A group of Bridge Creek landholders are opposing a planning application for stone extraction at Stump Hill Pastoral, arguing it threatens farmland and rural amenity in the Mansfield Shire.
The proposed five-hectare site on O’Hallorans Road is considered premium agricultural land in the region with a price tag to match.
However for Stump Hill Pastoral the application more represents the formalisation of an existing enterprise, stipulating impact will be minimal with the site developed in hectare blocks and then rehabilitated.
Stump Hill's landholding spans over a thousand hectares and rock extraction has been ongoing for 30 years at various sites on the property, without a planning permit.
It is only in recent years – in May 2024 – that operators were advised by council they needed to apply for one.
Due to changes in how the Mansfield planning scheme was interpreted, a permit is now required with the landholder stressing the application merely represents a continuation of the “existing, sustainable practice”.
“The permit will formalise the existing, long-standing use and does not propose any expansion of operations in terms of scale, intensity or area,” the landholder assured objectors.
Pointing to the fragility of the soil profile, proximity to Mt Samaria State Park - and multiple landholders - along with the quarry’s location within the catchment for the Broken River and Lake Nillahcootie, and the aesthetic beauty of the area, objectors believe the application is not in line with Mansfield Shire’s strategic plan.
With the matter to go before council in mid-October, for the objecting landholders the issue has become bigger than a single stone extraction application.
The Stump Hill application is just one of a handful currently proposed across the region, with the Bridge Creek landholders looking to establish a more rigorous framework for assessing all future stone extraction proposals across the shire.
With a goal to safeguard agricultural land, watersheds and the amenity of rural communities, the group of objectors are demanding more thorough assessment, site checks and fact-checking.
Currently before council and yet to be decided upon is an application for a stone extraction operation on Terry Road, also on valuable farmland surrounded by graziers in close proximity to scenic Merrijig.
The five-hectare proposal submitted by the owner, an absentee landholder, has neighbouring properties concerned about the scale and impact.
To date, council has received 20 objections to the proposal and with submissions still open the applicant has been invited to respond to objectors.
“We do our best to work with applicants to facilitate development where it aligns with our planning scheme and resolve concerns while minimising impacts to our community,” Mayor Cr Steve Rabie said.
Earlier in the year, council determined not to approve a stone extraction proposal for 138 Hearns Road in Booroolite after listening to 16 objections and deciding the proposal was not right for the community.
“The site is subject to a Significant Landscape Overlay – part of the planning scheme designed to protect areas like the Delatite Valley,” Cr Rabie said.
“Besides the visual damage to the landscape, we had real concerns about run-off getting into our water catchment and the impact on tourism and folks living nearby.”
However with stone extraction a lucrative enterprise, the landholder has decided to contest the decision and are now taking council to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
With significant revenue at stake, VCAT is the obvious next step for landholders who have their applications refused, the financial outlay deemed a necessary and comparatively minor expense if it means stone extraction can go ahead.
For council though this represents a hit to the budget, costing the shire tens of thousands to defend with ratepayers footing the bill.
A similar proposal for a stone extraction operation on Buttercup Road in Merrijig also ended up in VCAT after council refused the 2018 application.
“The proposal was on a highly visible ridgeline and also subject to a Significant Landscape Overlay,” said Mayor Cr Steve Rabie.
“We received 47 objections and two petitions against this proposal and rejected it due to the impacts on the landscape and nearby homes.”
It cost council in excess of $30,000 to have their ruling upheld, with VCAT also recognising the unacceptable impact of the proposal.
Cr Rabie said the shire was open to stone extraction but reiterated that each proposal had to be the right fit.
“Council weighs up the benefits against the very real impacts on our community, our environment and our landscape,” he said.
However much like opposition to the Buttercup Road proposal was community-led in 2018, the Bridge Creek landholders have found they are also driving the push for more transparency surrounding the impact of stone extraction at the O’Halloran’s Road site.
“Due to limited financial and human resources, we understand it is not sustainable for council to evaluate the impact of every quarry and assist ratepayers with their objections,” Bridge Creek landholder and sheep stud farmer Jenny Delaforce said in relation to the proposal.
“As a result, it is left up to objectors to become experts in stone extraction, navigate the many authorities and regulators involved, study and check all information in these applications and attend mediation – all in their own time.
“Meanwhile the applicant simply employs a consultant and appears to dismiss any community concerns and regulations.”
Ms Delaforce also mentioned what the group perceives as “changing goalposts”, with the planning application fundamentals changing mid-process creating a sense of uncertainty amongst the group as to the nature of the proposal and the volume of trucks servicing the site.
Landholders have also queried why the applicant did not need to field a geotechnical report to council, ensuring the land is stable enough to cope with the proposed five-metre deep pit and removal of foundation stone.
And despite the site falling under the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority as the relevant floodplain and waterway manager, the GBCMA stipulated it had not been asked to provide a referral response on the matter, directing enquiries to Mansfield Shire as the lead authority.
The group believe the onus is often left on objectors to prove the inherent unsuitability of many of the applications.
Rather than a small stone extraction operation, landholders perceive the scale of the enterprise to be more akin with a quarry or mine, stating the application "circumvents normal government regulations by stealth".
Ms Delaforce and her fellow landholders are hoping to change this and set a precedent, creating stronger parameters on what they have determined is a poorly regulated and loosely governed industry with limited accountability.
Objectors are calling on a set of mandatory criteria that must be met before an application is even considered, the least of which is a geotechnical report.
Along with safeguards for high-value agricultural or environmentally significant land, the group believe in mandatory referral to catchment management authorities like the GBCMA from the outset.
And they would like to see a concrete, enforceable plan for filling pits and returning land to a usable state, not a mere “gradation” as stipulated in the current application for O’Hallorans Road.
“We are proposing a uniform model that can be adopted by other councils and potentially lead to statewide regulation – a goal that would save time and money for councils and ratepayers alike,” Ms Delaforce said.
From February to June of this year, Resources Victoria - the regulator that oversees mines and quarrying operations – inspected over 350 sites across 50 local government areas.
A recurring issue was a lack of progressive rehabilitation with some operators failing to have even started the required works, whilst many others had made insufficient progress.
The regulator stressed that building community confidence in how these sites are operated is important to ensure support for the continued development of the state’s earth resources.
Stump Hill Pastoral have assured objectors there will be minimal impact and quick rehabilitation of the site, in keeping with previous stone extraction work undertaken on the property.
The Bridge Creek landholders believe a site tour of Stump Hill Pastoral surveying the operator’s previous efforts might go some of the way towards assuaging their fears but are yet to secure this commitment.
With the application submitted in April 2025 and yet to be decided upon by council, Cr Rabie insists the council’s approvals process is rigorous.
“For us to approve a stone extraction application, the proposal needs to have a rock-solid plan to mitigate the impacts of dust, noise, extra trucks and visual damage,” Cr Rabie said.
“It also needs to meet the requirements of the Mansfield Planning Scheme, which we have carefully designed to protect the High Country landscape our community knows and loves.”