The Chief Executive Officer The Shire of York PO Box 22 York WA 6302 19th January 2018 (by email) Dear Sir/Madam, Re : Application to Extend Planning Approval on Allawuna Farm, Great

Southern Highway, St Ronans. We wish to make comment on the above application in two parts, the first is in support of the SoY refusing to extend the current planning approval and the second part sets out the desired extra conditions to be sought by the SoY should the application be upheld. Background: Sita (now SUEZ), after obtaining planning approval, decided in July 2016 against proceeding on Allawuna in favour of an existing landfill in North Bannister. Their works approval was revoked in August 2016. Alkina signed a deed of agreement with the Allawuna landowner on or about the 7th February 2017 and lodged an application for a works approval with the DWER in August 2017. It must be assumed that negotiations to proceed with an application were in train prior to February 2017. Alkina (Opal Vale) currently operate a metropolitan landfill at Toodyay accessed by Toodyay Road, the future Perth – Adelaide Highway. It is on the record that it's operations to date have been problematic.

Page 1

Avon Valley Residents Association Inc PO Box 147 York WA 6302

Part 1 – Grounds for Refusal: We believe the application for an extension to the current planning approval should refused for the following reasons:

1. There is no demonstrated need for another metropolitan landfill in the Avon Valley.

2. Alkina have made this application to the Wheatbelt JDAP via the Shire of

York but have not submitted any costings that justify the use of the DAP process. This application, it's site works and access approaches are scaled down in every detail compared to the Sita proposal.

3. As a minimum, this current SoY advertising period closing on the 19th

January should be extended pending receipt of the costings outlined in Point 2.

4. Alkina have had adequate time to advance this proposal and commence

site works but to date have none of the necessary approvals in place to commence site works.

5. Condition 9 of the SAT approval states: “The development approved is to

be substantially commenced within two years after the date of the approval, and the approval will lapse if the development is not substantially commenced before the expiration of that period”.

6. In light of Sita's previous works approval, Alkina's inability to obtain a

works approval is of concern given the time they have had to achieve this. We draw the SoY's attention to our response (attached) to the DWER works approval application and the continuing concern that the protection of the water table has not been fully proven.

7. Alkina have demonstrated a reluctance to liase with the SoY despite the

SoY being charged with oversight of the project and repeated requests from the SoY for further information.

8. Apart from a form letter, Alkina have not engaged with the council or

community. In summary we believe that the Alkina application to develop Allawuna is speculative, has lacked effort and consultation, and that an extension of the planning approval be refused.

Page 2

Part 2 – Extra Conditions sought should the application be successful:

1. Approval is restricted to the single lot and specific area as defined in any DWER works approval that may be issued.

2. Approval is dependent on the extra work being undertaken on the east

side of the Thirteen Mile Brook as per the Rockwater Pty Ltd submission to the DWER (attached).

3. Approval dependent on the results of Extra Condition 2.

4. A $20 million dollar rehabilitation bond in the form of a bank guarantee in

favour of the SoY to be lodged with the SoY prior to commencement of any site works.

Unfortunately, six years on, we still face the legacy of a former council and administration, complicit with the developer, that sought a way to enable a development prior to informing the community of its existence. If they had simply stated the truth, that this was a noxious industry proposed for agricultural land, then the existing zoning allowed council to decline to exercise discretion and thus refuse the application. A tough stance with community support at the start would have rebuffed the developers approach on day one. That the farce of “use not listed” is perpetuated is not helpful. We have confidence in the current council and administration. Yours faithfully, Denis Hill For the Avon Valley Residents Association Attachment: AVRA_DWER Response 290917.pdf

Page 3

Department of Water and Environmental RegulationLocked Bag 33 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850168 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000

28th September , 2017 (by email)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re : Works Approval Application W6077/2017/1 by Alkina Holdings Pty Ltd on Allawuna Farm on part of Lot 4869 on Plan 224502.

We wish to make comment on the above application as follows:

Background:

From the previous applicant's (Sita) drilling data and two additional rounds of bore monitoring for water levels, it is evident that the water table flows on a consistent downward gradient from the east, under the tip site, under the Thirteen Mile Brook to the western boundary of Allawuna and the adjacent Mundaring Catchment.

The DER and DoW did not dispute this but instead relied on their hydrologist’s theory that the westerly underground water flow will be diverted at the Thirteen Mile Brook and will flow in a northerly direction. This view was agreed at the conferral of experts conducted during the SAT hearing in 2016.

It was our contention then that there was never enough work carried out by the previous applicant on the west side of the Brook to definitively prove or disprove the significance of the westerly gradient of the underground water table. Prior to the DER decision, there was no water table baseline monitoring for any of the western holes that were drilled by the applicant.

The applicant Sita Australia (now SUEZ) were granted planning approval and subsequently a works approval, but in the end walked away from the development in favour of another existing site.

Avon Valley Residents Association Inc PO Box 147 York WA 6302

This Application:

Lodged towards the end of the current planning approval period, Alkina have not carried out any additional work on the site to aid their application, and it is that lack of additional site work that we wish to address.

If this application proceeds to approval it is our intention to appeal on the basis that the decision reached by the conferral of experts that met during the SAT hearing in 2016 was in error and resulted in the Tribunal making a decision that itwould not otherwise have made.

2016 Conferral of Experts:

At this meeting Mr Appleyard, representing the DER (now DWER) confronted Mr Waterhouse (Golders) and Mr Stephens (AVRA) with his theory about the behaviour of the underground water flow. This was the first Mr Waterhouse and Mr Stephens had heard of this theory despite the DWER being aware of the application since 2012.

We contend that both Mr Waterhouse and Mr Stephens should have adjourned the meeting to take advice from others more experienced in the theoretical modelling of the type put forward by Mr Appleyard. That this didn't happen is history but there exists an opportunity to examine the matter now.

Attached is a report from Rockwater Pty Ltd to support our request for further field work to be undertaken by the applicant to confirm or otherwise the theoretical proposition put forward by Mr Appleyard.

Summary:

If pollutants can reach the Thirteen Mile Brook, not in dispute, what then stops these pollutants from flowing west into the catchment with the continuing downward gradient of the water table. The consistent westward falling gradient isnot in dispute, it is self evident from the bore water levels.

History and the courts are littered with instances of decisions made based on expert testimony that is later revealed as unreliable. It is inconceivable that the DWER and DoW could place so much reliance on a theory, based on insufficient field work, that they abrogate their responsibility and the precautionary principle to ignore and not even consider the possibility of pollutants entering the Public Drinking Water Source Area of the Mundaring – Helena Catchment.

Recommendation:

1. That the DWER consider facilitating a meeting between Rockwater Pty Ltdand Mr Appleyard

2. That the extra field work as outlined in the attached Rockwater Report of

July 2017 be carried out by the applicant prior to the DWER considering the issue of a Works Approval.

Yours faithfully,

Denis HillFor the Avon Valley Residents Association

Attachment: Rockwater Report Sept 2017Monitoring Bore Site Plan

CC: The Minister for Water, Hon Dave KellyThe Minister for Planning, Hon Rita SaffiotiThe Minister for the Environment, Hon Stephen DawsonThe Shire Of York, CEO Paul Martin

Rockwater Pty Ltd I:\428-0\17-01.docx

Avon Valley Residents’ Association

TECHNICAL RESPONSE TO WITNESS STATEMENTS

BY MESSRS APPLEYARD AND WATERHOUSE REGARDING

THE HYDROGEOLOGY AT THE PROPOSED ALLAWUNA LANDFILL

September 2017

1 APPLEYARD

The model that he has used is called ‘Topodrive’ and is based on the assumption that

groundwater flow directions are controlled by the land topography. Thus, the model

assumes that a topographic low such as 13 Mile Brook (an ephemeral creek) must coincide

with (e.g. be underlain by) a groundwater trough. Thus, the model cannot rightfully be

used to ‘prove’ that this is the case.

In fact, local conditions can give rise to groundwater flowing transversely beneath a

topographic low – such as an ephemeral creek-line – depending on overall hydraulic

gradients and geology. In the present case, there may be ground of higher permeability to

the west, in the vicinity of GMB08. The groundwater elevations plotted in the Rockwater

report (428.0/15/01) indicate that groundwater levels are locally lower on the south-

western side of the brook (at GMB08) than near the brook (MB05 and MB10). These are

field indications that, in this vicinity, groundwater flows south-westwards from the brook,

and not north-eastwards towards it as it would if the brook was a trough at this location.

(Additional groundwater-elevation monitoring points are required, in this vicinity).

2 WATERHOUSE

This witness endeavours to explain the low groundwater levels at GMB08 by postulating

an intrusive dyke to run nearly parallel to Catchment Road (some 100-200 m to the east of

MB02 and GB08.This may be the case, but it is an unsubstantiated supposed feature. Also,

Mr Waterhouse postulates that the supposed dyke is ‘expected to localise the groundwater

divide between the two regional scale catchments’ (because it is also postulated to form a

barrier to groundwater flow). These features are used to supposedly explain the observed

hydraulic gradient downwards from MB05 and GMB10 to GMB08. However, intrusive

dykes and their weathering products can have moderately high permeability (e.g. in the

Pilbara and the mid-west of WA), and should not be assumed to be barriers to groundwater

flow.

Avon Valley Residents’ Association Technical response to witness statements by Messrs Appleyard and Waterhouse regarding

the Hydrogeology At The Proposed Allawuna Landfill Page 2

Rockwater I:\428-0\17-01.docx

Both the above witnesses rely on assumptions: a model based on an assumed groundwater

flow pattern (i.e following only topographic configuration), and a postulated low-

permeability dyke controlling the groundwater elevations and flow directions. Such

assertions require that further field measurements and geological examination of cuttings

are needed, from additional bore holes that should be constructed in the area west of

13 Mile Brook in the area around GMB08 – MB01.

The above differences in technical interpretations of the data are unlikely to be resolved

without additional drilling and construction of monitoring bores: probably between four

and six of them. They need not be individually expensive, but would require the use of a

drilling rig, and their construction would need to be professionally supervised, if a rigorous

evaluation is to be undertaken.

Dated: 19 September 2017 Rockwater Pty Ltd

J R Passmore

Principal

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDRAFT

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

THIRTEEN MI LE BROOK

GMB01GMB02

GMB03

GMB04GMB05

GMB06

MB01

MB03 MB04

MB05 MB06

MB07

MB08

MB09

MB10 MB11

MB12

MB13MB14

GMB07

GMB08

GMB09

GMB10

MB02

460500

460500

461000

461000

461500

461500

462000

462000

462500

462500

463000

463000

463500

463500

464000

464000

6468

000

6468

000

6468

500

6468

500

6469

000

6469

000

6469

500

6469

500

6470

000

6470

000

LEGEND@A GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORE

@A ABANDONED DRILL HOLE

LANDFILL DESIGN

STREAM

PROJECTGREAT SOUTHERN LANDFILL

TITLESITE PLAN

177197 008 R 0 2

2017.06.21MJB

Path:

J:\E

nv\20

17 - C

ontam

Site

s\177

7197

- Ins

tant W

aste\

Figure

s Draw

ings\0

08-R

\1777

197-0

08-R

-F00

2-Rev

0_Sit

ePlan

mxd.m

xd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS S

HOWN

, THE

SHEE

T SIZE

HAS

BEE

N MO

DIFIE

D FR

OM: IS

O A3

CONSULTANT

PROJECT No. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDPREPAREDDESIGNREVIEWAPPROVED

25mm

0

CLIENTRESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS

NOTES

REFERENCE1. COORDINATE SYSTEM: GDA 1994 MGA ZONE 50

2012 AERIAL IMAGERY AND STREAMS © WESTERN AUSTRALIANLAND INFORMATION AUTHORITY TRADING AS LANDGATE (2015)

0 100 200 300 400 500 m

1:10,000

MJBAPAP

Monitoring Bores

DoW bores61619242 &61619243

boundary & Catchment Road

To; PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHIRE OF YORK

1 Joaquina Street

York WA 6302

Email: records@york.wa.gov.au Re: OBJECTION TO CURRENT YORK LANDFILL PROPOSAL AT ALLAWUNA FARM.

We are resident in Mundaring and have family in Shire of York. We strongly

object to this latest proposal to site a landfill at Allawuna farm. It is an appalling

idea to off-load Perth's rubbish in country areas, in Perth's environs.

The reasons are many:

1) INAPPROPRIATE PROPOSAL:

The proponents should be well aware of the recent failure of the previous

proponent to site a SITA landfill at Allawuna, and the strenuous, persistent and

ultimately successful opposition put up by both York and Mundaring residents

over a number of years to that plan.

We are sceptical of the intent of the proponent.

What stands out is the apparent arrogance and total disregard of the new

proponents for community concerns and environmental health issues, evident

from the previous SITA landfill attempt.

Proposals are being made when there is no plan for creating a master-plan for

the region. Development should never be ad hoc like this.

2) WIDESPREAD ADVERSE IMPACTS

Were the landfill proposal to be accepted, both Shire of York and the Shire of

Mundaring would be unacceptably impacted.

3) TRAFFIC ISSUES.

Transport of smelly rubbish and toxic materials by road trains, possibly three

tiers long, every 5 -10 minutes and possibly 24 / 7 would be likely. This is

totally unacceptable and a major concern for Mundaring residents, were these

road trains to be added to the already unacceptable passage of frequent heavy

transport, trucks and road trains passing through Mundarng town-centre.

Government plans show the Gt Eastern Highway will be re-routed.toToodjay

Road . This may well take a decade or longer! In the interim, Gt Eastern

Highway continues to bear the brunt of frequent heavy transport. . Government

planning documents dealing with waste disposal indicate rubbish should be