Panel to have relook into quarry proposal

Thiruvananthapuram: State expert appraisal committee (SEAC) which has rejected a proposal for a quarry in Nellanad village citing precautionary principle and considering the landslide potential of the site has now decided to appoint a two-member committee with more complaints surfacing against the proposal.
The proposal is regarding a granite building stone quarry in Nellanad village.SEAC, which advises state government on environmental clearance of development projects, initially decided to recommend rejection of the proposal citing that the site is located on a very steep slope with very high vulnerability to landslides. There are many houses and other built structures and a major road at the downslope region of the proposed site. Any accidents or hazards in the proposed site will have adverse impact on the land and properties on the downstream area, SEAC noted in its 143rd meeting held in May 2023.
Intensive activities like quarrying will have a high magnitude impact on houses and other infrastructure downstream. There is also a major road located at the downstream side of the valley portion and the development of access road will affect stability of the massive boulder situated in the adjacent land on the upstream side, SEAC had noted.
However, the project proponent requested for an opportunity to present their case before taking further decision. The committee heard the proponent, examined the hearing note and also a complaint received from Kadal Kaani Para Action Council.
The hearing note stated that the survey map issued by Nellanad village officer showed only one house located within 100m in the downstream area and there were no houses except two temporary sheds. It was observed during field inspection that there were 23 houses within 200m radius. The hearing note also mentioned that MC Road was at about 170m.
The complainant stated that there was a colony with more than 82 ST houses within a short radius of the proposed land and there was a huge water tank which supplies drinking water to the residents. The complainant also stated that the MC Road was only 150m away, and pointed out that two other applications for permission were rejected by SEAC citing reason that the property was beneath a rockfall area.
SEAC noted that the complainant had not submitted any proof regarding the allegation and decided to entrust a committee to examine the hearing note and the complaint and submit specific recommendation to the SEAC.