Stone cold controversy

Mansfield Shire Council’s recent decision to approve a stone extraction operation on O’Halloran Road in Bridge Creek has ignited significant opposition, with affected landholders now contemplating an appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) against the planning approval. The contentious decision followed an intense 90-minute discussion at last week’s council meeting, which included deputations from both objectors and the applicant, Stump Hill Pastoral, trading as Rocks Direct. The proposed five-hectare site on O’Halloran Road is described by objectors as premium agricultural land, a point that has intensified the backlash against the approval. Objectors, including local landholders Amanda Swaney, Andrew Markwick, and Jenny Delaforce, voiced deep concern that the council’s planning department had advised them it would support the application despite what they claim are "huge holes and discrepancies" in the proposal. Ms Delaforce, who represented the objectors at the lectern, did not mince her words, citing a "lack of support from the planning department and a failure to conduct due diligence." She said the group had "participated fully throughout the process, but misinformation and conflicting details have made it difficult". A central point of contention for objectors is the perceived inconsistency with the rejection of a similar application at 138 Hearns Road in Boorolite. "We have read the delegate report for 138 Hearns Road and noted there was very little difference between this application and the one we are objecting to at O'Halloran Road," Ms Delaforce said. She went on to accuse the council of hypocrisy in its assessment criteria. “The Hearn’s Road quarry was rejected because the impact of both noise and dust had not been quantified or technically measured or assessed," she said. “It also noted concerns about lack of geological assessment, erosion risk and land degradation from the rehabilitation method. “The applicant has mined for 30 plus years but refuses to show rehabilitated areas. “Their trust-us approach cannot be substituted for scientific data.” Ms Delaforce also highlighted alleged changes to the application throughout the process. "The fundamental changes from the original application, through to mediation and now to draft conditions is significant, unacceptable and confusing," she said. She provided examples, noting that the quarry pit depth was five metres in the original application, reduced to an agreed two metres during mediation, but that this limit "has now disappeared from the draft conditions altogether". Furthermore, she stated, "truck movements tripled from the original application". The proposed rehabilitation method also drew criticism, with Ms Delaforce pointing out the change from returning the pit to its original soil profile and level to "no fill - except top soil", which she said was "exactly the method council rejected in their delegate report of a similar stone extraction proposal for 138 Hearns Road". She also took aim at council documentation claiming it to be flawed, noting a map included with council’s stone extraction report failed to acknowledge numerous nearby residences that would be impacted. "The O'Hallorans, Ekkels, Halls, Careys, Maroneys, Swaneys and Scotts have all been overlooked despite being in close proximity," said Ms Delaforce. Despite the group of objectors amending this oversight with the planning department, when the matter went before council at the meeting this information had still not been updated. “The site chosen by the applicants from their thousands of acres affects 19 residences,” said Ms Delaforce “Why prioritise one family’s interest over so many?” Amanda Swaney, speaking on behalf of herself and her husband Rowan, expressed concern that the approval "sets a destructive precedent for the region and the amenity of local lifestyle". "Mansfield’s natural beauty is the reason that many people come to the shire and then decide to stay," Mrs Swaney said. "It amazes me that with such valued surroundings, we seek to allow people to dig massive holes which cannot be rehabilitated to the previous state and which remain as hollowed our scars on our hills and paddocks. “The material derived from these holes is mudstone which is then largely sold for Melbourne’s use." In her deputation to council Ms Swaney rallied against a single landholder or business receiving payment for this stone, while perceiving there was little advantage which flows through to the community of Mansfield. “The disturbance on rural life with fully laden trucks travelling our roads and the noisy scraping of heavy machinery seems completely out of character with what so many people value in the region,” she said. “We need to be alert as to what is precious in our shire and protect it with care, energy and diligence,” Andrew Markwick, the closest resident to the site and a professional with over 30 years in land management, approached the application from a technical perspective. While he initially supported the opportunity for the applicant, he insisted that "the environmental risks this enterprise poses to this applicant’s property, to the neighbouring properties and to the shire overall” needed to be addressed. Mr Markwick reiterated concerns with what objectors perceive to be conflicting information within the application regarding the depth of the excavation, and the consequential lack of clarity around the size of the actual disturbance area. The site’s proximity to Mt Samaria National Park and the impact on native vegetation was highlighted, and it was noted material removed from the site is reportedly not to be balanced with material brought to the site, which could impact the land profile. However, Mr Markwick also raised concerns about biosecurity if new soil were to be introduced to the site for restoration, stipulating potential threats to the agricultural industry through the "unintended introduction of soil-borne pathogens". Without a geotechnical report, Mr Markwick and his fellow objectors believe the shire is taking a massive risk in approving the application. Tom Forrest, the applicant for Stump Hill Pastoral, spoke to the long history of the family’s farming enterprise and the commercial stone extraction business, Rocks Direct. Explaining the family run approximately 8000 composite-use sheep and 500 head of cattle over the owned and leased landholding, he also said they have been extracting mudstone from the paddocks of Stump Hill in some way or form for over 150 years. “It has been made into a commercial business over the last 35 years, allowing our operation to diversify while also improving areas of our farm that were non-arable. “I have three sons and I’d like to continue our farming operation and the stone extraction helps us do this as we are not as vulnerable to climatic variations and market fluctuations,” he said. “We’ve always believed we were adhering to council requirements when it came to our operation and have been in contact with them regarding stone extraction numerous times over the past decade. “On 3 July 2024, we received a stop action letter from the council pertaining to our ongoing operation. “After discussion with the council, I was informed that the Shire had altered its planning scheme and no longer recognised the mineral and resources act of 1990, the framework under which we were operating. “Due to this, it was advised if we were to continue to remove rock it would be best to apply for an extraction permit.” Tom Forrest believes that prior to applying for this permit and it becoming public there had been no complaints about their operation. Once complaints were leveled he said all reasonable objections were then addressed during mediation, and operations were willingly modified. He said that the community benefits from their operation, citing numerous local projects that have used their stone and local people that were employed by the enterprise. “You only have to drive down High Street to see this is the case,” he said of the local use of stone. “Both new roundabouts, the amphitheatre on the median strip, the skate park, the Botanic Parks, the Gadhaba gathering place, along with other large community projects such as the new autistic centre, all four local schools and the Bonnie Doon football club – to name just a few – have all used large quantities of rock from Stump Hill. “Our rock is also used by numerous local landscapers and do-it-yourself gardeners. “If you take a look around town you will see this and soon realise that the overall community has a desire for our rock.” Mr Forrest asserted that all "regulatory authorities involved in the proposed permit have endorsed it". With council’s planning department one of those endorsing the application, Mansfield Shire councillor James Tehan moved a motion to approve the permit, with Mayor Cr Steve Rabie and Cr Mandy Treasure both in favour. In a bid to address the objectors' concerns, Cr Tehan stipulated that the permit be amended to read that the depth of excavations "could not exceed two metres," which was one of their primary issues. He also acknowledged the industry lacked regulation and sought to address this in the permit by introducing an additional clause pertaining to overseeing body the Resources Regulator. Approval however was not unanimous, with Cr Tim Berenyi and Cr Bonnie Clark both speaking against the motion emphasising "a lack of oversight". They both registered strong concern that the approval set a dangerous precedent and could potentially impact council’s ruling against the Hearns Road stone extraction operation which is currently before VCAT. “My concerns also relate to the application being up to five hectares which exempts the operator from having a Work Plan under the regulatory authority,” Cr Clark said. “There is the potential for this to become a recurring planning permit before council across other areas of the plot without an overarching consideration for the environmental impact as a whole. “Without a work plan, the operators are exempt from geotechnical assessment, water management, environmental management, dust and noise impact assessments, and all that regulatory work. “I cannot in good conscience support it." For Ms Delaforce and her fellow objectors, the outcome leaves them "demanding an overhaul of the sector, and more transparency in the entire process". They remain hopeful that councillors will consider the potential ramifications on the numerous landholders as they weigh up their VCAT options. She said for the moment objectors will be reserving the right to exercise their option to challenge the process, mediation, and the material and advice made available to the objectors, councillors and the general public. “This will include conflicts of interest with the mayor, deputy mayor and the planning department,” she said. “A deep injustice and wrongdoing has occurred that deserves a fair hearing and a presentation of factual evidence.”

Stone cold controversy

Merrijig turns out in force to discuss Delatite Valley Plan

Return of the Rabie

Residents raise concerns over Black Hole river access

Community feedback reshapes Delatite Valley Plan

Council announces swimming pool season opening

Rufous Whistler – arrival of a summer songbird

Bombers go back-to-back in A grade

“No stone unturned” – Police committed to the long-haul in manhunt

Start your engines, Wilby Drags are back

Most popular stories