['Signs of the Times' added below on 22 August 2017]
First,
a correction
The potential
applicant for the proposed new landfill at Allawuna is not Avon Waste, as I wrongly
asserted in my previous article.
The outfit that has
expressed an interest in picking up where SITA/SUEZ left off is Alkina Holdings
Pty Ltd.
I apologise for the
mistake and for any embarrassment or inconvenience it may have caused the
proprietors of Avon Waste and their hard-working employees. In making this apology, I freely
acknowledge that I do so without having been targeted or threatened in any way
and that my bins have been emptied as usual.
Several people have told
me they believe Avon Waste to be lurking somewhere in the new landfill
equation. Cynical assertions of
that kind have no place in the pages of this blog, which is why I have declined
to mention them.
The same goes for folk
who tell me that Alkina Holdings has engaged a former Shire of York CEO as consultant
to the new landfill project. Will
that poor fellow never be allowed to enjoy the peace and quiet of obscurity and
old age?
A
new kid on the (rubbish) block?
Alkina Holdings is a
Western Australian company registered on 1 March 2007. Its registered office is at 50 Clune Street, Bayswater
6053. Initially trading as Muchea
Constructions, from 2010 onwards it was known as Solid Rock Homes.
So far as I can
discover, the company has only very recently ventured into the fragrant world
of waste disposal and recycling.
On 14 July 2017, the
Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DEWR) issued Alkina with a
licence to operate a solid waste depot—named, not very creatively, ‘Mixed Waste
Recycling Facility’—at 243 Postans Road, Hope Valley 6167. The licence will expire on Monday 15
November 2021.
It appears that the
Shire of York has to date received from the company nothing more specific than
a statement of interest or intent.
Alkina has not submitted
a formal planning application to develop a landfill at Allawuna. And as I point out below, it may not have to.
Opposition
I have no doubt the
shire president and other councillors, with one possible exception, are
strongly opposed to any further suggestion of a landfill on agricultural land.
If Avon Waste isn’t
involved, that one possible exception is likely to line up with the rest,
unless of course Alkina is in some way connected with another ‘fine old York
family’.
Rumour has it that a
different councillor has enjoyed a long-standing friendship with the owner of
Allawuna and his family, but I know of no evidence that she would be likely to
support a landfill project contrary to the wishes of the York community.
DEWR hasn’t yet issued
a licence to Alkina Holdings.
The company’s
application, numbered W6077-2017-1, for works approval at Allawuna is subject
to a process of public consultation commencing with newspaper advertisements calling
for public submissions. Those
advertisements are due to appear in the West
Australian and other newspapers on 21 August.
I understand that the
same advertisement will also appear in the September issue of York and Districts Community Matters.
If you don’t want the
landfill, make sure you let the DEWR know. Politicians and bureaucrats might otherwise be tempted to
construe silence as consent.
Planning and the environment
It’s important to keep
in mind that there are two distinct aspects to applying for permission to
develop a landfill. One is to
satisfy environmental concerns. Such
concerns are the province of the DEWR, which is charged with implementing the
provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.
The other is to
satisfy the planning authority of first instance—in this case, the Shire of
York—that the proposed development meets the requirements of local planning
legislation—in this case, York’s Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2).
The scheme was
promulgated in 1996 and has been amended many times since then. It defines nine planning zones and a
variety of uses. The zone
that concerns us here is termed ‘General Agricultural’ and the relevant use is
recorded in the zoning table (TPS2 p.14, item 19) as ‘industry—noxious’.
On 27 May 2013 Cathy
Meaghan, Director (Wheatbelt) in the WA Department of Planning, emailed to the
Shire a letter headed ‘Landfill at Allawuna’ and addressed to former CEO Ray
Hooper. It was marked for
the attention of then Manager of Planning Services, Jacky Jurmann.
In her letter, Ms
Meaghan pointed out that while a landfill may be noxious insofar as it requires
licensing under the Environmental Protection Act, it is not an industry
according to the definition provided by the Scheme (see TPS2 p. 57). Instead, it would rank as ‘a use not
listed’.
She goes on to say
that in dealing with an application for an unlisted use, Council would have to
determine ‘that a proposal is consistent with the relevant zone objectives and
purposes’.
Allawuna is in the General
Agricultural Zone. The objectives
for that zone are set out at 4.15.1 on TPS2 p. 26. In Ms Meaghan’s view, the objective ‘most relevant to
Council’s consideration’ was 4.15.1 (b), i.e. ‘To consider non-rural uses where they can be shown to be of benefit to
the district and not detrimental to the natural resources or the environment’.
To a simple-minded
ratepayer like me, it would seem that a noxious undertaking like a landfill is
by definition detrimental to the environment.
But as we all know,
the objective provided ample scope for argument on the part of SITA’s lawyers
and for comfort (as lawyers say) to WA’s answer to Mr Justice Cocklecarrot, SAT
presiding member Peter Macnab.
It wouldn’t have helped
that ‘noxious industry’ is listed as an SA use in the zoning table with regard
to the General Agricultural Zone, rather than as an X use, i.e. one not permitted
under the Scheme.
(An SA use is one that
is ‘not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion and
has granted planning consent after giving special notice...’ [TPS2 p.12]. What Mr Macnab’s judgement effectively meant was that
Council should have exercised its discretion to allow SITA’s project.)
Would it have made a
difference if the use had been recorded as X, i.e. as not permitted under the
Scheme?
I suppose it might, but
only if the definition of ‘industry’ had been extended in such a way as to
include a landfill, and objective 4.15.1 (b) had never been legislated to facilitate
an imprecise category of ‘non-rural’ uses.
And perhaps not even
then, because law and government usually come down, as somebody once said of
God, on the side of the big battalions, and multinational developers are very
big indeed.
Since
objective 4.15.1 (b) applies to the General Agricultural Zone, I think the flabby phrase 'non-rural' should have been scrapped and replaced with
'non-agricultural'. Nobody in their right mind would regard a landfill as an agricultural use.
However, it appears
that for the latest landfill proposal, planning permission may not be
required. That’s because the licence
granted to SITA in consequence of SAT’s ruling still has currency, even though
SITA decided not to go ahead with its Allawuna project and the licence was in
fact revoked.
(No, I don’t get it
either. Somebody, please explain.)
So Alkina Holdings may
be able to coast into Allawuna on SITA’s abandoned magic carpet.
Presumably, that outcome
would depend on the two proposals, Alkina’s and SITA’s, being closely aligned. If they vary in significant ways, Alkina
would probably be required to submit its own planning application to the Shire.
If so, we are still
stuck with TPS2 in the same form that gave SAT grounds to find in favour of
SITA and against the people of York.
Amending the scheme
should have been Council’s first priority on taking office nearly two years
ago. Instead, it has taken the
emergence of a new landfill threat to panic councillors into action.
It’s probable that our
only real hope lies with the new Minister for the Environment, Mr Stephen
Dawson MLC, who I’m told will have the last word on the proposed new landfill. He will make his decision purely on
environmental grounds.
So when you compose
your submissions to DEWR, please focus exclusively on environmental issues, such
as contamination of water, threats to health and wildlife, odours, pests, potential earthquake
and the like.
On ideological grounds, Mr Dawson might seem more
likely than his ministerial predecessors, Albert Jacobs and Mia ‘Missing in
Action’ Davies, to take such important matters seriously. But as the good book says, don't put your trust in princes. Get to work on those submissions. We need to persuade him with facts and argument not to let Alkina's landfill through.
*******
Great Southern Landfill
(formerly Allawuna Landfill)
Background
The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) has received
a works approval application from Alkina Holdings Pty Ltd to
construct a putrescible landfill site within part of Lot 4869 Great Southern
Highway in St Ronans (Allawuna Farm). The works approval application seeks
approval to construct Cell 1 and Cell 2 only.
This premises was previously subject to works approval W5830/2015/1
granted to SITA Australia Pty Ltd (now known as SUEZ Recycling and Recovery Pty
Ltd)—also for the construction of a putrescible landfill site known as
‘Allawuna Landfill’. This works approval was revoked by the Department on 11
August 2016 at the request of SUEZ.
The new application renames the proposed landfill as the ‘Great Southern
Landfill’. The proposed footprint and design of the landfill is largely the
same as the previously proposed Allawuna Farm landfill, although the waste
input rate will be reduced from 250,000 tonnes per annum to 200,000 tonnes per
annum.
· The former Department of Environment Regulation amalgamated on 1 July
2017 with the Department of Water and the Office of the Environmental
Protection Authority, forming the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation.
Public consultation opens on Monday 21 August 2017—the application
and all supporting documents will be available on this page then.
The application will also be advertised in The West Australian and Hills
Gazette newspapers. All community members who made a submission on the previous
SUEZ application as well as anyone else the CEO considers has a direct interest
in the application will be notified and invited to make a submission.
Submissions must be received by the Department by close of business on
Monday 18 September 2017 to info-der@dwer.wa.gov.au or by post to:
Chief Executive Officer
Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Locked Bag 33
CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850
A summary outlining the differences between this application and the
SUEZ application will be located in Attachment A of the document 'Cover
Letter and Application' which will be published on Monday 21 August 2017.
What happens when submissions close?
All submissions will be considered in the Department's assessment of the
application. DWER's target timeframe to complete its assessment and determine
the application is 60 business days.
The decision to grant or refuse the works approval will be advertised in
The West Australian and the Hills Gazette newspapers and all stakeholders will
be notified of the Department's decision in writing.
DER will update this page as new information comes to hand.
If you have any queries related to this application email info-der@dwer.wa.gov.au
Published 15 August 2017
SIGNS
OF THE TIMES?
A friend of the blog has pointed out that
on the above map attached to Alkina’s application for works approval the name
of the Mundaring Water Catchment Area has been changed to ‘Talbot Forest
Block’.
She also mentioned that the old Avon
Catchment signs disappeared from beside the Great Southern Highway in
November 2016.
She tells me that nobody at Waters and
Rivers (Northam) and Main Roads knows who removed the signs and why they have
not been replaced.
She asks: “Is this change of name a sneaky
ploy to deflect the attention of consumers from the risk of landfill pollution
seeping into Mundaring Weir?”
Here’s a photo of one of the missing signs:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
