PROPOSED LANDFILL AT ALLAWUNA: NOTES FROM KAY DAVIES FOR SUBMISSIONS TO DWER

From yesterday's West Australian:

(click to enlarge)

This morning I received the following email and accompanying notes from Kay Davies, who with Robyn Davies fought a long and determined battle against SITA's landfill proposal. 

Kay's notes are designed to help people write their own submissions to DWER regarding the new threat of a landfill at Allawuna. 

If you are against the current landfill proposal - as I believe are most people in York - please let DWER know.  We need as many submissions as possible to convince the government that our agricultural zone and water catchment are simply too precious to run the risks posed by a development of that kind.

Your submission doesn't have to cover every point and topic that Kay raises, though of course it may if you wish.  The important thing to remember is that the DWER is only concerned with dangers to the environment.

Please note that the closing date for submissions is 18 September 2017.

Thanks, Kay, for all your hard work. 

JP

Hi Everyone,

I am writing to you concerning a new proposal that has been submitted for a landfill again at Allawuna, York, called the “Great Southern Landfill”. This is of great concern to everyone as this new proposal does not have to follow the normal approval process because it is using the same approvals as the original SITA landfill. Therefore the proposal only needs the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER) approval to begin construction.

The new landfill proposal is being undertaken by “ALKINA HOLDINGS”, which is owned by Sam Mangione. Mr Mangione is also the owner of the company “Opal Vale” which is proposing the Toodyay landfill.

If you are against the new landfill and would like to make a submission please feel free to use the attached documents for submissions to the DWER for the Great Southern Landfill application at Allawuna, York. These documents have been provided in word format so that making a submission is made easier. The first 2 documents allow a choice of submission format to the DWER with the last document giving you reasons for objection to the landfill. Please email your completed submissions to info-der@dwer.wa.gov.au by 5pm on 18^th September 2017.

If you require further information, including applications received by the DWER and copies of Licences and Works Approvals granted please visit the DWER website at: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-works-approvals

Can you please send this email to your contacts so that they too have the opportunity to write a submission.

Kind regards,

Kay Davies

Kay's notes:

I have written these points so that they may assist you in your submissions to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations against the Great Southern Landfill application. Please remember that this submission is based on environmental concerns.

“Allawuna” is located 23km west of York on the Great Southern Highway with its west boundary fence running along side Mt Observation and the water catchment area for Mundaring Weir and the Wandoo National Park.

The landfill site is to be situated in a valley with a wet tributary of 13 Mile Brook running through it.  A dam is to be built on the south/east side of the landfill to capture water flowing down the hill to be used to wet the landfill. Leachate dams are to be built below the landfill just above 13 Mile Brook. 13 Mile Brook runs through farm land and directly into the Avon River through Northam.

This whole area is subject to flash flooding, severe winds and thunderstorms and is a high rainfall area receiving approx 500mm a year.

Points of greatest concerns for submissions are:

Air & Dust Emissions

·      Landfill sites are generally associated with impacts on air quality that will adversely affect environmental values and the health, welfare and amenity of people and nearby land uses. These impacts include dust, noise, odour and especially the danger of fire within the landfill.

·    Contamination will occur from rubbish blowing across into the surrounding National Forests and farms.

·      Contamination will occur from dust by equipment used in the pit and on dirt roads into the surrounding National Forests and farms.

·      Farms to the west of York have no scheme water, relying on rainwater tanks for human consumption as well as stock watering. Contaminated dust will have a huge effect upon the area.

·      Borrow pits that are to be constructed where soil is moved to use in the landfill will impact the environment and surface water flow as well as causing erosion and dust emissions.

·      Fire is a huge issue with the landfill being located next to National Forest. If a landfill fire occurs it will cause irremediable damage to the natural flora and fauna and farming businesses located near the landfill.

·      The increase in traffic along Great Southern Highway will impact upon the air quality as well as the flora and fauna. It will cause greater noise pollution especially as the area is renowned for its amphitheater effect with noise travelling over many kilometers.

Odour Emissions

·      The odour and gases emitted by the landfill is of great concern, especially with winds often blowing in a west to east direction impacting on farms and the town of York.

·      Gas emissions can impact the surrounding community including local flora and fauna, with landfills being proven to cause lung cancer.

·      Gas emissions from the landfill have the potential for huge landfill fires, which can last many months polluting the whole area and causing the closure of the Great Southern Highway.

Discharge to Water & Land

·      The quality and contamination of water in 13 Mile Brook and possible ground water contamination to Mundaring Weir and the catchment area for Helena River. Mundaring Weir is the water supply for York and the Goldfields as well as many eastern Perth suburbs. Certain liquid wastes can alter the physical characteristics of natural occurring waters and this should be prohibited near potable water supplies.

·      Contamination by heavy metals (in water & dust) from the leachate dams flowing directly down hill and into the 13 Mile Brook.

·      Stormwater management is of great concern especially in the event of a flood or huge storm. Water will flood the pit and the leachate dams causing major contamination to land and waterways.

·      There is not enough known about the hydrogeology and geology in the area where the landfill is to be located. Palaeochannels are present in the area with insufficient data available of the area to be used for landfill.

·      A Permit to interfere with Beds and Banks under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1913 should not be granted as changing the direction of water flow will influence the flow of 13 Mile Brook and the Helena River.

·      E coli bacteria are present in waste and will contaminate the site and therefore water sources.

·      Contamination to surrounding fauna & flora, especially Carnaby Black Cockatoos, Wedge-tailed Eagles and native foraging animals that will contaminate the food chain. Waste can accumulate in living animals and be discharged into water and surrounding environments.

·      Contamination will occur from birds landing and drinking from leachate ponds and spreading the leachate into the surrounding National Forests and farm lands including dams and troughs where stock drink. This will affect farm bio-security. 

·      There will be an increase in vermin and pests which will impact native flora and fauna as well as farm bio-security.

·      HDPE liners to be used in the pit do break down over time and this will cause contamination into the water table.

·      York is a Seismic activity hot spot, so there is great concern over lining damage within the landfill. Earthquakes can destroy liners.

·      Alkina Holdings should be denied permission to clear any part of the property, especially in the areas under Covenant as this will have serious environmental consequence and should be denied a Native Vegetation Clearing Permit under the Environmental Protection (Native Vegetation Clearing) Regulation.

Other Concerns

·      Many York community members and businesses rely on tourism. With the increase in traffic along Great Southern Highway tourism will seriously be affected in York thus affecting the enjoyment and quality of the community’s lives.

·      Landfills are old technology with many alternatives now available to recycle more as well as pre-existing incineration locations available. No new landfill sites are required as there is enough airspace in existing landfills to accommodate WA waste will into the 2050s.

·      The Waste Authorities “Towards Zero Waste” needs to be considered.

·      Alkina Holdings appears to be a construction company for homes and sheds and not a company that has experience in landfills. We question their financial position to have a multimillion dollar contingency plan when contamination occurs to the environment or businesses in the area.

·      Alkina Holdings are leasing Allawuna from AIM Enterprises Pty Ltd for a period of approximately 20 years. Who will be responsible for environmental contamination once Alkina’s contract is finished?

·      The landfill proposal requires financial assurance under s86C of the Environmental Regulations Act so that the people of WA have some assurance that ALKINA Holdings will be responsible financially for any hazardous event at the landfill site.

·      The landfill is located in an area zoned as “General Agricultural” and the Shire of York have voted to prohibit landfills within the Shire. Even though there is a “sunset clause” on Allawuna from the previous SITA Landfill proposal object to this planning decision as it will have major ramifications on the environmental conditions of the surrounding agricultural land and national forests.

·      Environmental Protection Authority 2016, Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives, EPA, Western Australia should be adhered  http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Policies_and_Guidance/Statement%20of%20Environmental%20Principles%2C%20factors%20and%20objectives_Dec16_1.pdf

Environmental principles: Section 4A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 establishes the object and principles of the Act.

The object of this Act is to protect the environment of the State, having regard to the following principles:

1. The precautionary principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, decision should be guided by: a. careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and b. an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

 2. The principle of intergenerational equity: The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

3. The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity: Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms:

a. Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services.

b. The polluter pays principle – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement.

c. The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any wastes.

d. Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

5. The principle of waste minimisation: All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the environment.

 

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)

 

MORE ON THE PROPOSED NEW LANDFILL AT ALLAWUNA

BREAKING NEWS 7 August 2017

A usually reliable source has just informed me that the company intending to apply for permission to establish a landfill at Allawuna is Avon Waste.

It’s possible that the Shire has already received the application.

What now seems certain is that all councillors, not just the Shire President, have known about the new landfill proposal for some time.

Yet to the best of my knowledge not one of them—not one!—has deigned to share this vital information with the people of York.

My reading of the Local Government Act is that it empowers and by implication enjoins councillors to ‘facilitate communication’ between the Council and the community they are elected to represent.

In plain words, that means they are supposed to talk to us and tell us what is going on.

Instead, they prefer to opt for secrecy when anything controversial swims into their ken.

In that respect, they seem more like a witches’ coven than a representative body with governing responsibilities and legislative powers.

‘Careful, they might hear you’ 

Somebody told me yesterday that the Shire President has threatened our councillors with hellfire  (figuratively speaking—I don’t think his authority extends that far) if they dare to raise any aspect of council business with the rest of us in public or in private conversation.

It’s true that individual councillors are not permitted to act as spokespersons for Council.  That task is the prerogative of a shire president or mayor or a CEO acting under delegated authority.

But there is no reason why councillors should hesitate to make public their personal opinions on issues that come before them, so long as they make clear that those opinions are their own, not those of council as a whole. 

Members of parliament can talk to the people, so why not members of council?

If our Shire President really is putting the screws on councillors to keep their traps shut—and if he isn’t, he’s welcome to deny it on this blog, or perhaps he can use his column in the YDCM—then he is behaving like a bully.

In that case, councillors should come out of their trance, give him the collective finger, man up (even the ladies) and do the right thing, not what they are told to do.

 

"When we've finished our brew, would someone like to move that we put a curse on that Plumridge fellow?  I'd do it myself, but I know he'll make fun of my spelling."

OMG, HERE COMES ANOTHER BLOODY LANDFILL…

BREAKING NEWS 2 August 2017

It seems York’s landfill troubles aren’t over after all.

The rumour in town—I think it’s more than just a rumour—is that the owner of Allawuna is negotiating to sell his farm to a second landfill company, the first one, SITA aka Suez-Lyonnaise, having ruled itself out of contention last year. 

So far the Shire hasn’t received a planning application from the prospective purchaser, but apparently one is on the way.

Don’t blame the farmer, Mr Robert Chester.  It’s his land, and he’s entitled to sell it to anyone willing to buy.

No, blame the Council, which despite occasional nudges from members of the public—and this blog—hasn’t bothered to repeal or amend the special use (noxious industry) provisions of York’s town planning scheme that make such an application certain to obtain a positive ruling from SAT if Council and JDAP reject it.

Our Shire President, David ‘Braveheart’ Wallace, has admitted to a member of the public that Council has been ‘remiss’ in not attending to what should have been its number one priority the moment it took office last year.

He should resign.  The buck stops with him. 

‘Remiss’ is too tame a word for such an obvious dereliction of duty.  ‘Negligent’ is only one of the opprobrious adjectives that spring unbidden to the mind.

Some York hearts may be gladdened, notably those of Cr Trevor Randell, visionary spokesman for folk who would like to see York become the waste hub of the Wheatbelt, and his bosom buddies at Avon Waste.

But most I think will be saddened, even made bitter by the knowledge that the most likely outcome of the forthcoming planning application could probably have been avoided by a few timely strokes of the pen.

*******

Since posting the above, I’ve been surprised to discover that information concerning the new landfill proposal—while far from being general knowledge—has circulated more widely in the community than I’d thought.

It appears that councillors—or at any rate the Shire President—may have known about the proposal for some time.

I believe Mr Wallace and at least one other councillor visited Mr Chester at his home in an attempt to persuade him to abandon the proposal.  I can only imagine Mr Chester’s response, but it seems likely that his visitors were instructed to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, though not perhaps in those exact words.

Why, then, has the community at large had to wait until now to learn that another landfill looms on our horizon, bringing with it another existential threat to our safety, way of life and peace of mind? 

Why the secrecy?

Is it because councillors recognize that they have fallen down on the job by not changing TPS2 when they should have—but were hoping Mr Chester’s deal with the as yet unidentified landfill company would quietly fall through before the rest of us had a chance to find out?