A proposal to extend the operational lifespan of the Alpine Quarry, located at 1349 Alpine Way, has sparked debate among residents, with recent submissions revealing opposition to the development.

The modification application, which seeks to extend quarry operations for an additional 40 years while increasing the approved extraction volume, has been met with resistance, prompting the assessing officer to recommend councillors refuse the application.

The Alpine Quarry, approximately 15 kilometres from Jindabyne and three kilometres from the entrance to Kosciuszko National Park, has been in operation since the 1970s.

Originally granted development consent by Snowy River Shire Council in 2000 for extractive industry use, the quarry was subject to a condition requiring operations to cease by 1 December, 2015, unless further consent was granted.

A modification in 2015 allowed for continued operations until December 2025, but the latest proposal seeks to extend this deadline to 1 December, 2065.

“The proposed modification fundamentally alters the original development’s essence and does not maintain compliance with relevant legislation,” stated the assessing officer in their report.

The application was submitted under section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, claiming minimal environmental impact. However, the council maintains that the scale and duration of the proposed operations represent a significant change.

Residents have raised numerous concerns, with 25 of the 26 submissions opposing the development. Many objections cite fears related to environmental degradation, increased truck traffic, and noise pollution.

Dr Jane Holton, a resident nearby the quarry spoke in council's public forum in support of the application being refused.

“I’ve had family connection to this area for more than 50 years since we emigrated to Australia and I’ve been a property owner in this area for 40 years,” Dr Holton said.

“I’ve taken a lot of legal advice about this problem, and I want to make my point extremely clear, is extremely clear. This DA expired on December. There is no legislation, there is no provision, that enables it now to be revitalised, and there is no legal precedent that does that.

“If it had been extended, it needed to have occurred before 1 December when it was still alive.

“As the recommendations from the staff show, even if it had come forward in that context, it is not substantially the same development. It is not currently permitted use in the zone. But most importantly, it is not the same development and therefore the extension should be denied.”

As the council navigates the complexities of the modification application, it was served papers on 19 November, 2025, following a Class 1 Application with the Land and Environment Court filed on 14 November, 2025, relating to the quarry. This appeal is against the deemed refusal of the modification application, underscoring the contentious nature of the proposal. Under section 119 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, the council retains the authority to determine the application independently of the ongoing legal proceedings.

Also speaking in the public forum at Thursday’s meeting, Director of McMahons Earthmoving, Rachel McMahon, the application of the DA. She said council has had nine months to assess the DA.

“We have been around this area, we were born and bred in the area and started McMahon Earthmoving 19 years ago. We employ up to 70 people now and there’s about 15 or 20 jobs directly connected to the quarry,” Ms McMahon said.

“We submitted our application back on 18 March, which gave Council nine months to assess.

“There was plenty of time to ask questions, seek clarification, request additional information.

“We’re not changing anything, the footprint’s still there, everything’s the same. It’s only the extension of the timeline that we are asking for to be able to complete the process.”

As councillors discussed the DA motion, Cr Lynda Summers said she was in favour of refusing the application.

“There are a range of reasons, including being our legal position. It’s quite clear from the advice provided, and from the discussions today that this DA had a deadline date of 1 December,” Cr Summers said.

“And although I am sympathetic to the DA holder’s notion, I think they always knew 1 December was the done date, and it wasn’t a DA application that they have put forward it was a modification of the time frame.

“And that should have been alarm bells to them, that they needed a plan B. And the plan B, obviously, is a fresh DA, but under the current rules and the current legislation would need to be taken into consideration.”

After much discussion and consideration, the motion was carried with Cr Summers, Cr Higgins, Cr Stewart, Cr Hopkins, Cr Davis, Cr Williamson Cr Hanna, voting for the recommendation to deny the proposal.

Voting against the recommendation was Cr Elliott, Cr Rose, Cr Rooney and Cr Thaler.