11.2 Sustainable Development

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 13 JULY 2016

11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.1 PROPOSED SALE OF LOT 26 LE SOUEF STREET

MARGARET RIVER

Attachment 1 – Valuation Report Attachment 2 – Contract for Sale of Land

\\sbs\documents\2016\miscellaneous\Apr 16\23LE SOUEF66565.DOCX

Valuation Report Property 23 Le Souef Street, Margaret River WA 6285

Prepared for Shire of Augusta - Margaret River. Instructed by Ian McLeod on behalf of the Shire of Augusta – Margaret River. Purpose To determine current market value for property disposal purposes as required under S3.58 (4)

of the Local Government Act 1995. Client ref Purchase Order Number: 104768 Title details Lot 26 on Diagram 13936. Certificate of Title Volume 1223 Folio 655. Owner Shire of Augusta – Margaret River. Registered 17 January 1992. File ref 66565

National Property Valuers and Consultants

Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd trading as LMW South West. ABN 30 096 877 191 ACN 096 877 191 Suite 4, 10, Victoria Street, Bunbury WA 6230 / PO Box 2493, Bunbury WA 6231 T: 08 9792 5544 F: 08 9792 5540 www.lmw.com.au National Offices: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA & SA

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 1

INSTRUCTIONS & ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 2

LAND & LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

SALES EVIDENCE & MARKET COMMENT ................................................................................................................... 8

COMMENTS & VALUATION RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 10

VALUATION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 11

DISCLAIMERS ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

ANNEXURES ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

23 Le Souef Street, Margaret River WA 6285

LMW Our File Reference: 66565 Page 1

1 IMPORTANT: All data provided in this summary is wholly reliant on and must be read in conjunction with the information provided in the attached report. It is a synopsis only designed to provide a brief overview and must not be acted on in isolation. 1.1 Property details

Address 23 Le Souef Street, Margaret River WA 6285 Title details Lot 26 on Diagram 13936. Certificate of Title Volume 1223 Folio 655. Registered proprietor / owner Shire of Augusta – Margaret River Encumbrances Nil Interest being valued Fee Simple Vacant Possession. Basis of valuation Market Value “As Is”. Relevant dates Valuation Date: 11 April 2016 Inspection Date: 11 April 2016 Submission Date: 14 April 2016

Local authority / Zoning Shire of Augusta - Margaret River. Residential R30 / 40. Brief description Vacant residential lot having potential for a four unit development. Site area 1,012 m²

1.2 Recent sale history

Sale date Sale amount

Previous transfer Not applicable. Not applicable. Comments No sales transaction within the last five years.

1.3 Valuation

The valuation is made on the basis of "Market Value" as adopted by the Australian Property Institute from the International Assets Valuation Standards Committee definition. That is: "The estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a

willing seller in an arms' length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.”

In accordance with valuation principles I have ascertained a fair market value having regard to the highest and best use of the site. The highest and best use is defined as:

“The most probable use of a property, which is physically possible, appropriately justified, legally permissible, financially feasible, and which results in the highest value of the property being valued.”

If there is any GST payable the figure is GST inclusive (refer to Section GST Implications).

Market Value $330,000 (THREE HUNDRED & THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) subject to an unencumbered Fee Simple Title. Signature:

Valuer: Peter Kreutzer Qualifications / Reg#: AAPI Lic Val #6327

Certified Practising Valuer

Firm: Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd trading as LMW ABN: 30 096 877 191 Address: Suite 4, 10 Victoria Street, Bunbury WA 6230

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Executive Summary



2 2.1 Instructions

Following instructions received from Ian McLeod on behalf of the Shire of Augusta - Margaret River I have prepared a valuation effective as at 11 April 2016 of the property known as 23 Le Souef Street, Margaret River which is to be used for the purposes of establishing current Market Value for Sale purposes as is required under Section 3.58 (4) of the Local Government Act (1995). 2.2 Assumptions, conditions and limitations

This valuation is subject to the qualifications and assumptions set out in this report and the whole of the report should be read before any reliance is placed upon this valuation. The valuation is prepared based on the following pertinent assumptions, conditions and limitations: Based on an unencumbered Fee Simple Title,

This valuation is prepared on the understanding that no encumbrances, easements, rights of way or encroachments

exist by or on the subject property other than those set out by the Certificate of Title.

All the information supplied / sourced in conducting this valuation consists of a full and accurate disclosure of all information that is relevant.

The valuation assumes that the site is not affected by environmental contamination.

No encroachment of any adjoining buildings onto the subject land.

Town Planning information has been obtained verbally from representatives of the respective authorities and this valuation assumes this information is correct.

The property is not affected by historical or anthropological matters.

The site is not prone to flooding under normal climatic conditions.

If there is any variance / contradiction in any of the above assumptions then I reserve the right to review this valuation accordingly.

Instructions & Assumptions



3 3.1 Title details

Registered proprietor Shire of Augusta – Margaret River. Registered 17 January 1992. Legal description Lot 26 on Diagram 13936. Certificate of Title Volume 1223 Folio 655. Encumbrances & interests Nil

Overall, there are considered to be no detrimental encumbrances registered on the subject property’s Certificate of Title which are likely to adversely affect the value, marketability and continued utility of the property. Should it later be revealed the subject property is affected by any encumbrances, encroachments, restrictions, leases or covenants which are not noted in this report, they may affect the assessment of value. If such matters are known or discovered, I should be advised so I can determine whether they affect my assessment of value. The valuation is provided on the basis that the property is not subject to any encumbrances or restrictions on Title other than those noted here and that the property is unaffected by any road alteration proposals. 3.2 Town planning

Local authority Shire of Augusta - Margaret River. Zoning Residential R30 / 40 under Local Planning Scheme No.1. Permissible uses Under this zoning the site is suitable for a three unit residential development.

Subject to certain criteria being met as shown in Section 4.21.4 (b) of the Local Planning Scheme the local government may permit a group/multiple dwelling development up to the R40 code which would enable a four unit development to be undertaken.

Planning approvals / applications Nil. Other matters A scheme amendment rezoned the property from Public Purpose to Residential

R30/40 which was gazetted on 24 March 2016. The planning information noted has been obtained from the relevant local council. This information has been relied upon in my assessment of value and no responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of the planning information provided. Should the information prove incorrect in any significant respect, the matter should be referred to the valuer for review of the valuation. 3.3 The land

The dimensions of the site are as follows:

Le Souef Street frontage: 20.12 m

Northern boundary: 50.29 m

Southern boundary: 50.29 m

Rear boundary: 20.12 m

Total site area 1,012 m² based on Landgate

Access to the site is directly off Le Souef Street.

Land & Location



A current survey has not been sighted. The valuation is made on the basis that there are no encroachments by or upon the property and that all improvements are located entirely within the property. This should be confirmed by a current survey report and / or advice from a registered surveyor. If any encroachment is noted by the survey report, the valuer should be consulted to re-assess any effect on the value stated in this report. 3.4 Site description

The land comprises a regular shaped, gently sloping, inside site located rising above road level. Soils appear to be of a sandy loam over clay. The site has good access quality. The gradient is minor to moderate and there would be slightly above average site costs if the site were to be developed.

Source: Landgate

3.5 Road description

The subject property fronts a relatively busy local residential street which is also used by trucks delivering goods to the Woolworths development which is diagonally adjacent to the subject property. All roadways are asphalt sealed, drained and concrete kerbed. 3.6 Services

All essential services including bottled gas, electricity, mains water, telephone and sewerage are available for connection to the property. Other services provided within this locality include transport, shopping, local schools and public recreation. 3.7 Location and neighbourhood

The subject property is situated in the town of Margaret River, within the Shire of Augusta - Margaret River, approximately 48 kilometres south west of Busselton and 268 kilometres south of Perth CBD. The locality has a population of approximately 6,328 (ABS 2011 SSC). The Shire of Augusta - Margaret River has a population of approximately 11,716 (ABS 2011 LGA). Margaret River is a popular tourist locality well regarded for its wine growing regions and beaches and attracts approximately 1,500,000 visitors annually. The town which is the administrative centre for the Shire provides for a good range of services and due to the number of visitors to the locality the town can support a larger and broader range of these facilities in comparison to similar size towns.



Facilities within this locality include education (a number of primary schools, high school and a TAFE / University campus providing a limited number of courses), medical (public hospital, aged care facilities, medical centres and local doctors), retail (supermarkets, local stores, post office, banks and service station), government administration (police station, emergency services and public library) and it is the administrative centre for the local shire. Industry and employment in this locality is based around dairy and beef cattle farming, horticulture, viticulture, tourism, retail, commercial enterprises. This is an average quality, older established mixed use locality. Surrounding development is predominantly older style single residential housing. Given the zoning, the trend for the immediate area will be for demolition of these houses a medium density unit developments being undertaken or retention of the existing house and a rear battleaxe shaped subdivision being undertaken. Diagonally adjacent to the subject property is the rear of a Woolworths supermarket and specialty store development. More specifically, the subject property is on the eastern side of Le Souef Street and is four lots north of the Le Souef Street / Willmott Avenue intersection with Le Souef Street being the second street from the main commercial / retail precinct of Margaret River. The lot adjoining the southern boundary of the site is utilised for public purposes and situated on this lot is a communications dish and a mobile telephone tower which will impact upon the marketability and value of the subject property.

3.8 Environmental hazards

By the Commencement of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, a Public Register is now kept in Western Australia of land that has been identified as having past or current site contamination. I have undertaken a Contaminated Sites Register search which discloses that the land is not classified as a site with any past or current contamination issues. I do not accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for the accuracy of the information contained in the search of the Contaminated Sites Register. In addition to searching the Register I have undertaken general enquiries on the previous use of the land and have relied on the accuracy of the information provided by you to use for this purpose. No soil tests or environmental studies or ‘Asbestos Materials Report’ have been made available for my perusal. Therefore, my valuation has been assessed on the basis that there are no surface or sub-surface soil problems including instability, toxic or hazardous wastes, toxic mould, asbestos or hazardous building material in or on the property that would adversely affect its existing or potential use and / or reduce its marketability. Should any form of site contamination be known or discovered, I reserve the right to review this valuation.



While comment is made on readily noticeable environmental hazards or contaminations issues, valuers are not expert in such matters. Any party relying on this report should make their own judgement in relation to these matters and seek appropriate expert advice from a suitably qualified environmental consultant if they consider it necessary. 3.9 Native title

The value and utility of land can be adversely affected by the presence of aboriginal sacred sites. I have made no investigations in this regard, as Aboriginal requirements can only be determined by the appointment of an appropriate expert. Under these circumstances, I cannot warrant that there are no such sites on the land and if it is subsequently determined that the realty is so affected I reserve the right to review this valuation.



4 4.1 Building construction details

The subject property is devoid of any building improvements. 4.2 Ancillary improvements

Fencing comprises fair quality Colorbond and chain-link fencing to boundaries. 4.3 Heritage issues

Nil known to valuer. 4.4 Supporting photographs

Street front view Mobile phone tower and satellite dish to

adjoining site

Improvements



5.1 Sales evidence

The following sales provide a sample of the information that has been investigated and analysed for the purpose of this assessment. Whilst I believe the information to be accurate, it was obtained from third party sources and not all details have been formally verified. Address

Sale Date Sale Price

1. 50 Le Souef Street, Margaret River WA 6285 07/2015 $610,000 Comments:

Appears to comprise a 1964 built, three bedroom, one bathroom, weatherboard / fibro and iron house with a detached single garage. The home is situated on a 971 m² allotment. The residence has been refurbished internally including new kitchen and bathroom. It has high ceilings, ceiling fans, split system air-conditioners and polished timber flooring. Externally there is a timber deck verandah to the front and timber deck patio to the rear together with a workshop and neat gardens. Property is zoned R30 / 40.

Comparison: Improved property with buildings considered to add approximately $120,000 to $140,000. Slightly smaller lot but in a superior location. Overall superior.


Appears to comprise a 1997 built, three bedroom, one bathroom, rammed earth and iron house with a detached single garage. The home is situated on a 1,012 m² allotment. Internally the residence has high pitched timber lined ceilings and a wood combustion heater to living area, a mezzanine loft and timber ceilings to bedrooms. There is a front verandah and a Colorbond shed and the property is set in neat gardens. Overall an attractive character style. Located next to a mobile phone tower to one side boundary, motel to other side boundary and adjacent to Woolworths delivery area. Zoned Residential R30 / 40.

Comparison: Neat residence with improvements adding approximately $130,000. Same size lot, zoning and location. Would have the same land value as subject. The underlying land value will be less as full development potential cannot be realised due to siting of the existing residence.

3. 182 Railway Terrace, Margaret River WA 6285 09/2015 $285,000 Comments:

The subject property comprises a 1,329 m² vacant site with similar soils and located at road level. It is a single residential site and location would be considered superior.

Comparison: Overall inferior given development potential for single residence only.

4. 27 Town View Terrace, Margaret River WA 6285

11/2014 $578,000

Comments:

Appears to comprise a 1952 built, three bedroom, one bathroom, fibro and iron house with a detached double carport. The home is situated on a 958 m² corner allotment which is zoned R30 / 40.

Comparison: Slightly irregular shape which may impact on maximum development potential however corner lot will allow two dwellings to have street frontage. Location considered superior, improvements add some value however at most $50,000. Overall superior on a vacant land basis.


Comprises a 1949 built, three bedroom, one bathroom, fibro cottage with a detached single garage. The home is situated on a 1,153 m² lot which would enable a triplex and possibly quadruplex development.

Comparison: Overall the improvements are considered to add approximately $50,000. Site is level and therefore lower development costs. Same zoning, superior location. Older sale with values having increased. Overall superior on a vacant land basis.

I am also aware of a property situated at 21 Le Souef Street which is for sale. This is a vacant lot which adjoins the subject and has the same zoning and land area. The asking price is $539,000. Although adjoining the subject it is one lot removed from the mobile phone tower lot and therefore will have a higher value. 5.2 Recent sale history

Sale date Sale amount

Previous transfer Not applicable. Not applicable. Comments No sales transaction within the last five years.

I am aware that the subject property is currently for sale and has been on the market since August 2015. The current asking price is $349,000 plus GST with the initial asking price being $399,000.

Sales Evidence & Market Comment



5.3 Market comment

Sales activity has subdued however agents indicate there is limited available supply. There had been a prolonged period of residential sales activity over the past 36 months particularly in the sub $500,000 residential sector and vacant lots. We note that there has been an increase in higher quality properties in the $600,000 to $800,000 range. During 2013 and 2014 there was an increase in sales activity for residential group housing lots however this has now slowed with no new recent sales. There is negative sentiment in general for the Western Australia economy which is impacting on values in Perth and there appears to be a more difficult lending climate for property development. This appears to be having an impact on development site values. Therefore I consider that a longer marketing period for the subject property should be factored in for a sale to be finalised.



6.1 Property overview

The subject property comprises a vacant site of 1,012 m² situated within close proximity to the Margaret River town centre. The property is located rising above road level and has sandy loam over clay soils. The value of the property is considered to be severely impacted from its location next to a mobile phone tower and communication satellite facility and the negative impact of close proximity to these facilities is well known.

6.2 Valuation methodology

In establishing a market value for the subject property I have used the accepted valuation principle for valuing vacant land, this being the Direct Comparison approach. This method of valuation is the analysis of sales of similar properties by comparative basis. When undertaking this comparison factors such as, but not limited to, the following are assessed and then related back to the subject property as a whole.

Location Zoning Development Potential Land Area Topography General Presentation Frontages Services and Access

6.3 Valuation rationale

In arriving at my valuation, I have analysed recent sales transactions of similar properties situated within the general locality, together with market trends. Sale 2 is considered the most comparable. Although having a residence I have deducted the added value of the improvements to arrive at a land value. This property is the most recent sale and has a near identical location. I have also taken into consideration the asking price of the property and the fact that it has not yet sold. After analysis of the sales evidence within the Margaret River locality, it is my opinion that the subject property has a market value within the range of $320,000 to $340,000 and I have adopted a market value of $330,000. 6.4 GST Implications

The property should not attract a GST liability if it is an existing residential property. In most cases the elements of a taxable supply do not exist in the sale of an existing residential property and hence nil GST is payable. Residential property that is newly constructed and sold after the 1st of July, 2000 may attract a Goods and Services Tax. Any property having undergone extensive renovations after the 2nd of December 1998 may also attract a Goods and Services Tax. A Goods and Services Tax (GST) applies to most types of property transactions, the extent of which depends on whether the property is being used for residential, commercial residential or commercial use. (In addition to a number of other related criteria). If applicable, the Goods and Services Tax under a standard contract is liable at the date of settlement. Due to the nature of the workings of the tax, the seller must pay GST and therefore, GST is included in the sale price of a new residential property. It must be clarified that I am not an expert in the area of taxation and appropriate professional advice should be sought in relation to taxation and GST. If there is any GST payable the valuation amount is inclusive.

Comments & Valuation Rationale



7 7.1 Adopted value

Subject to the qualifications and assumptions contained within the body of this report, I consider the assessed Market Value inclusive of GST, as at 11 April 2016 to be:

Market Value

$330,000

(Three Hundred & Thirty Thousand Dollars)

Signature:

Valuer: Peter Kreutzer Qualifications / Reg#: AAPI Lic Val #6327

Certified Practising Valuer

Firm: Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd trading as LMW ABN: 30 096 877 191 Address: Suite 4, 10 Victoria Street, Bunbury WA 6230 Phone: (08) 9792 5544 Fax: (08) 9792 5540 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lmw.com.au

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Valuation Statement



8 8.1 Disclaimers

This valuation is for the private and confidential use only of Shire of Augusta - Margaret River and for the specific purpose for which it has been requested. No third party is entitled to use or rely upon this report in any way and neither the valuer nor Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd t/as LMW shall have any liability to any third party who does. No part of this valuation or any reference to it may be included in any other document or reproduced or published in any way without written approval of the form and context in which it is to appear. Neither the valuer nor Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd t/as LMW has any pecuniary interest giving rise to a conflict of interest in valuing the property. The opinion of value expressed in this report is that of the valuer who is the prime signatory to the report. MARKET COMMENT CLAUSE

The valuation is current at the date of valuation only. The value assessed herein may change significantly and unexpectedly over a relatively short period of time (including as a result of general market movements or factors specific to the particular property). Liability for losses arising from such subsequent changes in value is excluded as is liability where the valuation is relied upon after the date of valuation. PRUDENT LENDER CLAUSE

Southpoint Nominees Pty Ltd t/as LMW will only extend liability to the lender referred to in the valuation report, if any (and no other) on the assumption the person or entity making a loan is an authorised deposit taking institution within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959 (including but not limited to any bank, building society or credit union). or This valuation is prepared on the assumption that the lender as referred to in the valuation report (and no other) may rely on the valuation for mortgage finance purposes and the lender has complied with its own lending guidelines as well as prudent finance industry lending practices, and has considered all prudent aspects of credit risks for any potential borrower, including the borrower’s ability to service and repay any mortgage loan. Further, the valuation is prepared on the assumption that any such lender is providing mortgage financing at a conservative and prudent loan to value ratio. This clause only applies if the lender is not a lender regulated by the Banking Act of 1959. ASSIGNED VALUATIONS CLAUSE

We prohibit use of this report in respect of an;

Assignment of a valuation (’the initial valuation’);

Confirmation of the initial valuation;

Reissue of the initial valuation; or

Other act which has the effect of assuming or of extending responsibility to any person other than the person to whom the initial valuation was addressed (’other act’) unless:

1. The initial valuation was dated within 3 months of the request for the assignment, confirmation, reissue or other act; and

2. Such assignment, confirmation, reissue or other act is provided together with a clear written statement that the valuer has not re−inspected the property nor undertaken further investigation or analysis as to any changes since the initial valuation and accepts no responsibility for reliance upon the initial valuation other than as a valuation of the property as at the date of the initial valuation.

SOLICITOR LOANS CLAUSE

We prohibit the use of this report;

1. For or on behalf of a Solicitor Lender or any person lending money through a Solicitor Lender; or

Disclaimers



2. For which responsibility is accepted to any Solicitor Lender or any person lending money through a Solicitor Lender.



9

1. Instructions

2. Title search

Annexures

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 13 JULY 2016

11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.2 EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY LOCAL LAW LICENCE

APPLICATION – LOT 9500 BURNSIDE ROAD, BURNSIDE

Attachment 1 – Plan of Subdivision – WAPC: 142748 Attachment 2 – Excerpt from Deposited Plan 401475 Attachment 3 – 1996 Aerial Photograph Attachment 4 – Aerial Imagery 2001-2013 Attachment 5 – Site Context Plan and Gravel and Sand Extraction Plan Attachment 6 – Schedule of Submissions

2001

2003

2004

2007

2010

2011

2012

9500135.86ha

555

20

464

57

58

541

540

9001

212 213

214

215

216

217

218

219

CA

VES R

OA

D

HO

RSEFO

RD R

OA

D

BUR

NSID

E R

OA

D

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114 115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126127

27

28

2930 52

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

1 2

25

26

27

28

801

119

120

122

124

9001

9001

9001115

116

117

111

112

113

109

330m

333m

370m

200m

0

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DRAWN

PLANNER

REVISION

PLAN No

DATE

SCALE

CLIENT

DateRevision Item

A Initial Issue

ABN: A: W:

T: M: E:

NOTE:

Areas and dimensions shown are subject

to final survey calculations.

(08) 9757 1330 I 0413 611 725 I [email protected]

315 363 00411 I PO Box 1713, Margaret River, WA 6285 I aholaplanning.com.au

SITE CONTEXT PLAN100 200 300 400 500m

DWELLINGS LOCATED WITH IN A 1km RADIUS OF THE EXTRACTION SITE

1km RADIUS OF THE EXTRACTION SITE

Base Data supplied by

(Air Photo - 13/12/2013)

LOT 9500 BURNSIDE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

Landgate

11/06/2015

LEGEND

B 20/11/15 Update contour and Extraction info

EXISTING AND PROPOSED PIT AREA

APPLICATION BOUNDARY

C 27/04/16 Include 200m setback from Caves Rd

B.L

G.A

C

9500 CONT

27 April 2016

A3@1:10,000

M. GRAY

85

9500135.86ha

555

20

464

58

541

212 213

CA

VES R

OA

D

BUR

NSID

E R

OA

D

BURNSIDE ROAD

SCREENING PLANT

1

200m

57

58

59

62 63 64 66

67

68

69

69

71

72

73

74

76

77

61

WATER RL: 57.770

WATER RL: 56.950

WATER RL: 66.800

65

56

57

58

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

62

62

63 64

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

66

67

68

68

68

69

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

71

72

73

73

74

74

74

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

7575

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

75

7575

75

75

75

75

75

75

76

7677

77

777

7

78

78

80

80

80

0

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DRAWN

PLANNER

REVISION

PLAN No

DATE

SCALE

CLIENTLEGEND

DateRevision Item

A

ABN: A: W:

T: M: E: (08) 9757 1330 I 0413 611 725 I [email protected]

315 363 00411 I PO Box 1713, Margaret River, WA 6285 I aholaplanning.com.au

NOTE:

LOT 9500 BURNSIDE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

Initial Issue

40 80 120 160 200m

to final survey calculations.

Areas and dimensions shown are subject

Base Data supplied by LANDGATE

12/6/2015

APPLICATION BOUNDARY

EXISTING CONTOUR

PROPOSED CONTOUR

STAGE 1 SAND EXTRACTION - 2016 REHABILITATION

STAGE 1 GRAVEL EXTRACTION - 2016 REHABILITATION





EXTRACTED AREAS REHABILITATED TO PASTURE

PROPERTY ACCESS AND INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS

SEASONAL CREEKLINE

1

70

70

24/11/2015B revise contour extraction areas

SAND AND GRAVEL STAGING AND EXCAVATION PLAN

IMAGE 1 - EXTRACTED AREA REHABILITATED

INDICATIVE DETENTION BASIN LOCATION

INDICATIVE TOPSOIL STOCKPILE LOCATION

GRAVEL OPERATIONS

SURVEYED EXCAVATED SAND AND

27/4/2016C include 200m set back from Caves Rd

TREES TO BE RETAINED IN THE EXTRACTION AREA

INDICATIVE CUT OFF BUNDING LOCATIONS

M. GRAY

B.L

G.A

C

9500 SITE

3 May 2016

A3@1:4,000

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – P215045 Extractive Industry Local Law License Application

744 & 796 (Lot 9500) Burnside Road Margaret River

No. SUBMITTER

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OFFICER COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. Private submitter Support Noted Submission does not

necessitate any modifications to the proposal.

2. Private submitter Support Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.


4. Private submitter Support for the following reasons: The business has been on the current site for

more than 30years. It provides an essential service. ‘Though it looks a bit scruffy I could see no

evidence of environmental damage, pollution either toxic or other’.

Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.

5. Private submitter Support – sand extraction on the site for many years to meet the needs of the building industry. No doubt conditions will be included requiring the land owner to rehabilitate the site.

Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.


7. Private submitter Support – Margaret River needs building materials. More businesses around Margaret River will help the community to survive.




10. Private submitter Support – the product is a necessary component of the building industry. People will pay more if it is from more distant sources. The sand pit has operated for many years and this proposal brings it into regulation process.




No. SUBMITTER


11. Private submitter Support – we need the supply of sand. Small impact Noted Submission does not

necessitate any modifications to the proposal.

12 Private submitter Disappointing that a long standing industry has been forced to reapply to continue legitimate operations. The use supplies much needed product. ‘…are not foolish enough to destroy the very environment that provides their livelihood, as has been suggested and to suggest otherwise is virtually slanderous…’. “It would appear the local law is possibly being used to shut the industry through regulation making that causes the industry to become unviable”. “I suggest the Shire planners sit with the operator, determine the life of the industry, and regulate the operation to cease within this responsible timeframe, In the meantime, all conditions placed on the original subdivision approval should be reviewed and either enforced or dismissed. Conditions not enforced or a period of time should perhaps lapse as they are being used against the proponent. Allowing this to occur is only feeding into the district becoming a rich man’s playground and destroying the rural mosaic and economic diversity of the area that in fact is the drawcard for visitors”.

The intent of the Local Law is not to shut any legitimately operating business and in fact, refusal of the application would not have the effect of closing the operation. Shire planners have indeed met with and discussed the proposal with the operator. The application proposes extraction and rehabilitation time frames for various locations on the property, as recommended by the submitter.


13 Private submitter 1. I lived for more than 15years close to this extractive industry operation and ‘…we were aware of their operations but never bothered by them in the least…’.

2. The business to my knowledge has been continually

Noted. Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.



No. SUBMITTER


operating in this location for more than 30 years and before the Shire’s Extractive Industries Local Law 2014.

3. I would have thought that s.4.8 of Local Planning

Scheme No. 1 would have applied classifying the use as ‘non-conforming’.

4. Environmental & social sustainability reasons that

the operation should be allowed to continue include: 5. It is important that building materials are sourced as

close as possible to the building site particularly heavy materials such as sand & gravel. Shutting down the operation will simply move the extraction to another site adding carbon kilometres to building construction.

6. Margaret River Earth Cartage is a competitive local

supplier of sand & gravel and the cost of building in Margaret River would increase is MREC were forced to leave the market.

7. In relation to ecological impacts from the use: 8. Neither sand, gravel nor concrete is toxic or

polluting. 9. There is no proposed clearing of vegetation. 10. The alternative use for grazing would likely produce

more greenhouse gasses than the current use. 11. There is successful rehabilitation of the land

following completion of extraction. 12. Tourism is a major industry in Margaret River but

the tourism downturn of recent years emphasises the need to maintain a diverse economy.

13. “It is regrettable that people should move to the

area, obviously aware that Mr Gray had an existing operation there then, as soon as they arrive



No. SUBMITTER


commence trying to shut down his operations…’.

14. “…I have no stake in Mr Gray’s operation I was

moved to make a submission in support of his operations after reading about what appears to be an organized witch hunt by a small number of people newly arrived to the area. I hope therefore that Council will place due weight on submission from supporters of this operation…’.

14 Private

Submitter Happy to support continuation of vital service to the building industry. He has been operating his business since the early 1980’s supplying sand for countless buildings and should be allowed to continue.


15 Private Submitter

“I have worked on an off since 1993 for the applicant. Approvals were not required before now approvals are required – why?

The reason that a licence is now required is the bringing into effect of the Extractive Industry Local Law in 2014.



Business Reasons – require sand for construction. Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.


Being an existing industry I have no concerns about it continuing in its current format.



Happy to support as they provide sand for building pads throughout the area. Governing body guidelines should be followed.



Support Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.




Pre-existing industry should be allowed to continue. Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.



No. SUBMITTER


22 Private

Submitter Additional 2 year permit will allow facility to conclude and be rehabilitated. Closing facility will result in transport of sand and gravel from further afield which is a waste and added expense to everyone.



If you cannot get sand locally, where are you going to get it from?



Community need to have access to sand and gravel for all types of industry.



Has been operating for over 30 years and this pit is needed.





This business has never caused us any concern. Noise pollution is minimal and has not affected our lifestyle. We have used Mike Grey’s services and would this to continue for the community.



Mike has provided us with earthworks, sand and gravel for over 30 years. He has a well-established business, is very helpful and provides our community with good service.



Support. Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.






Need a supply of sand in the region. Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.



No. SUBMITTER


33 Private

Submitter It’s Mike Greys livelihood. People objecting probably bought sand and gravel from him and are not concerned about others sourcing building materials.





This business supports community and building industry with construction of homes, provides employment, and supports local industry.



No objections as seems to be an ongoing venture. Noted Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.

OBJECT 37. Neighbouring

landowner (within 500m of the site)

Objection - 1. ‘The applicant has not proven himself capable of

holding an extractive industries licence…’. The site is dangerous, unsecured, unlocked, no safety signage, no details of an emergency contact, full of rubbish, tyres, scrap metal, oil drums. And ‘eyesore’. No sign of rehabilitation.

2. Disregard for nearby residents in relation to work hours, weekend operations, public holidays and evenings.

3. Impacts from truck noise, excavator noise, extraction noise, dust and vibration, noise of breaking trucks.

4. Trucks operating at the same time as the local school buses.

5. Application does not mention existing land under restrictive covenant which is a nature corridor.

The themes raised by the objector are addressed as follows: Site safety This is not a matter which is dealt with by the Local Law. Site safety is overseen by the State Government via Worksafe WA. Storage of materials on site The issue of uncontrolled fill materials has been investigated by the Department of Environmental Regulation in collaboration

It is recommended that the application be approved with conditions which address the issues raised by the submitter where applicable.



No. SUBMITTER


6. No mention in application of the workshop. 7. No mention of weeds on the property. 8. Are loads being brought back regulation by

Department of Environment. 9. Are tyres being used as landfill? 10. How is dieback being dealt with? 11. Truck loads are uncovered on Carters Road. 12. How can the operator & his family develop

residential blocks then operate an extractive industry in the same neighbourhood. How/why were the blocks approved?

13. A 500m buffer applies?

with the Shire. The DER found that materials previously deposited on the site pose no risk to human or environmental health and therefore did not classify the site as being contaminated. Hours of operation Operating hours will be limited by conditions placed on the approval. Noise Acceptable noise limits are set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The Local Law only requires the proponent to provide details of any necessary noise abatement measures. A detailed noise Impact Assessment submitted by the proponent confirms that the noise generated by operations will be within acceptable limits and as such no abatement measures are required. Suitability of Haulage Roads The application confirms that truck movements will not occur during school bus times. A condition can be imposed to reinforce this requirement.



No. SUBMITTER


Environmental impact The areas within which extraction will occur contain only a small number of tress all of which are proposed to be retained. The Department of Parks and Wildlife have reviewed the application and do not object to it subject to appropriate conditions. A submitted stormwater management plan suitably addresses issues relating to setbacks from watercourses and detention of stormwater.

38. Nearby landowner

Objection 1. Lot 9500 is not the correct description. 2. 744 is the number for the Gray’s house. 3. Where is 796? 4. Lot 9500 was part rezoned and the southern portion

is Rural Residential. 5. Lot 220 is part of Burnside Park (RR11). 6. Any proposal to include part of the rezoned land

should be rejected. 7. ‘Complaints to the Shire by ourselves and

neighbours have largely been ignored…’ 8. There is notification on our title of an extractive

industry. 9. At the time we bought our lot (November 2009)

there was no industry operating. We saw no stockpiles or holes at that time. We saw no evidence of extraction between July 2010 and June 2011 while we were building.

10. Earthworks began in late 2011. 11. The Shire/WAPC should have notified us of an

extractive industry if aware of it. 12. The land has not been used continuously for

Lot Description The objector is incorrect and refers to lot numbers allocated to future lots which have not been created at this time. The correct reference is Lot 9500. Land use conflict No extraction is proposed upon land zoned ‘Rural Residential’ and planned for future subdivision. The Local Law process provides the opportunity for conditions to be imposed to lessen the impact of the existing operations upon existing nearby residents. Complaints ignored. Complaints made by the submitter and others have not been ignored and the Shire




No. SUBMITTER


extractive industry over the last 30years and therefore does not have a non-conforming use right under LPS1.

13. The land is not owned by the applicant & he isn’t entitled to claim prior right.

14. There should be no extensions to a nonconforming use right as per LPS1 (photos were submitted showing a larger area of extraction from 2010 to 2014).

15. The Shire should have stopped the extraction in 2012 when complaints were made.

16. The Extractive Industry Local Law allows 4months for applications to be prepared. It took until November 2015 before an application suitable for advertising was submitted.

17. An extractive industry on this land should be rejected a stop work order issued.

18. The application doesn’t detail the storage cartage depot business or list the trucks & machinery involved.

19. The cartage depot is operating all hours servicing trucks, using machinery, reversing sirens in the rezoned area (zoned Rural Residential) which contravenes the subdivision approval which requires as a condition removal of structures including those linked to the earth moving depot. This was required prior to 2009 and ‘the Shire has not implemented its own condition…’. The buildings and materials must be removed prior to considering any licence & the land rehabilitated.

20. The owners of Lot 212 who settled in June 2014 have a clause on their contract with the landowner requiring the earthmoving business & equipment to relocate by June 2015.

21. Local Planning Policy – Extractive Industry (LPP3) requires a 500m buffer for an extractive industry & residential properties and 1000m for gravel screening. The pits are within 500m of residential

has investigated and responded to numerous pieces of correspondence from this submitter alone. The concerns raised by neighbours adjoining the subject land and other extractive industries in the Shire led the Shire to adopt a Local Law in 2014 with the intent of regulating existing extractive industries and allow the imposition of conditions to mitigate against land use conflict. Non-conforming use rights. This matter is addressed in detail in the officers report. Contracts of sale Matters of dispute between land owner’s and the previous owners/selling agents cannot be dealt with via the subject proposal and the Shire has no role or responsibility in this space. These matters should be pursued separately by the individuals involved. LPP3 – extractive industries This Local Planning Policy is applied to proposals seeking Development Approval. It is not relevant to proposals seeking a Local Law licence where a non-conforming use right has been demonstrated.



No. SUBMITTER


lots therefore the land is not suitable for an extractive industry licence.

22. AMRSC shared public liability with the applicant and OHS rules should apply particularly with risks arising from adjoining residential land uses.

23. Road safety is a concern neither Burnside nor Carters Rds are suitable for truck movements (no road markings, speed limits & the bridge is narrow).

24. A survey plan by a licensed surveyor is need prior to granting approval showing areas of extraction & stockpiles complying with the extraction staging & rehabilitation plans.

25. The application does not deal with materials brought into the site. How are holes going to be filled? Material should not be brought to the site.

26. Air/engine brakes should be banned in residential areas.

27. All vehicles, plant & equipment should be housed out of sight in the northern part of Lot 9500.

28. How will the Shire ensure compliance with rehabilitation plan? Annual surveys & an annual licence renewal would help. ‘…from past experience Shire officers have not policed their own rules…’.

29. Noise, dust, rehabilitation on the site have been subject of many complaints to AMR Shire.

30. Operating hours should be limited to 7am – 5pm Mon – Fri.

31. No vehicle servicing should be permitted. 32. Vehicle noise (including reversing sirens) should be

kept to a minimum. 33. Trucks should be loaded as far away from

residences as possible. 34. Roads into the site should be gravelled & watered to

address dust. 35. All earth transporting vehicles should be tarp

covered. 36. Extraction areas should be watered when machinery

Noise See response to submission No. 37. Dust The proponent has prepared a dust management plan to address the potential nuisance effect of dust on adjoining residents. Implementation measures include dust suppression using water and management practices to avoid creating dust. Subdivision. Matters pertaining to the subdivision of the subject land and conditions imposed on such approvals are not relevant to the consideration of the subject proposal and have been raised by the submitter with the WAPC as is appropriate.



No. SUBMITTER


is in use.

37. Dust is significant during dry times. 38. Rehabilitation of the total site including Lots 210 &

211 and rezoned land should be required. 39. Buffers required as a condition of subdivision

approval were started but failed without watering. View from Caves Road of ‘devastation’ of Lot 9500.

40. Rehabilitation plan should be implemented by the person who prepared it. There has been no rehabilitation so far. The application does not mention trees or seedlings to be planted. 10m of dense screening trees is required as a minimum to all sides & must be required to be watered & maintained. Screening will take 5 years to be effective & will be too long.

41. The fire-fighting water tank on the corner of Burnside & Horseford Road should be required. This was a subdivision requirement & hasn’t been implemented.

42. Major rehabilitation now is required with substantial bonds & strict controls.

39. Private submitter 1. Noise from truck movements 2. Increasing truck movements along Caves Rd which

is narrow & winding & caters for tourists. 3. Dust & noise for nearby residents.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Increasing truck movements The proposal does not generate any additional truck movements from that which is existing. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No 37. Dust See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


No 37.

40. Private submitter Objection- 1. Noise from trucks along Burnside & Carters Road. 2. Caves & Burnside are unsuitable for heavy truck

movements. 3. Proximity of extraction to residences creating noise

& dust.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Dust See response to submission No 38.


41. Nearby landowner

1. Site has not been rehabilitated – unsafe for wildlife & risks for children.

2. No warning signs. 3. Trucks speed on Burnside & Carters Rds. 4. Concern about potential toxic fumes in a bush fire

event from unclean fill (e.g. tyres). 5. Concern about impact to Margaret River image from

the operation. 6. Concern about water contamination & excavation in

proximity to ground water. 7. Visual eyesore from Caves Road. 8. Community will ‘band together’ to take further action

to protect the environment & children. ‘…if word got out on social media it could be quite embarrassing…’.

9. Do not grant a licence to this operation.

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts The advertised proposal has been modified to remove any proposed extraction from within 200m from Caves Road which will reduce the impact of operations when viewed from that road.




No. SUBMITTER


42. Nearby

landowner 1. The site is a mess. 2. Inadequate site safety, traffic & fire safety. 3. Drinking water contamination risk. 4. Given previous infringements have not been dealt

with approval of this application would set a precedent for other landowners.

5. No bond required for previous rehabilitation. 6. Complaints by neighbours have not been acted

upon. 7. No compliance reviews have occurred. 8. Rehabilitation plan is not specific. 9. Nature reserve in the south of the site is under

threat. 10. Trucks on the school bus route are a traffic safety

risk. 11. Pedestrian access way leads to the workshops site

which has no fencing or sign. The workshop is open fronted so access is not controlled.

12. Fire risk from vehicle movements on fire ban days in long grass.

13. Drinking water contamination risk from dust & smoke to rain water tanks in the area.

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Dust See response to submission No 38.


43. Nearby land owner

Objection: 1. Surrounding residential lots were purchased from

the owner of the extraction site on the understanding that extraction operations would cease or be relocated to avoid impact on the residential area. Extraction has however continued & extended.

2. No fences where toxic materials, trucks & machinery are kept in the open approximately 200m from residences.

3. Speeding trucks on unmarked roads with no shoulder & on a school bus route. Trucks speed well over 90kph.

4. Heavy machinery operated on total fire ban days. 5. A licence being granted will not make the operator

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Noise See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


change his ways.

6. Stockpiling of tyres is a fire risk & toxic if burnt. Water stagnation in tyres is mosquito disease risk.

7. Plastics, oil & tyres have been burnt on the site with winds carrying dust & fumes to nearby residence.

8. Machinery & trucks operating from 5am – 10pm, Sundays & public holidays.

9. Engine brake noise, reverse warning beeps & crushing & screening plant noise.

10. Visual impact of dust, machinery, gravel & sand piles.

11. Adverse visual impact from Caves Road of the extraction.

12. Complaints submitted to Shire several times photos ‘…were given straight back with nothing followed up..’.

13. Main roads contacted. 14. Is the application Mike Gray or MR Earth Cartage. 15. What is relationship of the shed fronting Burnside

Road and the extraction operation? 16. Loads are uncovered. 17. Concern about soil or toxic material brought to the

area. 18. Operating hours proposed in application are too

long are should be restricted to 7am to 5pm Mon – Fri.

19. No trucks should be allowed on school bus route times.

20. Truck movements should be prohibited during cycling events along Horseford & Burnside Roads.

21. Water trucks are not used for dust suppression. 22. What guarantee is there of rehabilitation by due

date. 23. How can a licence be granted when the owners

have created a nearby residential area.

Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Dust See response to submission No 38. Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. Contracts of sale See response to submission No 38.



No. SUBMITTER


44. Nearby

landowner Objection: 1. Application doesn’t mention caveat & easement

attached to the title of Lot 9500. 2. The application does not deal with the zoning of the

land south of proposed Burnside Road extension which is zoned Rural Residential and this land should be excluded from the application. Only the northern section is zoned Priority Agriculture and is the subject of the extractive industry.

3. Remnant bushland on Lot 220 has a restrictive covenant – I oppose any licence being granted to the whole of Lot 9500 which includes this area of bushland.

4. The application does not mention the existing workshop/shed areas which are on Rural Residential zoned land.

5. Scale of extractive area map should be no less than 1:1000. Lack of detailed information on a contour map will make it impossible for the Shire to monitor future impact or rehabilitation.

6. The application extraction map uses out of date aerial imagery & contours & doesn’t provide accurate detailed information about watercourses/waterholes since extraction in 2013.

7. Aerial photography of the last 5 years doesn’t support the 2 rehabilitation areas on map Appendix 1.

8. Application doesn’t address declared weeds on the property.

9. Noise assessment doesn’t provide noise levels: 10. heard by residents living 50 – 250 from workshop; 11. Truck movements; 12. Braking sound of trucks. 13. Extraction so far doesn’t reflect proposed extraction

methods (e.g. topsoil stockpiled in windrows & heights of existing stockpiles).

14. Dieback risk is not addressed. 15. Application doesn’t account for the return loads in

Zoning The southern portion of the land is zoned rural residential however has not been subdivided from the larger portion of the land zoned ‘Priority Agriculture’ (although subdivision approvals they have not been acted upon). No extraction is proposed from the area zoned ‘Rural Residential’. Restrictive covenant Lot 220 does not currently exist, although an approval has been issued which would allow it to be created at a time of the owners choosing. A condition of its approval is the imposition of a restrictive covenant. This will not come into effect until the lot is created. Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


the trucks which effectively doubles the truck movements in the lifetime of the industry and increases impacts.

16. Between 2009-2011 there was no extraction; the operation ceased for more than 6 months ceasing any prior use right.

17. Expansion of the extraction from 2010 (as shown in aerial photography) required planning approval.

18. When the southern portion of Lot 9500 was zoned Rural Residential planning approval should have been required to continue the operation on this land & it should not have been permitted to continue as an inappropriate land use.

19. The workshop area should be relocated. 20. Workshop is located 58m from the closest residence

and impacts include: 21. Noise (from hammering, metal fabrication,

welding, braking, gear changing, reverse beepers, truck speed) made worse by the hole in the earth barrier; Dust; Vibration; & Visual pollution (excessive tyres, metal &

construction waste). 22. Local Planning Policy 3 requires a buffer distance of

500m. 23. Visual impact from Caves Road. 24. Extraction site is not gated, it is unfenced &

unsecured & has no business signage. 25. Workshop has no doors. 26. Potential water in excavation pits. 27. Multiple extraction sites is inconsistent with the

Local Planning Policy AD1.1 – extraction should occur from only one site an any one time then be recontoured and rehabilitated.

28. The site has not been rehabilitated in the past. 29. Buffers should commence in winter 2016 and be

monitored.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Dust See response to submission No 38. Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. LPP3 – extractive industries See response to submission No 38.



No. SUBMITTER


30. Application contains insufficient details of how the

plants will be maintained & irrigated. 31. If 180,000m3 is to be removed then it must be

replaced with equal volume of material – what is the source of this fill.

32. Potential fouling of water courses from disturbed soils.

33. Operating hours should be limited to 7am – 5pm Mon – Fri.

34. A traffic study should be undertaken by the proponent - Carters Road is narrow, winding, double lines with narrow shoulders. It is used by tourists & cyclists and pedestrians & has had increased traffic due to subdivision.

35. Dust & contamination of drinking supply to surrounding dwellings with roof top catchment.

36. If approval is granted it should be subject to: 37. Removal of shed from Rural Residential zoned

land. Limiting work hours. Gating, fencing, signage required. Six monthly monitoring of conditions. Maximum 5 year licence from Dec 2014. Revegetation along Caves & Burnside Roads

commencing winter 2016. Daily watering of traces & entrance Dec – March. Dust covers for trucks at all times. Notice on title of Lot 9500 “this land has had

extraction of sand and gravel…”. 45. Nearby

landowner Objection: 1. Application should be denied because of lack of

duty of care & diligence by the land owner, the Shire & State Planning Commission as the owner did not declare in writing that the industry would cease at the time of subdivision of Burnside Park nor was there a written agreement with the Shire that extraction would continue.

Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. Contracts of sale See response to submission No 38. Suitability of Haulage Roads




No. SUBMITTER


2. Burnside & Caves roads, Carters & Caves Roads

and each intersection should have a transport risk assessment given their construction standard, poor markings; speed limit for heavy vehicles needs monitoring, narrow bridge on Carters Road and truck movements using direct access to Caves Road from the site.

3. Application doesn’t include returning transport movements including return movements will fill. Truck movement numbers could be potentially double.

4. Hazards from: Open unsecured workshop. Earth bunds don’t meet industry standards. No gates. The elderly land owners live on the extractive

industry site. Pollution of surrounding water tanks. Site rubbish.

5. Noise, dust, vibration & visual amenity from the trucks and workshop.

6. Dust suppression has not been used for the haul roads and excavation site(s).

7. Screen plant will produce large volumes of dust.

8. Vibration will be a problem & is not addressed in the application.

9. Caves Road visual impact will occur until plant stock has reached a mature height to screen the operation (5years). The land rises from Caves Road compounding this problem.

See response to submission No. 39 Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40



No. SUBMITTER


10. The extractive industry clashes with the Leeuwin

Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy.

11. Sand has been extracted by the proponent in contravention from Lots 201 – 206.

12. If the Shire chooses to approve the application it should be subject to: Annual reviews. 5 year licence. Substantial bond to cover site rehabilitation Operating hours Mon – Fri 7am to5pm. The Shire co-signs the public liability insurance

with proponent and the Shire needs to ensure OHS standards are met by the operator (Mines Safety & Inspection Act 1994 & Occupational Safety & Health Act 1984).

13. A clause should be added to the title advising that

an extractive industry has taken place and a licence issued with attached ground data survey.

14. Removal of sheds, rubbish & site remediation of areas on Rural Residential zoned land & dam built in winter creek to the rear of Lot 219.

46 Nearby landowner

Objection 1. The proposed operation must not have detrimental

impacts to wellbeing of people and animals on lots to the north including existing tourist operations.

2. The proponent has not demonstrated that they are able to manage the volume of material within site and this will lead to additional waste piles (e.g. importing of materials for recycling onsite).

3. Site contamination has not been determined – how

can the operation now continue without risks to local

Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Noise See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


residents & environment - & the project should not be approved given potential risk of contaminants.

4. Department of Environment & Regulation should be

consulted. 5. The activities will result in noise dust within 150m of

our boundary. EPA recommended separation distance from sensitive land uses is 500m where there are screening activities.

6. Dust & noise mitigation measures should be put in

place to protect sensitive land uses. 7. We are concerned that granting a licence will result in

a worsening of conditions and exposure of residents to the use.

Dust See response to submission No 38.

47 Nearby landowner Objection:

1. Incompatibility of the extraction land use with adjoining rural residential lots. Safeguards are not in place to screen these land uses.

2. Visual, noise, dust pollution.

3. No suitable fences around the site – safety must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

4. Burnside & Carters Roads are unsuitable for the quantity of large trucks adding to risks to road users.

5. Processes are not in place to protect water ways including Margaret River to the north.

6. Impact to water table in the area.

7. Clear & enforceable guidelines need to be place before further extraction.

8. Inadequate details about revegetation.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Site safety See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


9. Bonds should be required to ensure operation meets time limits.

10. Conflict with school bus times is not acceptable.

11. Saturday operation is not acceptable.

12. Movement of heavy trucks along roads used by pedestrians & cyclists requires consideration to safeguard users – walkways/cycle paths & under/over passes are needed for minimum safety of users.

13. Before considering the proposal the following questions are raised:

a. fencing and inspection to ensure adherence to OHS rules.

b. The proposal should be covered by a Public Liability Insurance policy signed off by both the mining business and the Shire; no such policy exists at the moment as far as l am aware.

c. What mechanism is going to be put in place to enforce rules of operation so residents don’t have to complain about problems after the fact?

d. Road safety — are the proposed roads to be upgraded

Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Enforcement Currently there are no site specific conditions applicable to extractive industry operations on the subject land. The process of issuing a local law will create those conditions, and a mechanism for issuing a financial penalty for breaches of conditions. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37.

48. Private submitter Objection:

1. Development does not comply with Travel Route Corridor & Landscape policies and objectives under the Leeuwin Naturalist Ridge Statement of Planning Policy (LNRSPP). Applying the 300m setback under LNRSPP to protect travel route corridor values along Caves would remove the larger portion of the extractive industry.

2. Provisions under LNRSPP that are also relevant are:

3. PS 3.6 Development should protect the rural character.

LNRSPP Use of the land for extractive industry purposes predates the LNRSPP and the Scheme. As the operation has non conforming the LNRSPP policy provisions relating to where extractive industries should be allowed to occur are not relevant in this instance. The most relevant consideration is how the proposal meets with the requirements of the




No. SUBMITTER


4. PS 7.4 Where basic raw material extraction is proposed the proponent is required to demonstrate that extraction is compatible with the statement of intent and the need for development out weights its adverse impact on the environment, that the impacts of landscape site works and infrastructure are minimised & prompt restoration & aftercare are carried out.

5. In Agricultural & Rural Landscape conserving agricultural potential & landscape values is principal criterion to assess proposed changes in land use.

6. LUS 5.2 Development & intensification of land use that will affect the views from Caves Road will not be supported.

7. The proponent has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for this development; there are other available sites for sand therefore it can’t be claimed that the need outweighs the adverse impacts to the environment (PS 7.4).

8. Photos supplied in application are misleading & hide the landscape of the site. The proposal would intensify the activity and be a blot on the landscape.

9. Adjoining Rural Residential development is incompatible with the extractive industry.

10. Why were the owners allowed to pursue another approval when they failed to complete their previous development?

11. What confidence can the Shire have that the proponent will complete the rehabilitation?

12. The proposal is too close to housing.

13. The expectation of quiet enjoyment of Rural Residential land will be compromised for the benefit of a small number of people with no contribution to the

Extractive Industry Local Law, which was brought into effect to deal specifically with this type of proposal. Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.



No. SUBMITTER


wider value of the community & will cause visual pollution.

14. Scheme clause 4.33.1 aligns with LNRSPP & the setback provisions under LNRSPP prevail. The application does not comply with LNRSPP & therefore contravenes the Scheme.

49. Nearby landowner Objection:

1. Application is unapprovable based on Local Planning Policy 3 – Extractive Industries (LPP3).

2. All people within 500m buffer distance of site (as per LPP3 AD1.3.1) have objected to the use.

3. The machinery work shed is within +/-50m of objecting residences – this conflicts with LPP3 AD1.1.1 which requires development to be located away from sensitive land uses.

4. Surrounding residences are adversely affected due to noise, dust, trucks, speeding trucks, unsightly rubbish & extracted land not rehabilitated which conflicts with LPP3 PC1.1.2.

5. Multiple extraction sites on site open & not rehabilitated what conflicts with LPP3 AD 1.1.4.

6. Tyres, electrical goods & demolition material are brought back to the site. Asbestos may be brought to the property. Are tyres acceptable for rehabilitation for sand extraction? An investigation is requested about what type of material is being brought to the site.

7. The extraction affects the natural landscape, land contour and flow of water which conflicts with LPP3 PC1.4.

8. The extraction is visible from Caves & Burnside Roads which conflicts with LPP3 AD1.4.1.

9. Given current noncompliance with buffer setback

LPP3 – extractive industries See response to submission No 38. Machinery Shed The machinery shed predates the creation of the rural residential subdivision. Conditions imposed on the subdivision will require the removal of the shed (which is located upon a future rural residential lot) once the subdivision is implemented. Until that time, use of the shed should be limited so as not to cause disruption to adjoining residents. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Non-conforming use rights.




No. SUBMITTER


distances & if the application is approved, compensation to adjacent land owners may be payable from the applicant or Shire given noncompliance with buffer setback distances under State Planning Policy 4.1 – State Industrial Buffer Policy.

10. Prior right to operate the extractive industry does not override local planning policy if the activity causes environmental damage.

See response to submission No 38.

50.

Nearby land owner Objection:

1. Extraction sites are not secured, fenced or gated creating a safety risk.

2. Burnside Road standard is unacceptable to accommodate the proposed truck movements.

3. Risk to school bus.

4. Risk to cyclists.

5. Water assessment in the application doesn’t take into account lower than average rainfall in August, September & October of 2015. The unconstructed portion of Burnside Road that links with Caves Road is notoriously boggy. Further investigation of groundwater issues & failure to complete this section of road are required.

6. Application does not detail how rehabilitation will be satisfactorily completed by the operator & how it will be monitored & policed? The Extractive Industry Local Law does not detail financial penalties for noncompliance. Is a bond required? There is risk of unsatisfactory completion of rehabilitation.

7. The application does not adequately describe the evolution of land use from farmland to dominant rural residential use.

8. Application does not identify the shed on the site as a

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Enforcement See response to submission No. 46. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Machinery Shed




No. SUBMITTER


building associated with the proposal however it is used for storage & maintenance. This building is in close proximity to residences.

9. The application is silent on vehicles equipment used in the extraction and if these will be refuelled &/or maintained on site.

See response to submission No. 48.


1. Truck noise

2. Truck speed.

3. The application only deals with trucks on the site.

4. Burnside Road construction standard is unsuitable to the truck use & speed. Is there a road maintenance agreement with the Shire & the operators prior to operation to ensure the upgrading of roads.

5. Proposed Saturday operation does not meet provisions of LPP3.

6. There are 2 school buses on Burnside & a third that travels down Carters Road. The application does not address this.

7. Dwellings are located within the 500m buffer distance.

8. Last winter there was an oil slick in our creek that is fed from the creek under Burnside Road. There is no mention in the application of the workshop or the waste management plans in place for this workshop.

Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39. LPP3 – extractive industries See response to submission No 38. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37.


52 Margaret River Regional Environment Centre

Objection:

1. Caves Road is a major tourist route & extraction is damaging to the amenity from Caves Road – any vegetation buffer planting is too late.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Hours of operation See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


2. Residences are within 500m of the site & noise impacts from the activity are unacceptable.

3. Noise assessment modelling submitted is not satisfactory.

4. If permitted to continue operating hours must be considerably reduced & a tree barrier planted along Caves Road.

No. 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40

53 Nearby land owner

The old sand pit in the north east corner of the site has never been rehabilitated and covered with wood of all sizes and contains old tyres and dumped concrete. This should have been returned to pasture.

Agree – the submitted staging plan identifies this area for rehabilitation in 2017.


54 Private submitter Objection: 1. Expansion of the operation will result in significant

increases in noise and safety risks. 2. Extraction should not be undertaken in proximity to

Rural Residential uses. 3. Risks & impacts will increase with the proponents

intended further subdivision of the site. 4. Safety issues with proposed operating times. 5. Burnside Road standard is creates risks from conflicts

with the extractive industry trucks & pedestrians, the school bus, children, cyclists etc.

6. Noise from impacts of the use such as reversing

beepers. The compliant response procedure by the applicant to noise & dust is contradictory.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37. Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37.


55 Nearby Objection: Site safety It is recommended that the



No. SUBMITTER


landowner 1. Site is not secured, fenced or gated.

2. Burnside Road standard is unsuitable to proposed

truck movements & operating times. 3. Are trucks covered? 4. Are truck speeds monitored? 5. No effective rehabilitation in place. 6. Visual pollution due to the use. 7. Interests of residences in the area have not been

protected. 8. The use conflicts with the investments made to

promoted Margaret River for tourism. 9. Yearly recorded site inspection should be part of any

agreement. 10. What bond will be required to ensure compliance?

See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.

application be approved with conditions which address the issues raised by the submitter where applicable.


1. Site is not secured, fenced or gated.

2. Burnside Road standard is unsuitable to proposed truck movements & operating times.

3. Are trucks covered?

4. Are truck speeds monitored?

5. No effective rehabilitation in place.

6. Visual pollution due to the use.

7. Interests of residences in the area have not been protected.

8. The use conflicts with the investments made to

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37.




No. SUBMITTER


promoted Margaret River for tourism.

9. Yearly recorded site inspection should be part of any agreement.

10. What bond will be required to ensure compliance

Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.


1. We purchased our lot on the advice from the agent that the extraction operation would be gone in a few years.

2. Object to operating hours on weekends.

3. Noise from heavy vehicle movements often before 7am on weekends.

4. Trees closes to the extraction are covered in dust from this site.

5. Visual impact from dumped material visible from Caves Road.

6. Widespread local objection

7.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37.



1. Site is not secured, fenced or gated.

2. Burnside Road standard is not suitable for truck movements & speeds.

3. How will truck speed be monitored?

4. Are truck loads covered?

5. Conflict with school bus route.

6. What public liability insurance is in place?

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39. Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


7. Visual pollution from the operation.

8. Application does not address dumped tyres concrete & rubble.

9. No evidence of rehabilitation.

10. Interests of surrounding residences have not been protected.

11. Conflict of the use with the tourist area of Margaret River.

12. Risk to cyclists.

13. Yearly recorded site inspections should be conducted.

14. A bond should be required for compliance.

Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.

59 Nearby residence

Objection: 1. Desecration of the environment in a tourist region. 2. Disruption to peak of residential area. 3. Noise is constant, often on the weekends & public

holidays. 4. Dust has been intolerable at times. 5. Residents were told by the agent when purchasing in

the area that it would be developed for future residential & the extraction would cease & be rehabilitated.

6. Homes are less than 100m from the workshop. 7. Extractive industries Local Law is now in place. 8. Time for the Shire to protect the environment & rate

payer’s rights.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Machinery Shed See response to submission No 48. Contracts of sale See response to submission No 37.


60 Private submitter Objection: 1. ‘…shocked to think that our Shire…would even

Noise See response to submission

It is recommended that the application be approved with



No. SUBMITTER


consider such a preposterous application…’.

2. There are other suitable areas where the activity will

not interfere with resident’s welfare. 3. Noise, dust, traffic & safety of children. 4. Property values will suffer. 5. It will take a long time for trees to establish on Caves

Road to correct the visual damage.

No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40

conditions which address the issues raised by the submitter where applicable.

61 Private submitter Objection

1. Detrimental visual impact to Caves Road tourist route.

2. Screening will not substantially reduce the visual impact

3. Use is out of context to surrounding land uses & landscape values.

4. Lack of sound environmental practices & methodology in extraction & rehabilitation.

5. Lack of adequate fencing. Cattle roam on the extraction site.

6. No dust suppression methods.

7. We have observed a truck on Caves Road entering from Burnside carrying sand without any covers.

8. Noise from reversing sirens.

9. Truck movements lead to increased traffic hazards.

10. Damage to watercourse & groundwater give the slope and connection to Margaret River.

11. No weed control, scalping along significant peppermint trees.

12. Risk of ineffective rehabilitation.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. LNRSPP See response to submission No 47.




No. SUBMITTER


13. Expansion of the use is detrimental to the rural character of the area.

14. Expansion of use conflicts the town planning scheme which requires preservation of prime agricultural land for productive agricultural purposes.

15. Conflict with school buses.

16. Conflict with adjoining tourism uses and landscape values.

17. Lack of adequate signage including truck warning signs, poor fencing.

18. Expansion of the use is inconsistent with Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy.

19. Proposed operating hours are unreasonable.

20. Who constructed the portion of Burnside Road linking to Caves Road? Is it in the right location?

21. Clause 4.9.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 specifies that a nonconforming use must not be altered or extended without planning approval being granted first. New areas have however recently been extracted on the site extending this use. The Shire should investigate this including whether the use has been discontinued for 6 months or more after which time the use must cease. I urge the Shire to obtain legal advice.

22. The applicant is a company with two shareholders. Should guarantees from directors be taken by the Shire for completion of works security to rehabilitate should be considered including securing rights from the owner to enter & perform works secured by a legal agreement and caveat against the title for all subsequent land owners of the site to enter into a similar agreement

23. Application maps are out dated.



No. SUBMITTER


24. Are there environmental health implications arising to the owners living on the site.

25. Dieback management is not well covered in the application.

26. One use of the sight should only be undertaken at any time not multiple uses (residential, cattle grazing & extraction).

27. New lots will be closer to extraction – ideally the sale of the lots should be prohibited until extraction is complete.

28. The Local Planning Strategy (p23) seeks to limit access to basic raw materials unless measures are in place to address adverse effects.

62 Nearby residence 1. Desecration of the environment in a tourist region.

2. Disruption to peak of residential area.

3. Noise is constant, often on the weekends & public holidays.

4. Dust has been intolerable at times.

5. Residents were told by the agent when purchasing in the area that it would be developed for future residential & the extraction would cease & be rehabilitated.

6. Homes are less than 100m from the workshop.

7. Extractive industries Local Law is now in place.

8. Time for the Shire to protect the environment & rate payer’s rights.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Machinery Shed See response to submission No 48. Contracts of sale See response to submission No 38.


63 Private submitter 1. ‘…shocked to think that our Shire…would even consider such a preposterous application…’.

2. There are other suitable areas where the activity will not interfere with resident’s welfare.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust




No. SUBMITTER


3. Noise, dust, traffic & safety of children.

4. Property values will suffer.

5. It will take a long time for trees to establish on Caves Road to correct the visual damage.

See response to submission No 38. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40

64 Private submitter 1. Detrimental visual impact to Caves Road tourist route.

2. Screening will not substantially reduce the visual impact.

3. Use is out of context to surrounding land uses & landscape values.

4. Lack of sound environmental practices & methodology in extraction & rehabilitation.

5. Lack of adequate fencing. Cattle roam on the extraction site.

6. No dust suppression methods.

7. We have observed a truck on Caves Road entering from Burnside carrying sand without any covers.

8. Noise from reversing sirens.

9. Truck movements lead to increased traffic hazards.

10. Damage to watercourse & groundwater give the slope and connection to Margaret River.

11. No weed control, scalping along significant peppermint trees.

12. Risk of ineffective rehabilitation.

13. Expansion of the use is detrimental to the rural

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. LNRSPP See response to submission No 47.




No. SUBMITTER


character of the area.

14. Expansion of use conflicts the town planning scheme which requires preservation of prime agricultural land for productive agricultural purposes.

15. Conflict with school buses.

16. Conflict with adjoining tourism uses and landscape values.

17. Lack of adequate signage including truck warning signs, poor fencing.

18. Expansion of the use is inconsistent with Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy.

19. Proposed operating hours are unreasonable.

20. Who constructed the portion of Burnside Road linking to Caves Road? Is it in the right location?

21. Clause 4.9.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 specifies that a nonconforming use must not be altered or extended without planning approval being granted first. New areas have however recently been extracted on the site extending this use. The Shire should investigate this including whether the use has been discontinued for 6 months or more after which time the use must cease. I urge the Shire to obtain legal advice.

22. The applicant is a company with two shareholders. Should guarantees from directors be taken by the Shire for completion of works security to rehabilitate should be considered including securing rights from the owner to enter & perform works secured by a legal agreement and caveat against the title for all subsequent land owners of the site to enter into a similar agreement?

23. Application maps are out dated.

24. Are there environmental health implications arising



No. SUBMITTER


to the owners living on the site.

25. Dieback management is not well covered in the application.

26. One use of the sight should only be undertaken at any time not multiple uses (residential, cattle grazing & extraction).

27. New lots will be closer to extraction – ideally the sale of the lots should be prohibited until extraction is complete.

28. The Local Planning Strategy (p23) seeks to limit access to basic raw materials unless measures are in place to address adverse effects.

65 Nearby landowner

The application contravenes the Shire’s Community Strategic goals as follows: Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment The proposed industry is less than 2km from the Margaret River and will have a detrimental effect on the river and environment. Also visible from the Caves Road major tourist area Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities The site is within 150m or residence. This does not make it welcoming or inclusive for any of the people living in this or the surrounding subdivisions. Residents are at risk from the trucks and associated pollution The adjacent subdivision was sold without full disclosure of potential sand mining in the area and during sales time did not operate. Since the lots have been sold the dump site has increased in size when it was understood that it was to be cleared up. Not welcoming for tourists. Noise and trucks operating on Carter’s road.

Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Contracts of sale See response to submission No 38. Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.




No. SUBMITTER


It does not make it inclusive for those walkers and cyclists on the major tourist drive Carter’s Road – this is a major tourism drawcard with more than 9 entries to trails coming directly off Carter’s Road. Goal 3: Managing growth sustainably Given the close proximity of surrounding rural residential sites, other sites in the Shire are more suitable for this use (e.g. industrial area). Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy – the use will be detrimental to tourism given proximity & visibility of the site to tourist uses. Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance The proponent was allowed to subdivide immediately adjacent to the proposed extraction site, and that has failed to put in for a licence by the time required and that he has failed to comply with previous rehabilitation orders.

66 Nearby landowner

The application contravenes the Shire’s Community Strategic goals as follows: Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment The proposed industry is less than 2km from the Margaret River and will have a detrimental effect on the river and environment. Also visible from the Caves Road major tourist area Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities The site is within 150m or residence. This does not make it welcoming or inclusive for any of the people living in this or the surrounding subdivisions. Residents are at risk from the trucks and associated pollution The adjacent subdivision was sold without full disclosure

Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Noise See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


of potential sand mining in the area and during sales time did not operate. Since the lots have been sold the dump site has increased in size when it was understood that it was to be cleared up. Not welcoming for tourists. Noise and trucks operating on Carter’s road. It does not make it inclusive for those walkers and cyclists on the major tourist drive Carter’s Road – this is a major tourism drawcard with more than 9 entries to trails coming directly off Carter’s Road. Goal 3: Managing growth sustainably Given the close proximity of surrounding rural residential sites, other sites in the Shire are more suitable for this use (e.g. industrial area). Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy – the use will be detrimental to tourism given proximity & visibility of the site to tourist uses. Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance The proponent was allowed to subdivide immediately adjacent to the proposed extraction site, and that has failed to put in for a licence by the time required and that he has failed to comply with previous rehabilitation orders. Solutions:

o This site could be a potential special rural residential subdivision, tourism or agricultural site.

o An alternative site should be found. o If approved the hours of operation should be

cut to 9am to 3pm Monday to Friday to address conflict with school bus & so that the trails on Carters/Burnside road can be utilised for

Contracts of sale See response to submission No 38. Enforcement See response to submission No. 46.



No. SUBMITTER


walking/cycling in safety. Operations should cease during school holidays and public holidays due to the ill effect on tourism and the extra danger of the truck movements on Carters road

67 Private submitter 1. Activity is unsuitable for this location given the location of surrounding rural residential development.

2. Noise from the site including staging & maintenance

in the workshop & from truck movements on Burnside.

3. Seven day a week operations and on public

holidays between 5am and 10pm as recently as December 2015.

4. Who will monitor work hours and what penalties are

in place for failure to comply? 5. Our home is located 100-150m from the work site

entrance. This is an inadequate buffer, does not comply with the Shire’s policy and an EPA ministerial Bulletin 499 suggests a 500m buffer.

6. Public safety is at risk with young children living

within walking distance of an unfenced, unsigned site and unstable stockpiles of rubbish, sand, gravel, site waste, inoperable equipment, stockpiles of used vehicles tyres & extraction sites. Alarm for the Shire cosigning public liability indemnity insurance with the proponent.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Dust See response to submission No 38.




No. SUBMITTER


7. Conflict with the school bus operating along

Burnside Road close to 200 days per year. 8. Standard of Burnside Road increases risks. 9. Is an accident required to spark interest in this

concern? 10. If approval is given will fencing and signposting be

mandated and operation hours accommodate safety of residents?

11. Will a timeframe to achieve this be applied and will

extension be given in the event of non-compliance and will penalties apply?

12. Dust from extraction, truck movements & earth

moving equipment on unsealed tracks on site & the transport of uncovered loads on bitumen roads to and from the site. No dust management measures have been applied by the operator. Impact of dust is greatest on windy days in drier months.

13. Risk of contamination to water captured from roof

runoff. 14. Environmental risks from the stockpile of used tyres,

leaching of chemicals, soil & waterways and ground water contamination risk (this occurs when tyres are wet and is called leachate).

15. The burning of these tyres along with heavy diesel

engine oil has occurred during our time here releases harmful chemicals including carbon monoxide, mono and poly aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds and dioxins into the air which then settle in ground and water sources. At least two creeks lead from the site to the Margaret

Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37



No. SUBMITTER


River.

16. Heavy diesel engine oil was burned previously in a

fire on site and is spilled in patches over the sand floor of the workshop sheds.

17. The applicant states no servicing will be done on

site so no need to store grease, lubricants and hydraulic fluids on site. Where are these vehicles being serviced to maintain their safety & road worthiness? Is he able to produce log books?

18. Visual impact from our veranda including the

workshop, rusting scrap piles, disused machinery, used tyres & gravel stockpiles.

19. How can the operation be allowed to continue up to

2022 in the iconic Margaret River region. 20. Adverse visual impact from Caves Road. 21. What assurances will be made by the proponent to

rehabilitate and will a bond be required? 22. How will stockpiling of controlled waste be negated? 23. The application does not deal with declared plants

being brought into the area. 24. Noise from truck movements, reverse warning

signals, crashing metal sounds, machinery starting up, truck decompression brakes which begin 500-600m from the site. Conversations must cease inside our house while the truck passes. Distressing especially on weekends and public holidays, mornings and late at night.

25. I urge you to not allow this industry in this residential



No. SUBMITTER


area.

68 Submission

prepared by a consultant on behalf of two nearby land owners

Objection to the following: 1. Noise, dust, traffic, lack of security, adverse visual

amenity impacts, OHS risks and community safety risks.

2. All proposed stages of the Extractive Industry

Licence Application are within 500m of surrounding landowners. This is contrary to the provisions of the Shire’s own Local Planning Policy 3 PC1.3 which requires extractive industries to have a buffer distance to sensitive land uses (including residences) of at least 500m.

3. lack of site fencing or gates to driveway/access way;

underutilised excavation pits which attract water pooling (safety and mosquito breeding concern) and lack of security to the site during periods of inactivity

4. The noise assessment modelling provided by the

Proponent is insufficient in that no on-site testing has been undertaken. Instead, only a desktop noise assessment has been undertaken. Noise assessments have not been undertaken for any activities undertaken inside the workshop.

5. Unapproved use of Burnside Road, Carter Road

and other surrounding roads for truck movements. 6. Excessive truck speed. 7. Anecdotal evidence suggests that truck movements

also occur directly from the site onto Caves Road. Caves Road, adjacent to the subject site includes a blind corner, making truck movements onto Caves

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Enforcement See response to submission No. 46. Machinery Shed See response to submission No. 48. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 LPP3 – extractive industries See response to submission No 38.




No. SUBMITTER


Road potentially very dangerous.

8. Caves Road is a Major Tourist Route and therefore

any activities on this site should be adequately screened or set back to maintain a suitable visual buffer.

9. concerned that the operator may continue random

extraction in areas not identified in the Application 10. No evidence to support that proper rehabilitation of

extractive sites to pasture has been undertaken, particularly in the last 5 years.

11. Recommended 6 monthly reporting to the Shire to

demonstrate compliance with a range of management measures proposed

12. Fire & weed management are not addressed in the

application. 13. the current (not appropriately approved) extractive

industry operation on the site is in conflict with the objectives of the zone, as it does not protect rural character; does not preserve amenity of land; does not enhance the environmental qualities of the landscape (particularly as viewed from Caves Road); and does not maintain the attractive rural scenery of land within the zone.

14. The workshop, which is located on Rural Residential

zoned land, conflicts with the objectives of the zone under Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

15. The workshop is the principal place of business for

Margaret River Earth Cartage Pty Ltd which contains a site office, mechanical and welding workshop and garaging of commercial vehicles. We

Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38.



No. SUBMITTER


understand that the workshop is used for repair and maintenance of machinery and a range of other commercial activities

16. It is questionable whether the use of this building on

this part of the site can actually be included in the Non-Conforming Use Rights (see below) given it is unlikely to have been commenced for such activities prior to town planning scheme administration.

17. Owners of adjoining rural residential lots had a

condition of sale on the contract from the owner of Lot 9500 that the workshop would be removed within 12 months of purchase in April 2014. It has been 21 months since the time of purchase, and the workshop still remains). This is now required to be removed, or otherwise sought for formal Planning Approval.

18. To what extent does a nonconforming use right exist

on the site? 19. It is questioned that any nonconforming use right

should not be unlimited across the site.LPS 1 indicates that where a Non-Conforming Use (NCU) exists, a person must not alter, extend or change the NCU without having first applied for and obtained planning approval. The future planned extraction activities on the site are an extension (i.e. a greater use of the land) to the NCU, and therefore, this cannot be undertaken without Planning Approval

20. Does the workshop on the site also form part of the

overall nonconforming use right, or whether indeed this requires separate Planning Approval to be able to continue.



No. SUBMITTER


21. The Proponent’s Report did not address

fundamental key existing planning frameworks in its Application.

22. The application does not comply with policy

measures of LPP3 due to: Disruption to surrounding residents by way of

vehicular traffic, noise, blasting and dust The site is unable to be rehabilitated in a way

that is compatible with the long term planning for the site and surrounding area.

Development is not unobtrusive & it prejudicially affects the landscape.

Policy Measures of LPP3 are not met and must be satisfactorily addressed before any approval is granted to the Proponent.

23. LPP3 requires that the extraction of material occurs

from only one site per property at any one time and once complete, should be rehabilitate before proceeding with the next extractive site. Given history of use, it is unlikely this will be maintained in the future.

Suggested actions: 24. Cease workshop activities, or lodge a planning

application for the use. 25. Install mature, endemic tree species along the

unconstructed part of future Burnside Road and Caves Road to lessen visual impact of site activities;

26. Undertake sand extraction activities in one site at

one time only; 27. Undertake site rehabilitation immediately after

completing any extraction site;



No. SUBMITTER


28. Install traffic counter on Burnside Road to collect

traffic information (which enables differentiation between light and heavy vehicles);

29. Prepare a detailed and comprehensive Traffic

Impact Assessment; 30. Request a Bond to be held by the Shire for site

restitution in case of insolvency, disappearance or death of the proponent;

31. Installation of site security fencing, gates & signage

with regard to Public Liability Insurance that must be co-signed by licensee & the Shire of AMR; and

32. Undertake 6 monthly reporting to the Shire to

demonstrate: o Number and size of truck movements in and out of the site; o Extent of activities occurred during reporting timeframe; o Extent of site rehabilitation; o Record of incidents/events; o Weed management activities and results; o Monitoring and maintenance of revegetation; and o Record of material returned to site.

69 Private submitter 1. Site is not secured by fencing or gates. 2. Standard of Burnside Road construction is

inadequate. 3. Risk from proposed truck movements. 4. How are truck speeds monitored (council or police)? 5. Are the trucks covered? 6. School bus route conflict with truck movements.

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict




No. SUBMITTER


7. 6 day per week operation exceeds permissible

hours under legislation. 8. Has the applicant ensured public liability insurance? 9. Visual pollution bordering Caves Road. 10. Application does not mention the materials dumped

on site (tyres rubble etc). 11. Close proximity to neighbouring residences. 12. Risk to cyclists recently promoted in the area due to

truck movements. 13. Conflicts with Margaret river as a tourist area. 14. Reject the application. If changes are made

conditions should be enforced. A bond should be lodged.

See response to submission No 37. Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37

70 Private submitter 1. If the operation ceased for more than 6 months there is no nonconforming use right.

2. Poor planning to have neighbouring lots created for

housing. 3. Detrimental health impacts from noise of trucks. 4. Dust is also detrimental to the health of residents. 5. Long-time operation of an industry is not a good

reason for it to be given priority over newcomers. There is an opportunity to alter practices that have become inconsistent with current standards and knowledge.

Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Dust See response to submission No 38.


71 Private submitter 1. When we purchased our property (lot within 800m of the extraction site), we were not aware of the

Contracts of sale See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


extractive industry. The use does not constitute rural residential development & is not in keeping with the character & quality of the special rural.

2. Noise from excavator and screening plant & truck

movements. 3. Safety concerns about trucks on Burnside Road &

conflict with cars, cyclists, pedestrians & the school bus particularly with reduced visibility from sand & gravel spray & dust from trucks.

4. View from Caves Road and adverse impact to

tourism. 5. Adverse impacts to holiday homes and tourism in

the immediate area. 6. Environmental concerns from stockpiles of materials

& bush fire load risk. 7. No tree survey, environmental impacts statement or

publicised consultation with environmental / wildlife agencies. Native trees that support wildlife that will be impacted and have not been mapped.

8. Max operating hours should be Mon – Fri 8am to

430pm. 9. Access from Caves Road rather than Burnside

Road should be considered.

No 38. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37.


72 Private submitter 1. Sand & water in the bottom of excavated areas is a risk to young children. The ‘mining’ sites need to be secured & gated.

2. Burnside Road is unsuitable given near misses with

trucks travelling too fast and staying too close to the

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


centre of the road creating a safety risk.

3. If approved I recommend the current unsealed

section of Burnside Road to Caves Road is used to provide direct north south routes.

4. Risk to school bus due to truck movements.

5. Risk to cyclists due to truck hazard.

6. Proposed planting of native buffers is only in a small area adjacent to the lots that could go on the market as well as screening in areas that suit future subdivision needs. The area adjacent to Lots 212 & 213 Burnside needs to be extensively screened.

7. Screening is also needed along both sides of yet unfinished Burnside & Caves Road.

8. Details about plantings are sketchy & do not address density or depth of screenings.

9. Undertaking by proponent is required that excavation sites will not be used to dump building rubble, tyres, oil, tree stumps or any material other than sand & top soil.

10. A bond is needed for compliance with conditions including details of the number and time of truck movements, tree screening, adequate staged rehabilitation, no refuelling & no use of the buildings for truck servicing.

11. Dust suppression needs to be addressed. Where will water be sourced for the 3000gallon water truck & is this adequate for the task?

12. “It is disingenuous for the Grays to subdivide their

No. 39 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37



No. SUBMITTER


land to facilitate the sale of lots to lifestyle owners and then turn around and apply for a mining approval on land right next door to them which will result in a devaluation of their properties in addition to the noise, dust pollution and safety issues.”

13. Approval would support an individual to the detriment of the surrounding community.

14. Suggested conditions of any approval:

15. Entry and egress through the unopened section of Burnside Road onto Caves Road reducing adverse impacts.

16. The site must be fenced and gated.

17. Adequate and dense tree screening needs to be more extensive along the as yet unopened section of Burnside Road.

18. The untidy, unsafe and noisy shed should be removed.

19. The proponent must be held to ‘no trucks to be serviced or refuelled on site".

20. The application should be rejected. 73 Private

Submitter 1. Extractive Industry should not be operating within a

rural residential setting. 2. Current and future heavy haulage vehicle

movements have no place in rural residential environment where young families and pets reside.

3. These operations pollute the environment with dust, noise and diminish visual amenity for local residents and visitors alike.

4. Current operations are an eyesore resembling a rubbish tip.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Noise See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40


Track record and current work practices indicative of insufficient care for the environment (further proven by misleading application documents). We are adversely affected by significant truck noise from the site.

Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Noise See response to submission No. 37


75 Private Submitter 1. Noise pollution, vehicular activity, visual amenity

and dust are a nuisance and affect property values, health and safety.

2. Should be no excavation close to residences or Caves Road.

3. Hours of activity and number of trucks per day should be limited – none after 5pm and none at weekends.

4. Must be vegetative buffers planted and rehabilitation of any vegetation removed or degraded.

5. Conditions of approval must be complied with and checked annually.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Enforcement See response to submission No. 46. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37. Environmental Impacts See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


6. If LPS provisions have been overlooked there should be no approval of the proponent’s application.

No. 37


Opposed to the expansion due to the increase in large truck numbers and noise pollution. Increase of trucks using Burnside and Carters Road will increase likelihood of accidents with cyclists.

Increasing truck movements See response to submission No. 39 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39



1. The view from Caves Road looks like a moonscape with no effort to plant screening trees on the boundary. Visual amenity from Caves Road compromised by ugly view of material/stockpiles.

2. Compromises my ability to protect rare flora found on my block with airborne weed seeds and dust spread by this operation.

3. Subjected to constant engine noise of excavator and backing truck beeps 6 days a week - pity people living in subdivision adjacent to the works.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Dust See response to submission No 38. Noise See response to submission No. 37



1. Loss of visual amenity with no screening trees to block view from Caves Road.

2. Constant noise of machinery and trucks reversing 6 days per week spoils tranquil nature of surrounding bushland and small housing developments.

3. Spread of weeds by airborne dust into Nature Covenant protected bushland on West side of Caves.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Dust See response to submission No 38. Noise See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


No. 37


Concerned about potential increase in heavy vehicle traffic along Caves Road increasing risk of accidents with visiting tourists. Traffic should be diverted away from Caves Road.

Increasing truck movements See response to submission No. 39 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39



Only concern is early start on Saturday morning. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37.



Bought my property for peace and quiet which will be threatened by increase of dust, noise and extra traffic.

Dust See response to submission No 38. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Increasing truck movements See response to submission No. 39


82 Private Submitter 1. Business has been operating illegally for years –

operator should be penalised.

2. Sandmining is intensely destructive – area should be rehabilitated and protected.

3. Impossible to rehabilitate land previously used for sand extraction satisfactorily. Land would be difficult to rehabilitate. In any case, request that mining be stopped and land restored to its natural state.

Non-conforming use rights. See response to submission No 38. Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37


83 Private

Submitter 1. Unsuited to special rural location with blocks Land use conflict See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


purchased for their quiet, clean rural aspect.

2. Affects amenity by potential dust, increased fire risk and noise pollution.

3. Increased movement of trucks risk to traffic and cyclists including children.

4. Prior zoning allowed families to enjoy their special rural lifestyle. Industrial activities should be located away from housing areas.

No 37. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38.



Visual pollution from Caves Road. Contours in paddocks to be restored.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40


85 Private Submitter 1. Increased traffic creates safety issues.

2. Noise and dust pollution.

3. Decreases property values.

4. Visual pollution from Caves Road.

5. Should be for residential development to maintain rural setting.

6. No tree survey provided.

Increasing truck movements See response to submission No. 39 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Environmental Impacts See response to submission




No. SUBMITTER


No. 37


Carter Road too narrow and winding for heavy trucks increasing safety issues and noise pollution.

Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Noise See response to submission No. 37



Too much traffic and pollution. Increasing truck movements See response to submission No. 39


88 Private Submitter 1. Safety issue with tourists and cyclists with heavy truck

movements along Burnside and Carters Roads.

2. Visual eyesore.

3. Possible injuries due to lack of security.

4. Hours of operation are excessive and unfair to neighbours.

5. Infill may be hazardous – is it being monitored? Are water courses being affected?

6. Subdivision and sand excavation cannot co-exist.

Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37.


89 Private Submitter 1. Mr Gray has breached conditions of contract to move

business from its current site. There is no confidence any commitments made by Gray will be met.

2. Excessive speeds and traffic movement create safety issues.

3. Sand and dust present health hazard.

Enforcement See response to submission No. 46. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39




No. SUBMITTER


4. Deteriorating visual amenity with outlook to rubbish tip.

Dust See response to submission No 38. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40

90 Private Submitter 1. No regeneration of land undertaken during 30 year

history of extraction and rampant weed infestations.

2. Extended operation should not be approved when occupied house is at its centre.

3. Rubbish dumped on the site is an eyesore.

4. Residential blocks created too close to intrusive operations as prescribed by the relevant Act.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37



Visual pollution from Caves Road which is a major tourist route.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40



Visual, dust and noise pollution – should not be granted a licence but should be made to rehabilitate.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38.




No. SUBMITTER



Site poorly maintained and denuded. Rubbish has been used as landfill. Visual pollution from Caves Road.

Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40



Concerned about dust, traffic, noise, vibration and impact on surrounding environment. Black cockatoos often seen in trees next to site – their habitat should be conserved.

Noise See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37


95 Private Submitter 1. Safety concerns re unfenced property and fast

moving trucks using gravel road. Other road users at risk.

2. Could the date be extended beyond 2022 subject to demand?

3. How will Shire manage truck movements, extraction amounts, operating hours and noise and dust pollution?

4. Will rehabilitation be a condition of licence?

5. Property is an eyesore from Caves Road.

Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Environmental Impacts




No. SUBMITTER


See response to submission No. 37 Storage of materials on site See response to submission No. 37


Operating hours need to be the same as in Extractive Industry Policy. Truck noise kept to a minimum.

Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37. Noise See response to submission No. 37


97 Private Submitter 1. Too close to residences – noise and dust pollution.

2. Uncovered trucks drop sand/gravel.

3. Trucks travel too fast on local roads – potential for accidents.

4. Needs environmental study – little rehabilitation in the past.

5. Properties purchased close to pit affected by truck noise even on weekends.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37



Site is an eyesore. Owner indifferent to environment. Dust and environment concerns.

Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Dust See response to submission No 38.




No. SUBMITTER


99 Private Submitter 1. Dust pollution on Burnside especially from Horseford

to Caves Road.

2. Noise pollution from corrugations on unsealed section of Burnside.

3. Negative impact of wildlife corridor.

4. Safety hazard as trucks turn into Burnside from Caves Road.

5. Amenity impacted by pit.

Dust See response to submission No 38. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Suitability of Haulage Roads See response to submission No. 39


100 Private Submitter 1. Should not be allowed near residential area.

2. Property unsecured – unsafe for families.

3. Environmental impacts include noise and dust pollution; weeds and dieback, rubbish on site.

4. Visual pollution from Caves Road.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40


101 Private Submitter 5. Long operating hours

6. Noise and dust pollution.

7. No screening plants.

Hours of operation See response to submission No. 37 Dust




No. SUBMITTER


8. Possible negative affect on land values.

9. Should either be housing development or mine.

10. Proposal riddled with errors.

See response to submission No 38. Noise See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Land use conflict See response to submission No 37.

102 Private Submitter 1. The applicant in the past has mined soil from other

sites destroying flora/fauna, which has now become weed infested, after committing to rehabilitate these sites.

2. This proposal is unthinkable given opposite side of road has nature conservation covenants.

3. Noise and visual pollution.

Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Restrictive covenant See response to submission No. 8 Noise See response to submission No. 37


103 Private Submitter 1. Visual and noise amenity of area compromised by

ongoing earthworks.

2. No screening trees.

3. Soil appears to be mostly unsuitable for mining.

4. Land degraded by removal of topsoil and introduction of weeds.

5. Owners should complete subdivision and close mining activities.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37




No. SUBMITTER


6. Noise and pollution should be kept to a minimum. Noise See response to submission No. 37

104 Private Submitter 1. Concerned about environmental impact of mine.

2. Displacement and effect on local native animals.

3. Road quality and infrastructure insufficient to handle this amount of traffic.

4. This operation should not be undertaken in semi-rural environment.

5. Increased traffic poses safety risk to locals and visitors.

Land use conflict See response to submission No 37. Site safety See response to submission No. 37 Environmental Impacts See response to submission No. 37 Visual Impacts See response to submission No. 40


Government Agencies 1. Department of

Water DoW is satisfied that excavation can occur, with due diligence being exercised to retain an acceptable separation from the groundwater. Notwithstanding, if SAMR is to approve the proposed activities, the following conditions should be placed upon any extractive industry licence (EIL): • The extractive industry shall not intercept the water table. • Dewatering of the extraction area is not permitted without authorisation. • There shall be no standing water occurring at the end of extractive operations.

Noted. Conditions are recommended which address the concerns of DoW.




No. SUBMITTER


• If any interception of groundwater occurs, extraction activities shall cease and an advice notice provided to the Shire within 72 hours, followed by agreed remedial action. With regard to R2, a ‘Stormwater Management Plan’ has now been provided (AHOLA v.2, Appendix 7), which outlines stormwater management actions to be undertaken on-site (below paraphrased): • Stormwater from pastured areas surrounding each extraction area will be diverted around the existing/proposed extraction areas through cut off bunding. • Surface water runoff within extraction areas will be contained via detention basins/ponds designed to hold stormwater volumes as prescribed. • Detention basins/ponds are to be constructed on the western edge of Stages 1-3 and the north-western edge of Stage 4, corresponding to the lower contour levels. • All stormwater will be directed towards and through detention basins/ponds to trap turbid surface water during times of high surface runoff. • Detention basins/ponds will be retained until rehabilitated areas have sufficient pasture cover to stabilise the surface and prevent erosion. • Topsoil and material stockpiles will generally be located parallel to contour levels to assist in controlling stormwater runoff within each excavation stage. • Ongoing monitoring of the erosion control measures will be undertaken by the proponent/operator



No. SUBMITTER


and maintenance implemented where necessary through the life of the excavation activity. RECOMMENDATION: DoW recommends that the above commitments be included as conditions of any approved EIL. Finally, DoW notes the provision of a site rehabilitation plan for the proposed operations, in which it is sated that extraction and rehabilitation will be staged. Management of surface water runoff during rehabilitation is critical to ensure that turbidity and sedimentation are appropriately managed, prior to stormwater discharging. It is respectfully suggested that Sh.AMR ensures that rehabilitation has been substantially commenced on each stage prior to any new stage of extraction beginning. It would be appreciated if a copy of any approved EIL could be forwarded to DoW in due course.

2. Department of Mines and Petroleum

1. Extractive Industry Licences fall outside the Mining Act 1978.

2. Information on mineral resources, including basic raw materials, is of importance to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). The information is used in our MINEDEX database which is a source of information for our State-wide resource mapping system. The locations and status of basic raw materials extraction sites are also valuable inputs to the Geological Survey's resource assessment and land use planning role. It is a database that is used to inform other government agencies, as well as the general public, of the location of mines and mineral resources.

3. A continuing supply of low-cost basic raw materials is




No. SUBMITTER


an important part of maintaining the lifestyle and infrastructure that all Western Australians enjoy.

3. Department of Aboriginal Affairs

There is one Aboriginal heritage place known to DAA within Lot 744 Burnside Road; however that place is situated to the south of the development areas. If the proposed development is contained to the proposed areas there is no known information to suggest that approval under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 is required.


4. Department of Parks & Wildlife

Biodiversity values The subject site contains areas of remnant vegetation which is important as a wildlife refuge and provides a corridor with nearby areas of remnant vegetation. The remnant vegetation on the property is identified in Molloy et al, 2009, as being part of and contributing to a core regional ecological linkage i.e. the vegetation is part of a linkage axis line. Any development should aim to minimise impacts to the vegetation within the property and to adjoining vegetated areas. Lot 9500 contains areas of the Cowaramup (Cw1) vegetation complex which is poorly reserved and below the National Target of 30% retention. The threatened flora species Caladenia excelsa is known to occur within the subject site, to the south of the proposed extraction area. The application indicates that the proposed extraction area contains Western Australian (WA) Peppermint trees (Agonis tlexuosa). WA Peppermint trees are potential habitat for Western Ringtail Possums (WRP). WRP are listed as threatened species under the Commonwealth of Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Western Australia's Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. Major threats to WRP include habitat loss and fragmentation.

Noted. The proponent has amended their proposal to ensure that no existing vegetation is affected and that excavation is not undertaken within 10m of the drip line to any standing native vegetation.




No. SUBMITTER


The adjoining Lots 57, 58 and 541 along the western boundary are subject to the Parks and Wildlife's Nature Conservation Covenant program (NCCP). The NCCP program aims to encourage and assist landholders to conserve and manage the natural and biodiversity values on their land. Lot 9500 contains a watercourse and wetland areas and an area mapped within a gazetted Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). A map showing the boundary of the ESA is attached (Attachment 1). Comments Any development should aim to minimise impacts of Lot 9500's biodiversity values and hydrology, and the adjacent conservation covenant lots. Page 5 indicates that vegetated areas to the east and north of the proposed extraction areas are fenced from the proposed extraction area. Page 6 states that Lot 9500 contains a number of isolated WA Peppermint trees and orthophotos indicate that some of these trees are located within the proposal area. Parks and Wildlife recommends that a buffer from the proposed extraction area boundaries be provided to protect the nearby, and retained, remnant vegetation and WRP habitat trees, from impacts associated with the proposed extraction activities. Potential impacts include reduced tree root zone moisture levels due to hydrological alterations resulting from the proposed extraction activities. The trees and wetland areas are also at risk from accidental machinery damage and the trees have an



No. SUBMITTER


increased risk of being blown over. Parks and Wildlife recommends that no extraction activities (including topsoil storage) should occur within 10m of any native tree crown drip zones along the boundaries of the proposed extraction area and within 20m of the watercourse. In areas where vegetation is not currently fenced, Parks and Wildlife recommends that a suitable temporary demarcation barrier be erected 10m from the crown drip zone of trees, along the proposed extraction area boundaries, to protect the trees and root systems from accidental machinery damage. A temporary demarcation barrier should also be erected 20m from the watercourse to protect the wetland areas from accidental machinery damage. If clearing of native vegetation is necessary then a clearing permit may be required. Clearing of native vegetation is prohibited, unless the clearing is authorised by a clearing permit obtained from the Department of Environment Regulation, or is a kind that is exempt in accordance with Schedule 6 or Regulation 5 (Clearing of Native Vegetation Regulations) under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Exemptions under Regulation 5 do not apply in ESA's. If any large WA Peppermint trees (over 50cm DBH) are approved to be cleared for the proposed extraction activities, Parks and Wildlife's "Procedures to Minimize the Risk to Western Ringtail Possums During Vegetation Clearing and Building Demolition" should be implemented when approved clearing of trees is undertaken, to minimise potential impacts on WRP. A copy is attached for your information.



No. SUBMITTER


Parks and Wildlife's preference is for the maximum number of potential WRP habitat trees to be retained. The application states that the proposed extraction site is upslope of the western watercourse. The application documents received by Parks and Wildlife included limited details on the site's hydrology. Given the proposal area is within close proximity to lots subject to a conservation covenant, to protect their biodiversity values, and there is threatened flora and fauna habitat within close proximity to the proposal area, it is recommended that appropriate measures to protect downstream water quality should be provided. The proponent should provide a hydrological report to assist Parks and Wildlife in the assessment of the proposal's potential hydrological impacts to the nearby conservation covenant sites and the threatened flora and fauna habitat. This assessment may result in a requirement for an associated management plan to be implemented. Page 8 refers to structure planning and zoning for the land to the south of the proposal area. Lot 9500 is subject to a current, approved, Western Australian Planning Commission subdivision application with reference 150249. The proposed WAPC 150249 future lots will be within close proximity to the proposed extraction works. WACP 150249 includes a condition requiring proposed Lots 203 and 204 to be subject to a NCCP conservation covenant. If the proposed extractive industry application is approved, and given WAPC 150249 may proceed prior to finalization of the proposed extraction works, Parks and Wildlife recommends that any Shire required management plans for the proposed extraction works,



No. SUBMITTER


consider the likely potential impacts on the future WAPC 150249 landowners. Page 9 refers to the proposed haulage routes. The Ahola "Site Context Plan" does not depict proposed access routes to and from the proposed extractive industry site, or access ways within the property. Access ways should be depicted on the proposal maps. Page 16 refers to a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) that has been prepared and implemented for previous stages of the extraction operation. Parks and Wildlife presumes the current application will also be subject to a SMP. Any SMP should consider potential erosion control for the top soil stockpiling areas and potential surface water runoff erosion. If the Shire approves the proposal subject to a SMP being prepared and implemented, Parks and Wildlife requests that it be consulted on the content of the SMP. Page 17 refers to ground water separation distances. Parks and Wildlife advises that excavation should be no deeper than 1.0m above the average maximum groundwater level. Parks and Wildlife's preference is that final batters are no steeper than 1 vertical to 6 horizontal. Page 17 refers to a detailed rehabilitation plan which has been prepared by Margaret River Tree Planting and Landcare Services (RP). A copy of the RP was not attached to the application received by Parks and Wildlife. It is noted that the proponent is proposing to rehabilitate the site to pasture and to plant a single row of vegetation along the western boundary and the northern side of the future Burnside Road extension, using local endemic species. Parks and Wildlife advises that a single row of



No. SUBMITTER


vegetation is unlikely to be viable in the long term and recommends the vegetation screening area width be increased. Parks and Wildlife advises that any fill required for rehabilitation purposes should only consist of retained topsoil. Extracted gravel should not be used as fill for rehabilitation purposes. Page 18 refers to Phytophthora dieback disease and states that WA Peppermint trees are resistant to Phythophthora cinnamomi. Parks and Wildlife advises that WA Peppermint trees are susceptible to other Phytophthora species. Parks and Wildlife advises that the gravel pit would be classified as "uninterpretable" for Phytophthora dieback. It is recommended that appropriate hygiene management measures be implemented to minimize the chance of spread of the Phytophthora dieback pathogen. The trucks should be clean on entry to, and exit from, the extraction site. It must be assumed that the extracted material is infected and this information should be relayed to the gravel and/or sand customers. Page 19 refers to the key environmental attributes of the seasonal creek line and rehabilitation measures. Parks and Wildlife's preference would be that the proponent undertakes some revegetation within the wetland areas using local endemic species. If the Shire approves the proposal subject to the preparation and implementation of a rehabilitation plan, Parks and Wildlife requests that it be consulted on the content of the plan. Parks and Wildlife trusts that environmental planning issues including those not specifically referred to in this letter will be appropriately managed through the planning system.



No. SUBMITTER


5 Main Roads Main Roads has no objection to the proposal. Noted. Submission does not necessitate any modifications to the proposal.

6

Department of Environment and Regulation

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) Extractive industry operations may be prescribed premises (for example Category 12 or 70; Screening, etc. of material) under Schedule 1 to the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987. Applicants can be advised to determine if their proposal would make the premises prescribed and so consequently require an application for a Works Approval. Further information on licensing is available at www.derwa.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-works- approvals. The purpose of a works approval is to allow DER to assess the environmental acceptability of a proposal's emissions and discharges against standards and policies. Works approvals also contain conditions to ensure the premises can operate in an environmentally acceptable manner and that the works themselves do not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. I also note that the proposal may involve clearing of native vegetation. Proponents can be advised that the clearing of native vegetation in Western Australia is prohibited, unless the clearing is authorised by a clearing permit obtained in accordance with the EP Act or is of an exempt kind. Proponents who wish to clear are required to apply for a permit if an exemption does not apply. Guidelines and fact sheets are available at: www.derwa.gov.au/our-work/clearing-permits.

Noted. DER has subsequently advised that the site is not a ‘contaminated site’. See also response to Submission No. 4.


http://www.derwa.gov.au/our-work/clearing-permits

http://www.derwa.gov.au/our-work/clearing-permits



No. SUBMITTER


Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (CS Act) Lot 9500 on Plan 56806 was reported as a suspected contaminated site under the CS Act. The site was reported due to suspected hydrocarbon contamination in surface soils as well as contamination resulting from the storage of tyres and construction waste. This information is currently being assessed and the site will be classified in due course.

7 Western Power As the proposed work is near energised electrical installations and power lines, the person in control of the work site must ensure that no person, plant or equipment enters the “Danger Zone” of an overhead power line or other electrical network assets. The “Danger Zone’ is set out in the Western Australian Occupational Safety and Health Regulation 1996 – Specifically Reg 3.64. Any information provided to you by Western Power should not be used in isolation and we recommend that you refer to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996. These documents outline WorkSafe WA requirements for working near electricity.


11.2 Sustainable Development

Documents

Transcript of 11.2 Sustainable Development