LANDFILL AT ALLAWUNA—WILL ALKINA HOLDINGS RIDE IN ON SITA’S MAGIC CARPET?

 ['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).

You can find TPS2 online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/LPS/DATA/Local%20Planning%20Schemes/York%20-%20Shire%20of%20(Scheme%202)/Scheme%20Text.pdf

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.

Variations

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.

*******

 

From DEWR’s website:

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.

What is Happening Now?

DWER has commenced a risk based assessment of the application in accordance with the Department's Regulatory Framework.

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.

  

More Information

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)