Enclosure - bmcc.nsw.gov.au · The WMF site is located at the northern end of Woodlands Road and is...

Enclosure (Assessment Report on upgrading of

Katoomba Waste Management Facility)

For Meeting of 19 February 2008

File No: X07/0151

Address: 49-89 Woodlands Road Town: Katoomba

ASSESSMENT REPORT

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION No.X/151/2007

UPGRADING OF KATOOMBA WASTE

MANAGEMENT FACILITY

WOODLANDS ROAD

KATOOMBA

23 January 2008

Prepared by:Nexus Environmental Planning Pty Ltd

Suite 29, 103 Majors Bay RoadPO Box 212

CONCORD NSW 2137Tel: (02) 9736 1313Fax: (02) 9736 1306

Email: [email protected]

Nexus Environmental Planning Pty Ltd

Introduction Nexus Environmental Planning Pty Ltd has been commissionedby Blue Mountains City Council to undertake an independentassessment of Development Application No.X/151/2007 for theextension of the Katoomba Waste Management Facility. Thisreport presents the assessment made by Nexus EnvironmentalPlanning Pty Ltd and concludes that the site is suitable for theproposed development, the proposal has planning merit andshould be approved by the Council.

Reason for report Council is the applicant.

Applicant Environmental Branch within the Community and CorporateGroup of Blue Mountains City Council.

Owner Blue Mountains City Council.

Application lodged 15 February 2007.

Property address Lot A, DP 383122Nos.49-89 Woodlands Road, Katoomba.

Site description The Katoomba Waste Management Facility ("WMF") is locatedwithin the City of Blue Mountains in the township of Katoomba.

Blue Mountains City Council owns the site and the land isclassified as Operational Land. The following information aboutthe site is compiled from the Environmental Impact Statement("EIS") which accompanies the development application.

The Blue Mountains LGA covers 1,430 square kilometres of landon the Great Dividing Range in the west of the Greater Sydneyregion. About 70% of the area is incorporated in the BlueMountains National Park.

The WMF site is located at the northern end of Woodlands Roadand is approximately 20 hectares in area. The site is bounded bypartially cleared open forest and woodland to the west, north andeast. Mistral Street and sparse bushland form the southern siteboundary. Access to the site is via an entrance located onWoodlands Road. An aerial photograph of the operations on thesite is shown as Figure 7-1 of the EIS.

Landfilling at the WMF was established in 1906, however, it isbelieved that waste activities may have commenced at the site asearly as 1896. Waste disposal at this time was uncontrolled and,hence, the range of wastes received at the site and the disposal andtreatment methods are unknown.


Filling of waste has been via progressive land raising within theconfines of the Yosemite Valley.

The landfill has been developed as two cells, Cell A and Cell B.Cell A is the older (already filled) section of the landfill. Thedepth of waste in this section is approximately 40m. Fillingcommenced in Cell B in late 1999 and this cell is the currentlyactive filling area. Cell B is located along the north-eastern edgeof the existing landfill mound.

The site was open with unrestricted access to the public until the1980s. Up until this time, the burning of waste was common.Management guidelines for the general operation of landfills inthe Blue Mountains were first prepared in 1984 and the coveringof waste commenced in 1985.

A Plan of Management was developed for the Katoomba landfillin 1986. This plan culminated in final filling and site remediationscheduled for 2006. It involved nine stages for the progressivedevelopment and management of the site.

Upgrades and development work undertaken at the site includethe removal of a pit burner in 1995 (previously used for burninggarden organics) and installation of a new weighbridge, gatehouseand education facility, recycling area and contractors compoundin 1997.

Existing site operations Chapter 7 of the EIS provides details of the current operationscarried out on the site. The following extracts are taken fromChapter 7 of the EIS.

"The Katoomba WMF operates every day of the year exceptChristmas Day and Good Friday and is open 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.

The Katoomba WMF is currently operated by Thiess Services (theoperator) under contract to the Proponent. The primary activitieson site include receiving and weighing of waste delivered to thesite by council waste collection vehicles, commercial wasteoperators and small vehicles/householders.

The site is connected to mains water, electricity, telephoneservices and sewer services."

"Gatehouse and waste education and resource centre

All vehicles accessing the Katoomba WMF are required to entervia the site weighbridge. BMCC [Blue Mountains City Council]staff operate the site weighbridge, assess the eligibility of the


load, collect fees and issue a receipt when a load is accepted.The vehicle weights, type of waste(s) and vehicle registrations arealso recorded at the weighbridge. Some vehicles are required tobe reweighed prior to leaving the site.

Adjacent to the weighbridge is the gatehouse building, whichincorporates the gatehouse attendant's office, staff amenities andthe WERC [Waste Education Resource Centre]. The WERC isavailable for use by school groups, businesses, community groupsand others interested in learning about various waste andenvironmental issues. The WERC is also used by Council to hostcommunity and education courses including the "Earthworks –Living with Less Waste" course."

"Resource recovery

Site facilities include a drop-off centre where customers can dropoff paper, cardboard, plastics, aluminium cans and glass free ofcharge. An existing shed structure is used to store gas cylindersand bottles, car batteries, plastic crates and bins used forcollection of aluminium cans and coloured sorted glass.Potentially reusable household items (such as furniture) are alsorecovered and kept within the shed. These items are currentlymade available to customers at no cost as a means of promotingmaterials reuse, and hence waste avoidance.

Katoomba WMF also has a drop-off facility for used oil that isconstructed and operated in accordance with DEC [now DECC -Department of Environment and Climate Change] requirements.Scrap metal, including car bodies, is accepted free of charge.Scrap metal is collected and stockpiled on top of the existinglandfill. It is regularly collected and removed from the site by ascrap metal recycler.

Clean fill is accepted at a reduced gate fee. It is stockpiled andre-used for beneficial purposes on site whenever possible.

Garden organics are accepted at a reduced gate fee. Theorganics are stockpiled on top of the existing landfill and mulchedperiodically (approximately quarterly). Mulched organics arecurrently taken offsite by a local landscape operator for furtherprocessing for various landscape products.

Timber is also separated, stockpiled on site and mulchedquarterly. Much of the timber is low quality (such as chipboard)or treated or painted. The mulched timber is currently landfilled,as there is limited market or need for such a low quality material.


The Proponent is investigating potential opportunities for reusingthe timber mulch in its current form, and also the possibility offurther sorting timber grades to first enable re-use in its originalform or for the production of mulches of different qualities."

"Landfill operations

The landfill has been developed in two sections – Cell A and CellB. Cell A is the older (already filled) section of the landfillcontaining up to 40m thickness of waste. Stockpiles of organics,scrap metal and construction and demolition materials aremaintained on Cell A.

Cell B, located on the northeast of the landfill mound is morerecently developed and is the currently active filling area. Thecurrent landfill disposal area is the top of the landfill mound, asshown in Figure 7-11 [of the EIS].

Vehicles (large and small) tip mixed waste from the top of the tipface (on Cell B) to the active landfill area. The waste is spreadand compacted using a landfill compactor.

Where possible, the site operator removes bulky materialssuitable for recovery (such as scrap steel or construction anddemolition materials) from the mixed waste before it is landfilled.This assists in minimising consumption of landfill air space andto increase resource recovery.

Vehicles pass over a cattle grid as they pass to and from thelandfill. This assists to minimise mud and dirt leaving the site.A wheel wash is also provided and truck drivers are required toclean mud off the wheels of their vehicles prior to leaving the site.

Further detail about landfill operations is provided in Section 7.5[of the EIS]."

"Permitted Waste

The Katoomba WMF is currently licensed as a Solid Waste Class1 Landfill and is permitted to accept the following waste materialfor landfilling (under NSW EPA Licence Number 10034, SectionL5.3):

"Waste including putrescible waste, that is assessed as inert wasteor solid waste following the technical assessment procedureoutlined in Technical Appendix 1 of the Waste Guidelines or thatis specified as inert waste or solid waste in Schedule 1 of theProtection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and asbestos


waste (including asbestos waste in bonded matrix and asbestosfibre and dust waste resulting from the removal of thermal oracoustic insulating materials or from processes involvingasbestos material, dust from ventilation collection systems)""

"Putrescible and non-putrescible waste(s) that are classified asnon-hazardous and non-toxic, except as expressly permitted bythe EPL can be landfilled and / or stored on site."

"Hazardous waste

The following hazardous wastes are able to be stored on site atthe Katoomba WMF:

- Domestic quantities of asbestos;- Domestic quantities of household paints, paint solvents

and household cleansers;- Domestic quantities of household herbicides and

pesticides;- Waste oils for recycling or reuse; and- Motor vehicle batteries.

Chemicals that have been collected in conjunction with the'Household Chemical Collection Program' are stored in asuitable location on site pending the appropriate disposal orrecycling of these chemicals."

"Tyres

Tyres can be disposed of at the Katoomba WMF only where:

- The tyre has a diameter of 1.2 metres or less; or- The tyre has been shredded or had its walls removed; or- The tyre was delivered to the premises as part of a

domestic load.

A domestic load refers to loads containing no more than fivetyres, where each tyre has a diameter of 1.2 metres or less. Tyresare considered to be shredded only if the tyres are in piecesmeasuring not more than 250 mm in any direction.

Stockpiling of tyres is limited to a maximum of 50 tonnes at anyone time, and the tyre stockpiles must be located in a clearlydefined area away from the tipping face."

"Recyclables

Recycling facilities on the site are provided for the following


recyclable wastes:

- Glass – clear, brown and green;- Paper and cardboard;- Plastics;- Untreated timber;- Garden organics;- White goods;- Ferrous metals; and- Non-ferrous metals."

"Waste Sources and Composition

Waste received at the Katoomba WMF comes from a variety ofsources, including domestic properties, commercial businessesand BMCC works. It includes:

- Kerbside collected domestic waste;- Waste delivered to the facility by local residents;- Commercial and industrial waste;- Building and demolition waste;- Soil and clean fill;- Asbestos;- Recyclable materials including metal, paper, plastics and

glass; and- Garden organics.

Historically, kerbside collected domestic waste and clean fillcomprise the largest percentage of materials by weight receivedat the Katoomba WMF. Significant quantities of garden organicsand commercial / industrial waste are also received.

Table 7-1 of the EIS shows a breakdown of waste into variouscategories.

"Cell management

The Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) preparedby Douglas Partners in 1997 and updated in 2003 outlines therequirements for management of the site in accordance with thebenchmark techniques outlined in NSW EPA EnvironmentalGuidelines: Solid Waste Landfills (1996).

Management requirements outlined in the LEMP include targetsand specifications for:

- Compaction of waste;- Filling and contours;


- Site capping and revegetation; and- Covering of waste."

Further details of the management and operation of the existinglandfill on the site are contained in Chapter 7 of the EIS.

Proposal The proposal is to construct and operate a resource recoverycentre and waste transfer station at the Katoomba WMF toaccommodate the future waste disposal needs of the BlueMountains City Council. Full and comprehensive details of theproposal are contained in the Chapter 8 of Part B of the EIS. Asummary of the proposal is provided in the Executive Summaryof the EIS as follows:

"The proposal is to develop a resource recovery centre and wastetransfer station within the Katoomba WMF on Woodlands Road,Katoomba. The proposal would be developed within Lot A DP383122, which is currently owned by BMCC and managed by theProponent.

Development of the resource recovery centre will facilitateincreased recovery of reusable and recyclable materials andhence increase waste diversion from landfill. It would includeprovisions for recovery of domestic and commercial recyclablesas well as garden organics, construction and demolition buildingmaterials, household items such as furniture and white goods, andtyres. The resource recovery centre would also incorporate theoperation of the existing Waste Education Resource Centre(WERC) and potentially a number of other environmental andwaste education activities.

The proposal also involves developing a waste transfer station tofacilitate transport of residual waste (waste that is unable to berecycled or recovered at the WMF) offsite for further processingand/or disposal following the closure of Katoomba landfill. Thepreferred disposal point for residual waste is the landfill at theBlaxland WMF.

Based on current waste generation rates, the landfill locatedwithin the Katoomba WMF will be full in 2008. Once the landfillis full and no more waste can be disposed of, the landfill areaswill be formally closed and progressively rehabilitated inaccordance with an approved Landfill Closure and RehabilitationPlan.

Approval for the closure and rehabilitation of the Katoombalandfill is a separate approval process through the DEC [nowDECC] and as such does not require assessment as part of this


development application.

Existing resource recovery activities that currently occur on topof the existing landfill mound, including stockpiling of gardenorganics, timber, and scrap metal, and the mulching of timberand garden organics would continue following development of theproposal. These operations would continue to support theresource recovery centre but do not form part of the proposal asthey are a continuation of existing practices."

Details of the proposed waste transfer facility are described inChapter 8 of Part B of the EIS as follows:

"Transfer station for mixed putrescible waste drop-off area bylarge vehicles

The Katoomba WMF is used as a disposal point for mixed wastecollected in large vehicles including waste collected in largetrucks and waste compactor vehicles. The material in thesevehicles typically contains a mix of bagged waste, putrescibles,recyclables and inert materials. These materials are generallyhighly mixed within each load, making resource recovery difficultwithout extensive processing. Mixed loads are currentlylandfilled onsite.

The proposal includes construction of a separate drop-off areawithin a purpose built transfer station for mixed waste thatincludes putrescibles (mixed putrescible waste), to be used bylarge vehicles. Mixed waste loads that are largely inert (such asmixed C&D waste) or a mix of only soil and garden organicswould be directed to the stockpile areas on the top of the landfilland would not be managed via the proposed transfer station.

The transfer station would be located at the south-eastern edge ofthe landfill toe, as shown in Figure 8-1 [of the EIS]. TheProponent's preferred technology for the management of mixedputrescible and residual waste is for the compaction and balingof waste prior to transfer.

The waste baling operation, staff facilities, staff office, andviewing / education room would be located within the transferstation building. The building would have a footprint of 1500m2

and be of split-level construction. Roller doors would be locatedalong the southern and northern sides of the building to facilitatewaste loading and unloading."

"Large vehicles would directly access the area via the main roadleading from the site entrance. Vehicles would enter the transfer


station where waste would be tipped into the receiving area.

When finished unloading, large vehicles would then exit thetransfer station in a forward direction and continue around thebuilding to rejoin the main road and exit the site.

The baling process is not suitable for large non-compactablebulky wastes and chemical or hazardous wastes hence these itemswould be picked out of the mixed waste by an operator prior toprocessing. There may also be opportunity for operators toidentify and recover recyclable materials from the mixed wasteloads, for example large amounts of cardboard and paper may berecovered from a mixed waste load that was collected fromcommercial shops and offices.

Residual waste would be pushed into a loading hopper using afront-end-loader as shown in Figure 8-2 [of the EIS]. The wastewould then be fed via a conveyor through a waste compactor tothe baling equipment. The baling equipment produces highlycompressed waste bales. A small quantity volume of moisturewould be squeezed from waste materials during compaction. This"leachate" would be collected in a sump beneath the unit andaccumulated until there is sufficient quantity for collection anddisposal at a licensed liquid waste treatment facility if required.

It is proposed that the baled waste would be wrapped in plastic,which would assist in controlling leachate, litter, and odourduring transport and subsequent landfilling. Ideally,biodegradable plastic wrap would be used to limit these impactswhilst not compromising subsequent waste (and plastic)breakdown within the landfill. This will be subject to theavailability of suitable materials. It is common practice topuncture the bale wrap once the bales are placed in the landfill,to facilitate biological breakdown of the organic materials within.

The baling process results in increasing waste density fromtypically less than 0.4 tonne/m3 up to 0.6 – 0.9 tonne/m3, which isadvantageous for transfer and land disposal. A major advantageof the transfer of baled waste is the control of odour, litter andleachate. This means that wrapped bales of waste may betemporarily stored in the transfer station overnight (subject tolicensing approval) if required, for example due to unforeseenevents that prevent immediate transfer offsite. Baled waste wouldbe transported offsite on either conventional flat-bed trucks or intruck and dog trailers.

As the majority of large vehicles with mixed putrescible wasteloads access the Katoomba WMF on weekdays (greater than


90%), operation of the waste baling facility would predominatelyoccur during the week."

Development controls Zoning

The section of the site where the existing WMF is located and theproposed development is to be located is contained within the"Recreation - Open Space" and "Environmental Protection -Open Space" zones pursuant to the Blue Mountains LocalEnvironmental Plan 2005.

Commonwealth Legislation

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) came into force from 16 July2000. The EPBC Act requires actions which are likely to have asignificant impact on matters of National EnvironmentalSignificance or that have a significant impact on Commonwealthland to be referred to the Commonwealth Minister for theEnvironment for approval.

State Environmental Legislation

There are a number of State Acts which apply to the proposeddevelopment. Below is a summary of the relevant Acts and themanner in which they affect the proposed development.

- Development consent is required under Part 4 theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.The proposed development is listed in Schedule 3 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Regulation2000 as Designated Development and, as such, an EIS isrequired to be submitted with the developmentapplication. The required EIS has been prepared by theGHD. The proposed development is also IntegratedDevelopment as the development requires a Licence underthe Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

- The existing landfill on the site operates pursuant toLicences Nos.10034 and 5481 of the Protection of theEnvironment Operations Act 1997. A new licence tooperate the proposed development will be needed ifconsent to the proposal is granted by the Council.

- The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995requires a detailed assessment of the impact the proposeddevelopment will/may have on threatened species,populations or ecological communities or their habitats.


This aspect of the proposal is discussed in a later sectionof this report.

- The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, among otherthings, provides for the protection and management ofAboriginal sites in New South Wales. An assessment ofthe impact the proposed development may have onAboriginal heritage sites is required and has beenprovided in Chapter 19 of the EIS.

- The Native Vegetation Act 2003 deals with the clearingof native vegetation. The proposed development willinvolve the clearing of 0.65 hectares of native vegetation,however, sub-section 25 (f) of the Act states that clearingwork undertaken as part of a Designated Development isexempt from the provisions of the Act.

- Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act1948 states that:

(i) excavation or removal of material from the bank,shore or bed of a stream, estuary or lake, or landwhich is not more than 40m from the top of thebank or shore of protected waters,

(ii) building erosion control works or other structuresin a river, estuary or lake, or

(iii) the placement of fill material in a river, estuary orlake,

requires the approval of the Department of Water andEnergy. Notwithstanding, sub-section 22H (1) (b) of thatAct states that Part 3A does not apply to work carried ourby a public or local authority. This has been confirmed inan 8 November 2007 letter from the Department of Waterand Energy.

State Environmental Planning Policies

The proposed development is subject to the following StateEnvironmental Planning Policies:

- State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects)2005. Section 75A of Part 3A of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 (the "E P & A Act")defines a "project" as:


"project means development that is declared under section75B to be a project to which this Part applies"

Sub-section 75B (1) (a) of the E P & A Act states:

"Projects to which Part applies

(1) General

This Part applies to the carrying out ofdevelopment that is declared under this section tobe a project to which this Part applies:

(a) by a State environmental planning policy, or"

Sub-clause 6 (1) of State Environmental Planning Policy(Major Projects) 2005 states:

"Identification of Part 3A projects

(1) Development that, in the opinion of the Minister,is development of a kind:

(a) that is described in Schedule 1 or 2, or

(b) that is described in Schedule 3 as a projectto which Part 3A of the Act applies, or

(c) to the extent that it is not otherwisedescribed in Schedules 1–3, that isdescribed in Schedule 5,

is declared to be a project to which Part 3A of theAct applies."

Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy(Major Projects) 2005 contains the following definition:

"Resource recovery or waste facilities

(1) Development for the purpose of regionalputrescible landfills or an extension to a regionalputrescible landfill that:

(a) has a capacity to receive more than 75,000tonnes per year of putrescible waste, or

(b) has a capacity to receive more than


650,000 tonnes of putrescible waste overthe life of the site, or

(c) is located in an environmentally sensitivearea of State significance.

(2) Development for the purpose of waste transferstations in metropolitan areas of the Sydneyregion that handle more than 75,000 tonnes peryear of waste.

(3) Development for the purpose of resource recoveryor recycling facilities that handle more than75,000 tonnes per year of waste or have a capitalinvestment value of more than $30 million.

(4) Development for the purpose of waste incinerationthat handles more than 1,000 tonnes per year ofwaste.

(5) Development for the purpose of hazardous wastefacilities that transfer, store or dispose of solid orliquid waste classified in the AustralianDangerous Goods Code or medical, cytotoxic orquarantine waste that handles more than 1,000tonnes per year of waste.

(6) Development for the purpose of any other liquidwaste depot that treats, stores or disposes ofindustrial liquid waste and:

(a) handles more than 10,000 tonnes per yearof liquid food or grease trap waste, or

(b) handles more than 1,000 tonnes per yearof other aqueous or non-aqueous liquidindustrial waste."

As indicated in the EIS accompanying the developmentapplication, "Based on current waste disposal rates, theKatoomba WMF would continue to accept approximately35,000 tonnes per annum of mixed waste andrecyclables." As such, the proposed development is nota "Part 3A project" for the purposes of StateEnvironmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.11 - TrafficGenerating Development contains Schedules 1 & 2


which list certain types of development which require anydevelopment application for those developments to besubmitted to the Traffic Authority for comment. Theproposed development is listed in Schedule 1 as:

"(k) junk yards or depots or regional depots, within themeaning of the Waste Disposal Act 1970,"

As such, the development application must be forwardedto the Roads and Traffic Authority for comment. This hasbeen done by the Council by letter of notification to theRoads and Traffic Authority dated 14 March 2007.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 -Hazardous and Offensive Development aims to ensurethat appropriate measures are employed to minimise theimpacts of development which are deemed to be eitherhazardous or offensive. The development proposal is nothazardous but is potentially offensive and, as such,consideration of SEPP 33 must be undertaken by theCouncil in its consideration of the proposed development.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 - KoalaHabitat Protection aims:

".... to encourage the proper conservation andmanagement of areas of natural vegetation that providehabitat for koalas to ensure a permanent free-livingpopulation over their present range and reverse thecurrent trend of koala population decline."

SEPP 44 applies in the Blue Mountains to land which hasan area of more than 1 hectare. As such, the Council mustassess the proposed development against the provisions ofSEPP 44. The EIS, at its Chapter 15, addresses theprovisions of SEPP 44.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 -Remediation of Land aims:

".... to promote the remediation of contaminated land forthe purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human healthor any other aspect of the environment."

The EIS indicates that the site is not contaminated and thisaspect of the proposal is discussed later in this report.


Regional Environmental Plans

- Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 -Hawkesbury Nepean River (No.2 - 1997) applies to thesite and contains a number of provisions aimed atprotecting the environment of the Hawkesbury River.Clauses 5 & 6 of SREP 20 contain general and specificplanning policies which must be considered by theCouncil when determining a development application.Those clauses are discussed in a later section of thisreport.

- Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.10 - BlueMountains Open Space aims:

"(a) to enhance and protect the unique natural andscenic environment of the Blue Mountains,

(b) to provide greater opportunities for passiverecreation in the Blue Mountains, and

(c) to complement and expand the open spacenetwork in the Blue Mountains particularly inrelation to the proposed boundary extensions tothe Blue Mountains National Park."

The site is not land identified in the regionalenvironmental plan and, as such, is not subject to theprovisions of that plan.

Community consultation Extensive community consultation was undertaken both as part ofthe concept development for the proposed development and aspart of the preparation of the EIS. Chapter 4 of the EIS containsa comprehensive description of the community consultationprocess undertaken, the objectives of which included:

"- Communicating with the community about the project;

- Assisting the community in understanding the project andthe environmental assessment work being undertaken;

- Involving the community in identifying mitigationmeasures to reduce local impacts;

- Building trust between the Proponent and the community;and

- Establishing a means for stakeholders to provide


comments on the project."

Chapter 4.6 of the EIS describes the overall outcomes of theconsultation process as:

"A number of changes were made to the original proposal toaddress resident concerns, arising from feedback received fromthe community during the consultation process. Other actionshave also been proposed by the project team in order to minimiseimpacts.

Changes made to the proposal

In response to concerns raised at the first community open daythe layout of the proposed resource recovery centre and wastetransfer station was significantly modified to minimise thefootprint of the proposal and maximise the use of alreadydisturbed areas within the Katoomba WMF. The objective ofthese changes was to minimise the extent of bushland required tobe cleared and hence any associated potential impact on localflora, fauna and catchment water quality.

As a result of design changes the area of bushland needing to becleared has been reduced in size from approximately 1.5 hectaresto 0.65 hectares, a reduction of 0.85 hectares.

Approximately 30% of the proposed 0.65 hectares to be clearedis modified bushland that has been heavily invaded by exoticspecies.

The final proposed layout has maximised the use of existingdisturbed areas wherever possible, including upgrading andexpanding the existing recycling area for increased resourcerecovery facilities and mixed waste drop off by small vehicles.

The waste transfer station has been located as close to theexisting landfill as possible allowing for access roads to servicethe facility. The design and construction of the transfer buildinghas considered bushfire risk and an asset protection zone aroundthe transfer building has been decided based on a desire tomaximise retention of existing bushland and minimise furtherencroachment towards the sensitive hanging swamp.

Structures for resource recovery and transfer facilities have notbeen located on top of the existing landfill however due to theunstable surface, caused by waste settlement over time.

Locating facilities on top of the existing landfill would also result


in greater visual, odour, noise and litter impacts to surroundingresidents compared to the proposal due to the elevated position."

Notification The application was advertised from 21 March 2007 to 27 April2007.

Eighteen (18) submissions were received - most expressedsupport for the proposed development with reservations withregard to potential impacts being resolved. One (1) submissionwas a petition containing fifty seven (57) signatures.

The development application was also referred to the followingState government departments and statutory authorities for theircomments:

- Department of Environment, Conservation and ClimateChange (EPA and Department of Water and Energy)

- Roads and Traffic Authority

- NSW Rural Fire Service

- Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority.

Residents Issues

A number of submissions received by the Council raised concerns with the impact the existinglandfill has on their amenity and the environment in general. As the existing landfill does notform part of this application, issues raised with regard to those impacts are not addressed as partof this assessment. It is, however, recommended that the Council investigates those concerns aspart of the operation of the existing landfill activity.

The issues raised by residents and resident groups are summarised below with comment asappropriate.

Impact on Blue Mountains Swamp

Concern has been raised that the proposed development, and in particular clearing of vegetationand the establishment of hard stand areas, will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the BlueMountains Swamp which is located in the vicinity of the site where the proposed developmentis to be located.

The applicant was requested to provide more information to assist in both establishing thepotential impact to the Blue Mountains Swamp and the means by which potential impacts are tobe mitigated. The following extracts form part of a response from the applicant.

"The Community & Corporate Group of Blue Mountains City Council (theProponent) is proposing to develop a resource recovery centre and waste transfer


station within the Katoomba Waste Management Facility (WMF) on WoodlandsRoad, Katoomba. This letter has been prepared by GHD on behalf of theProponent in response to a request from Blue Mountains City Council'sEnvironmental and Customer Services division (dated 5 June) requestingadditional information on the potential impacts of the proposed development onthe adjacent Blue Mountains Swamp ("the Swamp").

A site visit was carried out to determine whether there were likely to be anyecological impacts on a 1.75ha area of the Swamp that occurs to the east of thecurrent landfill site along a tributary of Yosemite Creek. The Swamp falls underthe "Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone" threatened ecologicalcommunity, which is listed as endangered under the Commonwealth EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Blue MountainsSwamp also has a preliminary listing under the NSW Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) as a vulnerable ecological community."

"Development of the proposal will require the clearance of a 0.65 ha area ofvegetation consisting of approximately 0.45 ha of Eucalyptus sieberi –Eucalyptuspiperita Woodland located at the north-east edge of the proposed developmentarea and approximately 0.2 ha of modified bushland located on the southwestboundary of the WMF."

"The proposed activity will not result in any direct impacts on the Swamp butmay result in indirect impacts such as alterations to the current hydrologicalregimes or run-off and sedimentation effects.

The Swamp sits within 100 metres of the eastern end of the current landfill site.The Swamp is currently protected from run-off and associated effects viasediment fencing surrounding the perimeter of the landfill. The proposeddevelopment will include a detention basin to limit the discharge flow rate ofstormwater resulting from the creation of new hardstand area. The detentionbasin is expected to reduce the level of discharge being received into theenvironment to that of pre-development flow."

"Two ecologists visited the site on Wednesday June 27th 2007. The site visitincluded an assessment of potential impacts via the following methods:

Flora survey

A 20 m x 20 m quadrat was place haphazardly within the area of Blue MountainsSwamp. All species identified and the cover abundance of each species wasrecorded. Evidence of disturbance was also noted. Opportunistic flora recordswere also taken from across the site, via a random meander.

Fauna Habitat Assessment

The potential for the Swamp to provide habitat for fauna was assessed viaHabitat Assessment, which aims to determine the nature and condition of habitats


for fauna, and identify specific resources and features of relevance for fauna. TheHabitat Assessment focused on the likelihood of the Swamp to provide habitat forthreatened fauna species such as the Blue Mountains Water Skink (Eulamprusleuraensis) and the Giant Dragonfly (Petalura gigantea). Species previouslyassessed in the Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment produced by GHD in 2005were not considered in this assessment."

"Flora Assessment

Pouched Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa) and Button Grass (Gymnoschoenussphaerocephalus) dominated the site. Other species present included HardBracken Fern (Pteridium esculentum), Redstemmed Wattle (Acacia rubida), Tea-tree species (Leptospermum polygalifoilum; L. junuiperinum; L. lanigerum),Broom Spurge (Amperea xiphoclada) and Lepidosperma limicola. These speciesare characteristic of Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone (DEH,2005).

Fauna Habitat

Many small birds were heard and observed during the site visit. Scats ofmacropods were also identified. The site offers potential habitat for a range ofother ground-dwelling fauna as well, with thick coverage of groundlayer florapresent throughout the Swamp. The Swamp also offers potential habitat for arange of amphibians including the threatened Red-crowned Toadlet(Pseudophryne australis). Potential habitat is also present for the endangeredGiant Dragonfly and Blue Mountains Water Skink."

An assessment of matters of national environmental significance under the CommonwealthEPBC Act was undertaken with the following conclusion:

"No direct impacts are considered likely to affect the area of Blue MountainsSwamp to the east of the land fill site. The proposal includes the design andimplementation of mitigations [sic] measures to control potential indirectimpacts. Current controls appear to be affective at protecting the Swamp fromimpacts, and as mitigation measures aim to keep levels post-construction at theircurrent state, the proposed activity is unlikely to result in a significant impact onthis community. Therefore a Referral to the Minister of Environment and WaterResources is not required and no further assessment is required."

An assessment under Section 5A of the EP & A Act was also undertaken with the followingconclusion:

"No direct impacts are considered likely to affect the area of Blue MountainsSwamp. The proposed activity includes the design and implementation ofmitigations [sic] measures to control potential indirect impacts. Current controlsappear to be affective at protecting the Swamp from impacts, and as mitigationmeasures aim to keep levels post-construction at their current state, the proposedactivity is unlikely to result in a significant impact on this community. Therefore


preparation of an SIS is not required."

An assessment of the additional information has been undertaken by Council's EnvironmentalScientist an no objection has been raised to the proposed development. Suitable conditions ofconsent have been recommended.

Acoustic Impact

A number of submissions comment on the location of the noise monitors used in the acousticimpact assessment contained in the EIS, noise from the existing landfill operation, and othergeneral issues regarding acoustic impact. The applicant has been asked to respond to the issueraised and has provided a detailed response. The following extracts are taken from the responsefrom the applicant.

"GHD understand that the Katoomba WMF operating hours would continue tobe from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm following development of the proposal. The noiseassessment was therefore undertaken to reflect that the proposed facility will notoperate outside of these hours of business and hence, no operational noisemodelling was undertaken for evening (18:00 to 22:00) nor night time (22:00 to7:00 Mon-Fri, and 22:00 to 8:00 Sundays & Public Holidays) periods."

"GHD was not engaged to undertake a compliance assessment of the existing siteoperations, which would have required detailed, attended monitoring andinvestigative analysis of the existing noise generated by the Katoomba WMF,rather;

- Background unattended noise monitoring was undertaken at fourrepresentative locations (in the vicinity of the proposed developmentarea), of the ambient noise environment for a period of 7 days.

It is generally considered that background noise monitoring for an industry thatwishes to extend its operations should not include any noise from the site itself,which is in line with the NSW INP Guidelines.

Based on the monitoring results, project specific noise goals were established forthe operation of the proposed transfer station with consideration to the NSWDECC publications Environmental Noise Control Manual (ENCM) Chapter 171Construction site noise, Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN),and Industrial Noise Policy (INP)."

"The noise contribution of roller door operation were modelled, as outlined inSection 4.3.1 of EIS Appendix G - Katoomba Waste Management Facility NoiseImpact Assessment "Operational Noise Modelling Setup" and as listed in Table17-8 of the EIS (Estimated sound power levels for primary noise generatingequipment).

It is noted the proposed transfer station design has four roller doors in total. Itis considered unlikely that all four doors will be opened at the same time.


Therefore two "open" roller doors have been allowed for in the model as verticalarea sources with 10m wide by 5m high openings and with no reduction indexapplied."

The Council's Specialist Environmental Health Officer has assessed the acoustic impactassessment and has indicated that there are no objections or concerns relating to noise.

Water Quality

Concern has been raised that the proposed development will impact on the downstream waterquality and groundwater.

Chapter 12 of the EIS outlines the existing hydrology surrounding the site, current surface waterquality, and existing surface water monitoring and management systems. Chapter 12 alsoassesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on local hydrology and surface waterquality, and outlines mitigation measures for these potential impacts. In this regard, the EISstates:

"The site is located in a valley of Yosemite Creek, which drains to the northeastfrom the Katoomba area. The location of the proposed development in relationto local watercourses is shown in Figure 12-1 [of the EIS].

The site includes numerous surface water drainage features, which manage therisk of contamination of surface water by leachate.

A surface drain runs between the southern edge of the landfill and Mistral Street,diverting offsite surface water runoff from Woodlands Road to the downstreamsection of the Mistral Street culvert of Yosemite Creek. This drain may alsoreceive surface water runoff from the southern vegetated batter of the landfill andunvegetated resource recovery area.

A toe drain at the base of the western vegetated batter of the landfill adjacent toYosemite creek collects surface water runoff from the batter and potentially fromthe resource recovery area on the top of the old landfill. The toe drain runs alongthe western batter to the main leachate pond via a concrete flume across theperimeter access track.

Surface water runoff from existing temporarily covered operational areas of thelandfill is directed to the existing sedimentation pond. This is achieved by a steepplastic lined flume from the intermediate flat area below the working face andthrough drainage along the eastern and northern edges perimeter road. Thesediment pond captures entrained sediments. The pond is normally desludgedwhen it is one-third full of sediment. Sediments are removed from the pond bybackhoe and disposed of in the landfill. Overflows from the sedimentation pondare discharged to Yosemite Creek. Any overflows are regularly monitored by thesite operator in accordance with the site EPL.

Surface water runoff from the landfill access ramp and eastern areas drains to


a surface water outlet structure consisting of a dry detention area formed bygabion baskets."

The EIS provides the following impact assessment:

"Hydrology

The areas where the proposal would be developed are mainly vegetated andunsealed at present. Paving of these areas and establishing buildings wouldreduce the infiltration of rainwater and thereby potentially increase run-offvolumes and flow intensities.

To overcome this, stormwater falling on paved areas would be captured througha series of drains and directed to a retention basin before controlled dischargeto nearby watercourses.

Efforts will be made to re-use as much of this water as possible for on-sitepurposes such as wheel washing and irrigation of vegetated areas duringoperation of the upgraded facilities.

Excess water from the retention basin would dissipate over time through a weirstyle outlet from the basin or by infiltration through its base.

Roof water would be collected in rainwater tanks for on-site uses such as toiletflushing (for staff facilities in the transfer station building), dust suppression,fire-fighting, watering gardens, equipment cleaning and wash-down, and othernon-potable applications.

Surface water quality

During construction

Removal of vegetation and excavated materials during construction of theproposed resource recovery centre and transfer station would increase the extentof open uncovered area. This could potentially result in erosion of newlydisturbed areas, unless appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken duringconstruction.

During operation

Surface water quality could be potentially affected by contact with wastes andrecyclable materials during operation of the proposed resource recovery centreand transfer station. The design of the transfer building has been developed toensure that wastes are unloaded from Council collection and commercialcompactor vehicles within the building, rather than outdoors as is currently thecase. Baled wastes would also be loaded onto trucks either within the buildingor under the building canopy. This would minimise the potential for wastes tobecome wet and therefore produce excess leachate. It will also prevent


stormwater coming into contact with wastes in general.

While the resource recovery centre has outdoor unloading areas, the facility hasbeen designed to permit waste and recyclable materials to be unloaded undercover. Waste and recyclables bins would also be also protected from the rain byawnings.

Therefore, operation of the proposed facilities would have a negligible impact onstormwater quality due to the following design features:

- Management of wastes in enclosed or undercover areas;

- Rainwater falling on roofs would be collected and stored onsite and usedfor purposes such as fire-fighting and landscaping;

- Excess stormwater would overflow into a new stormwater detentionbasin. This water would dissipate over time through a weir style outletfrom the basin or by infiltration through its base;

- Stormwater quality control measures would be included in the sitedrainage network including trash racks, an oil and silt separator, and agross pollutant trap;

- A wash-down bay would be provided for use by vehicles that haveaccessed unsealed areas on top of the landfill; and

- Shelter would be provided over waste unloading areas located within thesmall vehicles drop-off area to minimise the potential ingress of rain andgeneration of leachate. Waste oil, paints, household chemicals and carbatteries would continue to be stored within the DEC approved coveredand bunded storage facility."

Additional information has been provided by the applicant in the form of a modified detentionbasins design and a detailed sediment and erosion control plan. The Council's SpecialistEnvironmental Health Officer raised no objection to the proposed development with regard towater quality.

In addition, the Council's Environmental Scientist has provided the following information:

"The applicant clarified the following questions during a meeting on 26November between the applicant (Rachel Sutcliffe, Frank Garofalow, MartinRyzak and Wayne Lund) and Councils' development assessment staff (Paul Koen,Fiona Nagel, Clive Cawthorne and Byron Tully):

- What is the capacity of the device? The coir log weir device (detentionbasin outlet water spreaders plan) will capture/retain up to a 1:15 yearevent for infiltration and/or evaporation;


- Could we include a sand filter in the base of the basin to assist in waterquality treatment? They do not wish to infiltrate within the detentionbasin to ensure containment of any contamination incidents. They believethat the water quality devices installed within the stormwater system,GPTs and Humeceptors, will adequately address water quality concerns(with treatment of hydrocarbons and oils, said to be the most likelycontaminants);

- The proposed coir log device appears more suited to temporaryrehabilitation works rather than for use in a permanent stormwatermanagement setting. Can the structure be of a more durable long lastingdesign? They do not wish to utilise a more formal engineering structure(such as an infiltration/bioretention trench or similar) as the structure isnestled within the fringes of bushland at the site and they wish tominimise impacts. Also, they add that the coir log weirs may silt up andbecome naturalised permanent earth mounds, but if this does not occur,they agree to replace them as necessary to ensure the device alwaysworks effectively. As the structure achieves the objective of infiltrationand dissipation for flows up to 1:15 year event (given that I had requesteda minimum of 1:5 year event be infiltrated) and given that thedevelopment engineers are accepting of the likely maintenance, I amaccepting of the coir log weir design in this instance;

Summary:

This information and clarification offered during the meeting is consideredacceptable ...."

Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

Visual Impact

A number of submissions raised concern that the proposed development will have anunacceptable impact on the visual environment of adjoining landowners.

Chapter 18 of the EIS assesses the impact the proposed development will have on the visualcharacter of the area. In this regard, the following analysis is made:

"The existing visual catchment is defined by the two creek lines of Yosemite Creekto the west and an unnamed tributary to the east. The promontory is furtherdefined by three roads; Seventh Avenue adjacent to Yosemite Creek, MarmionRoad to the east, and Woodlands Road to the west. The site sits at approximately950 metres above sea level and faces north with extensive views over the BlueMountains National Park and Mounts Tomah and Banks in the far distance.

Landscape associated with the study area (which includes the visual catchment)can be characterised as residential, bushland, the existing waste facility andsome industrial."


"Existing views to the site are constrained due to the location of the site on anartificially benched landform in a densely vegetated small valley."

"Views from Seventh Avenue

Depending on their elevation and location on the valley slopes, some houseswould have views either across the valley to the WMF or, to the north, across theNational Park.

Seventh Avenue is located approximately 300m from the proposed development,across the existing landfill mound at the waste facility, and approximately 100metres above it. The land between Seventh Avenue and the Katoomba WMFsupports a dense cover of trees. It is possible to obtain filtered, downwardlooking views of the proposed development from some back yards of residenceson the eastern side of Seventh Avenue. The lack of vegetation on the study areatends to highlight the view.

The view to the south is of the existing landfill mound, which will be ultimatelyplanted with indigenous vegetation as part of its formal closure.

The site for the proposed waste transfer station is not currently visible, but itsfuture roof may be visible. It may be possible to obtain filtered views of theadditional parking area and resource recovery area from this location. Thesebuildings and hardstand areas will not be out of scale or density with existingdevelopment on the site.

Views from Marmion Road

A limited number of houses (up to 5) are oriented to the west where they can seethe WMF. These houses are approximately 30 metres below the site and 300metres from it. There is a dense cover of trees between the Katoomba WMF andMarmion Road residences.

The site for the proposed waste transfer station is not currently visible from theseresidences, but its future mass and roof may be visible. It is unlikely that otherproposed buildings or hardstand areas will be visible from this location. Theproposed transfer station will be a small component in the visual composition ofviews from Marmion Road residences.

Views from Woodlands Road

Views from this location are of the existing site entrance. The proposedadditional parking area will be sited off Woodlands Road and the small vehiclesrecycling area adjacent to that. Both facilities will be constructed between 5 to10 metres below the level of the site entrance and are likely to be visible fromWoodlands Road.

These proposed elements are in scale with other industrial buildings and


hardstand areas that are common from this viewing point."

"Visual Effect

There will be a low visual effect as a result of the proposed development. The sitecurrently accommodates industrial type sheds and large hardstand areas. Theimpact of the visual effect will not change the intrinsic character of the area.

There will be no loss of views as a result of the proposed development.

Visual Sensitivity

The proposed waste transfer station is unlikely to have much visual sensitivity.It will be marginally visible from Marmion Road residences and potentially someSeventh Avenue residences. However the resource recovery area, althoughsimilar to existing development on the site, is to be located on a relativelyelevated area of the site and so will be visible to some degree from both SeventhAvenue and Woodlands Road.

The overall visual sensitivity of the proposal is likely to be medium. This is since:

- The Katoomba WMF has been operating as a waste management facilityfor some time with a high visual impact based on its visibility in contrastto the surrounding low density residential development in a woodlandsetting and the adjacent National Park;

- A small number of residences would be able to see the development; and

- All residences are at least 300m from the proposed development."

Notwithstanding the above visual impact analysis, submissions raised concern that the visualimpact assessment did not address the impact of the development when viewed from QueensRoad, Denison Road and walking tracks in the vicinity of the site. The applicant has providedadditional visual impact assessment material to address the concerns raised in submissions. Thefollowing extracts have been taken from that additional information.

"The visual impact assessment included in the EIS was limited to an assessmentof the potential impacts to receivers located in the most significant view corridorsto the valley where it is proposed to develop the waste transfer station building,the most significant view corridors to this area being determined by Hassell asbeing those from Seventh Avenue to the north, Marmion Road to the east andWoodlands Road to the west.

Current activities at the Katoomba WMF are however also visible to residents inQueens Road and Denison Road, as well as bushwalkers using theEnvironmentally Protected Zone that lies north of Clydebank Road. A descriptionof the current views and potential impact to visual quality that may result fromthe proposal is therefore provided below.


The following assessment of impact to visual quality has been undertaken inaccordance with the method used in Appendix J to the EIS (Visual AssessmentStudy for Upgrade of the Katoomba Waste Management Facility Proposed WasteTransfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre, Hassell 2006) ie that is [sic] thevisual impact is determined by evaluating the visual effect of the development inthe context of the visual sensitivity of the surrounding land use areas from whichthe proposed development may be visible, where:

- Visual effect is the expression of the change in landscape charactercreated by the interaction between the development, and the existingenvironment; and

- Visual sensitivity is a measure of the importance of the visualenvironment to different user groups and areas or locations.

Queens Road

Views to the Katoomba WMF are visible to residents located along the crest ofQueens Road (at approximately 980 metres above sea level), which runs from justpast the intersection of Queens Road and Denison Road to approximately 250mnorth of the intersection. There are 14 residential properties located on the eastof [sic] west sides of Queens Road that have fairly direct views of the KatoombaWMF from this area. Other residences along the road may also have glimpses ofthe facility through the trees.

Views of the Katoomba WMF from the residences on Queens Road are currentlylimited to operations occurring at the top of the landfill ...... There is significantvegetation screening preventing these households from viewing internal roads orother parts of the current operations at the Katoomba WMF. Industrial buildingslocated to the west of the Katoomba WMF are visible in the background.

There is a distance of approximately 380 metres between the location of theproposed transfer station building and residences on Queens Road. The site ofthe proposed transfer station building and small vehicle waste and recyclingdrop-off is currently not visible to the residences along Queens Road. The futuremass and roofline of the proposed transfer station building along the south-eastelevation is likely to be visible to those residents that can already see the WMF.Views of the transfer station building are likely to be limited to within a fewmetres of the building roofline given the distance, angle of viewing, and extentof visual screening. It is unlikely that other proposed buildings or hardstandareas will be visible from this location given the extent of vegetation screening.

Visual screening of the proposed development, with the exception of the rooflineas noted above, following the removal of 0.45 ha of bushland (as proposed) islikely to be high given the dense cover of trees between the Katoomba WMF andresidences.

The proposed development is assessed as likely to have a moderate visual impact


on residents along Queens Road as both the visual sensitivity and visual effect ofthe proposal are assessed as moderate ...."

"Denison Road

Views to the Katoomba WMF from Denison Road are similar to those fromQueens Road ..... There are however a lesser number of residential developmentswith view corridors from Denison Road, and a greater distance between theresidents and the proposed location of the transfer station building. Overall thevisual impact to residents in Denison Road is therefore likely to be low tomoderate."

"Bushwalkers using the Environmentally Protected Zone

Bushwalkers using the tracks (unsealed roads) located in the environmentallyprotected zone north of Clydebank Road have limited views to the KatoombaWMF given the thick visual screening and surrounding topography.

Existing views of the Katoomba WMF are limited to current activities on the topof the landfill (including landfilling and stockpiles) and landfill batters are visiblefrom parts of the tracks, however these views are well screened by the bushlandlocated between the tracks and the WMF ......The site for the proposed transfer station building is not currently visible from thetracks located in the environmentally protected zone. Its future mass and rooflinemay be visible from some parts of the tracks located in the north-east where thereis a shorter view distance and more direct alignment, however visibility is likelyto be limited given the density of vegetation. It is unlikely that other proposedbuildings or hardstand areas will be visible from this area.

As noted above, potential viewing corridors to the proposed development sitefrom the tracks are densely vegetated which provides good screening. Screeningis likely to remain high (and visibility of the transfer station building low)following the proposed removal of 0.45 ha of bushland, given the dense cover oftrees, alignment of the tracks in a north-westerly direction which increases thedistance between the tracks proposed development area, and topography.

The proposed development is assessed as likely to have a low visual impact onbushwalkers using the environmentally protected zone located north ofClydebank Road as the visual sensitivity is assessed as low and visual effect asmoderate ......"

There can be no doubt that some visual impact will result from the proposed development,however, with the proposed mitigation measures in place to limit that visual impact, it isconsidered that the visual impact of the development will be reasonable and acceptable.

Ecologically Sustainable Development

One (1) submission has raised concern with the continued use of petrol and oil resources in the


transport of waste to the Katoomba WMF and has suggested that alternative means of transportshould be utilised. The submission states that the proposed development is not within therecognised principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development.

As noted in the EIS, Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000lists four (4) principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development ("ESD") which must beconsidered when determining a development application for Designated Development.

Chapter 25 of the EIS deals with ESD principles, with the following summary provided in theEIS:

"The precautionary principle

None of the risks identified during the assessment of the proposal are consideredto pose a threat of serious irreversible environmental damage and wherever riskshave been identified, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed. Thesemitigation measures would substantially minimise the likelihood of theoccurrence of these risks."

"Intragenerational equity

Local residents close to the existing Katoomba WMF would be most impacted bythe proposal due to noise emissions from the site and generation of additionaltraffic on local roads. However the expected overall operational impacts of theresource recovery centre and waste transfer station would not be significantlydifferent from those of the current landfill. In particular, some of the impacts,such as dust, odour and noise should be less than the current operations, due tothe proposed management of mixed wastes within an enclosed building, and theproposed baling and wrapping of waste prior to transfer off site.

To ensure that local residents do not bear the 'costs' of all potential impacts, theresource recovery centre and waste transfer station would be managed inaccordance with 'best practice' and mitigation measures that minimise suchimpacts. This includes taking steps to minimise the amount of waste that wouldneed to be transferred off site through improved recycling and waste diversionprograms, enclosing noisy operations where possible, and minimising therequired number of transfer vehicle movements off site by employing advancedtechnology for waste baling and transfer. All residents of the Blue Mountains,through increased waste charges, would share the costs of implementing thesemeasures and of minimising any potential local impacts."

"Intergenerational equity

The principle of intergenerational equity requires the present generation toensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment aremaintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

The proposal to develop a resource recovery centre and waste transfer station at


the Katoomba WMF will provide future generations with ongoing access tofacilities for waste management and recycling. When compared to otheralternatives, the proposal poses less burden on the overall Blue Mountainscommunity as a whole compared to if the Katoomba WMF were to ceaseoperation following landfill closure.

Resource recovery initiatives proposed for the site will provide greateropportunity for beneficial recovery and reuse of materials, and hence decreasethe volume of waste disposed of to landfill.

This in turn would minimise environmental impacts from landfill operations andassist in conserving landfill air space to support the longer-term waste disposalrequirements of the overall Blue Mountains community."

"Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrityshould be a fundamental consideration in all development proposals.

The proposal would require the clearing of approximately 0.65 hectares ofvegetation from the site. The vegetation in this area is characterised as goodquality Eucalyptus woodland (0.45 hectares) and modified bushland with highweed invasion (0.2 hectares).

Potential impacts to flora and fauna would be managed throughout theconstruction and operation of the proposal in accordance with measures outlinedin Chapter 15 [of the EIS + additional information forwarded by the applicant].

No threatened or endangered species or ecological communities would beimpacted by the proposal according to the flora and fauna survey workundertaken for this EIS .....

The proposal would improve the amenity and operations at the Katoomba WMFcompared to current impacts. Potentially odourous activities would be locatedin an enclosed operating area, helping to also control litter and vermin. Wastewould be regularly removed from the site further assisting in the control ofvermin and providing improvements in amenity."

"Improved valuation and pricing of resources

The principle of improved valuation and pricing of resources requires thatdevelopment proponents adequately account for environmental factors in theevaluation of assets and services, with respect to the development proposal. Inpractice, improving the valuation and pricing of environmental resources willtake account of all the following:

(i) the "polluter pays" principle – that is, those who generate pollution(including waste) should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or


abatement.

Operation of the proposed resource recovery centre and waste transfer stationwill incorporate differential pricing for source-separated recyclables and mixedwastes as an incentive for customers to change waste disposal practices. Higherfees will be payable for mixed and nonrecyclable wastes in accordance with"polluter pays" principles. In line with current Council management, all wasteto be received at the resource recovery centre and waste transfer station will begenerated within the Blue Mountains LGA and more specifically within the upperBlue Mountains.

(ii) users of goods and services should pay prices, which are based on the fulllife cycle costs of providing those goods and services, including the useof all natural resources and natural assets and the ultimate disposal ofany waste.

Disposal charges for waste and recyclables will be set to enable full recovery ofdevelopment and operational costs for the proposed resource recovery centre andwaste transfer station over time. Construction of the proposal will enableongoing operation of the Katoomba WMF following the closure of Katoombalandfill. Fees charged for waste management in the Blue Mountains would be setat levels that would pay for the ongoing environmental monitoring, rehabilitationand management of the site.

(iii) environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in themost cost effective way by establishing incentive structures, includingappropriate market mechanisms that enable those best placed tomaximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions andresponses to environmental problems.

Investigating further opportunities for waste avoidance and recovery of resourcesis a goal of the Proponent's overall strategic approach to waste management.The proposal incorporates development of a resource recovery centre to promoteincreased opportunity for resource recovery at the Katoomba WMF, and providesfor increased integration of resource recovery activities with existing educationfacilities at the site. Technology and processes proposed for implementation havebeen selected based on their cost effectiveness and potential contribution tooverall ESD aims. The proposal is considered appropriate and affordable givenlocal requirements and potential alternatives. It also provides flexibility forBMCC to take advantage of advances in materials sorting and processingtechnology as they become available and more affordable."

The continued use of landfill as the major or only source of disposal of waste is not consideredto be acceptable in the long term. This approach has been recognised by Blue Mountains CityCouncil which has adopted a Strategic Waste Action Plan to deal with the increasingly complexproblem of waste management within the City.

It has been recognised by the Council that alternative waste management solutions need to be


found and that the extension to the Katoomba WMF to establish a waste transfer station andresource recovery facility is a short to medium term solution.

In the context of the proposed development, however, it is considered that the Council has littleor no alternative but to rely, at least in part, on the continuation of landfilling at the BlaxlandWMF upon the closure of the Katoomba landfill as a means by which waste can be disposed ofin the City in the short to medium term. With the combination of the strategy outlined in theStrategic Waste Action Plan and the expansion of the Katoomba WMF to incorporate a resourcerecovery facility and waste transfer station, it is considered that adequate regard has been had tothe principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development.

Flora and Fauna

Concern has been raised with regard to the clearing required to establish the proposeddevelopment and the impact that clearing will have on the flora and fauna of the area.

Chapter 15 of the EIS contains an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on theecology of the area. A summary of that assessment is contained in the Executive Summary ofthe EIS as follows:

"A total of around 0.65 ha of vegetation would be cleared for this proposal andthis would consist of approximately 0.45 ha of Eucalyptus sieberi – Eucalyptuspiperita Woodland and approximately 0.2 ha of modified bushland. Areas to beconserved across the site include 4.85 ha of Eucalyptus sieberi – Eucalyptuspiperita Woodland and 1.8 ha of Blue Mountains Swamps.

Vegetation that would be removed for the proposal provides known and potentialhabitat for seventeen threatened species listed under Section 5A of the EP&A Actand eight threatened species listed under the EPBC Act. It is concluded, basedon Assessments of Significance, that the proposal would not have a significantimpact on these threatened species or place any local populations at risk ofextinction.

There is the potential for edge effects, including weed invasion and indirectimpacts from uncontrolled runoff and sedimentation, to be shifted further towardsthe hanging swamp as a consequence of the proposal. Management measureswould be put in place to reduce this potential including implementation of anongoing weed management plan."

In addition to the above assessment, the applicant has provided additional information regardingthe impact the proposed development may have on the hanging swamps, that assessment havingbeen discussed in an earlier section of this report.

Concern has also been raised with regard to clearing of bushland and the assessment of thatclearing against the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20. In this regard,the applicant has provided the following additional information:

"Both conservation area subcatchments (which includes the Grose River


subcatchment and hence Yosemite Creek subcatchment) and national parks andnature reserves are defined as environmentally sensitive areas under SREP 20.

In accordance with clause 6(2) of SREP 20, the specific planning policy andrecommended strategies that apply to environmentally sensitive areas are:

Policy: The environmental quality of environmentally sensitive areasmust be protected and enhanced through careful control of futureland use changes and through management and (wherenecessary) remediation of existing uses.

Strategies:

a) Rehabilitate parts of the riverine corridor from which sand, gravel or soilare extracted so that attached aquatic plant beds are replaced and waterquality and faunal habitats improved.

b) Minimise adverse impacts on water quality, aquatic habitats, riverinevegetation and bank stability.

c) Minimise direct and indirect adverse impacts on land reserved ordedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or the ForestryAct 1916 and conservation area sub-catchments in order to protect waterquality and biodiversity.

d) Protect wetlands (including upland wetlands) from future developmentand from the impacts of land use within their catchments.

e) Consider the need to include buffer zones (such as adequate fire radiationzones) for proposals on land adjacent to land reserved or dedicated underthe National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or the Forestry Act 1916.

f) Consider the views of the Director-General of National Parks andWildlife about proposals for land adjacent to land reserved or dedicatedunder the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

g) Consideration should be given to the impact of the developmentconcerned on the water table and the formation of acid sulphate soils.

h) New development in conservation area sub-catchments should be locatedin areas that are already cleared.

Clearing for new development, although not recommended in environmentallysensitive areas (strategy h as listed above), is not prohibited by SREP 20. Theproposal incorporates control measures to protect nearby environmentalsensitive areas from potential adverse impacts during the construction andoperation of the proposed facilities. The footprint of the facility was also modifiedduring the design process in response to concerns regarding the use of currently


uncleared areas to develop the proposal.

The modifications have resulted in maximising the use of already disturbed areaswithin the Katoomba WMF, however some clearing will still be required."

The Council's Environmental Scientist raised no objection to the proposed development and hasrecommended suitable conditions of consent relating to, among other things:

- Protection of threatened species and endangered ecological communities,

- Establishment of a buffer between the development site and the adjoining sensitive areas,

- The provision of a detailed Vegetation Management Plan,

- Weed control,

- Establishment of an exclusion zone around sensitive areas to prevent damage to thoseareas, and

- Prevention of the removal of vegetation without the prior permission of the Council.

Bushfire

Submissions have raised concern with regard to the impact bushfire mitigation measures willhave on the flora and fauna of the site and to the practicability of the proposed Asset ProtectionZone.

Chapter 23 of the EIS deals with the management of bushfire on the site and states:

"Designated Bushfire Prone Land maps have been prepared for the BlueMountains City Council. The study area has been mapped as supporting BushfireProne Land (Category 1).

Confirmation of this was done using Blue Mountains City Council on-lineservice. Therefore it is preferable that the proposed development complies withthe bushfire provisions within Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) (PlanningNSW 2001)[now 2006].

The proposal does not require referral to the NSW Rural Fire Service undersection 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) nor section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (RF Act) as neither residentialnor rural residential development are proposed for the study area.

Under section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Department of Planning may choose torefer the application to the Rural Fire Service."

The NSW Rural Fire Service has been consulted as part of the assessment of this developmentapplication and has advised:


"Under the current legislation and regulations any development application onbush fire prone land is subject to assessment for bush fire protection. [The]development is not subject to section 100B of the Rural Fires Act and does notrequire a bush fire safety authority. However it is subject to section 79BA of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and as such must comply withPlanning for Bush Fire Protection 2006.

As this is not a residential development you will only be required to comply withthe aims and objectives of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and not thespecific APZ and Construction standards.

Consider the vulnerable assets of [the] proposal. Do they have a defendablespace? Are they constructed to ensure their protection during a bushfire? Is theresuitable water supply and adequate safe access for firefighters? Does [the]proposal present a potential hazard to adjoining properties and if it does, howhave you addressed the mitigation of that threat?"

Chapter 23 of the EIS, when discussing the measures to be implemented to protect the site frombushfire, states:

"To fully apply the principles of the PBP Guidelines given the existing sitecharacteristics ......, an asset protection zone of 40m (30m inner zone and 10mouter zone) would be required around the proposed transfer station building.Whilst this option is unlikely to yield objection from the Rural Fire Service itwould however conflict with the Proponent's desire to maximise retention ofexisting bushland on the site, particularly in the area between the eastern side ofthe proposed transfer station and the hanging swamp."

In light of the above, the proposed measures are:

".... that a minimum 20m APZ be provided around the transfer station building.This APZ will consist of ring roads around the building which will be used forvehicle movements during normal operation. The proposed APZ will result inretention of additional bushland and reduce further encroachment towards thesensitive hanging swamp compared to if the PBP Guideline APZ was to beapplied. It is recognised however that with the reduced APZ:

- the likelihood of damage to the transfer station building by bushfire maybe higher; and

- the RFS and others may refuse to defend the building should a bushfireoccur."

The proposed APZ is shown in Figure 23-1 of the EIS. In addition, there are a number ofmitigation measures which will be put into place on the site as follows:

"During the construction phase of the project, the local RFS Control Centrewould be notified of the dates during which construction is to be undertaken and


any dates during which 'hot work' is to be conducted should be highlighted. Thiswould enable RFS to advise when weather conditions are not appropriate tocarry out the works proposed, with respect to an elevated risk of bushfire.

Further, the following safety measures would be implemented:

Site Access

- The proposed APZ, being of road surfacing suitable for the everydaymovement of heavy vehicles, will be trafficable by fire-fighting vehiclesunder all weather conditions and designed with appropriate drainage anderosion controls. The road would be wide enough to enable fire trucks topass each other if required;

- Access to the developed areas of the site would be established andmaintained and include the road network surrounding the transfer stationand developed areas of the site;

- The road network around the transfer station would have:

- A minimum trafficable width of 10 m with sufficient space fortruck passing;

- The batter to the south-east of the stormwater detention basin tobe kept clear of bushes and long grass;

- Capacity sufficient to carry fully loaded firefighting vehicles;

- A minimum vertical clearance of 6 m to any overhangingobstructions, including tree branches; and

- Curves of a radius sufficient to accommodate large vehicles,including firefighting trucks.

The above attributes would be sufficient to allow firefighting vehicle crews towork with firefighting equipment around the vehicle.

Application of appropriate construction standards

The transfer station will be constructed in accordance with Level 2 (AS 3959 –1999) Construction Standards, suitable for High Category Bushfire Attack inaccordance with the PBP Guidelines.

Emergency systems and management procedures

The management plan prepared for site operation would detail fire preventionmeasures to be implemented during construction and later for the operation ofthe facility including but not limited to:


- Work involving risk of ignition should not be carried out during total firebans;

- Fire suppression equipment available on site;

- Appropriate storage and maintenance of fuels and other flammablematerials; and

- Evacuation procedures would be detailed for any persons located at thesite during the bushfire season."

Notwithstanding the proposed bushfire measures not being in strict keeping with the APZrequirements of PBP, it is considered that the compromise situation proposed will result in lessdestruction to the natural environment surrounding the site and that the measures proposed onsite will provide for suitable protection of the site from bushfire.

Vegetation Management Plan

Concern has been raised that a Vegetation Management Plan has not been provided with theapplication. The applicant has been requested to address this issue and has provided a draft tableof contents for a vegetation management plan which is currently under preparation.

It is considered that a condition of consent should be formulated to ensure that the vegetationmanagement plan is provided as part of the Construction Certificate application.

Traffic

Concern has been raised that the increased traffic on the local street network will be adverse andsignificant.

The application has been referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for comment. Theapplication was considered at the 25 July 2007 meeting of the Sydney Regional DevelopmentAdvisory Committee with the following conclusions:

"1. Efficient queuing length should be provided on site to ensure that underno circumstances vehicles entering the site will queue on WoodlandsRoad.

2. Council should ensure no parking of vehicles is allowed on WoodlandsRoad at the frontage of the entrance of the Waste Depot.

3. All work associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost tothe RTA."

In response to the above comments, the Applicant has provided the following advice:

"Reference is made to your email dated 3 December and the attached letter fromthe Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) dated 26


November. We provide the following information and comments in response tothe letter from SRDAC;

1. Efficient queuing length should be provided on site to ensure that underno circumstances vehicles entering the site will queue on WoodlandsRoad.

For vehicles entering the facility post upgrade, there will be sufficientqueuing length provided in the form of;

a) Main Entrance – the existing dedicated turning lane for the mainentrance provides sufficient storage for the existing number ofvehicles entering the site. The existing driveway also provides offstreet queuing for vehicles entering the weighbridge itself.

b) Car park – the proposed dedicated turning lane for the proposednew car park will provide sufficient storage for staff and visitorvehicles. Post upgrade, these vehicles will no longer need to enterthe site via the main entrance hence reducing the number of smallvehicles using the main entrance.

2. Council should ensure no parking of vehicles is allowed on WoodlandsRoad at the frontage of the entrance of the Waste Depot.

The frontage of the Katoomba Waste Management Facility will notprovide parking for vehicles. Our proposal provides dedicated on siteparking.

3. All work associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost tothe RTA.

The works associated with the proposed upgrade of the Katoomba WasteManagement Facility shall be at no cost to the RTA."

In addition to the above, the Council's Principal Engineer has provided the following comments:

"A full inspection has been carried out of the two access' locations by theEngineering Section, Land Use Management, which investigated the existing andproposed vehicle movements and proposed parking arrangements and it wasfound that the existing facility has been upgraded several times over many yearsand redesigned to allow for increased traffic volumes and vehicle sizes. Inparticular the existing access to the site is more than adequate to continuecurrent and proposed operation without the need for upgrading works.

An inspection of the new access to the proposed carpark at the north-westernperimeter of the site is located at the base of a very steep section of WoodlandsRoad coming from a 25% grade down the carriageway and turning into thedriveway at a grade of 16%, flattening out to 8% as it approaches the proposed


carpark.

The carpark design allows for a comfortable 4% crossfall in a northerly directionwhich is more than adequate for the proposed users.

It should be noted that all civil construction works carried out outside theproperty boundary on the Road Reserve will be subject to a Roads Act Approvalalong with the appropriate bond and confirmation of public liability insuranceprior to the commencement of any works.

Stormwater drainage emanating from the hardstand areas including theproposed carpark which generally flows towards Woodlands Road at the sharpbend will require detailed engineering plans to determine the impact on theexisting Council infrastructure and to ensure that soil erosion and sedimentcontrols are adequate to cater for the increased flow concentration at that point.

Outstanding Information Required/ Proposed standard conditions:

Outstanding Information Required:

The applicant will be required to supply detailed engineering design drawingsof the new access road into the lower carpark. Such plans to include plan view,longitudinal section, cross sections, drainage details and connection details intoCouncil's drainage network, soil erosion and sediment control detailed drawings,traffic details (line marking, raised medians, raised pavement markers, guideposts) and transition details from the carriageway into the carpark."

Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

State Government Departments / Statutory Authority Issues

The following comments have been made by State government departments and/or StatutoryAuthorities.

NSW Rural Fire Service

The NSW Rural Fire Service ("RFS") raised no objection to the proposed development andstated:

"The proposed development does not require referral to the NSW Rural Fireservice under Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 or Section 100B of the Rural Fires 1997. However, the consent authoritymay chose to refer the development application to the RFS under Section 79C ofthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for advice."

Nexus Environmental Planning has contacted the RFS and, as noted in a previous section of thisreport, the RFS stated:


"As this is not a residential development you will only be required to comply withthe aims and objectives of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 and not thespecific APZ and Construction standards.

Consider the vulnerable assets of [the] proposal. Do they have a defendablespace? Are they constructed to ensure their protection during a bushfire? Is theresuitable water supply and adequate safe access for firefighters? Does [the]proposal present a potential hazard to adjoining properties and if it does, howhave you addressed the mitigation of that threat?"

As noted in a previous section of this report, it is considered that the measures to protect theproposed development against the threat of bushfire, which are a combination of Asset ProtectionZones and on site management, are an appropriate response to the bushfire threat.

Roads and Traffic Authority

As detailed above, the application was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for commentand the application was considered at the 25 July 2007 meeting of the Sydney RegionalDevelopment Advisory Committee. The conclusions of the Committee and the Applicant'sresponse are discussed above and suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

Department of Environment and Climate Change

The application was referred to the Department of Environment and Climate Change. In thisregard, the Department advised that:

".... although the EPA is now part of the Department of Environment and ClimateChange NSW ("DECC"), certain statutory functions and powers continue to beexercised in the name of the EPA.

The EPA had reviewed the information provided with the developmentapplication and has determined that it is able to issue a licence for the proposalsubject to a number of conditions. The applicant will need to make a separateapplication to the EPA to obtain this licence."

DECC has provided its General Terms of Approval which are to be attached to any consentissued by the Council.

NSW Department of Water and Energy

The Department of Water and Energy has provided the following information:

"General Terms of Approval (GTA) for work requiring a Permit under Part 3Aof the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (RF&I Act), are not requiredfor this application as Council is the applicant and it [is] therefore exempt.

Comments specific to this DA


The following are comments specific to the subject DA.

Due to the topography of the site it is thought appropriate that two othermonitoring sites for water quality be established. The sites should be just belowthe cemetery and the other below the confluence of the two tributaries ofYosemite Creek that are each side of the site. This will also capture any impactsof this current proposal.

There should be a clear separation of the flows generated by the proposal. Allareas should be sealed to prevent infiltration into the existing landfill. This inturn will assist in decreasing the continued pollution impacts upon the surfaceand groundwater receiving waters below the landfill site.

The location of the stormwater detention basin should not be on or in any landfillarea. (The plan supplied, imply that this requirement appears to be met).

The location of any facilities, roads/structures etc, as part of this proposal shouldnot limit future rehabilitation of the landfill site. So where there is an overlap ofthe two, a plan should be developed and implemented for rehabilitation of thoseparts before this proposal is constructed.

There appears to be no water quality control devises [sic], either at the washdown facility of before water enters the detention basin, for either solids ordissolved pollutants. This needs to be addressed. It is noted that reuse of thiswater is proposed, which makes it more important to ensure this water is of anacceptable standard for the application (ie, if used for watering plants outside thelandfill area)."

The Council's Environmental Scientist has responded to the above comments and this aspect ofthe proposed development has been discussed above in response to the concerns raised byresidents. Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure that therequirements of the Department are met in the establishment of the proposed development.

Statutory Considerations

- Integrated Development within the meaning of Section 91 of the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act 1979.

- Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.11 - Traffic Generating Development.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 - Koala Habitat Protection.

- State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land.


- Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 - Hawkesbury Nepean River (No.2 - 1997).

- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999.

- Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

- Water Act 1912.

- Fisheries Management Act 1994.

- Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

- National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

- Native Vegetation Act 2003.

- Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948.

Environmental Assessment

The application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979, in particular Section 79C, and the relevant provisions of State and localenvironmental planning instruments, codes and policies. This report provides a summary of theassessment issues.

Integrated Development

The proposed development is classified as "Integrated Development" for the purposes of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it requires a licence to carry out scheduledactivity pursuant to the "Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997".

Pursuant to sub-section 91A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

"(2) Before granting development consent to an application for consent tocarry out the [integrated] development, the consent authority must, inaccordance with the regulations, obtain from each relevant approvalbody the general terms of any approval proposed to be granted by theapproval body in relation to the development. Nothing in this sectionrequires the consent authority to obtain the general terms of any suchapproval if the consent authority determines to refuse to grantdevelopment consent."

The Department of Environment and Climate Change advised that:

".... although the EPA is now part of the Department of Environment and ClimateChange NSW ("DECC"), certain statutory functions and powers continue to beexercised in the name of the EPA.


The EPA had reviewed the information provided with the developmentapplication and has determined that it is able to issue a licence for the proposalsubject to a number of conditions. The applicant will need to make a separateapplication to the EPA to obtain this licence."

Suitable conditions of consent in the form of General Terms of Approval have been providedto ensure that the relevant licence is obtained from the Department of Conservation and ClimateChange.

Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005

The section of the site where the existing Katoomba WMF is located and the proposeddevelopment is to be located is contained within the "Recreation - Open Space" and"Environmental Protection - Open Space" zones pursuant to the Blue Mountains LocalEnvironmental Plan 2005 ("LEP 2005").

The Dictionary to LEP 2005 contains definitions of terms used in LEP 2005. The proposeddevelopment is best classified as a "special use" which is defined as:

"special use means a land use that provides a community service, public facilityor infrastructure carried out by the Council or another public authority,institution, organisation, that is shown on Map Panel C for the land concernedand that is distinctively identified on Map Panel C as being for the purpose ofone of the following:

(a) cemetery,

(b) defence,

(c) depot,

(d) educational establishment,

(e) emergency services,

(f) hospital or health centre,

(g) parking facility,

(h) public building or facility,

(i) waste management facility."

"Special uses" are permissible, with the consent of the Council, in both the "Recreation - OpenSpace" and "Environmental Protection - Open Space" zones.

Clause 126 of LEP 2005 is relevant in the assessment of the impact the proposed developmentwill have and in the determination of whether the proposed development is suitable for the site.


In this regard, clause 126 states:

"126 Special use

(1) Consent shall not be granted to development for the purpose of aspecial use, being the special use designated for that land on MapPanel C, or to development ancillary or incidental to that specialuse, unless the proposed development:

(a) is to be carried out by a public authority, institution,organisation or the Council, and

(b) complies with the objectives for a special use withinsubclause (2).

(2) The objectives for development for the purposes of a special useare:

(a) to provide a community service, public facility orinfrastructure, and

(b) to ensure development incorporates measures to mitigateany adverse impact on the environment, and

(c) to ensure development does not have an unreasonablyadverse effect on residential amenity by way of scale,height, noise, light, dust or traffic generation.

(3) The consent authority may consent to development subject to thisclause even if it contravenes a development standard set by thisplan, where the consent authority is satisfied that the developmentis subject to Part 5A of the Act (Development by the Crown).

(4) The consent authority may consent to development subject to thisclause even if it contravenes a development standard set byDivision 1 of Part 2 (Locality management), where the consentauthority is satisfied that the development:

(a) complies with the zone objectives within Division 2 ofPart 2 (Locality management) that apply to the land, and

(b) complies with the objectives for a special use withinsubclause (2).

(5) Consent shall not be required for development carried out by oron behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Defence for thepurpose of defence or for a purpose ancillary or incidental todefence on that land shown on Map Panel C by distinctive


colouring as being subject to a Special Use - Defence."

The proposed development is to be carried out by the Council and hence sub-clause 126(1)(a)is satisfied. The proposed development is for the establishment of a public facility andinfrastructure, incorporates suitable measures to mitigate any adverse impact on the environment,and will not, with conditions in place, have an adverse impact on residential amenity by way ofits scale, height, noise, light, dust or traffic generation. As such, sub-clause 126(1)(b) iscomplied with.

The proposed development will contravene the height requirements of the Local Managementcontrols which apply to the site. As noted in sub-clause 126(4), the Council is able to consentto such a development if it complies with the zone objectives within Division 2 of Part 2(Locality management) that apply to the land and complies with the objectives in sub-clause126(2).

The zone objectives are:

"Recreation - Open Space zone

The objectives for the Recreation - Open Space zone are as follows:

(a) To enhance the quality of life of residents and visitors and improve theamenity of the villages in the Blue Mountains through the provision andmanagement of open space.

(b) To identify and provide public land to be used for open space and publicrecreational purposes.

(c) To provide for a range of recreational settings to cater for the needs oflocal residents and visitors.

(d) To promote improved recreational facilities on publicly owned land.

(e) To improve the environmental quality of the area and ensure thatrecreational development is environmentally sensitive and siteresponsive.

(f) To identify privately owned land that should be acquired for recreationalpurposes.

(g) To ensure that the development of land is consistent with any plan ofmanagement applying to the land."

and

"Environmental Protection - Open Space zone

The objectives for the Environmental Protection - Open Space zone are as


follows:

(a) To ensure conservation and facilitate management of environmentallysensitive land and areas of high scenic value in the City.

(b) To provide a buffer around areas of natural ecological significance.

(c) To restrict development on land that is inappropriate by reason of thephysical characteristics or the high bush fire hazard of the land.

(d) To allow bush fire hazard reduction that is in a form consistent with theprotection of natural ecological values.

(e) To provide for nature-based recreational opportunities that arecompatible with the land's natural, cultural and aesthetic values and tofoster an appreciation of those values.

(f) To encourage land restoration works on disturbed bushland areas.

(g) To ensure that the development of land is consistent with any plan ofmanagement applying to the land.

(h) To identify privately owned land that should be acquired forenvironmental protection and open space purposes."

The proposed development, suitably conditioned, will not be inconsistent with any of the aboveobjectives. As discussed above, the objectives of sub-clause 126(2) are complied with. As such,the Council may vary the height development standard which would otherwise apply to theproposed development.

The site of the Katoomba WMF contains sections of Protected Areas pursuant to LEP 2005,those areas being part "Ecological Buffer Area" and part "Slope Constraint Area". No part ofthe proposed development is proposed in the "Ecological Buffer Area", however, part of theproposed car parking area is contained within the "Slope Constraint Area".

Clause 45 of LEP 2005 deals with development in the "Slope Constraint Area" and states:

"45 Protected Area - Slope Constraint Area

(1) Consent shall not be granted to development on any land withina Protected Area - Slope Constraint Area that has contiguousareas of slope greater than 20 per cent (protected land) unless theconsent authority is satisfied, by means of a detailedenvironmental assessment, that the development complies with theobjectives and other provisions within this clause.

(2) The objectives for a Protected Area - Slope Constraint Area are:


(a) to restrict development of land that has contiguous areasof slope greater than 20 per cent or physicalcharacteristics that render the land inappropriate fordevelopment, and

(b) to ensure that development on land that has contiguousareas of slope greater than 20 per cent is designed andsited to minimise vegetation clearing and soil disturbance,and

(c) to encourage the retention, restoration and maintenanceof disturbed native vegetation on steep land.

(3) Development, including the erection of buildings, carrying out ofalterations to buildings, clearing of native vegetation, and thecarrying out of works that disturb the soil or alter the naturaldrainage pattern, on land to which this clause applies, is to:

(a) retain and maintain all existing native vegetation outsidethe area immediately required for the development, and

(b) incorporate measures to regenerate native vegetation onall land with slopes greater than 20 per cent that hasalready been cleared and does not form part of the site ofexisting development or the proposed development, and

(c) not adversely impact on the rate, volume or quality ofwater leaving the site, and

(d) be undertaken only where an assessment, which mayinclude the preparation of a geotechnical report,demonstrates that the soil characteristics and structuralelements of the protected land are suitable for theproposed development, and

(e) be sited outside protected land unless no other practicablealternative is available.

(4) When considering whether development could be sited outsideprotected land in accordance with subclause (3) (e), the consentauthority shall consider:

(a) the design, type and site coverage of the proposeddevelopment, and

(b) the physical characteristics of the area on which thedevelopment is proposed to be carried out, and


(c) the suitability of the land for the proposed development."

An assessment of the proposed development against the provisions of clause 45 of LEP 2005 hasbeen undertaken in the EIS as follows:

"Parts of the site are also identified as Protected Areas under the LEP. Protectedareas within the proposed development site include slope constraint andecological buffer areas. These areas are shown Figure 3-3 [of the EIS] inaddition to an overlay of the proposed development. Figure 3-3 shows that nodevelopment is proposed in the area identified as an ecological buffer. Part of thedevelopment works, in the vicinity of the reuse building, will take place in a slopeconstraint area. By carrying out these works in this area the connectivity of theuse of the building to the other resource recovery areas is maintained and theamount of bushland that will need to be cleared is reduced.

According to LEP 2005, the Consent Authority should not grant consent fordevelopment within these protected areas unless it is satisfied that thedevelopment complies with relevant objectives and provisions for each protectedarea as specified in LEP 2005.

Development in the slope constraint area will be undertaken with regards to therequirements for development in this type of protected area including:

- Maintenance of vegetation outside the area immediately required for thedevelopment;

- Incorporation of measures to regenerate native vegetation on all landwith slopes greater than 20 per cent that has already been cleared anddoes not form part of the existing development site or the proposeddevelopment area; and

- Design such that there is no adverse impact on the rate, volume or qualityof water leaving the site.

A geotechnical investigation undertaken as part of the specialist studies for thisEIS (refer Appendix L [of the EIS]) demonstrates that the soil characteristics andstructural elements of the protected land are suitable for the proposeddevelopment with implementation of appropriate engineering."

Assessment of the proposed development by the Council Staff having regard to the developmentproposed in the "Slope Constraint Area" has generally concluded that the development, suitablyconditioned, will meet the requirements of clause 45 of LEP 2005. The conclusions of theCouncil Staff are sound and the site is suitable for the proposed development.

There are no other provisions of LEP 2005 which apply to the proposed development which havenot been canvassed in the above sections of this report. It is considered that the proposeddevelopment is consistent with the requirements of LEP 2005.


State Environmental Planning Policy No.11 - Traffic Generating Development

Clause 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No.11 - Traffic Generating Development("SEPP 11") states:

"The aims, objectives, policies and strategies of this Policy are to ensure that theTraffic Authority:

(a) is made aware of, and

(b) is given an opportunity to make representations in respect of,

development referred to in Schedule 1 or 2."

The proposed development falls within the following definition contained in Schedule 1 of thePolicy:

"(k) junk yards or depots or regional depots, within the meaning of the WasteDisposal Act 1970."

Clause 7 of SEPP 11 states, among other things:

"Development applications to be referred to the Traffic Authority

7(1) Subject to subclause (2), this clause applies to applications fordevelopment consent to carry out development specified in Schedule 1 or2.

(2) Where the Traffic Authority has notified a consent authority that thisclause does not apply to a development application (whether by referenceto the type, purpose or location of the development the subject of theapplication or otherwise) this clause shall not apply to that developmentapplication.

(3) Where a consent authority receives a development application to carryout development specified in Schedule 1, the consent authority shall,within 7 days of its receipt of the application, forward a copy of theapplication to the Traffic Authority.

(4) Where a consent authority receives a development application (other thana development application to which subclause (3) relates) to carry outdevelopment specified in Schedule 2, being development on or of landthat has direct vehicular or pedestrian access to:

(a) an arterial road; or

(b) a road connecting with an arterial road, if the access is within 90metres (measured along the road alignment of the connecting


road) of the alignment of the arterial road,

the consent authority shall, within 7 days of its receipt of the application,forward a copy of the application to the Traffic Authority.

(5) Where a copy of a development application has been forwarded to theTraffic Authority pursuant to subclause (3) or (4), the consent authorityshall not determine the application until:

(a) it has received a representation with respect to the applicationfrom the Traffic Authority; or

(b) the Traffic Authority has informed the consent authority that itdoes not wish to make any representation with respect to theapplication; or

(c) 21 days have elapsed after the date on which the copy of theapplication was forwarded to the Traffic Authority,

whichever first occurs."

As discussed above, the development application has been forwarded to the Roads and TrafficAuthority. The issues raised by the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee and theNSW Police Force following the meeting of the Committee have been suitably addressed by theApplicant and suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development ("SEPP33") aims, among other things:

"(d) to ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous oroffensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce theimpact of the development are taken into account; and

(e) to ensure that in considering any application to carry out potentiallyhazardous or offensive development, the consent authority has sufficientinformation to assess whether the development is hazardous or offensiveand to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impact."

The proposed development is not a "Hazardous Industry" or "Hazardous Storage Establishment"as defined in SEPP 33 as it will not pose a significant risk in relation to the locality to humanhealth, life or property, or to the biophysical environment. The development may, however, be"Potentially Hazardous Industry". In this regard, the EIS states:

"The proposed development is for the purposes of a waste transfer station andwould accept and store the following types of waste:


- Putrescible and non-putrescible wastes that are classified as non-hazardous and non-toxic;

- Domestic quantities of household paints, paint solvents and householdcleaners;

- Domestic quantities of household herbicides and pesticides;

- Waste oils for recycling or reuse; and

- Motor vehicle batteries."

"The proposed development would only be licenced to store domestic quantitiesof these materials, and hazardous materials received at the site would bedisposed of regularly at appropriately licenced waste facilities. It is thereforeconsidered extremely unlikely that the quantities of hazardous materials storedon the site at any one time would exceed the screening threshold quantitiesoutlined in Table 3-1 [of the EIS].

As such, the proposed development is not considered to be a potentiallyhazardous industry, and the provisions of SEPP 33 relating to potentiallyhazardous development do not apply."

The proposed development is, however, "Potentially Offensive Industry" and, as such, SEPP 33does apply.

When determining an application for "Potentially Offensive Industry", Council must, pursuantto clause 13 of SEPP 33, consider:

"(a) current circulars or guidelines published by the Department of Planningrelating to hazardous or offensive development; and

(b) whether any public authority should be consulted concerning anyenvironmental and land use safety requirements with which thedevelopment should comply; and

(c) ....., and

(d) any feasible alternatives to the carrying out of the development, and thereasons for choosing the development the subject of the application(including any feasible alternatives for the location of the developmentand the reasons for choosing the location of the subject application); and

(e) any likely future use of the land surrounding the development."

With regard to current circulars and guidelines, the then Department of Planning has preparedCircular B27 and the publication "Applying SEPP 33 Hazardous and Offensive DevelopmentApplication Guidelines". It is the information contained within these Guidelines which has been


used to determine that the subject development is "Potentially Offensive Industry".

With regard to "Potentially Offensive Industry", the Guidelines, at pages 13 & 14, give guidanceto Council with regard to the information which should be provided with a DevelopmentApplication. The EIS provides sufficient detail in this regard.

As indicated in the guidelines, if a licence is required by the EPA (now DECC), then it is safeto assume that the proposed development is "Potentially Offensive Industry". The DECC hasindicated that a licence is required to operate the proposed extension to the Katoomba WMFpursuant to the "Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997", and, as such, it isconcluded that the proposed development is "Potentially Offensive Industry".

With regard to assessing a "Potentially Offensive Industry", the guidelines state that:

"The key consideration in the assessment of a potentially offensive industry is thatthe consent authority is satisfied there are adequate safeguards to ensureemissions from a facility can be controlled to a level at which they are notsignificant. An important factor in making this judgement is the view of the EPA(for those proposals requiring a pollution control licence under EPA legislation).If the EPA considers that its licence requirements can be met, then the proposalis not likely to be "offensive industry"."

The technical studies which were undertaken as part of the EIS process, and concerned with,among other things, noise, air quality, traffic, bushfire, flora and fauna, archaeology, soil andwater management, have clearly demonstrated that the impact of the proposed development will,generally, be manageable.

The EIS has demonstrated that the consent authority can be satisfied that:

"... there are adequate safeguards to ensure emissions from a facility can becontrolled to a level at which they are not significant."

and, as such, the proposed development, although always remaining "Potentially OffensiveIndustry" is not "Offensive Industry".

In addition, the DECC has advised that it is able to issue a licence for the proposed facilitysubject to conditions which have been provided in the form of the General Terms of Approvalof the DECC.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 - Koala Habitat Protection

State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 ("SEPP 44"):

"... aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas ofnatural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas to ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of koalapopulation decline:


(a) by requiring the preparation of plans of management before developmentconsent can be granted in relation to areas of core koala habitat, and

(b) by encouraging the identification of areas of core koala habitat, and

(c) by encouraging the inclusion of areas of core koala habitat inenvironment protection zones."

Chapter 15 of the EIS deals with the ecology of the site and, when discussing SEPP 44, states:

"One Schedule 2 Koala feed tree, Broad-leaved Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptushaemastoma) was recorded at the site. However, for the site to have beenconsidered potential Core Koala habitat this species would need to haverepresented greater than 15% of the tree species on the site.

This tree species was scattered throughout site and not considered a dominantspecies and therefore could not have been considered to occur at densitiesgreater than 15%. Therefore, no further assessments or provisions under SEPP44 need to be considered."

The Council's Environmental Scientist raised no objection to the proposed development in termsof SEPP 44 and, as such, the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of SEPP44.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land ("SEPP 55") applies to thesubject site. Clause 7 of SEPP 55 states:

"7. (1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of anydevelopment on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land issuitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, afterremediation) for the purpose for which the development isproposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable forthe purpose for which the development is proposed to becarried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediatedbefore the land is used for that purpose.

(2) Before determining an application for consent to carry outdevelopment that would involve a change of use on any of theland specified in subclause (4), the consent authority mustconsider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary


investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordancewith the contaminated land planning guidelines.

(3) The applicant for development consent must carry out theinvestigation required by subclause (2) and must provide a reporton it to the consent authority. The consent authority may requirethe applicant to carry out, and provide a report on, a detailedinvestigation (as referred to in the contaminated land planningguidelines) if it considers that the findings of the preliminaryinvestigation warrant such an investigation.

(4) The land concerned is:

(a) land that is within an investigation area,

(b) land on which development for a purpose referred to inTable 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines isbeing, or is known to have been, carried out,

(c) to the extent to which it is proposed to carry outdevelopment on it for residential, educational,recreational or child care purposes, or for the purposes ofa hospital land:

(i) in relation to which there is no knowledge (orincomplete knowledge) as to whether developmentfor a purpose referred to in Table 1 to thecontaminated land planning guidelines has beencarried out, and

(ii) on which it would have been lawful to carry outsuch development during any period in respect ofwhich there is no knowledge (or incompleteknowledge)."

The then Department of Urban Affairs and Planning publication "Managing Land Contamination- Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land" provides advice on the process ofdetermination as to whether a site is contaminated. In this regard, sections 2.1 and 2.2 of theGuidelines states:

"When carrying out planning functions under the EP & A Act, a planningauthority must consider the possibility that a previous land use has causedcontamination of the site as well as the potential risk to health or the environmentfrom that contamination."

"When an authority carries out a planning function, the history of the land useneeds to be considered as an indicator of potential contamination. Where thereis no reason to suspect contamination after acting substantially in accordance


with these Guidelines, the proposal may be processed in the usual way."

The Guidelines continue at section 3.2.1 by stating that:

"The potential for contamination is often linked to past uses of land and a goodearly indicator of possible uses is land zoning. Contamination is more likely tohave occurred if the land is currently, or was previously, zoned for industrial,agricultural or defence purposes."

The EIS, when dealing with site contamination, states:

"The proposal involves the construction and operation of a resource recoverycentre and waste transfer station at the existing Katoomba WMF. The ongoingnature of future waste operations is thus well aligned with the existing landfilland resource recovery operations. New structures included in the proposeddevelopment would be located on currently undisturbed (not landfilled) parts ofthe site. The proposed development areas are therefore suitable for the purposefor which the development is proposed to be carried out.

The cessation and landfilling and the closure of the existing landfill at theKatoomba WMF site will be carried out in accordance with an approved LCP.Assessment and approval of the LCP will be undertaken by the DEC [now DCC]as a separate approval process associated with the site ECL and as such does notform part of this DA."

"The footprint of the proposed development area is not located on previouslylandfilled areas. Excavation of waste materials is therefore not required.

The proposed development area is located adjacent to the existing Katoombalandfill. The potential for any contamination from the landfill to have spread tothe proposed development area is considered low since the site has been used forlandfilling of putrescible waste, rather than potentially hazardous waste."

It is considered that the provisions of SEPP 55 have been complied with.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 - Hawkesbury Nepean River (No.2 - 1997)

The site is located within the catchment of the Hawkesbury River.

Clause 4 (1) (a) of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 - Hawkesbury Nepean River(No.2 - 1997) ("SREP 20") states:

"(1) The general planning considerations set out in clause 5, and the specificplanning policies and related recommended strategies set out in clause6 which are applicable to the proposed development, must be taken intoconsideration:

(a) by a consent authority determining an application for consent to


the carrying out of development on land to which this planapplies,"

The "General planning considerations" detailed in clause 5 are:

"(a) the aim of this plan, and

(b) the strategies listed in the Action Plan of the Hawkesbury-NepeanEnvironmental Planning Strategy, and

(c) whether there are any feasible alternatives to the development or otherproposal concerned, and

(d) the relationship between the different impacts of the development or otherproposal and the environment, and how those impacts will be addressedand monitored."

The "Specific planning policies and recommended strategies" listed in clause 6 which arerelevant to the proposed development are:

- Total catchment management

- Environmentally sensitive areas

- Water quality

- Water quantity

- Cultural heritage

- Flora and fauna

- Metropolitan Strategy.

The requirements of clauses 5 & 6 of SREP 20 have been canvassed in the EIS as detailed inTable 3-3 of the EIS. It is considered that the requirements of SREP 20 have been met by theproposed development. Reference to specific environmental issues which are raised in SREP 20are canvassed in the remaining sections of this report.

Clause 11 of SREP 20 contains development controls for a range of different types ofdevelopment. The proposed development is defined as "waste management facilities or works".In this regard, clause 11(18) states:

"Consent required.

Consultation:

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust.


Additional matters for consideration by the consent authority:

(a) Any potential for groundwater contamination.

(b) The adequacy of the proposed leachate management system and surfacewater controls.

(c) The long-term stability of the final landform and the adequacy of the sitemanagement plan.

(d) If extraction of material is involved in the creation or other developmentof the waste management site, whether the extractive operation will havean adverse impact on the river systems."

The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust was consulted as part of the assessmentof the development application. In this regard, advice was given that the Hawkesbury-NepeanCatchment Management Trust was disbanded in 2001 and the Hawkesbury Nepean CatchmentManagement Authority ('the Authority") commenced in 2004. The Authority has advised thatclause 11(18) of SREP 20 calls for "consultation" rather than "concurrence". The Authority hasdetermined that it will only address the SREP 20 "concurrence" matters and under thosecircumstances the Authority did not intend to respond to the request of the Council forconsideration of the proposed development.

Notwithstanding the above advice from the Authority, clause 9 of SREP 20 states:

"(1) When a consent authority is required by this plan to carry outconsultation, the consent authority must send a copy of the developmentapplication and of any documentation subsequently required by theconsent authority for the purpose of determining the application to eachof the persons to be consulted within 7 days after the consent authorityhas accepted the development application or received the additionaldocumentation.

(2) The requirement for consultation with a person is complied with when theconsent authority has taken into consideration any written commentsmade by the person received by the consent authority within 28 days afterthe copy was sent to the person.

(3) The purpose of consultation with the Hawkesbury-Nepean CatchmentManagement Trust is to obtain advice on the matters for considerationlisted in the item of clause 11 for the type of development proposed."

The 28 days period stated above has expired and, as such, there is no impediment to the Councildetermining the development application.

With regard to the additional matters for consideration, as states in Chapter 3 of the EIS:

"These matters generally apply to landfilling proposals, rather than a waste


transfer station and resource recovery centre. However, issues in relation toleachate management and surface water controls are addressed in Chapter 12.

The site is located within the Grose River conservation area sub-catchment.Clause 11(3) therefore applies, and development consent is required for anybuilding, work or land use within the sub-catchment. Clause 11(3) specifies anadditional matter for consideration by the Consent Authority, being "the need toprevent adverse impacts on the near pristine condition of these sub-catchments".Water quality issues are addressed in Chapters 12 and 13."

It is considered that the provisions of SREP 20 have been suitably addressed in the EIS. Inaddition, the Council's Environmental Scientist has provided the following information:

"The applicant clarified the following questions during a meeting on 26November between the applicant (Rachel Sutcliffe, Frank Garofalow, MartinRyzak and Wayne Lund) and Councils' development assessment staff (Paul Koen,Fiona Nagel, Clive Cawthorne and Byron Tully):

- What is the capacity of the device? The coir log weir device (detentionbasin outlet water spreaders plan) will capture/retain up to a 1:15 yearevent for infiltration and/or evaporation;

- Could we include a sand filter in the base of the basin to assist in waterquality treatment? They do not wish to infiltrate within the detentionbasin to ensure containment of any contamination incidents. They believethat the water quality devices installed within the stormwater system,GPTs and Humeceptors, will adequately address water quality concerns(with treatment of hydrocarbons and oils, said to be the most likelycontaminants);

- The proposed coir log device appears more suited to temporaryrehabilitation works rather than for use in a permanent stormwatermanagement setting. Can the structure be of a more durable long lastingdesign? They do not wish to utilise a more formal engineering structure(such as an infiltration/bioretention trench or similar) as the structure isnestled within the fringes of bushland at the site and they wish tominimise impacts. Also, they add that the coir log weirs may silt up andbecome naturalised permanent earth mounds, but if this does not occur,they agree to replace them as necessary to ensure the device alwaysworks effectively. As the structure achieves the objective of infiltrationand dissipation for flows up to 1:15 year event (given that I had requesteda minimum of 1:5 year event be infiltrated) and given that thedevelopment engineers are accepting of the likely maintenance, I amaccepting of the coir log weir design in this instance;

Summary:

This information and clarification offered during the meeting is considered


acceptable ...."

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999

As stated in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS:

"The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (EPBC Act) came into force from 16 July 2000.

The EPBC Act requires actions which are likely to have a significant impact onmatters of National Environmental Significance (NES matters) or that have asignificant impact on Commonwealth land to be referred to the CommonwealthMinister for the Environment for approval. NES matters include:

- World Heritage Properties;- Listed Migratory Species;- Listed Threatened Species and Communities;- Nuclear Actions;- Wetlands of International importance;- Commonwealth Marine areas; and- National heritage places.

NES matters present in the vicinity of the proposal include the Greater BlueMountains World Heritage Area, migratory species, and threatened species andcommunities.

The development is being carried out within the boundaries of the WorldHeritage Area. The potential for offsite impacts would be mitigated by controlsto be put in place for management of surface water and groundwater quality(refer Chapters 12 and 13) [of the EIS] and potential flora and fauna impacts(Chapter 15) [of the EIS]. As such, it is considered that the there would be nodirect or indirect impacts on World Heritage Areas as a result of the proposal.

The site is not listed as a national heritage place and the proposal would notimpact on any national heritage places.

The potential impact of the proposed development on threatened species andcommunities has been assessed and discussed in Chapter 15 [of the EIS]. Thisassessment concludes that the proposed upgrade is unlikely to have a significantimpact on any species or communities listed under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995.

Therefore since no NES matters would be significantly impacted by the proposal,it has not been referred to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment.Approval is not required under the EPBC Act.

There would be no impact to Commonwealth land from the proposeddevelopment."


Notwithstanding the above, as detailed elsewhere in this report, the applicant was asked toprovide additional information regarding the impact the proposed development will have on theBlue Mountains Swamp. Additional information was provided with the conclusion:

"No direct impacts are considered likely to affect the area of Blue MountainsSwamp to the east of the land fill site. The proposal includes the design andimplementation of mitigations [sic] measures to control potential indirectimpacts. Current controls appear to be affective at protecting the Swamp fromimpacts, and as mitigation measures aim to keep levels post-construction at theircurrent state, the proposed activity is unlikely to result in a significant impact onthis community. Therefore a Referral to the Minister of Environment and WaterResources is not required and no further assessment is required."

The Council's Environmental Scientist raised no objection to the proposed development.Suitable conditions of consent have been recommend to ensure the integrity of relevant aspectsof the environment.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (administered by the Department ofEnvironment and Climate Change)

The Objects of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 are:

"(a) to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in NewSouth Wales, having regard to the need to maintain ecologicallysustainable development,

(b) to provide increased opportunities for public involvement andparticipation in environment protection,

(c) to ensure that the community has access to relevant and meaningfulinformation about pollution,

(d) to reduce risks to human health and prevent the degradation of theenvironment by the use of mechanisms that promote the following:

(i) pollution prevention and cleaner production,

(ii) the reduction to harmless levels of the discharge ofsubstances likely to cause harm to the environment,

(iia) the elimination of harmful wastes,

(iii) the reduction in the use of materials and the re-use orrecycling of materials,

(iv) the making of progressive environmental improvements,including the reduction of pollution at source,


(v) the monitoring and reporting of environmental quality ona regular basis,

(e) to rationalise, simplify and strengthen the regulatory framework forenvironment protection,

(f) to improve the efficiency of administration of the environment protectionlegislation,

(g) to assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Waste Avoidance andResource Recovery Act 2001."

The existing landfill on the site operates under licences Nos.10039 and 4525 of the Protectionof the Environment Operations Act 1997. A separate licence will be required to operate theproposed facility. The DECC has advised that it is able to issue a licence for the proposeddevelopment.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The Council's Environmental Scientist has concluded that the impact of the proposeddevelopment will be acceptable in terms of the flora and fauna of both the site and the environsof the site. Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended.

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, among other things, provides the basis for legalprotection and management of Aboriginal sites in NSW.

Chapter 19 of the EIS discusses the potential for the proposed waste transfer station and recyclingfacility to impact on items of Aboriginal significance and states:

"The Katoomba WMF is located within the area of interest of the DeerubbinLocal Aboriginal Land Council, the Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporationand the Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation.

Representatives from each organisation were contacted by telephone andinformed of the proposed development and invited to participate in the fieldsurvey undertaken for the indigenous heritage assessment.

None of the three groups that were consulted have any objections to the proposeddevelopment. The main concern of each group was that existing sites be properlyidentified and protected from any likely development impacts.

Aboriginal sites

Background research was undertaken to determine if known Aboriginal andhistorical sites were located within the proposed development area and tofacilitate prediction of likely significance based on known regional and local site


patterns.

A search of the DEC Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System(AHIMS) indicated that four Aboriginal sites have been recorded within fivekilometres of the Katoomba WMF. No Aboriginal archaeological sites have beenpreviously recorded within the WMF. Aboriginal sites within five kilometres ofKatoomba WMF are summarised in Table 19-1.

A physical survey was also undertaken in addition to the background research.The survey assessed all ground surface exposures (chiefly comprising unsealedaccess tracks) and landforms within the study area for archaeological potential.

No Aboriginal objects, sites or areas of archaeological potential were locatedduring the field component of this study."

Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948

Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 states that:

"(1) A person must not:

(a) make an excavation on, in or under protected land, or

(b) remove material from protected land, or

(c) do anything which obstructs, or detrimentally affects, the flow ofprotected waters, or which is likely to do so,

unless the person is either authorised to do so by a permit under this Partand does so in accordance with any conditions to which the permit issubject, or is authorised to do so by the regulations."

Sub-section 22H (1) (b) of the Act, however, states that Part 3A does not apply to work carriedour by a public or local authority and, as such, no permit is required for the proposed works.

Conclusion

The proposed development is for the establishment of a Waste Transfer Facility and ResourceRecovery Centre at the Katoomba Waste Management Facility.

The Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the development application, together withadditional information provided by the proponent upon request from Nexus EnvironmentalPlanning Pty Ltd, has culminated in a proposed development which:

- will assist the Council in the disposal of waste generated in the Blue Mountain CityCouncil area,

- will provide mitigation measures to be incorporated as part of the development of the site


which will ensure that environmental impacts are limited and acceptable, and

- will provide immediate certainty to the Council with regard to waste disposal while theCouncil investigates alternative disposal methods.

The extensive assessment of the proposed development has resulted in a number of conditionsof development consent being recommended.

It is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed development, the proposal has planningmerit and should be approved by the Council.

-------------------- ooo --------------------

Enclosure - bmcc.nsw.gov.au · The WMF site is located at the northern end of Woodlands Road and is...

Documents

Transcript of Enclosure - bmcc.nsw.gov.au · The WMF site is located at the northern end of Woodlands Road and is...