1981 – neighbour ND buys Lot 1 adjoining lot 2 future sandmine, “water from creek is like mineral water”

1982-1996  – water stops flowing in Tinda Ck once only 1982, first and only time says ND

1981-1986 – new ‘farm dam’ (1.5 ha/ 3acres) lot 2 becomes illegal sand mine operation (15 ha/ 30 acres) by Poyneed P/L ie Jan Stout and sons owners Lot 2

1985-6  - ND complains to Stout re ‘milkshake’ sediment pollution in creek water supply from lot 2 to lot 1 due to tailings dam walls progressively collapse [this was later marked “agricultural dam” in April 1996 approved plan no.3 of 3]

-         threat made by Jan Stout/Poyneed ‘you shut us down, we will shut you down’

-         campaign of at times ultra violent harassment/property damage commences v ND

1986 – sand mine Lot 2 originally farm dam, gets retrospective approval by HCC, Cr Books bulldozer work

1989 – Poyneed fined $10K in by State Pollution Control Commission (Local Court or LEC) for polluting Tinda Creek with illegal sandmine

1989 – 2004  Birdon Contracting P/L ie Tom Bruce as MD business/partnership with Poyneed/Stout

1986 -1991 – sandmine expands illegally, no HCC approval at any time this period before or after.

1991- 1996 – retrospective DA approval HCC for illegal sandmine over green group, neighbour objections

1995 May – Birdon EIS rejected by DUAP and HCC

1995 Nov – new Birdon EIS but plans are subject to various dept, community objections

1996 April – ultimate plans 1, 2 and 3 dated April 1996 by Port Stephens Design Services for Birdon.

1996 15 July – letter El-Chamy to HCC on details required for erosion/sediment control ‘formal hydrologic/hydraulic design’. Subject of finding by Pain J decision June 2009 on evidence never forwarded by HCC to Birdon therefore not required to comply with letter for what became consent condition 4 in Jan 1997 DA approval.

1996 Sept – ND mortgagee sale Lot 1 to Birdon, subject to option to re buy executed between solicitors

1996 – 2009 – dredge fines in plan 14m-20m depth to avoid pollution fine in 1989, buried much higher

1997 Jan -1999 arguably sandmine has lawful 2 year approval, controversy over lack of regulatory compliance

2000 – 2004 – sandmine operates illegally, gets retrospective HCC s.96 approval in 2004, deemed DA lodged in 1999 or so just not determined by HCC for 5 years.

2003 – ND discovered crown land from 15.24 metres with no crown consent to 1996 DA to bury dredge fines

2003 -2004 -  HCC GM McCully agrees in writing to objectors and ICAC to appoint independent barrister Phil Clay or Mary Walker to review Tinda Ck planning. Never done.

2004 – Poyneed selloff joint interest to Birdon

2004 – 2005 - Birdon get EPA and DIPNR/DWE water licenses for first time.

2005 March 16 – DLWC officer Connors memo that 150 ML quarry water use (125ML if 25 hrs/wk pumping: Bygraves)

2005 – existing area (top elevation, but not depth) available under 1996 DA ‘exhausts’ due to failure to follow depth diagrams in approval stranding 1.3 million tonnes under shallow dredge fines in approved area. Dredge fines should have been buried 14 to 20m deep as per approved plans.

2005 -2009 – quarry operating illegally out of area.

2005 – ND commences litigation over quarry  irregularities, settled by consent in 40430 of 2005 (“2005 Order”) Birdon must implement recommendations of Ecowise/Golder consultants

2005 October – Ecowise Golder report includes (at p7) 6 shallow/deep monitoring well pairs, data loggers, this data essential to water modelling. Never done.

2006 April – Ecowise/Golder report provided to HCC under cover of Birdon letter (not in LEC draft bundle tba)

2006  - s.96 DA lodged by Birdon with attempt by Umwelt to airbrush ‘confusing’ approved plans re dredge fines in wrong place, deceptive diagram of extent of Tinda Ck, and actual approved area.

2006 – new GM at HCC Peter Jackson ex ICAC

2007 May – Chris Jewell respected ind. hydrologist retained by HCC, ND etc attend inspection, report July,

2007 – 3 metre dry bore hole northern side with frog seen at Jewell inspection filled in.

2007 Sept – stakeholders at HCC re Jewell report on Umwelt errors, lack of monitoring bores, currently 37% water loss immediately below quarry in Tinda Ck, 53% loss if 22 ha of water bodies in future.

2008 – new broom in council election – eg Cr Books the earthmover retires.

2008 – DECC refuse to release ecological study to objector ND, not on council file

2008 18 July – solicitor Byrnes for Birdon letter to HCC threatening damages claim of $3M damages to council if this s.96 DA refused due to HCC’s own failure to enforce/manage consent conditions

2008 – Chief Planner Owens review of Tinda Ck in lieu of independent barrister promised to ICAC/objectors

2008 mid year – council demand to Birdon for $48K short payment of s.94 contributions

2008 – council votes 12 – 0 against sandmine despite friendly report by chief planner with narrow grounds of refusal on failure to comply with CC 4, Birdon appeals.

2009 – objectors demand transparency over ‘draft consent conditions’ in litigation process on current retrospective s.96  DA and right of objectors to be heard in the case before any deal is rubber stamped in letter to chief judge of LEC.

2009 June - Pain J decision in LEC that HCC failure to pass on El Chamy’s  15 July 1996 DLWC letter of  requirements for compliance with consent condition 4 (erosion/sediment) “prior to works commencing” effectively means far less compliance was valid. ND never called to give evidence of documents at late 1996 mediation with Tom Bruce/HCC.

2009, June 17 – Lloyd J decision in LEC against Birdon $48K in unpaid s.94 contributions.

2009 June – Umwelt update their EMP – final lake max 10m depth not 14, no sign where dredge fines to go. 6 ha of rehab bordering lake final landform with dredge fines under 30cm crust. No schedule rehab.

2009 August 14 – Umwelt response to issues – dredge fines to be buried 14 to 20 m as per 1996 DA plans, not done for 13 years, attaches March 2009 consent from Lands Dept to apply to council to use their land but no actual commercial licence deal yet. Water modelling at irrelevant locations upstream of quarry or below tributaries. Modelling proceeds contrary to Ecowise/Golder 2005 report requiring bore well data first, and critique of Jewell 2007. Also Umwelt ecological study still secret but in part in appendix shows Tinda Ck “drainage line” for 2 km is badly impacted (re water flow, low signal grade species) in comparison to nearby comparable creeks.

17 August 2009 – Chris Jewell independent hyrdrologist not invited by HCC to the site inspection? Has he been shown the Umwelt EMP June 09, the reply to issues Aug 09 contradicting Jewell water loss findings?