Bobs Farm Sand Quarry proposal (SSD-99860959)
In 2019 this site in Bobs Farm, at 3631 Nelson Bay Road, was proposed for a ‘wet’ sand quarry, meaning they would excavate sand above and to a defined distance below the water table. After exhibition, the proponents withdrew their proposal. Here is EcoNetwork’s submission on the 2019 proposal (SSD 6395).
Sand quarrying is back on the agenda, as a proposal currently on exhibition and due by 12 August. Proponents indicate they have addressed some issues of concern, and this time are proposing a dry sand quarry, meaning sand will be taken only from above the ground water and a different site exiting arrangements.
This is a State Significant Development proposal and we need your support.
This land is habitat for koalas, powerful owls, bats and squirrel gliders, all of which are threatened species, and the land is part of the north-south corridor, between the Tomaree and Tilligerry Peninsulas.
Location and context of the quarry site
EcoNetwork and the South Tomaree Community Association (STCA)’s positions are that the proposal has not demonstrated that it is in the long-term public interest and therefore should be rejected.
50 unique objections are needed for this development to be considered before the Independent Planning Commission, which is important in helping fight this proposal. It also then enables community representatives to speak to the IPC.
Will you be one of the 50 please, and write just a brief objection?
Guidelines are further below ~ with thanks to STCA for their submission to help you.
You may want to choose just one to two of the issues outlined that concern you the most,
change some dot points into sentences,
try to change some of the wording.
You could say why you are concerned. or
how the project may affect you, your family or the community.
Why you believe the proposal is not in the public interest
How to make a submission is below
You can find Bobs Farm Sand Quarry PROPOSAL here
with directions on this page for where to submit by the 12 August 2026
What Is being proposed?
Newcastle Sand is seeking approval for a new sand quarry at Bobs Farm involving:
- extraction of approximately 530,000 tonnes of sand per year over a 10-year period. To put this in context, Macka Sand can extract 200,000 tonnes per year
- clearing of approximately 24 hectares of native ecologically sensitive vegetation (Koala, Grey-headed Flying Fox, Powerful Owl habitat) – between Nelson Bay Road and Marsh Road at the eastern end
- heavy vehicle movements along the Nelson Bay Road corridor – up to 40 trucks an hour turning at the Port Stephens Dr roundabout
- establishment of processing, stockpiling and haulage operations
- rehabilitation of the site following extraction.
Key message
The Bobs Farm Sand Quarry is far more than a local quarry proposal.
It involves impacts:
- to nationally significant biodiversity values
- to a sensitive coastal groundwater system
- to a major tourism gateway location
- potentially to schools, residents and visitors
- due to the unresolved cumulative and long-term risks.
The above information is from EcoNetwork’s affiliate, the STCA ~ what a fantastic job they have done! The submission as a guideline is below.
Here’s a guide to responding to State Significant Developments by the Better Planning Network
How to make a submission
1/ Visit: https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/bobs-farm-sand-quarry/
2/ Click on ↗️ “Make a Submission”
3/ Register or log in
4/ Click on link “Make a Submission”
5/ Tell the Department why you are concerned
Make sure you have a copy of what you write — occasionally submit does not seem to work. If you ultimately have trouble, email you submission to majorprojectssupport@planning.nsw.gov.au
Here’s STCA’s submission as a guide to help you write your own unique submission.
STCA’s guide is linked as a word document here and pasted below for your ease of perusal.
SOUTH TOMAREE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (STCA)
FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED BOBS FARM SAND QUARRY (SSD-99860959)
Submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
~ ~ ~ ~
Submitted to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Tomaree Community Association (STCA) represents the postcode 2316 community and objects to the proposed Bobs Farm Sand Quarry and requests that the Department refuse the application.
Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), supporting technical assessments and Commonwealth assessment requirements, STCA considers that the proposal has not demonstrated that groundwater, biodiversity, social, traffic, noise, land-use compatibility, rehabilitation, climate resilience and cumulative impacts can be avoided, minimised or managed to an acceptable standard.
The proposal would:
- Clear approximately 24 hectares of native vegetation.
- Remove habitat identified by the Commonwealth as habitat critical to the survival of threatened species.
- Create long-term impacts on a sensitive coastal groundwater system.
- Introduce significant quarry traffic into the primary gateway corridor to Port Stephens.
- Affect sensitive receivers including Bobs Farm Public School, tourism accommodation, rural residential properties and users of adjacent conservation lands.
- Rely heavily on future management plans, future monitoring, future mitigation and future rehabilitation success to justify acceptability
A recurring concern throughout the assessment package is that numerous impacts are acknowledged but then deemed acceptable because they will be monitored and managed in the future.
Monitoring is not mitigation.
The Department must determine whether impacts are acceptable before approval, not whether they may be capable of management after approval.
2. STCA’S OVERARCHING POSITION
The central flaw in the EIS is that it adopts a predominantly site-based and issue-by-issue assessment methodology.
The proposal is assessed as:
- a groundwater project;
- a biodiversity project;
- a traffic project;
- a noise project;
- a rehabilitation project.
However Bobs Farm is not an isolated site.
It forms part of interconnected:
- groundwater systems;
- ecological systems;
- tourism systems;
- transport systems;
- social systems.
The EIS repeatedly assesses individual impacts but does not adequately demonstrate how the project performs within these broader systems.
This approach is inconsistent with contemporary application of:
- Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD);
- the Precautionary Principle;
- Intergenerational Equity;
- cumulative impact assessment principles;
- climate adaptation principles;
- the public interest test under s4.15 of the EP&A Act.
3. RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
The proposal must be assessed having regard to:
- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;
- Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016;
- Water Management Act 2000;
- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
- State Environmental Planning Policy (Resources and Energy) 2021;
- State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation);
- Biodiversity Assessment Method;
- NSW Aquifer Interference Policy;
- Strategic Framework for Mine Closure;
- NSW Noise Policy for Industry;
- NSW Social Impact Assessment Guideline;
- Ecologically Sustainable Development Principles;
- Precautionary Principle;
- Intergenerational Equity.
4. FAILURE TO SATISFY SECTION 4.15 OF THE EP&A ACT
Section 4.15(1)(a) – Environmental Planning Instruments and Policies
The Department must be satisfied the proposal is consistent with applicable legislation and policy.
The EIS contains significant unresolved concerns regarding:
- biodiversity impacts;
- groundwater protection;
- rehabilitation feasibility;
- climate resilience;
- cumulative impacts;
- land-use compatibility.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – Likely Impacts
The proposal involves:
- extensive vegetation clearing;
- habitat loss;
- quarry haulage traffic;
- groundwater dependence;
- noise emissions;
- dust emissions;
- long-term landscape alteration.
Many impact conclusions rely on future mitigation measures rather than demonstrated avoidance of impacts.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – Site Suitability
The site is:
- adjacent to sensitive biodiversity values;
- within a coastal groundwater system;
- near Bobs Farm Public School;
- near tourism accommodation;
- near rural residential development;
- within a strategic tourism gateway corridor.
The suitability of this location for intensive extractive industry has not been convincingly demonstrated.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – Public Interest
The Commonwealth has determined the proposal is a Controlled Action due to likely impacts on matters of national environmental significance.
In these circumstances a high standard of certainty should be required.
That certainty has not been demonstrated.
5. FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS IMPACTS ON MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Commonwealth assessment requirements identify likely significant impacts on:
- Koala;
- Grey-headed Flying Fox;
- Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest.
The Commonwealth specifically states:
The proposed action involves removal of approximately 24.5 hectares of habitat critical to the survival of the Koala.
The EPBC Assessment subsequently attempts to characterise much of the same habitat as supplementary habitat rather than habitat critical to survival.
These positions are difficult to reconcile.
The Department cannot simply rely upon the proponent’s interpretation where the Commonwealth has reached a materially different conclusion.
6. BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND HAVE BEEN UNDERSTATED
The BDAR identifies:
- approximately 24 hectares of vegetation clearing;
- impacts to Koala habitat;
- impacts to Powerful Owl habitat;
- impacts to Masked Owl habitat;
- impacts to Squirrel Glider habitat;
- substantial ecosystem and species credit liabilities.
The scale of the biodiversity offset requirement is itself evidence of significant ecological impact.
The EIS repeatedly relies upon:
- offsets;
- future revegetation;
- future habitat establishment;
to support conclusions that impacts are manageable.
Offsets compensate for impacts.
They do not eliminate impacts.
The EIS has not demonstrated that biodiversity impacts have first been avoided and minimised to the greatest extent practical.
7. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY AND CUMULATIVE FRAGMENTATION
The BDAR acknowledges the site contributes to fauna movement across the Tomaree Peninsula.
The Commonwealth assessment specifically identifies:
- fragmentation;
- connectivity loss;
- edge effects
as key risks requiring assessment.
However the EIS largely assesses impacts at the project scale.
The relevant planning issue is:
What is the cumulative impact of continuing habitat removal across Port Stephens and the Tomaree Peninsula?
The EIS does not adequately answer that question.
8. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTABLY RESOLVED
Groundwater is one of the strongest refusal grounds.
The Hydrogeological Impact Assessment acknowledges:
- limited off-site data;
- model uncertainty;
- calibration limitations;
- elevated metals;
- acidic groundwater;
- existing hydrocarbon indicators.
The assessment adopts a groundwater protection approach based on approximately:
0.7 metres above groundwater.
The Rehabilitation Strategy refers to:
1 metre above highest predicted groundwater.
These are materially different protection criteria.
The EIS therefore lacks a clear and consistent groundwater protection standard.
9. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ASSESSED
One of the most significant omissions in the assessment package is the absence of meaningful modelling of:
- groundwater rise associated with sea-level rise;
- changing recharge conditions;
- extreme rainfall;
- climate impacts on rehabilitation;
- climate impacts on post-closure landforms.
The project seeks approval for:
- 10 years of extraction;
- long-term rehabilitation;
- permanent landform change.
The failure to adequately assess climate-related groundwater behaviour is inconsistent with contemporary risk assessment practice.
10. ACID SULFATE SOIL AND WATER QUALITY RISKS
The BDAR identifies:
- Class 3 Acid Sulfate Soils;
- Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils.
The Hydrogeological Assessment identifies:
- acidic groundwater;
- elevated metals;
- groundwater quality anomalies.
The EIS does not convincingly demonstrate that:
- acidification risks;
- metal mobilisation risks;
- groundwater quality impacts
have been comprehensively assessed and managed.
11. SENSITIVE RECEIVERS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED
This is a major deficiency.
Bobs Farm Public School
The Traffic Assessment focuses on:
- road capacity;
- intersection performance.
However:
- no Road Safety Audit has been undertaken;
- no specific school safety assessment has been undertaken;
- no school travel assessment appears to have been completed.
The Social Impact Assessment identifies concerns regarding:
- school traffic;
- bus movements;
- child safety;
yet these issues are not adequately assessed technically.
The safety of children should be a primary planning consideration.
Tourism Accommodation
The Noise Assessment identifies tourism accommodation among the closest receivers.
Some are located within approximately 40–60 metres of extraction activities.
The Economic Assessment simultaneously concludes tourism impacts are negligible.
These conclusions are inconsistent.
Rural Residential Land Uses
Rural residential receivers experience:
- noise;
- dust;
- traffic;
- visual effects;
- loss of amenity
cumulatively.
The EIS largely assesses these impacts separately.
Worimi National Park and Recreation Users
The proposal adjoins land used for:
- tourism;
- conservation;
- recreation;
- cultural activities.
The assessment gives limited attention to compatibility with these sensitive land uses.
12. TRAFFIC IMPACTS HAVE BEEN UNDERSTATED
The Traffic Assessment concludes impacts are negligible.
However:
- no independent Road Safety Audit has been undertaken;
- peak tourism conditions were not adequately tested;
- school impacts are under-assessed;
- cumulative quarry traffic impacts are inadequately evaluated.
The Social Impact Assessment simultaneously identifies traffic as one of the highest community concerns.
The EIS does not adequately reconcile these competing conclusions.
13. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED
Clause 2.17 of the Resources and Energy SEPP requires consideration of land-use compatibility.
The surrounding area includes:
- tourism businesses;
- rural residential uses;
- a school;
- conservation lands;
- recreational uses.
The assessment largely focuses on:
- dust;
- noise;
- traffic;
- water.
It gives insufficient consideration to:
- place character;
- tourism values;
- lifestyle expectations;
- cumulative industrialisation of South Tomaree.
14. NOISE COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED
The Noise Assessment acknowledges:
- future exceedances;
- future uncertainty;
- the need for operational review and future mitigation design.
In effect:
compliance has not yet been demonstrated for later stages of extraction.
The EIS seeks approval now and proposes to determine some mitigation later.
This is inconsistent with the purpose of the assessment process.
15. AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
The Air Quality Assessment does not quantitatively model construction dust despite construction being one of the most dust-generating phases.
The assessment also acknowledges exceedances in background particulate concentrations.
The key planning question is:
If air quality is already compromised, should another dust-generating activity be approved?
This issue has not been adequately addressed.
16. REHABILITATION AND MINE CLOSURE REMAIN SPECULATIVE
The Rehabilitation Strategy assumes:
- woodland can be recreated;
- habitat function can be restored;
- agricultural productivity can be re-established.
However the EIS provides limited evidence demonstrating:
- restoration of mature woodland;
- restoration of hollow-bearing habitat;
- restoration of ecological function;
- restoration of land capability.
Completion criteria are often expressed using subjective language such as:
- self-sustaining;
- stable;
- appropriate ecological function.
These do not represent best-practice measurable closure criteria.
17. SOCIAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN UNDERSTATED
The Social Impact Assessment documents concerns relating to:
- groundwater;
- traffic;
- health;
- biodiversity;
- tourism;
- regulatory confidence.
Yet concludes impacts are not significant.
The evidence and conclusions are difficult to reconcile.
The assessment appears to place greater weight on technical compliance than on actual community experience.
18. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ASSESSED
The EIS routinely assesses impacts in isolation.
Insufficient consideration has been given to cumulative interaction between:
- existing quarries;
- groundwater extraction;
- biodiversity fragmentation;
- tourism pressure;
- regional growth;
- climate change;
- community aspiration;
- transport impacts.
This is one of the most significant deficiencies in the assessment package.
19. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE REQUIRES REFUSAL
Throughout the EIS there is a recurring pattern:
- uncertainty exists;
- impacts are acknowledged;
- future monitoring is proposed;
- future management is proposed;
- approval is nevertheless sought.
The Precautionary Principle requires the opposite approach.
Where uncertainty exists regarding serious environmental harm, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a justification for proceeding.
Groundwater, biodiversity, rehabilitation and climate impacts all exhibit significant uncertainty.
20. CONCLUSION
STCA submits the proposal should be refused because:
- Impacts on matters of national environmental significance remain unresolved.
- Biodiversity loss is substantial and relies excessively on offsets.
- Groundwater protection has not been demonstrated.
- Climate change impacts have not been adequately assessed.
- Acid sulfate soil and groundwater quality risks remain uncertain.
- Sensitive receivers including Bobs Farm Public School have not been adequately considered.
- Traffic safety impacts remain unresolved.
- Noise compliance has not been demonstrated.
- Rehabilitation success remains speculative.
- Social impacts are understated.
- Land-use compatibility has not been established.
- Cumulative impacts have not been adequately assessed.
- The proposal relies excessively on future monitoring and adaptive management.
- The public interest test under s4.15 EP&A Act has not been satisfied.
Accordingly, STCA respectfully requests that the Department refuse SSD-99860959.
In the alternative, if approval is granted, STCA requests conditions substantially more stringent than those imposed on Mackas Sand (SSD – PA08-0142 MOD 2), including:
- a minimum 2 metre groundwater separation;
- independent groundwater peer review;
- mandatory climate change assessment;
- independent Road Safety Audit every two years;
- stricter haulage hours than proposed;
- legally secured offsets before clearing;
- quantitative rehabilitation criteria;
- rehabilitation bond review every two years;
- real-time dust, noise and groundwater monitoring;
- automatic stop-work triggers for environmental exceedances;
- independent annual environmental and social audits with performance criteria, with exceedances resulting in shut down;
- public release of all monitoring results.