The financial report explores the potential benefits from the continued extraction of natural resources by heavily underplaying the significance of the Class 1 Prime agricultural land that will be forever lost to these mining operations. Once the agricultural land has been mined, it will be lost forever, ending up as quarry fill.

 

The cost of the proposed park and the ongoing maintenance expenses, are not addressed. It should be part of Nelson's plan to indicate who will cover the costs for the creation of the park and the continued maintenance of the area.

​

The cost of natural capital resulting from the proposed project is not considered in Nelson's Financial Report. This is a major concern as the cost-benefit analysis for aggregate implies a short-term resource development benefit, with severe long-term consequences, especially for the environment and for our ability to mitigate the evolving climate emergency.

A cost-benefit analysis must account for ALL the costs and losses, and the benefits derived. Nelson ignores many of the consequential costs... ecological values lost, health effects, reduced quality of life, air quality effects, well interruption, property damages, tributary siltation effects, road maintenance, traffic incidents, etc.

 

Lastly, Nelson emphasizes the importance of having the mine operate close to the market as it reduces greenhouse gases from production to consumption, however they fail to address that the fill, and concrete and asphalt for recycling, being imported on a daily basis into the existing quarry is coming from very long-distance sources, some 100 km away. IF it is important for Nelson to keep things close-to-market, then the trucking-in of construction fill and other materials should also be considered.

​

And how do you calculate the value of close-to-market farmland and greenspace, particularly as this area faces decades of population densification and the coming weather-chaos associated with the climate crisis?