused by a blast exceeds
a limit imposed by these conditions, the Director must be notified within seven days of
the blast, or as soon as is reasonable and practicable.
4 Blast monitoring records must be maintained for a period of at least two years and must
be made available to an authorized officer upon request.
Decommissioning And Rehabilitation

DC1 Notification of cessation
Within 30 days of becoming aware of any event or decision which is likely to give rise to the
permanent cessation of the activity, the person responsible for the activity must notify the
Director in writing of that event or decision. The notice must specify the date upon which the
activity is expected to cease or has ceased.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 9/22
DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil

Prior to commencement of extractive activities on any portion of The Land, surface soils must
be removed in that portion of The Land to be disturbed by the conduct of the activity and
stockpiled for later use in rehabilitation of The Land. Topsoil must be kept separate from
other overburden and protected from erosion or other disturbance.
DC3 Progressive rehabilitation

Worked out or disused sections of The Land must be rehabilitated concurrently with
extractive activities on other sections of The Land. Progressive rehabilitation must be carried
out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Quarry Code of Practice, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Director. The maximum disturbed area of land which
may remain, at any time, without rehabilitation is five hectares.
DC4 Temporary suspension of activity

1 Within 30 days of becoming aware of any event or decision which is likely to give rise
to the temporary suspension of the activity, the person responsible for the activity must
notify the Director in writing of that event or decision. The notice must specify the date
upon which the activity is expected to suspend or has suspended.
2 During temporary suspension of the activity:
2.1 The Land must be managed and monitored by the person responsible for the
activity to ensure that emissions from The Land do not cause serious
environmental harm, material environmental harm or environmental nuisance; and
2.2 If required by the Director a Care and Maintenance Plan for the activity must be
submitted, by a date specified in writing by the Director, for approval. The person
responsible must implement the approved Care and Maintenance Plan, as may be
amended from time to time with written approval of the Director.
3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, if the activity on The Land has
substantially ceased for 2 years or more, rehabilitation of The Land must be carried out
in accordance with the requirements of these conditions as if the activity has
permanently ceased.
DC5 DRP requirements

Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation
Plan (DRP) for the activity must be submitted for approval to the Director within 60 days of
the Director being notified of the planned cessation of the activity or by a date specified in
writing by the Director. The DRP must be prepared in accordance with any guidelines
provided by the Director.
DC6 Rehabilitation following cessation

1 Following permanent cessation of the activity, and unless otherwise approved in writing
by the Director, The Land must be rehabilitated including:
1.1 stabilisation of any land surfaces that may be subject to erosion;
1.2 removal or mitigation of all environmental hazards or land contamination, that
might pose an on-going risk of causing environmental harm; and
1.3 decommissioning of any equipment that has not been removed.
2 Where a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP) has been approved by the
Director, decommissioning and rehabilitation must be carried out in accordance with
that plan, as may be amended from time to time with written approval of the Director.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
ENVIRONMENT August 2018 AUTHORITY 9-07-2018Page 459
PCE 9701 (r1) 10/22
Hazardous Substances
H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, environmentally hazardous material
held on The Land, including chemicals, fuels and oils, must be located within impervious
bunded areas or spill trays which are designed and maintained to contain at least 110% of the
total volume of material.
H2 Spill kits
Spill kits appropriate for the types and volumes of materials handled on The Land must be
kept in appropriate locations to assist with the containment of spilt environmentally hazardous
materials.
H3 Handling of hazardous materials - mobile

1 Where mobile containment of environmentally hazardous materials is utilised for the
fuelling or servicing of mobile or fixed plant on The Land, all reasonable measures must
be implemented to prevent unauthorised discharge, emission or deposition of pollutants:
1.1 to soils within the boundary of The Land in a manner that is likely to cause
serious or material environmental harm;
1.2 to groundwater;
1.3 to waterways; or
1.4 beyond the boundary of The Land.
2 Reasonable measures may include spill kits, spill trays/bunds or absorbent pads, and
automatic cut-offs on any pumping equipment.
Monitoring
M1 Water quality monitoring
1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, for Table 1 below the person
responsible must, at the locations specified in Column 1, measure the level of each
parameter specified in Column 2, at the frequency specified in Column 3 and in the
units specified in Column 4.
2 For the purposes of this condition, water must be sampled as near as practicable to the
discharge point of the locations designated by the coordinates in Attachment 2.
3 For the purposes of this condition, water monitoring must commence within six months
of the date on which these conditions take effect and be conducted according to the
details specified in Table 1 for a minimum period of two years.
4 Monitoring results must be retained for a period of at least two years and made available
to an authorised officer on request.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
ENVIRONMENT August 2018 AUTHORITY
9-07-2018
Page 460
PCE 9701 (r1) 11/22
5 Table 1 Monitoring parameters for specified locations - Sediment retention ponds
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Location Parameter Frequency Units
PT1, PT2 pH (field Quarterly pH units
measurement)
PT1, PT2 Conductivity (field Quarterly Microsiemens/cm
measurement)
PT1, PT2 TSS Biannually mg/L
PT1, PT2 Acidity Biannually
PT1, PT2 Alkalinity Biannually meq/L
PT1, PT2 SO4 Biannually mg/L
PT1, PT2 Fe II (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
PT1, PT2 Al (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
PT1, PT2 Mn (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
PT1, PT2 Zn (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
PT1, PT2 Pb (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
PT1, PT2 Cu (unfiltered Biannually mg/L
total)
M2 Dealing with samples obtained for monitoring

1 Any sample or measurement required to be obtained under these conditions must be
taken and processed in accordance with the following:
1.1 Australian Standards, the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)
approved methods, the American Public Health Association Standard Methods for
the Analysis of Water and Waste Water or other standard(s) approved in writing
by the Director;
1.2 samples must be tested in a laboratory accredited by NATA, or a laboratory
approved in writing by the Director, for the specified test;
1.3 results of measurements and analysis of samples and details of methods employed
in taking measurements and samples must be retained for at least three (3) years
after the date of collection;
1.4 measurement equipment must be maintained and operated in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications and records of maintenance must be retained for at
least three (3) years; and
1.5 noise measurements must be undertaken in accordance with the Tasmanian Noise
Measurement Procedures Manual.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
ENVIRONMENT August 2018 AUTHORITY 9-07-2018
Page 461
PCE 9701 (r1) 12/22
Noise Control
N1 Noise emission limits
1 Noise emissions from the activity when measured at any noise sensitive premises in
other ownership and expressed as the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure
level must not exceed:
1.1 45 dB(A) between 0700 hours and 1700 hours (Day time); and
1.2 40 dB(A) between 1700 hours and 2200 hours (Evening time); and
1.3 35 dB(A) between 2200 hours and 0700 hours (Night time).
2 Where the combined level of noise from the activity and the normal ambient noise
exceeds the noise levels stated above, this condition will not be considered to be
breached unless the noise emissions from the activity are audible and exceed the
ambient noise levels by at least 5 dB(A).
3 The time interval over which noise levels are averaged must be 10 minutes or an
alternative time interval specified in writing by the Director.
4 Measured noise levels must be adjusted for tonality, impulsiveness, modulation and low
frequency in accordance with the Tasmanian Noise Measurement Procedures Manual.
5 All methods of measurement must be in accordance with the Tasmanian Noise
Measurement Procedures Manual.
N2 Drilling noise emission limits

1 When drilling is undertaken, the noise emission limits imposed by these conditions will
not be considered to be breached unless the noise emissions from the activity, when
measured at any noise sensitive premises in other ownership and expressed as the
equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, are audible and exceed 54
dB(A).
2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director, drilling must not take place
outside the hours of 0800 hours to 1600 hours, Monday to Friday.
3 Notwithstanding the above paragraph, drilling must must not be carried out on
Saturdays and Sundays and public holidays that are observed Statewide (Easter Tuesday
excepted).
N3 Noise survey requirements

1 Unless otherwise approved by the Director, a noise survey must be carried out:
1.1 during the first instance of drilling on The Land; and
1.2 within six (6) months of the date on which these conditions take effect and under
full operation, excluding drilling; and
1.3 at such other times as may reasonably be required by the Director by notice in
writing.
2 A report containing and discussing the noise survey results must be submitted to the
Director within 30 days of the survey occurring.
N4 Noise survey method and reporting requirements

1 Noise surveys must be undertaken in accordance with a survey method approved in
writing by the Director, as may be amended from time to time with written approval of
the Director.
2 Without limitation, the survey method must address the following:
2.1 measurements must be carried out at day, evening and night times (where
applicable) at each location; and
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 13/22
2.2 measurement locations, and the number thereof, must be specified, with one
location established as a control location (noise).
3 Measurements and data recorded during the survey must include:
3.1 operational status of noise producing equipment and throughput of the activity;
3.2 subjective descriptions of the sound at each location;
3.3 details of meteorological conditions relevant to the propagation of noise;
3.4 the equivalent continuous (Leq) and L1, L10, L50, L90 and L99 A-weighted sound
pressure levels measured over a period of 10 minutes or an alternative time
interval approved by the Director;
3.5 one-third octave spectra over suitably representative periods of not less than 1
minute; and
3.6 narrow-band spectra over suitably representative periods of not less than 1 minute.
4 A noise survey report must be forwarded to the Director within 30 days from the date
on which the noise survey is completed.
5 The noise survey report must include the following:
5.1 the results and interpretation of the measurements required by these conditions;
5.2 a map of the area surrounding the activity with the boundary of The Land,
measurement locations, and noise sensitive premises clearly marked on the map;
5.3 any other information that will assist with interpreting the results and whether the
activity is in compliance with these conditions and EMPCA; and
5.4 recommendations of appropriate mitigation measures to manage any noise
problems identified by the noise survey.
N5 Operating hours
1 Unless otherwise approved by the Director, activities associated with the extraction of
rock, gravel, sand, clay or minerals, and loading of product, excluding drilling and
blasting but including screening/crushing, must not be undertaken outside the hours of
0700 hours to 1700 hours on weekdays and 0800 hours to 1500 hours on Saturdays.
2 Notwithstanding the above paragraph, activities must not be carried out on public
holidays that are observed Statewide (Easter Tuesday excepted).
N6 Notification of drilling
1 Prior to each instance of operating the drilling rig on The Land in accordance with the
conditions of this permit, the Director, General Manager of the Meander Valley Council
and all sensitive receptors within a 1,000m radius of the boundary of The Land must be
notified in writing of the intention to undertake drilling.
2 The notification must include a schedule specifying the dates on which drilling will
occur.
3 The notification must be delivered at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of
drilling.
Operations
OP1 Protection of Gratiola pubescens
1 The interface between the existing footprint of the Activity and Gratiola pubescens, as
identified in Attachment 3, must be delineated with a fence or similar method approved
in writing by the Director within 60 days of the date on which these permit conditions
take effect;
2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director:
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 14/22
2.1 there must be no stockpiling of materials within five metres of this fence; and
2.2 there must be no disturbance of the vegetation beyond this fence; and
2.3 the Activity must be conducted in a manner that does not cause degradation or
disturbance (including sedimentation) to Gratiola pubescens.
OP2 Protection of potential den site

1 The interface between the existing footprint of the Activity and a potential den site for
Tasmanian devil or spotted tailed quoll, as identified in Attachment 3, must be
delineated with a fence or similar method approved in writing by the Director within 60
days of the date on which these permit conditions take effect;
2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director:
2.1 there must be no disturbance of the vegetation beyond this fence; and
2.2 the Activity must be conducted in a manner that does not cause degradation or
disturbance (including sedimentation) to the potential den site.
OP3 Weed management

1 Within three months of the date on which these conditions take effect, or by a date
otherwise specified in writing by the Director, a Weed & Disease Management Plan
must be submitted to the Director for approval. This requirement will be deemed to be
satisfied only when the Director indicates in writing that the submitted document
adequately addresses the requirements of this condition to his or her satisfaction.
2 The plan must be consistent with the Washdown Guidelines, or any subsequent
revisions of that document.
3 The person responsible must implement and act in accordance with the approved plan.
4 In the event that the Director, by notice in writing to the person responsible, either
approves a minor variation to the approved plan or approves a new plan in substitution
for the plan originally approved, the person responsible must implement and act in
accordance with the varied plan or the new plan, as the case may be.
Stormwater Management
SW1 Perimeter drains or bunds
1 Perimeter cut-off drains, or bunds, must be constructed at strategic locations on The
Land to prevent surface run-off from entering the area used or disturbed in carrying out
the activity. All reasonable measures must be implemented to ensure that sediment
transported along these drains, or bunds, remains on The Land. Such measures may
include provision of strategically located sediment fences, appropriately sized and
maintained sediment settling ponds, vegetated swales, detention basins and other
measures designed and operated in accordance with the principles of Water Sensitive
Urban Design.
2 Drains, or bunds, must have sufficient capacity to contain run-off that could reasonably
be expected to arise during a 1 in 20 year rainfall event. Maintenance activities must be
undertaken regularly to ensure that this capacity does not diminish.
SW2 Stormwater
1 Polluted stormwater that will be discharged from The Land must be collected and
treated prior to discharge to the extent necessary to prevent serious or material
environmental harm, or environmental nuisance.
2 Notwithstanding the above, all stormwater that is discharged from The Land must not
carry pollutants such as sediment, oil and grease in quantities or concentrations that are
likely to degrade the visual quality of any receiving waters outside the Land.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 15/22
3 All reasonable measures must be implemented to ensure that solids entrained in

stormwater are retained on The Land. Such measures may include appropriately sized
and maintained sediment settling ponds or detention basins.
4 Stormwater discharged in accordance with this condition must not be directed to sewer
without the approval of the operator of the sewerage system.
SW3 Design and maintenance of settling ponds

1 Sediment settling ponds must be designed and maintained in accordance with the
following requirements:
1.1 ponds must be designed to successfully mitigate reasonably foreseeable sediment
loss which would result from a 1 in 20 year storm event;
1.2 discharge from ponds must occur via a stable spillway that is not subject to
erosion;
1.3 all pond walls must be stable and treated with topsoil and vegetated or otherwise
treated in such a manner as to prevent erosion; and
1.4 sediment settling ponds must be periodically cleaned out to ensure that the pond
design capacity is maintained. Sediment removed during this cleaning must be
securely deposited such that sediment will not be transported off The Land by
surface run-off.
C&DS 3
9-07-2018
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
PCE 9701 (r1) 16/22
Schedule 3: Information
Legal Obligations
LO1 EMPCA
The activity must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and Regulations thereunder. The conditions of
this document must not be construed as an exemption from any of those requirements.
LO2 Storage and handling of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous substances
1 The storage, handling and transport of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous
substances must comply with the requirements of relevant State Acts and any
regulations thereunder, including:
1.1 Work Health and Safety Act 2012 and subordinate regulations;
1.2 Explosives Act 2012 and subordinate regulations; and
1.3 Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2010 and subordinate
regulations.
LO3 Aboriginal relics requirements

1 The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975, provides legislative protection to Aboriginal
heritage sites in Tasmania regardless of site type, condition, size or land tenure. Section
14(1) of the Act states that; Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall,
otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a permit granted by the Minister on the
recommendation of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife:
1.1 destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic;
1.2 make a copy or replica of a carving or engraving that is a relic by rubbing, tracing,
casting or other means that involve direct contact with the carving or engraving;
1.3 remove a relic from the place where it is found or abandoned;
1.4 sell or offer or expose for sale, exchange, or otherwise dispose of a relic or any
other object that so nearly resembles a relic as to be likely to deceive or be
capable of being mistaken for a relic;
1.5 take a relic, or permit a relic to be taken, out of this State; or
1.6 cause an excavation to be made or any other work to be carried out on Crown land
for the purpose of searching for a relic.
2 If a relic is suspected and/or identified during works then works must cease immediately
and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and the Aboriginal Heritage
Tasmania be contacted for advice before work can continue. In the event that damage to
an Aboriginal heritage site is unavoidable a permit under section 14 of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1975 must be applied for. The Minister may refuse an application for a
permit, where the characteristics of the relics are considered to warrant their
preservation.
3 Anyone finding an Aboriginal relic is required under section 10 of the Act to report that
finding as soon as practicable to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife or an
authorized officer under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975. It is sufficient to report the
finding of a relic to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania to fulfil the requirements of section
10 of the Act.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
PCE 9701 (r1) 17/22
Other Information
OI1 Notification of incidents under section 32 of EMPCA
Where a person is required by section 32 of EMPCA to notify the Director of the release of a
pollutant, the Director can be notified by telephoning 1800 005 171 (a 24-hour emergency
telephone number).
OI2 Waste management hierarchy

1 Wastes should be managed in accordance with the following hierarchy of waste
management:
1.1 waste should be minimised, that is, the generation of waste must be reduced to the
maximum extent that is reasonable and practicable, having regard to best practice
environmental management;
1.2 waste should be re-used or recycled to the maximum extent that is practicable;
and
1.3 waste that cannot be re-used or recycled must be disposed of at a waste depot site
or treatment facility that has been approved in writing by the relevant planning
authority or the Director to receive such waste, or otherwise in a manner approved
in writing by the Director.
OI3 Commitments
The person responsible for the activity has a general environmental duty to conduct the
activity in accordance with the commitments contained in Attachment 4.
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
Page 467
Attachment 1: The Land
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
Attachment 2: Water sampling points
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
Page 469
Attachment 3: Threatened species protection plan
C&DS 3
MeanderFOR
DELEGATE Valley
THECouncil
BOARD Ordinary
9-07-2018
TABLE OF COMMITMENTS BY APPLICANT – TRELOAR
TRANSPORT CO – PUNCHES TERROR QUARRY, DUNORLAN
Commitment Detail When

type & no.
Flora & fauna
5 Delineate areas of listed threatened Prior to activity
species. commencing
6 Cordon off potential devil den. Prior to activity
commencing
Weed &
disease
management
9 Provide updated weed management plan. Within 3
months of
permit taking
effect
Aquatic and
stormwater
3 Install larger sediment pond in lease Prior to activity
28M/1990. commencing
11 Monitor settling ponds biannually to Biannual
maintain 1:20 year flood capacity. basis.
Air emissions
2 Use water cart as required to dampen Ongoing.
road surface.
Blasting
12 Monitor all blasts for ground vibration and Ongoing.
blast overpressure.
Transport
1 Trucks to travel at 20 km/hr on Ongoing.
Beaumont’s Road to limit dust emissions.
Rehabilitation
13 Stockpile top soil where possible for the Ongoing.
purpose of rehabilitation.
14 Monitor revegetation biannually for two
years, then annually for a further three
years.
15 Maintain earthen bund and “open pit” Ongoing.
signs after closure.
C&DS 3
9-07-2018
Noise control
4 Conduct noise assessment if quarry As necessary.
operations are likely to occur on northern
slope of Punches Terror.
C&DS 3
9-07-2018
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Punches Terror Quarry Expansion
Beaumonts Rd, Dunorlan
Treloar Transport Pty Ltd
Board of the Environment Protection Authority
July 2018
Environmental Assessment Report Treloar Transport Pty Ltd – Punches T quarry expansion, Dunorlan
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018
I Page 473
Environmental Assessment Report
Proponent Treloar Transport Pty Ltd
Proposal Punches Terror quarry expansion
Location Off Beaumonts Rd, Dunorlan
NELMS no. PCE 9701
Permit application 18/0178 (Meander Valley Council)

no.
Doc1 folder EN-EM-EV-DE-244904
Doc1 no. H835265
Class of 2B
Assessment
Assessment process milestones

06/06/2017 Notice of Intent submitted
05/07/2017 DPEMP Guidelines issued
06/03/2018 Permit application submitted to Council
08/03/2018 Referral received by Board
24/03/2018 Start of public consultation period
26/04/2018 End of public consultation period
28/06/2018 Draft conditions reviewed by proponent
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August II
2018 Page 474
Acronyms
Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority
DPEMP Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan
DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
EIA Environmental impact assessment
EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
EMPCS Environmental management and pollution control system
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
LOM Life of Mine
LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

QCoP Quarry Code of Practice 2017
RMPS Resource management and planning system
SD Sustainable development
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August III
2018 Page 475
Report summary
This report provides an environmental assessment of Treloar Transport Pty Ltd’s proposed
intensification of use of two existing quarries off Beaumont’s Rd, Dunorlan.
The proposal involves extraction (by blasting) then crushing and screening of chert conglomerate to
produce gravels at two existing quarries (mining leases 1007P/M and 28M/1990) off Beaumont’s Rd,
Dunorlan.The production limit will increase from a maximum combined amount of 10,000m3 to a
maximum combined amount of 20,000m3 per year. For a typical year, up to two blasts are anticipated
between the leases. In the initial 3 years at 28M/1990, four smaller blasts may occur each year in
order to re-establish upper benches. The closest sensitive receptor, a residential dwelling, occurs
about 400m northwest of 28M/1990’s nominal centre.
This report has been prepared based on information provided by the proponent in the Development
Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP). Relevant government agencies and the
public have been consulted and their submissions and comments considered as part of this
assessment.
Further details of the assessment process are presented in section 1 of this report. Section 2
describes the statutory objectives and principles underpinning the assessment. Details of the
proposal are provided in section 3. Section 4 reviews the need for the proposal and considers the
proposal, site and design alternatives. Section 5 summarises the public and agency consultation
process and the key issues raised in that process. The detailed evaluation of key issues is in
section 6, and other issues are evaluated in section 7 and Appendix 1. The report conclusions are
contained in section 8.
Appendix 2 contains environmental permit conditions for the proposal. Attachment 2 of the permit
conditions contains the table of commitments from the DPEMP. The environmental permit conditions
in Appendix 2 are a new set of operating conditions for the entire, intensified activity that will
supersede the existing permit conditions.
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August IV
2018 Page 476
Table of Contents
1 Approvals process.................................................................................... 6
2 SD objectives and EIA principles.............................................................. 7
3 The proposal ............................................................................................ 8
4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 13
5 Public and agency consultation .............................................................. 14
6 Evaluation of key issues ......................................................................... 15
6.1 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 15
6.2 Blasting impacts.............................................................................................................. 20
6.3 Dust impacts ................................................................................................................... 22
7 Other issues ........................................................................................... 24
8 Report conclusions................................................................................. 25
9 References............................................................................................. 27
10 Appendices ......................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues .............................................................................. 29
Appendix 2 Permit Conditions - Environmental .................................................................... 37
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August V
C&DS 3
2018 Page 477
1 Approvals process
A Notice of Intent in relation to the proposal was received by the Board of the Environment Protection
Authority (the Board) on 6 June 2017.
An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in
relation to the proposal was submitted to Meander Valley Council on 6 March 2018.
The proposal is defined as two ‘level 2’ activities under clauses 5(a) and 6(a)(ii), schedule 2 of the
Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being:
• 5(a) an extractive industry, the extraction of any rock or gravel and producing 5 000 cubic metres
or more of rock or gravel per year; and
• 6(a)(ii) materials handling, namely processing (by crushing, grinding, milling or separating into
different sizes by sieving, air elutriation or in any other manner) of rock, ores or minerals at a rate
in excess of 1 000 cubic metres per year.
Council was required under section 25(1) of the EMPC Act to refer the application to the Board of
the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was
received by the Board on 8 March 2018.
The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority, under
delegation from the Board.
The Board required that information to support the proposal be provided in the form of a Development
Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) prepared in accordance with guidelines
issued by the Board on 5 July 2017. Meander Valley Council also requested that a number of matters
relevant to its assessment be included in the DPEMP.
Several drafts of the DPEMP were submitted to the EPA for comment before it was finalised and
accepted on behalf of the Board. The final DPEMP was then submitted to Council with the permit
application. The DPEMP was released for public inspection for a 28-day period commencing on 24
March 2018. Advertisements were placed in The Examiner and on the EPA website. The DPEMP
was also referred at that time to relevant government agencies for comment. One public submission
was received.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 478
2 SD objectives and EIA principles
The proposal must be considered by the Board in the context of the objectives of the Resource
Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the
Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) (both sets of objectives are
specified in Schedule 1 the EMPC Act). The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce
the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to further the RMPS and
EMPCS objectives.
The Board must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental
Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 479
3 The proposal
Chert-conglomerate material will continue to be won by drilling and blasting. About two blasts each
year are forecast, each liberating up to 10 000m3. Up to four smaller blasts per year, yielding about
5,000m3 per blast, may be required during the initial 3 years at lease 28M/1990 to re-establish upper
benches.
Shot rock will be crushed and screened, then formed into product stockpiles for loading and dispatch.
On the northern lease, 28M/1990, mining will occur in easterly and northeasterly directions from the
existing footprint. On the southern lease, 1007P/M, material will be extracted to the north and east.
Please refer to Figure 2 of this report.
No permanent site based amenities will be provided. The quarry will operate on a campaign basis.
The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the
proposal is provided in Section 2 of the DPEMP.
Table 1: Summary of the proposal’s main characteristics
Activity
Extraction and crushing and screening of a maximum of 32,000 tonnes (20 000 cubic metres) of chert-
conglomerate material per annum.
Location and planning context
Location Off Beaumonts Rd, Dunorlan, as shown in Figure 1.
Land zoning Rural resource (Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013).
Land tenure Private freehold (CT 109390/1) and Crown Land (CT 143292/1)
Mining leases 28M/1990 and 1007P/M
Lease area 39ha (28M/1990)
4ha (1007P/M)
Existing bond $15 000 (28M/1990)
$5 500 (1007P/M)
Proposed bond $10 000 (1007P/M)
Not available (28M/1990)
Existing site
Land Use Extractive activity, forestry and agriculture.
Topography The site that hosts the existing quarries is located on the southwest side of a north-
south aligned ridge. The site slopes south and west, ultimately draining to tributaries
of Lobster Rivulet about 1km southwest of 1007P/M.
Geology and The leases are situated on a band of thick bedded massive siliceous conglomerates,
soils with minor quartz sandstone lenses. According to Section 5.2 of the DPEMP, there
are no acid sulphate soils mapped near the proposed mining areas.
Hydrology According to Section 6.2.1 of the DPEMP, there are no recognised watercourses in
the vicinity of the the proposal. Drainage ultimately reports to tributaries of Lobster
Rivulet about 1km southwest of 1007P/M. Water from Lobster Rivulet is used for
irrigation upstream of the extractive activity.
A drainage plan for the site is included in Section 2.5 of the DPEMP as Figure 5.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 480
Fauna Two Flora and Fauna Assessments (North Barker Ecosystem Services) are included
with the DPEMP as Appendix A. According to these assessments, no fauna species
listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
(TSPA) were detected during the field survey. A number of threatened fauna species
are, however, known to occur within 5 km of the activity, including:
• Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi)
• Grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae)
• Cattle egret (Ardea ibis)
• Azure kingfisher (Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis)
• Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus)
Table 2 of Appendix A of the DPEMP contains the full list of fauna species of
conservation significance previously recorded within 5 km radius of the site.
Flora The assessments identified three vegetation communities on site, mapped as dry
Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS; TASVEG v3.0),
dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest (DOB) and extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM). DAS is
listed as threatened under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA).
One occurrence of the herb Hairy brooklime (Gratiola pubescens) listed as
threatened under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA)
was observed during the field survey on lease 1007P/M. A number of other
threatened flora species are, however, known to occur within 5 km of the activity,
including:
• Grassland cupflower (Colobanthus curtisiae)
• Curved riceflower (Pimelea curviflora)
• Tailed spider orchid (Caladenia caudate)
Table 1 of Appendix A contains the full list of flora species of conservation
significance previously recorded within 5 km radius of the site.
Local region
Climate According to Section 5.2 of the DPEMP, the annual median temperature for 2016
ranged from 10.9°C to 24.0°C. The annual median rainfall at nearby Kimberly
(Mersey River) is 969.3mm.
Surrounding Zoning - Rural Resource.
land zoning,
Lease 28M/1990 forms part of an informal reserve on permanent timber production
tenure and
land managed by Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT). Private timber reserves are
uses
located immediately east and south of 28M/1990.
The site is also surrounded by private freehold land, used for agricultural purposes.
Species of Hairy brooklime (Gratiola pubescens) listed as threatened under the Tasmanian
conservation Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA).
significance
Proposed infrastructure
Major Section 2.1 of the DPEMP lists major equipment as:
equipment
• Face loader: 20t Cat excavator
• Crusher: Terex mobile crusher / screen
• Stockpile loader: Cat 950
• Trucks: Truck and dog combination 30t capacity
Inputs
Water Water for dust suppression and washing equipment.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 481
Energy Diesel for mobile plant and equipment.
Other raw Blasting reagents and equipment as required.
materials
Wastes and emissions
Liquid Stormwater runoff from extraction and stockpile areas.
Atmospheric Dust from drilling and blasting, excavating, crushing and screening, mobile plant and
traffic movements.
Solid General refuse including food scraps, paper and packaging, machinery
consumables.
General inert wastes such as metal waste to be collected periodically.
Controlled Waste engine oil.
wastes
Portable chemical toilet, used during crushing and screening campaigns, will
generate sanitary waste.
Noise From drilling and blasting, excavating, crushing and screening, mobile plant and
traffic movements.
Greenhouse Section 6.8 of the DPEMP states blasting and operation of mobile equipment will
gases emit greenhouse gases (GHG). No annual estimate for GHG emitted was provided.
Operations
Operating 0700 to 1700 hours, Monday to Friday
hours
0800 to 1500 hours Saturday
(ongoing)
C&DS 3
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August10
2018 Page 482
Figure 1: Proposed location (Figure 3 of the DPEMP)
C&DS 3
2018 Page 483
Figure 2: Site plan showing major features, equipment & mining directions (Figure 6 of the DPEMP).
C&DS 3
2018 Page 484
4 Need for proposal and alternatives
Section 3 of the DPEMP states the site was selected because of the existing quarry on lease
1007P/M, and the proponent’s recent acquisition of the former Meander Valley Council lease
28M/1990, in an area which opens new business opportunities for the proponent. The intensification
of use is required due to new markets opening up in the Meander Valley region.
The DPEMP did not contain any details concerning site alternatives, or the potential consequences
of the development not proceeding.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 485
5 Public and agency consultation
A summary of the public representation and government agency/body submissions is contained in

Appendix 1 of this report.
One representation was received. The main issues raised in the representation included:
• Noise and dust pollution

• Potential blast impacts
The DPEMP was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the
proposal. Responses were received from the following:
• Department of State Growth, Mineral Resources Tasmania
The following Divisions/areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment also provided submissions on the DPEMP:
• Scientific Officer (Water), EPA Tasmania

• Regulatory Officer (Mining and extractive unit), EPA Tasmania
• Noise Specialist, EPA Tasmania
• Scientific Officer (Air unit), EPA Tasmania
• Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT)
• Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB), Natural and Cultural Heritage Division
Section 4 of the DPEMP lists a number of parties that the proponent has consulted with, including:
• Local residents
• MC and B Atkins as the land owner of lease 1007P/M
• Sustainable Timbers Tasmania as land manager of the Crown Land on lease 28M/1990
• Department of State Growth - Mineral Resources Tasmania
C&DS 3
2018 Page 486
6 Evaluation of key issues
The key environmental issues relevant to the proposal that were identified for detailed evaluation in
this report were:
• Noise
• Blasting impacts
• Dust impacts
Each of these issues is discussed in the following subsections.
6.1 Noise
Appendix B (Noise Survey and Report) of the DPEMP identifies the major local sources of noise,
including:
• Wind in trees
• Bird calls
• Traffic
• Stock
• Aircraft
Section 6.4.1, Table 5 of the DPEMP also lists the major likely noise sources from the proposed
intensification of use, including drilling and blasting, ripping, crushing and screening and the use of
other mobile plant (e.g. loaders, excavators). Section 2.1 of the DPEMP states operating hours will
be within the acceptable standard (operating hours) of the Quarry Code of Practice 2017 (QCoP)
(namely 07:00 to 19:00hrs Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 16:00hrs Saturday and no operations on
Sundays).
Figure 3 below (Figure 11 of the DPEMP) shows the number of sensitive receptors within a 1 km
radius of the proposal. Nineteen were identified; the closest, a residential dwelling, occurs about
400m northwest of 28M/1990’s nominal centre.
Ambient noise monitoring
The Noise Survey and Report shows background noise levels were measured at two locations, on
and nearby the proposed site (Figure 10, DPEMP). Background (L90) levels remained below 30
dB(A), while ambient (LAeq) levels were recorded as 33 dB(A) at location one (floor of 28M/1990) and
50 dB(A) at location two (56 Chesneys Rd, approximately 700m northwest of 28M/1990). Variations
in baseline ambient noise were attributed to wind in trees and bird calls (location one), and wind in
trees, bird calls and passing traffic (location two).
Noise emission criteria and modelling
Section 6.4.3 of the DPEMP indicates the QCoP acceptable standard for level of noise will be
adopted, namely:
• 45 dB(A) from 0700 to 1900 hours (daytime)
• 40 dB(A) from 1900 to 2200 hours (evening); and
C&DS 3
2018 Page 487
• 35 dB(A) from 2200 to 0700 hours the following day (night time)
Based on topographic profiles and measured ambient and background noise levels, the likely noise
levels at several locations around the extractive activity were calculated. Modelling assumed a 2m
high berm around the lip of each existing quarry floor, the likely locations of crush and screen
equipment. A sound power level of 112 dB(A) was assumed for the crusher.
Table 6 of the DPEMP lists the calculated noise levels at three nearby sensitive receptors, for noise
originating from quarry operations at each lease. All estimates were less than the QCoP daytime
noise criterion of 45 dB(A), the highest prediction being approximately 37 dB(A) at a Chesney Rd
residence 605m northwest of 28M/1990.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 488
Figure 3: Locations of nearby sensitive receptors relative to proposed crusher locations (northern lease 28M/1990) (Figure 11, DPEMP)
C&DS
17 3 Page 489
Management measures
Section 9 (Commitments) of the DPEMP includes the following commitment concerning noise:
Commitment 4 – Conduct a noise assessment if quarry operations are likely to occur on northern
slope of Punches Terror.
Section 6.4.4 of the DPEMP also lists a number of mitigation and control measures regarding noise,
including:
• Maintaining a vegetative buffer around quarrying operations
• Restricting crusher/screening operations to lower benches
• Using low traffic speed, with no engine braking on gravel section of Beaumonts Road and
through Dunorlan township.
This Section also states the proponent will maintain a public complaints register.
Public and agency comment and responses

The following comment regarding noise was raised during the public representation period:
• Noise would be detrimental to the representor’s health and lifestyle, given the area is zoned
‘residential’ rather than ‘industrial’.
The Scientific Officer (Noise) provided the following comments:
• Provide sound power levels for the loader and drill rig and discuss the likely effect of these
on resulting noise levels. Provide the duration over which drilling is anticipated to occur.
Evaluation
The noise emission criteria selected by the proponent are appropriate given the results of ambient
sound level monitoring. The criteria accord with the acceptable standard (level of noise) outlined in
the QCoP. Condition N1 (noise emission limits) is imposed to specify the noise limits which apply for
daytime, evening and night time periods. All quarrying tasks, excluding drilling but including
operations at or near the surface, in close proximity and with possible line of sight to sensitive
receptors (e.g. overburden removal), must comply with these limits when measured at any noise
sensitive premises in other ownership.
The methodology adopted to estimate noise levels at nearby receivers, including the modelled
operating scenarios, is also fit for purpose. As such, the modelled output is accepted as relevant for
the purposes of assessing potential impacts at noise sensitive receptors.
The EPA Noise Specialist considered the additional information provided by the proponent
concerning loader and drill rig noise and concurred that the calculated levels at the nearest dwellings
were of the likely order of magnitude. Given the drill rig’s (estimated) elevated noise levels, the
proponent must conduct a noise survey in accordance with condition N3 during the first occasion of
drilling to demonstrate that drilling can occur without compromising the noise limit specified in
condition N2 (drilling noise emission limits). Another noise survey is also considered necessary
within six months of the permit taking effect, to demonstrate that the full operation, excluding drilling,
can comply with noise limits specified in N1. The specified noise limit for drilling, 54 dB(A) when
measured at any noise sensitive premises in other ownership, is considered reasonable given the
proposed infrequent nature of drilling (three occasions of approximately three days per year) and
likely mitigating effects of prevailing westerly weather. Condition N2 also restricts drilling hours to
08:00 -16:00hrs Monday – Friday. Notification of drilling events is appropriate and specified in
condition N6 (notification of drilling). Condition N4 outlines the required noise survey method and
reporting requirements.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 490
Maintaining a vegetative screen around quarry operations and restricting crushing and screening to
lower benches will be critical in attenuating quarry noise and limiting the potential for noise nuisance.
Effective implementation of these proposed management measures is also important because at the
proposed maximum extent of the quarry, the QCoP’s suggested separation distances to sensitive
uses (crushing) will not be met.
Confining other quarrying operations likely to cause noise, such as crushing and screening, to
specific hours of operation (N5) will also mitigate against noise impacts. Consistent with the request
stated in the DPEMP, hours of operation will be 07:00hrs and 17:00hrs weekdays and 08:00hrs and
15:00hrs Saturdays.
It is agreed the risk of causing noise nuisance may increase should extractive activity occur in the
northern section of lease 28M/1990 (see Figure 3, this report). While the mining plan provided in the
DPEMP does not forecast such a scenario within the initial ten years of operation, condition N3 (1.3)
will allow the Director to require a noise assessment prior to any quarrying on the northern slopes of
Punches Terror. Exercising this requirement (for a noise survey) accords with the proponent’s
Commitment 4 to conduct a noise assessment where quarrying is forecast to occur on the northern
slopes of Punches Terror.
With regard to quarry noise and potential impacts to public health, the conditions for noise control
proposed above are considered adequate to avoid environmental nuisance at nearby receptors.
Furthermore, given the representor’s residence is separated by at least 500m from the intensifying
activity, and well screened by native vegetation, environmental nuisance due to noise is not
considered likely.
Conclusions
The proponent will be required to comply with the following conditions:
G1 Access to and awareness of conditions
G2 Incident response
G3 No changes without approval
G4 Change of ownership
G5 Complaints register
N1 Noise emission limits
N2 Drilling noise emission limits
N3 Noise survey requirements
N4 Noise survey method and reporting requirements
N5 Operating hours
N6 Notification of drilling
C&DS 3
2018 Page 491
6.2 Blasting impacts
Description
Drilling and blasting is necessary to liberate the parent material. The DPEMP states up to four blasts
per year may be required over the initial three years of activity to re-establish upper benches on
lease 28M/1990. For a typical operating year, the proponent forecasts up to two blasts per year
between the two leases.
Predictions for ground vibration and air blast overpressure at two locations within 1 km of the
proposed extractive activity were provided in Table 7 of the DPEMP. Predictions assumed a 32kg
and 47kg charge mass/delay respectively. Results were compared with the acceptable standard
(blasting control) outlined in the QCoP.
Results are summarised as follows:
• Predicted ground vibration levels were below the 5 mm/s limit at a distance of 390m from a
blast at 28M/1990 and at a distance of 870m from a blast at 1007P/M.
• Predicted air blast overpressure levels were below 115 dB (Lin peak) at both the distances
outlined above.
The proponent concluded that blast events were likely to comply with the acceptable standard
(blasting control) outlined in the QCoP.
Management measures
Section 9 (Commitments) of the DPEMP includes the following commitment concerning blasting:
Commitment 12 - Monitor all blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure.
Section 6.4.4 of the DPEMP also lists a number of mitigation and control measures regarding
blasting, including:
• Maintaining a vegetative buffer around quarrying operations.
• Operating and blasting within QCoP specified hours of operation.
• Minimising the frequency of blasting where possible.
This Section also states the proponent will conduct blast monitoring in accordance with its blast
management plan (DPEMP, Appendix C).

The following comment regarding blasting was raised during the public representation period:
• A concern that blasting may dislodge stones upslope of the representor’s residence.
Evaluation
As noted at Issue 1 (Noise), there are a number of sensitive receptors (rural residences) within the
QCoP’s recommended separation distance (blasting) of 1km. While estimates for ground vibration
and air blast overpressure at the nearest of these dwellings (about 400m from 28M/1990) are below
their respective QCoP limits, careful blast design will be necessary to avoid exceeding these limits
and causing nuisance. Standard condition B2 (blasting-noise and vibration limits) is imposed to
require blasts to meet the acceptable standard (blasting control) for ground vibration and air blast
overpressure as prescribed in the QCP.
The proposed blasting period is consistent with the QCoP and standard management measures.
Standard condition B1 (blasting times) makes explicit the times within which blasting is to occur.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 492
Since blasting is planned to occur in close proximity to sensitive receptors, and consistent with the
QCoP, each blast must be monitored in accordance with standard condition B5 (blast monitoring).
This condition specifies that ground vibration and overpressure exceedances must be reported to
the Director within seven days or as soon as practicable.
Given the substantial number of dwellings within 1km of proposed blasts, it will be necessary to notify
residents of the intent to blast, as imposed by standard condition B3 (notification of blasting). In
addition, as a number of blasts are expected to occur each year, the proponent will be required to
prepare and conduct blasts in accordance with a Blast Management Plan, as specified by standard
condition B4 (blast management plan).
With respect to blasts and the possibility of dislodging stones upslope of the representor’s dwelling,
this outcome is considered remote given the separation distance of more than 500m and the
infrequent nature of blasting. The quarry site (28M/1990) grades down toward Beaumonts Rd, and
other events, such as rainfall or falling vegetation, may at times dislodge and transport stones
downslope. Further conditions to manage potential blast impacts are not considered necessary.
Conclusions
The proponent will be required to comply with the following standard (generic) conditions:
B1 Blasting times
B2 Blasting – Noise and vibration limits
B3 Notification of blasting
B4 Blast Management Plan
B5 Blast monitoring
C&DS 3
2018 Page 493
6.3 Dust impacts
Description
Section 6.1.3 of the DPEMP identifies the following sources of dust from quarrying:
• Stripping of topsoil
• Ripping and dozing of material for stockpiling
• Crushing
• Drilling and blasting
• Stockpiling and loading
• Road use around the quarry
Management measures
Section 9 (Commitments) of the DPEMP includes the following commitment concerning dust:
Commitment 1 - Trucks to travel at 20 km per hour on Beaumont’s Road to limit dust emissions.
Commitment 2 - Use water cart as required to dampen road surface.
Section 6.1.4 of the DPEMP also states that, where possible, a buffer of vegetation will be maintained
along transport routes to limit dust dispersal.

The following comment regarding dust was raised during the public representation period:
• Dust would be detrimental to the representor’s health and lifestyle, given the area is zoned
‘residential’ rather than ‘industrial’.
• The identity of the entity responsible for ensuring the proponent dampens the road surface
during dry weather to limit dust nuisance was queried. 1
EPA Tasmania’s Scientific Officer (Air) provided the following comment:
• To date there have been no recorded dust complaints from quarrying activities at the site. If
the proponent’s Noise, Dust and Air Pollution Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are
adhered to then it is considered unlikely that fugitive dust from the quarry, or from truck
transport of materials associated with it, will cause environmental nuisance off site. There
should be a statement of commitment to this SOP in the DPEMP.
Evaluation
The management measures summarised by commitments 1 and 2 are consistent with the QCoP’s
acceptable standard provisions for dust control and are appropriate to limit dust generation and
confine dust emissions to the boundary of The Land. Standard conditions A1 (covering of vehicles),
A2 (control of dust emissions) and A3 (control of dust emissions from plant) are imposed to limit the
risk of dust nuisance.
Again, given the substantial number of rural dwellings within the QCoP’s recommended separation
distance (crushing) of 750m, compliance with conditions A1, A2 and A3 will be necessary to avoid
dust nuisance. Nonetheless, there may be occasions when dust is visible beyond the boundary of
1 The permit conditions - environmental will be regulated by EPA Tasmania, in the event Council grants a planning permit
for the activity.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 494
The Land and complaints may occur. Standard condition G5 (complaints register) is imposed to
ensure a complaints register is maintained, and made available to inspect by an Authorised Officer
on request. Using a complaints register is one way to investigate and remedy dust-related incidents.
With regard to dust and potential impacts to public health, the conditions for dust control proposed
above are considered adequate to avoid environmental nuisance at nearby receptors. Furthermore,
given the representor’s residence is separated by at least 500m from the intensifying activity, and
well screened by native vegetation, environmental nuisance due to dust is not considered likely.
Conclusions
A1 Covering of vehicles
A2 Control of dust emissions
A3 Control of dust emissions from plant
C&DS 3
2018 Page 495
7 Other issues
In addition to the key issues, the following environmental issues are considered relevant to the
proposal and have been evaluated in Appendix 1.
1. Surface water quality.

2. Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials.
3. Biodiversity and natural values (including weeds and diseases).
4. Decommissioning and rehabilitation.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 496
8 Report conclusions
This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit
application, DPEMP and in correspondence and discussion between EPA Tasmania and the
proponent and the proponent’s representatives.
This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by EPA Tasmania scientific specialists
and regulatory staff, other Divisions of DPIPWE and other government agencies.
This assessment has taken into account issues raised in public submissions.
It is concluded that:
1. the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment
of the proposal; and
2. the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental
Impact Assessment Principles.
It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable

manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised,
provided that the Permit Conditions - Environmental No. 9701 appended to this report are imposed
and duly complied with, including commitments made by the proponent in the DPEMP.
The environmental conditions appended to this report are a new set of operating conditions for the
entire, intensified activity that will supersede the existing permit conditions.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 497
Report approval
Environmental Assessment Report and conclusions, including permit conditions,
adopted:
Wes Ford
Acting under delegation from the Board of the Environment Protection Authority
Date: 9 July 2018
C&DS 3
2018 Page 498
9 References
Urban Forest Consultancy Pty Ltd; Punches Terror Quarry Expansion Development Proposal and
Environmental Management Plan (dated 07/02/2018), Treloar Transport Pty Ltd, Sheffield,
Tasmania.
Terts, P; Dunorlan Punches Terror Noise Report (including drill noise) (dated 2 June 2018), Terts,
P, Claremont, Tasmania.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 499
10 Appendices
Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues
Appendix 2 Permit conditions, includes Attachment 4 - DPEMP commitments
C&DS 3
2018 Page 500
Appendix 1
Appendix 1 Assessment of other issues
Issue 1: Surface water (including monitoring)

Description of potential impacts
According to Section 6.2.1 of the DPEMP, there are no recognised creeks in the vicinity of the
proposed mining areas. All water from the activity will discharge into unnamed tributaries to
Lobster Rivulet, about 1km southwest of 1007P/M, which then reports to the Mersey River.
Figure 5 of the DPEMP illustrates the site drainage plan. Each lease is serviced by one formal
sediment retention pond. According to site runoff calculations provided in Section 6.2.1, the
expected detention time (for 1 in 20-year rainfall event) is a little over three days for the pond
on 1007P/M. Similar calculations for lease 28M/1990 were not provided.
Table 4 of Section 6.2.1 summarises water quality results for a single monitoring event during
September 2017 at 1007P/M. The results show slightly elevated levels of aluminium (Al),
copper and lead on the pit floor, with Al also slightly elevated at the sediment retention pond.
Ground disturbance from quarrying may mobilise and transfer sediments to local waterways in
stormwater flows. These flows may also cause erosion and scouring of local waterways.
Ground disturbance may also cause other substances, including metals, to be released to the
environment.
Management measures proposed in DPEMP
Section 9 (Commitments) includes the following regarding surface water management:
Commitment 3 - Install larger sediment pond in lease 28M/1990.
Commitment 11 - Monitor settling ponds biannually to maintain 1:20 year flood capacity.
Section 6.2.4 states the proponent will direct surface water away from active quarry areas
and into the ‘final’ pond at each lease.
Table 11 of the DPEMP summarises the proposed water quality monitoring program for the
‘final’ pond at each lease.
Public and agency comment
EPA Tasmania’s Scientific Officer (Water) provided the following comments:
• Other than standard quarry water quality management measures including cut-off drains,
use of settling ponds, progressive rehabilitation, weed control and hygiene, intensification
of use should entail no off-site water quality risks other than sediment transport from the
sites. A permit condition requiring management measures as per the QCoP is also
recommended.
• Commitments 3 and 11 are appropriate and should be reflected in permit conditions.
• Given the geology of "quartzite derived, massive pebble-cobble conglomerate with minor
pink quartz arenite beds", there is little risk of acid and metalliferous drainage due to
oxidation of sulphides.
Proposed monitoring
• Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH measurements should be done quarterly and sampling
for laboratory analysis done six monthly rather than annually as proposed. This means
there will be more data points at the end of the minimum proposed monitoring period of two
years, better informing whether or not any further sampling or site management changes
are necessary.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 501
Appendix 1
Evaluation
While the quarry is reasonably well separated from an unnamed tributary to Lobster Creek to
the west, its steep, erodible slopes mean effective stormwater control and management is
necessary. Standard conditions SW1 (perimeter drains or bunds) and SW2 (stormwater) are
imposed to exclude stormwater runoff and ensure any stormwater likely to be polluted is
captured, treated and discharged in such a manner as to prevent environmental harm and are
consistent with advice provided at Public and agency comment above.
The site runoff calculations, showing the sediment retention pond on 1007P/M has adequate
capacity to cater for sediment loss from 1 in 20-year rainfall event, are acknowledged.
Constructing a larger sediment retention pond on 28M/1990 to provide the same standard of
treatment is appropriate and supported. The requirement to mitigate sediment loss likely from
a 1 in 20-year rainfall event and periodically clean out ponds to maintain design capacity is
imposed by condition SW3 (design and maintenance of settling ponds).
Provided the proponent complies with these conditions, the likelihood that intensification of use
will cause environmental harm is considered low.
Monitoring
While only a single sampling event was conducted, the results suggest further monitoring may
be necessary given the low pH and slightly elevated metal concentrations of water in the pit
floor (1007P/M). Similar to the proponent’s water monitoring proposal (refer above) and
consistent with the above advice, condition M1 (monitoring) is imposed to require monitoring
of selected parameters, including EC, pH and metals, at the formal sediment retention ponds
for a minimum period of two years. The requirement to monitor may be removed after this
period should results indicate the likelihood of environmental harm is low. The other relevant
condition concerning monitoring is M2 (dealing with samples obtained for monitoring).
Conclusion
SW1 Perimeter drains or bunds
SW2 Stormwater
SW3 Design and maintenance of settling ponds
M1 Monitoring
M2 Dealing with samples obtained for monitoring
The relevant DPEMP commitments are included in Schedule 3 of the permit at Other
Information:
OI3 Commitments
C&DS 3
2018 Page 502
Appendix 1
Issue 2: Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials.

Section 6.6.3 of the DPEMP states that no fuels or oils will be stored on site. All fuel and oil
will be transported to the activity as needed by light vehicle. No more than 240 L of
hydrocarbons is expected on site at any one time.
Chemicals for the purpose of weed treatment will be on site during the annual weed
management program.
No explosives will be stored on site.
Potential for minor loss or spills of hazardous substances exists. Uncontrolled loss of
hazardous substances such as hydrocarbons can infiltrate, contaminate and degrade surface
and ground water and soil ecosystems.
No specific commitments concerning hazardous substances were made.
Section 6.6.4 of the DPEMP outlines a number of measures to mitigate risks associated with
dangerous goods and hazardous substances, including:
• Having safety data sheets on hand for any chemicals used on site.
• Ensuring an appropriate spill kit accompanies any light vehicle transporting hazardous
materials.
• No storage of explosives on site.
Nil.
Evaluation
Since hazardous materials such as diesel and oils will be used at the quarry to operate and
maintain machinery, standard condition H1 (storage and handling of hazardous materials) is
required to ensure appropriate bunding and handling procedures are in place.
While the risk of a hydrocarbon spill or leak is considered to be low, provision of an on-site
hydrocarbon spill kit as stated is appropriate and imposed by standard condition H2.
As mobile plant is likely to be fuelled from containers located on utility vehicles, standard
condition H3 (handling of hazardous materials - mobile) is imposed.
Provided that H1, H2 and H3 are observed, contamination of local water and land resources
is considered unlikely.
Conclusion
H1 Storage and handling of hazardous materials
H2 Spill kits
H3 Handling of hazardous materials - mobile
The following information is also provided in Schedule 3 of the permit at Information:
LO2 Storage and handling of dangerous goods, explosives and dangerous substances
C&DS 3
2018 Page 503
Appendix 1
Issue 3: Biodiversity and natural values (including weed and diseases).

The DPEMP includes a Natural Values Atlas (NVA) report (Appendix I) and two flora and
fauna assessments (Appendix A) for the proposed mining areas. Table 1 of this report
summarises the results of these assessments, in terms of listed threatened flora and fauna
found or likely to occur on and near the site.
Section 6.7.1 of the DPEMP states the intensification of use is likely to disturb about 1ha of
Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone (DAS) and 0.4ha E. obliqua dry
forest (DOB) on 1007P/M over the life of mine (LOM). For 28M/1990, the estimated loss of
these two forest types is 1ha DAS and 0.2ha DOB over the LOM.
Uncontrolled disturbance or removal of vegetation has the potential to impact and degrade
the biodiversity and natural values of The Land and surrounding area.
Weeds and diseases
Declared weed gorse (Ulex europaeus) and woody environmental weed radiata pine (Pinus
radiata) occur on the site. Symptomatic evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi (PC) has
previously been recorded on 1007P/M but the location has twice tested negative.
Weeds and diseases have the potential to impact and degrade the biodiversity and natural
values of The Land and surrounding area.
Section 9 (Commitments) includes the following regarding flora and fauna, and management
of weeds and diseases:
Commitment 5 – Delineate areas of listed threatened species.
Commitment 6 – Cordon off potential devil den.
Commitment 9 – Provide an updated weed management plan.
Section 6.7.4 of the DPEMP also states that the PC status of the quarry will be monitored on
a biennial basis in future.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 504
Appendix 1

DPIPWE’s Policy and Conservation Advice Branch (PCAB) provided the following comments:
• The recommendations for avoidance, compliance and mitigation outlined in the flora and
fauna assessment reports are supported.
• Cordoning off threatened flora and the potential den site to avoid direct or indirect impact
is supported. This should be undertaken by someone suitably experienced in the
identification of the relevant values. However, if any listed threatened flora are found on the
site and will be affected by the proposal, then a permit to take under the Threatened
Species Protection Act 1995 will be required.
• If any potential den sites for the Tasmanian devil or spotted-tailed quoll are found to exist
within the site and are likely to be affected by the proposal, these should be monitored in
accordance with DPIPWE’s Tasmanian Devil Survey Guidelines and Management Advice
for Development Proposals (the Devil Guidelines). Any dens that cannot be avoided will
require a permit to take under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.
• The clearance of native vegetation should be minimised to the extent practicable.
• Endemic, local and native flora species are recommended for rehabilitation works.
• The proposed development is situated on the Central Highlands Cainozoic Glacial Area
(Geosite Id 2953) listed in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database. It is considered
unlikely that the development, as described, will have a significant impact on this geosite.
• PCAB recommends the proponent adhere to the DPIPWE (2015) Weed and Disease
Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in
Tasmania during any development activities to prevent the spread of any weeds and that
any weeds present on the property be properly managed.
• Records of natural values (such as threatened species) on site should be entered into the
Natural Values Atlas.
Evaluation
Biodiversity and natural values
The conclusion of the flora and fauna assessment, that the threatened forest community
(DAS) is not typical of the vegetation found on sandstone rock, is accepted. The estimated
loss of 2ha of DAS over an anticipated LOM of 20 years is considered minor in a local
regional and statewide context.
Given the confirmed observation of threatened flora species Gratiola pubescens around the
margins of the sediment retention pond (lease 1007P/M), and evidence of a potential den site
for Tasmanian devils or spotted tailed quolls, it will be necessary to delineate these areas on
the ground to ensure no encroachment by the extractive activity. Condition OP1 (protection of
Gratiola pubescens) is imposed to require the proponent to delineate with a fence or other
similar method the interface between the permissible extraction area and occurrences of
Gratiola pubescens. The fence/barrier must be installed within 60 days of the date on which
the condition takes effect, and there must be no disturbance of areas beyond this
fence/barrier. Similarly, OP2 (protection of potential den site) requires the proponent to
provide on-ground marking to highlight the location of the potential den, in order to exclude
extractive activity from this spot.
Weeds and diseases
The quarry’s close proximity to native forest and agricultural activities, and the presence of a
number of weed species on the site, means effective weed and disease control is necessary.
Implementing effective weed and pathogen control (commitment 9) is appropriate and made
explicit by standard condition OP3 (weed and disease management plan). The Plan must
contain, but not be limited to, measures to identify, record, map, control and monitor weeds,
including an appropriate weed spraying program. In addition, the Plan must contain
measures to minimise the likelihood of introducing and spreading PC to and across the site.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 505
Appendix 1
The Plan must be submitted to the Director EPA within three months of the condition taking
effect.
Ensuring vehicles which access and/ or operate at the quarry are clean and free of weed and
disease material is necessary to limit the introduction and spread of weeds and disease
across and from the site. Condition FF1 (washdown guidelines) is imposed to require the
washing of all machinery prior to entry to The Land, as per DPIPWE’s Washdown Guidelines.
Conclusion
FF1 Washdown guidelines
OP1 Protection of Gratiola pubescens
OP2 Protection of potential den site
OP3 Weed & Disease Management Plan
Information:
OI3 Commitments
C&DS 3
2018 Page 506
Appendix 1
Issue 4: Decommissioning and rehabilitation.

Section 1.2 of the DPEMP estimates a LOM of around 15 years at a mining intensity of
20,000m3 pa, though LOM may be closer to 20 years in reality given the maximum proposed
production is unlikely to be extracted each year. The combined open area of leases
28M/1990 and 1007P/M is about 2ha. 2 According to Section 8 of the DPEMP, opportunities
to progressively rehabilitate 28M/1990 are limited. The proponent intends to progressively
rehabilitate parts of 1007P/M as these are worked out.
Section 8 of the DPEMP summarises the anticipated rehabilitation approach, generally in
accordance with the principles and measures recommended in the QCoP. The final land form
is intended to be consistent with the existing surrounding forest types.
Unchecked or abandoned quarrying activities have potential to cause ongoing impacts, such
as contamination of surface and ground waters.
Section 9 (Commitments) includes the following regarding decommissioning and
rehabilitation:
Commitment 13 – Stockpile top soil where possible for the purpose of rehabilitation.
Commitment 14 – Monitor revegetation biannually for two years then annually for a further
three years.
Commitment 15 – Maintain earthern bund and ‘open pit’ signs after closure.
Nil.
Evaluation
The general approach to progressive rehabilitation and rehabilitation on permanent closure of
the extractive activity outlined in the DPEMP is consistent with the rehabilitation principles
and suggested measures stated in the QCoP.
Progressive rehabilitation of a working quarry (to limit its disturbed area) is an expectation
under the QCoP. Standard condition DC3 is imposed to require progressive rehabilitation and
defines a maximum allowable disturbed (or open) area at any one time of five hectares. 3
Given the anticipated quarry life of about 20 years, it is appropriate to require a draft
decommissioning and rehabilitation plan (DRP) within 60 days of the Director being notified
of the planned cessation of the activity (DC5).
It is appropriate that all stripped materials (e.g. soils and overburden) are retained for
rehabilitation purposes. Consistent with commitment 13, this requirement is reflected in
condition DC2.
Other decommissioning and rehabilitation requirements considered necessary for this activity
are standard conditions DC1 (Notification of cessation), DC4 (Temporary suspension of
activity) and DC6 (rehabilitation following cessation).
Consistent with the proponent’s statement in Section 8 of the DPEMP (p47), any materials
imported to the site for the purposes of rehabilitation, including soils and similar materials,
must first be assayed and determined as free from PC. This requirement will be met by
measures included in the decommissioning and rehabilitation plan, required by DC5.
Provided these conditions are complied with, enduring material environmental harm from
quarry closure is unlikely.
2 Pascoe, K, Mineral Resources Tasmania, personal comm. 09/03/2018.

3 Consistent with maximum open area specified by MRT.
C&DS 3
2018 Page 507
Appendix 1
Conclusion
DC1 Notification of cessation
DC2 Stockpiling of surface soil
DC3 Progressive rehabilitation
DC4 Temporary suspension of activity
DC5 Decommissioning and rehabilitation plan requirements
DC6 Rehabilitation following cessation
Information:
OI3 Commitments
C&DS 3
2018 Page 508
Appendix 2 Permit Conditions - Environmental
C&DS 3
2018 Page 509
BOARD OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORIT/
Level 6, 134 Macquarie Street, HobartTAS

GPO Box 1550, Hobart, TAS 7001 Australia
Enquiries: Helen Mulligan ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORS

Ph: +61361654528
Web: www.epa.tas.gov.au
Our Ref: EN-EM-EV-DE-244904/H835265/CouncilLetter 3ABC Decision
9 July 2018
Mr Martin Gill
General Manager
26 Lyall St
WESTBURY TAS 7303
Email: planning@mvc. tas. gov. au
Dear Mr Gill
DETERMINATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PERMIT APPLICATION (DA 018\0178)
TRELOAR TRANSPORT CO - PUNCHES TERROR QUARRY, OFF BEAUMONT'S RD,
DUNORLAN
I am writing to you about the above permit application which was referred to the Board of the
Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act) and received on 8 March 2018.
The Board has delegated to me its functions and powers in relation to section 25 of the EMPC Act.
The Board's environmental impact assessment of the application is now complete. All supporting
information and any relevant comments received from the public and relevant government
agencies were taken into account.
In accordance with section 25(5) of the EMPC Act, I am notifying Meander Valley Council that the
conditions and restrictions in the enclosed Permit Part B, together with the definitions in
Schedule 1 and the associated attachments, must be contained in any permit granted in respect of
the application by Council under the provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
A copy of the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) detailing the reasons for the Board's
decision is attached. The Assessment Report is also available on the EPA website at
http://epa.tas.gov.au/assessment/completed-assessments. Permit Part B is provided as Appendix
2 of the EAR.
Please note that, to satisfy the requirements of section 25(8) of the EMPC Act, the Council must:
• not include any other condition or restriction which is inconsistent with, or which extends the
operation of, any conditions or restrictions which the Board requires to be contained in the
permit; and
• notify the Board of its decision to grant or refuse to grant a permit; and
• at the same time as it notifies the applicant of its decision on the application, provide the
EAR, including attachments (or a link to the EAR on the EPA website) to the applicant, and
anyone who made representations.
C&DS 3
It is suggested Council:
• Call the Council's portion of the permit 'Part A';
• include a condition in 'Part A' along the lines of The person responsible for the activity must
comply with the conditions contained in Schedule 2 of Permit Part B, which the Board of the
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has required the planning authority to include in the
permit, pursuant to section 25(5) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act
1994', and
• attach the enclosed Permit Part B to the permit, including Schedules 1, 2 and 3 and any
attachments.
I understand Council will advise the applicant and any representors of appeal rights in relation to its
decision.
If a permit is granted, please provide EPA Tasmania with a full copy of the final permit (including all
attachments).
If you have any queries regarding the above, please contact Helen Mulligan on (03) 6165 4528.
Yours sincerely
u^-^
Wes Ford
Delegate for the Board of the Environment Protection Authority
End.
• Permit Part B - Permit Conditions Environmental No. 9701
• Environmental Assessment Report
C&DS 3
PLEASE NOTE:
Pages 512 to 742 have been removed from this document
due to duplication of item attachments to C&DS 3.
C&DS 4 DELORAINE & DISTRICTS RECREATION
PRECINCT FEASIBILITY STUDY
1) Introduction
The purpose of this report is for Council to note the additional community
consultation conducted in respect of the Deloraine & Districts Recreation
Precinct Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) together with the updated
recommendation from the DDRPFS Working Group and to conclude the
Deloraine and District Recreation Precinct Feasibility Study project.
2) Background
At the Ordinary Council meeting of 13 December 2016, Council determined;
That Council will work with Deloraine & Districts Community Bank
Branch to prepare a brief and commission a feasibility study for the
development of a recreation precinct at the Deloraine Community
Complex site.
Furthermore at the Ordinary Council meeting of 16 January 2018, Council

made the following resolutions:
1. receive the Deloraine & Districts Recreation Precinct Feasibility Study

Background and Summary Reports.
2. notes the letter and recommendations contained within; from the

Feasibility Study Working Group.
3. undertakes a formal period of stakeholder and community

consultation and feedback to be ready for consideration at the
Council meeting of 13 March 2018.”
Following this decision the formal period of stakeholder and community

consultation was undertaken between 17 January 2018 to 19 February 2018
and reported to Council.
At the ordinary Council meeting of 27 March 2018, Council determined that

Council;
1. Extends the formal period of stakeholder and community consultation

as follows:
1.1 Contact groups who have yet to provide feedback, offering assistance
with the feedback process by way of a meeting with Council officers, at
which they will be briefed about the report findings, supplied with an
improved map of the proposed connecting pathways from the schools to the
proposed DRP, and given an opportunity to complete the feedback form.
1.2 Convene meetings with representatives of the following

categories of groups who have not provided feedback through
the initial phase of consultation, for the purpose of 1.1 above:
1.2.1 Community Organisations
1.2.2 Schools
1.2.3 Education Department representatives
1.2.4 Sports groups
1.2.5 Cultural groups
1.2.6 States sporting associations.
1.3 Conduct a public meeting at the Deloraine Community Complex

at a time and date that would allow a great number of
community members to be present so as to present the report
and receive feedback.
1.4 Receive formal feedback from all stakeholders on the project.
1.5 Review feedback at a Council workshop.
At the Council workshop of 24 July 2018 the Council reviewed the full
consultation results comprising a summary table of 35 responses
(Attachment 1), copies of each of the responses, minutes (Attachment 2) and
attendance list from the public meeting of 17 May 2018, and a letter of 6 July
2018 from the Feasibility Study Working Group with five formal
recommendations (Attachment 3).
Further the objectives of the Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2014 to

2024:
 Future Direction (3): Vibrant and engaged communities
 Future Direction (4): A healthy and safe community
 Future Direction (5): Innovative leadership and community governance
 Future Direction (6): Planned Infrastructure Services
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
6) Risk Management
The limited general community response to the consultation may not

provide Council with a clear or representative view of the proposal.
A meeting was held with the Department of Education together with

Deloraine High School and Deloraine Primary School.
Consultation also occurred with the following peak bodies:

 Northern Tasmanian Football Association and AFL Tasmania
 Basketball Tasmania
 Tasmanian Badminton Association
 Squash Tasmania.
The Feasibility Study has involved a significant element of community and

stakeholder consultation. Broadly, it included public workshops, focus
groups, surveys, meetings and conversations including a public meeting.
The Feasibility Study Working Group comprising five community

representatives, three council officers and an independent chair from
Department of Premier and Cabinet have worked to review and guide the
direction of the Feasibility Study
The Feasibility Study Working Group wrote to Council with recommendations

in December 2017 and again in July 2018 with revised recommendations.
This letter is Attachment 3.
9) Financial Impact
The Feasibility Study project cost has been a shared undertaking of Council,
Meander Valley Financial Services / Deloraine and Districts Community Bank
– Bendigo Bank and the Tasmanian State Government.
The Feasibility Study includes estimated costs associated with the

implementation of options in the Feasibility Study. During community
consultation, questions were raised regarding ongoing costs and
implications for the sports users and ratepayers.
All costs included in the Feasibility Study and the breakdown of each
functional area are currently considered to be estimates and they have not
been endorsed by Council officers. Further time and expenditure would be
required for appropriate planning before any capital works expenditure
could be considered.
Page 33 of the Montemare Business Feasibility provided in the Feasibility

Study outlines an increased ongoing (each year) operating expenditure to
Council of $1.041million as a result of completing Scenario 1. The Business
Feasibility applied some approximate values such as all assets constructed
having a lifespan of 50 years. Council officers have reviewed each cost area in
more detail and estimated the ongoing operating expenditure to Council
would be much closer to $2million after applying shorter lives for many
assets constructed (such as car park sealing and playgrounds which will not
last for 50 years) and applying industry rates of expected additional costs of
recreation spaces. The ongoing operating expenditure to Council is
estimated to increase closer to $3million after allowing for loan interest if
Council were to borrow funds to deliver the project in a short period of time.
It is unlikely that the increase in operating expenditure would be matched by

an increase in user fees at the facility. This would make the participation cost
of the sports at the facility much higher for each user. It is anticipated that
almost all of the additional operating costs would be expected to be funded
by Council’s general rates.
Council can amend or not approve the recommendations.
The key drivers in the Feasibility Study Y are community and sporting groups
seeking improved facilities and increased opportunities for community
participation in recreation and sport. The consultant team sought to identify
current demands and to test projections for both short term and future
demand.
The study findings and the Working Group recommendations have been
subject to extensive targeted community consultation with 35 responses
received and a general public meeting on 17 May 2018 with approximately
100 people in attendance. The majority of respondents to the consultation
support improvements to the Deloraine Community Complex.
A range of matters were raised during consultations which may influence

potential future works. These include:
 The Deloraine High School proposes to construct a hall/gymnasium on
the school site. This is listed as priority two by the Dept. of Education
amongst projects across the State. All priority one projects are being
funded in the 2018/19 year. The school has a preference to not spend
time walking to the community complex and proposes to utilise the hall
onsite once it is constructed
 The Northern Tasmania Football Association (NTFA) has advised that
they see the Deloraine Club as an important hub for football in the
western sub-region of Northern Tasmania. The NTFA also stated that
they have some concern about shared facilities with other users at the
Community Complex as this may limit the capacity of the club to
fundraise and may dilute their identity at the venue. They also
mentioned that an additional football field would be needed to cater to
female football games
 Basketball Tasmania has advised that half-court basketball or 3 on 3
basketball is a rapidly growing sport/recreation interest and suggest
this as high priority in our planning
 Squash Tasmania has advised that the injection of juniors is essential to
the sport to survive. Squash Tasmania would be willing to help promote
squash to the Primary Schools in the area, help set up coaching and
introduce a Coaching program to the Deloraine Squash Club to further
junior programs
 Netball courts are listed for construction at the Deloraine Community
Complex in the 2018-19 capital works program
Improvements to facilities at Deloraine should be considered in the context
of improvements to facilities across Meander Valley and with regard to
ongoing implications for cost and management.
The Working Group have completed their role and discharged their
responsibilities. The Working Group and the community have identified a
range of improvement opportunities at Deloraine which may be considered
in future considerations of Council.
AUTHOR: Lynette While

DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNITY SERVICES
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Council:
1. Notes the Feasibility Study Working Group recommendations but

does not endorse the recommendations recognising the
considerable financial implications
2. Notes that new infrastructure is proposed at the Deloraine High
School which may impact the utilisation of the Deloraine
Community Complex
3. Notes that the construction of netball courts at the Deloraine
Community Complex are part of the capital works program for
2018-2019
4. Notes that there are potential infrastructure projects that may be
considered in future capital works programs.
5. Writes to the Feasibility Study Working Group members thanking
them for their work and advising that the Working Group is now
concluded
6. Writes/emails to all individuals and groups/associations that
provided response to the consultation to thank them for their
contribution and advise of Council’s decision
DECISION:
C&DS 4 - Recreation Precinct - Attachment 1
A B C D E F G H
Agree but
with Neither
Response 1st Response Agree reservatio agree or
1 consult 2nd consult with WG ns Disagree disagree Brief Comment Summary - this should be read with reference to each submission
COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS / EVENTS
2
Supports but has concerns about raising funds to complete the entire project in a timely manner (to avoid disruption to
Rotary Club of Deloraine/ Tas Craft Fair   users and Craft Fair). Pathways will start to connect the precinct more closely with the rest of the township and to
3 increase use of the areas for walking, riding, etc
4 Apex Club of Deloraine   Our club agree to each of the recommendations.

5 Lions Club of Deloraine No response
From an organisation point of view I am hopeful that any development will consider impact on accesibility to the
Community Shed  
Deloraine Community Shed. Personally I have concerns about the cost of the development and the impact that it has on
6 prime agricultural land however I am sure that will be taken into consideration by Meander Valley Council.
7 Probus Club of Deloraine No response

8 Rotary Club of Westbury No response
9 Lions Club of Westbury No response

10 Inner Wheel Club of Deloraine No response
SCHOOLS
11
Support the recommendations put forward by the working party for the Deloraine Recreation Precinct Feasiblity Study.
Deloraine High School   Further Conversation/meeting - Path linkages on school land are not required - prefer not to walk through the Primary
School. Also generally avoid using the complex in wet weather. Planning to build school gymnasium/stadium subject to
funding. Would prefer not to use the complex as lose 30+ minutes each time. There is also a cost to use the complex.
12 Would be willing for community to use proposed school gymnasium after school hours.
Association committee members opinion was that they were in principle supportive of the proposal in general terms
but reserved their opinions for a later time with regard to specifics i.e. the path and use of our school oval area. Further
Deloraine Primary School   Conversation/meeting - pathways on school land are not supported due to risk management. Some concerns re the
soccer pitch as prefer an area without barriers, within larger space would be ok as do not want to compromise the
opportunities for use of this space. Do not want to enclose spaces with fences. There may be some opportunities in
other areas of school grounds that the school does not use. Prefer adults and children to have separate amenities. They
13 would not be able to use a multi user venue with shared amenities during the day time without extra teacher support.
At this point in time I cannot see that these changes will affect us at Westbury PS. However, thank you for checking with
Westbury Primary School  
14 us.
Conversation/meeting - Statewide school infrastructure is a priority. Priority list for funding will be released soon. There
Education Tasmania  is a policy allowing for community use providing it does not interfere with school use. Arrangements are in place at a
15 range of schools eg Penguin High School, Clarence High School etc.
16 Deloraine Catholic Primary School - OLOM No response

Would like to request Toddle Inn be considered for the use of the vacant adjoining block of land, located at the back of
Toddle Inn - Child Care Centre   the current premises. I also request that Council please consider the safety of the children at Toddle Inn with other use
17 of surrounding land bordering Toddle Inn.
C&DS 4 (1)
A B C D E F G H
18 Mole Creek Primary School No response
Agree but
with Neither
20 Hagley Farm Primary School No response
21
22 Bracknell Primary School No response
We cannot predict our future needs but it is unlikey that we would be more than casual users of facilities planned for
Meander Valley U3A  
23 the first stages of the development. We think that it is appropriate that the working group guides the planning.
SPORT CLUBS
24
Deals with the most immediate needs first. The study shows Deloraine and districts need this Precinct. It also shows the
Deloraine Devils Netball Club Inc   Town can strongly benefit in many ways as well as providing the best sport and rec facilities for its residents and wider
25 community.
At our recent Football Club Committee meeting we were able to discuss the precinct project at length and the Club is
Deloraine Football Club   still 100% behind Scenario 3, so nothing has changed. We also strongly support all the recommendations made by the
working goup. The challenges our club has faced in recent years, in particular regular flooding events, is well
documented. We hope the Meander Valley Council will endorse the proposal and progress this exciting project that will
26 benefit our club and many others in the Deloraine District.
We support Scenario 3 as it deals with the most immediate needs of sport and rec in our area. Securing the purchase of
Deloraine Junior Football Club   the land is a vital step forward. This is important as land value could increase. Better pathways and linkages would
encourage more use. Lighting would be a great idea as well. Studies show the town can strongly benefit from this, as
27 well as providing the best sport and rec facilities for the residents and wider community.
As an Association we would really like to see four court stadium facility and a full outside court that we can use to grow
Deloraine Amateur Basketball Association   our sport of basketball. You only have to see what the 'Rings Project' and the new floor has done for basketball in
Deloraine with our numbers well up on last season since these developments have taken place. A four court stadium
28 could work in conjunction with other sports such as netball, badminton, volleyball and indoor soccer.
Conversation at meeting with Del. Junior Basketball, Del. Amateurs Basketball and Basketball Tas - need greater capacity
to cater to potential training demand. A lot of merit in upgrading facilities to the highest possible standard in Deloraine.
Deloraine Junior Basketball Club   Some concern about shared facilities as this may limit the capacity to fundraise through the canteen and may
undermine capacity to fund some equipment and uniform requirements. Currently increased interest in basketball
29 including Aussie Hoops.
Great start to the entire project. Sets up the space to help clubs and community. Currently with toilets over 200m away
Deloraine Little Athletics   and completely out of site it is hard for females with one parent attending or more than one child competing. Storage is
30 full and unable to extend as on school land.
C&DS 4 (1)
A B C D E F G H
Our organisation is suportive of modern up to date sport and rec facilites. We have concerns as to the cost we will
incur where our playing facilities will change very little. What is the option or alternative if the adjacent land purchase is
Deloraine Badminton Association   not possible. Full costs should be made available to all users, the community and ratepayers which should include
construcion costs, maintenance cost, councils fixed costs and user costs. Will this new facility be less drafty and cold
31 during the colder months?
32 Deloraine Junior Soccer Club No response

Agree but
with Neither
34 Deloraine Indoor Bias Bowls Association No response
35 Deloraine Tennis Club No response
36 Deloraine Bowls Club No response
The DDPC are very much interested in the proposed sporting precinct and would love to be part of any information
Deloraine Districts Pony Club  
37 sharing.
The Mole Creek Football Club fully supports the Recreation Precinct proposal for Deloraine and would appreciate to
Mole Creek Football Club  
38 receive any furhter information.
Deloraine Squash Club   Fully support and can only have positive impact for our club. A new facility will make us more viable and accessible,
39 helping increase numbers esepcally in regard to women and juniors.
40 Westbury Shamrocks Cricket Club No response
Meander Valley Suns Football and Netball Club

41 No response
42 Hadspen Chieftains Cricket Club No response

CULTURAL / YOUTH ACTIVITIES
43
44 Arts Deloraine No response

Conversation/meeting - Discussion about including other sporting/recreation pursuits that are not currently available
eg climbing wall , hockey, bmx, volleyball, inline skating, indoor soccer. Consider the squash facility is currently ok for
Deloraine Youth Committee  casual use. Were not aware of any programs for developing squash amongst juniors. Questioned how the football club
would manage in a multi use facility. Minimum work that should occurr is to provide accessibility for all throughout the
complex, especially the mezanine and auditorium. Also improve female amenities - currently no doors on
45 change/shower space.
46 Ashton’s Roller Skating No response
47 Dance Connection No response
In principle supports though has concerns there is no allocation of funds toward improving MVPAC. It is felt that sport
Deloraine Dramatic Society   and recreational activities are being considered only whilst cultural activities are overlooked. We are currently funding
the upgrade of sound and lighting equipment and can suggest other cheap upgrades that will enhance MVPAC. Perhaps
48 the MVPAC could be developed as a Deloraine and Districts Cultural Arts Precinct.
Deloraine Community Band   Thank you for your invitation to participate in the consultation phase of the Deloraine and District Recreational Precinct
49 Feasibility Project. If any of our members require any further information or advise we will contact you.
50 Deloraine Table Tennis League No response
C&DS 4 (1)
A B C D E F G H
51 Setsudo   At this time I am still awaiting numbers for my classes but it looks like I will no longer be using the facilities.
52 Northside Aikido No response

Conversation - Whilst supportive of sport and recreation developments, would like to see Arts receive some benefits
too. The MVPAC facility is an aged building that has received limited investment over the years. It has some tired
Studio BE  
aspects that are restricting its reach e.g. Little Theatre Stage Lighting. Note the annual Youth Drama festival has been
53 operating successfully there for over 60 years.
Agree but
with Neither
Impressed with thoroughness, have confidence in the report, like the probability of increased participation, asset to
Western Tiers Film Society   community and Meander Valley. Support pathways as shown on p 483. Pathways on p 392 do not suggest this. Will they
55 be shared use and delineated as such - important for hearing impaired.
Not everybody is supportive of this. More communication needed with ratepayers.Support pathway linkages for safety
Deloraine A & P Society   of children. Due to decreasing numbers playing sport would not upgrading certain areas be more viable eg squash,
56 football, netball.
Meander Valley Women in Agriculture Group
57 No response
STATE / REGIONAL SPORT ASSOCIATIONS
58
59 Northern Tasmania Netball Association No response
Conversation at meeting with Del. Junior Basketball, Del. Amateurs Basketball and Basketball Tas - need to develop 4
court stadium rather than a 3 court stadium. These work better so far as tournaments are concerned. The Deloraine
facility is a high quality facility. The runoffs are a bit tight however. Basketball Tas will continue to use Deloraine as good
Basketball Tasmania   for high school, primary school and state talent program due to its central northern location. it is very important to have
revenue drivers, such as canteen/bar, being operated for the benefit of basketball when baskeball is being conducted.
Ther is a rise of 3 on 3 basketball and it will be a demonstration sport at the next Olympics. This is the next big trend in
sport. There is a need for outdoor courts for 3 on 3 basketball. Should consider making the netball court multi use in this
60 regard.
Squash Tasmania will support any sensible proposal from Deloraine Squash committee for the 3 glass squash courts.
Deloraine Squash Club is not affiliated to Squash Tasmania and neither are any of its members, leaving perhaps the club
and its members with insurance issues. Though we would support Deloraine in their quest to upgrade their facilities we
Squash Tasmania  
would like to have at least the Club as an Affiliated Member. Squash Tasmania would be willing to help promote squash
to the primary schools in the area, help set up coaching and introduce a Coach Education program to the club to further
61 the junior programs.
Conversation/meeting - NTFA currently restructuring but see the Deloraine Club as an important hub for football in the
western sub region of Northern Tasmania. Any facility upgrades will enhance the Clubs capacity to continue to provide
football for seniors and youth in the region. It is also envisaged that Deloraine could in the future provide youth and
Northern Tasmanian Football Association 
senior football for female participants. Female programs likely to be stand alone as they continue to grow in
participation numbers. The only way they could be rostered on the same game day is to have more than one football
62 field to cater for the issues around timing/climate.
C&DS 4 (1)
A B C D E F G H
The plans being looked at better prepare Deloraine for future participation movements, growth potential and more
synergy amongst sport and other user groups. The Clubrooms and oval were subject to devastating flooding events that
AFL Tasmania   have had an ongoing effect on the facilities. Any improvement that can be made to this provision, whether at the
current site or a fuutre site would be advantageous in our view. The AFL audit of facilities is clear that it is important to
service curent provision but equally important where we see population increases, especially in female participation
which has grown in Tasmania by a further 30% in 2017. The location of these facilities is as importnat as the
63 functionality, accessibility and sustainability of club operations.
64 Darts Tasmania No response
Conversation - there is no immediate need for 12 or 16 badminton courts in Deloraine. Launceston can cater for 16
Tasmanian Badminton Association   courts if needed but seldom used.Other reasons for supporting Deloraine as a venue would be a potential Greater
65 Northern League or Northern Country Championships could be held at the venue.
Agree but
with Neither
We have never used the Deloraine Recreation Centre, we train at Westbury but would be interested in looking at your
Devil State Derby League  
67 facility for possible future use if we could?
INDIVIDUAL
68
Other than queries regarding item 20 the dog park, and the use of potential crown land, support the working groups
Tricia Ashton   preference. Will adjacent land/property owners be advised as plans/investigations unfold? I have been informd that the
dog park was the historical parade ground for troopers posted at Alveston; if there is a decision to use this land as
69 residential infill will its cultural values firstly be investigated?
My wife and I atended the 23 May meeting. There was a lack of any significant representation from the community at
large and in particular those likely to be ratepayers. The council would be well advised not to regard the motions
Rodney Paul   passed at the meeting as truly indicative of the views of the community at large. Council should take appropriate steps
to ascertian what those views are. The burden of meeting this financial committment would in years to come fall on
70 ratepayers of the area.
Mr. G Dent (Westbury Rotary/ Vice Chair Support the proposal. Important aspects include social aspect, increased participation, multi use facility, long term
 
71 Bendigo Bank Board) benefit for community, help keep youth in the area. Prioritize land purchase. Do it once and do it properly.
Approx. 100 people in attendance. Motion raised and received majority support;
1-Recognises that the current facilities for sport and recreation in the Deloraine district no longer meet the needs of
users (both present and future).
PUBLIC MEETING 17 May 2018  2-Supports the development of the proposed precinct at Alveston Drive, as outlined in the Feasibility Study.
3-Asks for immediate action from the Meander Valley Council to progress the project, including the purchase of the land
adjacent to the Community Complex.
72
C&DS 4 (1)
Council Report Attachment 2 Public Meeting Minutes July 2018
MINUTES of MEETING
Attendees:
A list of attendees is attached. There were more than 100 people in attendance.
Apologies
Mayor Craig Perkins
Cr Andrew Connor
INTRODUCTION
MC and Meander Valley Council General Manager Martin Gill welcomed everyone
and outlined the purpose of the meeting i.e. part of a community consultation
process to gauge public support for the precinct proposal and to assist Council
decision making.
Martin acknowledged the attendance of Tania Rattray MLC and Councillors Kelly,
King, Mackenzie, Synfield, Temple and White.
Following this the structure of the meeting was outlined and displayed (slide). As
well, the Working Group members were introduced (slide) and contributing reports
highlighted (slide).
Working group members Shaun Donohue and Cory Youd introduced some of the
‘Key Drivers’ behind the project - including inadequate and ailing infrastructure, flood
impact - and registered their support for the proposal.
Working Group member Doug Tangney outlined the preferred option of

consolidating a sport and recreation precinct at Alveston Drive (Option 1, Scenario 3).
This would be achieved in three stages with stage 1 costs estimated at $13m.
Funding of this stage would be sought from all levels of Government.
Martin Gill clarified that no funding commitments have been made, to date.
Working Group member Lynette While (Council Director and Project Leader)
reported that the original scope of the feasibility project involved 3 sites: the
Racecourse, Community Complex and MV Performing Arts Centre. She then outlined
the role of the Working Group and consultants, Inspiring Place, and the three options
that emerged:
1 Consolidate facilities at the Community Complex including purchase of
adjoining land
2 Option 1 above plus upgrade of primary school sportsground.
3 Consolidate facilities at both Community Complex and Racecourse sites
C&DS 4 (2)
Total project cost is estimated to be around $33m (at November 2017).
Cory Youd and Doug Tangney then outlined the recommendations that were
presented to the Council meeting in January 2018:
1 Receive the Report (achieved)

2 Endorse Scenario 3 phase 1
3 Develop a business case to lobby Government for funding
4 Continue to investigate purchase of adjoining land
5 Continue to develop the outdoor netball courts
6 Allocate funding for linkages and pathways in 2019-20 budget
Martin responded that Council had committed to support the netball court
development which also received State Government and Deloraine & Districts
Community Bank/Bendigo Bank funding. The total costs of the project have been
estimated at $510K. Funding towards improvement of pathway linkages has been
scheduled in Council’s Capital Works Budgets for 2019-20 and 2020-21.
QUESTIONS & OBSERVATIONS

1. Taneil Bloomfield (Deloraine Devils Netball Club) thanked Council for its support
of netball development and indicated her backing of the precinct proposal.
2. Rodney Bussey (Deloraine JFC) reported that club participation was rising (female,
junior players and Auskick) and that the existing clubrooms were inadequate for
managing simultaneous activities for both sexes.
3. Tania Rattray MLC asked whether there was any impediment to the purchase of
adjoining land at the Community Complex. Martin replied that detailed discussion
with the land owner had yet to occur.
4. Barry Higgins (Deloraine Dramatic Society) raised concern that the MV Performing
Arts Centre will not benefit from the proposal. He requested support for a range
of needs including heating, storage and lighting.
5. A question was raised as to whether thought had been given to improving

Deloraine’s capacity to attract and deliver conferences and festivals – which bring
an economic return. Martin responded that no particular steps had been taken in
this regard other than Rotary’s upgrade of its pavilion and its registration as a
conference provider.
6. Darren Rumble (Bendigo Bank) indicated his support for the precinct proposal –
building for the future.
C&DS 4 (2)
7. Rotary rep indicated his personal support of the merits of the precinct proposal
and that the Craft Fair would not be disadvantaged by it.
8. Josh Atkins (Deloraine Basketball) acknowledged the benefits of recent facility

improvements and said that the Association was currently at capacity and better
facilities were necessary to avoid losing players to Devonport and Launceston.
9. Jon Harmey (MVC) asked whether the members of the Deloraine FC were
comfortable with the prospect of relocation. Shaun responded that some older
members were resistant to change and that the club needs to move with the
times. Taneil added that there is no future for the DFC at the Racecourse site and
that members need reassurance that improved change can happen.
10. Tash Whiteley (Deloraine Devils Netball Club) asked what happens after this
meeting. Martin replied that community feedback and financial impacts would be
collated and reported to Council for consideration.
11. Lynette Gleeson (Deloraine Badminton Association) asked whether user groups
would have any say in the design of any upgrades. Martin replied, yes, wherever
possible and appropriate.
12. Tash Whitely raised the point that the precinct would attract State-wide interest
and usage. Martin replied that State Government is currently developing its Sports
Facility Strategy and that this project should link with this initiative.
13. Cr Ian Mackenzie raised concern about the real costs of the proposal that he felt
had not been adequately addressed in the Feasibility Report.
14. Sandra Atkins (Equestrian) asked whether there was any plans for use and
improvement of the Racecourse. Martin replied that there wasn’t at present
though there has been a range of expressions of interest for use of the site by
Giant Steps and groups involved in respite care, equestrian, fruit pickers’
accommodation and camping.
15. Mark Green (Deloraine Folk Museum) reminded us that the current shortcomings
of the Community Complex are due to its original design running out of money
(1980s). This lesson should not be repeated.
16. Graham Dent (Westbury Rotary and Bendigo Bank) reminded us of the important
social benefits that come from sport and recreation activity and asked whether a
cost analysis had been done on the impact of leaving things as they are.
17. Cr Mick Kelly stressed the importance of connectivity with school students.
C&DS 4 (2)
18. James Baldock (Deloraine JFC-Auskick) thanked the Council and Bendigo Bank for
their commitment so far and raised a number of additional points: volunteer input
should be acknowledged in any financial calculations, Deloraine is currently
growing against the ageing population trend and approval of the precinct will give
an important vote of confidence to the community.
19. James Baldock raised the following motions that were typed and projected and
voted on by the attendees:
1-Recognises that the current facilities for sport and recreation in the Deloraine
district no longer meet the needs of users (both present and future).
2-Supports the development of the proposed precinct at Alveston Drive, as outlined

in the Feasibility Study.
3-Asks for immediate action from the Meander Valley Council to progress the
project, including the purchase of the land adjacent to the Community Complex.
20. Voting indicated a majority of attendees in support of the precinct proposal with
abstentions from Council representatives and others.
21. Simon (Bendigo Bank) said that local parents of young families were concerned
about the future of Deloraine and its Districts. He supported the precinct proposal.
22. Cr Deb White asked that on-costs related to the current running of the facilities
should be factored into any financial considerations.
23. Cr John Temple asked attendees whether Council was missing any other key
community needs – such as cultural things. Rodney Bussey replied that jobs are
the priority and that streamlining the development process would help.
CONCLUSION
Martin thanked everyone for their attendance and contributions and reiterated that
community feedback and financial impacts would be collated and reported to
Council for consideration. Refreshments and informal conversation followed.
C&DS 4 (2)
ATTENDEE LIST
NAME TOWN/ORGANISATION
Adam Crawford Deloraine Football Club
Adam Linford Deloraine Football Club
Adam Robinson Deloraine
Allison Latham Bendigo Bank
Andrea Forsbrook Westbury
Anna Youd Deloraine
Ashdyn Heathcole Deloraine Football Club
Barry Higgins Deloraine Dramatic Society
Barry Pearn Bendigo Bank
Beau Elmer Deloraine Football Club
Ben Walker Deloraine
Bethany Vidler DABA
Brad Crowden Deloraine Football Club
Brad Peck Deloraine Football Club
Brodie Donohue Deloraine Football Club
Callum Smith Deloraine Football Club
Cassie Sheehan Meander Valley Council/Deloraine
Coby Cook Deloraine Football Club
Damien Bramich
Danica Turphey Deloraine
Daniel Smedley Meander Valley Council
Darren Rumble Bendigo Bank
David Cameron
Deborah White Meander Valley Council/Exton
Dominic Shegog Deloraine Football Club
Drew Gardner Deloraine Football Club
Dylan Schnoor Deloraine Football Club
Dylan Jones Deloraine
Ethan Sydes Deloraine
Geraldine King Deloraine
C&DS 4 (2)
Glen Buckingham Deloraine Badminton

Grant Drake Chudleigh
Hannah Smith Deloraine Football Club
Ian Mackenzie Meander Valley Council
Jacob Griffin
Jake Wauclope Deloraine Football Club
James Baldcock Deloraine Auskick
James Tyson Deloraine Football Club
Janine Harris Travellers Rest
Jared Kettle Deloraine Football Club
Jarrod Scott Deloraine Football Club
Jason Donovan Deloraine
Jason Griffin Deloraine Football Club
Jayden Donovan Deloraine
Jayden Purdon Deloraine Football Club
Jess Bramich Golden Valley
John Temple Meander Valley Council
Jordan Holliday Deloraine
Jordan Loone Deloraine Football Club
Joseph Griffin Deloraine Football Club
Josh Atkins DABA
Joshua Murray Deloraine
Judy Boch Deloraine
Kate Marshman Deloraine
Katy Haberle Caveside
Kelly Tubb DJBA/DBA/DJFC
Kent Poulton Westbury/DABA
Kris Eade Meander Valley Council
Liam Ryan Deloraine Football Club
Lynette Gleeson Deloraine Badminton
Lynette While Meander Valley Council
Lynne Paul Deloraine
Marc Smith
C&DS 4 (2)
Martin Gill Meander Valley Council

Mathew O’Donoghue Deloraine Football Club
Matty Allen Deloraine
Michael Huett Deloraine
Mick Kelly Meander Valley Council/Deloraine
Mitchell Nelder Deloraine Football Club
Natasha Whiteley Meander Valley Council/Exton
Nathan Chilcott Meander
Neville Scott Meander Valley Council/Westbury
Patrick Gambles Meander Valley Council
Oli Smith Deloraine Football Club
Oliver Proutfoot Deloraine Football Club
Oscar Reeve-Palmer Deloraine Football Club
Peter Ashton Deloraine
Rebekah Dorauf Quamby Brook
Rodney Bussey Deloraine Junior Football Club
Rodney Paul Deloraine
Rodney Synfield Meander Valley Council
Rodney Youd Deloraine
Sam Vidler DABA
Sandra Atkins Deloraine Pony Club
Sarahann Derk Bendigo Bank
Sarah Vidler DABA
Shae Weedan Deloraine
Shannon Edwards Deloraine Football Club
Simon Rootes Bendigo Bank
Sophie Poke Deloraine
Spud Haberle Caveside
Stuart Gilpin Deloraine Football Club
Susan Drake Chudleigh
Tahnee Donohue Kimberley
Tait Highet Deloraine Football Club
C&DS 4 (2)
Tania Rattray MLC

Taniel Bloomfield Kimberley
Tanya King Meander Valley Council
Tony Skipper Montana
Tony Wadley Deloraine
Wayne Johnston Meander
Wayne Richardson
C&DS 4 (2)
C&DS 4 (3)
C&DS 4 (3)
C&DS 4 (3)
GOV 1 POLICY REVIEW - NO. 1 RISK MANAGEMENT
1) Introduction
The purpose of this report is to review Policy No. 1 – Risk Management
2) Background
Risk management is a critical component in the operation of Council.
The process of review ensures that Council continues to actively manage risk
and remains committed to maintaining a safe and healthy work environment.
Policy No. 1 – Risk Management (Policy) was presented to the Independent

Audit Panel in June 2018 for review. The Audit Panel noted the review and
recommended that Council continue with the Policy.
The Annual Plan provided for the Policy to be reviewed in the 2018
September quarter.
The process of Policy review will ensure that policies are up to date and
relevant.
Not applicable.
6) Risk Management
The Policy provides guidance about the manner in which risk should be
managed across the organisation.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
9) Financial Impact
Not applicable.
Council can elect to discontinue or amend and continue the existing Policy.
The initial review by Council officers has resulted in a number of minor

changes to the wording of the Policy.
The intent, scope and objective of the policy remain unchanged.
AUTHOR: Martin Gill

GENERAL MANAGER
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Council confirm the continuation of Policy No.

1– Risk Management as follows:
POLICY MANUAL
Policy Number: 1 Risk Management

The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework
Purpose:
for the management of risk, and define the
responsibilities of staff and management in the risk
management process.
Department: Governance
Author: David Pyke Director Martin Gill, General Manager
8 December 2015 14 August 2018

Council Meeting Date:
466/2015
Minute Number:
Next Review Date: September 2018 2022
POLICY
1. Definitions
Nil
2. Objective
 Ensure that appropriate risk management is an integral part of management

processes within Council operations so as to minimise any consequential loss,
damage or injury to persons or property.
3. Scope
This policy applies to the Council, the Workplace Health & Safety and Risk Management
Committee, employees, contractors and volunteers in the management of risk that arises
from all Council activities.
4. Policy
The Meander Valley Council is committed to proactively managing risk that arises from all
Council activities, providing and maintaining a healthy and safe living environment for the
general community within all Council controlled areas. Council endeavours to ensure that
the environment and facilities provided for the community and employees are safe, with
minimum minimise the potential for risk and are underpinned by the necessary practices
and procedures are implemented to that control risk.
Council recognises that risk management is an essential tool for sound strategic and financial
planning and the ongoing physical operations of the organisation. Adequate funds and
resources will be provided by Council to ensure the following outcomes:
 Identify and analyse Council’s liability associated with risk

 Encourage the identification and reporting of potential risks
 Minimise any potential liabilities
 Protect the community against losses that are controllable by Council
 To maintain an appropriate level and type of insurance to cover risk
 A high standard of accountability
 Set performance standards and regularly review practices and procedures
 Allow for more effective allocation and use of resources
 To promote and raise the awareness of Risk Management practices throughout the
organisation
 Protect Council’s corporate image as a professional, responsible and ethical organisation
The above outcomes will be achieved by managing risks in accordance with the Standard or
Standards referred to in Clause Section 5 of this policy. This involves logically and
systematically identifying, analysing, assessing, treating and monitoring risk exposures that
are likely to adversely impact on Council’s operations.
Specifically, this includes the following areas of potential losses:
 Personnel (Workplace Health and Safety);

 Plant and Property;
 Liability (including Public Liability and Professional Indemnity);
 Financial;
 Business interruption continuity;
 Community Recovery.
Link to Council’s Community Strategic Plan
Our Community Strategic Plan under Future Direction 5, “Innovative leadership and
community governance” provides for Meander Valley Council to be recognised as a
responsibly managed organisation.
Roles and Responsibilities
Councillors, management, employees, contractors and volunteers all have a joint

responsibility of making risk management a priority as they undertake their daily tasks in the
operations of Meander Valley Council. Management and staff are to be familiar with and
competent in the application of Council’s Risk Management Policy and are accountable for
adherence to that policy within their areas of responsibility.
Council
 Provide commitment and support so that the risk management policy can be
implemented.
 Provide adequate budgetary provision for the implementation of this policy.
General Manager
 Recognise, adopt and ensure implementation of appropriate Risk Management as an

essential function of the organisation
 Facilitate the provision of awareness training throughout Council
 Provide risk management related information, as requested by Council, and
 Ensure risks are managed in accordance with the Standard or Standards referred to in
Section 5 of this policy, legislation and other Council policy.
Directors/Supervisors
 Maintain overall responsibility for the effective management for all types of risks related
to this policy across Council’s operations;
 Ensure that Council’s assets and operations, together with liability risks to the public, are
adequately protected through appropriate risk financing and loss control programs and
measures;
 Prepare and implement documented procedures for each area of operations;
 Monitor and audit practices and processes to ensure appropriateness to current
conditions and practices;
 Provide information when requested which will assist in the investigation of a risk
management issue or claim that has been made against Council;
 Immediately act upon information provided by employees or residents who are reporting
a hazard or incident;
 Actively implement Risk Management audit recommendations
 Promote and inform all employees, contractors and volunteers of the policy and their
requirements.
Employees, Contractors and Volunteers
 Familiarise themselves with Council’s Risk Management policy, principles and procedures;
 Employ risk management principles and practices to ensure that loss control and
prevention is a priority whilst undertaking daily tasks;
 Report any hazard or incidents as soon as possible that may have a potential risk
exposure to Council, employees, contractors or the public;
 Assist positively with investigations related to incidents that have occurred as a result of a
hazard or incident; and
 Take notice of and implement recommendations or risk management audits conducted
in the workplace.
Work Health and Safety and Risk Management Committee
 Effectively co-ordinate and facilitate risk management operations within the framework
provided by the Standard or Standards referred to in Section 5 of this policy , legislation
and Council policy;
 Review Council’s risk management policies and procedures;
 Recommend new procedures or amendments to existing procedures to reduce risk;
 Review and monitor Council’s risk management performance measures; and
 Monitor the recommendations and outcomes from risk management audits.
Implementation
A Risk Management Strategy including internal audits and reviews will be completed on a
regular basis to enable progressive adjustment of practices to be undertaken to achieve full
compliance with this policy.
Performance Review
Council will ensure that there are ongoing reviews of its management system to ensure its
continued suitability and effectiveness. Records of all reviews and changes shall be
documented.
5. Legislation and Related Standards
 Work Health and Safety Act 2012

 Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012
 AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Standard
 AS ISO GUIDE 73:2009 Risk Management – Vocabulary
 AS ISO IEC 31010:2009 Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques
6. Responsibility
Responsibility for the operation of this policy rests with the General Manager.
DECISION:
CORP 1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW
1) Introduction
The purpose of this report is for Council to review its Financial Management
Strategy.
2) Background
The current Financial Management Strategy was adopted by Council in July

2014, in accordance with section 70A of the Local Government Act. It is a
further requirement under section 70E of the Act that the Strategy be
reviewed at least every four years.
The proposed Financial Management Strategy was presented and discussed

at the May 2018 workshop. It was also discussed at the June 2018 Audit
Panel meeting.
The Annual Plan requires preparation of the Financial Management Strategy

in July 2018. It has been deferred to August pending adoption of the
2018/19 Operating Budget.
The Financial Management Strategy includes information sourced from

Council’s Asset Management Policy, Investment of Surplus Funds Policy and
Rates & Charges Policy.
Section 70A and Ministerial Orders prepared in accordance with Section 70F
and Section 70E of the Local Government Act 1993.
6) Risk Management
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
9) Financial Impact
The Financial Management Strategy is prepared to guide Council in its

financial decision making.
The establishment and review of a Financial Management Strategy is

mandatory. Council can adopt the Financial Management Strategy with
amendment.
The Financial Management Strategy has been reviewed in accordance with

the requirements of the Local Government Act. The strategy is based on
Council’s current annual budget process and Long Term Financial Plan.
Principles contained in related Council policies have been included to
provide consistency in the financial planning functions of Council.
AUTHOR: Justin Marshall

SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Council confirm the continuation of the

Financial Management Strategy, amended as follows:
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2019 TO 2028
CORP 1
Overview
Purpose and Intent
The Financial Management Strategy (FMS) has been prepared in accordance with Section 70A of the Local Government Act
1993 to guide Council in its financial decision making. The FMS has been prepared with the following key principles in mind.
Meander Valley Council will:
 Manage its finances on behalf of its community in a responsible and sustainable manner
 Maintain its community wealth in a manner where the wealth enjoyed by today’s generation may also be enjoyed by
tomorrow’s generation
 Apply a user pays principle where appropriate, taking into account any community service obligation
 Manage its financial position with an ability to recover from unanticipated events and to absorb the potential volatility
inherent in revenues and expenses
 Manage its Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) to retain an underlying surplus after excluding capital income and expenditure
 Manage the FMS in keeping with the Strategic Plan with evidence based decision-making that is honest, open and
transparent
These principles, in addition to the ‘Rates and Charges’ policy, are key considerations in preparation of Council’s annual
budget, LTFP and Asset Management Plans (AMP).
The LTFP will be prepared using Council’s forecast information at the time of preparation for a period of ten years. The Asset
Management Plans determine the projected spend on capital renewals and new/upgraded assets that is integrated into the
LTFP. Revenue and Expenditure in the LTFP will not be indexed with inflation and will be stated in today’s values.
CORP 1
Financial Management Strategy Page 2
Financial Principles
General Rates
 General rates are taxation for the purpose of local government rather than a fee for service. It is the revenue source that
Council has the greatest influence over when determining the annual budget. Council will ensure that it raises the revenue
required to meet expenditure obligations in an efficient and equitable manner.
 Council’s general rates will be established in the annual budget process in line with the ‘Rates and Charges’ policy. The
objective is to maintain a sustainable rates system that provides revenue stability and supports a balanced budget to avoid
placing the burden of current expenditure on future generations; and ensuring that all councillors and staff work together and
have a consistent understanding of the Council’s long term revenue goals.
 The general rates will be levied based on a property's Assessed Annual Value (AAV) as determined by the Tasmanian Valuer
General. AAV generally reflects a ratepayer’s capacity to pay.
 General rates will be increased annually at least in line with inflation to ensure the primary source of funding in the LTFP is
not diminished and that Council is keeping pace with meeting the cost of providing services to the community.
 The projected rate rises required over and above inflation levels to balance the operating surplus in the LTFP are as follows:
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
CORP 1
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting
2019 Agenda2020
- 14 August2021
2018 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Page 775
Service Charges
 Service charges will be regarded as a fee for service. A user pays concept is applied to service charges where possible.
 Council will raise a waste management service charge which covers the collection costs of waste and recycling. Since 2015
an additional fixed charge has been applied that begins to recover the cost of all other waste services including the provision
of refuse sites and a transfer station. In 2017 the fixed charge achieved full cost recovery, meaning the household waste
function is self-funding, as opposed to being included in the general rate’s rate in the dollar calculation.
 The fire service contributions charge will be determined by the Tasmanian State Government with Council acting as an agent
for the collection.
User Fees & Charges
 User fees and charges for council goods and services will be maintained in line with inflation at approximately six percent of
operating revenue over the term of the LTFP.
CORP 1
Other Revenue
 The main source of other revenue are the Financial Assistance Grants received from the Commonwealth Government.
 Another significant source of other revenue is distributions from Council’s investment in TasWater. Revenue is in line with
TasWater’s Corporate Plan and is based on Council’s existing ownership. Distributions will reduce by one third in 2019.
 Interest on Cash and Investments are currently projected at a rate of 2.70% with this rate to be reviewed annually. This
revenue item also includes interest from rate debtors and interest from outstanding loaned funds. Other interest revenue
includes loans owing to Council.
 Council’s projected loans receivable in the LTFP is as follows:
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CORP 1
Operating Expenditure
 The operational expenditure of Council covers a wide range of services in the functions of Administration, Roads Streets &
Bridges, Health & Community Services, Land Use Planning & Building, Recreation & Culture and Unallocated & Unclassified.
Council will determine the level and range of services it provides to the community and approve funding of these services in
the annual budget process.
 The LTFP includes no allowance for anticipated changes to the roles, functions and levels of service throughout the ten year
period.
 The Unwinding Tip Provision expenditure relates to non-cash entries that recognise Council’s liability to rehabilitate refuse
sites upon their closure.
CORP 1
Depreciation
 Depreciation recognises the allocation of the value of an asset over its useful life. Management will make informed
assumptions regarding the value of assets and the period of time the assets will provide services to the community. External
specialists will be used for valuation services as deemed appropriate.
 The depreciation charged on an annual basis is reflective of the services being provided to the residents in that year.
 The value of depreciation as estimated in the LTFP does not allow for changes due to revaluation of asset classes.
 Councils projected depreciation expense in the LTFP is as follows:
5,250,000
5,200,000
5,150,000
5,100,000
5,050,000
5,000,000
4,950,000
4,900,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CORP 1
Capital Works Program
 Council will approve the twelve month Capital Works Program on an annual basis.
 Expenditure on asset renewals ensures the existing level of service is maintained and the asset base will be preserved as the
assets that are consumed are restored to their full service potential when needed. If Council does not fund asset renewals as a
priority then the assets capacity to deliver services to the community will reduce.
 Spend on new and upgraded assets is regarded as a discretionary spend as it increases the level of service provided to the
community and may increase operating expenditure into the future.
 Councils projected spend on new assets and asset renewals in the LTFP is as follows:
16,000,000
New Assets
14,000,000
Asset Renewal
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CORP 1
Asset Management Plans
 Council will manage its assets in line with the ‘Asset Management’ policy, ensuring adequate provision is made for the long-
term replacement of major assets is sustainable, through informed decision making on reliable information that is accountable
and responsible.
 Council’s AMP’s will determine the renewal, upgrade and new asset expenditure forecast for all periods in the LTFP. They will
be based on Management’s forecasts of the infrastructure network’s structure, condition and useful lives.
 The AMP’s will also establish additional operational costs above existing levels that will be incurred due to the creation of
new assets, these costs are to be included in the operating expenses in the LTFP.
CORP 1
Financial Management Strategies
Cash
 Council will review cash at bank at least weekly to ensure that all short term cash flow requirements will be paid when they
are due.
Investments
 Council will make investments in line with the ‘Investment of Surplus Funds’ policy with the objective of ensuring that the
best possible rate of return is achieved from the investment of surplus Council funds whilst, at the same time ensuring the
security of those funds.
 Cash and investments will be appropriately managed in order to meet the anticipated expenditure identified in the LTFP.
 Minimum cash and investment balances will be preserved to ensure all current liabilities can be met at any given time.
 Councils projected cash and investment balance in the LTFP is as follows (note, balances do not take into account
outstanding liabilities, e.g. employee leave provisions):
17,000,000
16,000,000
15,000,000
14,000,000
13,000,000
12,000,000
11,000,000
CORP 1
Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting
2019 Agenda - 14 August
2020 2018
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Page 782
Financial Management Strategies
Borrowings
 Council will continue to adopt a low debt environment. Borrowings will be considered for use with strategic purposes that
provide new community infrastructure.
 Borrowings are intended to fund long term new asset creation that improves services to the community. The term of new
borrowings must be considered with a view to link the payment period with the population that enjoys the benefit of those
assets.
 Council will manage existing borrowings, cash and investments to ensure that debts are repaid when they are due.
 Councils projected debt in the LTFP is as follows:
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
CORP 1
Financial Targets
Financial Management Indicators and Asset Management Indicators
The State Government requires Council to disclose a number of management indicators in their annual financial statements.
The following indicators will be prepared and disclosed in the financial statements for users to view as a measure of Council’s
financial sustainability. In achieving the targets, Council will be performing strongly in achieving a number of aspects identified
in the Purpose and Intent of the financial management strategy:
Financial Management Indicators Target
Underlying Surplus or Deficit Greater than $0
Underlying Surplus Ratio Greater than 0%
These targets will maintain a breakeven operating position for the life of the LTFP, ensure that Council is generating sufficient revenue to meet its
operating requirements. A result greater than 0 means that Council’s recurring revenue is greater than recurring expenditure.
 Councils projected Underlying Surplus Ratio in the LTFP is as follows:
1.50%
1.00% 0.86%
0.67%
0.44% 0.50% 0.49% 0.42%
0.50%
0.21% 0.14%
0.05%
0.00%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
-0.21%
-0.50%
-1.00%
CORP 1
Financial Targets
Financial Management Indicators and Asset Management Indicators (Cont.)
Financial Management Indicators Target
Net Financial Liabilities What is owed to others, less money held, invested or Total liabilities less financial assets (cash and cash Greater than
owed to Council equivalents plus trade and other receivables plus $0
other financial assets)
Net Financial Liabilities The significance of net amount owed compared with Total liabilities less liquid assets, divided by total At least 0%
Ratio the periods income operating income
Asset Management Indicators Target
Asset Consumption Ratio The average proportion of ‘as new’ condition left in The depreciated replacement cost of plant, At least 60%
assets equipment and infrastructure divided by the current
replacement cost of depreciable assets
Asset Renewal Funding The extent to which the required renewal capital Present value of renewal capital expenditure in long At least 90%
Ratio expenditure in the asset management plans have term financial plan divided by present value of
been funded in the long term financial plan required renewal capital expenditure in the asset
management plan
Asset Sustainability Ratio The ratio of asset replacement expenditure relative to Capital expenditure on replacement, renewal of At least 90%
depreciation for the period. This measures if assets existing plant, equipment and Infrastructure divided
are being replaced at the rate they are wearing out by depreciation expense
CORP 1
Document Control
Document Control
First issued/approved July 2014
Last reviewed/adopted August 2018
Next review date August 2022
Version number 2
Responsible officer Senior Accountant
Responsible department Corporate Services
CORP 1
DECISION:
INFRA 1 STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENT REVIEW &
IMPLEMENTATION
1) Introduction
The purpose of this item is for Council to approve the Meander Valley
Strategic Planning Documentation Review and Implementation Project
document.
2) Background
Councillors have previously provided comprehensive input into the Meander

Valley Strategic Planning Documentation Review and Implementation Project
document at three Workshops in 2018, namely: February, March and July
Council Workshops.
The purpose of the review was to capture the projects and recommendations
from Council’s major development planning documents, including:
1. Hadspen Outline Development Plan;
2. Westbury Outline Development Plan;
3. Prospect Vale Blackstone Heights Structure Plan;
4. Hadspen Master Plan; and
5. Deloraine Outline Development Plan.
Councillors and Council Officers have then collaborated to:

 Convert planning strategies and recommendations to actions;
 Prioritise actions as agreed projects; and
 Link projects to the Strategic Plan.
Each project has been assessed for priority based on the expected timeframe
for delivery, as shown in the table below:
Assessed Priority Timeframe

Immediate Up to 2 years
High 2 years up to 5 years
Medium 5 years up to 10 years
Low 10 years up to 20 years
Each project has been categorised by status based on the categories, as
shown in the following table:
Status Detail
Potential Project New project for consideration
In Progress Project commenced and in progress
All of the objectives of the Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2014 to 2024
are furthered by one or more of the projects within the Meander Valley
Strategic Planning Documentation Review and Implementation Project
document:
 Future Direction (1) – A sustainable natural and built environment
 Future Direction (2) – A thriving local economy
 Future Direction (3) – Vibrant and engaged communities
 Future Direction (4) –A healthy and safe community
 Future Direction (5) – Innovative leadership and community governance
 Future Direction (6) – Planned infrastructure services
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
.
6) Risk Management
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Community members have provided their input during the consultation

phases of the Outline Development and Structure Planning projects.
9) Financial Impact
Council Officers will seek approval for fully costed projects in the future.
Council can elect not to approve or modify the final list of priority projects.
A substantial amount of work has gone into producing this document to

finalise the actions and recommendations from the strategic plans. It is
anticipated that as part of the next steps, Council Officers will develop
preliminary project plans for inclusion in future:
1. Capital Works Programs

2. Operating Budgets
3. Asset Management Plans
4. Council’s Long Term Financial Plans.
AUTHOR: Craig Plaisted

PROJECT MANAGER, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Council approve the Meander Valley Strategic

Planning Documentation Review and Implementation Project document,
as follows:
MEANDER VALLEY STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTATION
REVIEW and IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
August 2018
INFRA 1
Overview
The purpose of the Strategic Planning Documentation Review was to convert the actions and recommendations from Council’s
major development planning documents into projects for implementation. The following strategic planning documents were
received by Council from 2011 to 2016:
 Hadspen Outline Development Plan (ODP) October 2011
 Westbury ODP December 2013
 Hadspen Growth Area Master Plan January 2015
 Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights Structure Plan January 2015
 Deloraine ODP April 2016
An ODP – or Structure Plan – is a document that guides the future development of a town or suburb. ODPs lay the foundation for
future rezoning, development planning and subdivision by addressing the opportunities and constraints for growth, and identifying
any associated infrastructure requirements.
The review process has involved Councillors, Council Officers collaborating to:
 Convert planning strategies and recommendations to actions;
 Prioritise actions as agreed projects; and
 Link projects to the Strategic Plan.
The shortlisted ODP projects have been identified with additional explanatory text about each “item” and a Plan ID that relates
specifically to each of the foundation strategic planning documents; refer table below:
Strategic Planning Document Plan Id

Hadspen Outline Development Plan (ODP) October 2011 HAD
& Hadspen Growth Area Master Plan January 2015
Westbury ODP December 2013 WODP
Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights Structure Plan PVBH
January 2015
Deloraine ODP April 2016 DODP
Each project has been assessed for priority based on the expected timeframe for delivery, as shown in the table below:
Assessed Priority Timeframe

Immediate Up to 2 years
High 2 years up to 5 years
Medium 5 years up to 10 years
Low 10 years up to 20 years
Each project has been categorised by status based on the categories, as shown in the following table:
Status Detail
Potential Project New project for consideration
In Progress Project commenced and in progress
INFRA 1
Strategic Planning – Priority Projects
Plan ID - Item Action Required Assessed Status Comment
Priority
DODP 2 - Regional recreation D&C 2x bituminous netball courts with fence, seats & lights as Stage 1 Immediate In Capital allocated and design underway
precinct - Alveston Drive progress
WODP 6 - Community facilities - Develop and implement program for new/refurbished community facilities Immediate In Audit underway; planning to be commenced in 2019
develop/implement program of progress
new & refurbished
PVBH 9 - Support the expansion Promote links between the regional sporting facilities at Prospect Vale Park and Immediate Potential Planning and discussions with key stakeholders underway
of Westbury Rd Activity Centre new sub-regional commercial and community uses project
PVBH 7 - Provide diverse housing Provide the opportunity for innovative development models that respond to the High Potential Future Planning Scheme amendment to be considered in future
choices unique natural attributes of the municipality. Specifically, there is potential to project operating budget; reliant on Developer proposals
develop housing models such as cluster residences, that would be unique in the
Tasmanian housing market
DODP 3 - Diversify & enhance Provide pedestrian access/signage for link behind Police Station/MVPAC High Potential Signage scope to be finalised and undertaken under operational
Meander River Park facilities project budget
HAD 8 - WSUD Integrate SW treatment into HUGP landscape by creating vegetated ‘living High Potential Council is in the process of preliminary design and cost
streams’ & ‘constructed wetlands’ through Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) project estimates
DODP 20 - Improve parking Improve parking in proximity of disability/aged services; and MVPAC in Deloraine High Potential Improvements can be considered through future capital works
provision project program
HAD 18 - Enhance & respect local Investigate potential for collaborative remediation and tracks/trails project in High Potential Project to be considered in a future Capital Works Program,
landscape/cultural values Hadspen c/- NRM North project subject to development commencing in Hadspen
HAD 2 - Township gateway Create a new town entry statement in Hadspen
DODP 25 - Improve services for Review the World Health Organisation’s Checklist of Essential Features for Age High Potential Extend audit across entire local government area subject to
older people Friendly Cities project operational budget
DODP 3 - Diversify & enhance Audit lighting of existing loop track in Deloraine and improve to facilitate safe High Potential Assessment complete; considered at 2018/19 capital workshop;
Meander River Park facilities evening use project can be consideration in a future capital works program; officers
to seek grant opportunity
PVBH 10 - Provide a mix of Connect new destinations with Prospect Vale’s off-road pedestrian and cycling High Potential Requires further planning and subject to consideration in future
transport choices network project capital works program
DODP 22 - Provide electric Install an electric car charge point within Deloraine to cater for electric vehicles High Potential Considered at 2018/19 capital workshop; identified to be
vehicle charge point project considered in the future 2020 capital works program; Meeting
item in Aug 2018 Agenda
DODP 21 - Improve connectivity Construct multi-use path on West Goderich St/Emu Bay Rd to connect nth High Potential Would require consideration in a future capital works program
with northern end of town Deloraine to town centre project
PVBH 3 - Protect/leverage area's Maximise connections between urban areas and environmental assets such as Medium In Potential partnership with government and
environmental qualities Lake Trevallyn, the South Esk River and Cataract Gorge progress Developers/landowners as part of future capital works program;
initial assessment into links between Blackstone Heights and
Cataract Gorge in progress
INFRA 1
Priority
HAD 10 - Creating compact & Facilitate creation of new town centre south of Meander Valley Road in Hadspen Medium Potential Project to be considered in a future Capital Works Program,
mixed use town/neighbourhood (e.g. medical centre) and redevelop existing town centre to create a range of project subject to development commencing in Hadspen
centres additional commercial and retail outlets
WODP 1 - Town centre - site ID, Key development site identification and opportunities (e.g. new supermarket site) Medium Potential Project to be considered in a future Capital Works Program,
land bank & facilitate new in Hadspen project subject to private developer interest
development
DODP 13 - Improve tourism Develop a marketing plan to promote Deloraine & surrounds to visitors as Medium Potential Would need to be considered in a future annual operating
promotion gateway to the Western Tiers project budget for promotion of all of Meander Valley
HAD 19 - Enhance & respect local Create a network of linear parks in the township and growth area that builds on Medium Potential Opp 17 from Hadspen ODP, construction project to be
landscape/cultural values the existing river foreshore parkland, bullrun, hilltop and natural drainage lines in project considered in a future Capital Works Program; Enabled by
Hadspen Planning Scheme SAP, Land purchase of river edge would be
required by Council
WODP 11 - Township gateway Prepare and implement township gateway strategy, potentially in association with Medium Potential Discussions with TRAP and State Growth underway
the signage strategy in all towns project
WODP 12 - Town centre Design & construct town centre streetscape works in Westbury Medium Potential Council invested $560,000 between 2008-11 on William Street
project makeover project and further work can be considered in future
capital works program
WODP 14 - Streetscape themes Establish street tree themes for key routes and local roads in all towns Medium Potential With TRAP
project
PVBH 8 - Encourage facilities for Plan for the provision of a community centre in Prospect Vale to service the future Medium Potential Requires further conceptual planning and subject to
the ageing needs of the community project consideration in future capital works program
HAD 4 - Creating healthy Better connect the town of Hadspen via integrated pedestrian & cycle path Medium Potential Opp 11 from Hadspen ODP, project to be considered in a future
communities network including links to Entally project Capital Works Program
HAD 5 - Creating healthy Create a more extensive river foreshore parkland along the South Esk River Medium Potential Opp 12 from Hadspen ODP, project to be considered in a future
communities crossing in Hadspen to the western side to Entally project Capital Works Program
WODP 4 - Open space - Develop and implement program for open space investment Medium Potential Would require consideration in future operating budget subject
develop/implement program project to the completion of Hadspen, Prospect Vale and Blackstone
Heights Open Space Strategy
WODP 7 - Improving movement Undertake capital works to implement sustainable transport initiatives in key Medium Potential Some footpath work currently underway, additional projects to
routes within the township of Westbury project be considered in future capital works programs
PVBH 1 - Network of linear open Extend open space to major community and commercial activities and services in Medium Potential Any additional development would need to be considered in a
space, pedestrian/cycle paths Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights project future capital works program
PVBH 1 - Network of linear open Plan for open space and pathways that follow natural linear networks such as Medium Potential Any additional development would need to be considered in a
space, pedestrian/cycle paths creeks, low points and ridge lines in Prospect Vale and Blackstone Heights project future capital works program
DODP 3 - Diversify & enhance Landscape improvements to Racecourse Drive footpath in Deloraine to improve Medium Potential Would require consideration in a future capital works program
Meander River Park facilities delineation of the footpath project
DODP 5 - Develop Wild Wood Construct 1.8km dirt path loop on both sides of Meander River (with bridge) in Medium Potential Would require consideration in a future capital works program
loop track Deloraine project
INFRA 1
Priority
PVBH 2 - Distribute traffic to Provide alternative to Country Club Avenue for those accessing Blackstone Medium Potential Subject to future residential development in the area
enhance safety & min congestion Heights, Prospect Vale and Country Club Tasmania project
PVBH 6 - Optimise use of Encourage the use of land within the Prospect Vale waste water treatment plant Low Potential Future Planning Scheme amendment to be considered in future
constrained land attenuation zone for public open space project operating budget; reliant on TasWater proposed changes to
decommission the WWTP
DODP 8 - Utilise the Racetrack for Design and construct a BMX track (competition grade/no lighting) at the Low Potential Would need to be considered in future capital works program
recreational activities & events Deloraine Racecourse project
DODP 9 - Encourage and Introduce dynamic public art on 3 newly installed plinths and facilitate an art Low Potential If the community of Deloraine propose a public art project, then
implement public art projects competition for sculptures that are suitable for the 3 plinths project it could be considered by Council
DODP 9 - Encourage and New art installation for Wild Wood in Deloraine in partnership with arts, tourism, Low Potential Council could be an advocate for the community with the Crown
implement public art projects schools & business project
DODP 3 - Diversify & enhance Install new public gym equipment in Meander River reserve in Deloraine Low Potential Would require consideration in a future capital works program
Meander River Park facilities project
DODP 24 - Provide Make land available for the construction of independent living units for persons Low Potential To be considered if a request is received by a provider
accommodation for disabled with disabilities project
residents
DODP 15 - Provide for an Emu Formalise existing pedestrian link between Emu Bay Rd and West Pde through Low Potential Footpath may be considered in future capital works program
Bay Rd-West Parade pedestrian ROW over 24-28 Emu Bay Rd & 1 West Church Street project
link
Through the process Council has also identified additional initiatives that will be developed by Council Officers and brought back to Council for consideration, these include: Celebrate Colonial
Heritage in historic towns like Westbury; Emphasise youth in Planning for all towns; and Multi-use water facilities across Meander Valley.
INFRA 1
DECISION:
INFRA 2 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
1) Introduction
The purpose of this report is for Council to appoint one new community
representatives to Council’s Sustainable Environment Committee (SEC).
2) Background
At the June 2016 Council Meeting the then SEC was established as a Special
Committee of Council.
The motion also called for the adoption of Terms of Reference, whereby
‘community members with a range of relevant interests and skills’ can be
appointed as SEC members by invitation from Council.
The SEC recommends that Council invite one community member to join the
Special Committee, namely:
1. Mr Nick Kemsley – resident at 14A Emu Bay Road, Deloraine
Furthers the objectives of the Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2014 to

2024:
 Future Direction (5) – Innovative leadership and community governance
Not applicable.
Section 24 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993 applies.
6) Risk Management
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Community members may be appointed directly by Council – without the

need to advertise expressions of interest for vacancies.
9) Financial Impact
Not applicable.
Council can elect not to appoint the recommended community members to

the SEC.
The appointment of Mr Nick Kemsley is in response to the recent resignation

of two community members.
AUTHOR: Craig Plaisted

PROJECT MANAGER, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Mr Nick Kemsley be appointed by Council under

Section 24 (2) of the Local Government Act 1993 as community member
to the Sustainable Environment Committee.
DECISION:
INFRA 3 REVIEW OF BUDGETS FOR THE 2018-2019
CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM
1) Introduction
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the reallocation of
funding within the Capital Works Program as a result of project cost
variations.
2) Background
Project budget allocations within the Capital Works Program that are
submitted to Council for approval prior to the commencement of each
financial year are prepared using a range of methods. In some instances and
depending on the availability of resources and time constraints, projects can
be thoroughly scoped and accurate estimates prepared using available
empirical or supplier information. Conversely, project cost estimates may
only be general allowances prepared using the best information available at
the time.
During the financial year, detailed design, adjustment to project scope and
the undertaking of additional works during construction, results in project
expenditure under and over approved budget amounts. New projects may
also be requested for inclusion in the program.
The overall financial objective in delivering the Capital Works Program is to

have a zero net variation in the program budget. As part of our ongoing
management of projects, Council officers review project time lines, budgets,
scope and available resources. Project savings are generally used to offset
project overruns and additional funding can be requested to assist with
balancing the budget or to finance new projects.
Council’s Annual Plan requires Council officers to report on the progress of

capital works projects.
Not applicable.
Section 82(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 requires Council to approve
by absolute majority any proposed alteration to Council’s estimated capital
works outside the limit of the General Manager’s financial delegation of
$20,000.
6) Risk Management
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
9) Financial Impact
The recommended variations in this report will result in a $5,000 net increase
to the value of the 2018-2019 Capital Works Program. However, there is no
additional Council funding required outside the current approved Program
as the increase in budget is offset by the Tasmanian Government’s
ChargeSmart Program (refer Officers Comments). Council’s overall budget
estimate is not altered.
Council can amend or not approve the recommendations.
In order to deliver the outcomes required from capital works projects

outlined in the Annual Plan, Council officers regularly review project scope,
resourcing requirements and committed and forecast expenditure. Typically
on a quarterly basis, project information is presented to Council where cost
variations have occurred, and formal approval is requested from the Council
to reallocate funding within the Capital Works Program where variations are
beyond the General Manager’s financial delegation.
The table below outlines existing projects in the Capital Works Program, and
one new project not previously presented to Council, where reallocation of
funding is required.
TABLE 1: 2018-2019 CAPITAL WORKS BUDGET – REALLOCATION OF PROJECT FUNDING
Council Proposed
Project Original New
Project Name Costs to Budget Delegation Comments
No. Budget Budget
date Variation
$5K funding from State
EV Charging points (Westbury Government and $6K
TBC $0 $0 $11,000 $11,000 Council
and Deloraine) funding transfer from
PN6551
Northern Lights - LED Street
6551 $13,929 $69,700 -$6,000 $63,700 Council Transfer to EVC Charging
Light Replacement
6499 Bracknell open drain program $0 $20,000 -$12,000 $8,000 GM Transfer to PN6852
Esplanade, Bracknell (between
6852 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 GM Transfer from PN6499
Field and Louisa St
Totals $89,700 $5,000 $94,700
EV Charging points
Meander Valley Council has been successful in an application to the
Tasmanian Government’s ChargeSmart Program for a grant of $5,000
(rounded up; including GST) for procurement and installation of Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
Only 11 organisations received grants up to $5,000 from the $50,000

available. The organisations included the Department of Education (x2),
University of Tasmania (x3), Cradle Coast Authority (x1), Royal Automobile
Club of Tasmania (x1) and local government (x4) including Meander Valley,
Launceston, Central Coast and Huon Valley councils.
The funds will enable Council to install a charger station to recharge EVs
parked in the car parking area in front of the Council Chambers in Westbury.
The ChargeSmart grant is intended to help Council’s workplace to:
 demonstrate leadership by showing that our organisation is ready for

electric vehicles;
 support employees who are electric vehicle owners, or may be in the
future;
 support increased uptake of electric vehicles in our fleet;
 encourage electric vehicle uptake through increased awareness of the
technology and increased convenience of charging; and
 encourage other workplaces to install charging stations through leading
by example.
The Tasmanian Climate Change Office (TCCO) states that EVs are likely to be
priced similarly to standard internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by
2025. Therefore, the initial demand for electricity from the charge station is
expected to be extremely low over the next few years, then progressively
increasing as EV prices reach parity with ICE vehicles. Those owners
intending to charge EVs will need to provide their own cable (BYO) or
borrow one; if it was loaned by Council.
The proposed charger type is a Gelco Services GS2009 model Type 2

Mennekes charge station with one connector, to be installed with safety
switch and appropriate signage by a qualified electrician. The charger has a
22kW maximum output for fast Alternating Current (AC) charging when
connected to a 3 phase system, which is capable of charging from 0% to
100% a Nissan Leaf 2018 40kWh in 6 hours, a BMW i3 2017 60 Ah in 3 hours
or a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV in 3.5 hours. The charging unit is
compatible with major vehicle brands, including Tesla.
The GS2009 charger is fitted with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technology to identify connected devices, has Ethernet connection ports
and Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) for internet technology
communications and future billing services (i.e. Council can charge for
power).
This project initiative of the SEC also included a commitment within the
ChargeSmart application to match the State’s funding to install identical
charging infrastructure at the Visitor Centre in Deloraine. However, the
commitment was made “subject to formal approval of a capital budget
allocation at a Council Meeting”, and as such will require support and a
budget allocation from Council. Deloraine was identified as a suitable EV
charger location by RACT’s former General Manager, Darren Moody, who
wrote “it would have been great to have something around Deloraine for
the trip I did from Freycinet to Cradle”.
Officers seek Council approval for a budget re-allocation of $6,000 for the
procurement and installation of a second, identical EV charger at the Great
Western Tiers Visitor Centre in Deloraine, and match the State Government
contribution towards EV charging infrastructure in Meander Valley.
AUTHOR: Dino De Paoli

DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
12) Recommendation
It is recommended that Council;
1) Approves the following changes to the 2018-2019 Capital Works

Program.
Proposed
Original
Project Name Budget New Budget
Budget
Variation
EV Charging points (Westbury and
$0 $11,000 $11,000
Deloraine)
Northern Lights - LED Street Light
$69,700 -$6,000 $63,700
Replacement
DECISION:
ITEMS FOR CLOSED SECTION OF THE MEETING:
Councillor xx moved and Councillor xx seconded “that pursuant to Regulation

15(2)(g) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015,
Council close the meeting to the public to discuss the following items.”
GOV 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of Minutes of the Closed Session of the Ordinary Council Meeting
held on 10 July, 2018.
GOV 3 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

(Reference Part 2 Regulation 15(2)(h) Local Government (Meeting Procedures)
Regulations 2015)
The meeting moved into Closed Session at ……..pm
The meeting re-opened to the public at …….pm
The meeting closed at …………
…………………………………………….
CRAIG PERKINS (MAYOR)

Meander Valley Council Agenda - 18 August 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meander Valley Council Agenda - 18 August 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meander Valley Council Agenda - 18 August 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORDINARY AGENDA

Tuesday 14 August 2018

Visitors are most welcome to attend Council meetings.

Visitors attending a Council Meeting agree to abide by the following rules:-

 When addressing Council the speaker is asked not to swear or use

 A visitor who continually interjects during the meeting or uses threatening

 In the case of extreme emergency caused by a visitor, the Chairperson is to

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 2

August 2018 at 1.30pm.

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 3

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR: .....................................................................................................6

TABLING OF PETITIONS: ..............................................................................................................................6

COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME .................................................................................................................9

NOTICE OF MOTIONS BY COUNCILLORS .......................................................................................... 10

C&DS 2 432 WESTBURY ROAD, PROSPECT VALE - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING

C&DS 4 DELORAINE & DISTRICTS RECREATION PRECINCT FEASIBILITY STUDY ............743

CORP 1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW .........................................................771

INFRA 2 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ...................................797

ITEMS FOR CLOSED SECTION OF THE MEETING: ....................................................... 805

GOV 3 LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...............................................................................................................805

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 4

Councillor xx moved and Councillor xx seconded, “that the minutes of the

COUNCIL WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE THE LAST MEETING:

Date : Items discussed:

24 July 2018  Proposed Sale of Anglican Church Properties

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 5

Tuesday 10 July 2018

Wednesday 11 July 2018

Tuesday 24 July 2018

Wednesday 25 July 2018

Thursday 26 July 2018

Friday 27 July 2018

Wednesday 8 August 2018

Thursday 9 August 2018

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 6

The Chairperson may direct a Councillor or Council officer to provide a response.

All questions and answers must be kept as brief as possible.

There will be no debate on any questions or answers.

Questions on notice and their responses will be minuted.

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 7

For further information please telephone 6393 5300 or visit www.meander.tas.gov.au

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1. PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE – JULY 2018

1.1 Mr Frank Nott, Prospect Vale

Response by Jonathan Harmey, Director Corporate Services

Response by Jonathan Harmey, Director Corporate Services

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 8

1.2 Mr Malcolm Eastley, Deloraine

Response by Martin Gill, General Manager

2. PUBLIC QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE – AUGUST 2018

3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – AUGUST 2018

COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME

1. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE – JULY 2018

1.1 Cr John Temple

Response by Lynette While, Director Community & Development Services

Meander Valley Council Ordinary Meeting Agenda - 14 August 2018 Page 9

2.1 Cr Deb White Question

Was the correspondence from the Premier included in Council correspondence

Response from Martin Gill, General Manager