Peel-Harvey Catchment Council expresses concerns over proposed limestone and sand quarry in Preston Beach

A Mandurah-based environmental organisation is calling for people to vote on a proposed limestone and sand excavation in Preston Beach before submissions close on Tuesday, April 5, stating concerns about its impact on the surrounding Yalgorup National Park. The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council said anyone who has visited or camped in the national park had a “responsibility” to have their say in protecting it from the increased pressure the quarry could have on the flora and fauna of the area. Doyles Lime Service Pty Ltd proposes to develop a limestone and sand quarry on two lots on Preston Beach Road North with an estimated 1 million tonnes of limestone and 150,000 tonnes of sand to be extracted over the next 20 years from the almost 15ha block. Peel-Harvey Catchment Council land conservation program manager Dr Karen Bettink said the organisation would not support the proposal, and encouraged people to have their say. “The PHCC will be providing a formal submission before April 5, but we would encourage anyone from the community to also have their say,” she said. “That’s anyone who’s been to the national park, or camped in it, and wants to enjoy the national park in its natural state. “The catchment council has significant concerns about the proposal from an environmental and social point of view. “People have an interest and responsibility to have their say in protecting our internationally significant wetlands and our species.” Ms Bettink said the proposal could affect the quality and quantity, and result in “contamination” of groundwater in the Australian Ramsar Wetlands of the region — representative, rare or unique wetlands important for conserving biological diversity according to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Another concern about the project from the Catchment Council was the impact the widening of Preston Beach Road North would have on animals, plants and parkgoers. Ms Bettink said the proposal included up to 20 semi-trailer truck movements a day, six days a week, five months a year. “Obviously the clearing and the moving of that many vehicles will have an impact on flora and fauna,” Ms Bettink said. “People’s enjoyment of the park will be significantly impacted by the amount of machinery moving through and it also puts people at risk. The Shire of Waroona received a development application in July 2013 for an extractive industry licence on the lots, and a determination on the proposal has not yet been made by council. On March 8, 2022, the Shire received a referral from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation regarding a proposed excavation pit on the same block that the Shire said was “substantially different” from the proposal contained within the 2013 application. The Shire said at a council meeting last week it would prepare a response to DWER advising of the need for a new application, which would also be conveyed to the applicant. Since DWER advertised the new proposal, the Shire said several members of the public had been in contact with and expressed concerns. Shire president Mike Walmsley said while there were some concerns with the project, Doyles Lime Service was entitled to make a proposal for the use of the land. “The proponent is very much entitled to go through the process of environmental assessment and development applications,” Mr Walmsley said. “If they can demonstrate that they can meet all the conditions that may be placed on this development with regard to the environment, traffic and community expectations on the operation, then the council would make a decision on the development application that will be presented. “Currently, we only have an outdated development application and have advised the proponent to submit an updated one should they choose to proceed.” Ms Bettink said the changes between the proposals were “really minimal”. “This proposal was submitted to the EPA several years ago, and it has undergone some changes to address the environmental risk,” she said. “The proposal still represents a significant risk and we would not support it in its current form.”