ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - kingston.vic.gov.au · Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of...

PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07 MATERIALS RECYCLING &

REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD, CLARINDA

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

“Note

To reduce the electronic size of this document the images have been edited in

this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a copy of

these pages.”

AUGUST 2008

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sign.cgi/au/cases/vic/PPV/2008/85

PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07 MATERIALS RECYCLING &

REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD, CLARINDA

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

Cathie McRobert, Chair

Gordon Anderson, Member

Geoffrey Carruthers, Member

August 2008


ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - MATERIALS RECYCLING & REFUSE TRANSFER STATION 293-315 KINGSTON ROAD CLARINDA – PPA KP881/07 & VCAT P481/2008 AUGUST 2008

Contents

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 3 Overall Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 3

Consolidated Recommendations ...................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 8

1.1 What is Proposed?..................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Subject Site and Surrounds ..................................................................................... 10 1.3 Background ............................................................................................................. 13

1.4 Procedural Issues .................................................................................................... 15

1.5 Statutory Context .................................................................................................... 17

2. IS THE PROPOSAL PROHIBITED? ....................................................................... 19

3. IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH PLANNING POLICY?........................ 25 3.1 State Policy – Support for Recycling ....................................................................... 25

3.2 State and Local Policy Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area ............................... 26

3.3 Recent Strategic Planning for the Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area .............. 26

3.4 Discussion on Policy ............................................................................................... 30

4. OFF–SITE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 37 4.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 37

4.1.1 Air Quality in the Area ............................................................................... 39

4.1.2 Nuisance Dust ............................................................................................. 40

4.1.3 Fine Particle Emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) ................................................ 43 4.1.4 Respirable Crystalline Silica........................................................................ 46

4.1.5 Risk from Asbestos Contamination ............................................................ 47

4.1.6 Risk from Timber Grinding ........................................................................ 48

4.1.7 Separation from Sensitive Uses (Buffers).................................................... 48

4.1.8 Air Quality - Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 50 4.2 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 50

4.3 Visual Impacts......................................................................................................... 58

4.4 Water Impacts ......................................................................................................... 61

4.5 Traffic and Parking ................................................................................................. 67

4.5.1 Traffic .......................................................................................................... 68 4.5.2 Car Parking ................................................................................................. 71

5. PROPOSED ADVERTISING SIGNS ....................................................................... 72

6. PLANNING PERMIT CONDITIONS..................................................................... 73



Appendices

APPENDIX A – REVISED DRAFT PERMIT................................................................... 75

APPENDIX B - LIST OF SUBMITTERS .......................................................................... 85

APPENDIX C - AIRBORNE PARTICLES ....................................................................... 87



THE APPLICATION: PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION KP881/07

PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:

For a Refuse Transfer Station in conjunction with a Materials Recycling Facility, Floodlit Business Identification Signage, Reduction in Car Parking Requirements, Removal of Native Vegetation and Alteration of Access

THE SITE: 293-315 Kingston Road, Clarinda

THE APPLICANT: South East Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY:

Kingston City Council was the Responsible Authority until the Minister for Planning became the Responsible Authority when he called-in the Application for Review from VCAT (Reference P481/2008) on 15 May 2008

THE PANEL: Ms Cathie McRobert (Chair)

Mr Gordon Anderson

Mr Geoffrey Carruthers

SITE

INSPECTIONS:

The Panel inspected the site, with representatives of the Applicant, Council and Mr Barry Pullen on 13 June 2008. The Panel also made unaccompanied inspections of the site and locality during the hearing.

Two of the Panel members had previously inspected the subject site, the Tootal Road site and other similar facilities in Laverton and Epping as part of the 2005 Advisory Committee process and inspected the Tootal Road site as part of the 2007 Advisory Committee process.

HEARING 23- 26 June 2008 at Moorabbin Victoria



APPEARANCES

Submitter Represented By

Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of Maddocks

South East Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd (SEMR)

Mr Ian Pitt SC of Best Hooper who called evidence in:

Town Planning - Mr Andrew Rodda, Contour Consultants Australia

Acoustics - Mr Robert Burton, Burton Acoustic Group

Air Quality - Dr Terry Bellair, Environmental Science Associates

Materials Recycling Operations - Mr Jamie McKellar, Managing Director of the Alex Fraser Group (AFG) and South Eastern Melbourne Recycling Pty Ltd

Landscape Treatment – Ms Pru Smith of Hassell Ltd

Community Health - Dr Roger Drew of Toxikos Pty Ltd

Water Management - Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd

Strategic Planning - Mr Rob Milner of Coomes Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Traffic Management - Mr Stephen Hunt of Cardno Grogan Richards

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Mr Martin O’Shaughnessy

Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD)

Mr Ian Munro

Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Inc.

Mr Barry Pullen and Mr Barry Ross

Sustainability Victoria Mr Simon Clay

Heatherton Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc. (RAID)

Mr Andrew Dawson

Dingley Village Community Association

Mr Barry Pullen

Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League

Ms Mary Rimington

Mr Andrew McIntosh

All submissions to the Application were referred to the Advisory Committee

and are listed in Appendix B.



Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall Conclusions

The Central Issues

We have found that the very strong waste policy support for the proposal

justifies serious consideration of the Application as an interim use beyond the

very short term.

We see the central issues as:

Is the mandatory green wedge requirement that Materials Recycling must be

in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station satisfied?

Would the proposal jeopardise the long-term vision for this part of

Kingston’s non-urban area?

Are potential off-site impacts effectively addressed?

Is the Proposal Prohibited?

A clearer distinction has been drawn between the Materials Recycling and

Refuse Transfer Facility elements in this proposal compared to the 2004

Application; the materials that will be transferred elsewhere have been

extended; and the volume and value of materials transferred for further

processing has been highlighted.

The Supreme Court decision in the Steiner case indicated separate and

identifiable uses are required and one of the in conjunction uses may be

ancillary. As noted in earlier Panel and Advisory Committee reports,

distinguishing between the particular uses being considered is problematic due

to the substantial overlap between the definitions for Materials Recycling and

Refuse Transfer Station - this adds an additional layer of ambiguity compared

to other instances where the in conjunction requirement have been considered.

We agree with the conclusions of the 2007 Tootal Road Panel and find that,

while it is arguable, on the facts of this case the proposal complies with the

Clause 57 requirement that Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a

Refuse Transfer Station.

Implications for the Vision to Transform the Area

The planning framework for Kingston’s non-urban area provides for extraction

of the sand resource and recognises the area’s importance as a location for



regional landfills. These uses have resulted in a degraded landscape that is not

typical green wedge land. To achieve the long-term strategy that is

underpinned by the development of a ‘Chain of Parks’ and will eventually

transform the area’s character and function, the transition to post-

extraction/landfill functions requires management.

Previous Panels and Advisory Committees have indicated that approval of

permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of

rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning

objectives for the locality that should only occur through Green Wedge

management planning. Strategic planning work is underway to address the

area’s many planning challenges. The recent Draft Northern Non Urban Area

Framework Plan is only at a preliminary stage but a wide range of options are

being explored, such as including the site in an Enterprise Precinct employment

area within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and establishing a resource

recovery precinct on rehabilitated land to the east.

Recent strategic planning work, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

(VCAT) decisions and the quality and quantity of the sand indicate that further

extraction on the site is highly questionable. This shifts the focus of our

evaluation of the Application to the other zone purposes - the encouragement of

rehabilitation and interim use.

We agree with the planning evidence and the Council officer report (28 April

2008) that the concept of interim use should be linked to the cessation of

surrounding land filling activities.

This Application is for a permit that would expire after 25 years, but the

Applicant agreed to the 20-year limit recommended by Council officers.

We consider the proposed 20-year life of the permit is excessive. Provided off-

site impacts are effectively managed, we think a sunset condition of 15 years

would generally align with the likely completion of land filling in the

immediate area while providing some time for consolidation and rehabilitation

of those sites.

The extensive landscaping of the site will make a positive contribution to the

appearance of the locality and is an important first step to rehabilitation of the

site and the area generally.

Management of Potential Off-site Impacts

The proposal activities have significant potential for adverse noise, air quality,

groundwater and visual impacts on the locality. We are satisfied that the

proposal addresses potential impacts for the following reasons:



There is substantial separation between the site and both residential zones

(at least 450 metres) and land designated for future core parkland

(approximately 300 metres with higher intervening land).

The location of the use in a bunded pit and extensive perimeter landscaping

(more than 49,000 plants have been established on the site) mean external

views to the activities will be effectively obscured and much of the nuisance

dust would be intercepted. We have recommended limits on stockpile

heights.

EPA considers the environmental management regime to protect air quality

goes beyond current best practice for this type of activity in Australia. It

incorporates enclosure of a key dust source, systematic wetting of potential

dust sources, sophisticated real-time dust monitoring, and protocols to stop

activities during system failure, adverse weather or dust events.

Modelling for this site shows fine particle air emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) are

well within acceptable limits (less than 10% of the air quality intervention

level ‘yardsticks’ at the Heatherton Christian College). The expert evidence

found the exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS), a recognised

health hazard, was so low it poses a negligible health risk for nearby

residents or students (20 times less than the cumulative level the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) links with zero risk and

four times less than the Californian Standard).

The location of the crusher and sorting activities within enclosures

constructed with noise attenuating materials, recommendations to restrict

activities outside normal daytime hours and requirements to fit mobile plant

and heavy vehicles with ‘Smart Alarm’ or broadband reversing beepers and

industry-standard mufflers should ensure compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits. A condition requiring verification of compliance with noise limits after operations commence is recommended. We have also recommended that timber grinding should not be allowed until a full acoustic assessment is prepared and operational protocols have been approved.

The proposal does not require discharge of water from the site and,

although activities pose a low risk of contamination of groundwater and

could actually improve the groundwater quality, monitoring is proposed.

The proposed activities require substantial quantities of water and we have

recommended the Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan

should incorporate measures to conserve water and the detailed engineering

design should ensure water loss is minimised.

Traffic, parking and signage were not contentious and are acceptable subject

to identification of an area for overflow visitor parking.



We conclude that characteristics of the site, features of the proposal and the

sophisticated management regime proposed ensure off-site impacts are

appropriately addressed.

We support the issue of a permit for a 15-year period.

Consolidated Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this report, we recommend:

1. A permit should issue with the conditions set out in Appendix A which

incorporate the matters addressed in subsequent recommendations.

2. Application of a sunset condition requiring the use to cease 15 years

from the date of the permit.

3. Provision for extension of the permit if the request is made at least three

years before the permit expires.

4. Rehabilitation planning in two stages with approval of a Preliminary

Rehabilitation Plan before the use and development start which would

be reviewed to provide a Final Rehabilitation plan two years before the

permit expires.

5. Real-time dust monitoring to the satisfaction of EPA with requirements for:

operations on the site to have regard to the monitoring information;

and

crushing to stop during adverse weather or a dust event (to be

defined in the Site Management and Environmental Improvement

Plan after consultation with EPA).

6. Implementation of the procedures outlined in the Recycling Construction and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 as a permit

condition.

7. Limiting the height of all stockpiles, to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority, to:

32 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) until the plantings

mature to effectively screen the stockpiles; and

35 metres AHD thereafter.

8. Address the water management and system design in the Site

Management and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of



the Responsible Authority after consultation with Southern Rural Water

and EPA to:

Ensure surface water does not leave the site;

Provide for a potential rising groundwater levels;

Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are

adopted, including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;

Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimise

the potential for groundwater contamination; and

Specify parameters for the groundwater, storage ponds and

monitoring.

9. Identification of an area for occasional overflow visitor parking to be

identified on the endorsed plans.

10. The expiry of the permit for the advertising sign should align with the

recommended sunset condition for the use.



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 What is Proposed?

The Application is to facilitate SEMR’s proposed relocation of AFG operations

at Tootal Road, Dingley. Existing plant, such as the Lippmann concrete

crushing and screening plant (fixed processing capacity of 300 tonnes an hour)

dousing bars and the like would be moved from the Tootal Road site to the

Clarinda site The Application has many similarities with Application KP184/04

(The 2004 Application) which was considered by an Advisory Committee and

Panel in 2005 (The 2005 Advisory Committee) (see Sections 1.3 and 1.4).

Various documents describe the proposed activities on the site which, in

summary, are:

Weighing, sorting and stockpiling of construction and demolition (C & D)

materials for recycling.

Crushing of hard waste including concrete, brick, asphalt, rock, tiles and

ceramics in a concrete recycling plant.

Producing and selling from the site various grades of crushed concrete

products, including some wet mix and cement treated products.

Dealing with other wastes such as steel, glass and timber which may involve

some form of treatment before transporting to other locations, for further

processing, sale or disposal (to landfill).

Proposed operating hours are from 5am to 8pm Monday to Saturday,

inclusive of public holidays, except for Christmas Day, Good Friday and

Anzac Day. The opportunity to receive waste material and/or to deliver

finished product 24 hours a day was sought to fit in with projects that can

only work at night.

The Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan at Figure 1 shows the proposed

layout and Figure 2 provides typical cross-section details at the proposed

crusher location.

The Application documentation proposed a time limit of 25 years but we were

advised that a 20-year time limit, as recommended by Council officers, is

acceptable to the Applicant.



Figure 1: Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan

(Source: Alex Fraser Group and Hassell, June 2008)



Figure 2: Site Cross-sections (Source: Alex Fraser Group and Hassell, June 2008)

1.2 Subject Site and Surrounds

The Site

Council’s submission described the site1 and the surrounding area as follows:

It has an approximate area of 21.40 hectares with a frontage of 342.74 metres

to Kingston Road, a depth which varies between 535.79 metres and 541.51

metres and a frontage of 406.92 metres to Victory Road.

The previous use was sand extraction2 and the site currently contains a

series of sand extraction pits, mounds, water storage ponds and slime dams.

Two water storage ponds are located along north boundary (Victory Road)

and the slime dams are located along the west boundary (Peace Road).

1 The land is described in Certificates of Title: Vol 8106 Folio 242, Vol 8118 Folio 535, Vol 6415 Folio

892, Vol 5529 Folio 601, Vol 8065 Folio 389, Vol 8762 Folio 747, Vol 8762 Folio 748, Vol 5730

Folio 922, Vol 7639 Folio 200, Vol 8100 Folio 881, Vol 6724 Folio 797, Vol 5842 Folio 357 and Vol

6790 Folio 821 (from Town Planning evidence). 2 Works Approval 506



Views to the site from the public realm are substantially restricted by bunds

approximately five metres high above the natural surrounding ground level

bordering parts of the site. The pit floor is approximately five to seven

metres below the natural ground level surrounding the site.

A vacant dwelling is located within the south-east corner of the site.

Existing vehicle access is from Victory Road.

There are a number of easements across the site, including a sewer

easement that runs approximately from the south-east corner to the north-west

corner.

Figure 3 Site Aerial Photograph (Source : Burton Evidence Report)

Planning policy and zoning have recognised the strategic importance of

extraction and subsequent landfill in Kingston’s non-urban area for decades

and has accorded these activities precedence over agricultural and other uses.

This has resulted in an island of degraded landscape surrounded by urban uses.

The surrounding area is predominately used for extractive industry, landfill,

recycling and waste disposal (see Figure 4).



Figure 4 Projected Landfill Closure

(Source: Derived from SEMR Hearing documentation and Draft Metropolitan Waste and

Resource Recovery Plan)

The uses near the subject site include:

Directly to the north, across Victory Road is the Elder Street Landfill and the

Baxter Tip. The closest land identified as forming part of the proposed

‘Chain of Parks’ network is approximately 300 metres to the north of the

site.

A range of urban and non-urban land uses abut the east boundary in an area

identified in local policy as an ‘Enterprise Precinct’. They include an egg

farm, a concrete batching plant, a reception centre, warehousing and an

accident and vehicle repair centre. Further to the east, across Clayton Road

are the Clayton South Regional Landfill and market gardens.

To the south, across Kingston Road is the Heatherton Christian College, a

Telstra substation and an indoor plant nursery.

A number of market gardens and associated dwellings are located directly

to the south and west.

The nearest residential zone is more than 450 metres to the north of the site

(more than 700 metres from the proposed crusher).



Kingston Road is a primary arterial road (becomes Heatherton Road east of

Clayton Road). Victory Road and Peace Road are local access roads.

1.3 Background

Proposals for materials recycling in the Kingston Non-urban Area have been

highly contentious in recent years. The relevant elements of the history of this

application and other materials recycling proposals are set out below:

The Alex Fraser Group (AFG) lodged concurrent applications – an

application to regularise the activities at Tootal Road Dingley (subsequently

referred to as the ‘Tootal Road Application’) and an application to relocate

that business to Clarinda site that is the subject of the current proposal (the

‘2004 Application’). The latter application was the Group’s preferred

application.

In December 2004 the former Minister for Planning called-in the two AFG

applications, together another application for a Materials Recycling and

Refuse Transfer Station in Heatherton. The Minister for Planning replaced

the City of Kingston as the Responsible Authority.

In 2005 a Panel and Advisory Committees (the 2005 Advisory Committee)

with common membership were appointed to consider the three

applications that were ‘called-in’, and to advise on the implications of the

applications for the Green Wedge Management plan for the Kingston Non-

urban Area and whether ‘Materials Recycling’ and ‘Refuse Transfer Station’

should be retained as discretionary uses in green wedges.

The 2005 Advisory Committee agreed to the Applicant’s request to adjourn

the hearing for the Tootal Road Application until the outcome was known

for its preferred proposal at Clarinda.

In 2005 Advisory Committee concluded that ‘both the Clarinda and Heatherton

proposals were prohibited because they did not meet the mandatory condition that

Materials Recycling must be in conjunction a Refuse Transfer Station.

Nevertheless, the Committee responds to the tasks in its Terms of Reference. The

Committee also sets out its views on key planning issues if a more liberal

interpretation is adopted due to the limits of the definitions involved. 3‘

And in relation to the 2004 Application for the site that is the subject of the

current proposal:

‘The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of the SUZ 2 and planning policy for the

locality because it would delay sand extraction indefinitely and proposes a form of

3 The Advisory Committee also sets out recommendations relating to: the planning scheme definitions; provisions

relating to materials recycling in Clause 57, the Special Use 2 Zone and Clause 52.10; the development of a Practice Note and consideration of rehabilitation options for quarry and extraction pits in Green Wedge

management planning.



‘rehabilitation’ (long-term industrial use on the pit floor) that has not been envisaged by

the planning framework.

The post extraction use and development of land not designated as core parkland is

expected to complement open space and recreation strategies. However, there is some

uncertainty about outcomes due to the general nature of the future uses identified, the

additional limitations on recreation and tourism related uses in Green Wedge provisions

in Clause 57, and the need to reconsider the way in which pits are rehabilitated. However, permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of

rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning objectives for

the locality. It is acknowledged that short-term use of the site for concrete crushing, or in

conjunction with active sand extraction would have greater policy support.’

On 21 November 2005 the Minister refused the Clarinda (and Heatherton)

application on the basis of the Advisory Committee finding that the

proposal was prohibited.

In December 2005 the Alex Fraser Group challenged the Advisory

Committee’s finding and the Minister’s decision in the Supreme Court on

the basis that they were wrong in law. The Panel agreed to requests for a

further adjournment of the hearing until the Supreme Court case was

determined.

In January 2007 the Supreme Court proceedings were discontinued on the

basis that Amendment VC43 made a fundamental change to the planning

scheme and if the proceedings continued orders would have no utility.

In September 2007 the Panel considering the Tootal Road application found

the proposal satisfied the requirement that materials recycling must be in

conjunction with a refuse Transfer Station and recommended that a permit

issue with a three to four year life.

On 31 October 2007, the Minister for Planning decided to grant a planning

permit for the Dingley site subject to conditions, and for a limited time of 18

months (until 30 April 2009).

On 15 May 2008, the Minister for Planning ‘called in’ the application for

review under Clause 58(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and

Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and has directed that the proceedings before

VCAT be referred to the Governor in Council for determination.

The reports of the 2005 Advisory Committees and the Tootal Road Advisory

Committee, which are public documents, provide a detailed discussion of the

matters considered and conclusions from those processes.



1.4 Procedural Issues

Request for Adjournment

At the directions hearing held on 10 June 2008 Mr Shewan, who represented the

Defenders of the South East Green Wedge, requested an adjournment of the

Advisory Committee hearing until after 26 June 2008 for the following reasons:

Mr Ross, who has a close knowledge of the application, was unable to act as

the organisation’s advocate and question witnesses as he was overseas;

Additional time was required to prepare for the hearing as the Advisory

Committee Terms of Reference have only just been received;

The City of Kingston’s position on the application was unknown and expert

witnesses may need to be called once Council’s position is known; and

As expert reports have not been circulated there is insufficient time for

volunteer members to read and prepare for the hearing.

The Applicant advised that expert reports, which would be highly consistent

with the application documentation, would be circulated the following day (11

June) with the exception of Dr Drew’s report due to illness.

The Advisory Committee did not agree to adjourn the hearing. It agreed with

the argument that parties should have been preparing for the dates set down

for the VCAT hearing and unnecessary delay should be avoided.

Council Position on Application

The Advisory Committee directed Council to advise all parties on 11 June 2008

of its position on the application, that is, following a special Council meeting on

10 June 2008. Council advised parties of the following resolution at that

meeting:

1. The proposal is contrary to the purpose of Metropolitan Green Wedge land as

set out in Clause 57.

2. The proposal is prohibited as it does not comply with the 'in conjunction

with' requirements of clause 57 in that:

2.1 there is really only one use proposed. The refuse transfer station is at

best 'ancillary' to the materials recycling proposal; or in the alternative if

there is more than one use then:

2.1.1 there is no essential functional relationship between the materials

recycling activities and the refuse transfer activities; and

2.1.2 there is unlikely to be any essential ongoing functional

relationship between the concrete crushing (materials recycling)

and the refuse transfer station.



3. The proposal is not supported by and the proposal does not support any of the

purposes of the Special Use Zone – Schedule 2 of the Kingston Planning

Scheme (Scheme).

4. The proposal is detrimental to the short and long term amenity of the area in

that:

4.1 the proposal does not establish a sufficient or any rehabilitation plan for

the site leading to a permanent blight on the surrounding area;

4.2 the proposal will either constantly or intermittently cause a nuisance by

dust (including through dust entering residential air conditioning and

evaporative cooling systems), fine particles, noise and other emissions

from the site to nearby residential and community properties;

4.3 The proposal will result in a large number of heavy vehicle movements to

and from the area.

5. The proposal will frustrate the achievement of the purposes of the Sandbelt

Open Space Policy at clause 22.03 of the Scheme.

6. The proposal is contrary to the policy at clause 22.04 (South East Non Urban

Area Policy) of the Scheme.

7. The proposal does not identify an appropriate after use having regard to

clause 22.03 of the Scheme.

8. The proposal makes no contribution to and will delay the rehabilitation of the

land and hinder its long term development and use.

9. The proposal will undermine the preparation of a Green Wedge Management

Plan and is contrary to Council’s draft Northern Non Urban Area

Framework Plan.

10. The proposal is contrary to orderly planning.

11. The proposal is sufficiently similar to a proposal considered by an Advisory

Committee such that it should be refused as a repeat appeal or application.

12. The proposed industry use should be located in an industry zone.

Is this a Repeat Application?

Submitters opposing the application argued the Minister made a decision on an

application for substantially the same proposal in 2005 and the current

application should not be entertained. Council submitted that on the facts, the

current proposal is no different from the 2004 Application except for the

Applicant’s intention to grow or intensify the business and seek to divert more

and more waste from landfill and this does not constitute a substantive change.

Mr Montebello argued that this is a repeat application and the same reasoning



that applied to the consideration the 2004 Application should also apply to the

current proposal.

We accept the argument put on behalf of the Applicant that this is not a repeat

application for the following reasons:

As the proposal was deemed to be prohibited, it was not necessary to make

a decision on the merits of proposal in 2005;

The Supreme Court4 has clarified the approach to interpretation of the law

in relation to the mandatory ‘in conjunction’ requirement to indicate one of

the uses can be an ancillary use (see discussion in Chapter 2); and

While the operation is very similar to the 2004 Application (as it is

essentially the same business) this proposal has significant differences. The

Application proposes a limited term of 25 years; the crushing and screening

plant and sorting facility are enclosed; and the area for receiving feed

material from domestic sources has been formalised. We were also advised

that the range of materials accepted has been extended, as have the

materials to be transferred elsewhere for further processing.

1.5 Statutory Context

The Special Use Zone (Extractive Industry)

The land is zoned Special Use (schedule 2) (SUZ2) which has the following

purposes:

· To recognise or provide for the use and development of land for extractive

industry.

· To encourage interim use of the land compatible with the use and development

of nearby land.

· To encourage land management practice and rehabilitation that minimises

adverse impact on the use and development of nearby land.

In the SUZ2, use and development of Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer

Station both require a permit.

Metropolitan Green Wedge Land Core Planning Provisions

The land is outside the Urban Growth Boundary and Clause 57 Metropolitan

Green Wedge Land applies to the land. This clause prohibits Materials Recycling

unless it is carried out in conjunction with Refuse Disposal or Refusal Transfer

Station.

4 Boucher & Anor v Dandenong Ranges Steiner School Inc & ors [2005] 145 LGERA 21



Overlays

The land is affected by:

Design & Development Overlay 5 which requires a permit for buildings over

25 metres to protect Moorabbin Airport flight paths. As the proposal does

not include development above this height DDO5 does not trigger a permit.

Part of the subject land is covered by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

which requires a permit for works.

Permit Requirements under Particular Provisions

The following aspects of the proposal require a planning permit under

particular provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme:

Display of Business Identification signage (Clause 52.05).

To reduce car parking requirements (Clause 52.06-1).

To remove, destroy or lop native vegetation (Clause 52.17).

To create or alter access to a Road Zone, Category 1 (Clause 52.29).

SEPPs and EPA Guidelines

The key statutory policies and guidelines that particularly relate to the recycling

proposals being considered are:

SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001

SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) 1997

SEPP (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 1989.

Recommended Buffer Distances For Industrial Residual Air Emissions EPA

Publication AQ2/86

Observations from Site Visits

Some relevant observations from site inspections include:

AFG seemed to be adequately watering the Tootal Road site to suppress

dust, including the use of a water truck to wet the access roads.

‘Landfill-type’ odours were apparent, particularly on the access roadway

along the northern edge of the site.

Most noise at the site was from the crusher, truck movements, and materials

handling equipment.

Most audible noise at the Tootal Road and McClures Road intersection

seemed to stem from road traffic and equipment on the landfill on the

western side of Tootal Road.

There are many dust sources in the locality and dust was visible from other

uses near the site.



2. Is the Proposal Prohibited?

The Issues

Does the proposal satisfy the Clause 57 mandatory requirement that

Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station?

Does the proposal include a warehouse which is a prohibited use under

Clause 57?

Planning Scheme Definitions and the Mandatory Requirement

The planning scheme definitions are central to the task of determining what the

uses are and whether the proposal meets the mandatory requirements for

materials recycling to occur in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station.

There is significant overlap between Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer

Station uses as defined and a degree of interchangeability in some terms used in

the definitions. Problems of categorising the uses based on the planning

scheme definitions were discussed in the earlier Panel and Advisory Committee

reports and are not repeated here.

‘Materials Recycling’ and ‘Refuse Transfer Station’ are specific types of industry

and are defined in the Planning scheme as:

‘Materials Recycling’ is defined as ‘Land used to collect, dismantle, store,

recycle, or sell, used or scrap materials.’

‘Refuse Transfer Station’ is defined as ‘Land used to collect, temporarily

store, and process refuse, or used or scrap materials, for disposal or use

elsewhere.’

Ministerial Amendment VC43 was approved on 31 October 2006 and included

the following new Clause 64.02 Land used in conjunction with another use to

clarify the term ‘in conjunction’5:

If a provision of this scheme provides that a use of land must be used ‘in conjunction with’ another use of the land:

· there must be an essential association between the two uses; and

· the use must have a genuine, close and continuing functional relationship in its

operation with the other use.

5 Amendment VC 43 prohibited Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer Station dealing with

construction and demolition materials in the Green Wedge Zone with transitional provisions, but did

not amend provisions of SUZ2.



This ‘raised the bar’ - the tests to apply to ‘in conjunction’ requirements

changed from the ‘functional nexus’ test to requiring an ‘essential association’

and ‘a genuine, close and continuing functional relationship’ between the uses.

Amendment VC43 also changed the condition attached to materials recycling in

the Green Wedge Zone and the explanatory report indicated the amendment

was required to restrict Materials Recycling to composting and the like. It is

notable that this Amendment distinguished between zones within green

wedges and did not impose the same limitation on land in the SUZ2.

Background - Previous Advisory Committees’ Findings

The 2005 Advisory Committee found that:

…. the real and substantive purpose of both proposals (Clarinda and Heatherton) is

Materials Recycling and any Refuse Transfer Station function is, at best, ancillary as it is a necessary adjunct to that primary use. Therefore both proposals are prohibited and

permits cannot be issued.

Nevertheless, the Committee responds to the tasks in its Terms of Reference. The

Committee also sets out its views on key planning issues if a more liberal interpretation is adopted due to the limits of the definitions involved. 6‘

The Tootal Road Panel considered the issue of compliance with the mandatory

‘in conjunction’ requirement after VC43 and the Supreme Court decision

relating to a Steiner School (the Steiner Decision)7 in a Green Wedge Zone. The

Tootal Road Panel found:

The Panel finds that the purpose of all activities undertaken on the site is directed at materials recycling which could be accommodated within the Materials Recycling

definition.

It is arguable whether there is an identifiable Refuse Transfer Station use but the Panel

has not rejected the possible existence of an ancillary Refuse Transfer Station use because

ancillary uses may be of a very small scale, of an incidental nature or ‘a necessary adjunct’ to a primary use. Further, the requirement for integration and functional

interdependence of ‘in conjunction uses’ increase the likelihood and acceptability of a

secondary use being intermingled or subsumed within the primary use.

The Panel concludes that:

· The transfer of scrap steel for use (or disposal) elsewhere in the Application can be

characterised as an ancillary Refuse Transfer Station use to the primary purpose of

Materials Recycling.

6 The Advisory Committee also sets out recommendations relating to: the planning scheme definitions; provisions

relating to materials recycling in Clause 57, the Special Use 2 Zone and Clause 52.10; the development of a

Practice Note and consideration of rehabilitation options for quarry and extraction pits in Green Wedge management planning.

7 Boucher v Dandenong Ranges Steiner School [2005] VSC 400



· In view of the Steiner School decision, one of the ‘in conjunction’ uses may be an

ancillary use.

· The close and essential functional association of the proposed Materials Recycling

and ancillary Refuse Transfer Facility uses is manifest.

· The Application satisfies the Green Wedge Zone condition that Materials Recycling

must operate in conjunction with a Refuse Transfer Station.

Submissions

Mr Montebello revisited the arguments relating to compliance with the ‘in

conjunction requirement’. He noted that the Steiner Decision found the

requirement that proposed uses be conducted in conjunction with each other

does not fall to be determined by reference to the notion of ancillary use and

this effectively allowed the ‘in conjunction uses’ to include uses that would not

ordinarily qualify as a separate use. However, he argued that since Steiner was

decided, the law has changed to meet the concerns that arose out of the Steiner

decision. He referred to the VCAT Jinalec8 decision and argued:

‘… If Jinalec (ie clause 64.02 is (was) applied as a threshold issue, it is submitted

that the Tootal Road case would have not been decided in the same way for a

number of reasons. The scale of the “other use” is highly relevant. More to the

point, the ordinary person would not regard the purpose of the site as anything

other than materials recycling. Using parlance commonly adopted by the courts

and tribunals to this type of issue, “the extent to which it does not fall within the

defined use is so trifling that it should be ignored and, in that event, the purpose

as revealed should be taken to fall within the defined use.

19. Accordingly, it is submitted that the requisite requirement that the materials

recycling facility be carried out in conjunction with one of the specified uses does

not exist.’

Mr Montebello also submitted that the staging plan as proposed (and explained

by SEMR) would result in the materials recycling use operating without the

requisite other use for some two or so years. This is not permissible.

The Application and evidence from Mr Rodda and Mr McKellar highlighted

that the range and volumes of materials to be transferred from the site is greater

than in the 2004 Application. They advised in relation to the current

application:

A substantial refuse transfer station facility for contractor and public use is

located near the front of the site which will source a broad range of both

construction and demolition (C & D) and commercial and industrial (C & I)

8 Jinalec Park PL v Mornington Peninsula SC [2007] VCAT 1238



material. The waste sorting and processing will be contained within

purpose-built structures.

Asphalt will be separated, processed to reduce it to a suitable size, and

temporarily stockpiled for transfer to Laverton (30,000 tonnes/year)9.

Steel (10,000+ tonne/year), which has a high monetary value relative to

volume, will be temporarily stockpiled, pressed into bales and transported

to Laverton for further processing. White goods will be transferred to a

scrap metal dealer.

Timber will be temporarily stockpiled on site and shredded to a size

appropriate for economic transportation to Laverton for waste to energy

purposes. This was presented as a potentially expanding element of the

operation. Initially a volume of 1,000 tonnes is required, 60% of which is

expected to come from the south-eastern region. The volume is expected to

double.

All non-ferrous metals will be transferred to Laverton for sorting and will be

on-sold to scrap metal merchants.

Plasterboard, PVC pipe and cardboard from the separation process will be

transferred to specialist recyclers or landfill.

Discussion

The determination of whether the threshold issue of compliance with

mandatory ‘in conjunction’ requirements have been problematic since the green

wedge provisions were introduced. As Deputy President Gibson noted in

Jinalec ‘the meaning of clause 64.02 is not clear. Although the introduction of clause

64.02 was meant to clarify the meaning of the term ‘in conjunction with’ regarding the

association between uses, it has only created further ambiguity.’

The Jinalec decision noted that the dictionary meaning of the word ‘essential’ as

absolutely necessary; indispensable; fundamental; basic; of or constituting the essence of

a person or thing and that a literal interpretation of Clause 64.02 would

effectively prohibit most of the secondary uses subject to the ‘in conjunction

with’ requirement. In the Jinalec decision Deputy President Gibson considered

Amendment VC43 ‘was intended to clarify that tenuous, superficial or artificial links

between uses were not used as an excuse to allow a secondary use’ but it could not be

presumed that the Government intended to prohibit secondary uses when it

introduced clause 64.02. Rather, it was suggested that the type of association

contemplated by clause 64.02 can be characterised as a symbiotic relationship

between the two uses where ‘There must be a close association between the two uses,

even though the uses are essentially dissimilar in nature, which is of mutual benefit to

9 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes/year is recycled on site.



each use.’ It was also suggested that a ‘realistic view must be taken of what

constitutes an essential association – one that is focussed more broadly on acceptable

outcomes based on the purpose of the zone, including the policy framework.’

In the application we are considering, the proposal readily satisfies a literal

interpretation and also comprises a symbiotic relationship, except that the

defined uses that must operate ‘in conjunction’ are not essentially dissimilar.

Indeed it is the fact that there is clearly an essential relationship between the

elements of the proposal that the existence of separate uses has been the source

of debate. Likewise, in considering this application, there has been no debate

about the second limb of the ‘in conjunction’ requirement that there must be a

genuine, close and continuing functional relationship between the operation of

the uses.

The Steiner decision indicates separate and identifiable uses are required. The

substantial overlap between the definitions for Materials Recycling and Refuse

Transfer Station and the consequential difficulty in determining compliance

with the ‘in conjunction’ has been highlighted since the 2005 Advisory

Committee process. The uses involved in this application include so many

common elements that distinguishing between specific uses is problematic- the

definitions add an extra layer of ambiguity compared to other instances where

the ‘in conjunction’ requirement has been considered.

The current proposal has sought to draw a clearer distinction between the

Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer Facility elements of the proposal than

in the 2004 Application; proposes to extend the materials that will be

transferred elsewhere; and has highlighted the volume and value of materials

transferred for further processing. We note, and are inclined to agree with, the

arguments put by Mr Pitt that:

Amendment VC43 did not address the relationship between primary and

secondary or ancillary uses in Clause 64.02 despite the Amendment being

introduced in full knowledge of the Steiner decision, various VCAT

decisions and the 2005 Advisory Committee recommendations. The

inference is that there was an explicit intention not to change the law on

which the Steiner decision was based in relation to these matters.

The prohibition of materials recycling in the Green Wedge Zone as result of

Amendment VC43 makes the Government’s intention in relation to that

zone clear but this change did not extend to the SUZ. While the planning

intention would have been much clearer if Clause 57 had reflected the same

change, it could be inferred that there was an intention to treat the zones

differently.

The Jinalec decision and cases it referred to related to the Green Wedge

Zone but in this case the in conjunction requirement is under Clause 57 and



the application is not incompatible with the purposes of that Clause or the

SUZ.

The Jinalec decision also addressed the issue of the scale of ‘in conjunction uses’

and adopted the view that ‘It is inherent in the notion of a secondary use10 being

used in conjunction with a primary use that the primary use remains a significant use

of the land. It need not be the dominant use of the land.’ and ‘I consider that the

disproportion between the scale of the secondary use compared to the scale of the

primary use in some of the cases decided prior to the Amendment VC43 was part of the

“mischief” the amendment was attempting to redress. I therefore consider that the

relative scale of the two uses is a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding

whether a secondary use is ‘in conjunction with’ a primary use.’

With regard to determining the scale of ‘in conjunction uses’, again we note that

the overlap between the definitions of the uses we are considering is extremely

unhelpful.

We agree with Mr Pitt that we cannot disregard the implications of the Steiner

decision - even an ancillary use can satisfy the ‘in conjunction’ requirement.

We endorse the conclusions of the Tootal Road Panel and find that, while it is

arguable, on the facts of this case the proposal complies with the Clause 57

requirement that Materials Recycling must be in conjunction with a Refuse

Transfer Station.

Does the proposal effectively include a warehouse?

RAID sought a determination on whether the enclosure of sections of the plant

in buildings constitutes a warehouse type use, which is a prohibited use under

Clause 57.

Warehouse is defined in the Planning scheme as:

Land used to store or display goods. It may include the distribution and the

wholesale selling of the goods.

The planning scheme draws distinctions between use and development. Clause

57 deals with land uses whereas the RAID concern appears to be relate to the

form of development and emanates from the fact that proposed buildings

would have a form commonly associated with warehouses. We are satisfied

that, while the proposal involves storing feed material and recycled product,

this activity is accommodated in the Materials Recycling and Refuse Transfer

Station uses and separate consideration of a warehouse use is not required.

10

In Jinalec the permissible uses which are subject to the condition requiring them to be in conjunction

with other uses on the land were referred to secondary uses. The uses with which the secondary uses

must be in conjunction we will call primary uses.



3. Is the Proposal Consistent with Planning Policy?

The reports of previous Panels and Advisory Committees dealing with

materials recycling and transfer stations in Kingston’s non-urban areas have

addressed the relevant planning policy in detail11. The key themes in the

planning framework and recent strategic planning initiatives for this green

wedge area will be briefly reviewed but our assessment focuses on whether the

revisions in the current proposal mean it is more supportive of policy than the

2004 Application.

The Issue

Would the proposal jeopardise the long-term vision for the locality?

3.1 State Policy – Support for Recycling

State planning policy12 establishes a clear principle that waste should be

avoided and recycled in preference to disposal - waste should only go to landfill

if there is no other practicable option. The implementation of State policy to

support recycling involves facilitating a distribution of facilities to underpin the

efficiency of the network. Policy encourages waste generators and businesses

that use or recycle waste to locate near each other.13 C & D waste is identified as

a priority for recovery and targets require expansion of reprocessing capacity in

Melbourne’s south-east.

Submissions did not challenge the policy support for recycling but argued the

proposed use should be located within the UGB in an industrial zone.

Dandenong’s IN2Z and the extension of the Dandenong industrial area were

put forward by submitters as more suitable alternative locations. While our

role does not extend to evaluating potential alternative sites or whether the site

represents an optimum outcome, we note that:

11

For further discussion see the Report of the Advisory Committee and Panels Materials Recycling in Green Wedges: Heatherton Materials Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP542/03 Clarinda: Materials

Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP184/04 June 2005 and 2007 Tootal Road report. 12

For example Melbourne 2030, Melbourne 2030 audit, the Environment Protection Act (1970), EPA

Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills), the Towards Zero Waste

Strategy (TZWS), the ‘Victorian Greenhouse Strategy’ and ‘Our Environment’ 13

Clause 12.07-2



The search for an alternative site, with the active assistance of DIIRD, has

not identified an acceptable alternative.

Dandenong’s IN2Z is effectively fully developed and the vision for new

Keysborough/Lyndhurst industrial zone (Amendment C87) is for high

amenity advanced manufacturing and logistics uses.

3.2 State and Local Policy Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area

Melbourne 2030 and the SPPF articulate the government intention to protect

Green Wedges and ensure that pressures for urban uses do not compromise the

overall purposes of green wedges. The SPPF, the LPPF14, the SUZ2 and

Overlays for the Heatherton-Dingley non-urban area establish a planning

framework with consistent themes involving the:

Protection and extraction of sand resources.

Recognition of the area as an important location for regional landfills.

Need to manage the transition to post-extraction/landfill functions.

A commitment to implement the long-term strategy to achieve a ‘Chain of

Parks’, which will eventually transform the area’s character and function.

As noted by the 2005 Advisory Committee and VCAT15, local policy indicates

that post-extraction use and development of land not designated as core

parkland should complement open space and recreation strategies but clause 57

restrictions on these uses in green wedges create some uncertainty about future

uses.

In addition to providing for extractive industry, the SUZ 2 purposes encourage

interim use and the management and rehabilitation of the land to ensure

compatibility with nearby uses and development.

3.3 Recent Strategic Planning for the Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area

Council has recognised the need to revisit the planning framework for the

Heatherton-Dingley Non-Urban Area since at least 2002. The Kingston,

Heatherton, Clayton South, Dingley Non Urban Area Strategic Review (March 2002)

observed that the rehabilitation of former extraction pits through landfills was

likely to occur over 10 to 50 years but noted that emerging trends could mean

14

For example, Clauses 21.03 Land Use challenges, particularly Sustainable Management of Non -Urban

Areas, 21.10 Non-urban areas, 21.11 Open Space, and 22.03 Sandbelt Open Space Project Policy 15

Hy-Tec Industries Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2005] VCAT 1145 and Clayton Sands Pty Ltd v Kingston

CC [2007] VCAT 766



land filling operations may cease before all existing holes are filled. That

Review also suggested the area could have a continuing role as a home for

increasingly important waste recycling activities and alternative waste disposal

technologies.

Mr Montebello submitted that Council has not ‘sat on its hands’ when it comes

to resolving planning framework issues for this area and has been seriously

pursuing a significant planning process for the areas north of Kingston Road to

bring about some certainty in the future directions for this area. We agree with

Mr Montebello that this process is certainly not at the stage of being a seriously

entertained planning scheme amendment and there are divergent views of the

area’s future that have not been tested. Nevertheless, the work undertaken

does indicate issues to be addressed and the scope of options being

contemplated.

The recently released Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan:

Recognises there is a range of existing predominantly urban activities,

particularly to the east of the subject land and the need for water retarding

facilities once land has been rehabilitated.

The site is in the ‘Enterprise Precinct’16 which was split into northern and

southern areas17 in recognition of existing land uses, and the northern

section’s proximity to established urban areas and future abuttal with core

parkland.

The site is in the southern section of the precinct which would establish an

‘employment zone’ to ‘reflect the employment needs of tomorrow’ and to

provide sufficient incentive for post-extraction rehabilitation of much of the

precinct. Further guidance about the nature of the employment uses

envisaged was not provided and will be an important task in the further

development of the Framework.

The vision for the northern section of the precinct is to create a densely

planted ‘carbon sink/urban forest’ more than 300 metres wide once filling

has been completed.

Ensure that land in Victory Road that has not yet been extracted and is being

used as market gardens is not given approval for extraction or land filling.

Contemplates inclusion of the area within the UGB.

16

Generally between Clayton Road and Old Dandenong Road, south of Victory Road 17

Along an east/west line running from Old Dandenong Road to Clayton Road, along the Victory Road

alignment



The Draft Framework also identifies an area to the east side of Clayton Road for

a future ‘Resource Recovery Precinct’ in view of the areas historical waste

management function.

Submissions and Evidence

Those opposing the Application argued that the proposal should not be

permitted because it is an encroachment of an industrial use that would

prejudice the achievement of long-term planning strategies for the locality.

Council submitted that approval of this proposal would encourage other

inappropriate uses that would undermine the vision for the area, rather than

building momentum for transformation of the area. It argued submitted that a

condition requiring the use to cease after an extended period of time (20 years)

is inappropriate as:

The use requires a significant investment in site infrastructure;

On balance, the proposal is inconsistent with policy and zone provisions;

and

Unlike the sunset clause included in the Tootal Road permit to allow the

operators to locate an appropriate site, the current proposal’s extended

timeframe has the potential to impact upon the formation, direction and

implementation of the policy framework. The usual planning approach of

the policy matrix for the area directing planning decisions would be

reversed and the grant of a permit would result in the reassessment the land

use context underpinning strategic planning that is underway.

Council also submitted that proposals that would detract from the potential for

a ‘waste hub’ to the east, as envisaged in recent strategic planning work, should

not be endorsed.

RAID, the Defenders of the South East Green Wedge and Dingley Village

Community Association opposed the application on the basis that:

Any remaining sand extraction opportunities should be realised in the short

term, so that conversion to open space/other productive after uses can be

achieved. If sand extraction is no longer viable, then Clause 22.03 requires

rehabilitation to commence.

The use, which would operate for at least 20 years and most likely well

beyond that timeframe, will continue long after the region’s extractive

industry and landfill sites have been completely rehabilitated. It does not

constitute an interim use as contemplated by the purposes of the SUZ and is

well beyond the short-term use the 2005 Advisory Committee indicated

would enjoy greater policy support.



The precedent (or benchmark) set by approval of this application would

encourage a wave of similar proposals that would prejudice long-term

policies and strategies.

The proposed use does not constitute rehabilitation and will have an

ongoing adverse affect on the region. Extraction ceased at the site around

six to eight years ago and the opportunity for an interim use prior to

rehabilitation has passed. RAID acknowledged that the site’s limited

volume make it less attractive for landfill and opposed solid inert/

putrescible land filling but it argued that clean fill could be used to

rehabilitate the site and achieve a broader range of after-use options. The

Defenders of the South East Green Wedge also noted recreational after-use

options may not require extensive filling.

The site is close to one of the Chain of Park’s narrow corridors and the

industrial nature of the proposal would undermine the Sandbelt Open Space

strategic vision and compromise the amenity of the park.

The Draft Framework has identified land north of Heatherton Road to the

northeast as a potential ‘waste hub’ rather than the subject site.

SEMR noted that a sewer through the site and the quality and quantity of the

sand means that extraction is not viable. It was submitted the proposal will not

have any adverse impact on the Chain of Parks due the site’s separation by

distance and topography from proposed core parkland. It was argued that the

proposal is for an interim use that would not blight the surrounding area in

either the short or long term, rather, it will contribute to improved amenity.

Further long-term strategies will not be compromised as the 20-year timeframe

of the permission sought is generally consistent with the likely life of landfill

and related activities in the area - rehabilitation of the land will not be delayed.

Further, the proposal will not delay the rehabilitation of the land as, in the

absence of any economic imperative or inducement, the land will not be

improved. While the proposal does not identify an ‘after’ use, perimeter

landscaping will enhance the appearance of the area and proposed works

would not prejudice potential ‘after’ use of the land.

Mr Pitt referred to the Council officer’s report (28 April 2008), which

recommended the grant of a permit subject to conditions, as an objective

analysis of the issues 18.

Mr Milner’s evidence highlighted the proposal’s consistency with an identified

purpose of this green wedge to accommodate waste management facilities. He

was of the view that there is a clear appreciation that any redevelopment in the

18

The Applicant relied on that assessment pursuant to the principle in Modern Living Design &

Construction Pty Ltd v Box Hill CC (1988) 1 AATR 166 at 168/9



area – including the Chain of Parks and associated uses – will only be

implemented in the long term. In the interim, the area’s current waste

management role is highly valued. Mr Milner considered the proposal

provides the incentive to take the first steps towards the site’s rehabilitation.

He considered a permit with a limited life of 20 years is an appropriate

response to the strategic planning context as:

‘… it provides for the development of a use that is consistent with the existing

character of the area, together with the opportunity to reassess the situation and

land use context once the permit expires. This will allow the redevelopment of the

subject site to take place concurrently with the redevelopment of surrounding

land.

Mr Rodda was also of the view that:

‘The permission sought is for a temporary for a period which is coincidental to

anticipated completion of the sand extraction / landfill / rehabilitation cycle

recognised in the area north of Kingston Road and will not prejudice future use of

the subject land for urban purposes currently contemplated by the City of

Kingston or for other purposes.

Mr Rodda considered the 20-year timeframe would align with the cessation of

land filling and also provides a reasonable timeframe to amortise development

costs.

3.4 Discussion on Policy

Waste Policy Support

There is a strong policy predisposition in favour of recycling and the Kingston

non-urban area may well have a long-term role in this aspect of the waste

management sector. We accept Sustainability Victoria advice that the AFG

recycling operations are a vital element of the recycling network serving south-

eastern Melbourne and there is a need to not only maintain but expand the

capacity to recycle C & D waste. We also maintain the view of other panels

considering materials recycling in Kingston’s non-urban area that:

Minimising transport costs is a key factor in the viability of recycling

activities and the diversion of feedstock from alternative landfill

destinations requires the recycling location to be at least as accessible as

landfill; and

This area is well located in terms of both securing source C & D material

from established areas and to provide an alternative to disposal at nearby

landfill destinations.



The clear waste policy support for the Application is an important

consideration that supports the grant of a permit but must be balanced with

other planning objectives.

An Interim Use?

As noted by the 2005 Advisory Committee and the Tootal Road Panel

permanent industrial uses, such as concrete crushers, as the form of

rehabilitation of extraction sites would be a major change to the planning

objectives for the locality. The resolution of long-term uses in the locality

should occur through Green Wedge management planning. This process has

commenced but has some way to go. Nevertheless, the Draft Northern Non

Urban Area Framework Plan, a recent VCAT decision relating to sand extraction

the locality19 and SEMR indicated that further extraction on the site is highly

questionable. This shifts the focus of our evaluation of the Application to the

other zone purposes - the encouragement of rehabilitation and interim use.

We think the fundamental question is whether this proposal would jeopardise

the achievement of long-term vision for the locality.

As discussed in subsequent chapters, the proposal will be well screened from

the surrounding area, off-site impacts are manageable and the use is not

inconsistent with the current character of the locality. Further, there is no

reason to think the proposed use would compromise the development of the

Chain of Parks20.

Previous Panels have suggested the concept of a waste hub may have merit but

identified this as a matter for green wedge planning. We note that the site is not

in Precinct 6 which was nominated for resource recovery in the draft

framework plan. However, we also note that SEMR has highlighted that

Precinct 6 has a number of limitations for this function, notably that the after-

use is intended to occur on filled land which would eliminate an important

characteristic that mitigates off-site impacts.

Evaluation of the Draft Framework is beyond the scope of this Advisory

Committee and we are not in a position to comment on the merit or otherwise

of the location identified as a resource recovery precinct. The Draft Framework

is in the developmental stage and the fact that the proposal is in a location that

departs from the Draft Framework is not fatal to the Application. We are not

convinced that approval of this Application, which is for a proposal with a

19

Clayton Sands Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2007] VCAT 766 20

We note that the Site’s 300-metre separation from proposed core parkland and intervening higher land

indicate that the proposed operations are unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the amenity

within the proposed core parkland to the north if it was developed during the life of a permit



limited life, would undermine the development of the resource recovery

precinct.

Planning policy recognises that the transformation of this area is a long-term

strategy. The transition from extraction/landfill with a degraded landscape to a

rehabilitated area that complements the development of the Chain of Parks will

take decades.

That 2005 Advisory Committee considered that concrete crushers should

generally be located in industrial zones but there may be opportunities to

facilitate this form of recycling by ‘piggy backing’ it with extractive industry

and landfill without undermining long-term policies for the area or further

degrading its character or amenity. That Advisory Committee noted that short-

term use of this site for concrete crushing would have greater policy support

than the permanent proposal being considered at that time21 but emphasised

that continuing concrete crushing after completion of land filling would be

likely to undermine policies to rehabilitate sites22. We agree with that view.

There was some discussion about the timeframe necessary to amortise the

investment proposed with some suggesting it is a capital intensive proposal

that will therefore become entrenched, while others took a contrary view that

level of capital invested was relatively modest (compared to many commercial

developments) with functional rather than sophisticated buildings (almost

demountable), which, like the plant and air monitoring equipment could be

relocated. Mr McKellar advised that a 10-year timeframe would not be viable

due to the capital investment required.

We see the implications for the implementation of planning strategies as the

determining factor, not whether funds invested can be amortised over the life of

the permit – that is a financial decision for the Applicant, not the Advisory

Committee or Council.

We acknowledge objecting submitters’ concerns that approval of the use for a

period longer than a few years would mean the use would become entrenched,

its presence could influence the future planning framework against which the

use would be assessed when the permit expires, and it could be cited as a

precedent for other uses that do not advance the vision for the locality.

Submitters opposing the application focused on the 2005 Advisory Committee

21

The 2005 Panel sought the applicant’s views on approval on an interim basis and was advised a sunset

condition, of say 10 years, on a permit would effectively equate to a refusal – approval of a permanent

use is sought. 22

Page 5 Report of the Advisory Committee and Panels Materials Recycling in Green Wedges: Heatherton Materials Recycling and Transfer Station Application KP542/03 Clarinda: Materials Recycling and Transfer

Station Application KP184/04 June 2005



reference to policy support for short-term interim use for recycling and argued

that 20 years cannot be considered short-term.

Those concerns need to be considered within the range of planning policy

objectives. This proposal has not introduced a new potential use for

consideration in the development of the planning framework for the locality, as

the possibility of accommodating resource recovery activities in this non-urban

area has been flagged in strategic planning for the locality in each of the studies

undertaken since at least 2002. Other proposals for interim uses would need to

be assessed on their merits, for example having regard to any consequences for

core parkland or amenity impacts on residential uses.

We find that the strong waste policy support for this application justifies serous

consideration of the Application as an interim use beyond the very short term.

We agree with Mr Milner, Mr Rodda and the Council officer report that the

concept of interim use should take account of the progressive closure of landfill

and the timeframe for conversion to core park uses or complementary uses - the

temporary use of the land should be linked to the cessation of surrounding land

filling activities.

The Draft Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Plan (DWRRP) schedules

land filling for the 10-year period to 2017. It identified the following closure of

landfills in Kington’s non-urban area based on closure dates identified by the

operators (see Figure 4 in Section 1.2):

Putrescible - TPI Clayton (Deals Road and Fraser Road) – post 2020

Putrescible - Clayton Regional (674-718 Clayton Road) – 2017

Solid Inert - TPI Victory Road, Clarinda – 2011

Solid Inert - TPI Carroll Road, Clarinda - 2014

Solid Inert - TPI Bunnys Lane Heatherton – post 2020

Waste management planning for locality based on operator expectations

indicates that land directly to the north and immediately to the east of Clayton

Road will be filled by 2017 which would mean that all land within

approximately 500 metres would then be in the rehabilitation phase (see Figure

4).

The DWRRP considered two alternative scenarios: one where existing waste

trends are maintained and a second, where Towards Zero Waste targets are

achieved. Projections indicate the achievement of TZW targets would

progressively reduce the consumption of landfill airspace to a point where from

2013 onwards the rate would be approximately half the rate in 2007.



The DWRRP states ‘At a minimum TPI Clarinda Rd, TPI Victory Rd, The Glen,

SBI Cranbourne and the Clayton Regional Landfill will be closed by 2020. Other

sites such as TPI Fraser Rd may close by about 2020.’

We accept that recent trends and filling rate projections indicate that waste

policy is producing very substantial reductions in rates of filling. We note Mr

Milner’s advice that rehabilitation of completed landfills, including the

management of gas emissions and subsidence, can extend the time before an

‘after-use’ can realistically occur. We also note that planning permit conditions

relating to the completion of rehabilitation works commonly recognise that the

task requires some time to take account of matters such as land settling. Even

taking these factors into account, we find the proposed 20 or 25-year life of the

permit is excessive.

Provided off-site impacts are effectively managed, on balance we find a sunset

condition of 15 years is reasonable as it would align with the likely completion

of land filling in the immediate area (by about 2020) with some time (three

years) provided for consolidation and rehabilitation of those sites. If any

extension of permit is sought, the request should be made at least three years

before the permit lapses to provide time to wind down operations and relocate

to avoid undue pressure on the Responsible Authority to extend the permit due

to the imminent displacement of the use.

Rehabilitation

Objecting submitters argued rather than provide for rehabilitation in a form

that advances policies to transform the area, the proposal perpetuates the types

of uses that have degraded the current landscape.

However, SEMR submitted that the land would be fit for a range of uses, some

of which could take advantage of a location below the level of the broader area.

Mr Rodda noted that when the permit expires the site would have extensive

mature planting around the perimeter, a constructed access point and a level

hardstand area that could be a base for subsequent development. The dams

could also serve floodwater retarding purposes. Mr Milner considered the

proposal provides the owner with incentive to start site rehabilitation, would

not compromise future options and represents a good first step.

SEMR opposed the Condition 64 of the draft permit which would require the

submissions of a Rehabilitation Plan which, amongst other things, anticipates

reinstatement of appropriate surface levels having regard to the Sandbelt Open

Space Project objectives and integration with surrounding land requires. SEMR

advocated the condition specified in the Council officer report, which simply

required removal of plant, equipment and signage.



We recognise the long-term use of the site is unclear, but the ‘Enterprise

Precinct’ goals set out in the Draft Northern Non-urban Area Framework Plan

(discussed in Section 3.1.2) provides a sense of potential after-use.

We accept SEMR is extensively planting the bunds around the site as discussed

in Section 4.3. These vegetated bunds and the sealed and unsealed roadways

within the site could also form part of plans for long-term uses of the site. We

are satisfied that the proposal’s treatment of the site’s interface with the public

realm will represent some progress towards the planning objectives to

rehabilitate this currently degraded landscape.

We also recognise that a range of recreational or other employment uses could

take advantage of the depressed areas of the site and filling to the natural

ground level may not be the only acceptable form of rehabilitation.

We consider that rehabilitation on the expiry of the permit can be addressed in

two stages through permit conditions:

Before the use and development starts the permit conditions should require

approval of a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority This would establish a base level of rehabilitation

and ensure that subsequent operations do not compromise those plans and

establish the amount of the bank guarantee to ensure rehabilitation occurs.

We note that the works that form part of the proposal are likely to represent

a significant component of rehabilitation works but there will be significant

other costs.

Two years before the permit lapses the approved Preliminary Rehabilitation

Plan should be subject to a full review to ensure the rehabilitation facilitates

the development of the ‘after-uses’ envisaged by the planning framework

applicable at that time. This would include preparation of an approved

Final Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan should provide for restoration works, to

the Responsible Authority’s satisfaction, including but not limited to:

Removal of plant, equipment, signage and any agreed buildings or other

structures;

Reshaping of all batters to agreed slopes;

Placement of a one-metre layer of clean fill including topsoil to a minimum

of 20 centimetres on batters and agreed hardstand areas23;

Works to ensure satisfactory stormwater run-off and storage of flood waters;

23

This is consistent with common rehabilitation conditions in Planning Permits tabled by Council at the

Tootal Road hearings in 2007.



Suitable securing and environmental protection of ponds and other water

bodies, including restoration of the slimes dam;

Landscaping; and

Completion of the works within 12 months of the date of the permit unless

the Responsible Authority grants an extension.

We conclude that:

There is clear policy support for recycling and providing additional C & D

recycling facilities to serve Melbourne’s south-east and this justifies serious

consideration of the Application as an interim use.

The transformation of the area will take decades. Interim use of the site for

recycling can ‘piggy back’ with nearby land filling without undermining

long-term policies for the area or further degrading its character or amenity.

A sunset condition of 15 years would generally align with the likely

completion of land filling in the immediate area with some time provided

for rehabilitation of those sites. Any request for extension of the permit

should only be entertained if it is made well in advance of the permit expiry.

This should allow consideration within the context of the planning

framework in place at that time with less pressure due to the imminent

displacement of the use.

A two-stage approach to rehabilitation planning should be adopted with

approval of a preliminary plan before the use and development start which

is reviewed well in advance of the expiry of the permit to ensure consistency

with the after-uses envisaged by the planning framework at that time.

Advisory Committee Recommendations

Apply a sunset condition requiring the use to cease 15 years from the date

of the permit.

Provide for extension of the permit if the request is made at least three

years before the permit expires.

Provide for rehabilitation planning in two stages with approval of a

Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan before the use and development start

which would be reviewed to provide a Final Rehabilitation Plan two years

before the permit expires.



4. OFF–SITE IMPACTS

The 2005 Advisory Committee found in relation to the Alex Fraser Group

Application, which was for essentially for the same business on the subject site

but without enclosure of the crushing plant, that:

Much of the dust from the proposal would settle on-site and would be

intercepted by the pit walls/bunds and perimeter planting. The separation

of more than 700 metres from the nearest residential zone provides a degree

of comfort that nuisance dust would be unlikely to have an unacceptable

impact on their amenity. The amenity expectations for dispersed sensitive

uses in and adjoining the SUZ, such as farm houses and the Heatherton

Christian College, should be tempered by the zoning. Potential impacts

from nuisance dust on the adjoining horticultural uses and nearby nurseries

would need to be addressed through conditions;

There is negligible risk to health from non-occupational exposure to fine

dust emitted from the proposals, including Respirable Crystalline Silica

(RCS), when assessed against current international standards;

Noise would be audible but SEPP N-1 limits would be satisfied and

operating hours would need to be restricted consistent with those limits;

Traffic generated can be readily accommodated with minor works to the

arterial road networks in the immediate area; and

Water quality and management issues were adequately addressed.

The subsequent discussion of the key issues briefly sets out the conclusions in

evidence presented to us on the current application, with a particular focus on

differences from the 2004 Application that may influence the earlier Panel’s

findings.

4.1 Air Quality

What is the Issue?

Are air emissions from the subject site acceptable?

If not, can adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?

Differences compared with earlier hearings

Since the earlier hearing for this site in 2005 the main air quality impact

differences or changes are linked to the proposed extra controls which we heard

go beyond best practice for C & D recycling. These include:

Enclosing the crushing operations;



Extra dust monitoring stations; and

More substantial bunds and vegetation around the site.

We note expert evidence and submissions on air quality did not change

markedly from the 2005 Advisory Committee process. However, Dr Bellair

refined and expanded his earlier modelling. We have not gone into as much

detail as the 2005 Advisory Committee Report which extensively discussed the

air quality issues. Instead we have summarised the discussion and findings

and, where needed, drawn out any key differences.

Policy Context

State Planning Policy on Air Quality (Clause 15.04) aims to protect and improve

air quality and requires responsible and planning authorities to:

Ensure there is suitable separation between sensitive land uses and

developments;

Consider EPA’s recommended buffer distances24 where uses have the

potential to reduce amenity; and

Have regard to potential conflicts between uses due to air emission impacts.

State planning policy also requires planning decisions to be consistent with any

relevant requirements of the State environment protection policies (SEPPs)

aimed at protecting air quality:

State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (SEPP AAQ)25 which

sets overall State air quality objectives, and

State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP AQM)26

which sets minimum air emission requirements and applies to all generators

of air emissions in Victoria.

SEPP AQM focuses on the control of emissions with avoidance being the

primary aim. The SEPP AQM requirements are mainly directed to point source

emissions from industry with design criteria for Total Suspended Particles

24

Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (EPA 1990) 25

State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (SEPP AAQ) sets air quality objectives

and goals for six criteria pollutants plus an ambient air quality objective for visibility. It aims to

protect beneficial uses, human health and well being, visibility and aesthetic enjoyment and local

amenity. 26

State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP AQM) sets out the framework

and attainment program for managing air emissions to ensure ambient air quality objectives are met

and to drive continuous improvement in air quality. It provides averaging time for modelling, and

design criteria indicators which are grouped as class 1 (includes PM10), class 2 (includes PM2.5), class

3 (extremely hazardous substances including respirable crystalline silica as PM2.5) and unclassified

indicators (odour and total suspended particles [nuisance dust]).



(TSP), PM10, PM2.527, arsenic and RCS for large area-based sources (for example,

dust from stockpiles) to be addressed in Protocols for Environmental Management

(PEMs)28. The Protocol for Environmental Management for Mining and Extractive

Industry (PEM EMI)29 released by EPA in December 2007 is now an incorporated

document in SEPP AQM. Some of the impact assessment criteria applicable for

the mining and extractive industries, based on protecting human health,

provide useful benchmarks for concrete recycling. Dr Bellair advised for area-

based sources such as this proposal industry-specific control measures backed

up by suitable monitoring programs achieve the best environmental outcomes.

4.1.1 Air Quality in the Area

The main sources for air emissions in the area are agricultural, extractive and

non-manufacturing operations. We list the pollutants of interest in Table 1.

Asbestos is also of interest because SEMR proposes recycling building

materials.

Indicator Criteria Averaging Period

PM10 60µg/m3 24-hour average

PM2.5 36µg/m3 24-hour average

Nuisance Dust 4g/m2/month (no more than 2g/m2/month

above average)

Monthly average

RCS (as PM2.5) 3µg/m3 Annual average

Table 1: Selected Assessment Criteria from PEM EMI (Source: EPA Submission June 2008)

EPA routinely monitors criteria pollutants plus PM2.5 and visibility at its

network of air monitoring station throughout Melbourne. Except for extreme

conditions such as bushfires (when particle levels may be elevated) Melbourne

generally has good air quality by world and SEPP AAQ standards. EPA said

the general air quality in Clarinda is not substantially different from elsewhere

in metropolitan Melbourne.

Appendix C puts airborne particles into context, largely from Dr Drew’s

evidence to this hearing and the 2005 hearings. It briefly describes the

characteristics and potential health risks of different types of dust (nuisance,

inhalable and respirable), focusing on RCS.

27

Particle sizes are measured in micrometres (µm), also known as microns, equal to 1/1000 of a

millimetre. Particles less than 10 micrometres in diameter are called PM10 (PM standing for Particle

Matter) and those less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter are called PM2.5. PM10 and smaller particles

are small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs . 28

These PEMs will take ‘into account the special circumstances of industries, including the intermittent

and transitory nature of operations.’ 29

Protocol for Environmental Management, Mining and Extractive Industry , December 2007, EPA



4.1.2 Nuisance Dust

Nuisance dust, also known as total suspended particles (TSPs), comprises fairly

coarse particles with typical diameters of 30 to 80 µm.

RAID and other submitters expressed concerns about AFG’s (and, by

association, SEMR’s) present and proposed dust management regime and

conformance, particularly outside working hours. Many submitters to this and

earlier hearings claimed the dust from AFG’s Tootal Road operations is

unacceptable. Some said the dust forms crusty deposits on window sills and

other areas.

Evidence and Submissions

Dr Bellair at earlier hearings said nuisance dust typically settles close to the

source and noted that obstacles such as walls or vegetation can intercept and

reduce the off-site transport of dust. He presented dust fall monitoring results

for the Clarinda site from 2003 when sand mining was occurring which showed

it was a very dusty place.

Dr Bellair was confident that dust emissions from the proposed facility will not

result in significant adverse amenity impacts on nearby houses, Heatherton

Christian College and other nearby land uses. He restated his earlier evidence

about managing dust emissions in the establishment phase for the facility.

Mr McKellar said the head of the college visited the Tootal Road site and was

comfortable with what he observed. We note the College has not objected to

the Application.

EPA conducted a 12-month dust monitoring program in the Dingley area

(September 2003 and August 2004) and a smaller follow-up survey in 2005.

EPA’s results showed dust levels with one exception (source unknown, but

road dust suspected) were typical of the metropolitan area and considered

levels of nuisance dust from the AFG operations were acceptable.

Mr O’Shaughnessy complimented Alex Fraser Group on managing well the

impacts of its Tootal Road operations, largely since EPA issued a Pollution

Abatement Notice (PAN) which triggered remedial action. He noted that

during an inspection of the Tootal Road area in extremely adverse weather

conditions there was no visible dust from the Tootal Road site but other sites in

the locality were obvious sources of dust. He said the proposed placement of

most activities in ‘a hole’ at the Clarinda site would be superior to the elevated

Tootal Road site.



Discussion

We note from site inspections and evidence there are multiple dust sources

creating dust emissions in the area. They include landfills, market gardens and

unpaved roads.

We note SEMR intends managing the tipping and sorting of co-mingled waste

in a building (enclosed on all but the south side) and has incorporated EPA dust

management recommendations from submissions to previous panel processes.

We accept EPA submissions about the effectiveness of dust control measures at

AFG’s Tootal Road site and its view that the current proposal represents best

practice dust management for this type of operation in Australia.

Dust Management

Dr Bellair summarised the main potential dust sources at the facility as:

suspension of dust by vehicles on unsealed roadways;

tipping wastes onto raw feed stockpiles;

raw feed stockpiles;

pre-processing raw feed;

transferring materials to the crushing plant by front-end loader;

the crushing and screening plant;

transferring the recycled product to product stockpiles;

loading trucks with the recycled product by loader; and

wind erosion from any bare, erodible surfaces during dry weather.

SEMR’s Environmental Management Plan requires use of water to control dust on

internal and entry and exit roads, on incoming trucks, on stockpiles, the radial

stacker, and the crusher and its associated conveyors and feedstock30. It is also

proposed to use specialist dust suppression additives, which have been used

successfully used at other recycling sites. Other dust management methods

include employee training, equipment maintenance, use of a capacity warning

system, filter and sealing on the cement silo to the pug mill, and operational

procedures.

Four linked on-site air quality monitoring stations (likely to be Osiris

instruments) are proposed near the corners of the site (shown as red stars in

Figure 1) to record PM10 concentrations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The

real-time monitoring results will highlight the site’s contribution to PM10

concentrations, based on differences between upwind and downwind

30

With the exception of the material travelling over the screen



boundaries. Site personnel will be immediately alerted when the monitoring

system detects elevated on-site particulate emissions (a ‘dust event’).

The proposed ‘floor’ level at the site is five to seven metres below natural

ground level, placing it at 10 to 12 metres below the top of the perimeter bunds

and around 20 metres below the height of the vegetation screening at maturity

(see Figure 2). This will lessen the potential for off-site emissions by:

Reducing surface wind speeds; and

Airborne particles impinging on the surrounding sides of the hole, bunds

and vegetation.

Dr Bellair said there were essentially no visible dust emissions being generated

by the crushing and screening operations, subsequent handling, product

stockpiles, the pug mill or internal roadways when he has visited the Tootal

Road site over the past 12 months. The visible dust from the raw feed tipped

into the plant was largely suppressed by spraying water over the vibrating

feeder. Even on hot windy days, no visible dust was generated from the

product stockpiles, either during loading operations or as a result of wind

erosion because the products are moist or a crust has formed on the surface.

The main source of visible dust emissions had been the tipping onto the raw

material stockpiles but installing the incoming load dousing bar had

substantially reduced the dust generated by this activity.

Discussion - Dust Management

Like the 2005 Advisory Committee, we also recognise:

It is crucial that procedures and practices minimise the risk of upset

conditions occurring at the site and that any such events are quickly

addressed;

Effective dust suppression relies on liberally wetting all active areas and

exposed areas without some form of vegetation cover of the site. A vigilant

approach to the issue by the operator is necessary but automation of parts of

the system, for example on plant and unsealed roads and hardstand areas,

can help; and

The control of dust emissions is dependent on a well-prepared Dust

Management Plan, including the proposed real-time monitoring of weather

and air emissions from the site and necessary prompt responses, particularly

during upset conditions.

We accept EPA’s and Dr Bellair’s evidence that this proposal will improve the

best practice dust emission management measures at the Alex Fraser Group’s

Tootal Road site. EPA confirmed AFG has a history of sound management of



its various operations and a commitment to using protocols that go beyond

industry best practice.

4.1.3 Fine Particle Emissions (PM10 and PM2.5)

People can inhale particles with a diameter of 10 micrometres (µm) or less

deeply into their lungs which can cause adverse respiratory symptoms. Links

exist between long and short-term exposure to such particles and increased

deaths from heart and lung disease. Most at risk from elevated levels of PM10

and PM2.5 are the elderly, children and people with existing respiratory or

cardiovascular disease. The general population is often advised to avoid

outdoor exercise during periods of elevated PM10 and PM2.5 levels.

Evidence and submissions

As EPA noted, although visible dust (which is made up of both coarse particles

and the finer respirable particles) is an indicator of nuisance dust, it is a poor

indicator of PM10 and PM2.5 levels and whether the levels exceed health

guidelines for PM10 and PM2.5.

Dr Bellair presented expert evidence on fine particle emissions. We have not

repeated his assessment methodology which was the same as presented in 2005.

He used the Ausplume dispersion model to calculate emission rate estimates

for PM10, PM2.5, RCS (as PM2.5) and some heavy metals. He used available EPA

background data and gathered particulate concentration data at the Tootal

Road site in November 2004 and January 2005. He believes this represents a

worst case because of dust emission control improvements made at Tootal Road

and proposed at Clarinda. Dr Bellair said it is conservative because the

methodology assumes flat ground whereas the Clarinda operation will be in a

hole.

Dr Bellair said the off-site emissions from the proposed Kingston Road

operation will be substantially lower than the (conservative) emission estimates

for the Tootal Road site because:

all significant dust sources on the plant to be relocated from Tootal Road

(feeders, primary and secondary crushers, screens and air knife) will be

enclosed, with collection of particulates from the vibrating feeder and

primary crusher;

site inspections have confirmed that dust emissions from tipping wastes

onto the raw material stockpile have been substantially reduced since

commissioning the (automated) dousing bar at Tootal Road – a similar

dousing bar will be installed at the Kingston Road site;



site inspections have confirmed that there are essentially no dust emissions

generated by on-site vehicle movements or by wind erosion of inactive raw

feed stockpiles, product stockpiles or internal roads at Tootal Road (even

during hot, windy periods); and

the potential for off-site dust emissions will be further reduced by the

location of all stockpiles and crushing and screening operations in the base

of the former sand quarry.

Dr Bellair refined his earlier modelling and resultant plots (as contours)

predicting the site’s contribution to off-site air quality, that is, the Ground Level

Concentrations (GLCs) for each of the indicators. He considered three dust

sources:

Waste sorting facility;

Tipping waste onto raw material stockpiles; and

Crushing and screening plant.

His predicted maximum off-site concentrations were for:

24-hour PM10 a GLC of 15 g/m3 which is well below the 60 g/m3 PEM EMI

intervention level;

24-hour PM2.5 a GLC of 3 g/m3 which is well below the 36 g/m3 PEM EMI

intervention level;

Annual RCS (as PM2.5) around 0.03 g/m3 which is well below the 3 g/m3

assessment criterion in PEM EMI; and

Three-Minute Zinc (as PM2.5) around 0.002 g/m3 which is well below the

0.17 g/m3 design criterion in SEPP AQM.

Figure 5 shows an example of Dr Bellair’s model results – a plot for 24-hour

PM1031

.

31

This plot is typical of the several plots Dr Bellair produced.



Figure 5: Predicted Maximum 24- PM10 GLCs, g/m3

(Source: Dr Terry Bellair Statement of Evidence, 25 May 2008)

Dr Bellair also summarised the predicted GLCs at the nearest point of the

Heatherton Christian College as all being less than 10% of the relevant air

quality ‘yardsticks’ (see Table 1), despite him basing the predictions on a series

of conservative assumptions.

Discussion

We note the health impacts from elevated PM2.5 and PM10 levels. We also

recognise air modelling:

Is not an exact science and the results of modelling only provide broad

indications of potential environmental impacts from a particular land use;

and

Relies heavily on the source emission factors used to determine off-site

impacts.

We are reassured by the source emission factors used in this case (for example,

the crushing plant and raw and product stockpiles) as they are in broad



agreement with the emission factors obtained from different methodology Mr

Tim Pollock of GHD used in assessing the Delta Recycling site for the previous

Advisory Committee hearings in 2005.

We accept the measurement and associated modelling for this site show the fine

particle emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) are well within acceptable limits.

4.1.4 Respirable Crystalline Silica

Respirable Crystalline Silica RCS), a component of PM2.5 that comes from

abrading and grinding soil, sand and other mineral materials, is a recognised

health hazard and of particular interest.

Dr Drew’s health risk assessment was similar to his evidence to the 2005

Advisory Committee. He used Dr Bellair’s predicted annual average GLC for

RCS (as PM2.5) of around 0.03 g/m3 and assumed a background RCS level of

0.70 g/m3 to give an estimated total annual exposure of 0.73 g/m3. He noted:

In this risk assessment a value of 0.03 µg/m3 for incremental respirable

crystalline silica is used for risk calculations, even though incremental

concentrations over background at the maximally affected residence will be much

lower. The annual concentration at the College is estimated to be 0.008 µg/m3.

Dr Drew benchmarked the results against the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996) estimates of crystalline silica potency for

zero risk of silicosis and.the Californian annual ambient air standard for RCS of

3 g/m3. The PEM EMI adopted the same criterion (an intervention level) of 3

g/m3.

Dr Drew again found the levels were about 20 times less than the cumulative

level USEPA estimates is linked with zero risk. He also found the annual

average exposure is around four times less than the chronic ambient air

guideline Californian Standard. Dr Drew also noted a World Health

Organisation statement in 2000 that so far, there are no known adverse health effects

associated with non-occupational exposure to quartz dust32. While Dr Drew did suggest

there were some uncertainties because of the lack of background RCS data and

limited monitoring for his assessment, he concluded levels of respirable

particles measured were so low they pose a negligible health risk for nearby

residents.

We accept the evidence that if SEMR controls emissions as proposed there will

be negligible health risk to the general community posed by emissions of RCS.

32

At the hearing Dr Drew said there has been one case: a Himalayan from burning cow dung.



Measures to protect employees’ health are addressed through Occupational

Health and Safety legislation.

4.1.5 Risk from Asbestos Contamination


We heard no new evidence about asbestos contamination or emissions, except

confirmation SEMR will not accept any load with or suspected of having any

asbestos.

Ms Tanya Atherton of Noel Arnold & Associates at the 2005 hearings provided

the results of asbestos analysis of samples taken from the Tootal Road site. The

key findings were: asbestos concentrations from all samples were below the

detection limit of <0.01/fibres/ml and were below the occupational exposure

standard of 0.1 fibres/ml.

We noted during site inspections that the sign at the site’s receival and

inspection station states asbestos (plus other materials such as putrescible

waste) is not accepted. We also note the SEMR Site Management Plan and

Environmental Plan requires the weighbridge operator to reject materials that do

not meet the acceptance criteria.

Discussion

Asbestos Regulations require any asbestos that may become disturbed as part

of demolition works is, so far as is reasonably practicable, removed before

works start. However, the previous Advisory Committee heard:

The presence of asbestos in demolitions is difficult to detect and remove fully and

therefore the potential for contamination of Recycled Concrete Aggregate RCA is

seen by government, the construction industry and unions as an issue of great

concern which needs to be adequately addressed33.

In January 2007, Victorian Government agencies released Recycling Construction

and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health and

Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 200334 which outlines best practice procedures to

minimise exposure to asbestos when recycling C & D materials. As

recommended in the best practice procedures guidance document, AFG has a

load inspection procedure in place to minimise the potential for receiving

33

Advisory Committee Report.

34 www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb654f0326631b8/recycling_construction_

demolition.pdf



asbestos-contaminated loads at the Tootal Road site and signage at the entrance

specifies that no asbestos is accepted at the site.

We accept the results of analysis show that asbestos contamination at the site is

low and SEMR has procedures in place to reduce the risk of accepting asbestos-

contaminated material.

4.1.6 Risk from Timber Grinding

We heard SEMR in the future may use equipment on site to grind or otherwise

reduce timber to a manageable size for transfer to other sites.

Dr Bellair confirmed timber grinding would not cause any odour problems. Dr

Drew said the health risks from timber fibres are very low and he considered

the health risk from this activity would be negligible.

Mr McKellar said SEMR would not start timber grinding on site until the

necessary protocols were in place.

We address potential noise implications of timber grinding in Section 4.2.

4.1.7 Separation from Sensitive Uses (Buffers)

Clause 52.10 identifies industries that may cause offence or pose unacceptable

risks to a neighbourhood35 and State planning policy recognises EPA’s buffer

guidelines. Kingston’s local planning policy includes strategies to reduce

potential industry impacts on adjoining land uses include applying suitable

buffers and minimising commercial traffic intrusions in residential areas36.

There is also clear local planning policy to support waste minimisation by

protecting and maintaining buffers for waste management facilities37.


We heard no new evidence about buffer distances.

EPA’s Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (July

1990), which are to protect sensitive uses from unintended or accidental air

emissions rather than routine operations, do not specify a buffer distance for

concrete crushing plants. Nor does Clause 52.10 specify a threshold distance for

concrete crushing. However, after considering buffer distances for other similar

activities in the Buffer Distance Guidelines, EPA advised a buffer distance of

35

Clause 52.10 36

Clause 21.07 37

Clause 12.07-2



300 metres between the concrete crushing plant and residents would provide

satisfactory amenity protection from adverse impacts. Concrete batching,

which has similarities to concrete crushing, has a 100-metre EPA recommended

buffer distance, but a 300-metre threshold distance in Clause 52.1038. Because

there are houses within the 300-metres buffer distance, EPA recommended

extra measures to control dust which include: enclosing all conveyors, either

entirely or in part, and surfacing of internal roads and work areas with a

material such as crushed asphalt.

Dr Bellair considered the most appropriate buffer distance to be the buffer

distance recommended for quarrying of any material without blasting which is 200

metres.

Discussion

We recognise the difficulty in assigning a buffer distance to concrete crushing

when no matching guidelines exist. We note EPA buffer distances:

Relate to air emissions only and greater distances may be required to

account for noise and other impacts;

Are based on the use of best available control technology; and

Address unintended or accidental upset conditions only.

So, we accept the buffer distance should be the more conservative distance of

300 metres EPA recommends, which is more than the current separation

distance between the boundary of the site and houses but less than the distance

to the primary operational areas. However, EPA buffer distances are measured

from the emitter to the property boundary of any sensitive use nearest to the emission

source except in the case of an isolated house in a non residential zone where the house

itself would be the measuring point. Threshold distances in Clause 52.10 are

minimum distances from any part of the site to land (other than a road) in a

residential zone.

EPA considers the proposed environmental management measures to minimise

the dust, which include stopping operations during extreme weather and dust

events, are best practice.

We consider the separation distance between the site and residents is adequate

to protect amenity under normal operations. However, under upset conditions,

such as strong winds or water supply failures, residents could experience

elevated dust levels from the proposed use. We consider the measures

38

The difference in these distances may be due to inclusion of off-site noise impacts.



proposed for the site address upset conditions and, if a permit issues, it should

be subject to requirements to:

Fully implement its Environmental Management Plan, in particular stopping

operations during adverse weather conditions and when high dust levels

are detected;

Apply suitable all-weather materials or substances to roadways and

unpaved work areas (rather than sealing the roads with say a bituminous

product);

Enclose or screen key parts of the crusher and associated plant and

equipment as proposed.

4.1.8 Air Quality - Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on expert assessments we conclude the air emissions from the site are

expected to be below intervention levels and not at a level that poses a health

risk to nearby residents or Heatherton Christian College students. The dust

management regime proposed will minimise dust emissions and upset

conditions would be addressed by stopping operations in adverse weather

conditions or a dust event.

Recommendations

Require real-time dust monitoring to the satisfaction of EPA.

Require operations on the site to have regard to the monitoring

information and for crushing to stop during adverse weather or a dust

event (to be defined in the Site Management and Environmental

Improvement Plan after consultation with EPA).

Require implementation of the procedures outlined in the Recycling

Construction and Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the

Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 as a permit

condition.

4.2 Noise

What is the Issue?

Are noise impacts from the site acceptable?

If not, can adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?



Policy context

SPPF noise abatement policy39 is directed at the control of noise effects on

sensitive land uses taking account of the land use functions and character of the

area. Decision-making by planning and responsible authorities must be

consistent with any relevant aspects of State Environment Protection Policy

(Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1). SEPP

N-1 specifies the maximum levels of noise that may be emitted from

commercial, industrial and trade premises in a noise sensitive area.

The noise limits under SEPP N-1 are determined on the basis of the zoning40 of

land within a 200-metre radius of the noise sensitive locations. Where the

prevailing background noise is particularly high or low, the zoning noise limits

are adjusted using an ‘Influencing Factor’. Under SEPP N-1, when the

background noise level plus 6 dB(A) exceeds the zoning based Noise Limit, the

final noise limit for the Day Period becomes the background noise level plus 6

dB(A). When the background noise level plus 3 dB(A) exceeds the zoning

based Noise Limit, the Final Noise Limit for the Evening and Night Periods

becomes the background noise level plus 3 dB(A).

Evidence

Mr Burton’s evidence identified the following site characteristics as relevant to

the assessment of acoustic impacts:

The site pit floor is between five and seven metres below the natural ground

level with bunds approximately five metres above the natural ground line

on the eastern, southern, and western sides. This gives a total barrier height

of between 10 and 12 metres above the pit floor level.

The site and surrounding land is zoned SUZ2 and the surrounding ground

is level for all practical purposes.

Abutting Kingston Road and Clayton Road to the east carry significant

traffic and are zoned RDZ1.

The majority of the surrounding land uses are landfills, recycling uses or

market gardens.

Across Kingston Road (immediately opposite) is the Heatherton Christian

College is located approximately 350 metres from the centre of the site.

39

Clause 15.05 40

SEPP N-1 zone types are: Type 1: Residential and Rural zoning; Type 2: Light Industry and

Commercial zoning; Type 3: Heavy Industry and Extractive Industries



The closest residentially zoned land is approximately 790 metres to the

north-east from the centre of the site41.

Isolated residences are located approximately 350 metres to the south–east

and south-west, 370 metres to the north-west and 400 metres to the north-

east from the centre of the site.

The Burton Group recorded ambient noise levels over a 24-hour period between

14 and 21 March 2006 at the north-western and south-eastern corners of the site

and on the western boundary and opposite the western residence. Mr Burton’s

acoustic analysis also relied upon previous logging of noise near the northern

boundary of the caretaker’s residence in April 2005. Noise was also measured

close to the plant and equipment at the existing AFG operations at Tootal Road

in September and October 2006.

Mr Burton recommended the following construction materials to achieve

barrier attenuation:

For the crushing and screening enclosure:

- 8 mm thick cement sheet external cladding of the fixed walls and

roof;

- Internal lining of 50 mm thick fibreglass or polyester insulation

(minimum density of 28 kg/m3 density) and retained with 10% open

area perforated sheet metal or wire mesh;

- External lining of the movable roof areas with 25 mm thick

‘Acoustop Barrier Wrap’ consisting of 25 mm acoustic foam (on the

equipment side) with 4.5 kg/m2 loaded vinyl on the upper face;

- Internal lining of the movable roof areas with 10% open area

perforated sheet metal or wire mesh to retain the Acoustop Barrier.

For the waste sorting facility: Internal lining of 75 mm thick fibreglass or

polyester insulation (minimum density of 28 kg/m3 density) and retained

with 10% open area perforated sheet metal or wire mesh.

The SEPP N-1 noise limits at sensitive locations in Mr Burton’s evidence

statement were revised as the SUZ1 had been treated as a Type 3 zone rather

than a Type 1 zone. The revised noise limits and calculated levels are set out in

Table 2. The noise levels were calculated for the proposal with all elements

operating and took account of distance and barrier attenuation, atmospheric

absorption, winds favourable to propagation, and recommended construction

materials for the crushing & screening and waste sorting facilities. An

41

The approximate distance to residential zones is to the east: 2,000m, to the south-east: 1,950metres, to

the south-west: 2,250metres, to the west: 1,850metres, to the north-west: 840metres.



impulsive loading of 5 dB(A) was applied to account for potential

characteristics of noise generated by tipping.

Sensitive Location 5am – 7am Noise Limit

dB(A)LEQ

7am – 6pm Noise Limit

dB(A)LEQ

6pm – 8pm Noise Limit

dB(A)LEQ

8pm – 5 am Noise Limit

dB(A)LEQ

Calculated Noise Level

dB(A)LEQ

To the North-West 43 55 44 39 49

To the South-West 44 52 47 40 51

To the South-East 49 57 50 44 48

To the North-East 48 59 53 48 51

Table 2: SEPP N-1 Noise Limits at Sensitive Locations

(Source: Burton Evidence 22 May 2008)

Mr Burton’s assessment found that these noise levels would be below the noise

limits at all these locations for full operations between 7am and 6pm.

The hours of operation proposed in the Application were Monday to Saturday:

5am to 8pm, including Public Holidays. SEMR also sought 24-hour operation

three to four times a year to service industry demand. However, Mr Burton

recommended the following restrictions on operations to ensure compliance

with the SEPP N-1 noise limits:

· Between 5am and 7am: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles, no crushing

and screening operations, and no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility,

· Between 6pm and 8pm: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles,

· Between 8pm and 5am: No tipping at the top of the stockpiles, no crushing

and screening operations, and no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility, and no

use for front end loaders.

Mr Burton advised the elimination of the trucks tipping at the top of the

stockpiles removes the impulsive adjustment of 5 dB(A) plus 4 dB(A) for

reduction of engine noise and actual tipping noise. He suggested that ‘Typically

the margin between Day Period and Evening noise limits is less than this margin, so

the conclusions subject to testing will hold’

Mr Burton also recommended that broadband reversing beepers be mandated

on all SEMR/AFR mobile equipment, and that the dust control systems include

silencers in the ducting arrangements.

It became apparent during the hearing that recycling of timber was an

expanding element of the proposed operations. Mr Burton had not taken this



activity into account in his evidence and sought clarification regarding the

likely methods to be applied (see submissions below). He advised he had

assessed noise from a green waste mulcher at the City of Boroondara and found

a four-metre barrier achieved compliance.

Submissions

EPA had reviewed the Burton Report and largely agreed with its findings and

conclusions. However, EPA noted that the evening and night noise limits

would be substantially exceeded. By way of example, EPA highlighted that the

noise limit for the residences to the west of the site is 47 dB(A), with a calculated

plant Noise Level of 51 dB(A). It was not clear to EPA why the cessation of

tipping at the top of the stockpiles would satisfactorily reduce the Noise Level

by 4 dB(A). We note that Mr Burton explained that the removal of loadings

would actually reduce the noise limits and the calculated noise level would also

be reduced by the restrictions on activities (see above).

EPA did not have a clear understanding of what was proposed in the associated

timber recycling activities. They had understood that timber grinding

operations would be undertaken once or twice per year, and for a period of one

or two days.

EPA also recommended that the hours of operation for major plant and

machinery be limited to the day period only (Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm,

and Saturday 7am to 1pm), until further acoustic recording and assessment

demonstrates compliance with SEPP N-1 limits. EPA also recommended

implementation of the following noise attenuation measures:

· Making good and maintenance of bunding to the perimeter of the proposed

site,

· Use of reversing vehicle “Smart Alarm” beepers or broadband designs for

mobile equipment being compulsory for all internal AFG plant, and for trucks

which regularly visit the site,

· Industry standard mufflers on all mobile plant and equipment,

· Assessment of and where shown necessary, the installation of silencers to the

site dust control systems (when developed), and

· The crushing and screening enclosure and the waste sorting facility enclosure

be constructed to incorporate the specifications recommended in the Burton

Group report (for acoustic cladding and lining).

EPA sought confirmation of compliance with the noise limits when operations

commence and in the event of modifications to equipment and/or operating

procedures occurring that are of sufficient magnitude to influence noise



emissions from the proposed site, including asphalt, glass and timber grinding.

The recommended monitoring locations were at the nearest residential

dwellings and Heatherton Christian College.

Several of the submitters opposing the proposal raised the potential for

detrimental noise impact upon neighbouring dwellings. While they

acknowledged that the ambient noise levels from road traffic were salient to the

proposal, they were concerned that noise during evening and night periods

would be unacceptable.

RAID and Mr McIntosh specifically raised concerns regarding any proposed

waste material grinding operations using a ‘Hammel Grinder’. They also

questioned the capacity of the relevant authorities to monitor and prosecute any

non-compliance, based upon prior instances of alleged inaction by Kingston

City Council and EPA.

Submissions relating to this issue on behalf of the Applicant provided some

clarification of what would actually occur with respect to material grinding. Mr

McKellar stated that if a Hammel Grinder were to be used that it would be of a

lesser capability than that illustrated by Mr Dawson. AFG currently uses a

smaller version (model number VB750) in its operations in Queensland. Mr Pitt

advised that the maximum noise level of this grinder is 79 dB at three metres,

which he suggested is comfortably within the noise limits identified in Mr

Burton’s evidence.

Discussion

The SEPP N-1 noise limits will apply to the proposal and establish acoustic

performance requirements for the operation.

We note that the proposed plant would have acoustic cladding installed to the

specifications recommended by Mr Burton. He advised that this attenuation is

necessary to negate the 8 dB(A) noise increase due to internal reverberation

resulting from enclosure of plant within a building – his calculations had taken

account of the enclosure and recommended treatment of the building.

We are concerned that the noise implications of timber grinding have not been

adequately evaluated and note that Mr McKellar acknowledged that the use

should not operate until appropriate assessment and protocols are in place.

Otherwise, we accept the evidence and advice of EPA that operations in the

Day Period (Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm, and Saturday 7am to 1pm) are

likely to comply with noise limits.

However it is not as clear that evening and night period noise limits are likely

to be satisfied. Mr Burton recommended operational restrictions during these



time periods which he suggested would result in compliance with SEPP N-1 at

all sensitive location. However, we note that the written advice of recalculated

noise limits tabled on the final day of the hearing, after Mr Burton had

presented his evidence, reduced the noise limits in some locations and raises

questions about likely night-time compliance in some locations (for example, in

the north-west and south-west).

We support the limitations on operations recommended by Mr Burton.

However, it is the actual noise performance that is important rather than

modelled calculations. The actual noise levels should be recorded and

monitored in the first months of operations for assessment against the SEPP N-1

noise limits. This assessment would substantiate that the limitations imposed

actually achieve the noise reductions anticipated. If the noise levels are

exceeded, further restrictions on operations and/or attenuation measures would

be required. This performance audit during the establishment phase of the

proposal should minimise the likelihood of subsequent enforcement action

being required, which was a significant concern of some submitters.

We also consider that any permit for the proposal should include a condition

requiring compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits. Although these noise limits

apply irrespective of whether compliance is required by a planning permit,

inclusion of this a permit condition would enable third parties to initiate

enforcement proceedings rather than relying on EPA to act if breaches were to

occur.

On the issue of reversing beepers, AFG mobile plant is fitted with ‘Smart

Alarms’ or broadband beepers and this should be a condition of permit.

However, as Mr Burton acknowledged, the control over visiting vehicles could

be difficult. The use of such reversing beepers is critical, especially outside the

Day Period into the Evening and Night Periods when background noise is

lower and under certain atmospheric conditions such noise could carry further

afield. Therefore we are of the view that no heavy vehicles should be permitted

onto the site during the Evening and Night Periods unless these beepers are

installed and fully operational. This would exclude cars, vans, and light trucks.

Twenty-four hour operations are sought ‘three to four times per year’ for

deliveries and despatches to respond to industry requirements (such as night-

time road works). In reality the sources of waste materials can create demand

at virtually any time (of the day or year), and the demands of the road and

building construction sectors often dictate out-of-hours deliveries. We accept

24-hour loading and off-loading for a maximum of three times within a 12

month period and subject to prior approval by Council, but other activities

should not be permitted.



We agree with those submitters highlighting the rights to sleep of neighbouring

residential occupants, and to have reasonable levels of noise during the Night

Periods, and during designated Christmas, Good Friday and Anzac Day

holidays. Therefore, no Evening or Night period operations should be

approved for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Anzac Day designated

holidays.

We conclude that:

Timber grinding should not be permitted until an acoustic report has been

prepared which identifies any measures necessary to ensure compliance

with SEPP N-1 noise levels;

The proposal, with measures recommended by Mr Burton, is likely to

comply with SEPP N-1 noise limits but an audit of acoustic performance to

substantiate compliance noise limits should be undertaken by a suitably

qualified person when the use establishes and if aspects of the operations

change;

The acoustic attenuation measures and restrictions on operations

recommendations made by Mr Burton should be included as requirements if

a permit issues;

24-hour deliveries and despatches should be subject to prior approval from

Council and limited to three times within a 12-month period; and

‘Smart Alarms’ or broadband beepers be fitted to all AFG/SEMR mobile

plant operating at the site and on all visiting heavy vehicles outside daytime

hours. Industry standard mufflers should be fitted on all mobile plant and

equipment.


Require the use to comply with SEPP N-1 at all times

Restrict operations on the site as follows:

- Between 5am and 7am Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of

the stockpiles, no crushing and screening operations, and no

sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility.

- Between 6pm and 8pm Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of

the stockpiles.

- The use must not operate between 8pm and 5am Monday to Friday,

6pm and 7 am Saturday or at any time on Sunday. The use may

operate during these times with the prior approval of the

Responsible authority on up to three days in a 12 month period

subject to the following restrictions:

o No tipping at the top of the stockpiles,

o no crushing and screening operations,



o no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility, and

o no use of front-end loaders.

The use must not operate on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, or before

1pm on Anzac Day.

Require a post-occupancy noise level audit when the use is fully

operational and if operations change to substantiate compliance with the

SEPP N-1 noise limits.

Require all mobile plant on-site and all heavy vehicles regularly visiting

the site would be fitted with ‘Smart Alarm’ or broadband reversing

beepers. This would exclude cars, vans and light trucks.

Require industry standard mufflers on all mobile plant and equipment.

Require acoustic treatment of the crushing and screening plant and the

Waste Sorting Facility enclosures in accordance with recommendations of

a suitably qualified person.

4.3 Visual Impacts

The Issues

Would the proposed development operations have a detrimental impact

upon the visual amenity of the surrounding precinct?

Would the proposed use adversely affect the potential rehabilitation and

amenity of the area after operations were to cease?

Policy context

The Northern Non-urban Area Framework , the South East Green Wedge Management

Plan, and the Sandbelt Open Space Project Development Plan provide policy

context and indicate a clear intention to transform the visual quality and

amenity of the currently degraded landscape. The vision for the locality seeks

uses and development that are compatible with the Chain of Parks and

strategies are aimed at protecting the amenity within core parkland.

Parks Victoria, which has primary responsibility for implementation of the

Chain of Parks, has considered this proposal and expressed no objection in

respect of visual impacts associated with the proposal.


Submitters opposing the proposal (RAID and Mr Andrew McIntosh in

particular) alleged that the surrounding Baxter landfill is already higher than

the permit allowed and tabled photographs to demonstrate the breach. They

submitted that recreational users of these reclaimed areas would easily be able

to view the bottom of the existing AFG quarry site. Mr Dawson expressed the



view that bund heights have been increased on the subject site before a permit

was granted. Submitters repeated assertions that breaches of permit conditions

were not adequately prosecuted, and that the authorities would not be able to

ensure that this proposal complied to stockpile heights.

Ms Rimington suggested that the SEMR operations would have a detrimental

impact upon groundwater supplies, and this could impact upon the ongoing

survival of the buffer plantings.

Mr Pullen and Ms Rimington submitted that the quarry site should be

rehabilitated now and, consistent with current policy and long-term strategies

for the locality, should be developed for uses that are compatible with

parkland. This would enhance the visual amenity of the precinct and attract

recreational uses.

Ms Smith’s evidence was that the landscape plan (see Figure 1) would enhance

amenity and create habitat for fauna. This planting consists of upper (to 15

metres), mid (four to eight metres), and lower storey species (0.3 to 1.5 metres)

designed to reduce the visual permeability of the buffers around the perimeter

of the site. The implementation of the landscape plan has already been initiated

on perimeter bunds and internal buffer areas which have been planted with

over 49,000 indigenous trees, shrubs and groundcovers of local provenance. An

irrigation system has been installed to ensure the plantings became well

established. Ms Smith stated that the species chosen would require low water

applications once established, and achieve mature screening in seven to ten

years. Her inspections in May and June 2008 indicated the vast majority of

plants were progressing well with excellent rates of growth.

Ms Smith indicated in her evidence that the plantings would be maintained for

a two-year period but Mr Pitt clarified there would be ongoing maintenance for

the life of a permit.

Several additional and modified bunds would be created within the site, to

visually shield stockpiles and further reduce visual permeability until plantings

mature.

Ms Smith noted that the existing bunds make it difficult to see within the site

from Kingston Road but she had not considered view lines from other locations

outside the site. Mr Pitt added that the stockpile heights could be limited to

until the plantings matured, when the stockpile heights could be increased to 35

metres Australian Height Datum (AHD).



Discussion

The visual impact of the proposal from the public realm is a key concern.

Views from other properties are also an important consideration, particularly

given strategies to transform the character of the area. We note the description

on the Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan recognises that this area is

currently distinguished from other non- urban areas by the presence of

buildings that could be equated to industrial operations. The properties to the

immediate east are an obvious example. However, perpetuating uses with low

visual amenity is a deterrent to others to pursue higher amenity options for

their land and would undermine the impetus for the realisation of planning

objectives for the area. We place great weight on ensuring the proposal makes a

positive contribution to the appearance of the locality.

We note that bunding around the site (which have heights of 30 to 40 metres

AHD) already substantially screens the site and SEMR has demonstrated a clear

commitment to screening the proposed facility from the neighbouring precinct

by initiating very significant buffer plantings on the perimeter bunds. The

Landscape Plan presented is likely to achieve the desired screening as the trees

and scrubs mature within seven to ten years. Ongoing maintenance and

irrigation of these plantings will be crucial, especially since they are located

atop high bunds, where little natural precipitation will be absorbed before run-

off. We accept that screening around the crushing plant and waste sorting

facility will be acceptable.

The stockpile height maximums need to be definitively set at AHD levels, at a

level that ensures they are not seen from ground level on the opposite side of

the roads adjoining the site.

The lowest bund height is at 30 metres AHD at the western boundary of the

site, and a five-metre stockpile height above this level would still be five metres

below the predicted height of the mature plantings on this bunding. SEMR and

Council suggested a maximum stockpile height of 35 metres AHD can be

supported on visual impact grounds (as distinct from any dust considerations).

We consider the stockpile heights should ensure effective screening of views of

the stockpiles while bund planting grows with an increased height being

permitted when mature planting fulfils the intended screening purpose. This

could be achieved but limiting the stockpile heights to 32 metres AHD initially,

and providing scope for approval by the Responsible Authority of an increase

to 35 metres AHD when the plantings provide adequate screening. The

potential relocation of the stockpiles in the south-west corner of the site was

discussed at the hearing but we consider the arrangements discussed above are

sufficient to ensure appropriate screening.



We recognise that line-of-sight from the neighbouring landfill site to the north,

may mean the use is visible from that land. We accept that it may be difficult to

completely eliminate views to the proposed operations from this (and

potentially other) higher vantage point. However, we are satisfied that as the

proposed plantings will have matured to substantially soften external views

from higher land in the north by the time the landfill is rehabilitated.

We also note that this higher land between the site and land to be acquired for

the Chain of Parks intercepts views. This means the proposal would not be

visible from the parkland even if the park was to be developed during the life of

the permit.

We conclude that extensive landscaping of the site will make a positive

contribution to the appearance of the locality. This is an important first step to

rehabilitation of the site and the area generally. The combination of the pit floor

location, bunding and the extensive landscaping will ensure that the visual

impacts from the proposal can be satisfactorily addressed. The stockpiles

should be limited to 32 metres AHD initially, and be located to ensure they are

not visible from Kingston Road at the entrance to the site. Once the

landscaping and plantings have matured to adequately screen the stockpiles,

Council approval could be sought to increase the stockpile height to 35 metres

AHD. The bund plantings need to be maintained for the duration of any

permit, including irrigation as required until plantings matures.


Limit the height of all stockpiles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority, to:

32 metres AHD until the plantings mature to effectively screen the

stockpiles,

thereafter to 35 metres AHD.

4.4 Water Impacts

The Issues

Is the proposal’s heavy reliance on water usage sustainable?

Can the stormwater within the site be adequately managed?

What are the impacts upon groundwater and, if any, how would they be

managed appropriately?

The 2005 Advisory Committee concluded that ‘Water quality and management

issues were adequately addressed in the Alex Fraser Group proposal .’ however, it

considered the storm water management and the water budget for the



proposed operations required further assessment and monitoring. Given that a

prolonged dry period has continued since the last Advisory Committee

deliberations, the introduction of potable water restrictions, and further

groundwater extraction has occurred, it is prudent to re-examine the water

impacts of this proposal.

Policy Context

The State Planning Policy Framework42 requires Planning and Responsible

Authorities’ decisions to be consistent with Waters of Victoria and specific

catchment policies, to ensure the discharge of contaminated run-off or wastes is

minimised and the quality of groundwater resources is protected. The

Environmental Protection Act 1970 is also relevant in relation to groundwater

protection and environmental auditing. The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria)

also stipulates uses for water per levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

Some changes in policy have occurred since the previous iteration of this

proposal, particularly in relation to restrictions on the use potable water and

groundwater extractions. For example, under Melbourne Water level 3A

restrictions businesses using 10 megalitres of water or more per year must now

complete a water conservation action plan with outdoor usage consistent with

residential measures, water efficient production processes (water management

plans), use of recycled water in manufacturing processes (where possible and fit

for purpose), water efficient taps, toilets etc. These measures relate to potable

water, but the government is also promoting water reuse and recycling to

advance sustainability objectives. Groundwater controls within Groundwater

Management Areas (GMA) include restrictions on the number of bore licences

being approved and the metering and monitoring of groundwater extractions.

Proposed Water Management

The current ground surface levels within the quarry site range from 22.7 metres

to 32 metres AHD. It is proposed to shape the site so that surface water will

drain to a sump. A hardstand area of approximately 11 hectares will be

covered with a 300-millimetre layer of crushed concrete/brick and compacted

recycled bituminous materials. After re-shaping, the deepest part of the site

would be at approximately 21 metres AHD.

The existing water ponds, which are below the level of the regional water table,

would act as storage for surface water run-off. The ponds would be

interconnected by drains and pumps, to recycle water for the operations within

the site (that is, dousing of incoming materials, wash-down, and dust

42

Clause 15.01



suppression). As these ponds are in direct hydraulic contact with the

groundwater, water would be extracted from the water table during dry

periods when a net loss of water occurred within the site.

Submissions

Several submissions, particularly from Ms Rimington, stated concerns

previously expressed in 2005 regarding the proposal’s impact on water. These

submissions focused on the potential for the groundwater to be contaminated

by the surface water leeching from the storage ponds. The bores within the

surrounding GMA apply groundwater for a variety of uses, including market

gardens and other horticultural enterprises, golf course irrigation, and

municipal parks.

EPA supported the recommendations in the URS Report and the expert witness

statement of Mr Parker. As the groundwater is known to be mildly acidic, EPA

considered any residual interaction between stockpile run-off will have a

neutralising effect and is not anticipated to have any detrimental effect on

groundwater.

Evidence

Mr Parker’s evidence referred to the 2005 Advisory Committee hearing

evidence by URS43 and relied upon subsequent additional work by Hydrologist

Mr Craig Schultz regarding the water balance, which confirmed the earlier

work by URS.

The URS Report 2005 analysed the groundwater and a proposed water budget

for the operations at that time. A field investigation was undertaken by URS in

September 2004, and analysis of water samples showed that some surface water

at the proposed site is low pH (that is, acidic, particularly in the slimes ponds).

However, URS noted that wetting of the crushed concrete stockpiles produces

alkaline wastewater, which when disposed to a common sump and acidic

slimes ponds, would have a neutralising affect. Data also showed that the

levels of TDS in the bores near the site are consistent with the A1/A2 segment of

the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria), that is, uses compatible with the

maintenance of the ecosystems etc.

Mr Parker’s evidence noted (in part) that:

Groundwater levels under the proposed site are likely to vary from 25

metres AHD at the north-east corner to around 23 metres AHD and possibly

lower under the centre and south-west corner.

43

“Water Management Study – Kingston Road, Clarinda” URS 2005



The groundwater flow direction is not well defined from available

information and may be influenced by landfills to the north and east.

Groundwater levels to the north and east are higher than at the site, and

likely to rise further as landfills are completed in the area.

It can be expected that as landfills in the area are closed, regional

groundwater levels are likely to rise. Data from surrounding landfills do

not indicate significant current contamination of groundwater in the

immediate vicinity of the site. However, groundwater quality may degrade

in the future as the water table recovers.

The water storage and management system will need to cater for current

groundwater inflow and potentially rising groundwater levels in the future.

If the volumes of water that need to be managed become a problem in the

future, the floor level could be raised by further filling to create a platform

above the water table.

Given that the groundwater sump will be potentially below the water table,

consideration needs to be given to the quality of run-off water that will be

directed to the sump. Sediment traps should be included in the water

management system.

We note that the difference in levels between the surrounding the groundwater

table and the proposed lower hardstand floor could be between 0.5 and 3.5

metres, encouraging inflows into the site. The URS Report in 2005 noted that

there are two regional aquifers from which this water is likely to be sourced.

URS stated that this groundwater is effectively discharging through the

northern water storage ponds and the central sump, keeping the groundwater

levels below the floor level of the site. This water supply would be utilised by

the proposed crushing operations during dry periods for dust suppression, on

roadways, and on stockpiles (up to 65 m3/day). Water would leave the site

within product aggregate (10-13% moisture content), and via evaporation. URS

estimated the total annual loss at approximately 71 megalitres per annum

which would be offset by rainfall and surface water run-off and groundwater

extraction.

Discussion

Groundwater

We conclude that the storage ponds are effectively interfacing with the

groundwater and the current flow is inwards from the water table and there is

little potential for contamination of groundwater from the proposal.

We accept the expert evidence that if anything the water table level is likely to

rise, but given climate change, drought, and increasing bore water extractions,



this should be monitored for any changes in the future. This would mean that

groundwater inflows would continue. Use of this inflow water would

constitute a groundwater extraction, and as the site is within the regulated

Moorabbin GMA, should be licensed by Southern Rural Water (SRW). The use

of groundwater is a matter that should be addressed in the development of the

water budget for the site and the Site Management and Environmental

Improvement Plan.

Surface Water Run-off

A consequence of the predicted groundwater table level rising would be that

slotted drainage lines would need to be installed to assist flows from the floor

of the site to the sump.

URS recommended in 2005 that a clay liner be constructed right across the floor

of the site, with an under drain beneath, whereas Mr Parker’s opinion was that

this is not warranted, given the low risk to groundwater from the proposed

alkaline run-off from site operations. URS also recommended a High Density

Polyurethane (HDPE) liner in the storage ponds.

We concur with this recommendation to conserve water and minimise water

seepage. Containment of rainwater on the site is considered below within the

‘Water Balance Budget’ section.

We are of the view that the design of the site floor should ensure that the water

loss through seepage is minimised and surface water is captured and efficiently

directed back to the storage ponds for reuse. This is a civil engineering design

matter that can be addressed as part of a Water Management Strategy in the Site

Management and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority, after consultation with SRW and EPA. The following

should be addressed in regard to water conservation, and environmental

protection:

Groundwater level monitoring, via test bores around the site (if adequate

data are available from existing bores in the immediate area, monitoring

does not need to be duplicated);

The site floor should be shaped and made stable to capture and direct

surface water to the storage ponds and designed to maximise water

conservation and minimise the potential for contamination of the

groundwater; and

Drainage should be designed to ensure that no surface water run-off leaves

the site and storage ponds should be lined with HDPE membranes.



Water Balance Budget

URS in 2005 reported the water usage versus rainfall balance in terms of two

scenarios: average monthly values, and monthly value for a very wet year. Its

results indicated that 37 megalitres of run-off water would be required to be

disposed of in an average year, and 47 megalitres may need to be disposed in a

wet year. Utilising an evaporative pond area of 2.5 hectares, this ‘disposal’

could be achieved via evaporation and the other on-site uses of the water as

previously discussed.

This would effectively mean that the site could accommodate the inflows from

rainfall, based upon 1 in 100 year rain event history, requiring nil off-site

discharges. However, during the summer period and/or with less rainfall than

predicted, there would be a net deficit within the site. URS stated that this

deficit would be made up through groundwater inflows in some periods of the

year.

We note again that some groundwater extraction is anticipated. If for some

reason groundwater extraction is not granted by SRW, SEMR would need to

access an alternative source of water.

We have noted submitters’ concerns relating to water usage, but are satisfied

that the expert evidence predicts an acceptable water balance outcome.

In the event that a net water decline is experienced in the water storage ponds,

the operations will depend upon water extraction from the groundwater, and

SRW would have to be satisfied that this is achievable over the period of the

proposed permit.

In terms of accommodating 1 in 100 year storm events, the implications of

recent climate change predictions of increased water volumes and intensity

during more extreme storms should be considered. The URS recommendations

in 2005 may benefit from review, before any further drainage and storage

design is undertaken.

We note that:

A Land Subject to Inundation Overlay applies to the south eastern corner of the

site; and

The Draft Northern Non Urban Area Framework Plan states that ‘Sizeable

environmental benefits will be derived through the rehabilitation of much of the

subject land including scope to create a wetlands system fed by the Clayton South

main Drain. Such wetlands would assist with the anticipated flood storage



requirements identified by Melbourne Water to be in the order of 27,000 m3 on the

southern end of this precinct’.

However, Melbourne Water has considered the Application and has not raised

the issue of flood water storage in its submission, nor has it required a permit

condition addressing that issue. We are unable to comment further on the

matter, except to suggest that a wetlands system could be incorporated into a

potential Employment Enterprise precinct plan and this potential should be

taken into account in planning for rehabilitation and after-use of the site.

Recommendation

Address the water management and system design in the Site Management

and Environmental Improvement Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority after consultation with Southern Rural Water and EPA to:

Ensure surface water does not leave the site;

Provide for a potential rising groundwater levels;

Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are adopted,

including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;

Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimises the

potential for groundwater contamination; and

Specify parameters for the groundwater, storage ponds and monitoring.

4.5 Traffic and Parking

What is the Issue?

Are impacts from traffic movements to and from the site acceptable?

Can any adverse impacts be managed to ensure an acceptable outcome?

Site Layout and Access

The proposed access and car parking arrangements44 are almost identical with

the earlier (2005) permit application (see Figure 1). Key features include:

20 car spaces and seven truck parking spaces45;

An internal road loop to access stockpiles and hardstand areas and allows

convenient and efficient manoeuvrability for trucks. Domestic and

commercial vehicle movements within the site are separated;

Vehicle access to the site at an unsignalised intersection on Kingston Road

which preserves two traffic lanes in each direction and provides separate

44

Evidence Statement - Mr Hunt - Traffic Engineering, 11 June 2008. 45

We note the earlier application proposed eight truck spaces.



right and left turn lanes into the site. It also has a left turn slip lane from the

site46. The southern kerb line of Kingston Road does not change as road

widening for the access is on the north side of Kingston Road; and

Sight distances at the access are greater than specified in Austroads’ Traffic

Engineering Practice – Part 5 Intersections at Grade.

4.5.1 Traffic

Kingston Road, which becomes Heatherton Road east of Clayton Road, is a

primary east-west arterial road providing a connection to Warrigal Road and

Clayton Road. Kingston Road at and near the site has a 12-metre wide

pavement with two lanes in each direction (lanes not line marked) and a

painted centreline. The prevailing speed limit is 70 kilometres an hour. Traffic

counts47 in February 2005 showed average two-way weekday traffic volumes in Kingston Road of around 18,700 vehicles. Mr Hunt expects the critical operating

period for the facility to be the morning peak and traffic counts48 recorded 1,924

vehicles (784 eastbound and 1,176 westbound) between 7am and 9am, 10% of

which were commercial vehicles.

The site is expected to generate around 400 vehicles a day49 (mainly trucks). We

note the volumes are double the 200 vehicles a day forecast in the earlier

application. Based on traffic surveys at AFG’s Dohertys Road site in Laverton

North in December 2002, Mr Hunt expects the proposed use will generate

around 44 vehicle movements in the critical weekday 8am to 9am traffic peak.

Mr Hunt said SIDRA is not a suitable tool for analysing how the proposed

access will perform because it assumes random arrivals whereas, in this case,

traffic on Kingston Road forms platoons because of traffic signals at Old

Dandenong Road and Clayton Road. He used gap analysis from video

recordings of traffic to determine capacities for individual movements and then

compared them with forecast movements at the proposed access. This analysis

showed degrees of saturation of less than 0.1 for each of the three critical

movements (left out, right in and right out). His view is the proposed access

arrangements for the facility will have no significant impact on Kingston Road.

In his analysis of ten-year traffic implications at the site, Mr Hunt applied an

annual compounded growth rate of three per cent for through traffic volumes

typically used for major projects. The morning peak hour volumes would

increase to 1,005 eastbound and 1,580 westbound. He said it will not

46

Cardno Grogan Richards Drawing No.107340/T/01/P3 47

Arranged by Council and, we understand, undertaken by Grogan Richards 48

Between 7am and 9am on 1 May 2008 arranged by Cardno Grogan Richards 49

200 vehicle movements into the site and 200 movements from the site.



dramatically change how Kingston Road performs because the upstream

signals will still create platoons.

Mr Hunt added that Kingston City Council expects decreases in daily traffic

volumes after Dingley Freeway opens, potentially cancelling the three per cent

compound growth rate.

Although SEMR proposed installing traffic signals at the access, VicRoads said,

around 40 vehicle movements an hour in the AM peak does not meet the

warrants. VicRoads said the warrants need a minimum of 100 vehicles an hour,

adding there are also no safety related issues at the proposed access site.

Submissions

Some submitters, notably RAID, raised traffic issues, mainly possible flaws in

the traffic assessment, including:

Limited timeframes for surveying Kingston Road traffic;

Focus on assessing impacts during the morning peak hour, rather than also

considering the afternoon peak hour impacts;

Peak movement data based on potentially outdated Laverton North site

traffic profiles;

Ignores Heatherton Christian College access and safety impacts;

Likely impacts on Kingston Road whose design is not suitable for large

vehicles and excessive traffic flow;

Possible future signals will cause excessive traffic congestion; and

Any likely benefits from Dingley Freeway are many years away.

Council expressed no concerns about the traffic assessment and proposals

except:

Some matters of detail about the proposed access intersection, including

cost; and

Doubt the predicted increase in traffic will happen ‘given the reality the

limited purpose of the use is for materials recycling and will not generally function

as a Refuse Transfer Station’.

Discussion

We accept Mr Hunt’s evidence that the proposed access arrangements will

provide for safe and efficient access to and from the site with no material

operational or safety impacts on traffic movements along Kingston Road and on

Heatherton Christian College, including:



The robustness of the proposed Type ‘C’ intersection to cope with the

arguably conservative 400 vehicle movements a day (around 40 vehicle

movements in the morning peak hour); and

The road network’s capacity to absorb any extra traffic from both this

proposal and the proposed expansion of student numbers at the college.

At our site inspections we noted the present access arrangements to the

Heatherton Christian College. We recognise students use both normal bus

services along Kingston Road and a private bus which uses the former section

of Boundary Road adjoining the eastern boundary of the school.

We note VicRoads said in its letter dated 5 June 2008 to Council the proposed

access arrangement is acceptable in principle. VicRoads also set out some

conditions if a permit issues.

Council and VicRoads were agreeable to SEMR reviewing the access

arrangements five years after the use starts to see if there is a need for signals,

or any other improvements. A permit condition is proposed to trigger review

of the access arrangements.

We are satisfied that:

The internal road layout provides for safe and efficient movement of

vehicles;

Kingston Road is an arterial road with sufficient capacity to take the extra

traffic from the proposal, mainly trucks, given current and likely traffic

growth from other developments in the area;

VicRoads expressed no concerns about the likely impacts on Kingston Road

at the site or on the broader road network;

The proposal would not have a significant, if any, impact on accessibility and road safety for all road users at and near the site;

The detailed layout design for Kingston Road at the site’s access point

would need to satisfy VicRoads. This would include the locations for signs,

such as, the 40 kilometre an hour school zone signs;

It is reasonable to include a permit condition will trigger review of access

arrangements in five years time; and

Heatherton Christian College will need to manage student access and safety

issues in a changing traffic environment, with or without the refuse transfer

station and materials recycling proposal.



4.5.2 Car Parking

The Application seeks dispensation from the Clause 52.06 materials recycling

parking requirement which is to set aside 10% of the site area (2.1 hectares) for

car spaces and access lanes (but not driveways). There is no specified rate for a

refuse transfer station. The Responsible Authority can reduce or waive car

parking requirements based on, for example, an empirical assessment of car

parking demand.

What is the Issue?

Is the proposed on-site car parking provision acceptable?

Evidence

Mr Hunt said the proposed 20 spaces would be enough for staff car parking

based on one space for each of the proposed maximum of 15 staff with five

visitor spaces. He noted the significant hardstand areas proposed around the

site could supplement the formal car parking.

Discussion

The five visitor car spaces proposed should be enough for the limited number

of visitors likely to visit the site for purposes other than delivering feedstock

(housed elsewhere on the site). Importantly, there is space to house any

occasional overflow demand within the site without off-site impacts. Given the

nature of the transfer station use, we understand it produces no extra parking.

We find that on-site parking for at least 20 cars is acceptable. We note the site is

big enough to accommodate occasional overflow car parking if needed and

SEMR should identify an area for this purpose on the site plan.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Approve the decrease in the on-site car parking required in Clause 52.06 of

the Kingston Planning Scheme to 20 car spaces subject to a permit condition

requiring an area for occasional overflow visitor parking to be identified on

the endorsed plans.



5. Proposed Advertising Signs

The Application seeks approval of an internally-illuminated or flood-lit

business sign.

Statutory Context

Clause 52.05 of the planning scheme establishes permit requirements and the

basis for assessment of applications. For the purposes of this clause the SUZ is

in Category 3 (high amenity areas) zone where medium limitations apply to

advertising signs and the proposed business identification signs require a

planning permit. Clause 52.05 indicates that a permit expires 15 years after it

issues unless the permit specifies an alternative expiry date.

The advertising signs were not contentious. However the Council officer report

on the Application indicated insufficient information was available to assess the

signage aspect of the application.

We find:

The signs would not contribute to visual disorder or clutter, nor would they

adversely affect the amenity or landscape values of the area; and

The signage is necessary for identification of the business and is not

excessive for that purpose.

The expiry of the permit for the advertising signs should align with the

recommended sunset condition attached to the use.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

A permit should be granted for the proposed business identification sign.

The expiry of the permit for the advertising sign should align with the

recommended sunset condition for the use.



6. Planning Permit Conditions

This Chapter addresses a number of matters not raised elsewhere in this report

and permit drafting issues raised by the parties, rather than repeating the

discussion or recommendation on issues addressed in earlier chapters.

Council circulated draft ‘Without Prejudice’ Planning Permit Conditions which

provided the basis for discussion at the end of the hearing.

EPA’s Role

We note that in the hearing for the Tootal Road Application EPA did not

support conditions requiring the submission of information to or approval of

matters by EPA on the following basis:

They could create unnecessary administrative requirements and EPA has

sufficient authority to require information where issues arise without it

being a permit requirement;

The information should be submitted to Council as the responsible authority

(although EPA could receive a copy);

It would be implied that EPA would act on the information; and

The information could be useful in the context of an EIP process where it

would be shared with interested stakeholders.

However, we are conscious it is EPA, rather than Council, that has both

expertise in and responsibility for administering regulations relating to air

quality and noise. Therefore a number of condition provide for consultation

with EPA where matters are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Restricting the Permit to this Applicant

If a permit issues, Council sought a permit condition requiring the Applicant to

operate the use on the basis that the complex environmental protection regimes

necessary to meet core performance expectations require implementation by a

proven operator.

The Tootal Road Application did include such a condition given the nature of

management requirements. The Tootal Road Panel noted that AFG is a

recognised industry leader, it had an established management regime on the

site that far exceeds the usual practice in the industry, a change in operator

could create new issues, and continuity in management was desirable given the

limited recommended life of the permit.



While the management requirements are very similar in this Application, in this

instance the permit would have a longer life and we do not think a restriction

on the operator is warranted. The permit conditions establish requirements that

must be satisfied and, while the performance requirements are demanding,

other operators should be capable of satisfying them. SEMR has demonstrated

a commitment to act on the permit and it seems unlikely that the issue of a

different operator will arise.

Concerns with Specific Conditions

SEMR accepted most of the draft conditions but the Table below highlights

some drafting issues raised and our response. We have made various other

edits to conditions that do not involve substantive changes or warrant specific

comment.

Circulated Condition Advisory Committee Comment

1(d) required a response to the Native Vegetation

management framework.

Only one possibly native tree is proposed to be

removed. If this tree is in fact native vegetation, the planting proposed is clearly adequate to offset this loss. Condition 1(d) is not required

A number of conditions are superfluous or repetitive:

Condition 8 relating to crusher dust emission controls

Overlap between the Site and Environmental Management Plan (Conditions 9-14) and EPA conditions (28 to 39)

The conditions relating to the Site and Environmental

Management Plan and comparable EPA conditions relating to an Environmental Improvement Plan have

been consolidated in an edited form under Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan.

Condition 15 related to further traffic impact

assessment

This condition is no longer relevant as expert evidence

addressed the matters raised (see VicRoads letter dated 6 August 2008)

Condition 17 related to use of VicRoads pre-qualified

contractors.

This is not relevant to the Planning Permit.

Conditions 19, 27 and 29 were required by referral

authorities. They relate to obligations under other legislation

These are not appropriate permit conditions but can be

included as notes.

Condition 21 related to a requirement to designate land

as ‘Road’ plan of subdivision.

This condition was not addressed at the hearing but

appears to be a standard condition that does not relate

to this proposal as it does not involve road widening affecting private land or subdivision.

Internal road and car park surface, marking of car

spaces.

We note that sealing internal roads was opposed

because the hotter surface would add to the dust management task because the dust deposited on the

sealed road would dry out more quickly. We consider that a gravel/crushed asphalt surface treated with a dust suppressant would be appropriate. This surface treatment means line marking of car spaces is

problematic and alternative identification of spaces would be appropriate, for example, domes.



Appendix A Revised Draft Permit

PERMIT PREAMBLE

The permit allows:

The use and development of the land for MATERIALS RECYCLING in

conjunction with REFUSE TRANSFER STATION for a maximum of 15 years

duration;

A reduction of car parking requirements for the Materials Recycling use;

A Business Identification Sign;

native vegetation removal;

alteration to access to a Road Zone; and

in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the following conditions.

Conditions

1 Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible

Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of

the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies

must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the Site

Layout and Landscape Concept Plan (PML7795 LSO1) and plans submitted with

the application but modified to show and/or include:

(a) an area for occasional overflow visitor parking;

(b) full details including location, size and method of floodlighting any signage

proposed as part of the application;

(c) full details are provided of all road pavement treatments through the subject

site;

(d) provision of a detailed construction staging plan;

(e) a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 55.

2 Before the development and/or use starts a suitable landscape plan for the whole

site must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When

approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the

permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three

copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the

Site Layout and Landscape Concept Plan (PML7795 LSO1) submitted with the

application but modified to show and/or include:



(a) a planting schedule which accurately illustrates the amount and location of

each of the indicated species to be planted;

(b) the use of indigenous species of the region to maximise biodiversity value;

(c) the use of Eucalyptus ovata to lower lying areas (base of bunds);

(d) details of the proposed maintenance regime (including mulching method

and irrigation) for the landscaping.

3 Before the use starts a Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible

Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of

the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must be

prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and must include (but is

not limited to):

(a) description of measures to be taken to ensure that the land is rehabilitated so

as to ensure it is suitable for appropriate after-use within 12 months of the

permitted development and use operations ceasing; provide for:

(b) removal of plant, equipment, signage and any agreed buildings or other

structures.

(c) reshaping of all batters to agreed slopes;

(d) placement of a one-metre layer of clean fill including topsoil to a minimum

of 20 centimetres on batters and agreed hardstand areas;

(e) works to ensure satisfactory stormwater run-off and storage of flood waters;

(f) suitable securing and environmental protection of ponds and other water

bodies, including restoration of the slimes dam;

(g) landscaping;

(h) timeframes for all relevant stages of the rehabilitation process;

(i) cost estimate for the rehabilitation measures proposed;

(j) methodology for calculating the quantum of the required rehabilitation

guarantee assuming that the site is not used for any type of landfill that

requires statutory approval from the Environment Protection Authority

(EPA).

4 Before the use and development starts a bank within the meaning of the Banking

Act 1959 (Commonwealth) for the amount approved under the Preliminary

Rehabilitation Plan must be delivered to the Responsible Authority as security for

implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan. Such monies will be returned to the

Owner upon satisfactory completion of the works required by the Final

Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 55, to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority.

5 The development and use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered

without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.



6 Before the use or any roadworks start the following plans must be submitted to

and approved by VicRoads

(a) Functional layout plans for the unsignalised access arrangement on

Kingston Road for the development;

(b) After approval of the functional layout plans, detailed engineering plans for

the roadworks along Kingston Road. These plans should detail design

matters such as bus stop locations, median widths, DDA compliance, lane

widths and drainage.

Expiry

7 The use must cease and associated signs must be removed 15 years from the date

of issue of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a

request is made in writing not less than three years before the permit expires. The

conditions of the permit may be amended if the permit is extended.

8 Subject to any other provision in this permit relating to expiry, this permit will

expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) Both uses are not started within two years of the date of this permit; or

(b) The Refuse Transfer Station does not operate; or

(c) The two uses permitted under this permit cease to have a genuine, close and

continuing functional relationship with each other.

(d) The development is not completed within two years of the commencement

of the development.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made

in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Machinery

9 No plant or equipment used for crushing waste concrete, stone or masonry may be

installed or used on the land other than the one concrete crushing and screening

machine described in the material lodged with the application.

10 No plant or equipment for blending products to produce products used in the

construction industry other than as shown on the endorsed plans may be installed

on the land without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

11 No plant or equipment to cut or grind timber may be installed or used on the land

until an acoustic report has been submitted and operating protocols have been

approved by the Responsible Authority.



Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan

12 Before the use starts, a Site Management and Environmental Improvement Plan

(SMEIP) must be lodged with the Responsible Authority for its approval, after

consultation with Southern Rural Water and the EPA (where appropriate). Once

endorsed by the Responsible Authority, the SMEIP will form part of this permit.

The SMEIP must include detailed measures to implement ‘Best Practice’ and

must be revised annually and submitted to the Responsible Authority. The

SMEIP must be generally in accordance with the Site Management Plan and

Environmental Plan submitted with the application but modified to identify and

describe:

(a) The proposed method of compliance with the EPA conditions set out below;

(b) The design of works and management of water on the site to:

Provide for responses to any identified rise in groundwater levels in the

locality;

Ensure water conservation design measures and practices are adopted,

including efficient collection and re-use of surface water;

Ensure the design of hardstand areas and storage ponds minimises the

potential for groundwater contamination,

Specify parameters for monitoring of groundwater and water in storage

ponds.

(c) Proposed management measures for the control and monitoring of air

quality, addressing emission of noise, dust and other airborne emissions,

outlining proposed measures to comply with the conditions of this permit

which relate to air quality and monitoring;

(d) The monitoring of groundwater and storage ponds ;

(e) Compliance with the procedures outlined in the Recycling Construction and

Demolition Material: Guidance on Complying with the Occupational Health

and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003.

13 The use and development of the land must adhere to the requirements,

recommendations, operating practices and procedures set out in the endorsed Site

Management and Environmental Improvement Plan.

14 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the processes, plant and equipment and

procedures conducted on the land in association with the materials recycling

facility and refuse transfer station must be operated pursuant to best practice.

15 No polluted waters, including sullage waters or sediment laden waters from the

land maybe discharged from the site, including into Melbourne Water’s drains or

watercourses.



Conditions required by EPA Victoria

16 The proposal must comply with the Guide To Best Practice At Resource Recovery

And Waste Transfer Facilities (Eco-Recycle Victoria) and also adopt ‘Best

Practice Measures’ in preventing any adverse environmental impacts from the

proposed transfer station, both during construction and ongoing operation.

17 Litter control fencing or screens must be established and maintained adjacent the

unloading area, waste disposal pit area and driveways to trap windblown litter

which may be generated as a result of unsecured loads or the unloading of

vehicles.

18 Management and operation of the transfer station must include collection of litter

from outside the land including roads adjacent the facility. Suitable precautions,

such as the installation and regular maintenance of a litter entrapment device,

should be taken to ensure that litter is prevented from entering the stormwater

drainage system.

19 Wastes must not be burnt at the premises.

20 Odour offensive to the senses of human beings must not be discharged beyond the

boundaries of the site.

21 There must be no visible dust emissions beyond the boundaries of the site.

22 Only clean fill material as defined in EPA Publication No. 448 "Classification of

Wastes" must be used in the development of the site.

23 Waste oil and collection area must be roofed and bunded in accordance with EPA

Technical Guideline "Bunding" Publication No 347.

Dust

24 The use must be conducted and operated so that no visible dust emissions are

detectable beyond the site's boundaries.

25 The pug mill must be equipped with sufficient controls to prevent dust emissions

and, without limiting the requirements of this condition:

(a) suitable shrouds must be installed on the pug mill to prevent dust emissions;

and

(b) a fabric filter dust collector must be fitted to the pug mill and maintained in

good working order to prevent visible dust from being emitted, as required

by the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) publication 628

June 1998 'Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry'.

26 If at any time the dust suppression measures of the Site Management and

Environmental Improvement Plan cannot be implemented and significant off-site

dust emissions are likely the activities that would generate dust must not operate

for that period.



27 All roads, access ways and hard stand areas within the site where it is anticipated

that heavy machinery will work must be formed and surfaced with asphalt,

crushed rock or other suitable product to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority. These areas must be wetted or treated to suppress dust emissions.

28 All conveyance belts and other automated product transport devices or

contraptions on the site must be shielded from the prevailing winds to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority after consultation with EPA.

29 All waste material delivered to the site must be delivered directly to the

appropriate stockpile or sorting facility, except that waste delivered in domestic

vehicles should be delivered to a location designated on the endorsed plan.

30 The main access way to the site must be fitted with a dousing bar and all incoming

trucks must pass under the operating wetting bar.

Dust Measurement

31 The operator must continuously monitor (in real time) the levels of PM10 emitted

from the land in the vicinity of the hardstand areas and concrete crushing

machinery while the site is operating. The location of fixed PM10 monitors must

be determined after consultation with the EPA and then maintained in good

working order in the agreed locations. The monitoring system should include an

alarm to warn when dust conditions are unacceptable. The operation of the site

must have regard to the information derived from PM10 real-time monitoring.

32 The information collected by the measuring equipment must be provided to the

Responsible Authority or EPA within two business days of a request for the data.

33 The operator must maintain a Davis or equivalent weather station, measuring

wind speed and direction and ambient temperature, on the site in a location to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The data from the weather station must

be made available to the Responsible Authority and the EPA on request.

Amenity

34 The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development

and/or use, through the:

(a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

(b) appearance of any building, works or materials;

(c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,

steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

(d) presence of vermin;

(e) in any other way.

35 The maximum height of all operating areas and stockpiles of materials stored on

site must not exceed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:



32 metres AHD until the plantings mature to effectively screen the

stockpiles,

35 metres AHD thereafter.

36 Where outdoor lighting is provided, it must be designed, baffled and located to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on

neighbouring land.

Operating Hours

37 The following restriction apply to operations on the site

(a) Between 5am and 7am Monday to Friday: No tipping at the top of the

stockpiles, no crushing and screening operations, and no sorting at the

Waste Sorting Facility.

(b) Between 6pm and 8pm Monday to Friday and 1pm and 6pm Saturday: No

tipping at the top of the stockpiles.

(c) The use must not operate between 8pm and 5am Monday to Friday, 6pm

and 7am Saturday or at any time on Sunday except as follows. The use may

operate during these times with the prior approval of the Responsible

Authority on up to three days in a 12-month period subject to the following

restrictions:

no tipping at the top of the stockpiles;

no crushing and screening operations;

no sorting at the Waste Sorting Facility; and

no use for front end loaders

(d) The use must not operate on Christmas Day, Good Friday or before 1pm on

Anzac Day.

Acoustic Requirements

38 The noise emissions from the site must comply with the State Environment

Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce Industry and Trade) No N-1.

39 Compliance with SEPP N-1 noise limits must be confirmed by a report by an

acoustics specialist when noise generating elements of the use have commenced

operating and if equipment and/or operating procedures change.

40 The following acoustic measures must be undertaken:

(a) The Crushing and Screening Plant and the Waste Sorting Facility enclosures

must be treated in accordance with recommendations of a suitably qualified

person.

(b) All mobile plant on site and heavy vehicles regularly visiting the site must

be fitted with smart alarms which adjust the reversing beepers noise levels



to take account of low background noise conditions or broadband type

reversing beepers. This requirement does not apply to cars, vans and light

trucks.

(c) All mechanical equipment must be regularly maintained and must use

industry standard mufflers.

Site Access and Traffic Management

41 Five years after the date of this permit, a revised traffic analysis assessing the need

for a signalised access to the development must be submitted to the Responsible

Authority for its approval. The Responsible Authority may consent to an

extension of the time to provide this report.

Conditions required by VicRoads

42 Before the commencement of any roadworks authorised by this permit, the

developer must:

(a) provide a bank guarantee (in the name of the developer/owner) without a

termination date, to VicRoads for the estimated cost of works;

(b) provide evidence that the Contractor has a public liability insurance policy

for at least $10 million, effective for the duration of the works;

(c) provide VicRoads with the name, address, business and out-of-hours

telephone numbers of the principal roadworks contractor.

43 Before any roadworks along Kingston Road authorised by this permit start the

applicant must a pay VicRoads the pre-estimate certification audit fee.

44 The applicant must pay the full cost of all roadworks, drainage, service

relocations, public lighting and modifications, and any other costs associated with

the development roadworks.

45 Before the use starts (excluding site preparation works) the applicant must

complete all roadworks along Kingston Road in accordance with approved plans

and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

Internal Roads, Car Parking and Loading Bays

46 Before the use allowed by this permit starts, areas set aside for parking vehicles,

loading bays, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b) properly formed to levels so that they can be used in accordance with the

plans;

(c) surfaced with a suitable all-weather material or substance to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority;



(d) drained and-maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(e) suitably marked to indicate each car space, loading bay and all access lanes

and, if necessary, the directions in which vehicles are to travel, to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

47 Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all

times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

48 All roads and vehicle access ways within the site are to be surfaced with suitable

all-weather materials or substances to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority and must then be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority.

49 A sign(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided

directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be located and

maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Loading and Unloading

50 The loading and unloading of goods to and from vehicles must only be carried out

on the land.

51 Once the development and/or use has started it must be continued and completed

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

52 Subject to any other provision in this permit relating to expiry, this permit will

expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) both uses are not started within two years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the Refuse Transfer Station ceases to operate; or

(c) the two uses permitted under this permit cease to have a genuine close and

continuing functional relationship with each other; or

(d) the development is not completed within two years of the commencement of

the development.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made

in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards but may not

extend the permit beyond the time specified in Condition 4 of this permit.

Conditions required by Melbourne Water

53 No fill or building materials shall be dumped on Melbourne Water’s land during

or when construction is complete.

54 The applicant must arrange and fund any new fencing along the common

boundary with Melbourne Water’s drainage reserve to Melbourne Water’s

satisfaction.



Site Rehabilitation

55 The Preliminary Rehabilitation Plan referred to in Condition 3 must be reviewed

two (2) years before this permit expires to ensure the rehabilitation facilitates the

development of the ‘after-uses’ envisaged by the planning framework applicable

at that time. A Final Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority at

least 18 months before this permit expires.

56 Within six months of the use ceasing or the date the permit expires (whichever is

sooner), the Final Rehabilitation Plan approved under this permit must be

implemented and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The

Responsible Authority may grant an extension of time to complete the

implementation of the rehabilitation plan.

NOTES

Pursuant to section 50 RA(4) of the Environment Protection Act 1970, any person

involved in the generation, management or transport of waste must not do any anything

that is inconsistent with the relevant Regional Waste Management Plan.

Prior to the commencement of any roadworks in, on, under or over the Kingston Road

reservation the applicant must have first applied for and received written consent from

VicRoads for those works in accordance with Section 63 of the Road Management Act

2004.

The applicant must engage VicRoads pre-qualified contractors to undertake all

roadworks along Kingston Road.

Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to Melbourne Water

must be made for any new or modified storm water connection to Melbourne Water’s

drains or watercourses.



Appendix B List of Submitters

Carmen Aldons

Eric Aldons

M B Amos

G Archibald

Denise Atkins

Ray Atkins

Samuel Ayed

Lucilla Bennett

Thakshan Bolazan

P Boribon

Bill Burke

Lorraine Burke

Tanya Burke

D Calder

Lucille Canterbury

K Carrara

P Carrara

C de Zylva

Mr or Mrs Delahsheney

Thuy Dinh

I & A Donald

Heather Eynaud

J Fabbro

B W Falk

C Felicite

Don Fitzgerald

City of Boroondara

Andrew Folks

Frida, Helen, George Gatsios

George Gatsios

Helen Gatsios

Ralph Gerry

Peter Gibb, c/- TransPacific

Industries Group Ltd

Angela Gioutsos

Steven Goon

Roger Griffin

D Gulic

M Gulic

Alison Han

John Han

B Hartopitsos

K Hartopitsos

Heatherton Residents Against Inappropriate Development Inc.

Dorothy Henderson

Gregory Henrius

A Horeau

E Horeau

J Horeau

T & C Imperatori

D Jurina

N Jurina

S Jurina

P Karrison

Hui Khgnghky

Angela Kouvrakis

Apostolos Kouvrakis

Stratos Kouvrakis

J Labonne

N Labonne

Leonard A Le Page

Kim Lim

Cheryl Macdonald

Douglas MacNaughton

Sue McGinley

Tom McGinley

Andrew McIntosh

Tuan Nguyen

EPA, South Metropolitan Region

Abe Otenstern

A Panayi

J Panayi

S Panayi

A Papaioannour

J Papaioannour

Adrian Phan

Elmer Phan

Patrick Pierce



L Pollard

B Ponini

I Ponini

J Powell

M Powell

R Powell

S Powell

T Powell

Brian Pullen, Dingley Village

Community Association

K Radma

Steven Rajah

Sushani Rajah

Ronnie Rao

Taryna Rao

N Raxon

Mary Rimington, Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League

Kate & Tino Rizio

Clyde Rose

Barry Ross, Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Inc

S Rozario

M San

R San

Trevor & Roslyn Sanders

A Sarandis

K Sarandis

L Sarandis

M Sarandis

VicRoads

Greta Savina

Pravin Shetty

Barry & Noela Smith

Leang Sn

Sandy Sn

I Srislandrafd

D Sugija

Darren Tannen

Drew Tannen

A Tatsis

Angelo & Toula Tatsis

I Tatsis

Mia Tatsis

Paul Tatsis

Peter Tatsis

Vicki Tatsis

Michelle Tram

S Tram

W Tram

V Tran

D Tsolkous

G Tsolkous

N Tsolkous

V Tsolkous

C Vacouftsis

E Vacouftsis

John Valomandras

Peggy Valomandras

R Vassadic

S Vassadic

G Walmsley

DSE

E Woodfield

L Wyles

D Zantuck

J Zantuck

Juliette

Marie & Sylvio

The Resident (x17)



Appendix C Airborne Particles

Dust particle size

Particle sizes are measured in micrometres (µm), also known as microns, equal to

1/1000 of a millimetre. Particles can be of different sizes. Those less than 10

micrometres in diameter are called PM10 (PM standing for Particle Matter) and those

less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter are called PM2.5. PM10 and smaller particles are

small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs.

The DEH website presents diagrammatically relative particle sizes – see Figure 6.

Figure 6: Common Particle Sizes (Source: DEH Website)



The following descriptions of Nuisance Dust, Inhalable Dust, Respirable Dust and Dust

Health Risks, largely come from the DEH website, are consistent with comments and responses made by Dr Drew and Dr Bellair during the Hearings:

Nuisance Dust - Nuisance dust reduces environmental amenity without

necessarily resulting in material environmental harm. Nuisance dust

comprises particles with diameters nominally from about 1 µm up to 50 µm.

This generally equates with 'total suspended particulates' (TSP). The TSP

range of dust particles is broad, and may come from sources such as industry, mining, agriculture and wind erosion of the natural environment.

Inhalable Dust is the fraction of total airborne particles inhaled through the

nose and mouth. When inhaled these particles deposit in the trachea and

bronchia section of the lung. These particles are usually less than 10 µm in

diameter, of which around 80% are between 2.5 and 10 µm in diameter.

Respirable Dust is the fraction of inhaled particles which penetrates to the

deepest parts of the human lung. Respirable dust is those particles with

diameters less than 2.5 µm that lodge in the alveolar region of the lung.

Dust Health Risks

Dr Drew’s evidence described the health effects of airborne RCS. Lung cancer and

silicosis are potential chronic diseases that may arise from long-term exposure to airborne RCS. The risk of these diseases increases with increased concentration of RCS

in the air and with increased duration of exposure. Silicosis is a destructive,

irreversible form of pneumoconiosis (characterised by scarring of the lungs), which is

contracted by prolonged exposure to high levels of fine crystalline silica dust.

Dr Drew advised it is the fibrogenic effects of crystalline silica which are capable of penetrating to the alveol that are of concern in determining the hazard to health, that

is, particles less than 3µm to 5 µm.

He noted that CICAD (Concise International Chemical Assessment Document) (2000) states "to date, there are no known adverse health effects associated with non-occupational exposure to quartz dust”. However in the occupational setting chronic exposure to

crystalline silica is associated with increased incidences of tuberculosis, bronchitis,

emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal diseases, silicosis and lung

cancer.

The Health and Safety Executive of the UK, the California EPA, the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency all judge silicosis as being

the most sensitive health end point from exposure to silica and prevention of silicosis

is considered to provide protection against the other possible health effects.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - kingston.vic.gov.au · Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of...

Documents

Transcript of ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - kingston.vic.gov.au · Kingston City Council Mr Terry Montebello of...