Meander Valley Council’s Obligation to Uphold Northern Tasmania Land Use Strategy

 Wednesday 2nd April 2025

Regional Land Use Strategy in accordance with section 5A of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

The Meander Valley Council has a clear responsibility to uphold the principles outlined in the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy. 

This document sets the framework for sustainable development, environmental conservation, and responsible land and water management. Any decision made by the Council regarding the proposed bauxite mine must align with these policies, yet the very nature of such a project fly in the face of these strategic objectives.

Protecting Rural Land Use and Agriculture

One of the key purposes of rural land use zones is to ensure that agricultural and agribusiness activities are not unreasonably constrained by incompatible development. The strategy specifically states:

• "Protect quality agricultural land from incompatible development and provide for the expansion of agricultural production in Productive Resource Areas."

Bauxite mining is inherently incompatible with agricultural land use. The process of extraction and refining involves land clearing, soil disruption, and potential contamination of water sources, all of which directly threaten the viability of agriculture in the Meander Valley. The Council is obligated to prevent such developments that undermine the sustainability and productivity of local farming industries.

Safeguarding Water Resources

Water management policies are central to the land use strategy, ensuring that water quality is maintained for agricultural, ecological, and residential use. The strategy mandates that secondary or non-agricultural land uses should only be permitted "where water quality... is not adversely impacted."

Bauxite mining poses significant risks to local waterways due to:

• Increased sedimentation and potential heavy metal contamination
• Large-scale water consumption impacting availability for farms and residents
• Risks of groundwater depletion and pollution

Given these threats, approving the bauxite mine would be a direct violation of the Council’s obligation to maintain water quality and ensure the long-term sustainability of the region’s water resources.

Preserving Natural Environment Areas

The strategy explicitly states that Natural Environment Areas must promote and protect:

• Regionally significant landscapes
• Biodiversity areas, including ecosystems that are endangered, threatened, or vulnerable
• Forests, reserves, and open space areas

The Meander Valley is known for its rich biodiversity, pristine landscapes, and ecological significance. Bauxite mining would lead to habitat destruction, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity—directly contravening the Council’s responsibility to safeguard these natural assets.

Commitment to Sustainable Land Use

The Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy does not oppose development outright but emphasises that any development must be fair, orderly, and sustainable. This means:

• Ensuring new developments do not undermine existing land uses
• Preventing environmental degradation that could impact future generations
• Encouraging land use that aligns with community well-being and ecological preservation

Abx's proposed bauxite mine is in direct conflict with these principles. It jeopardises agriculture, threatens water security, endangers natural ecosystems, and disrupts the rural character of the Meander Valley.

The Council’s Duty to Act in the Public Interest

As stewards of local planning and resource management, the Meander Valley Council must prioritise the long-term interests of the community over short-term industrial gains. Allowing a development that contradicts the fundamental principles of the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy would not only be an environmental and economic misstep but a failure of governance.

The people of Meander Valley deserve a planning process that upholds their rights, protects their land, and ensures a sustainable future. It is the Council’s duty to enforce the policies set out in the regional strategy and reject proposals that threaten the integrity of the region’s land, water, and natural heritage.

 

EPA Assessment: A System Designed to Fail Communities

Tuesday the 1st April 2025

The classification of the Abx Pty Ltd mining proposal as a Class 2A assessment is nothing short of a regulatory failure—one that has left the Meander Valley community, its environment, and the health of its residents sidelined before the assessment process even began.

Under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (EMPCA), a Class 2A assessment is meant for low environmental risk, small-scale projects with minor and localised impacts, expected to generate limited public interest. 

This classification is fundamentally incompatible with the reality of the Abx’s proposal, which:

• Has triggered overwhelming public concern from farmers, businesses, and residents across the Valley.
• Poses long-term risks to water quality, air quality, and soil integrity, directly threatening agriculture and tourism—key pillars of the Meander Valley economy.
• Has already had a traumatic social impact, creating division, distress, and uncertainty for local families, who now face an uncertain future.

A Lack of Due Process & Transparency

The EPA guildlines clearly states "states that when determining an assessment level, it typically conducts a site inspection with the proponent, the Planning Authority, and key stakeholders". 

Who was consulted, when did this occur? Why where residents, community members or local Council representatives not invited to participate? There has been no transparency about this process, leaving residents in the dark about how such a flawed and inadequate classification was reached.

Ignoring the Reality of this Proposal

According to EPA guidelines, Class 2C assessments are for projects with high environmental risk, large-scale impacts, and significant public concern—all of which apply to this mining proposal. Yet, rather than applying the precautionary principle and subjecting ABx to the scrutiny it deserves, the project was quietly assessed as 2A, minimising the ability of the community to challenge it effectively.

A Regulatory System That Prioritises Industry Over People

This decision exposes the deep regulative blindness at play—one that leans heavily in favour of corporate interests, while leaving residents, businesses, and local ecosystems vulnerable. By misclassifying the project, the EPA has actively weakened the level of oversight, reducing the obligation of ABx4 to conduct detailed impact studies and removing key opportunities for public scrutiny.

Where Was the Duty of Care?

• How did the EPA justify treating this proposal as low risk? 
• Given the immense level of public opposition, the severity of environmental and traffic impacts will the Council refuse the EPA’s EIA and request an upgrade of the assessment to at least a 2B?

A Call for Accountability

The entire assessment process is compromised by this failure. The community of Meander Valley has been placed at an extreme disadvantage—forced to fight a battle on uneven ground against a proponent who has been shielded by a lax and industry-favouring regulatory process. If the EPA truly serves both the public interest and environment protection, it must explain why it dismissed the obvious risks, ignored public outcry, and allowed this proposal to move forward under a classification designed for insignificant developments.

The people of the Meander Valley deserve better. Our land, our health, and our livelihoods are not expendable.

 

Bauxite Mining Has No Place in Meander Valley’s Story

Tuesday 1st April 2025

The Meander Valley Council’s new branding strategy is more than a slogan—it is a declaration of who we are. It speaks of fertile land, sustainability, creativity, and a thriving community. It celebrates our shared heritage, our deep connection to the environment, and our commitment to a future where both people and nature flourish.

https://live.standards.site/meandervalley/strategy

 

Bauxite mining stands in direct opposition to this vision.

 

How can we claim to “honour and protect the natural world” while permitting an industry that scars our landscapes, contaminates water sources, and disrupts ecosystems?

How can we say we “cultivate and support our community” while allowing mining to divide our people, drive down property values, and jeopardise livelihoods?

How can we promise to “live generously” if we leave future generations with a legacy of environmental damage rather than prosperity?

 

The Council has an ethical and moral responsibility to protect this brand—not just in words, but in action. To allow mining is not merely a contradiction of our values; it is a betrayal of them.

 

A “unified region, brimming with opportunity” does not mean selling out our land for short-term industrial gain. It means fostering industries that align with who we are—agriculture, tourism, the creative economy, and sustainable enterprise. It means ensuring that our place brand is more than just a statement—it is a promise we keep.

 

Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for Council to stand firm, to protect what makes Meander Valley special, and to reject bauxite mining once and for all. If we truly believe in our story, in our community, and in our future, there is only one choice.

Meander Valley is a place to flourish—not to be exploited.

 

How can the Meander Valley Council endorse a branding strategy that prioritises sustainability, community, and environmental stewardship while allowing bauxite mining—a destructive and extractive industry—that directly contradicts these values?

 

What concrete actions will Council take to uphold its ethical and moral duty to protect Meander Valley’s identity, ensuring that industries permitted within our region genuinely align with the values of sustainability, creativity, and community prosperity outlined in the Council’s branding strategy?

The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA)

Meander Valley Council Must Address These Issues Under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) 

The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) is the key legislation governing planning processes in Tasmania, including for the Meander Valley Council, defining the powers of councils as planning authorities and outlining the requirements for planning schemes and applications. 

 

The Meander Valley Council, as a planning authority, has a legal and ethical duty to ensure that any development aligns with LUPAA’s objectives. This includes safeguarding environmental sustainability, fair land use, and public involvement while balancing economic interests. 

 

Under (LUPAA) Part 1, the Council must evaluate the ABx bauxite mine proposal based on:

 

• Sustainability & Ecological Integrity: The mine’s impact on soil, water, and biodiversity must be assessed to ensure long-term resource viability for future generations (Clause 1(a)).
• Fair & Orderly Development: Land use must be coordinated and sustainable, avoiding irreversible damage to natural assets (Clause 1(b)).
• Public Involvement: As stated in Clause 1(c), decision-making should reflect community concerns, particularly given the mine's potential effects on health, land value, and livelihoods.
• Balancing Economic & Environmental Factors: Economic development (Clause 1(d)) must be secondary to sustainability principles, not at the cost of environmental and community well-being.

 

Under Part 2, the Council must:

• Ensure Strategic Planning: Consider long-term environmental, social, and economic effects rather than short-term financial gains (Clause 2(c)).
• Integrate Policies for Sustainable Development: Assess how the proposal fits within broader municipal, regional, and state planning frameworks (Clause 2(d)).
• Protect Public Health & Infrastructure: Safeguard water, air quality, and essential services while ensuring community safety and well-being (Clauses 2(f) & 2(h)).

 

The Council must act in the public interest, ensuring full transparency in how these legislative requirements are addressed in their decision-making.

 

A Deeply Flawed and Dangerous Oversight:

Wednesday 26th March 2025

The Failure of the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and EPA Conditions

The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and EPA conditions regarding the proposed development use of Porters Bridge Road represent a disturbing failure of due diligence, a complete disregard for public safety, and an alarming lack of accountability. Rather than ensuring robust infrastructure planning, these assessments appear to be little more than rubber-stamped formalities that fail to address glaring safety risks, road deficiencies, and the inevitable degradation of vital transport corridors.

 1. Ignoring Critical Safety Failures

The TIA openly acknowledges that Porters Bridge Road does not meet the LGAT Standard Drawings (TSD-R02-v3) for a road carrying similar vehicle volumes and heavy vehicles. Yet, inexplicably, no significant mitigation measures are required to rectify this glaring non-compliance.

• Increased risk of side-swipe crashes due to insufficient road width is merely noted but not addressed.
• The Meander River bridge is functionally unsafe, supporting only one-way traffic with no signage or priority indicators, meaning head-on collisions will become inevitable as truck movements surge.
• Sharp curves with dangerously limited Sight Stopping Distance (SSD) will be even more treacherous with the massive influx of heavy vehicles, yet no corrective measures are mandated.



ABx trucks leaving Bald Hill Mine

How can such a inadequate and high-risk road corridor be expected to handle an additional 102 vehicle movements per day—the majority being heavy trucks? 

This is not traffic planning; it is reckless negligence.

 

2. The Inexcusable Neglect of Bridge Safety

The bridge on Porters Bridge Road, has not been assessed for its structural integrity under the increased load of heavy vehicles.

• Has any real structural analysis been done?
• What happens if a bridge fails under increased weight pressure?
• Why is there no requirement for the developer to contribute to bridge reinforcement?

If this bridge becomes structurally unsound, who pays the price?  It will be ratepayers and local road users who will suffer the consequences. 

 3. Accelerated Road Degradation 

The TIA itself acknowledges that:

• Existing potholes will worsen due to increased traffic loads.
• The road surface will deteriorate at a faster rate, posing even greater risks to everyday motorists.
• Existing road markings are already faded, increasing the likelihood of vehicles drifting into oncoming traffic.

Yet, there is no firm requirement for immediate road upgrades before the development begins. Instead, this project will further degrade the road while the responsibility for repairs falls squarely on the local Council and their ratepayers.

This neglect of regional infrastructure and an insult to every road user forced to endure the consequences of this oversight.

 4. A Meaningless Nod to Traffic Management

The so-called "traffic management measures" proposed are laughable in their inadequacy:

• The only recommendation regarding truck entry and exit is a suggestion that Truck & Dog Trailer Combinations only turn right into the site and left when exiting.
• There is no enforcement plan in place to ensure compliance, meaning heavy vehicles may still attempt unsafe right turns onto Porters Bridge Road.
• The "trucks crossing" sign has fallen over, and rather than ensuring it is replaced immediately, the issue is merely noted in passing.

This is not risking mitigation; it is a feeble, box-ticking exercise that provides no real safety assurance.

5. No Consideration for Community & Public Safety

The EPA conditions and TIA completely disregard the impact of this development on:

• School buses, local farmers, and everyday residents who rely on these roads.
• Emergency response times, which will be significantly affected by increased congestion and heavy vehicle dominance.
• Noise, dust, and environmental degradation, which will intensify due to higher truck movements.

There is no meaningful consultation with the impacted communities. No plan for mitigating risk to local drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists. No strategy for ensuring emergency access when congestion increases or a fire burns.

 6. An Unsustainable Burden on Local Council and Ratepayers

Who pays for the inevitable road damage, structural failures, and safety upgrades? Certainly not ABx.

• There is no requirement for the developer to contribute financially to road maintenance despite being the primary cause of its degradation.
• There is no funding strategy to future-proof this road corridor, meaning the costs will fall to the already stretched council budget.
  

The weakness and ineffectiveness of the Traffic Impact Assessment and EPA conditions are undeniable. Instead of ensuring road safety, protecting public infrastructure, and holding developers accountable, these assessments rubber-stamp a high-risk, poorly planned project that will:

• Increase crash risks.
• Deteriorate vital infrastructure with no financial accountability.
• Jeopardise public safety.
• Ignore community and other road users concerns.

"From Mine to ‘Quarry’—ABx’s Convenient Word Swap"

Wednesday 26th March 2025

Ah, the classic game of linguistic smoke and mirrors. When ABx first submitted their application to mine bauxite they called it exactly what it was—a bauxite mine. However, as the assessment process unfolded, that mine mysteriously transformed into a quarry, a convenient rebrand with major regulatory advantages.

 

Under Australian law, a mine involves extracting minerals like bauxite from the earth, typically requiring strict environmental assessments and facing heavier regulations. 

 

A quarry, on the other hand, is usually associated with surface-level extraction of materials like stone, gravel, or sand—operations that often fly under the radar with far fewer restrictions. 

 

By relabelling their mining project as a quarry, ABx neatly sidesteps tighter scrutiny and makes their industrial-scale extraction seem like a harmless little pit in the ground.

 

It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of putting on a fake moustache and insisting, "Nope, you’ve got the wrong guy."  But let’s be real: a bauxite mine—even if you slap the word quarry on it—is still a mine. 

 

It involves large-scale removal of topsoil, major earthworks, and long-term environmental consequences. The name change isn’t just semantics; it’s a calculated move to downplay the scale of destruction and avoid deeper investigation.

Meander Valley's future hangs in the balance

 Friday 21th March 2025

The future of Meander Valley hangs in the balance, and your immediate action is crucial! The Meander Valley Council is set to meet on Tuesday, April 8, at 3 PM to make a pivotal decision regarding ABx’s bauxite mine proposal for Reedy Marsh.

The EPA has completed its assessment https://epa.tas.gov.au/business-industry/assessment/proposals-assessed-by-the-epa/abx-group-limited-dl-130-bauxite-project-reedy-marsh  And now it’s up to the Council to either accept or reject this proposal during their monthly meeting. This vote is not just a formality; it’s a critical juncture where councillors will need to navigate complex grey areas, relying on town planners’ insights but ultimately using their own judgment.

Your engagement with this campaign is essential—every voice counts! See you at the Meeting!

Questions for the Local Meander Councillors

Wednesday 19th March 2025

Environmental and Conservation Concerns

1. What independent ecological assessments have been conducted to verify the mitigation measures proposed by ABx4 Pty Ltd?
2. How does Council plan to ensure the protection of threatened vegetation and wildlife habitats in the Reedy Marsh area?
3. Given the mine’s proximity to the Brushy Rivulet Conservation Area, what safeguards will be in place to prevent dust and water runoff contamination?
4. Has Council considered the long-term ecological impact of industrial activity in a high-conservation-value area?

Land Use and Strategic Planning

5. How does the proposed mine align with the Meander Valley Council’s strategic vision for sustainable land use and agricultural resilience?
6. Has an independent assessment been conducted to evaluate the economic impact of losing prime agricultural land to mining operations?
7. What analysis has been done to assess the long-term economic benefits versus losses to tourism, small businesses, and lifestyle-based industries?

Infrastructure, Road Safety, and Community Burden

8. Has Council commissioned a Traffic Impact Assessment to evaluate the increased heavy vehicle movements on local roads?
9. What measures will be implemented to ensure that the costs of road degradation and maintenance do not fall on ratepayers?
10. How will Council address the risks posed to school transport and local commuters by increased heavy vehicle traffic?
11. What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with noise and dust management regulations?

Community Consultation and Social Licence

12. What steps has Council taken to ensure that community consultation was meaningful, transparent, and inclusive?
13. How does Council plan to address residents’ concerns about property devaluation and declining liveability due to mining activities?
14. What are the legal and financial responsibilities of Council if residents suffer economic losses from property devaluation?

Climate Resilience and Long-Term Sustainability

15. Has the Council evaluated whether the ABx4 mining project aligns with local and state climate resilience strategies?
16. What contingency plans are in place for extreme weather events, erosion, and long-term site rehabilitation?
17. What assurances exist that rehabilitation efforts will restore the land to productive or environmentally viable use post-mining?

Analysis of EPA Assessment and Public Health Risks

18. How does Council plan to ensure independent oversight of dust management and air quality control measures?
19. What requirements will Council impose to ensure baseline water testing, AMD risk analysis, and long-term compliance monitoring?
20. Will Council advocate for real-time public air quality monitoring in affected areas?

Economic and Tourism Impact

21. Has an independent economic impact study been conducted to assess the trade-offs between mining jobs and potential losses in tourism and agribusiness revenue?
22. What strategies are in place to protect key tourism areas from the negative impacts of mining activities?
23. How will Council ensure that local businesses and tourism operators do not suffer economic setbacks due to the industrial footprint of the mine?

Final Considerations

24. Given the significant risks and unresolved concerns, what justifications could be used to approve this project over the long-term well-being of the Meander Valley community?
25. Will Council formally oppose this proposal based on the overwhelming environmental, social, and economic concerns raised?

The future of Meander Valley hangs in the balance

Friday 21th March 2025

The future of Meander Valley hangs in the balance, and your immediate action is crucial! The Meander Valley Council is set to meet on Tuesday, April 8, at 3 PM to make a pivotal decision regarding ABx’s bauxite mine proposal for Reedy Marsh.

The EPA has completed its assessment https://epa.tas.gov.au/business-industry/assessment/proposals-assessed-by-the-epa/abx-group-limited-dl-130-bauxite-project-reedy-marsh  And now it’s up to the Council to either accept or reject this proposal during their monthly meeting. This vote is not just a formality; it’s a critical juncture where councillors will need to navigate complex grey areas, relying on town planners’ insights but ultimately using their own judgment.

Your engagement with this campaign is essential—every voice counts! See you at the Meeting!

Justification for Rejecting the Reedy Marsh Bauxite Mine Proposa

Wednesday 19th March 2025

To: Meander Valley Councillors

The Meander Valley councillors have a duty to prioritise long-term sustainability, economic stability, and the well-being of residents. After thorough analysis of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment, expert evaluations, and community concerns, the proposed ABx4 Pty Ltd bauxite mine at Reedy Marsh should be rejected. The following key justifications outline the risks and inconsistencies associated with this proposal. 

1. Environmental Risks and Insufficient Mitigation Measures

Threat to Native Flora and Fauna

• The site contains threatened vegetation communities and habitats critical to biodiversity.
• Community submissions indicate a lack of confidence in the proposed mitigation strategies.
• Independent ecological peer-review assessments should be commissioned; however, given the high conservation value of the area, precautionary principles dictate avoiding high-impact industrial activity altogether. 

Impact on the Brushy Rivulet Conservation Area

• The mine’s proximity raises concerns over dust and water runoff affecting a designated conservation zone.
• The proposed dust and stormwater management plans lack independent verification and real-world impact assessments, making them unreliable. 

Soil Degradation and Water Contamination

• Increased dust, sedimentation, and potential chemical runoff pose risks to soil health and water quality.
• Rehabilitation requirements are inadequate, with no guarantee of post-mining land restoration. 

2. Conflicts with Land Use and Strategic Planning

Loss of Prime Agricultural Land

• The affected land is designated for rural and agricultural use and plays a crucial role in the region’s food security and economic resilience.
• Extractive industries do not align with the Meander Valley Council’s strategic vision for sustainable land use and agricultural resilience.

 

Negative Impact on Tourism and Local Economy

• Reedy Marsh and its surroundings are valued for eco-tourism, small businesses, and lifestyle-based industries that rely on a pristine environment.
• The mine’s industrial footprint and increased heavy vehicle traffic will negatively affect local businesses, accommodation providers, and tourism operators.

3. Infrastructure and Community Burden

 Road Safety and Traffic Concerns

• Increased heavy vehicle traffic on Porters Bridge Road poses safety risks for residents, school transport, and local commuters.
• No clear plan has been presented to address road degradation or ongoing maintenance costs, which would likely fall on ratepayers.

Noise and Air Pollution

• The mine’s operational noise and dust emissions will significantly degrade residential amenity and quality of life in Reedy Marsh.
• The proposed mitigation measures fail to account for the cumulative effects of prolonged exposure over 20–30 years.

4. Lack of Social Licence and Community Consent

Failure to Engage in Meaningful Community Consultation

• Many residents and stakeholders feel the consultation process was inadequate, with limited time for representations.
• Public trust in ABx4 Pty Ltd is low, and social licence is critical for projects of this scale.

Property Devaluation and Declining Liveability

• Residents have expressed concern over property devaluation, which is a legitimate economic consequence of industrial mining activities in rural residential areas.
• Council has a responsibility to protect property owners from undue financial harm resulting from incompatible land use changes.

5. Climate Change and Long-Term Sustainability

Inconsistency with Climate Resilience Strategies

• The project does not align with local or state climate action policies, particularly in relation to carbon emissions and water resource management.
• Climate-related risks such as increased rainfall and extreme weather events have not been adequately assessed in relation to mine site stability and erosion control.

6. Analysis of EPA Assessment and Additional Considerations

Public Health & Air Quality

• The EPA has identified air quality concerns, particularly regarding dust emissions, as a significant issue requiring mitigation.
• Council should demand:
• Independent review of dust management plans.
• Implementation of dust mitigation measures such as vegetative screening and water spraying.
• Real-time public air quality monitoring.
• Comprehensive health impact assessments for nearby residents.

Water Quality & Runoff Risks

• Mining activities pose a risk to local waterways through sediment runoff and potential contamination.
• Council should require:
• A stormwater management plan with detailed discharge locations and contingencies for sediment control.
• Independent testing for Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD) risks.
• Baseline water testing and regular third-party compliance monitoring.

Road Safety & Maintenance Costs

• Heavy vehicle movements will impact local road networks, posing both safety hazards and increased infrastructure costs.
• Council should:
• Commission a Traffic Impact Assessment.
• Implement a road maintenance levy to ensure mining companies contribute to road upkeep.
• Introduce a traffic management plan with designated truck routes and speed limits.

Amenity, Liveability & Community Consultation

• Council has a duty to protect the quality of life for residents through:
• Social and economic impact studies.
• Ensuring planning scheme compliance.

Tourism & Local Economy Impacts

• The Meander Valley region relies heavily on tourism and local agribusiness.
• Council should:
• Commission economic impact assessments evaluating job creation vs. potential losses in tourism revenue.
• Protect key tourism from mining disruptions.
• Assess long-term viability, particularly rehabilitation and land restoration post-mining.

Conclusion

Council must act responsibly by upholding strategic planning principles, prioritising community interests, and ensuring that future developments align with the region’s long-term vision. The risks to environmental integrity, community well-being, road safety, and economic sustainability far outweigh any short-term private financial gains.

 

For these reasons, councillors should strongly advocate for the rejection of the ABx4 Pty Ltd bauxite mine proposal at Reedy Marsh.