Tomerong Tip Part Four the closing statement

Closing Statement


This submission is a brief analysis of the application that has been put forward to the community.
It is plain to see that the application inadequately addresses environmental, land management and traffic issues.

The application if exposed to close and prolonged scrutiny would doubtless reveal additional issues that require addressing.

The Shoalhaven markets itself as a tourism location that has pristine waterways and natural vistas for the visitor to explore and enjoy. The Jervis Bay area, and its catchment in particular, attract many visitors from the domestic and overseas market.

It is an area of high environmental value and a semi-rural community lives here for the peace and quiet of a healthy environment. Given that the environmental credentials of the area have been long established, residents should expect a quality lifestyle, not the potential to be living next to a toxic waste dump.

When asked at a briefing as to why such a sensitive environmental site had been chosen for this facility, one of the joint preparers of the EIS stated "the landfill will be in a mined-out quarry, simple as that".

No consideration for the environmental implications and no confidence generated in the EIS. This is not just about filling an old quarry but changing the topography of the site with a 50 metre hill of toxic waste - in an environmentally sensitive catchment.

The Shoalhaven Greens are also shocked that the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) have deemed the condition of the Princes Highway adequate to support increased volume in heavy vehicle haulage.

This is of great concern as it appears to remove liability from the RTA should there be an increase in vehicle accidents due to increased congestion and the need for transport operators to meet deadlines and fulfil contractual agreements.

The Shoalhaven Greens are of the firm opinion that the only responsible course of action to take in determining the application is to enact the precautionary principle. Refusal of the application should be the recommendation on the grounds that it is not possible to guarantee the health of the environment or ensure as to what may happen in either the short or long term future on this site.

It is not possible to prove that toxins will not escape into the catchment via ground water, surface water or air and in light of this inability to prove that the development would be benign, the application must be refused.

We trust that the relevant Ministers and Panel members will exercise their environmental and social responsibilities and reject this proposal.