4 Burton Farm Close, Burton, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 7PG
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - kingston.vic.gov.au · Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of...
-
Upload
trinhnguyet -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
6
Transcript of ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - kingston.vic.gov.au · Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of...
PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07 MATERIALS RECYCLING &
REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD, CLARINDA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
“Note
To reduce the electronic size of this document the images have been edited in
this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a copy of
these pages.”
AUGUST 2008
PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07 MATERIALS RECYCLING &
REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD, CLARINDA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Cathie McRobert, Chair
Gordon Anderson, Member
Geoffrey Carruthers, Member
August 2008
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Contents
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 3 Overall Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 3
Consolidated Recommendations ...................................................................................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 8
1.1 What is Proposed?..................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Subject Site and Surrounds ..................................................................................... 10 1.3 Background ............................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Procedural Issues .................................................................................................... 15
1.5 Statutory Context .................................................................................................... 17
2. IS THE PROPOSAL PROHIBITED? ....................................................................... 19
3. IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH PLANNING POLICY?........................ 25 3.1 State Policy – Support for Recycling ....................................................................... 25
3.2 State and Local Policy Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area ............................... 26
3.3 Recent Strategic Planning for the Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area .............. 26
3.4 Discussion on Policy ............................................................................................... 30
4. OFF–SITE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 37 4.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 37
4.1.1 Air Quality in the Area ............................................................................... 39
4.1.2 Nuisance Dust ............................................................................................. 40
4.1.3 Fine Particle Emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) ................................................ 43 4.1.4 Respirable Crystalline Silica........................................................................ 46
4.1.5 Risk from Asbestos Contamination ............................................................ 47
4.1.6 Risk from Timber Grinding ........................................................................ 48
4.1.7 Separation from Sensitive Uses (Buffers).................................................... 48
4.1.8 Air Quality - Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 50 4.2 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 50
4.3 Visual Impacts......................................................................................................... 58
4.4 Water Impacts ......................................................................................................... 61
4.5 Traffic and Parking ................................................................................................. 67
4.5.1 Traffic .......................................................................................................... 68 4.5.2 Car Parking ................................................................................................. 71
5. PROPOSED ADVERTISING SIGNS ....................................................................... 72
6. PLANNING PERMIT CONDITIONS..................................................................... 73
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Appendices
APPENDIX A – REVISED DRAFT PERMIT................................................................... 75
APPENDIX B - LIST OF SUBMITTERS .......................................................................... 85
APPENDIX C - AIRBORNE PARTICLES ....................................................................... 87
Page 1
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
THE APPLICATION: PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:
For a Refuse Transfer Station in conjunction with a Materials Recycling Facility, Floodlit Business Identification Signage, Reduction in Car Parking Requirements, Removal of Native Vegetation and Alteration of Access
THE SITE: 293-315 Kingston Road, Clarinda
THE APPLICANT: South East Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY:
Kingston City Council was the Responsible Authority until the Minister for Planning became the Responsible Authority when he called-in the Application for Review from VCAT (Reference P481/2008) on 15 May 2008
THE PANEL: Ms Cathie McRobert (Chair)
Mr Gordon Anderson
Mr Geoffrey Carruthers
SITE
INSPECTIONS:
The Panel inspected the site, with representatives of the Applicant, Council and Mr Barry Pullen on 13 June 2008. The Panel also made unaccompanied inspections of the site and locality during the hearing.
Two of the Panel members had previously inspected the subject site, the Tootal Road site and other similar facilities in Laverton and Epping as part of the 2005 Advisory Committee process and inspected the Tootal Road site as part of the 2007 Advisory Committee process.
HEARING 23- 26 June 2008 at Moorabbin Victoria
Page 2
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
APPEARANCES
Submitter Represented By
Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of Maddocks
South East Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd (SEMR)
Mr Ian Pitt SC of Best Hooper who called evidence in:
Town Planning - Mr Andrew Rodda, Contour Consultants Australia
Acoustics - Mr Robert Burton, Burton Acoustic Group
Air Quality - Dr Terry Bellair, Environmental Science Associates
Materials Recycling Operations - Mr Jamie McKellar, Managing Director of the Alex Fraser Group (AFG) and South Eastern Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd
Landscape Treatment – Ms Pru Smith of Hassell Ltd
Community Health - Dr Roger Drew of Toxikos Pty Ltd
Water Management - Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd
Strategic Planning - Mr Rob Milner of Coomes Consulting Group Pty Ltd
Traffic Management - Mr Stephen Hunt of Cardno Grogan Richards
Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
Mr Martin O’Shaughnessy
Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD)
Mr Ian Munro
Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Inc.
Mr Barry Pullen and Mr Barry Ross
Sustainability Victoria Mr Simon Clay
Heatherton Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc. (RAID)
Mr Andrew Dawson
Dingley Village Community Association
Mr Barry Pullen
Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League
Ms Mary Rimington
Mr Andrew McIntosh
All submissions to the Application were referred to the Advisory Committee
and are listed in Appendix B.
Page 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall Conclusions
The Central Issues
We have found that the very strong waste policy support for the proposal
justifies serious consideration of the Application as an interim use beyond the
very short term.
We see the central issues as:
Is the mandatory green wedge requirement that Materials Recycling must be
in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station satisfied?
Would the proposal jeopardise the long-term vision for this part of
Kingston’s non-urban area?
Are potential off-site impacts effectively addressed?
Is the Proposal Prohibited?
A clearer distinction has been drawn between the Materials Recycling and
Refuse Transfer Facility elements in this proposal compared to the 2004
Application; the materials that will be transferred elsewhere have been
extended; and the volume and value of materials transferred for further
processing has been highlighted.
The Supreme Court decision in the Steiner case indicated separate and
identifiable uses are required and one of the in conjunction uses may be
ancillary. As noted in earlier Panel and Advisory Committee reports,
distinguishing between the particular uses being considered is problematic due
to the substantial overlap between the definitions for Materials Recycling and
Refuse Transfer Station - this adds an additional layer of ambiguity compared
to other instances where the in conjunction requirement have been considered.
We agree with the conclusions of the 2007 Tootal Road Panel and find that,
while it is arguable, on the facts of this case the proposal complies with the
Clause 57 requirement that Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a
Refuse Transfer Station.
Implications for the Vision to Transform the Area
The planning framework for Kingston’s non-urban area provides for extraction
of the sand resource and recognises the area’s importance as a location for
Page 4
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
regional landfills. These uses have resulted in a degraded landscape that is not
typical green wedge land. To achieve the long-term strategy that is
underpinned by the development of a ‘Chain of Parks’ and will eventually
transform the area’s character and function, the transition to post-
extraction/landfill functions requires management.
Previous Panels and Advisory Committees have indicated that approval of
permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of
rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning
objectives for the locality that should only occur through Green Wedge
management planning. Strategic planning work is underway to address the
area’s many planning challenges. The recent Draft Northern Non Urban Area
Framework Plan is only at a preliminary stage but a wide range of options are
being explored, such as including the site in an Enterprise Precinct employment
area within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and establishing a resource
recovery precinct on rehabilitated land to the east.
Recent strategic planning work, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT) decisions and the quality and quantity of the sand indicate that further
extraction on the site is highly questionable. This shifts the focus of our
evaluation of the Application to the other zone purposes - the encouragement of
rehabilitation and interim use.
We agree with the planning evidence and the Council officer report (28 April
2008) that the concept of interim use should be linked to the cessation of
surrounding land filling activities.
This Application is for a permit that would expire after 25 years, but the
Applicant agreed to the 20-year limit recommended by Council officers.
We consider the proposed 20-year life of the permit is excessive. Provided off-
site impacts are effectively managed, we think a sunset condition of 15 years
would generally align with the likely completion of land filling in the
immediate area while providing some time for consolidation and rehabilitation
of those sites.
The extensive landscaping of the site will make a positive contribution to the
appearance of the locality and is an important first step to rehabilitation of the
site and the area generally.
Management of Potential Off-site Impacts
The proposal activities have significant potential for adverse noise, air quality,
groundwater and visual impacts on the locality. We are satisfied that the
proposal addresses potential impacts for the following reasons:
Page 5
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
There is substantial separation between the site and both residential zones
(at least 450 metres) and land designated for future core parkland
(approximately 300 metres with higher intervening land).
The location of the use in a bunded pit and extensive perimeter landscaping
(more than 49,000 plants have been established on the site) mean external
views to the activities will be effectively obscured and much of the nuisance
dust would be intercepted. We have recommended limits on stockpile
heights.
EPA considers the environmental management regime to protect air quality
goes beyond current best practice for this type of activity in Australia. It
incorporates enclosure of a key dust source, systematic wetting of potential
dust sources, sophisticated real-time dust monitoring, and protocols to stop
activities during system failure, adverse weather or dust events.
Modelling for this site shows fine particle air emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) are
well within acceptable limits (less than 10% of the air quality intervention
level ‘yardsticks’ at the Heatherton Christian College). The expert evidence
found the exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS), a recognised
health hazard, was so low it poses a negligible health risk for nearby
residents or students (20 times less than the cumulative level the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) links with zero risk and
four times less than the Californian Standard).
The location of the crusher and sorting activities within enclosures
constructed with noise attenuating materials, recommendations to restrict
activities outside normal daytime hours and requirements to fit mobile plant
and heavy vehicles with ‘Smart Alarm’ or broadband reversing beepers and
industry-standard mufflers should ensure compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits. A condition requiring verification of compliance with noise limits after operations commence is recommended. We have also recommended that timber grinding should not be allowed until a full acoustic assessment is prepared and operational protocols have been approved.
The proposal does not require discharge of water from the site and,
although activities pose a low risk of contamination of groundwater and
could actually improve the groundwater quality, monitoring is proposed.
The proposed activities require substantial quantities of water and we have
recommended the Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan
should incorporate measures to conserve water and the detailed engineering
design should ensure water loss is minimised.
Traffic, parking and signage were not contentious and are acceptable subject
to identification of an area for overflow visitor parking.
Page 6
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
We conclude that characteristics of the site, features of the proposal and the
sophisticated management regime proposed ensure off-site impacts are
appropriately addressed.
We support the issue of a permit for a 15-year period.
Consolidated Recommendations
Based on the reasons set out in this report, we recommend:
1. A permit should issue with the conditions set out in Appendix A which
incorporate the matters addressed in subsequent recommendations.
2. Application of a sunset condition requiring the use to cease 15 years
from the date of the permit.
3. Provision for extension of the permit if the request is made at least three
years before the permit expires.
4. Rehabilitation planning in two stages with approval of a Preliminary
Rehabilitation Plan before the use and development start which would
be reviewed to provide a Final Rehabilitation plan two years before the
permit expires.
5. Real-time dust monitoring to the satisfaction of EPA with requirements for:
operations on the site to have regard to the monitoring information;
and
crushing to stop during adverse weather or a dust event (to be
defined in the Site Management and Environmental Improvement
Plan after consultation with EPA).
6. Implementation of the procedures outlined in the Recycling Construction and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 as a permit
condition.
7. Limiting the height of all stockpiles, to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority, to:
32 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) until the plantings
mature to effectively screen the stockpiles; and
35 metres AHD thereafter.
8. Address the water management and system design in the Site
Management and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of
Page 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
the Responsible Authority after consultation with Southern Rural Water
and EPA to:
Ensure surface water does not leave the site;
Provide for a potential rising groundwater levels;
Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are
adopted, including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;
Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimise
the potential for groundwater contamination; and
Specify parameters for the groundwater, storage ponds and
monitoring.
9. Identification of an area for occasional overflow visitor parking to be
identified on the endorsed plans.
10. The expiry of the permit for the advertising sign should align with the
recommended sunset condition for the use.
Page 8
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is Proposed?
The Application is to facilitate SEMR’s proposed relocation of AFG operations
at Tootal Road, Dingley. Existing plant, such as the Lippmann concrete
crushing and screening plant (fixed processing capacity of 300 tonnes an hour)
dousing bars and the like would be moved from the Tootal Road site to the
Clarinda site The Application has many similarities with Application KP184/04
(The 2004 Application) which was considered by an Advisory Committee and
Panel in 2005 (The 2005 Advisory Committee) (see Sections 1.3 and 1.4).
Various documents describe the proposed activities on the site which, in
summary, are:
Weighing, sorting and stockpiling of construction and demolition (C & D)
materials for recycling.
Crushing of hard waste including concrete, brick, asphalt, rock, tiles and
ceramics in a concrete recycling plant.
Producing and selling from the site various grades of crushed concrete
products, including some wet mix and cement treated products.
Dealing with other wastes such as steel, glass and timber which may involve
some form of treatment before transporting to other locations, for further
processing, sale or disposal (to landfill).
Proposed operating hours are from 5am to 8pm Monday to Saturday,
inclusive of public holidays, except for Christmas Day, Good Friday and
Anzac Day. The opportunity to receive waste material and/or to deliver
finished product 24 hours a day was sought to fit in with projects that can
only work at night.
The Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan at Figure 1 shows the proposed
layout and Figure 2 provides typical cross-section details at the proposed
crusher location.
The Application documentation proposed a time limit of 25 years but we were
advised that a 20-year time limit, as recommended by Council officers, is
acceptable to the Applicant.
Page 9
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Figure 1: Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan
(Source: Alex Fraser Group and Hassell, June 2008)
Page 10
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Figure 2: Site Cross-sections (Source: Alex Fraser Group and Hassell, June 2008)
1.2 Subject Site and Surrounds
The Site
Council’s submission described the site1 and the surrounding area as follows:
It has an approximate area of 21.40 hectares with a frontage of 342.74 metres
to Kingston Road, a depth which varies between 535.79 metres and 541.51
metres and a frontage of 406.92 metres to Victory Road.
The previous use was sand extraction2 and the site currently contains a
series of sand extraction pits, mounds, water storage ponds and slime dams.
Two water storage ponds are located along north boundary (Victory Road)
and the slime dams are located along the west boundary (Peace Road).
1 The land is described in Certificates of Title: Vol 8106 Folio 242, Vol 8118 Folio 535, Vol 6415 Folio
892, Vol 5529 Folio 601, Vol 8065 Folio 389, Vol 8762 Folio 747, Vol 8762 Folio 748, Vol 5730
Folio 922, Vol 7639 Folio 200, Vol 8100 Folio 881, Vol 6724 Folio 797, Vol 5842 Folio 357 and Vol
6790 Folio 821 (from Town Planning evidence). 2 Works Approval 506
Page 11
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Views to the site from the public realm are substantially restricted by bunds
approximately five metres high above the natural surrounding ground level
bordering parts of the site. The pit floor is approximately five to seven
metres below the natural ground level surrounding the site.
A vacant dwelling is located within the south-east corner of the site.
Existing vehicle access is from Victory Road.
There are a number of easements across the site, including a sewer
easement that runs approximately from the south-east corner to the north-west
corner.
Figure 3 Site Aerial Photograph (Source : Burton Evidence Report)
Planning policy and zoning have recognised the strategic importance of
extraction and subsequent landfill in Kingston’s non-urban area for decades
and has accorded these activities precedence over agricultural and other uses.
This has resulted in an island of degraded landscape surrounded by urban uses.
The surrounding area is predominately used for extractive industry, landfill,
recycling and waste disposal (see Figure 4).
Page 12
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Figure 4 Projected Landfill Closure
(Source: Derived from SEMR Hearing documentation and Draft Metropolitan Waste and
Resource Recovery Plan)
The uses near the subject site include:
Directly to the north, across Victory Road is the Elder Street Landfill and the
Baxter Tip. The closest land identified as forming part of the proposed
‘Chain of Parks’ network is approximately 300 metres to the north of the
site.
A range of urban and non-urban land uses abut the east boundary in an area
identified in local policy as an ‘Enterprise Precinct’. They include an egg
farm, a concrete batching plant, a reception centre, warehousing and an
accident and vehicle repair centre. Further to the east, across Clayton Road
are the Clayton South Regional Landfill and market gardens.
To the south, across Kingston Road is the Heatherton Christian College, a
Telstra substation and an indoor plant nursery.
A number of market gardens and associated dwellings are located directly
to the south and west.
The nearest residential zone is more than 450 metres to the north of the site
(more than 700 metres from the proposed crusher).
Page 13
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Kingston Road is a primary arterial road (becomes Heatherton Road east of
Clayton Road). Victory Road and Peace Road are local access roads.
1.3 Background
Proposals for materials recycling in the Kingston Non-urban Area have been
highly contentious in recent years. The relevant elements of the history of this
application and other materials recycling proposals are set out below:
The Alex Fraser Group (AFG) lodged concurrent applications – an
application to regularise the activities at Tootal Road Dingley (subsequently
referred to as the ‘Tootal Road Application’) and an application to relocate
that business to Clarinda site that is the subject of the current proposal (the
‘2004 Application’). The latter application was the Group’s preferred
application.
In December 2004 the former Minister for Planning called-in the two AFG
applications, together another application for a Materials Recycling and
Refuse Transfer Station in Heatherton. The Minister for Planning replaced
the City of Kingston as the Responsible Authority.
In 2005 a Panel and Advisory Committees (the 2005 Advisory Committee)
with common membership were appointed to consider the three
applications that were ‘called-in’, and to advise on the implications of the
applications for the Green Wedge Management plan for the Kingston Non-
urban Area and whether ‘Materials Recycling’ and ‘Refuse Transfer Station’
should be retained as discretionary uses in green wedges.
The 2005 Advisory Committee agreed to the Applicant’s request to adjourn
the hearing for the Tootal Road Application until the outcome was known
for its preferred proposal at Clarinda.
In 2005 Advisory Committee concluded that ‘both the Clarinda and Heatherton
proposals were prohibited because they did not meet the mandatory condition that
Materials Recycling must be in conjunction a Refuse Transfer Station.
Nevertheless, the Committee responds to the tasks in its Terms of Reference. The
Committee also sets out its views on key planning issues if a more liberal
interpretation is adopted due to the limits of the definitions involved. 3‘
And in relation to the 2004 Application for the site that is the subject of the
current proposal:
‘The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of the SUZ 2 and planning policy for the
locality because it would delay sand extraction indefinitely and proposes a form of
3 The Advisory Committee also sets out recommendations relating to: the planning scheme definitions; provisions
relating to materials recycling in Clause 57, the Special Use 2 Zone and Clause 52.10; the development of a Practice Note and consideration of rehabilitation options for quarry and extraction pits in Green Wedge
management planning.
Page 14
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
‘rehabilitation’ (long-term industrial use on the pit floor) that has not been envisaged by
the planning framework.
The post extraction use and development of land not designated as core parkland is
expected to complement open space and recreation strategies. However, there is some
uncertainty about outcomes due to the general nature of the future uses identified, the
additional limitations on recreation and tourism related uses in Green Wedge provisions
in Clause 57, and the need to reconsider the way in which pits are rehabilitated. However, permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of
rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning objectives for
the locality. It is acknowledged that short-term use of the site for concrete crushing, or in
conjunction with active sand extraction would have greater policy support.’
On 21 November 2005 the Minister refused the Clarinda (and Heatherton)
application on the basis of the Advisory Committee finding that the
proposal was prohibited.
In December 2005 the Alex Fraser Group challenged the Advisory
Committee’s finding and the Minister’s decision in the Supreme Court on
the basis that they were wrong in law. The Panel agreed to requests for a
further adjournment of the hearing until the Supreme Court case was
determined.
In January 2007 the Supreme Court proceedings were discontinued on the
basis that Amendment VC43 made a fundamental change to the planning
scheme and if the proceedings continued orders would have no utility.
In September 2007 the Panel considering the Tootal Road application found
the proposal satisfied the requirement that materials recycling must be in
conjunction with a refuse Transfer Station and recommended that a permit
issue with a three to four year life.
On 31 October 2007, the Minister for Planning decided to grant a planning
permit for the Dingley site subject to conditions, and for a limited time of 18
months (until 30 April 2009).
On 15 May 2008, the Minister for Planning ‘called in’ the application for
review under Clause 58(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and has directed that the proceedings before
VCAT be referred to the Governor in Council for determination.
The reports of the 2005 Advisory Committees and the Tootal Road Advisory
Committee, which are public documents, provide a detailed discussion of the
matters considered and conclusions from those processes.
Page 15
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
1.4 Procedural Issues
Request for Adjournment
At the directions hearing held on 10 June 2008 Mr Shewan, who represented the
Defenders of the South East Green Wedge, requested an adjournment of the
Advisory Committee hearing until after 26 June 2008 for the following reasons:
Mr Ross, who has a close knowledge of the application, was unable to act as
the organisation’s advocate and question witnesses as he was overseas;
Additional time was required to prepare for the hearing as the Advisory
Committee Terms of Reference have only just been received;
The City of Kingston’s position on the application was unknown and expert
witnesses may need to be called once Council’s position is known; and
As expert reports have not been circulated there is insufficient time for
volunteer members to read and prepare for the hearing.
The Applicant advised that expert reports, which would be highly consistent
with the application documentation, would be circulated the following day (11
June) with the exception of Dr Drew’s report due to illness.
The Advisory Committee did not agree to adjourn the hearing. It agreed with
the argument that parties should have been preparing for the dates set down
for the VCAT hearing and unnecessary delay should be avoided.
Council Position on Application
The Advisory Committee directed Council to advise all parties on 11 June 2008
of its position on the application, that is, following a special Council meeting on
10 June 2008. Council advised parties of the following resolution at that
meeting:
1. The proposal is contrary to the purpose of Metropolitan Green Wedge land as
set out in Clause 57.
2. The proposal is prohibited as it does not comply with the 'in conjunction
with' requirements of clause 57 in that:
2.1 there is really only one use proposed. The refuse transfer station is at
best 'ancillary' to the materials recycling proposal; or in the alternative if
there is more than one use then:
2.1.1 there is no essential functional relationship between the materials
recycling activities and the refuse transfer activities; and
2.1.2 there is unlikely to be any essential ongoing functional
relationship between the concrete crushing (materials recycling)
and the refuse transfer station.
Page 16
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
3. The proposal is not supported by and the proposal does not support any of the
purposes of the Special Use Zone – Schedule 2 of the Kingston Planning
Scheme (Scheme).
4. The proposal is detrimental to the short and long term amenity of the area in
that:
4.1 the proposal does not establish a sufficient or any rehabilitation plan for
the site leading to a permanent blight on the surrounding area;
4.2 the proposal will either constantly or intermittently cause a nuisance by
dust (including through dust entering residential air conditioning and
evaporative cooling systems), fine particles, noise and other emissions
from the site to nearby residential and community properties;
4.3 The proposal will result in a large number of heavy vehicle movements to
and from the area.
5. The proposal will frustrate the achievement of the purposes of the Sandbelt
Open Space Policy at clause 22.03 of the Scheme.
6. The proposal is contrary to the policy at clause 22.04 (South East Non Urban
Area Policy) of the Scheme.
7. The proposal does not identify an appropriate after use having regard to
clause 22.03 of the Scheme.
8. The proposal makes no contribution to and will delay the rehabilitation of the
land and hinder its long term development and use.
9. The proposal will undermine the preparation of a Green Wedge Management
Plan and is contrary to Council’s draft Northern Non Urban Area
Framework Plan.
10. The proposal is contrary to orderly planning.
11. The proposal is sufficiently similar to a proposal considered by an Advisory
Committee such that it should be refused as a repeat appeal or application.
12. The proposed industry use should be located in an industry zone.
Is this a Repeat Application?
Submitters opposing the application argued the Minister made a decision on an
application for substantially the same proposal in 2005 and the current
application should not be entertained. Council submitted that on the facts, the
current proposal is no different from the 2004 Application except for the
Applicant’s intention to grow or intensify the business and seek to divert more
and more waste from landfill and this does not constitute a substantive change.
Mr Montebello argued that this is a repeat application and the same reasoning
Page 17
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
that applied to the consideration the 2004 Application should also apply to the
current proposal.
We accept the argument put on behalf of the Applicant that this is not a repeat
application for the following reasons:
As the proposal was deemed to be prohibited, it was not necessary to make
a decision on the merits of proposal in 2005;
The Supreme Court4 has clarified the approach to interpretation of the law
in relation to the mandatory ‘in conjunction’ requirement to indicate one of
the uses can be an ancillary use (see discussion in Chapter 2); and
While the operation is very similar to the 2004 Application (as it is
essentially the same business) this proposal has significant differences. The
Application proposes a limited term of 25 years; the crushing and screening
plant and sorting facility are enclosed; and the area for receiving feed
material from domestic sources has been formalised. We were also advised
that the range of materials accepted has been extended, as have the
materials to be transferred elsewhere for further processing.
1.5 Statutory Context
The Special Use Zone (Extractive Industry)
The land is zoned Special Use (schedule 2) (SUZ2) which has the following
purposes:
· To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for extractive
industry.
· To encourage interim use of the land compatible with the use and development
of nearby land.
· To encourage land management practice and rehabilitation that minimises
adverse impact on the use and development of nearby land.
In the SUZ2, use and development of Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer
Station both require a permit.
Metropolitan Green Wedge Land Core Planning Provisions
The land is outside the Urban Growth Boundary and Clause 57 Metropolitan
Green Wedge Land applies to the land. This clause prohibits Materials Recycling
unless it is carried out in conjunction with Refuse Disposal or Refusal Transfer
Station.
4 Boucher & Anor v Dandenong Ranges Steiner School Inc & ors [2005] 145 LGERA 21
Page 18
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Overlays
The land is affected by:
Design & Development Overlay 5 which requires a permit for buildings over
25 metres to protect Moorabbin Airport flight paths. As the proposal does
not include development above this height DDO5 does not trigger a permit.
Part of the subject land is covered by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay
which requires a permit for works.
Permit Requirements under Particular Provisions
The following aspects of the proposal require a planning permit under
particular provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme:
Display of Business Identification signage (Clause 52.05).
To reduce car parking requirements (Clause 52.06-1).
To remove, destroy or lop native vegetation (Clause 52.17).
To create or alter access to a Road Zone, Category 1 (Clause 52.29).
SEPPs and EPA Guidelines
The key statutory policies and guidelines that particularly relate to the recycling
proposals being considered are:
SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001
SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) 1997
SEPP (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 1989.
Recommended Buffer Distances For Industrial Residual Air Emissions EPA
Publication AQ2/86
Observations from Site Visits
Some relevant observations from site inspections include:
AFG seemed to be adequately watering the Tootal Road site to suppress
dust, including the use of a water truck to wet the access roads.
‘Landfill-type’ odours were apparent, particularly on the access roadway
along the northern edge of the site.
Most noise at the site was from the crusher, truck movements, and materials
handling equipment.
Most audible noise at the Tootal Road and McClures Road intersection
seemed to stem from road traffic and equipment on the landfill on the
western side of Tootal Road.
There are many dust sources in the locality and dust was visible from other
uses near the site.
Page 19
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
2. Is the Proposal Prohibited?
The Issues
Does the proposal satisfy the Clause 57 mandatory requirement that
Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station?
Does the proposal include a warehouse which is a prohibited use under
Clause 57?
Planning Scheme Definitions and the Mandatory Requirement
The planning scheme definitions are central to the task of determining what the
uses are and whether the proposal meets the mandatory requirements for
materials recycling to occur in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station.
There is significant overlap between Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer
Station uses as defined and a degree of interchangeability in some terms used in
the definitions. Problems of categorising the uses based on the planning
scheme definitions were discussed in the earlier Panel and Advisory Committee
reports and are not repeated here.
‘Materials Recycling’ and ‘Refuse Transfer Station’ are specific types of industry
and are defined in the Planning scheme as:
‘Materials Recycling’ is defined as ‘Land used to collect, dismantle, store,
recycle, or sell, used or scrap materials.’
‘Refuse Transfer Station’ is defined as ‘Land used to collect, temporarily
store, and process refuse, or used or scrap materials, for disposal or use
elsewhere.’
Ministerial Amendment VC43 was approved on 31 October 2006 and included
the following new Clause 64.02 Land used in conjunction with another use to
clarify the term ‘in conjunction’5:
If a provision of this scheme provides that a use of land must be used ‘in conjunction with’ another use of the land:
· there must be an essential association between the two uses; and
· the use must have a genuine, close and continuing functional relationship in its
operation with the other use.
5 Amendment VC 43 prohibited Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer Station dealing with
construction and demolition materials in the Green Wedge Zone with transitional provisions, but did
not amend provisions of SUZ2.
Page 20
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
This ‘raised the bar’ - the tests to apply to ‘in conjunction’ requirements
changed from the ‘functional nexus’ test to requiring an ‘essential association’
and ‘a genuine, close and continuing functional relationship’ between the uses.
Amendment VC43 also changed the condition attached to materials recycling in
the Green Wedge Zone and the explanatory report indicated the amendment
was required to restrict Materials Recycling to composting and the like. It is
notable that this Amendment distinguished between zones within green
wedges and did not impose the same limitation on land in the SUZ2.
Background - Previous Advisory Committees’ Findings
The 2005 Advisory Committee found that:
…. the real and substantive purpose of both proposals (Clarinda and Heatherton) is
Materials Recycling and any Refuse Transfer Station function is, at best, ancillary as it is a necessary adjunct to that primary use. Therefore both proposals are prohibited and
permits cannot be issued.
Nevertheless, the Committee responds to the tasks in its Terms of Reference. The
Committee also sets out its views on key planning issues if a more liberal interpretation is adopted due to the limits of the definitions involved. 6‘
The Tootal Road Panel considered the issue of compliance with the mandatory
‘in conjunction’ requirement after VC43 and the Supreme Court decision
relating to a Steiner School (the Steiner Decision)7 in a Green Wedge Zone. The
Tootal Road Panel found:
The Panel finds that the purpose of all activities undertaken on the site is directed at materials recycling which could be accommodated within the Materials Recycling
definition.
It is arguable whether there is an identifiable Refuse Transfer Station use but the Panel
has not rejected the possible existence of an ancillary Refuse Transfer Station use because
ancillary uses may be of a very small scale, of an incidental nature or ‘a necessary adjunct’ to a primary use. Further, the requirement for integration and functional
interdependence of ‘in conjunction uses’ increase the likelihood and acceptability of a
secondary use being intermingled or subsumed within the primary use.
The Panel concludes that:
· The transfer of scrap steel for use (or disposal) elsewhere in the Application can be
characterised as an ancillary Refuse Transfer Station use to the primary purpose of
Materials Recycling.
6 The Advisory Committee also sets out recommendations relating to: the planning scheme definitions; provisions
relating to materials recycling in Clause 57, the Special Use 2 Zone and Clause 52.10; the development of a
Practice Note and consideration of rehabilitation options for quarry and extraction pits in Green Wedge management planning.
7 Boucher v Dandenong Ranges Steiner School [2005] VSC 400
Page 21
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
· In view of the Steiner School decision, one of the ‘in conjunction’ uses may be an
ancillary use.
· The close and essential functional association of the proposed Materials Recycling
and ancillary Refuse Transfer Facility uses is manifest.
· The Application satisfies the Green Wedge Zone condition that Materials Recycling
must operate in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station.
Submissions
Mr Montebello revisited the arguments relating to compliance with the ‘in
conjunction requirement’. He noted that the Steiner Decision found the
requirement that proposed uses be conducted in conjunction with each other
does not fall to be determined by reference to the notion of ancillary use and
this effectively allowed the ‘in conjunction uses’ to include uses that would not
ordinarily qualify as a separate use. However, he argued that since Steiner was
decided, the law has changed to meet the concerns that arose out of the Steiner
decision. He referred to the VCAT Jinalec8 decision and argued:
‘… If Jinalec (ie clause 64.02 is (was) applied as a threshold issue, it is submitted
that the Tootal Road case would have not been decided in the same way for a
number of reasons. The scale of the “other use” is highly relevant. More to the
point, the ordinary person would not regard the purpose of the site as anything
other than materials recycling. Using parlance commonly adopted by the courts
and tribunals to this type of issue, “the extent to which it does not fall within the
defined use is so trifling that it should be ignored and, in that event, the purpose
as revealed should be taken to fall within the defined use.
19. Accordingly, it is submitted that the requisite requirement that the materials
recycling facility be carried out in conjunction with one of the specified uses does
not exist.’
Mr Montebello also submitted that the staging plan as proposed (and explained
by SEMR) would result in the materials recycling use operating without the
requisite other use for some two or so years. This is not permissible.
The Application and evidence from Mr Rodda and Mr McKellar highlighted
that the range and volumes of materials to be transferred from the site is greater
than in the 2004 Application. They advised in relation to the current
application:
A substantial refuse transfer station facility for contractor and public use is
located near the front of the site which will source a broad range of both
construction and demolition (C & D) and commercial and industrial (C & I)
8 Jinalec Park PL v Mornington Peninsula SC [2007] VCAT 1238
Page 22
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
material. The waste sorting and processing will be contained within
purpose-built structures.
Asphalt will be separated, processed to reduce it to a suitable size, and
temporarily stockpiled for transfer to Laverton (30,000 tonnes/year)9.
Steel (10,000+ tonne/year), which has a high monetary value relative to
volume, will be temporarily stockpiled, pressed into bales and transported
to Laverton for further processing. White goods will be transferred to a
scrap metal dealer.
Timber will be temporarily stockpiled on site and shredded to a size
appropriate for economic transportation to Laverton for waste to energy
purposes. This was presented as a potentially expanding element of the
operation. Initially a volume of 1,000 tonnes is required, 60% of which is
expected to come from the south-eastern region. The volume is expected to
double.
All non-ferrous metals will be transferred to Laverton for sorting and will be
on-sold to scrap metal merchants.
Plasterboard, PVC pipe and cardboard from the separation process will be
transferred to specialist recyclers or landfill.
Discussion
The determination of whether the threshold issue of compliance with
mandatory ‘in conjunction’ requirements have been problematic since the green
wedge provisions were introduced. As Deputy President Gibson noted in
Jinalec ‘the meaning of clause 64.02 is not clear. Although the introduction of clause
64.02 was meant to clarify the meaning of the term ‘in conjunction with’ regarding the
association between uses, it has only created further ambiguity.’
The Jinalec decision noted that the dictionary meaning of the word ‘essential’ as
absolutely necessary; indispensable; fundamental; basic; of or constituting the essence of
a person or thing and that a literal interpretation of Clause 64.02 would
effectively prohibit most of the secondary uses subject to the ‘in conjunction
with’ requirement. In the Jinalec decision Deputy President Gibson considered
Amendment VC43 ‘was intended to clarify that tenuous, superficial or artificial links
between uses were not used as an excuse to allow a secondary use’ but it could not be
presumed that the Government intended to prohibit secondary uses when it
introduced clause 64.02. Rather, it was suggested that the type of association
contemplated by clause 64.02 can be characterised as a symbiotic relationship
between the two uses where ‘There must be a close association between the two uses,
even though the uses are essentially dissimilar in nature, which is of mutual benefit to
9 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes/year is recycled on site.
Page 23
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
each use.’ It was also suggested that a ‘realistic view must be taken of what
constitutes an essential association – one that is focussed more broadly on acceptable
outcomes based on the purpose of the zone, including the policy framework.’
In the application we are considering, the proposal readily satisfies a literal
interpretation and also comprises a symbiotic relationship, except that the
defined uses that must operate ‘in conjunction’ are not essentially dissimilar.
Indeed it is the fact that there is clearly an essential relationship between the
elements of the proposal that the existence of separate uses has been the source
of debate. Likewise, in considering this application, there has been no debate
about the second limb of the ‘in conjunction’ requirement that there must be a
genuine, close and continuing functional relationship between the operation of
the uses.
The Steiner decision indicates separate and identifiable uses are required. The
substantial overlap between the definitions for Materials Recycling and Refuse
Transfer Station and the consequential difficulty in determining compliance
with the ‘in conjunction’ has been highlighted since the 2005 Advisory
Committee process. The uses involved in this application include so many
common elements that distinguishing between specific uses is problematic- the
definitions add an extra layer of ambiguity compared to other instances where
the ‘in conjunction’ requirement has been considered.
The current proposal has sought to draw a clearer distinction between the
Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer Facility elements of the proposal than
in the 2004 Application; proposes to extend the materials that will be
transferred elsewhere; and has highlighted the volume and value of materials
transferred for further processing. We note, and are inclined to agree with, the
arguments put by Mr Pitt that:
Amendment VC43 did not address the relationship between primary and
secondary or ancillary uses in Clause 64.02 despite the Amendment being
introduced in full knowledge of the Steiner decision, various VCAT
decisions and the 2005 Advisory Committee recommendations. The
inference is that there was an explicit intention not to change the law on
which the Steiner decision was based in relation to these matters.
The prohibition of materials recycling in the Green Wedge Zone as result of
Amendment VC43 makes the Government’s intention in relation to that
zone clear but this change did not extend to the SUZ. While the planning
intention would have been much clearer if Clause 57 had reflected the same
change, it could be inferred that there was an intention to treat the zones
differently.
The Jinalec decision and cases it referred to related to the Green Wedge
Zone but in this case the in conjunction requirement is under Clause 57 and
Page 24
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
the application is not incompatible with the purposes of that Clause or the
SUZ.
The Jinalec decision also addressed the issue of the scale of ‘in conjunction uses’
and adopted the view that ‘It is inherent in the notion of a secondary use10 being
used in conjunction with a primary use that the primary use remains a significant use
of the land. It need not be the dominant use of the land.’ and ‘I consider that the
disproportion between the scale of the secondary use compared to the scale of the
primary use in some of the cases decided prior to the Amendment VC43 was part of the
“mischief” the amendment was attempting to redress. I therefore consider that the
relative scale of the two uses is a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding
whether a secondary use is ‘in conjunction with’ a primary use.’
With regard to determining the scale of ‘in conjunction uses’, again we note that
the overlap between the definitions of the uses we are considering is extremely
unhelpful.
We agree with Mr Pitt that we cannot disregard the implications of the Steiner
decision - even an ancillary use can satisfy the ‘in conjunction’ requirement.
We endorse the conclusions of the Tootal Road Panel and find that, while it is
arguable, on the facts of this case the proposal complies with the Clause 57
requirement that Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a Refuse
Transfer Station.
Does the proposal effectively include a warehouse?
RAID sought a determination on whether the enclosure of sections of the plant
in buildings constitutes a warehouse type use, which is a prohibited use under
Clause 57.
Warehouse is defined in the Planning scheme as:
Land used to store or display goods. It may include the distribution and the
wholesale selling of the goods.
The planning scheme draws distinctions between use and development. Clause
57 deals with land uses whereas the RAID concern appears to be relate to the
form of development and emanates from the fact that proposed buildings
would have a form commonly associated with warehouses. We are satisfied
that, while the proposal involves storing feed material and recycled product,
this activity is accommodated in the Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer
Station uses and separate consideration of a warehouse use is not required.
10
In Jinalec the permissible uses which are subject to the condition requiring them to be in conjunction
with other uses on the land were referred to secondary uses. The uses with which the secondary uses
must be in conjunction we will call primary uses.
Page 25
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
3. Is the Proposal Consistent with Planning Policy?
The reports of previous Panels and Advisory Committees dealing with
materials recycling and transfer stations in Kingston’s non-urban areas have
addressed the relevant planning policy in detail11. The key themes in the
planning framework and recent strategic planning initiatives for this green
wedge area will be briefly reviewed but our assessment focuses on whether the
revisions in the current proposal mean it is more supportive of policy than the
2004 Application.
The Issue
Would the proposal jeopardise the long-term vision for the locality?
3.1 State Policy – Support for Recycling
State planning policy12 establishes a clear principle that waste should be
avoided and recycled in preference to disposal - waste should only go to landfill
if there is no other practicable option. The implementation of State policy to
support recycling involves facilitating a distribution of facilities to underpin the
efficiency of the network. Policy encourages waste generators and businesses
that use or recycle waste to locate near each other.13 C & D waste is identified as
a priority for recovery and targets require expansion of reprocessing capacity in
Melbourne’s south-east.
Submissions did not challenge the policy support for recycling but argued the
proposed use should be located within the UGB in an industrial zone.
Dandenong’s IN2Z and the extension of the Dandenong industrial area were
put forward by submitters as more suitable alternative locations. While our
role does not extend to evaluating potential alternative sites or whether the site
represents an optimum outcome, we note that:
11
For further discussion see the Report of the Advisory Committee and Panels Materials Recycling in Green Wedges: Heatherton Materials Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP542/03 Clarinda: Materials
Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP184/04 June 2005 and 2007 Tootal Road report. 12
For example Melbourne 2030, Melbourne 2030 audit, the Environment Protection Act (1970), EPA
Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills), the Towards Zero Waste
Strategy (TZWS), the ‘Victorian Greenhouse Strategy’ and ‘Our Environment’ 13
Clause 12.07-2
Page 26
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The search for an alternative site, with the active assistance of DIIRD, has
not identified an acceptable alternative.
Dandenong’s IN2Z is effectively fully developed and the vision for new
Keysborough/Lyndhurst industrial zone (Amendment C87) is for high
amenity advanced manufacturing and logistics uses.
3.2 State and Local Policy Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area
Melbourne 2030 and the SPPF articulate the government intention to protect
Green Wedges and ensure that pressures for urban uses do not compromise the
overall purposes of green wedges. The SPPF, the LPPF14, the SUZ2 and
Overlays for the Heatherton-Dingley non-urban area establish a planning
framework with consistent themes involving the:
Protection and extraction of sand resources.
Recognition of the area as an important location for regional landfills.
Need to manage the transition to post-extraction/landfill functions.
A commitment to implement the long-term strategy to achieve a ‘Chain of
Parks’, which will eventually transform the area’s character and function.
As noted by the 2005 Advisory Committee and VCAT15, local policy indicates
that post-extraction use and development of land not designated as core
parkland should complement open space and recreation strategies but clause 57
restrictions on these uses in green wedges create some uncertainty about future
uses.
In addition to providing for extractive industry, the SUZ 2 purposes encourage
interim use and the management and rehabilitation of the land to ensure
compatibility with nearby uses and development.
3.3 Recent Strategic Planning for the Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area
Council has recognised the need to revisit the planning framework for the
Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area since at least 2002. The Kingston,
Heatherton, Clayton South, Dingley Non Urban Area Strategic Review (March 2002)
observed that the rehabilitation of former extraction pits through landfills was
likely to occur over 10 to 50 years but noted that emerging trends could mean
14
For example, Clauses 21.03 Land Use challenges, particularly Sustainable Management of Non -Urban
Areas, 21.10 Non-urban areas, 21.11 Open Space, and 22.03 Sandbelt Open Space Project Policy 15
Hy-Tec Industries Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2005] VCAT 1145 and Clayton Sands Pty Ltd v Kingston
CC [2007] VCAT 766
Page 27
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
land filling operations may cease before all existing holes are filled. That
Review also suggested the area could have a continuing role as a home for
increasingly important waste recycling activities and alternative waste disposal
technologies.
Mr Montebello submitted that Council has not ‘sat on its hands’ when it comes
to resolving planning framework issues for this area and has been seriously
pursuing a significant planning process for the areas north of Kingston Road to
bring about some certainty in the future directions for this area. We agree with
Mr Montebello that this process is certainly not at the stage of being a seriously
entertained planning scheme amendment and there are divergent views of the
area’s future that have not been tested. Nevertheless, the work undertaken
does indicate issues to be addressed and the scope of options being
contemplated.
The recently released Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan:
Recognises there is a range of existing predominantly urban activities,
particularly to the east of the subject land and the need for water retarding
facilities once land has been rehabilitated.
The site is in the ‘Enterprise Precinct’16 which was split into northern and
southern areas17 in recognition of existing land uses, and the northern
section’s proximity to established urban areas and future abuttal with core
parkland.
The site is in the southern section of the precinct which would establish an
‘employment zone’ to ‘reflect the employment needs of tomorrow’ and to
provide sufficient incentive for post-extraction rehabilitation of much of the
precinct. Further guidance about the nature of the employment uses
envisaged was not provided and will be an important task in the further
development of the Framework.
The vision for the northern section of the precinct is to create a densely
planted ‘carbon sink/urban forest’ more than 300 metres wide once filling
has been completed.
Ensure that land in Victory Road that has not yet been extracted and is being
used as market gardens is not given approval for extraction or land filling.
Contemplates inclusion of the area within the UGB.
16
Generally between Clayton Road and Old Dandenong Road, south of Victory Road 17
Along an east/west line running from Old Dandenong Road to Clayton Road, along the Victory Road
alignment
Page 28
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The Draft Framework also identifies an area to the east side of Clayton Road for
a future ‘Resource Recovery Precinct’ in view of the areas historical waste
management function.
Submissions and Evidence
Those opposing the Application argued that the proposal should not be
permitted because it is an encroachment of an industrial use that would
prejudice the achievement of long-term planning strategies for the locality.
Council submitted that approval of this proposal would encourage other
inappropriate uses that would undermine the vision for the area, rather than
building momentum for transformation of the area. It argued submitted that a
condition requiring the use to cease after an extended period of time (20 years)
is inappropriate as:
The use requires a significant investment in site infrastructure;
On balance, the proposal is inconsistent with policy and zone provisions;
and
Unlike the sunset clause included in the Tootal Road permit to allow the
operators to locate an appropriate site, the current proposal’s extended
timeframe has the potential to impact upon the formation, direction and
implementation of the policy framework. The usual planning approach of
the policy matrix for the area directing planning decisions would be
reversed and the grant of a permit would result in the reassessment the land
use context underpinning strategic planning that is underway.
Council also submitted that proposals that would detract from the potential for
a ‘waste hub’ to the east, as envisaged in recent strategic planning work, should
not be endorsed.
RAID, the Defenders of the South East Green Wedge and Dingley Village
Community Association opposed the application on the basis that:
Any remaining sand extraction opportunities should be realised in the short
term, so that conversion to open space/other productive after uses can be
achieved. If sand extraction is no longer viable, then Clause 22.03 requires
rehabilitation to commence.
The use, which would operate for at least 20 years and most likely well
beyond that timeframe, will continue long after the region’s extractive
industry and landfill sites have been completely rehabilitated. It does not
constitute an interim use as contemplated by the purposes of the SUZ and is
well beyond the short-term use the 2005 Advisory Committee indicated
would enjoy greater policy support.
Page 29
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The precedent (or benchmark) set by approval of this application would
encourage a wave of similar proposals that would prejudice long-term
policies and strategies.
The proposed use does not constitute rehabilitation and will have an
ongoing adverse affect on the region. Extraction ceased at the site around
six to eight years ago and the opportunity for an interim use prior to
rehabilitation has passed. RAID acknowledged that the site’s limited
volume make it less attractive for landfill and opposed solid inert/
putrescible land filling but it argued that clean fill could be used to
rehabilitate the site and achieve a broader range of after-use options. The
Defenders of the South East Green Wedge also noted recreational after-use
options may not require extensive filling.
The site is close to one of the Chain of Park’s narrow corridors and the
industrial nature of the proposal would undermine the Sandbelt Open Space
strategic vision and compromise the amenity of the park.
The Draft Framework has identified land north of Heatherton Road to the
northeast as a potential ‘waste hub’ rather than the subject site.
SEMR noted that a sewer through the site and the quality and quantity of the
sand means that extraction is not viable. It was submitted the proposal will not
have any adverse impact on the Chain of Parks due the site’s separation by
distance and topography from proposed core parkland. It was argued that the
proposal is for an interim use that would not blight the surrounding area in
either the short or long term, rather, it will contribute to improved amenity.
Further long-term strategies will not be compromised as the 20-year timeframe
of the permission sought is generally consistent with the likely life of landfill
and related activities in the area - rehabilitation of the land will not be delayed.
Further, the proposal will not delay the rehabilitation of the land as, in the
absence of any economic imperative or inducement, the land will not be
improved. While the proposal does not identify an ‘after’ use, perimeter
landscaping will enhance the appearance of the area and proposed works
would not prejudice potential ‘after’ use of the land.
Mr Pitt referred to the Council officer’s report (28 April 2008), which
recommended the grant of a permit subject to conditions, as an objective
analysis of the issues 18.
Mr Milner’s evidence highlighted the proposal’s consistency with an identified
purpose of this green wedge to accommodate waste management facilities. He
was of the view that there is a clear appreciation that any redevelopment in the
18
The Applicant relied on that assessment pursuant to the principle in Modern Living Design &
Construction Pty Ltd v Box Hill CC (1988) 1 AATR 166 at 168/9
Page 30
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
area – including the Chain of Parks and associated uses – will only be
implemented in the long term. In the interim, the area’s current waste
management role is highly valued. Mr Milner considered the proposal
provides the incentive to take the first steps towards the site’s rehabilitation.
He considered a permit with a limited life of 20 years is an appropriate
response to the strategic planning context as:
‘… it provides for the development of a use that is consistent with the existing
character of the area, together with the opportunity to reassess the situation and
land use context once the permit expires. This will allow the redevelopment of the
subject site to take place concurrently with the redevelopment of surrounding
land.
Mr Rodda was also of the view that:
‘The permission sought is for a temporary for a period which is coincidental to
anticipated completion of the sand extraction / landfill / rehabilitation cycle
recognised in the area north of Kingston Road and will not prejudice future use of
the subject land for urban purposes currently contemplated by the City of
Kingston or for other purposes.
Mr Rodda considered the 20-year timeframe would align with the cessation of
land filling and also provides a reasonable timeframe to amortise development
costs.
3.4 Discussion on Policy
Waste Policy Support
There is a strong policy predisposition in favour of recycling and the Kingston
non-urban area may well have a long-term role in this aspect of the waste
management sector. We accept Sustainability Victoria advice that the AFG
recycling operations are a vital element of the recycling network serving south-
eastern Melbourne and there is a need to not only maintain but expand the
capacity to recycle C & D waste. We also maintain the view of other panels
considering materials recycling in Kingston’s non-urban area that:
Minimising transport costs is a key factor in the viability of recycling
activities and the diversion of feedstock from alternative landfill
destinations requires the recycling location to be at least as accessible as
landfill; and
This area is well located in terms of both securing source C & D material
from established areas and to provide an alternative to disposal at nearby
landfill destinations.
Page 31
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The clear waste policy support for the Application is an important
consideration that supports the grant of a permit but must be balanced with
other planning objectives.
An Interim Use?
As noted by the 2005 Advisory Committee and the Tootal Road Panel
permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of
rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning
objectives for the locality. The resolution of long-term uses in the locality
should occur through Green Wedge management planning. This process has
commenced but has some way to go. Nevertheless, the Draft Northern Non
Urban Area Framework Plan, a recent VCAT decision relating to sand extraction
the locality19 and SEMR indicated that further extraction on the site is highly
questionable. This shifts the focus of our evaluation of the Application to the
other zone purposes - the encouragement of rehabilitation and interim use.
We think the fundamental question is whether this proposal would jeopardise
the achievement of long-term vision for the locality.
As discussed in subsequent chapters, the proposal will be well screened from
the surrounding area, off-site impacts are manageable and the use is not
inconsistent with the current character of the locality. Further, there is no
reason to think the proposed use would compromise the development of the
Chain of Parks20.
Previous Panels have suggested the concept of a waste hub may have merit but
identified this as a matter for green wedge planning. We note that the site is not
in Precinct 6 which was nominated for resource recovery in the draft
framework plan. However, we also note that SEMR has highlighted that
Precinct 6 has a number of limitations for this function, notably that the after-
use is intended to occur on filled land which would eliminate an important
characteristic that mitigates off-site impacts.
Evaluation of the Draft Framework is beyond the scope of this Advisory
Committee and we are not in a position to comment on the merit or otherwise
of the location identified as a resource recovery precinct. The Draft Framework
is in the developmental stage and the fact that the proposal is in a location that
departs from the Draft Framework is not fatal to the Application. We are not
convinced that approval of this Application, which is for a proposal with a
19
Clayton Sands Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2007] VCAT 766 20
We note that the Site’s 300-metre separation from proposed core parkland and intervening higher land
indicate that the proposed operations are unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the amenity
within the proposed core parkland to the north if it was developed during the life of a permit
Page 32
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
limited life, would undermine the development of the resource recovery
precinct.
Planning policy recognises that the transformation of this area is a long-term
strategy. The transition from extraction/landfill with a degraded landscape to a
rehabilitated area that complements the development of the Chain of Parks will
take decades.
That 2005 Advisory Committee considered that concrete crushers should
generally be located in industrial zones but there may be opportunities to
facilitate this form of recycling by ‘piggy backing’ it with extractive industry
and landfill without undermining long-term policies for the area or further
degrading its character or amenity. That Advisory Committee noted that short-
term use of this site for concrete crushing would have greater policy support
than the permanent proposal being considered at that time21 but emphasised
that continuing concrete crushing after completion of land filling would be
likely to undermine policies to rehabilitate sites22. We agree with that view.
There was some discussion about the timeframe necessary to amortise the
investment proposed with some suggesting it is a capital intensive proposal
that will therefore become entrenched, while others took a contrary view that
level of capital invested was relatively modest (compared to many commercial
developments) with functional rather than sophisticated buildings (almost
demountable), which, like the plant and air monitoring equipment could be
relocated. Mr McKellar advised that a 10-year timeframe would not be viable
due to the capital investment required.
We see the implications for the implementation of planning strategies as the
determining factor, not whether funds invested can be amortised over the life of
the permit – that is a financial decision for the Applicant, not the Advisory
Committee or Council.
We acknowledge objecting submitters’ concerns that approval of the use for a
period longer than a few years would mean the use would become entrenched,
its presence could influence the future planning framework against which the
use would be assessed when the permit expires, and it could be cited as a
precedent for other uses that do not advance the vision for the locality.
Submitters opposing the application focused on the 2005 Advisory Committee
21
The 2005 Panel sought the applicant’s views on approval on an interim basis and was advised a sunset
condition, of say 10 years, on a permit would effectively equate to a refusal – approval of a permanent
use is sought. 22
Page 5 Report of the Advisory Committee and Panels Materials Recycling in Green Wedges: Heatherton Materials Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP542/03 Clarinda: Materials Recycling and Transfer
Station Application KP184/04 June 2005
Page 33
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
reference to policy support for short-term interim use for recycling and argued
that 20 years cannot be considered short-term.
Those concerns need to be considered within the range of planning policy
objectives. This proposal has not introduced a new potential use for
consideration in the development of the planning framework for the locality, as
the possibility of accommodating resource recovery activities in this non-urban
area has been flagged in strategic planning for the locality in each of the studies
undertaken since at least 2002. Other proposals for interim uses would need to
be assessed on their merits, for example having regard to any consequences for
core parkland or amenity impacts on residential uses.
We find that the strong waste policy support for this application justifies serous
consideration of the Application as an interim use beyond the very short term.
We agree with Mr Milner, Mr Rodda and the Council officer report that the
concept of interim use should take account of the progressive closure of landfill
and the timeframe for conversion to core park uses or complementary uses - the
temporary use of the land should be linked to the cessation of surrounding land
filling activities.
The Draft Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Plan (DWRRP) schedules
land filling for the 10-year period to 2017. It identified the following closure of
landfills in Kington’s non-urban area based on closure dates identified by the
operators (see Figure 4 in Section 1.2):
Putrescible - TPI Clayton (Deals Road and Fraser Road) – post 2020
Putrescible - Clayton Regional (674-718 Clayton Road) – 2017
Solid Inert - TPI Victory Road, Clarinda – 2011
Solid Inert - TPI Carroll Road, Clarinda - 2014
Solid Inert - TPI Bunnys Lane Heatherton – post 2020
Waste management planning for locality based on operator expectations
indicates that land directly to the north and immediately to the east of Clayton
Road will be filled by 2017 which would mean that all land within
approximately 500 metres would then be in the rehabilitation phase (see Figure
4).
The DWRRP considered two alternative scenarios: one where existing waste
trends are maintained and a second, where Towards Zero Waste targets are
achieved. Projections indicate the achievement of TZW targets would
progressively reduce the consumption of landfill airspace to a point where from
2013 onwards the rate would be approximately half the rate in 2007.
Page 34
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The DWRRP states ‘At a minimum TPI Clarinda Rd, TPI Victory Rd, The Glen,
SBI Cranbourne and the Clayton Regional Landfill will be closed by 2020. Other
sites such as TPI Fraser Rd may close by about 2020.’
We accept that recent trends and filling rate projections indicate that waste
policy is producing very substantial reductions in rates of filling. We note Mr
Milner’s advice that rehabilitation of completed landfills, including the
management of gas emissions and subsidence, can extend the time before an
‘after-use’ can realistically occur. We also note that planning permit conditions
relating to the completion of rehabilitation works commonly recognise that the
task requires some time to take account of matters such as land settling. Even
taking these factors into account, we find the proposed 20 or 25-year life of the
permit is excessive.
Provided off-site impacts are effectively managed, on balance we find a sunset
condition of 15 years is reasonable as it would align with the likely completion
of land filling in the immediate area (by about 2020) with some time (three
years) provided for consolidation and rehabilitation of those sites. If any
extension of permit is sought, the request should be made at least three years
before the permit lapses to provide time to wind down operations and relocate
to avoid undue pressure on the Responsible Authority to extend the permit due
to the imminent displacement of the use.
Rehabilitation
Objecting submitters argued rather than provide for rehabilitation in a form
that advances policies to transform the area, the proposal perpetuates the types
of uses that have degraded the current landscape.
However, SEMR submitted that the land would be fit for a range of uses, some
of which could take advantage of a location below the level of the broader area.
Mr Rodda noted that when the permit expires the site would have extensive
mature planting around the perimeter, a constructed access point and a level
hardstand area that could be a base for subsequent development. The dams
could also serve floodwater retarding purposes. Mr Milner considered the
proposal provides the owner with incentive to start site rehabilitation, would
not compromise future options and represents a good first step.
SEMR opposed the Condition 64 of the draft permit which would require the
submissions of a Rehabilitation Plan which, amongst other things, anticipates
reinstatement of appropriate surface levels having regard to the Sandbelt Open
Space Project objectives and integration with surrounding land requires. SEMR
advocated the condition specified in the Council officer report, which simply
required removal of plant, equipment and signage.
Page 35
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
We recognise the long-term use of the site is unclear, but the ‘Enterprise
Precinct’ goals set out in the Draft Northern Non-urban Area Framework Plan
(discussed in Section 3.1.2) provides a sense of potential after-use.
We accept SEMR is extensively planting the bunds around the site as discussed
in Section 4.3. These vegetated bunds and the sealed and unsealed roadways
within the site could also form part of plans for long-term uses of the site. We
are satisfied that the proposal’s treatment of the site’s interface with the public
realm will represent some progress towards the planning objectives to
rehabilitate this currently degraded landscape.
We also recognise that a range of recreational or other employment uses could
take advantage of the depressed areas of the site and filling to the natural
ground level may not be the only acceptable form of rehabilitation.
We consider that rehabilitation on the expiry of the permit can be addressed in
two stages through permit conditions:
Before the use and development starts the permit conditions should require
approval of a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority This would establish a base level of rehabilitation
and ensure that subsequent operations do not compromise those plans and
establish the amount of the bank guarantee to ensure rehabilitation occurs.
We note that the works that form part of the proposal are likely to represent
a significant component of rehabilitation works but there will be significant
other costs.
Two years before the permit lapses the approved Preliminary Rehabilitation
Plan should be subject to a full review to ensure the rehabilitation facilitates
the development of the ‘after-uses’ envisaged by the planning framework
applicable at that time. This would include preparation of an approved
Final Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan should provide for restoration works, to
the Responsible Authority’s satisfaction, including but not limited to:
Removal of plant, equipment, signage and any agreed buildings or other
structures;
Reshaping of all batters to agreed slopes;
Placement of a one-metre layer of clean fill including topsoil to a minimum
of 20 centimetres on batters and agreed hardstand areas23;
Works to ensure satisfactory stormwater run-off and storage of flood waters;
23
This is consistent with common rehabilitation conditions in Planning Permits tabled by Council at the
Tootal Road hearings in 2007.
Page 36
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Suitable securing and environmental protection of ponds and other water
bodies, including restoration of the slimes dam;
Landscaping; and
Completion of the works within 12 months of the date of the permit unless
the Responsible Authority grants an extension.
We conclude that:
There is clear policy support for recycling and providing additional C & D
recycling facilities to serve Melbourne’s south-east and this justifies serious
consideration of the Application as an interim use.
The transformation of the area will take decades. Interim use of the site for
recycling can ‘piggy back’ with nearby land filling without undermining
long-term policies for the area or further degrading its character or amenity.
A sunset condition of 15 years would generally align with the likely
completion of land filling in the immediate area with some time provided
for rehabilitation of those sites. Any request for extension of the permit
should only be entertained if it is made well in advance of the permit expiry.
This should allow consideration within the context of the planning
framework in place at that time with less pressure due to the imminent
displacement of the use.
A two-stage approach to rehabilitation planning should be adopted with
approval of a preliminary plan before the use and development start which
is reviewed well in advance of the expiry of the permit to ensure consistency
with the after-uses envisaged by the planning framework at that time.
Advisory Committee Recommendations
Apply a sunset condition requiring the use to cease 15 years from the date
of the permit.
Provide for extension of the permit if the request is made at least three
years before the permit expires.
Provide for rehabilitation planning in two stages with approval of a
Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan before the use and development start
which would be reviewed to provide a Final Rehabilitation Plan two years
before the permit expires.
Page 37
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
4. OFF–SITE IMPACTS
The 2005 Advisory Committee found in relation to the Alex Fraser Group
Application, which was for essentially for the same business on the subject site
but without enclosure of the crushing plant, that:
Much of the dust from the proposal would settle on-site and would be
intercepted by the pit walls/bunds and perimeter planting. The separation
of more than 700 metres from the nearest residential zone provides a degree
of comfort that nuisance dust would be unlikely to have an unacceptable
impact on their amenity. The amenity expectations for dispersed sensitive
uses in and adjoining the SUZ, such as farm houses and the Heatherton
Christian College, should be tempered by the zoning. Potential impacts
from nuisance dust on the adjoining horticultural uses and nearby nurseries
would need to be addressed through conditions;
There is negligible risk to health from non-occupational exposure to fine
dust emitted from the proposals, including Respirable Crystalline Silica
(RCS), when assessed against current international standards;
Noise would be audible but SEPP N-1 limits would be satisfied and
operating hours would need to be restricted consistent with those limits;
Traffic generated can be readily accommodated with minor works to the
arterial road networks in the immediate area; and
Water quality and management issues were adequately addressed.
The subsequent discussion of the key issues briefly sets out the conclusions in
evidence presented to us on the current application, with a particular focus on
differences from the 2004 Application that may influence the earlier Panel’s
findings.
4.1 Air Quality
What is the Issue?
Are air emissions from the subject site acceptable?
If not, can adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?
Differences compared with earlier hearings
Since the earlier hearing for this site in 2005 the main air quality impact
differences or changes are linked to the proposed extra controls which we heard
go beyond best practice for C & D recycling. These include:
Enclosing the crushing operations;
Page 38
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Extra dust monitoring stations; and
More substantial bunds and vegetation around the site.
We note expert evidence and submissions on air quality did not change
markedly from the 2005 Advisory Committee process. However, Dr Bellair
refined and expanded his earlier modelling. We have not gone into as much
detail as the 2005 Advisory Committee Report which extensively discussed the
air quality issues. Instead we have summarised the discussion and findings
and, where needed, drawn out any key differences.
Policy Context
State Planning Policy on Air Quality (Clause 15.04) aims to protect and improve
air quality and requires responsible and planning authorities to:
Ensure there is suitable separation between sensitive land uses and
developments;
Consider EPA’s recommended buffer distances24 where uses have the
potential to reduce amenity; and
Have regard to potential conflicts between uses due to air emission impacts.
State planning policy also requires planning decisions to be consistent with any
relevant requirements of the State environment protection policies (SEPPs)
aimed at protecting air quality:
State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (SEPP AAQ)25 which
sets overall State air quality objectives, and
State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP AQM)26
which sets minimum air emission requirements and applies to all generators
of air emissions in Victoria.
SEPP AQM focuses on the control of emissions with avoidance being the
primary aim. The SEPP AQM requirements are mainly directed to point source
emissions from industry with design criteria for Total Suspended Particles
24
Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (EPA 1990) 25
State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (SEPP AAQ) sets air quality objectives
and goals for six criteria pollutants plus an ambient air quality objective for visibility. It aims to
protect beneficial uses, human health and well being, visibility and aesthetic enjoyment and local
amenity. 26
State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP AQM) sets out the framework
and attainment program for managing air emissions to ensure ambient air quality objectives are met
and to drive continuous improvement in air quality. It provides averaging time for modelling, and
design criteria indicators which are grouped as class 1 (includes PM10), class 2 (includes PM2.5), class
3 (extremely hazardous substances including respirable crystalline silica as PM2.5) and unclassified
indicators (odour and total suspended particles [nuisance dust]).
Page 39
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
(TSP), PM10, PM2.527, arsenic and RCS for large area-based sources (for example,
dust from stockpiles) to be addressed in Protocols for Environmental Management
(PEMs)28. The Protocol for Environmental Management for Mining and Extractive
Industry (PEM EMI)29 released by EPA in December 2007 is now an incorporated
document in SEPP AQM. Some of the impact assessment criteria applicable for
the mining and extractive industries, based on protecting human health,
provide useful benchmarks for concrete recycling. Dr Bellair advised for area-
based sources such as this proposal industry-specific control measures backed
up by suitable monitoring programs achieve the best environmental outcomes.
4.1.1 Air Quality in the Area
The main sources for air emissions in the area are agricultural, extractive and
non-manufacturing operations. We list the pollutants of interest in Table 1.
Asbestos is also of interest because SEMR proposes recycling building
materials.
Indicator Criteria Averaging Period
PM10 60µg/m3 24-hour average
PM2.5 36µg/m3 24-hour average
Nuisance Dust 4g/m2/month (no more than 2g/m2/month
above average)
Monthly average
RCS (as PM2.5) 3µg/m3 Annual average
Table 1: Selected Assessment Criteria from PEM EMI (Source: EPA Submission June 2008)
EPA routinely monitors criteria pollutants plus PM2.5 and visibility at its
network of air monitoring station throughout Melbourne. Except for extreme
conditions such as bushfires (when particle levels may be elevated) Melbourne
generally has good air quality by world and SEPP AAQ standards. EPA said
the general air quality in Clarinda is not substantially different from elsewhere
in metropolitan Melbourne.
Appendix C puts airborne particles into context, largely from Dr Drew’s
evidence to this hearing and the 2005 hearings. It briefly describes the
characteristics and potential health risks of different types of dust (nuisance,
inhalable and respirable), focusing on RCS.
27
Particle sizes are measured in micrometres (µm), also known as microns, equal to 1/1000 of a
millimetre. Particles less than 10 micrometres in diameter are called PM10 (PM standing for Particle
Matter) and those less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter are called PM2.5. PM10 and smaller particles
are small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs . 28
These PEMs will take ‘into account the special circumstances of industries, including the intermittent
and transitory nature of operations.’ 29
Protocol for Environmental Management, Mining and Extractive Industry , December 2007, EPA
Page 40
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
4.1.2 Nuisance Dust
Nuisance dust, also known as total suspended particles (TSPs), comprises fairly
coarse particles with typical diameters of 30 to 80 µm.
RAID and other submitters expressed concerns about AFG’s (and, by
association, SEMR’s) present and proposed dust management regime and
conformance, particularly outside working hours. Many submitters to this and
earlier hearings claimed the dust from AFG’s Tootal Road operations is
unacceptable. Some said the dust forms crusty deposits on window sills and
other areas.
Evidence and Submissions
Dr Bellair at earlier hearings said nuisance dust typically settles close to the
source and noted that obstacles such as walls or vegetation can intercept and
reduce the off-site transport of dust. He presented dust fall monitoring results
for the Clarinda site from 2003 when sand mining was occurring which showed
it was a very dusty place.
Dr Bellair was confident that dust emissions from the proposed facility will not
result in significant adverse amenity impacts on nearby houses, Heatherton
Christian College and other nearby land uses. He restated his earlier evidence
about managing dust emissions in the establishment phase for the facility.
Mr McKellar said the head of the college visited the Tootal Road site and was
comfortable with what he observed. We note the College has not objected to
the Application.
EPA conducted a 12-month dust monitoring program in the Dingley area
(September 2003 and August 2004) and a smaller follow-up survey in 2005.
EPA’s results showed dust levels with one exception (source unknown, but
road dust suspected) were typical of the metropolitan area and considered
levels of nuisance dust from the AFG operations were acceptable.
Mr O’Shaughnessy complimented Alex Fraser Group on managing well the
impacts of its Tootal Road operations, largely since EPA issued a Pollution
Abatement Notice (PAN) which triggered remedial action. He noted that
during an inspection of the Tootal Road area in extremely adverse weather
conditions there was no visible dust from the Tootal Road site but other sites in
the locality were obvious sources of dust. He said the proposed placement of
most activities in ‘a hole’ at the Clarinda site would be superior to the elevated
Tootal Road site.
Page 41
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Discussion
We note from site inspections and evidence there are multiple dust sources
creating dust emissions in the area. They include landfills, market gardens and
unpaved roads.
We note SEMR intends managing the tipping and sorting of co-mingled waste
in a building (enclosed on all but the south side) and has incorporated EPA dust
management recommendations from submissions to previous panel processes.
We accept EPA submissions about the effectiveness of dust control measures at
AFG’s Tootal Road site and its view that the current proposal represents best
practice dust management for this type of operation in Australia.
Dust Management
Dr Bellair summarised the main potential dust sources at the facility as:
suspension of dust by vehicles on unsealed roadways;
tipping wastes onto raw feed stockpiles;
raw feed stockpiles;
pre-processing raw feed;
transferring materials to the crushing plant by front-end loader;
the crushing and screening plant;
transferring the recycled product to product stockpiles;
loading trucks with the recycled product by loader; and
wind erosion from any bare, erodible surfaces during dry weather.
SEMR’s Environmental Management Plan requires use of water to control dust on
internal and entry and exit roads, on incoming trucks, on stockpiles, the radial
stacker, and the crusher and its associated conveyors and feedstock30. It is also
proposed to use specialist dust suppression additives, which have been used
successfully used at other recycling sites. Other dust management methods
include employee training, equipment maintenance, use of a capacity warning
system, filter and sealing on the cement silo to the pug mill, and operational
procedures.
Four linked on-site air quality monitoring stations (likely to be Osiris
instruments) are proposed near the corners of the site (shown as red stars in
Figure 1) to record PM10 concentrations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The
real-time monitoring results will highlight the site’s contribution to PM10
concentrations, based on differences between upwind and downwind
30
With the exception of the material travelling over the screen
Page 42
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
boundaries. Site personnel will be immediately alerted when the monitoring
system detects elevated on-site particulate emissions (a ‘dust event’).
The proposed ‘floor’ level at the site is five to seven metres below natural
ground level, placing it at 10 to 12 metres below the top of the perimeter bunds
and around 20 metres below the height of the vegetation screening at maturity
(see Figure 2). This will lessen the potential for off-site emissions by:
Reducing surface wind speeds; and
Airborne particles impinging on the surrounding sides of the hole, bunds
and vegetation.
Dr Bellair said there were essentially no visible dust emissions being generated
by the crushing and screening operations, subsequent handling, product
stockpiles, the pug mill or internal roadways when he has visited the Tootal
Road site over the past 12 months. The visible dust from the raw feed tipped
into the plant was largely suppressed by spraying water over the vibrating
feeder. Even on hot windy days, no visible dust was generated from the
product stockpiles, either during loading operations or as a result of wind
erosion because the products are moist or a crust has formed on the surface.
The main source of visible dust emissions had been the tipping onto the raw
material stockpiles but installing the incoming load dousing bar had
substantially reduced the dust generated by this activity.
Discussion - Dust Management
Like the 2005 Advisory Committee, we also recognise:
It is crucial that procedures and practices minimise the risk of upset
conditions occurring at the site and that any such events are quickly
addressed;
Effective dust suppression relies on liberally wetting all active areas and
exposed areas without some form of vegetation cover of the site. A vigilant
approach to the issue by the operator is necessary but automation of parts of
the system, for example on plant and unsealed roads and hardstand areas,
can help; and
The control of dust emissions is dependent on a well-prepared Dust
Management Plan, including the proposed real-time monitoring of weather
and air emissions from the site and necessary prompt responses, particularly
during upset conditions.
We accept EPA’s and Dr Bellair’s evidence that this proposal will improve the
best practice dust emission management measures at the Alex Fraser Group’s
Tootal Road site. EPA confirmed AFG has a history of sound management of
Page 43
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
its various operations and a commitment to using protocols that go beyond
industry best practice.
4.1.3 Fine Particle Emissions (PM10 and PM2.5)
People can inhale particles with a diameter of 10 micrometres (µm) or less
deeply into their lungs which can cause adverse respiratory symptoms. Links
exist between long and short-term exposure to such particles and increased
deaths from heart and lung disease. Most at risk from elevated levels of PM10
and PM2.5 are the elderly, children and people with existing respiratory or
cardiovascular disease. The general population is often advised to avoid
outdoor exercise during periods of elevated PM10 and PM2.5 levels.
Evidence and submissions
As EPA noted, although visible dust (which is made up of both coarse particles
and the finer respirable particles) is an indicator of nuisance dust, it is a poor
indicator of PM10 and PM2.5 levels and whether the levels exceed health
guidelines for PM10 and PM2.5.
Dr Bellair presented expert evidence on fine particle emissions. We have not
repeated his assessment methodology which was the same as presented in 2005.
He used the Ausplume dispersion model to calculate emission rate estimates
for PM10, PM2.5, RCS (as PM2.5) and some heavy metals. He used available EPA
background data and gathered particulate concentration data at the Tootal
Road site in November 2004 and January 2005. He believes this represents a
worst case because of dust emission control improvements made at Tootal Road
and proposed at Clarinda. Dr Bellair said it is conservative because the
methodology assumes flat ground whereas the Clarinda operation will be in a
hole.
Dr Bellair said the off-site emissions from the proposed Kingston Road
operation will be substantially lower than the (conservative) emission estimates
for the Tootal Road site because:
all significant dust sources on the plant to be relocated from Tootal Road
(feeders, primary and secondary crushers, screens and air knife) will be
enclosed, with collection of particulates from the vibrating feeder and
primary crusher;
site inspections have confirmed that dust emissions from tipping wastes
onto the raw material stockpile have been substantially reduced since
commissioning the (automated) dousing bar at Tootal Road – a similar
dousing bar will be installed at the Kingston Road site;
Page 44
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
site inspections have confirmed that there are essentially no dust emissions
generated by on-site vehicle movements or by wind erosion of inactive raw
feed stockpiles, product stockpiles or internal roads at Tootal Road (even
during hot, windy periods); and
the potential for off-site dust emissions will be further reduced by the
location of all stockpiles and crushing and screening operations in the base
of the former sand quarry.
Dr Bellair refined his earlier modelling and resultant plots (as contours)
predicting the site’s contribution to off-site air quality, that is, the Ground Level
Concentrations (GLCs) for each of the indicators. He considered three dust
sources:
Waste sorting facility;
Tipping waste onto raw material stockpiles; and
Crushing and screening plant.
His predicted maximum off-site concentrations were for:
24-hour PM10 a GLC of 15 g/m3 which is well below the 60 g/m3 PEM EMI
intervention level;
24-hour PM2.5 a GLC of 3 g/m3 which is well below the 36 g/m3 PEM EMI
intervention level;
Annual RCS (as PM2.5) around 0.03 g/m3 which is well below the 3 g/m3
assessment criterion in PEM EMI; and
Three-Minute Zinc (as PM2.5) around 0.002 g/m3 which is well below the
0.17 g/m3 design criterion in SEPP AQM.
Figure 5 shows an example of Dr Bellair’s model results – a plot for 24-hour
PM1031
.
31
This plot is typical of the several plots Dr Bellair produced.
Page 45
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Figure 5: Predicted Maximum 24- PM10 GLCs, g/m3
(Source: Dr Terry Bellair Statement of Evidence, 25 May 2008)
Dr Bellair also summarised the predicted GLCs at the nearest point of the
Heatherton Christian College as all being less than 10% of the relevant air
quality ‘yardsticks’ (see Table 1), despite him basing the predictions on a series
of conservative assumptions.
Discussion
We note the health impacts from elevated PM2.5 and PM10 levels. We also
recognise air modelling:
Is not an exact science and the results of modelling only provide broad
indications of potential environmental impacts from a particular land use;
and
Relies heavily on the source emission factors used to determine off-site
impacts.
We are reassured by the source emission factors used in this case (for example,
the crushing plant and raw and product stockpiles) as they are in broad
Page 46
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
agreement with the emission factors obtained from different methodology Mr
Tim Pollock of GHD used in assessing the Delta Recycling site for the previous
Advisory Committee hearings in 2005.
We accept the measurement and associated modelling for this site show the fine
particle emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) are well within acceptable limits.
4.1.4 Respirable Crystalline Silica
Respirable Crystalline Silica RCS), a component of PM2.5 that comes from
abrading and grinding soil, sand and other mineral materials, is a recognised
health hazard and of particular interest.
Dr Drew’s health risk assessment was similar to his evidence to the 2005
Advisory Committee. He used Dr Bellair’s predicted annual average GLC for
RCS (as PM2.5) of around 0.03 g/m3 and assumed a background RCS level of
0.70 g/m3 to give an estimated total annual exposure of 0.73 g/m3. He noted:
In this risk assessment a value of 0.03 µg/m3 for incremental respirable
crystalline silica is used for risk calculations, even though incremental
concentrations over background at the maximally affected residence will be much
lower. The annual concentration at the College is estimated to be 0.008 µg/m3.
Dr Drew benchmarked the results against the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996) estimates of crystalline silica potency for
zero risk of silicosis and.the Californian annual ambient air standard for RCS of
3 g/m3. The PEM EMI adopted the same criterion (an intervention level) of 3
g/m3.
Dr Drew again found the levels were about 20 times less than the cumulative
level USEPA estimates is linked with zero risk. He also found the annual
average exposure is around four times less than the chronic ambient air
guideline Californian Standard. Dr Drew also noted a World Health
Organisation statement in 2000 that so far, there are no known adverse health effects
associated with non-occupational exposure to quartz dust32. While Dr Drew did suggest
there were some uncertainties because of the lack of background RCS data and
limited monitoring for his assessment, he concluded levels of respirable
particles measured were so low they pose a negligible health risk for nearby
residents.
We accept the evidence that if SEMR controls emissions as proposed there will
be negligible health risk to the general community posed by emissions of RCS.
32
At the hearing Dr Drew said there has been one case: a Himalayan from burning cow dung.
Page 47
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Measures to protect employees’ health are addressed through Occupational
Health and Safety legislation.
4.1.5 Risk from Asbestos Contamination
Evidence and Submissions
We heard no new evidence about asbestos contamination or emissions, except
confirmation SEMR will not accept any load with or suspected of having any
asbestos.
Ms Tanya Atherton of Noel Arnold & Associates at the 2005 hearings provided
the results of asbestos analysis of samples taken from the Tootal Road site. The
key findings were: asbestos concentrations from all samples were below the
detection limit of <0.01/fibres/ml and were below the occupational exposure
standard of 0.1 fibres/ml.
We noted during site inspections that the sign at the site’s receival and
inspection station states asbestos (plus other materials such as putrescible
waste) is not accepted. We also note the SEMR Site Management Plan and
Environmental Plan requires the weighbridge operator to reject materials that do
not meet the acceptance criteria.
Discussion
Asbestos Regulations require any asbestos that may become disturbed as part
of demolition works is, so far as is reasonably practicable, removed before
works start. However, the previous Advisory Committee heard:
The presence of asbestos in demolitions is difficult to detect and remove fully and
therefore the potential for contamination of Recycled Concrete Aggregate RCA is
seen by government, the construction industry and unions as an issue of great
concern which needs to be adequately addressed33.
In January 2007, Victorian Government agencies released Recycling Construction
and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health and
Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 200334 which outlines best practice procedures to
minimise exposure to asbestos when recycling C & D materials. As
recommended in the best practice procedures guidance document, AFG has a
load inspection procedure in place to minimise the potential for receiving
33
Advisory Committee Report.
34 www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb654f0326631b8/recycling_construction_
demolition.pdf
Page 48
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
asbestos-contaminated loads at the Tootal Road site and signage at the entrance
specifies that no asbestos is accepted at the site.
We accept the results of analysis show that asbestos contamination at the site is
low and SEMR has procedures in place to reduce the risk of accepting asbestos-
contaminated material.
4.1.6 Risk from Timber Grinding
We heard SEMR in the future may use equipment on site to grind or otherwise
reduce timber to a manageable size for transfer to other sites.
Dr Bellair confirmed timber grinding would not cause any odour problems. Dr
Drew said the health risks from timber fibres are very low and he considered
the health risk from this activity would be negligible.
Mr McKellar said SEMR would not start timber grinding on site until the
necessary protocols were in place.
We address potential noise implications of timber grinding in Section 4.2.
4.1.7 Separation from Sensitive Uses (Buffers)
Clause 52.10 identifies industries that may cause offence or pose unacceptable
risks to a neighbourhood35 and State planning policy recognises EPA’s buffer
guidelines. Kingston’s local planning policy includes strategies to reduce
potential industry impacts on adjoining land uses include applying suitable
buffers and minimising commercial traffic intrusions in residential areas36.
There is also clear local planning policy to support waste minimisation by
protecting and maintaining buffers for waste management facilities37.
Evidence and Submissions
We heard no new evidence about buffer distances.
EPA’s Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (July
1990), which are to protect sensitive uses from unintended or accidental air
emissions rather than routine operations, do not specify a buffer distance for
concrete crushing plants. Nor does Clause 52.10 specify a threshold distance for
concrete crushing. However, after considering buffer distances for other similar
activities in the Buffer Distance Guidelines, EPA advised a buffer distance of
35
Clause 52.10 36
Clause 21.07 37
Clause 12.07-2
Page 49
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
300 metres between the concrete crushing plant and residents would provide
satisfactory amenity protection from adverse impacts. Concrete batching,
which has similarities to concrete crushing, has a 100-metre EPA recommended
buffer distance, but a 300-metre threshold distance in Clause 52.1038. Because
there are houses within the 300-metres buffer distance, EPA recommended
extra measures to control dust which include: enclosing all conveyors, either
entirely or in part, and surfacing of internal roads and work areas with a
material such as crushed asphalt.
Dr Bellair considered the most appropriate buffer distance to be the buffer
distance recommended for quarrying of any material without blasting which is 200
metres.
Discussion
We recognise the difficulty in assigning a buffer distance to concrete crushing
when no matching guidelines exist. We note EPA buffer distances:
Relate to air emissions only and greater distances may be required to
account for noise and other impacts;
Are based on the use of best available control technology; and
Address unintended or accidental upset conditions only.
So, we accept the buffer distance should be the more conservative distance of
300 metres EPA recommends, which is more than the current separation
distance between the boundary of the site and houses but less than the distance
to the primary operational areas. However, EPA buffer distances are measured
from the emitter to the property boundary of any sensitive use nearest to the emission
source except in the case of an isolated house in a non residential zone where the house
itself would be the measuring point. Threshold distances in Clause 52.10 are
minimum distances from any part of the site to land (other than a road) in a
residential zone.
EPA considers the proposed environmental management measures to minimise
the dust, which include stopping operations during extreme weather and dust
events, are best practice.
We consider the separation distance between the site and residents is adequate
to protect amenity under normal operations. However, under upset conditions,
such as strong winds or water supply failures, residents could experience
elevated dust levels from the proposed use. We consider the measures
38
The difference in these distances may be due to inclusion of off-site noise impacts.
Page 50
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
proposed for the site address upset conditions and, if a permit issues, it should
be subject to requirements to:
Fully implement its Environmental Management Plan, in particular stopping
operations during adverse weather conditions and when high dust levels
are detected;
Apply suitable all-weather materials or substances to roadways and
unpaved work areas (rather than sealing the roads with say a bituminous
product);
Enclose or screen key parts of the crusher and associated plant and
equipment as proposed.
4.1.8 Air Quality - Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on expert assessments we conclude the air emissions from the site are
expected to be below intervention levels and not at a level that poses a health
risk to nearby residents or Heatherton Christian College students. The dust
management regime proposed will minimise dust emissions and upset
conditions would be addressed by stopping operations in adverse weather
conditions or a dust event.
Recommendations
Require real-time dust monitoring to the satisfaction of EPA.
Require operations on the site to have regard to the monitoring
information and for crushing to stop during adverse weather or a dust
event (to be defined in the Site Management and Environmental
Improvement Plan after consultation with EPA).
Require implementation of the procedures outlined in the Recycling
Construction and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the
Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 as a permit
condition.
4.2 Noise
What is the Issue?
Are noise impacts from the site acceptable?
If not, can adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?
Page 51
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Policy context
SPPF noise abatement policy39 is directed at the control of noise effects on
sensitive land uses taking account of the land use functions and character of the
area. Decision-making by planning and responsible authorities must be
consistent with any relevant aspects of State Environment Protection Policy
(Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1). SEPP
N-1 specifies the maximum levels of noise that may be emitted from
commercial, industrial and trade premises in a noise sensitive area.
The noise limits under SEPP N-1 are determined on the basis of the zoning40 of
land within a 200-metre radius of the noise sensitive locations. Where the
prevailing background noise is particularly high or low, the zoning noise limits
are adjusted using an ‘Influencing Factor’. Under SEPP N-1, when the
background noise level plus 6 dB(A) exceeds the zoning based Noise Limit, the
final noise limit for the Day Period becomes the background noise level plus 6
dB(A). When the background noise level plus 3 dB(A) exceeds the zoning
based Noise Limit, the Final Noise Limit for the Evening and Night Periods
becomes the background noise level plus 3 dB(A).
Evidence
Mr Burton’s evidence identified the following site characteristics as relevant to
the assessment of acoustic impacts:
The site pit floor is between five and seven metres below the natural ground
level with bunds approximately five metres above the natural ground line
on the eastern, southern, and western sides. This gives a total barrier height
of between 10 and 12 metres above the pit floor level.
The site and surrounding land is zoned SUZ2 and the surrounding ground
is level for all practical purposes.
Abutting Kingston Road and Clayton Road to the east carry significant
traffic and are zoned RDZ1.
The majority of the surrounding land uses are landfills, recycling uses or
market gardens.
Across Kingston Road (immediately opposite) is the Heatherton Christian
College is located approximately 350 metres from the centre of the site.
39
Clause 15.05 40
SEPP N-1 zone types are: Type 1: Residential and Rural zoning; Type 2: Light Industry and
Commercial zoning; Type 3: Heavy Industry and Extractive Industries
Page 52
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The closest residentially zoned land is approximately 790 metres to the
north-east from the centre of the site41.
Isolated residences are located approximately 350 metres to the south–east
and south-west, 370 metres to the north-west and 400 metres to the north-
east from the centre of the site.
The Burton Group recorded ambient noise levels over a 24-hour period between
14 and 21 March 2006 at the north-western and south-eastern corners of the site
and on the western boundary and opposite the western residence. Mr Burton’s
acoustic analysis also relied upon previous logging of noise near the northern
boundary of the caretaker’s residence in April 2005. Noise was also measured
close to the plant and equipment at the existing AFG operations at Tootal Road
in September and October 2006.
Mr Burton recommended the following construction materials to achieve
barrier attenuation:
For the crushing and screening enclosure:
- 8 mm thick cement sheet external cladding of the fixed walls and
roof;
- Internal lining of 50 mm thick fibreglass or polyester insulation
(minimum density of 28 kg/m3 density) and retained with 10% open
area perforated sheet metal or wire mesh;
- External lining of the movable roof areas with 25 mm thick
‘Acoustop Barrier Wrap’ consisting of 25 mm acoustic foam (on the
equipment side) with 4.5 kg/m2 loaded vinyl on the upper face;
- Internal lining of the movable roof areas with 10% open area
perforated sheet metal or wire mesh to retain the Acoustop Barrier.
For the waste sorting facility: Internal lining of 75 mm thick fibreglass or
polyester insulation (minimum density of 28 kg/m3 density) and retained
with 10% open area perforated sheet metal or wire mesh.
The SEPP N-1 noise limits at sensitive locations in Mr Burton’s evidence
statement were revised as the SUZ1 had been treated as a Type 3 zone rather
than a Type 1 zone. The revised noise limits and calculated levels are set out in
Table 2. The noise levels were calculated for the proposal with all elements
operating and took account of distance and barrier attenuation, atmospheric
absorption, winds favourable to propagation, and recommended construction
materials for the crushing & screening and waste sorting facilities. An
41
The approximate distance to residential zones is to the east: 2,000m, to the south-east: 1,950metres, to
the south-west: 2,250metres, to the west: 1,850metres, to the north-west: 840metres.
Page 53
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
impulsive loading of 5 dB(A) was applied to account for potential
characteristics of noise generated by tipping.
Sensitive Location 5am – 7am Noise Limit
dB(A)LEQ
7am – 6pm Noise Limit
dB(A)LEQ
6pm – 8pm Noise Limit
dB(A)LEQ
8pm – 5 am Noise Limit
dB(A)LEQ
Calculated Noise Level
dB(A)LEQ
To the North-West 43 55 44 39 49
To the South-West 44 52 47 40 51
To the South-East 49 57 50 44 48
To the North-East 48 59 53 48 51
Table 2: SEPP N-1 Noise Limits at Sensitive Locations
(Source: Burton Evidence 22 May 2008)
Mr Burton’s assessment found that these noise levels would be below the noise
limits at all these locations for full operations between 7am and 6pm.
The hours of operation proposed in the Application were Monday to Saturday:
5am to 8pm, including Public Holidays. SEMR also sought 24-hour operation
three to four times a year to service industry demand. However, Mr Burton
recommended the following restrictions on operations to ensure compliance
with the SEPP N-1 noise limits:
· Between 5am and 7am: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles, no crushing
and screening operations, and no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility,
· Between 6pm and 8pm: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles,
· Between 8pm and 5am: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles, no crushing
and screening operations, and no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility, and no
use for front end loaders.
Mr Burton advised the elimination of the trucks tipping at the top of the
stockpiles removes the impulsive adjustment of 5 dB(A) plus 4 dB(A) for
reduction of engine noise and actual tipping noise. He suggested that ‘Typically
the margin between Day Period and Evening noise limits is less than this margin, so
the conclusions subject to testing will hold’
Mr Burton also recommended that broadband reversing beepers be mandated
on all SEMR/AFR mobile equipment, and that the dust control systems include
silencers in the ducting arrangements.
It became apparent during the hearing that recycling of timber was an
expanding element of the proposed operations. Mr Burton had not taken this
Page 54
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
activity into account in his evidence and sought clarification regarding the
likely methods to be applied (see submissions below). He advised he had
assessed noise from a green waste mulcher at the City of Boroondara and found
a four-metre barrier achieved compliance.
Submissions
EPA had reviewed the Burton Report and largely agreed with its findings and
conclusions. However, EPA noted that the evening and night noise limits
would be substantially exceeded. By way of example, EPA highlighted that the
noise limit for the residences to the west of the site is 47 dB(A), with a calculated
plant Noise Level of 51 dB(A). It was not clear to EPA why the cessation of
tipping at the top of the stockpiles would satisfactorily reduce the Noise Level
by 4 dB(A). We note that Mr Burton explained that the removal of loadings
would actually reduce the noise limits and the calculated noise level would also
be reduced by the restrictions on activities (see above).
EPA did not have a clear understanding of what was proposed in the associated
timber recycling activities. They had understood that timber grinding
operations would be undertaken once or twice per year, and for a period of one
or two days.
EPA also recommended that the hours of operation for major plant and
machinery be limited to the day period only (Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm,
and Saturday 7am to 1pm), until further acoustic recording and assessment
demonstrates compliance with SEPP N-1 limits. EPA also recommended
implementation of the following noise attenuation measures:
· Making good and maintenance of bunding to the perimeter of the proposed
site,
· Use of reversing vehicle “Smart Alarm” beepers or broadband designs for
mobile equipment being compulsory for all internal AFG plant, and for trucks
which regularly visit the site,
· Industry standard mufflers on all mobile plant and equipment,
· Assessment of and where shown necessary, the installation of silencers to the
site dust control systems (when developed), and
· The crushing and screening enclosure and the waste sorting facility enclosure
be constructed to incorporate the specifications recommended in the Burton
Group report (for acoustic cladding and lining).
EPA sought confirmation of compliance with the noise limits when operations
commence and in the event of modifications to equipment and/or operating
procedures occurring that are of sufficient magnitude to influence noise
Page 55
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
emissions from the proposed site, including asphalt, glass and timber grinding.
The recommended monitoring locations were at the nearest residential
dwellings and Heatherton Christian College.
Several of the submitters opposing the proposal raised the potential for
detrimental noise impact upon neighbouring dwellings. While they
acknowledged that the ambient noise levels from road traffic were salient to the
proposal, they were concerned that noise during evening and night periods
would be unacceptable.
RAID and Mr McIntosh specifically raised concerns regarding any proposed
waste material grinding operations using a ‘Hammel Grinder’. They also
questioned the capacity of the relevant authorities to monitor and prosecute any
non-compliance, based upon prior instances of alleged inaction by Kingston
City Council and EPA.
Submissions relating to this issue on behalf of the Applicant provided some
clarification of what would actually occur with respect to material grinding. Mr
McKellar stated that if a Hammel Grinder were to be used that it would be of a
lesser capability than that illustrated by Mr Dawson. AFG currently uses a
smaller version (model number VB750) in its operations in Queensland. Mr Pitt
advised that the maximum noise level of this grinder is 79 dB at three metres,
which he suggested is comfortably within the noise limits identified in Mr
Burton’s evidence.
Discussion
The SEPP N-1 noise limits will apply to the proposal and establish acoustic
performance requirements for the operation.
We note that the proposed plant would have acoustic cladding installed to the
specifications recommended by Mr Burton. He advised that this attenuation is
necessary to negate the 8 dB(A) noise increase due to internal reverberation
resulting from enclosure of plant within a building – his calculations had taken
account of the enclosure and recommended treatment of the building.
We are concerned that the noise implications of timber grinding have not been
adequately evaluated and note that Mr McKellar acknowledged that the use
should not operate until appropriate assessment and protocols are in place.
Otherwise, we accept the evidence and advice of EPA that operations in the
Day Period (Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm, and Saturday 7am to 1pm) are
likely to comply with noise limits.
However it is not as clear that evening and night period noise limits are likely
to be satisfied. Mr Burton recommended operational restrictions during these
Page 56
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
time periods which he suggested would result in compliance with SEPP N-1 at
all sensitive location. However, we note that the written advice of recalculated
noise limits tabled on the final day of the hearing, after Mr Burton had
presented his evidence, reduced the noise limits in some locations and raises
questions about likely night-time compliance in some locations (for example, in
the north-west and south-west).
We support the limitations on operations recommended by Mr Burton.
However, it is the actual noise performance that is important rather than
modelled calculations. The actual noise levels should be recorded and
monitored in the first months of operations for assessment against the SEPP N-1
noise limits. This assessment would substantiate that the limitations imposed
actually achieve the noise reductions anticipated. If the noise levels are
exceeded, further restrictions on operations and/or attenuation measures would
be required. This performance audit during the establishment phase of the
proposal should minimise the likelihood of subsequent enforcement action
being required, which was a significant concern of some submitters.
We also consider that any permit for the proposal should include a condition
requiring compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits. Although these noise limits
apply irrespective of whether compliance is required by a planning permit,
inclusion of this a permit condition would enable third parties to initiate
enforcement proceedings rather than relying on EPA to act if breaches were to
occur.
On the issue of reversing beepers, AFG mobile plant is fitted with ‘Smart
Alarms’ or broadband beepers and this should be a condition of permit.
However, as Mr Burton acknowledged, the control over visiting vehicles could
be difficult. The use of such reversing beepers is critical, especially outside the
Day Period into the Evening and Night Periods when background noise is
lower and under certain atmospheric conditions such noise could carry further
afield. Therefore we are of the view that no heavy vehicles should be permitted
onto the site during the Evening and Night Periods unless these beepers are
installed and fully operational. This would exclude cars, vans, and light trucks.
Twenty-four hour operations are sought ‘three to four times per year’ for
deliveries and despatches to respond to industry requirements (such as night-
time road works). In reality the sources of waste materials can create demand
at virtually any time (of the day or year), and the demands of the road and
building construction sectors often dictate out-of-hours deliveries. We accept
24-hour loading and off-loading for a maximum of three times within a 12
month period and subject to prior approval by Council, but other activities
should not be permitted.
Page 57
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
We agree with those submitters highlighting the rights to sleep of neighbouring
residential occupants, and to have reasonable levels of noise during the Night
Periods, and during designated Christmas, Good Friday and Anzac Day
holidays. Therefore, no Evening or Night period operations should be
approved for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Anzac Day designated
holidays.
We conclude that:
Timber grinding should not be permitted until an acoustic report has been
prepared which identifies any measures necessary to ensure compliance
with SEPP N-1 noise levels;
The proposal, with measures recommended by Mr Burton, is likely to
comply with SEPP N-1 noise limits but an audit of acoustic performance to
substantiate compliance noise limits should be undertaken by a suitably
qualified person when the use establishes and if aspects of the operations
change;
The acoustic attenuation measures and restrictions on operations
recommendations made by Mr Burton should be included as requirements if
a permit issues;
24-hour deliveries and despatches should be subject to prior approval from
Council and limited to three times within a 12-month period; and
‘Smart Alarms’ or broadband beepers be fitted to all AFG/SEMR mobile
plant operating at the site and on all visiting heavy vehicles outside daytime
hours. Industry standard mufflers should be fitted on all mobile plant and
equipment.
Advisory Committee Recommendations
Require the use to comply with SEPP N-1 at all times
Restrict operations on the site as follows:
- Between 5am and 7am Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of
the stockpiles, no crushing and screening operations, and no
sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility.
- Between 6pm and 8pm Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of
the stockpiles.
- The use must not operate between 8pm and 5am Monday to Friday,
6pm and 7 am Saturday or at any time on Sunday. The use may
operate during these times with the prior approval of the
Responsible authority on up to three days in a 12 month period
subject to the following restrictions:
o No tipping at the top of the stockpiles,
o no crushing and screening operations,
Page 58
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
o no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility, and
o no use of front-end loaders.
The use must not operate on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, or before
1pm on Anzac Day.
Require a post-occupancy noise level audit when the use is fully
operational and if operations change to substantiate compliance with the
SEPP N-1 noise limits.
Require all mobile plant on-site and all heavy vehicles regularly visiting
the site would be fitted with ‘Smart Alarm’ or broadband reversing
beepers. This would exclude cars, vans and light trucks.
Require industry standard mufflers on all mobile plant and equipment.
Require acoustic treatment of the crushing and screening plant and the
Waste Sorting Facility enclosures in accordance with recommendations of
a suitably qualified person.
4.3 Visual Impacts
The Issues
Would the proposed development operations have a detrimental impact
upon the visual amenity of the surrounding precinct?
Would the proposed use adversely affect the potential rehabilitation and
amenity of the area after operations were to cease?
Policy context
The Northern Non-urban Area Framework , the South East Green Wedge Management
Plan, and the Sandbelt Open Space Project Development Plan provide policy
context and indicate a clear intention to transform the visual quality and
amenity of the currently degraded landscape. The vision for the locality seeks
uses and development that are compatible with the Chain of Parks and
strategies are aimed at protecting the amenity within core parkland.
Parks Victoria, which has primary responsibility for implementation of the
Chain of Parks, has considered this proposal and expressed no objection in
respect of visual impacts associated with the proposal.
Evidence and Submissions
Submitters opposing the proposal (RAID and Mr Andrew McIntosh in
particular) alleged that the surrounding Baxter landfill is already higher than
the permit allowed and tabled photographs to demonstrate the breach. They
submitted that recreational users of these reclaimed areas would easily be able
to view the bottom of the existing AFG quarry site. Mr Dawson expressed the
Page 59
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
view that bund heights have been increased on the subject site before a permit
was granted. Submitters repeated assertions that breaches of permit conditions
were not adequately prosecuted, and that the authorities would not be able to
ensure that this proposal complied to stockpile heights.
Ms Rimington suggested that the SEMR operations would have a detrimental
impact upon groundwater supplies, and this could impact upon the ongoing
survival of the buffer plantings.
Mr Pullen and Ms Rimington submitted that the quarry site should be
rehabilitated now and, consistent with current policy and long-term strategies
for the locality, should be developed for uses that are compatible with
parkland. This would enhance the visual amenity of the precinct and attract
recreational uses.
Ms Smith’s evidence was that the landscape plan (see Figure 1) would enhance
amenity and create habitat for fauna. This planting consists of upper (to 15
metres), mid (four to eight metres), and lower storey species (0.3 to 1.5 metres)
designed to reduce the visual permeability of the buffers around the perimeter
of the site. The implementation of the landscape plan has already been initiated
on perimeter bunds and internal buffer areas which have been planted with
over 49,000 indigenous trees, shrubs and groundcovers of local provenance. An
irrigation system has been installed to ensure the plantings became well
established. Ms Smith stated that the species chosen would require low water
applications once established, and achieve mature screening in seven to ten
years. Her inspections in May and June 2008 indicated the vast majority of
plants were progressing well with excellent rates of growth.
Ms Smith indicated in her evidence that the plantings would be maintained for
a two-year period but Mr Pitt clarified there would be ongoing maintenance for
the life of a permit.
Several additional and modified bunds would be created within the site, to
visually shield stockpiles and further reduce visual permeability until plantings
mature.
Ms Smith noted that the existing bunds make it difficult to see within the site
from Kingston Road but she had not considered view lines from other locations
outside the site. Mr Pitt added that the stockpile heights could be limited to
until the plantings matured, when the stockpile heights could be increased to 35
metres Australian Height Datum (AHD).
Page 60
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Discussion
The visual impact of the proposal from the public realm is a key concern.
Views from other properties are also an important consideration, particularly
given strategies to transform the character of the area. We note the description
on the Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan recognises that this area is
currently distinguished from other non- urban areas by the presence of
buildings that could be equated to industrial operations. The properties to the
immediate east are an obvious example. However, perpetuating uses with low
visual amenity is a deterrent to others to pursue higher amenity options for
their land and would undermine the impetus for the realisation of planning
objectives for the area. We place great weight on ensuring the proposal makes a
positive contribution to the appearance of the locality.
We note that bunding around the site (which have heights of 30 to 40 metres
AHD) already substantially screens the site and SEMR has demonstrated a clear
commitment to screening the proposed facility from the neighbouring precinct
by initiating very significant buffer plantings on the perimeter bunds. The
Landscape Plan presented is likely to achieve the desired screening as the trees
and scrubs mature within seven to ten years. Ongoing maintenance and
irrigation of these plantings will be crucial, especially since they are located
atop high bunds, where little natural precipitation will be absorbed before run-
off. We accept that screening around the crushing plant and waste sorting
facility will be acceptable.
The stockpile height maximums need to be definitively set at AHD levels, at a
level that ensures they are not seen from ground level on the opposite side of
the roads adjoining the site.
The lowest bund height is at 30 metres AHD at the western boundary of the
site, and a five-metre stockpile height above this level would still be five metres
below the predicted height of the mature plantings on this bunding. SEMR and
Council suggested a maximum stockpile height of 35 metres AHD can be
supported on visual impact grounds (as distinct from any dust considerations).
We consider the stockpile heights should ensure effective screening of views of
the stockpiles while bund planting grows with an increased height being
permitted when mature planting fulfils the intended screening purpose. This
could be achieved but limiting the stockpile heights to 32 metres AHD initially,
and providing scope for approval by the Responsible Authority of an increase
to 35 metres AHD when the plantings provide adequate screening. The
potential relocation of the stockpiles in the south-west corner of the site was
discussed at the hearing but we consider the arrangements discussed above are
sufficient to ensure appropriate screening.
Page 61
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
We recognise that line-of-sight from the neighbouring landfill site to the north,
may mean the use is visible from that land. We accept that it may be difficult to
completely eliminate views to the proposed operations from this (and
potentially other) higher vantage point. However, we are satisfied that as the
proposed plantings will have matured to substantially soften external views
from higher land in the north by the time the landfill is rehabilitated.
We also note that this higher land between the site and land to be acquired for
the Chain of Parks intercepts views. This means the proposal would not be
visible from the parkland even if the park was to be developed during the life of
the permit.
We conclude that extensive landscaping of the site will make a positive
contribution to the appearance of the locality. This is an important first step to
rehabilitation of the site and the area generally. The combination of the pit floor
location, bunding and the extensive landscaping will ensure that the visual
impacts from the proposal can be satisfactorily addressed. The stockpiles
should be limited to 32 metres AHD initially, and be located to ensure they are
not visible from Kingston Road at the entrance to the site. Once the
landscaping and plantings have matured to adequately screen the stockpiles,
Council approval could be sought to increase the stockpile height to 35 metres
AHD. The bund plantings need to be maintained for the duration of any
permit, including irrigation as required until plantings matures.
Advisory Committee Recommendations
Limit the height of all stockpiles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority, to:
32 metres AHD until the plantings mature to effectively screen the
stockpiles,
thereafter to 35 metres AHD.
4.4 Water Impacts
The Issues
Is the proposal’s heavy reliance on water usage sustainable?
Can the stormwater within the site be adequately managed?
What are the impacts upon groundwater and, if any, how would they be
managed appropriately?
The 2005 Advisory Committee concluded that ‘Water quality and management
issues were adequately addressed in the Alex Fraser Group proposal .’ however, it
considered the storm water management and the water budget for the
Page 62
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
proposed operations required further assessment and monitoring. Given that a
prolonged dry period has continued since the last Advisory Committee
deliberations, the introduction of potable water restrictions, and further
groundwater extraction has occurred, it is prudent to re-examine the water
impacts of this proposal.
Policy Context
The State Planning Policy Framework42 requires Planning and Responsible
Authorities’ decisions to be consistent with Waters of Victoria and specific
catchment policies, to ensure the discharge of contaminated run-off or wastes is
minimised and the quality of groundwater resources is protected. The
Environmental Protection Act 1970 is also relevant in relation to groundwater
protection and environmental auditing. The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria)
also stipulates uses for water per levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
Some changes in policy have occurred since the previous iteration of this
proposal, particularly in relation to restrictions on the use potable water and
groundwater extractions. For example, under Melbourne Water level 3A
restrictions businesses using 10 megalitres of water or more per year must now
complete a water conservation action plan with outdoor usage consistent with
residential measures, water efficient production processes (water management
plans), use of recycled water in manufacturing processes (where possible and fit
for purpose), water efficient taps, toilets etc. These measures relate to potable
water, but the government is also promoting water reuse and recycling to
advance sustainability objectives. Groundwater controls within Groundwater
Management Areas (GMA) include restrictions on the number of bore licences
being approved and the metering and monitoring of groundwater extractions.
Proposed Water Management
The current ground surface levels within the quarry site range from 22.7 metres
to 32 metres AHD. It is proposed to shape the site so that surface water will
drain to a sump. A hardstand area of approximately 11 hectares will be
covered with a 300-millimetre layer of crushed concrete/brick and compacted
recycled bituminous materials. After re-shaping, the deepest part of the site
would be at approximately 21 metres AHD.
The existing water ponds, which are below the level of the regional water table,
would act as storage for surface water run-off. The ponds would be
interconnected by drains and pumps, to recycle water for the operations within
the site (that is, dousing of incoming materials, wash-down, and dust
42
Clause 15.01
Page 63
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
suppression). As these ponds are in direct hydraulic contact with the
groundwater, water would be extracted from the water table during dry
periods when a net loss of water occurred within the site.
Submissions
Several submissions, particularly from Ms Rimington, stated concerns
previously expressed in 2005 regarding the proposal’s impact on water. These
submissions focused on the potential for the groundwater to be contaminated
by the surface water leeching from the storage ponds. The bores within the
surrounding GMA apply groundwater for a variety of uses, including market
gardens and other horticultural enterprises, golf course irrigation, and
municipal parks.
EPA supported the recommendations in the URS Report and the expert witness
statement of Mr Parker. As the groundwater is known to be mildly acidic, EPA
considered any residual interaction between stockpile run-off will have a
neutralising effect and is not anticipated to have any detrimental effect on
groundwater.
Evidence
Mr Parker’s evidence referred to the 2005 Advisory Committee hearing
evidence by URS43 and relied upon subsequent additional work by Hydrologist
Mr Craig Schultz regarding the water balance, which confirmed the earlier
work by URS.
The URS Report 2005 analysed the groundwater and a proposed water budget
for the operations at that time. A field investigation was undertaken by URS in
September 2004, and analysis of water samples showed that some surface water
at the proposed site is low pH (that is, acidic, particularly in the slimes ponds).
However, URS noted that wetting of the crushed concrete stockpiles produces
alkaline wastewater, which when disposed to a common sump and acidic
slimes ponds, would have a neutralising affect. Data also showed that the
levels of TDS in the bores near the site are consistent with the A1/A2 segment of
the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria), that is, uses compatible with the
maintenance of the ecosystems etc.
Mr Parker’s evidence noted (in part) that:
Groundwater levels under the proposed site are likely to vary from 25
metres AHD at the north-east corner to around 23 metres AHD and possibly
lower under the centre and south-west corner.
43
“Water Management Study – Kingston Road, Clarinda” URS 2005
Page 64
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The groundwater flow direction is not well defined from available
information and may be influenced by landfills to the north and east.
Groundwater levels to the north and east are higher than at the site, and
likely to rise further as landfills are completed in the area.
It can be expected that as landfills in the area are closed, regional
groundwater levels are likely to rise. Data from surrounding landfills do
not indicate significant current contamination of groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of the site. However, groundwater quality may degrade
in the future as the water table recovers.
The water storage and management system will need to cater for current
groundwater inflow and potentially rising groundwater levels in the future.
If the volumes of water that need to be managed become a problem in the
future, the floor level could be raised by further filling to create a platform
above the water table.
Given that the groundwater sump will be potentially below the water table,
consideration needs to be given to the quality of run-off water that will be
directed to the sump. Sediment traps should be included in the water
management system.
We note that the difference in levels between the surrounding the groundwater
table and the proposed lower hardstand floor could be between 0.5 and 3.5
metres, encouraging inflows into the site. The URS Report in 2005 noted that
there are two regional aquifers from which this water is likely to be sourced.
URS stated that this groundwater is effectively discharging through the
northern water storage ponds and the central sump, keeping the groundwater
levels below the floor level of the site. This water supply would be utilised by
the proposed crushing operations during dry periods for dust suppression, on
roadways, and on stockpiles (up to 65 m3/day). Water would leave the site
within product aggregate (10-13% moisture content), and via evaporation. URS
estimated the total annual loss at approximately 71 megalitres per annum
which would be offset by rainfall and surface water run-off and groundwater
extraction.
Discussion
Groundwater
We conclude that the storage ponds are effectively interfacing with the
groundwater and the current flow is inwards from the water table and there is
little potential for contamination of groundwater from the proposal.
We accept the expert evidence that if anything the water table level is likely to
rise, but given climate change, drought, and increasing bore water extractions,
Page 65
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
this should be monitored for any changes in the future. This would mean that
groundwater inflows would continue. Use of this inflow water would
constitute a groundwater extraction, and as the site is within the regulated
Moorabbin GMA, should be licensed by Southern Rural Water (SRW). The use
of groundwater is a matter that should be addressed in the development of the
water budget for the site and the Site Management and Environmental
Improvement Plan.
Surface Water Run-off
A consequence of the predicted groundwater table level rising would be that
slotted drainage lines would need to be installed to assist flows from the floor
of the site to the sump.
URS recommended in 2005 that a clay liner be constructed right across the floor
of the site, with an under drain beneath, whereas Mr Parker’s opinion was that
this is not warranted, given the low risk to groundwater from the proposed
alkaline run-off from site operations. URS also recommended a High Density
Polyurethane (HDPE) liner in the storage ponds.
We concur with this recommendation to conserve water and minimise water
seepage. Containment of rainwater on the site is considered below within the
‘Water Balance Budget’ section.
We are of the view that the design of the site floor should ensure that the water
loss through seepage is minimised and surface water is captured and efficiently
directed back to the storage ponds for reuse. This is a civil engineering design
matter that can be addressed as part of a Water Management Strategy in the Site
Management and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority, after consultation with SRW and EPA. The following
should be addressed in regard to water conservation, and environmental
protection:
Groundwater level monitoring, via test bores around the site (if adequate
data are available from existing bores in the immediate area, monitoring
does not need to be duplicated);
The site floor should be shaped and made stable to capture and direct
surface water to the storage ponds and designed to maximise water
conservation and minimise the potential for contamination of the
groundwater; and
Drainage should be designed to ensure that no surface water run-off leaves
the site and storage ponds should be lined with HDPE membranes.
Page 66
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Water Balance Budget
URS in 2005 reported the water usage versus rainfall balance in terms of two
scenarios: average monthly values, and monthly value for a very wet year. Its
results indicated that 37 megalitres of run-off water would be required to be
disposed of in an average year, and 47 megalitres may need to be disposed in a
wet year. Utilising an evaporative pond area of 2.5 hectares, this ‘disposal’
could be achieved via evaporation and the other on-site uses of the water as
previously discussed.
This would effectively mean that the site could accommodate the inflows from
rainfall, based upon 1 in 100 year rain event history, requiring nil off-site
discharges. However, during the summer period and/or with less rainfall than
predicted, there would be a net deficit within the site. URS stated that this
deficit would be made up through groundwater inflows in some periods of the
year.
We note again that some groundwater extraction is anticipated. If for some
reason groundwater extraction is not granted by SRW, SEMR would need to
access an alternative source of water.
We have noted submitters’ concerns relating to water usage, but are satisfied
that the expert evidence predicts an acceptable water balance outcome.
In the event that a net water decline is experienced in the water storage ponds,
the operations will depend upon water extraction from the groundwater, and
SRW would have to be satisfied that this is achievable over the period of the
proposed permit.
In terms of accommodating 1 in 100 year storm events, the implications of
recent climate change predictions of increased water volumes and intensity
during more extreme storms should be considered. The URS recommendations
in 2005 may benefit from review, before any further drainage and storage
design is undertaken.
We note that:
A Land Subject to Inundation Overlay applies to the south eastern corner of the
site; and
The Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan states that ‘Sizeable
environmental benefits will be derived through the rehabilitation of much of the
subject land including scope to create a wetlands system fed by the Clayton South
main Drain. Such wetlands would assist with the anticipated flood storage
Page 67
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
requirements identified by Melbourne Water to be in the order of 27,000 m3 on the
southern end of this precinct’.
However, Melbourne Water has considered the Application and has not raised
the issue of flood water storage in its submission, nor has it required a permit
condition addressing that issue. We are unable to comment further on the
matter, except to suggest that a wetlands system could be incorporated into a
potential Employment Enterprise precinct plan and this potential should be
taken into account in planning for rehabilitation and after-use of the site.
Recommendation
Address the water management and system design in the Site Management
and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority after consultation with Southern Rural Water and EPA to:
Ensure surface water does not leave the site;
Provide for a potential rising groundwater levels;
Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are adopted,
including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;
Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimises the
potential for groundwater contamination; and
Specify parameters for the groundwater, storage ponds and monitoring.
4.5 Traffic and Parking
What is the Issue?
Are impacts from traffic movements to and from the site acceptable?
Can any adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?
Site Layout and Access
The proposed access and car parking arrangements44 are almost identical with
the earlier (2005) permit application (see Figure 1). Key features include:
20 car spaces and seven truck parking spaces45;
An internal road loop to access stockpiles and hardstand areas and allows
convenient and efficient manoeuvrability for trucks. Domestic and
commercial vehicle movements within the site are separated;
Vehicle access to the site at an unsignalised intersection on Kingston Road
which preserves two traffic lanes in each direction and provides separate
44
Evidence Statement - Mr Hunt - Traffic Engineering, 11 June 2008. 45
We note the earlier application proposed eight truck spaces.
Page 68
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
right and left turn lanes into the site. It also has a left turn slip lane from the
site46. The southern kerb line of Kingston Road does not change as road
widening for the access is on the north side of Kingston Road; and
Sight distances at the access are greater than specified in Austroads’ Traffic
Engineering Practice – Part 5 Intersections at Grade.
4.5.1 Traffic
Kingston Road, which becomes Heatherton Road east of Clayton Road, is a
primary east-west arterial road providing a connection to Warrigal Road and
Clayton Road. Kingston Road at and near the site has a 12-metre wide
pavement with two lanes in each direction (lanes not line marked) and a
painted centreline. The prevailing speed limit is 70 kilometres an hour. Traffic
counts47 in February 2005 showed average two-way weekday traffic volumes in Kingston Road of around 18,700 vehicles. Mr Hunt expects the critical operating
period for the facility to be the morning peak and traffic counts48 recorded 1,924
vehicles (784 eastbound and 1,176 westbound) between 7am and 9am, 10% of
which were commercial vehicles.
The site is expected to generate around 400 vehicles a day49 (mainly trucks). We
note the volumes are double the 200 vehicles a day forecast in the earlier
application. Based on traffic surveys at AFG’s Dohertys Road site in Laverton
North in December 2002, Mr Hunt expects the proposed use will generate
around 44 vehicle movements in the critical weekday 8am to 9am traffic peak.
Mr Hunt said SIDRA is not a suitable tool for analysing how the proposed
access will perform because it assumes random arrivals whereas, in this case,
traffic on Kingston Road forms platoons because of traffic signals at Old
Dandenong Road and Clayton Road. He used gap analysis from video
recordings of traffic to determine capacities for individual movements and then
compared them with forecast movements at the proposed access. This analysis
showed degrees of saturation of less than 0.1 for each of the three critical
movements (left out, right in and right out). His view is the proposed access
arrangements for the facility will have no significant impact on Kingston Road.
In his analysis of ten-year traffic implications at the site, Mr Hunt applied an
annual compounded growth rate of three per cent for through traffic volumes
typically used for major projects. The morning peak hour volumes would
increase to 1,005 eastbound and 1,580 westbound. He said it will not
46
Cardno Grogan Richards Drawing No.107340/T/01/P3 47
Arranged by Council and, we understand, undertaken by Grogan Richards 48
Between 7am and 9am on 1 May 2008 arranged by Cardno Grogan Richards 49
200 vehicle movements into the site and 200 movements from the site.
Page 69
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
dramatically change how Kingston Road performs because the upstream
signals will still create platoons.
Mr Hunt added that Kingston City Council expects decreases in daily traffic
volumes after Dingley Freeway opens, potentially cancelling the three per cent
compound growth rate.
Although SEMR proposed installing traffic signals at the access, VicRoads said,
around 40 vehicle movements an hour in the AM peak does not meet the
warrants. VicRoads said the warrants need a minimum of 100 vehicles an hour,
adding there are also no safety related issues at the proposed access site.
Submissions
Some submitters, notably RAID, raised traffic issues, mainly possible flaws in
the traffic assessment, including:
Limited timeframes for surveying Kingston Road traffic;
Focus on assessing impacts during the morning peak hour, rather than also
considering the afternoon peak hour impacts;
Peak movement data based on potentially outdated Laverton North site
traffic profiles;
Ignores Heatherton Christian College access and safety impacts;
Likely impacts on Kingston Road whose design is not suitable for large
vehicles and excessive traffic flow;
Possible future signals will cause excessive traffic congestion; and
Any likely benefits from Dingley Freeway are many years away.
Council expressed no concerns about the traffic assessment and proposals
except:
Some matters of detail about the proposed access intersection, including
cost; and
Doubt the predicted increase in traffic will happen ‘given the reality the
limited purpose of the use is for materials recycling and will not generally function
as a Refuse Transfer Station’.
Discussion
We accept Mr Hunt’s evidence that the proposed access arrangements will
provide for safe and efficient access to and from the site with no material
operational or safety impacts on traffic movements along Kingston Road and on
Heatherton Christian College, including:
Page 70
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The robustness of the proposed Type ‘C’ intersection to cope with the
arguably conservative 400 vehicle movements a day (around 40 vehicle
movements in the morning peak hour); and
The road network’s capacity to absorb any extra traffic from both this
proposal and the proposed expansion of student numbers at the college.
At our site inspections we noted the present access arrangements to the
Heatherton Christian College. We recognise students use both normal bus
services along Kingston Road and a private bus which uses the former section
of Boundary Road adjoining the eastern boundary of the school.
We note VicRoads said in its letter dated 5 June 2008 to Council the proposed
access arrangement is acceptable in principle. VicRoads also set out some
conditions if a permit issues.
Council and VicRoads were agreeable to SEMR reviewing the access
arrangements five years after the use starts to see if there is a need for signals,
or any other improvements. A permit condition is proposed to trigger review
of the access arrangements.
We are satisfied that:
The internal road layout provides for safe and efficient movement of
vehicles;
Kingston Road is an arterial road with sufficient capacity to take the extra
traffic from the proposal, mainly trucks, given current and likely traffic
growth from other developments in the area;
VicRoads expressed no concerns about the likely impacts on Kingston Road
at the site or on the broader road network;
The proposal would not have a significant, if any, impact on accessibility and road safety for all road users at and near the site;
The detailed layout design for Kingston Road at the site’s access point
would need to satisfy VicRoads. This would include the locations for signs,
such as, the 40 kilometre an hour school zone signs;
It is reasonable to include a permit condition will trigger review of access
arrangements in five years time; and
Heatherton Christian College will need to manage student access and safety
issues in a changing traffic environment, with or without the refuse transfer
station and materials recycling proposal.
Page 71
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
4.5.2 Car Parking
The Application seeks dispensation from the Clause 52.06 materials recycling
parking requirement which is to set aside 10% of the site area (2.1 hectares) for
car spaces and access lanes (but not driveways). There is no specified rate for a
refuse transfer station. The Responsible Authority can reduce or waive car
parking requirements based on, for example, an empirical assessment of car
parking demand.
What is the Issue?
Is the proposed on-site car parking provision acceptable?
Evidence
Mr Hunt said the proposed 20 spaces would be enough for staff car parking
based on one space for each of the proposed maximum of 15 staff with five
visitor spaces. He noted the significant hardstand areas proposed around the
site could supplement the formal car parking.
Discussion
The five visitor car spaces proposed should be enough for the limited number
of visitors likely to visit the site for purposes other than delivering feedstock
(housed elsewhere on the site). Importantly, there is space to house any
occasional overflow demand within the site without off-site impacts. Given the
nature of the transfer station use, we understand it produces no extra parking.
We find that on-site parking for at least 20 cars is acceptable. We note the site is
big enough to accommodate occasional overflow car parking if needed and
SEMR should identify an area for this purpose on the site plan.
Advisory Committee Recommendation
Approve the decrease in the on-site car parking required in Clause 52.06 of
the Kingston Planning Scheme to 20 car spaces subject to a permit condition
requiring an area for occasional overflow visitor parking to be identified on
the endorsed plans.
Page 72
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
5. Proposed Advertising Signs
The Application seeks approval of an internally-illuminated or flood-lit
business sign.
Statutory Context
Clause 52.05 of the planning scheme establishes permit requirements and the
basis for assessment of applications. For the purposes of this clause the SUZ is
in Category 3 (high amenity areas) zone where medium limitations apply to
advertising signs and the proposed business identification signs require a
planning permit. Clause 52.05 indicates that a permit expires 15 years after it
issues unless the permit specifies an alternative expiry date.
The advertising signs were not contentious. However the Council officer report
on the Application indicated insufficient information was available to assess the
signage aspect of the application.
We find:
The signs would not contribute to visual disorder or clutter, nor would they
adversely affect the amenity or landscape values of the area; and
The signage is necessary for identification of the business and is not
excessive for that purpose.
The expiry of the permit for the advertising signs should align with the
recommended sunset condition attached to the use.
Advisory Committee Recommendation
A permit should be granted for the proposed business identification sign.
The expiry of the permit for the advertising sign should align with the
recommended sunset condition for the use.
Page 73
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
6. Planning Permit Conditions
This Chapter addresses a number of matters not raised elsewhere in this report
and permit drafting issues raised by the parties, rather than repeating the
discussion or recommendation on issues addressed in earlier chapters.
Council circulated draft ‘Without Prejudice’ Planning Permit Conditions which
provided the basis for discussion at the end of the hearing.
EPA’s Role
We note that in the hearing for the Tootal Road Application EPA did not
support conditions requiring the submission of information to or approval of
matters by EPA on the following basis:
They could create unnecessary administrative requirements and EPA has
sufficient authority to require information where issues arise without it
being a permit requirement;
The information should be submitted to Council as the responsible authority
(although EPA could receive a copy);
It would be implied that EPA would act on the information; and
The information could be useful in the context of an EIP process where it
would be shared with interested stakeholders.
However, we are conscious it is EPA, rather than Council, that has both
expertise in and responsibility for administering regulations relating to air
quality and noise. Therefore a number of condition provide for consultation
with EPA where matters are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Restricting the Permit to this Applicant
If a permit issues, Council sought a permit condition requiring the Applicant to
operate the use on the basis that the complex environmental protection regimes
necessary to meet core performance expectations require implementation by a
proven operator.
The Tootal Road Application did include such a condition given the nature of
management requirements. The Tootal Road Panel noted that AFG is a
recognised industry leader, it had an established management regime on the
site that far exceeds the usual practice in the industry, a change in operator
could create new issues, and continuity in management was desirable given the
limited recommended life of the permit.
Page 74
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
While the management requirements are very similar in this Application, in this
instance the permit would have a longer life and we do not think a restriction
on the operator is warranted. The permit conditions establish requirements that
must be satisfied and, while the performance requirements are demanding,
other operators should be capable of satisfying them. SEMR has demonstrated
a commitment to act on the permit and it seems unlikely that the issue of a
different operator will arise.
Concerns with Specific Conditions
SEMR accepted most of the draft conditions but the Table below highlights
some drafting issues raised and our response. We have made various other
edits to conditions that do not involve substantive changes or warrant specific
comment.
Circulated Condition Advisory Committee Comment
1(d) required a response to the Native Vegetation
management framework.
Only one possibly native tree is proposed to be
removed. If this tree is in fact native vegetation, the planting proposed is clearly adequate to offset this loss. Condition 1(d) is not required
A number of conditions are superfluous or repetitive:
Condition 8 relating to crusher dust emission controls
Overlap between the Site and Environmental Management Plan (Conditions 9-14) and EPA conditions (28 to 39)
The conditions relating to the Site and Environmental
Management Plan and comparable EPA conditions relating to an Environmental Improvement Plan have
been consolidated in an edited form under Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan.
Condition 15 related to further traffic impact
assessment
This condition is no longer relevant as expert evidence
addressed the matters raised (see VicRoads letter dated 6 August 2008)
Condition 17 related to use of VicRoads pre-qualified
contractors.
This is not relevant to the Planning Permit.
Conditions 19, 27 and 29 were required by referral
authorities. They relate to obligations under other legislation
These are not appropriate permit conditions but can be
included as notes.
Condition 21 related to a requirement to designate land
as ‘Road’ plan of subdivision.
This condition was not addressed at the hearing but
appears to be a standard condition that does not relate
to this proposal as it does not involve road widening affecting private land or subdivision.
Internal road and car park surface, marking of car
spaces.
We note that sealing internal roads was opposed
because the hotter surface would add to the dust management task because the dust deposited on the
sealed road would dry out more quickly. We consider that a gravel/crushed asphalt surface treated with a dust suppressant would be appropriate. This surface treatment means line marking of car spaces is
problematic and alternative identification of spaces would be appropriate, for example, domes.
Page 75
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Appendix A Revised Draft Permit
PERMIT PREAMBLE
The permit allows:
The use and development of the land for MATERIALS RECYCLING in
conjunction with REFUSE TRANSFER STATION for a maximum of 15 years
duration;
A reduction of car parking requirements for the Materials Recycling use;
A Business Identification Sign;
native vegetation removal;
alteration to access to a Road Zone; and
in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
1 Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of
the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies
must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the Site
Layout and Landscape Concept Plan (PML7795 LSO1) and plans submitted with
the application but modified to show and/or include:
(a) an area for occasional overflow visitor parking;
(b) full details including location, size and method of floodlighting any signage
proposed as part of the application;
(c) full details are provided of all road pavement treatments through the subject
site;
(d) provision of a detailed construction staging plan;
(e) a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 55.
2 Before the development and/or use starts a suitable landscape plan for the whole
site must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When
approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three
copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the
Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan (PML7795 LSO1) submitted with the
application but modified to show and/or include:
Page 76
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
(a) a planting schedule which accurately illustrates the amount and location of
each of the indicated species to be planted;
(b) the use of indigenous species of the region to maximise biodiversity value;
(c) the use of Eucalyptus ovata to lower lying areas (base of bunds);
(d) details of the proposed maintenance regime (including mulching method
and irrigation) for the landscaping.
3 Before the use starts a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of
the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must be
prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and must include (but is
not limited to):
(a) description of measures to be taken to ensure that the land is rehabilitated so
as to ensure it is suitable for appropriate after-use within 12 months of the
permitted development and use operations ceasing; provide for:
(b) removal of plant, equipment, signage and any agreed buildings or other
structures.
(c) reshaping of all batters to agreed slopes;
(d) placement of a one-metre layer of clean fill including topsoil to a minimum
of 20 centimetres on batters and agreed hardstand areas;
(e) works to ensure satisfactory stormwater run-off and storage of flood waters;
(f) suitable securing and environmental protection of ponds and other water
bodies, including restoration of the slimes dam;
(g) landscaping;
(h) timeframes for all relevant stages of the rehabilitation process;
(i) cost estimate for the rehabilitation measures proposed;
(j) methodology for calculating the quantum of the required rehabilitation
guarantee assuming that the site is not used for any type of landfill that
requires statutory approval from the Environment Protection Authority
(EPA).
4 Before the use and development starts a bank within the meaning of the Banking
Act 1959 (Commonwealth) for the amount approved under the Preliminary
Rehabilitation Plan must be delivered to the Responsible Authority as security for
implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan. Such monies will be returned to the
Owner upon satisfactory completion of the works required by the Final
Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 55, to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
5 The development and use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Page 77
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
6 Before the use or any roadworks start the following plans must be submitted to
and approved by VicRoads
(a) Functional layout plans for the unsignalised access arrangement on
Kingston Road for the development;
(b) After approval of the functional layout plans, detailed engineering plans for
the roadworks along Kingston Road. These plans should detail design
matters such as bus stop locations, median widths, DDA compliance, lane
widths and drainage.
Expiry
7 The use must cease and associated signs must be removed 15 years from the date
of issue of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a
request is made in writing not less than three years before the permit expires. The
conditions of the permit may be amended if the permit is extended.
8 Subject to any other provision in this permit relating to expiry, this permit will
expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a) Both uses are not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
(b) The Refuse Transfer Station does not operate; or
(c) The two uses permitted under this permit cease to have a genuine, close and
continuing functional relationship with each other.
(d) The development is not completed within two years of the commencement
of the development.
The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made
in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
Machinery
9 No plant or equipment used for crushing waste concrete, stone or masonry may be
installed or used on the land other than the one concrete crushing and screening
machine described in the material lodged with the application.
10 No plant or equipment for blending products to produce products used in the
construction industry other than as shown on the endorsed plans may be installed
on the land without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
11 No plant or equipment to cut or grind timber may be installed or used on the land
until an acoustic report has been submitted and operating protocols have been
approved by the Responsible Authority.
Page 78
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan
12 Before the use starts, a Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan
(SMEIP) must be lodged with the Responsible Authority for its approval, after
consultation with Southern Rural Water and the EPA (where appropriate). Once
endorsed by the Responsible Authority, the SMEIP will form part of this permit.
The SMEIP must include detailed measures to implement ‘Best Practice’ and
must be revised annually and submitted to the Responsible Authority. The
SMEIP must be generally in accordance with the Site Management Plan and
Environmental Plan submitted with the application but modified to identify and
describe:
(a) The proposed method of compliance with the EPA conditions set out below;
(b) The design of works and management of water on the site to:
Provide for responses to any identified rise in groundwater levels in the
locality;
Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are adopted,
including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;
Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimises the
potential for groundwater contamination,
Specify parameters for monitoring of groundwater and water in storage
ponds.
(c) Proposed management measures for the control and monitoring of air
quality, addressing emission of noise, dust and other airborne emissions,
outlining proposed measures to comply with the conditions of this permit
which relate to air quality and monitoring;
(d) The monitoring of groundwater and storage ponds ;
(e) Compliance with the procedures outlined in the Recycling Construction and
Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health
and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003.
13 The use and development of the land must adhere to the requirements,
recommendations, operating practices and procedures set out in the endorsed Site
Management and Environmental Improvement Plan.
14 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the processes, plant and equipment and
procedures conducted on the land in association with the materials recycling
facility and refuse transfer station must be operated pursuant to best practice.
15 No polluted waters, including sullage waters or sediment laden waters from the
land maybe discharged from the site, including into Melbourne Water’s drains or
watercourses.
Page 79
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Conditions required by EPA Victoria
16 The proposal must comply with the Guide To Best Practice At Resource Recovery
And Waste Transfer Facilities (Eco-Recycle Victoria) and also adopt ‘Best
Practice Measures’ in preventing any adverse environmental impacts from the
proposed transfer station, both during construction and ongoing operation.
17 Litter control fencing or screens must be established and maintained adjacent the
unloading area, waste disposal pit area and driveways to trap windblown litter
which may be generated as a result of unsecured loads or the unloading of
vehicles.
18 Management and operation of the transfer station must include collection of litter
from outside the land including roads adjacent the facility. Suitable precautions,
such as the installation and regular maintenance of a litter entrapment device,
should be taken to ensure that litter is prevented from entering the stormwater
drainage system.
19 Wastes must not be burnt at the premises.
20 Odour offensive to the senses of human beings must not be discharged beyond the
boundaries of the site.
21 There must be no visible dust emissions beyond the boundaries of the site.
22 Only clean fill material as defined in EPA Publication No. 448 "Classification of
Wastes" must be used in the development of the site.
23 Waste oil and collection area must be roofed and bunded in accordance with EPA
Technical Guideline "Bunding" Publication No 347.
Dust
24 The use must be conducted and operated so that no visible dust emissions are
detectable beyond the site's boundaries.
25 The pug mill must be equipped with sufficient controls to prevent dust emissions
and, without limiting the requirements of this condition:
(a) suitable shrouds must be installed on the pug mill to prevent dust emissions;
and
(b) a fabric filter dust collector must be fitted to the pug mill and maintained in
good working order to prevent visible dust from being emitted, as required
by the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) publication 628
June 1998 'Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry'.
26 If at any time the dust suppression measures of the Site Management and
Environmental Improvement Plan cannot be implemented and significant off-site
dust emissions are likely the activities that would generate dust must not operate
for that period.
Page 80
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
27 All roads, access ways and hard stand areas within the site where it is anticipated
that heavy machinery will work must be formed and surfaced with asphalt,
crushed rock or other suitable product to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority. These areas must be wetted or treated to suppress dust emissions.
28 All conveyance belts and other automated product transport devices or
contraptions on the site must be shielded from the prevailing winds to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority after consultation with EPA.
29 All waste material delivered to the site must be delivered directly to the
appropriate stockpile or sorting facility, except that waste delivered in domestic
vehicles should be delivered to a location designated on the endorsed plan.
30 The main access way to the site must be fitted with a dousing bar and all incoming
trucks must pass under the operating wetting bar.
Dust Measurement
31 The operator must continuously monitor (in real time) the levels of PM10 emitted
from the land in the vicinity of the hardstand areas and concrete crushing
machinery while the site is operating. The location of fixed PM10 monitors must
be determined after consultation with the EPA and then maintained in good
working order in the agreed locations. The monitoring system should include an
alarm to warn when dust conditions are unacceptable. The operation of the site
must have regard to the information derived from PM10 real-time monitoring.
32 The information collected by the measuring equipment must be provided to the
Responsible Authority or EPA within two business days of a request for the data.
33 The operator must maintain a Davis or equivalent weather station, measuring
wind speed and direction and ambient temperature, on the site in a location to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The data from the weather station must
be made available to the Responsible Authority and the EPA on request.
Amenity
34 The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development
and/or use, through the:
(a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
(b) appearance of any building, works or materials;
(c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,
steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;
(d) presence of vermin;
(e) in any other way.
35 The maximum height of all operating areas and stockpiles of materials stored on
site must not exceed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
Page 81
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
32 metres AHD until the plantings mature to effectively screen the
stockpiles,
35 metres AHD thereafter.
36 Where outdoor lighting is provided, it must be designed, baffled and located to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on
neighbouring land.
Operating Hours
37 The following restriction apply to operations on the site
(a) Between 5am and 7am Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of the
stockpiles, no crushing and screening operations, and no sorting at the
Waste Sorting Facility.
(b) Between 6pm and 8pm Monday to Friday and 1pm and 6pm Saturday: No
tipping at the top of the stockpiles.
(c) The use must not operate between 8pm and 5am Monday to Friday, 6pm
and 7am Saturday or at any time on Sunday except as follows. The use may
operate during these times with the prior approval of the Responsible
Authority on up to three days in a 12-month period subject to the following
restrictions:
no tipping at the top of the stockpiles;
no crushing and screening operations;
no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility; and
no use for front end loaders
(d) The use must not operate on Christmas Day, Good Friday or before 1pm on
Anzac Day.
Acoustic Requirements
38 The noise emissions from the site must comply with the State Environment
Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce Industry and Trade) No N-1.
39 Compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits must be confirmed by a report by an
acoustics specialist when noise generating elements of the use have commenced
operating and if equipment and/or operating procedures change.
40 The following acoustic measures must be undertaken:
(a) The Crushing and Screening Plant and the Waste Sorting Facility enclosures
must be treated in accordance with recommendations of a suitably qualified
person.
(b) All mobile plant on site and heavy vehicles regularly visiting the site must
be fitted with smart alarms which adjust the reversing beepers noise levels
Page 82
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
to take account of low background noise conditions or broadband type
reversing beepers. This requirement does not apply to cars, vans and light
trucks.
(c) All mechanical equipment must be regularly maintained and must use
industry standard mufflers.
Site Access and Traffic Management
41 Five years after the date of this permit, a revised traffic analysis assessing the need
for a signalised access to the development must be submitted to the Responsible
Authority for its approval. The Responsible Authority may consent to an
extension of the time to provide this report.
Conditions required by VicRoads
42 Before the commencement of any roadworks authorised by this permit, the
developer must:
(a) provide a bank guarantee (in the name of the developer/owner) without a
termination date, to VicRoads for the estimated cost of works;
(b) provide evidence that the Contractor has a public liability insurance policy
for at least $10 million, effective for the duration of the works;
(c) provide VicRoads with the name, address, business and out-of-hours
telephone numbers of the principal roadworks contractor.
43 Before any roadworks along Kingston Road authorised by this permit start the
applicant must a pay VicRoads the pre-estimate certification audit fee.
44 The applicant must pay the full cost of all roadworks, drainage, service
relocations, public lighting and modifications, and any other costs associated with
the development roadworks.
45 Before the use starts (excluding site preparation works) the applicant must
complete all roadworks along Kingston Road in accordance with approved plans
and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.
Internal Roads, Car Parking and Loading Bays
46 Before the use allowed by this permit starts, areas set aside for parking vehicles,
loading bays, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(b) properly formed to levels so that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
(c) surfaced with a suitable all-weather material or substance to the satisfaction
of the Responsible Authority;
Page 83
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
(d) drained and-maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(e) suitably marked to indicate each car space, loading bay and all access lanes
and, if necessary, the directions in which vehicles are to travel, to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
47 Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all
times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
48 All roads and vehicle access ways within the site are to be surfaced with suitable
all-weather materials or substances to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and must then be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
49 A sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided
directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be located and
maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Loading and Unloading
50 The loading and unloading of goods to and from vehicles must only be carried out
on the land.
51 Once the development and/or use has started it must be continued and completed
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
52 Subject to any other provision in this permit relating to expiry, this permit will
expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a) both uses are not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
(b) the Refuse Transfer Station ceases to operate; or
(c) the two uses permitted under this permit cease to have a genuine close and
continuing functional relationship with each other; or
(d) the development is not completed within two years of the commencement of
the development.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made
in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards but may not
extend the permit beyond the time specified in Condition 4 of this permit.
Conditions required by Melbourne Water
53 No fill or building materials shall be dumped on Melbourne Water’s land during
or when construction is complete.
54 The applicant must arrange and fund any new fencing along the common
boundary with Melbourne Water’s drainage reserve to Melbourne Water’s
satisfaction.
Page 84
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Site Rehabilitation
55 The Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 3 must be reviewed
two (2) years before this permit expires to ensure the rehabilitation facilitates the
development of the ‘after-uses’ envisaged by the planning framework applicable
at that time. A Final Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority at
least 18 months before this permit expires.
56 Within six months of the use ceasing or the date the permit expires (whichever is
sooner), the Final Rehabilitation Plan approved under this permit must be
implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The
Responsible Authority may grant an extension of time to complete the
implementation of the rehabilitation plan.
NOTES
Pursuant to section 50 RA(4) of the Environment Protection Act 1970, any person
involved in the generation, management or transport of waste must not do any anything
that is inconsistent with the relevant Regional Waste Management Plan.
Prior to the commencement of any roadworks in, on, under or over the Kingston Road
reservation the applicant must have first applied for and received written consent from
VicRoads for those works in accordance with Section 63 of the Road Management Act
2004.
The applicant must engage VicRoads pre-qualified contractors to undertake all
roadworks along Kingston Road.
Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to Melbourne Water
must be made for any new or modified storm water connection to Melbourne Water’s
drains or watercourses.
Page 85
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Appendix B List of Submitters
Carmen Aldons
Eric Aldons
M B Amos
G Archibald
Denise Atkins
Ray Atkins
Samuel Ayed
Lucilla Bennett
Thakshan Bolazan
P Boribon
Bill Burke
Lorraine Burke
Tanya Burke
D Calder
Lucille Canterbury
K Carrara
P Carrara
C de Zylva
Mr or Mrs Delahsheney
Thuy Dinh
I & A Donald
Heather Eynaud
J Fabbro
B W Falk
C Felicite
Don Fitzgerald
City of Boroondara
Andrew Folks
Frida, Helen, George Gatsios
George Gatsios
Helen Gatsios
Ralph Gerry
Peter Gibb, c/- TransPacific
Industries Group Ltd
Angela Gioutsos
Steven Goon
Roger Griffin
D Gulic
M Gulic
Alison Han
John Han
B Hartopitsos
K Hartopitsos
Heatherton Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc.
Dorothy Henderson
Gregory Henrius
A Horeau
E Horeau
J Horeau
T & C Imperatori
D Jurina
N Jurina
S Jurina
P Karrison
Hui Khgnghky
Angela Kouvrakis
Apostolos Kouvrakis
Stratos Kouvrakis
J Labonne
N Labonne
Leonard A Le Page
Kim Lim
Cheryl Macdonald
Douglas MacNaughton
Sue McGinley
Tom McGinley
Andrew McIntosh
Tuan Nguyen
EPA, South Metropolitan Region
Abe Otenstern
A Panayi
J Panayi
S Panayi
A Papaioannour
J Papaioannour
Adrian Phan
Elmer Phan
Patrick Pierce
Page 86
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
L Pollard
B Ponini
I Ponini
J Powell
M Powell
R Powell
S Powell
T Powell
Brian Pullen, Dingley Village
Community Association
K Radma
Steven Rajah
Sushani Rajah
Ronnie Rao
Taryna Rao
N Raxon
Mary Rimington, Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League
Kate & Tino Rizio
Clyde Rose
Barry Ross, Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Inc
S Rozario
M San
R San
Trevor & Roslyn Sanders
A Sarandis
K Sarandis
L Sarandis
M Sarandis
VicRoads
Greta Savina
Pravin Shetty
Barry & Noela Smith
Leang Sn
Sandy Sn
I Srislandrafd
D Sugija
Darren Tannen
Drew Tannen
A Tatsis
Angelo & Toula Tatsis
I Tatsis
Mia Tatsis
Paul Tatsis
Peter Tatsis
Vicki Tatsis
Michelle Tram
S Tram
W Tram
V Tran
D Tsolkous
G Tsolkous
N Tsolkous
V Tsolkous
C Vacouftsis
E Vacouftsis
John Valomandras
Peggy Valomandras
R Vassadic
S Vassadic
G Walmsley
DSE
E Woodfield
L Wyles
D Zantuck
J Zantuck
Juliette
Marie & Sylvio
The Resident (x17)
Page 87
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
Appendix C Airborne Particles
Dust particle size
Particle sizes are measured in micrometres (µm), also known as microns, equal to
1/1000 of a millimetre. Particles can be of different sizes. Those less than 10
micrometres in diameter are called PM10 (PM standing for Particle Matter) and those
less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter are called PM2.5. PM10 and smaller particles are
small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs.
The DEH website presents diagrammatically relative particle sizes – see Figure 6.
Figure 6: Common Particle Sizes (Source: DEH Website)
Page 88
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008
The following descriptions of Nuisance Dust, Inhalable Dust, Respirable Dust and Dust
Health Risks, largely come from the DEH website, are consistent with comments and responses made by Dr Drew and Dr Bellair during the Hearings:
Nuisance Dust - Nuisance dust reduces environmental amenity without
necessarily resulting in material environmental harm. Nuisance dust
comprises particles with diameters nominally from about 1 µm up to 50 µm.
This generally equates with 'total suspended particulates' (TSP). The TSP
range of dust particles is broad, and may come from sources such as industry, mining, agriculture and wind erosion of the natural environment.
Inhalable Dust is the fraction of total airborne particles inhaled through the
nose and mouth. When inhaled these particles deposit in the trachea and
bronchia section of the lung. These particles are usually less than 10 µm in
diameter, of which around 80% are between 2.5 and 10 µm in diameter.
Respirable Dust is the fraction of inhaled particles which penetrates to the
deepest parts of the human lung. Respirable dust is those particles with
diameters less than 2.5 µm that lodge in the alveolar region of the lung.
Dust Health Risks
Dr Drew’s evidence described the health effects of airborne RCS. Lung cancer and
silicosis are potential chronic diseases that may arise from long-term exposure to airborne RCS. The risk of these diseases increases with increased concentration of RCS
in the air and with increased duration of exposure. Silicosis is a destructive,
irreversible form of pneumoconiosis (characterised by scarring of the lungs), which is
contracted by prolonged exposure to high levels of fine crystalline silica dust.
Dr Drew advised it is the fibrogenic effects of crystalline silica which are capable of penetrating to the alveol that are of concern in determining the hazard to health, that
is, particles less than 3µm to 5 µm.
He noted that CICAD (Concise International Chemical Assessment Document) (2000) states "to date, there are no known adverse health effects associated with non-occupational exposure to quartz dust”. However in the occupational setting chronic exposure to
crystalline silica is associated with increased incidences of tuberculosis, bronchitis,
emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal diseases, silicosis and lung
cancer.
The Health and Safety Executive of the UK, the California EPA, the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency all judge silicosis as being
the most sensitive health end point from exposure to silica and prevention of silicosis
is considered to provide protection against the other possible health effects.