Elsie Adamo
RESIDENTS in Compton are claiming Grant District Council did not appropriately consult with them before supporting an application to expand the nearby limestone quarry.
Council in March provided ‘in principle’ support to the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM) after they requested a response to an application from Sandridge Mining to expand their quarry and secure access to 100 years of limestone.
A letter signed by 14 nearby residents in Compton was provided to council, with a deputation made by Leighton Neill and Jim Prescott at a council meeting last week.
During the deputation Mr Neill claimed that he was concerned his interests were not being represented by council as proper consultation was not undertaken.
The report council based its decision on had included details on a treeline that hid the site’s activity but Mr Neill claimed that despite efforts to plant trees around the perimeter, he can still clearly view the land.
Mr Prescott said he did not believe it was too much to ask to be reached out to directly considering there are only eight properties in the vicinity of the quarry.
During the meeting, a number of councillors indicated that they were not aware there was strong opposition to the project, despite it being in the report.
Following the deputation, council staff maintained that appropriate procedures were followed when developing the report.
Despite this, concerns about the council’s consultation process was raised by several councillors, with Cr Gavin Clarke suggesting the council’s consultation policy be reviewed.
Mr Prescott said he believed the deputation went ‘okay’, but was disappointed that council members did not seem to know there was opposition to the plans.
“The councillors should have been advised better than they were advised,” Mr Prescott said.
“You do not have to be Einstein to work out if you are going to dig a great big hole next to someone’s backyard they are likely to be unhappy about it.”
Mr Prescott said in conversations he had with council staff previously on the matter, they indicated that they would not be involved and to discuss concerns directly with DEM.
“They were basically saying that we have no official role in this process, and they did not, but rather than remaining neutral, or not reply at all they chose to provide in principle support,” he said.
Mr Neill and his wife Debbie, whose property looks directly onto the proposed land, said that they never received any consultation from the council on the matter.
“In the report, it said there was a letterbox drop, yet there are no letterboxes here,” Ms Neill said.
“Unless you put it [the letter] in someone’s hands you cannot assume they have got it, and you cannot assume that nobody is against it.
“It was good to know that the councillors that did not know what was going on are now aware of it,” Ms Neill said.
During the deputation, council elected members and staff were invited to visit Mr Neill’s property to inspect the impacts on his property first-hand.
A motion was moved during the meeting that council staff and any available councillors would attend his property.
At the time of print, Mr Neill said no attempt had been made yet to organise the visit.
In response to the correspondence, council moved to write to the Department for Energy and Mining seeking to defer any final decision until the council could investigate matters further.
Council staff may also amend their submission highlighting potential errors, following further consultation.
