Lismore City Council is considering appealing the Land and Environment Court's ruling against the continued operation of the Santin Quarry under a modified development application (DA) based on Point 1 of the case brought by the Monaltrie Area Community Association Incorporated (MACAI).

Point 1 stated, "Council did not have power to approve the Modification Application because the consent sought to be modified had lapsed at the date of Council’s purported approval of the Modification Application; or alternatively, Condition 2 of the 2006 Consent limited the period during which the development could be carried out and the consent could not be modified after expiry of that period (‘lapse of consent ground’)."

There were five points raised by the MACAI; the other four were dismissed by Judge Robson.

The majority of Lismore residents would be aware of the Santin Quarry DA saga, which started back in the COVID-19 years of 2020, and will continue for the rest of 2025.

When the matter was raised by council staff in 2020, the recommendation was to approve the modified DA to extend the quarry's life by 12 years from 12 May 2020 to 2032. The nine sitting councillors at the time voted against modifying the DA.

Councillor (Cr) Adam Guise put forward a motion that council "acknowledges the outcome of the Santin quarry court case where the Land and Environment court ruled that the DA consent has expired and a new DA is required if the quarry wants to operate".

Cr Big Rob asked Acting General Manager Eber Butron if the council can acknowledge the outcome when the case is sub judice while an appeal is considered.

Mr Butron replied that supporting Cr Guise's motion would mean council would forgo its right to appeal the court ruling.

In speaking for his motion, Cr Guise mentioned the significant cost to council over the years by multiple council terms and the fact the LEC decided that the consent had expired and, "That the natural, lawful course of action would be for the quarry proponent to submit a new DA as has been said by multiple sources from the very beginning."

Cr Guise went on to say, "We have incurred significant court costs in supposedly, seemingly defending this action on behalf of the quarry owner. It's taken a number of impacted land owners out there to spend their own money in seeking this just outcome, and the planning system shouldn't be allowing such skullduggery to happen that we allow, we require land landholders to actually fork out their own money to get a lawful outcome that we're seeing in the Land and Environment Court, and not only that, but also us as a council spending ratepayers money to actually act or represent on behalf of the quarry owner."

Cr Jasmine Knight-Smith agreed with Cr Guise on spending ratepayers' money. "So effectively, we are going to be funnelling public money to defend private interest when there are other options open to that private interest. That seems like an incredible waste of ratepayers' money. I don't want to see any more money wasted where it doesn't need to be."

Cr Knight-Smith also mentioned that council staff recommended refusing the modified DA in 2023. Cr Big Rob addressed this refusal when it was his time to speak.

"The general manager clarified that there was an alternate recommendation to approve with, I think how many conditions was it, 40 something? Yeah, which were agreed to by Mr. Santin, which was almost a new DA. So, with all those conditions, because if he just got approved, he wouldn't have those conditions. It would just be an extension of time."

Cr Rob went on to talk about council actually causing the delay to Mr Santin's request for a modified DA.

"So the reason we went and got legal advice, repeatedly, expensive legal advice for council from experts, was because we wanted to know if it was still within time after we caused the delay, we didn't give him an approval in time."

"This council refused that when it was in time, when the recommendation back then was to approve. (There were) no 40 whatever conditions, just to approve. But look, so Mr. Santin, as is his right, as a resident and a big supporter of Lismore community, was to try and pursue his business. It provided a lot of material to this town that we need, good material. It employed people. He supports this community, and he tried to pursue it.

Once again, the discussion became political when Cr Rob pointed to the modified DA being refused by The Greens.

"Why is Council considering doing this? (appealing the decision) And why would I support going through for a bill? It's because it's the right of every resident in this town to have certainty in their business, in their future, in their investment. Here we are saying, because the Greens don't want it, we're going to shut it down. We're going to do everything we can to shut it down. We dominated Council when it was a recommendation from staff to approve, and we refused it. Now that they don't dominate Council, the recommendation from staff, the tail wagging the dog again, the single recommendation was to say no. That's why we asked for a secondary recommendation."

The vote was lost 2/7 with Crs Guise and Knight-Smith voting for, and Crs Hall, Gordon, Battista, Rob, Bing and Krieg voting against, with Cr Dalton-Earls abstaining and Cr Waters not present.

Now, we wait for the next chapter to unfold in the Santin Quarry saga.