metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda€¦ · ms sheryl chaffer (deputy presiding...

Version: 3 Page 1

Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel Agenda

Meeting Date and Time: Monday, 17 August 2020; 9.30am Meeting Number: MOJDAP/31 Meeting Venue: City of Swan Council Chambers, Midland Town Hall

312 Great Eastern Highway, Midland

1 Table of Contents

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement .................................... 2

2. Apologies ...................................................................................................................... 2

3. Members on Leave of Absence ............................................................................... 2

4. Noting of Minutes ........................................................................................................ 2

5. Declarations of Due Consideration ........................................................................ 3

6. Disclosure of Interests ............................................................................................... 3

7. Deputations and Presentations ............................................................................... 3

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications ....................... 4

8.1 Lot 1780 (46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook ............................................... 4

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or Cancellation of Approval ........................................................................................... 4

Nil .................................................................................................................... 4

10 State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals ... 4

11 General Business ........................................................................................................ 5

12 Meeting Closure ........................................................................................................... 5

Version: 3 Page 2

Attendance

DAP Members Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member) Ms Sheryl Chaffer (Deputy Presiding Member) Ms Shelley Shepherd (A/Third Specialist Member) Cr Kevin Bailey (Local Government Member, City of Swan) Cr Rod Henderson (Local Government Member, City of Swan) Officers in attendance Mr Philip Russell (City of Swan) Mr Leon Van Der Linde (City of Swan) Minute Secretary Ms Debbie Crawwford (City of Swan)

Applicants and Submitters Mr Mark Szabo (Burgess Design Group) Mr Stephen Lamond (Newco Mills) Mr Stephen Dobson (EW Risk Management) Ms Jane Bennett (CLE Town Planning + Design) Mr Daniel Martinovich (CLE Town Planning + Design) Mr Paul McQueen (Lavan) Mr Alex McGlue (Lavan) Mr Aaron MacNish (GTA) Ms Kelly Lavell (360 Environmental) Mr Michael Hotchkin (Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers) Mr John Lee Mr Robbie Lyons Mr Greg Neaves Members of the Public / Media

Nil

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement

The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present of the land on which the meeting is being held.

2. Apologies

Mr Jason Hick (Third Specialist Member)

3. Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

4. Noting of Minutes

Signed minutes of previous meetings are available on the DAP website.

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about/development-assessment-panels/daps-agendas-and-minutes

Version: 3 Page 3

5. Declarations of Due Consideration

Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that fact before the meeting considers the matter.

6. Disclosure of Interests

Member Item Nature of Interest

Mr Jason Hick 8.1 Impartiality Interest – Mr Hick has previously declared an impartiality interest and was permitted to sit on the item. He maintains his position that despite the declared interest, he would be able to act impartially and objectively for the consideration of the item following its deferral. Notwithstanding this, given sensitivities and to ensure that there is no perceived conflict that would influence the ultimate decision, he has decided voluntarily to step aside from sitting on this item.

Cr Kevin Bailey 8.1 Impartiality Interest - Under clause 2.4.9 of the DAP Code of Conduct, Cr Bailey participated in the prior Council decision in accordance with his functions as a member of a local government. However, under clause 2.1.2 of the DAP Code of Conduct, Cr Bailey acknowledges that he is am not bound by any previous decision or resolution of the local government. I undertake to exercise independent judgment in relation to any DAP application before me, which I will consider on its planning merits.

7. Deputations and Presentations

7.1 Mr Steven Pass provided a written submission against the recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The submission expresses support for Mr John Lee’s presentation. The submission is included as Item 7.1 of the Agenda attachments.

7.2 Mr John Lee presenting against the recommendation for the application

at Item 8.1. The presentation will address amenity, odour, planning framework, environmental and road safety concerns.

7.3 Mr Robbie Lyons presenting against the recommendation for the

application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address zoning, odour, noise and environmental concerns.

7.4 Mr Greg Neaves presenting against the recommendation for the

application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address zoning concerns and odours.

7.5 Mr Paul McQueen (Lavan) presenting against the recommendation for

the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address legal concerns.

Version: 3 Page 4

7.6 Ms Jane Bennett (CLE Town Planning + Design) presenting against the

recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address the inconsistency with Local Planning Scheme No. 17.

7.7 Mr Mark Szabo (Burgess Design Group) presenting in support of the

recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will request the deletion of Condition 12.

7.8 Mr Stephen Lamond (Thompson & Redwood) presenting in support of

the recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will discuss the Local Planning Scheme No. 17.

7.9 Mr Stephen Dobson (EW Risk Management) presenting in support of

the recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will discuss the merits of a Rural-Industry land-use.

The City of Swan may be provided with the opportunity to respond to questions of the panel, as invited by the Presiding Member.

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications

8.1 Lot 1780 (46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook Development Description: Use & associated development for a Stock

Feed Grain Mill Applicant: Burgess Design Group Owner: Newco Mills Pty Ltd Responsible Authority: City of Swan DAP File No: DAP/20/01764

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or Cancellation of Approval

Nil

10 State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals

Current SAT Applications

File No. & SAT DR No.

LG Name Property Location

Application Description

Date Lodged

DAP/19/01575 DR 256/2019

City of Armadale

Lot 9007 (76) Southampton Drive, Piara Waters

Lifestyle Village (Piara Waters Lifestyle Village)

10/12/2019

DAP/19/01702 DR 049/2020

City of Swan

Lot 11, 152 & 153 Talbot Road, Hazelmere

Industrial Warehouse and Ancillary Uses

18/3/2020

DAP/19/01708 DR 138/2020

City of Kwinana

Lot 108 Kwinana Beach Road, Kwinana

Proposed Bulk Liquid Storage for GrainCorp Liquid Terminals

1/7/2020

Version: 3 Page 5

11 General Business

In accordance with Section 7.3 of the DAP Standing Orders 2017 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached to make comment.

12 Meeting Closure

Direction for Further Services from the Responsible Authority Regulation 13(1) and DAP Standing Orders 2017 cl. 3.3

Request Guidelines

A DAP Member who wishes to request for further services from the Responsible Authority must complete this form in full and submit to [email protected].

Your request will be considered by the Presiding Member and the DAP Secretariat will advise you of the outcome in due course.

Upon approval, the Responsible Authority will be directed to provide a response to the DAP Secretariat by a specified date and time, which will then be circulated to DAP members.

DAP Application Details

LDAP/JDAP Name Property Location

DAP Application Number

Responsible Authority

Nature of technical advice/assistance/information required*:

Authoriser’s Certification and Approval

Response Due Date and Time

Presiding Member Name

Signature

Date _____/_____/_____

* Any alternate recommendation sought does not infer a pre-determined position of the panel.

mailto:[email protected]

REGULATION 13 DIRECTION FOR FURTHER SERVICES FROM THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY

DAP Application No. DAP/20/01764

Lot 1780 (No.46) Gaston Road Bullsbrook

Nature of technical advice/assistance/information required:

- technical planning advice regarding a full consideration of the land use classification question in relation to the application for a ‘Stock Feed Grain Mill’ under the City’s Scheme having due regard to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harvis v Mid-west JDAP [2020] WASC 205 delivered on 11 June 2020.

Response:

City of Swan staff advise as follows:

1. In Harvis v Mid-west JDAP [2020] WASC 205 , the Court at 20-22 of its decision notes the description of the development and the processing and manufacture of pellets.

2. That development may be referenced as a “monogastric animal feed mill”.

3. That development may be summarised as comprising the mixing of grain with meal into a mash which is pressed into pellets for animal feed.

4. The Court at 86 said:

“But the whole operation described in the application – milling, mixing to mash, manufacture into pellets, crumbling and coating – is more than treating and processing the grains and meals. It is the manufacture of a separate product.”

5. On that basis the Court concluded at 87:

“It follows that the application for development was not a use that could be approved in the Agriculture Resource zone, as it was not within the use class “Industry-Rural” properly construed.

6. City staff note that the use class of “Industry-Rural” subject of consideration in Harvis v Mid-west JDAP [2020] WASC 205 is the same as that within City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17.

7. The proposed development under the subject application is described on page 17 of the applicants report document by Burgess Design Group as a “Stock Feed Grain Mill”. Further:

The proposed Feed Mill consists of two separate processing lines operating in parallel, both with a design capacity of 20 tonnes per hours, providing a combined capacity of 40 tonnes per hour. One line will produce for the Non-Ruminant (monogastric) market and the other serving the Ruminant market. A detailed description of the plant operation and process is provided in Appendix 2, section 7.

8. The document contained at Appendix 2 is the Works Approval Application Supporting Document by 360 Environmental. Section 7 of this document is a description of the Feed Mill Operations and Processes. This states:

7.1 Overview

The proposed Feed Mill consists of two separate processing lines operating in parallel. One line will produce for the Non-Ruminant (monogastric) market and the other serving to the Ruminant market. Detailed premises plans are provided in Appendix C. The plant will operate 24 hours per day, 5 days a week. The operational efficiency is c.90% annual volume produce based on 24 hour operations. The current business case indicates the plant will reach capacity using the stated operated hours between 2028 and 2031.

7.1.1 Intake

Raw materials are tipped into the intake hopper from trucks in the western portion of the Site (Figure 10). The grate separates larger impurities from the raw materials. A baffle system mounted under the hopper grid provides for encapsulation of air that is displaced when the product is dropped into the hopper. The tipping process will take place within a fully enclosed shed.

A Drum Cleaner will be used to separate grains through the use of a scalper screen, removing larger impurities. The raw material will also be separated using a sand screen for removal of particles smaller than the raw material. Dust and other small particles will be removed by a built-in

aspiration system. All magnetic (metallic) impurities are removed by passing the raw material through a permanent magnet.

7.1.2 Raw (Macro) Material Dosing

Raw material products will be stored in separate silos prior to dosing, where a system of elevators and conveyors will be used to transport the materials to the silos (Figure 10). There will be at least one silo for each raw material frequently used with a volume sufficient for at least one production. Raw materials are individually conveyed by discharge conveyors and weighed in weighing bins mounted on load cells.

7.1.3 Grinding

The grinding mills are filled and dosed with a feeding auger. The grain is ground by the Disc Mill. A discharge conveyor empties the mills continuously.

7.1.4 Raw (Micro) Material Dosing

The micro component proportioning is used for the addition of small quantities of ingredients, such as vitamins and minerals. The components are stored in bins from where they are dosed and transported to a central weighing bin suitable for precise weighing.

Some raw materials are supplied in liquid form and bulk delivery for tallow, soy oil and molasses and small deliveries for all other liquid additions. All liquids will be stored within bunded areas on site.

7.1.5 Mixing

The dry products are gently mixed in a horizontal paddle mixer prior to the addition of liquids.

7.1.6 Pelleting Lines

The pelleting area comprises of a sequence of machines that transform mixed meal feed into pellets. Meal is dosed into a Steam Conditioner where steam is added for heat treatment and gelatinization of the meal feed, which contributes to high pellet durability and pelleting ease.

7.1.7 Finished Product Storage

The finished products are stored in multiple silos located at the Grain Storage Terminal comprising of 34 sealed silos and a truck loading area. This area is designed to allow trucks to drive directly under silos which will reduce pellet damage and reduce dust generation.

9. The operation subject of this application, as described above, is analogous to the operation subject of the application considered in Harvis v Mid-west JDAP.

10. As the Court has found in that case, such an operation is not within the use class of “Industry-Rural” as properly constructed.

11. If not “Industry-Rural” pursuant to the City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17, the proposed “Stock Feed Grain Mill” subject of this application would need to fall within the use class of either, “Industry-Cottage”, “Industry-Extractive” or “Industry-Mining” to be capable of approval within the “General Rural” applicable to the land.

12. The subject application is not for “Industry-Cottage” because, notwithstanding other requirements to qualify as such, it is not a “trade or light industry producing arts and crafts goods…”.

13. The subject application is not for “Industry-Extractive” because it does not involve “the extraction, quarrying, or removal of sand, gravel, clay, hard rock, stone or similar material from the land…”.

14. The subject application is not for “Industry-Mining” because it is not for “land used commercially to extract minerals from the land.”

15. The RAR has already expressed the opinion that the application is not for “Industry-Noxious” because it does not “constitute an offensive trade within the meaning of the Health Act 1911…”.

16. The subject application is not for “Industry –Service” because, notwithstanding whether it might be considered a form of “industry-light” it has no retail shop front from which goods manufactured from the premises may be sold or received for service.

17. The subject application therefore is either for “Industry-Light” or more likely ‘Industry-General”. The latter is defined under LPS17 as “..an industry other than cottage, extractive, light, mining, noxious, rural or service industry”.

18. Both “Industry-Light” and “Industry-General” are “X” uses in the “General Rural” zone as set out in the Zoning Table at 4.3 of City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17 and so not permitted.

Recommendation to Metro-outer JDAP on DAP Application No. DAP/20/01764

That the Metro-Outer JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/20/01764 and Accompanying Plans in accordance with Clause 68 of Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the provisions of Clause 10.3 of the City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No. 17 for the following reason:

1. The application is considered to fall within either the use class of “Industry-General” or “Industry-Light” neither of which are uses permissible within the “General Rural” zone applicable to the land.

Direction for Further Services from the Responsible AuthorityRegulation 13(1) and DAP Standing Orders 201 cl. 3.3

Request Guidelines

A DAP Member who wishes to request for further services from the Responsible Authority must complete this form in full and submit to daps@ .wa.gov.au.

Your request will be considered by the Presiding Member and the DAP Secretariat will advise you of the outcome in due course.

Upon approval, the Responsible Authority will be directed to provide a response to the DAP Secretariat by a specified date and time, which will then be circulated to DAP members.


LDAP/JDAP Name

Property Location

DAP Application Number

Responsible Authority

Nature of technical advice/assistance/information required :

and Approval

Response Due Date and Time

Presiding Member Name

Signature

Date _____/_____/_____

* Any alternate recommendation sought does not infer a pre-determined position of the panel. Any legal advice, commercially confidential or personal information will be exempt from publication.

Direction for Further Services from the Responsible Authority Regulation 13(1) and DAP Standing Orders 2012 cl. 3.3

Guidelines

A DAP Member who wishes to request further services (e.g. technical information or alternate recommendations) from the Responsible Authority must complete this form and submit to [email protected].

The request will be considered by the Presiding Member and if approved, the Responsible Authority will be directed to provide a response to DAP Secretariat within the form.

It is important to note that the completed form containing the query and response will published on the DAP website as an addendum to the meeting agenda.


DAP Name Metro Outer JDAP DAP Application Number DAP/20/01764

Responsible Authority City of Swan

Property Location Lot 1780 (46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook Presiding Member Authorisation

Presiding Member Name Mr Ian Birch

Signature Date 16/7/20

Response Due 24 July 2020; 4pm

Nature of technical advice or information required*

1 DAP query

1. Do the City’s planners by fact and degree, agree or disagree with Mr Hotchkin’s opinion of 16 July 2020 that the Grain Mill DA is not analogous with Harvis?

Response Disagree.

2 DAP query

2. Is there anything in Mr Hotchkin’s opinion of 16 July 2020 that would cause the City’s planners to alter their earlier reg 13 advice to the JDAP that the DA must be refused?

Response No (as previously stated)

3 DAP query

3. Put another way, do the City’s planners maintain that the Grain Mill DA is not capable of planning approval because it must be classified as an ‘X’ or prohibited use under the City’s LPS 17?

Response Yes (as previously stated)


☐

Presentation Request Form

Regulation 40(3) and DAP Standing Orders 2017 cl. 3.5

Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting

Presentation Request Guidelines

Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must first consider whether their concern has

been adequately addressed in the responsible authority report or other submissions. Your

request will be determined by the Presiding Member based on individual merit and likely

contribution to assist the DAP’s consideration and determination of the application.

Presentations are not to exceed 5 minutes. It is important to note that the presentation

content will be published on the DAP website as part of the meeting agenda.

Please complete a separate form for each presenter and submit to [email protected]

Presenter Details

Name Steven Pass

Company (if applicable) Australian Executor Trustees Ltd

Please identify if you have any special requirements:

YES ☐ NO ☒

If yes, please state any accessibility or special requirements:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Meeting Details

DAP Name Metro-Outer JDAP

Meeting Date 18/06/2020

DAP Application Number DAP/20/01764

Property Location Lot 1780 (No. 46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook

Agenda Item Number 8

Presentation Details

I have read the contents of the report contained in the Agenda and note that my presentation content will be published as part of the Agenda:

YES ☒

Is the presentation in support of or against the report recommendation)? (contained within the Agenda) SUPPORT ☐ AGAINST ☒

Is the presentation in support of or against the proposed development? SUPPORT ☐ AGAINST ☒

Will the presentation require power-point facilities? YES ☐ NO ☒

If yes, please attach


Presentation Content*

These details may be circulated to the local government and applicant if deemed necessary

by the Presiding Member. Handouts or power points will not be accepted on the day.

Brief sentence summary for inclusion on the Agenda

The presentation will address:

Objection of neighbouring land owner

In accordance with Clause 3.5.2 of the DAP Standing Orders, your presentation request

must also be accompanied with a written document detailing the content of your

presentation.

Please attach detailed content of presentation or provide below:

Australian Executor Trustees Ltd (AET) is the Administrator of the estate of Ronald

William Lee, deceased (Lee Estate).

The Lee Estate is the owner of the adjoining lots, together known as 101 Morley Rd

Bullsbrook.

AET does not wish to present at the meeting, however this notice is to express AET’s

support for one of the Lee Estate’s beneficiaries, Mr John Lee (a son of the deceased)

to present his objections on behalf of members of the Lee family. We understand Mr Lee

is preparing a submission which will be entered concurrently with this notice.

Mr John Lee is an experienced farm manager who is currently managing the farming

operations at 101 Morley Rd on behalf of the Lee Estate.

☐

Presentation Request Form Regulation 40(3) and DAP Standing Orders 2017 cl. 3.5

Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting Presentation Request Guidelines Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must first consider whether their concern has been adequately addressed in the responsible authority report or other submissions. Your request will be determined by the Presiding Member based on individual merit and likely contribution to assist the DAP’s consideration and determination of the application.

Presentations are not to exceed 5 minutes. It is important to note that the presentation content will be published on the DAP website as part of the meeting agenda.


Presenter Details Name John lee

Company (if applicable) Click or tap here to enter text.


YES ☐ NO ☒ If yes, please state any accessibility or special requirements: Click or tap here to enter text.

Meeting Details DAP Name MOJDAP/12

Meeting Date 18 June

DAP Application Number DAP//20/01764Click or tap here to enter text.

Property Location 101 Morley Road, Bullsbrook.


Presentation Details I have read the contents of the report contained in the Agenda and note that my presentation content will be published as part of the Agenda:

YES ☒



Will the presentation require power-point facilities? YES ☐ NO ☒ If yes, please attach


Presentation Content* These details may be circulated to the local government and applicant if deemed necessary by the Presiding Member. Handouts or power points will not be accepted on the day. Brief sentence summary for inclusion on the Agenda

The presentation will address: Newco Mills Noise, odours and emissions, city of Swan planning guidelines, residents amenity, road safety, visual amenity, alternatives sites, environmental suitability (TEC).nearest residents within 510 M.

In accordance with Clause 3.5.2 of the DAP Standing Orders, your presentation request must also be accompanied with a written document detailing the content of your presentation.


I ask the presiding member to reject the Newco Mills application on the grounds that are mentioned forthwith. Road Safety: Morley Road is within an area that experiences heavy fog during autumn, winter and spring months. Muchea Road South lies within an open speed limit and enclosed double white lines exposing traffic to turning RAV vehicles 24 hours a day creating extremely hazardous conditions for local residents and passing commuters .Last year a RAV 4 vehicle rolled over on the corner of Morley Road and Muchea south Road .RAV 4 vehicles exiting Morley Road at the bend will not be able to see or hear traffic approaching at high speed. As the length of the vehicle is 45 metres and up to 87.5 tonne laden, they are extremely slow at taking of on to Muchea South Road. These hazardous conditions present a dangerous precedent for passing traffic and drivers on early fog laden morning’s .I know from 35 years of truck driving experience that it is extremely dangerous, and there needs to be more study surrounding any contemplation of this type of traffic entering and exiting from this location. A far better solution is the Gaston Road alternative. Gaston Road is not on a blind bend ,situated 700 m closer to lot 46 on a straight road access, already bitumised and has access directly into lot 46 ,allowing less time for slow moving RAV4 vehicles to be on Muchea South Road .The contents of the Feb 2016 traffic report mentioned in the Burgess report is outdated and therefore not relevant to the present road traffic conditions experienced along Muchea Road South. The north link is now opened allowing traffic to bypass Muchea Road South. The Burgess analysis is not applicable to what presently exists (ie 2800 vehicles per day. From my latest counts, peak is around 50 vehicles per hour?), with a new assessment needed to reflect a more up to date and relevant conclusion regarding the recalibrated effects of Newco Mills effects upon local traffic at Morley Road, Muchea South Road, Railway Parade and Neaves Road to adequately and accurately address the changed set of circumstances and effect the plant will cause on local residents and ratepayers.

Rav 4 vehicles under a mandate will travel from north link to Neaves Road, turning left at railway parade. The left turning vehicles will experience significant difficulty navigating the intersection .Traffic on Railway parade turning right on to Neaves, and traffic turning right onto Railway Parade from Neaves Road will create a squeeze that RAV 4 vehicles will have to wait out before commencing momentum to avoid crossing the double white lines or hitting the curbing on the slip lane. I witness this

occurring daily, with RAV 4 not being able to negotiate the tight bend without crossing the double white lines. The plant located at South Bullsbrook will avoid the traffic hazard being created. The north link was constructed to serve exactly this type of scenario, creating the stock road intersection and access to South Bullsbrook. The JDAP committee should address this very issue, to support the latest infrastructure made available to cater for a more proficient and complementary planning decision.

Truck drivers will be motivated to defy the mandate and travel from Brand Hwy through Muchea town site along Muchea South Road to save time, or along Great Northern Highway, turning at Rutland and right at Muchea Road South.

The proposed Morley Road access is unnecessary and strongly objectionable, as the Gaston Road access has a formal intersection treatment already existing, replacing the needless access from Morley Road that puts extra residents from Morley Road and Almeria Parade at risk from works that are located on Gaston Road. This extra risk can be avoided by allowing access at Gaston Road intersection. Residents that do not have to be affected by these works, can be saved the lifestyle loss of amenity by the JDAP committee requiring the access from Gaston a requirement if approval is granted. Truck drivers will be in favour as they will have 700 m less to be on Muchea south Road (1.4 km on turnaround),and save time from Neaves to Gaston as opposed to Neaves to Morley .Most importantly avoiding the previously hazardous conditions that exist on the Morley Road bend.

Alternatively, location at South Bullsbrook or Muchea employment node would allow these RAV4 vehicles access along Stock Road directly of the north link, or into Muchea employment node directly from the truck assembly areas at the GNH and Brand highway intersection. Providing far better solutions to the present constraints faced by this application, and providing far less discontent with the local community that the city of Swan councillors agreed with when voting against the proposal. .

Amenity: It is not reasonable to suggest that the opening of a 24 hour 5 day a week feed mill will enhance and improve the rural amenity of this area. Floodlit premises with RAV vehicles entering and exiting 24 hours a day ,5 days a week is not an improvement for residences and ratepayers. Noise from air brakes, 500 plus horsepower prime movers hauling GVM of 87.5 tonnes gearing up, accelerating then braking and reversing with beepers constantly in earshot of residences is not improving amenity .It will detract greatly from what presently exists in the area. Motors powering conveyer belts project noise at frequencies that can harm residents from distances greater than the minimum separation distance required. To add, the plant proposes 24/7 operation in several years’ time, and currently production on Saturdays, were residents will have their weekends interrupted by the plant as well as during the week.

The visual amenity of the area will not be improved by 23 m high incoming silos and a 20 m high feedmill building measuring a 1000 m in area. Outlook from our residence will be detracted significantly viewing east towards the Darling escarpment. Early morning sunrises and evening rising of the moon over the escarpment on the horizon will be greatly affected by the unsightly edifices .The same applies to residences to the east of the site viewing blocked sunsets in the west.

The Burgess Report comments on the noise levels compared to the traffic on the North Link. Residences were compensated for the noise created by the north link for the injurious affection suffered as a consequence of the loss of amenity caused by the road. There has been no offer by Newco Mills for residents to be compensated for the loss of amenity from noise produced by the Newco Mills operation .Pearce has sudden aircraft noise, yet it is not constant like conveyer belts and electric motors .Pearce air base is 7 km away, whereas susceptible receptors (residences) are located on our property within 250 metres of the plant.

Odours: Steam flaking grain produces odour, like cooking porridge. That may not be ideal for a celiac, requiring a gluten free environment. Steam heating meat meal at 95 degrees Celsius is a completely different process. Rendering and processing meat meal can produce significant odour that can be offensive. Depending on the age of the stored product used in producing non ruminant pellets, meat meal ingredients can be as much as 6 to 12 months old. When re heated, this aged product emits odours that can travel for several kilometres. Locals of Hazelmere should be interviewed regarding the odours of the by-product plants that have operated in the area for many years. These plants cook at 100 degrees Celsius and are required to adhere to strict regulations and compliance resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars invested on capturing the offensive odours from the plants using bio filters and industrial scrubbers to prevent the escape of emissions into the immediate vicinity. They also are required to operate under a license granted by the EPA. The license application granted to Thompson and redwood in 2019 does not mention processing meat meal, yet the discussions I have had with company director Steve Lamond mentioned that this plant will use up to 15% of meat meal in a non-ruminant mix with grain to produce 40 tonnes of pellets per hour,24 hours a day. This could potentially require 144 tonnes of cooked meat meal a day, depending on the price of the product in comparison to imported soymeal. Meat meal on occasions is priced as low as at $400 per tonne. Soymeal currently is priced at $760 per tonne, so in an economic environment that could exist at any time in the future, management would choose to use meat meal as an alternative to soymeal to add the required protein content of the pellets, lowering the costs of production per tonne, but also significantly increasing the odours emitted from the non-ruminant plant. If this scenario plays out, and in my view it is extremely plausible ,then residents from a much greater distance than 500 metres will be complaining of offensive odours encroaching on their immediate amenity.

Doubts: The works approval required to be passed by DWER clearly states in 360 environmental report that meat meal is to be used .Mr Russell (city of Swan CEO) claims this is not now the case, but there has been no new documentation forwarded for a new development proposal with the changed set of circumstances referring to the new process that excludes meat meal being used. I feel as though residents, ratepayers and the JDAP committee could easily be misled to believe that the plant to be assessed may not be the plant that is proposed to be built. JDAP should be presented with up dated application documents reflecting the revised production process and the changed raw materials (meat meal) to be used defined as restricted in use.

The rural activity description of the Newco Mills

manufacturing process is arguable. Meat meal and tallow (manufactured & processed at Hazelmere) and soymeal (manufactured & processed overseas then imported) are products of a manufacturing process known as protein extraction, they are not rural inputs as mentioned in the city of Swan CEO report. Processing of manufactured products to produce feed pellets is food production and manufacturing in nature, therefore would need to be within a general industrial zone precinct such as the South Bullsbrook or Muchea employment node precinct, specifically developed for industry such as this by the department of Planning. This location is ideal for this type of development and a far preferable alternative to 46 Gaston Road.

Does this plant contribute to the economic base of this region? Steve Lamond communicated to me that the workforce was from Ellenbrook. The products produced are predominantly sold on export markets and to the livestock shipping industry servicing export markets and retail outlets in city and country locations. Maybe 2 local stockfeed businesses stock the products of T & R patronised by horse and pet owners locally. Truck drivers would be based outside this area and commute to the plant from residences in country grain growing areas. Bullsbrook is not a grain growing area, and does not have intensive feedlots .There are poultry sheds in the area at Warbrook road, old west road, south of Muchea on Muchea south road and north of Muchea fronting the north link. These poultry sheds could be serviced by the non-ruminant plant depending on the ability for Newco Mills to compete with other grain and protein feeding alternatives available to the local poultry businesses .With larger transport infrastructure available and greater economies of scale available to increasing corporate agri business ,it is not an unreasonable assumption that poultry sheds locally may be able to access bulk purchases of non-ruminant pellets cheaper from large scale produces located in the grain belt. It is hard to agree that local economic base will be contributed to in the Bullsbrook area as opposed to its present location in Ellenbrook. The question should also be contemplated by the committee as to how long the poultry sheds will be located in the north east corridor before the encroachment that is relocating T&R’s current plant will do the same to local poultry sheds .We have recently seen investment in future poultry north of Gin Gin, with further plans to increase poultry production into Mogumber.

Has the issue of location been adequately assessed economically? No feasibility assessment has been forwarded by the applicant with cost comparisons and profitability assessments.

What comparisons to an optional eastern or northern wheatbelt location for the plant has been provided?

Is there a report to be assessed by JDAP regarding alternative relocation sites elsewhere that could provide significant benefit to the northern or eastern wheatbelt and profitability to Newco Mills? The transport of product from the northern or eastern wheatbelt maybe an unnecessary evil and better served by a plant located in the regions. Residents should be provided at the very least with data analysis to assess whether alternative locations based on economic feasibility have been appropriately addressed by directors and management of Newco Mills.

For example, it may be more economical to take the plant to the raw

product, rather than bringing the product to the plant. Fuel costs are extensive, and most likely to rise proportionately higher than other inputs in the next 40 years. T & R have already another plant in Kojonup, and most likely aware of the benefits of compatible regional location. The same logic maybe applied to the present re location dilemma, to locate in either the eastern wheatbelt where existing plant do not exist (Toodyay has the Morgan’s Plant, and therefore not ideal for T & R).Dowerin, Cunderdin, Moora, Northam & York town sites come to mind or northern wheatbelt at Mogumber or Wannamal. These locations also have existing feedlot facilities that can take large quantities of product possible reducing the need to export large quantities of raw product to export markets, and in opposing, supporting the local bovine and ovine industries and producers to a greater extend through value adding the local product and the introduction of compatible industry. They are also centrally located to the new poultry sheds that are re locating in the grain regions.

This question logically brings in the argument of why relocate the plant at all. The reason to re locate the plant is not apparent, as the EPA license was granted in 2019 to T&R to operate in Almeria Parade, Ellenbrook, and the present location. So why re locate the plant? We are led to believe that the applicants required the preliminary concept plan for the DSP to be altered drastically, suggesting that the concept designed by extensive government and department of planning cost was inappropriate, due to the lack of consideration for a single rural feedmill application? This re location of the Technology and Business Precinct would accommodate the feedmill, or more likely the new housing developments in Ellenbrook. Both the relocation of the feedmill, and the relocation of the technological and business precinct would be advantageous to the Ellenbrook development presently being staged adjacent to the current plant location. The Satterley group is currently advertising land sales in the area.

The Burgess report states his clients concerns (T&R) were “that the future concept plan would prejudice the proposed use of the land for industry rural use“ and also that “Technology and business precinct be relocated to the DSP’s southern sector “ and “Rural food and Beveridge Production is best suited to land in the north of the precinct because, no explanation?. That is a lot of expenditure in time and money to incur for a application for a 10 million dollar feedmill! The department of planning does not have the ability to assess the location for suitability in regards to appropriate land use of the area, yet the T&R management suggest otherwise, for legitimate reason, or their own benefit. It would seem apparent that the Satterly group, as developers of the land adjacent to the feedmill influence the Department of planning to alter a preliminary structure plan for the benefit of the Ellenbrook development, supported by T&R on the agreement to re locate to lot 46 Gaston Road and selling the land at the present location on Almeria Parade. This type of application by the committee must be determined according to proper procedure and due diligence in order to comply with regulations in place.

A very recent application for a feedmill to be constructed in the shire of Chittering has been handed down by the supreme court of Western Australia in favour of the plaintiffs, arguing very similar circumstances that are presented in this development application. The JDAP committee would be wise to familiarise themselves with the facts of the case, as they are relevant to this type of application on behalf of Newco Mills P/L.

Residences: The Burgess Report states the nearest residents is 510 metres from the plant, this is incorrect .Presently the existing dwelling (sensitive receptor) on lot 2034 Muchea Road South within 250 metres of the plant is being renovated to house a resident in the very near future, and has been used as a residence in the past. Applications have been made for power connections, and plans drawn up, with work already commenced. No communication was sort by authors of the Burgess report, or enquiries made to the resident or ratepayer by city of swan or Newco Mills. This is disappointing that no consultation regarding the concerns of the adjacent property owners and residents were not reported accurately by the applicants. We sincerely hope the committee takes in to due consideration the answers provided by the city of swan in light of the undocumented information.

Planning framework: The city of Swan local planning scheme No 17 provides the planning framework containing the four objectives of the general rural zone. Requirements that no landowners should be prejudiced presently or in the future by this application. This is not the case in this instance. With a proposed Bullsbrook Freight and industrial District preliminary concept Plan yet to be endorsed and approved by the WAPC, the rural industry will prejudice the future proposed Technology and Business Precinct land use in the immediate area. The 500 metre industrial separation zone will exclude industry –service, industry light, office and educational establishment use described in the Technology and Business preliminary concept plan, in addition to effecting the future rural uses of the land under current zoning . This would potentially limit 40 hectares of land (being lot 2034) and approximately 15 ha on lot 170 (formerly lot 1663) from development under a new endorsed and approved structure plan and according to the present rural zoning.

Environmental suitability: The proposal will cause competition for the critically endangered Carnaby Cockatoo habitat via the attraction of large numbers of pink and Grey Galahs and Corellas that compete with the Carnaby Black cockatoo’s for roosting places. The Carnaby Cockatoo is a placid species subject to compete with a more aggressive species of Corella and Pink & Grey Galah. The flight path of the Carnaby Cockatoo is through a wildlife corridor that includes the site area of the proposed Newco Mills plant. The ecological corridor transports numbers of the species from coastal woodlands adjacent to Burns Beach Road, through the Melaleuca conservation area and Neaves road Pine plantations towards the Bullsbrook /Ellenbrook location. I have witnessed significant numbers of the Carnaby cockatoo flying towards food sources within the Bullsbrook area for many years. These birds will be threatened by the extensive numbers of Galahs and Corellas that I have witnessed at the T & R plant in Ellenbrook.

Critically endangered tumultuous mound springs only found in the valley tract of Ellenbrook wetlands area, and nowhere else in the state of W.A are of National geoheritage significance and located within 600 metres NW of the plant. There are 3 situated within 900 metres West of the Newco Plant, addressing the inaccuracies of the 360 environmental report produced for this application describing no mound springs within 1.2km of the plant. The springs are part of the hydrological setting of the Gnangara groundwater mounds east/west discharge, sub regional groundwater interactions and surface hydrology, interacting with the Ellenbrook recharge system. They are part of the hydrological active zone with implications that any impacts will be

pulsed on to the Swan River. Having been involved with the Swan River Trust and Department of Agriculture for over thirty years in assessing the Swan Coastal plain nutrient load run off into the swan river catchment. With involvement in the development of a S&R super phosphate product with CSBP, I’m familiar with the high leaching soils of the area. The nutrients are leached (66% content) and travel in subterranean flows along cap rock and limestone beds into the Ellenbrook and Swan River. The high leaching soil environment is not suitable to house stormwater runoff and planned waste water leach drains such as this plant contains. From studies done prior to the construction of the north link by ourselves in conjunction with other MRD contractors. Work done on this property recorded results that are not consistent with the results presented by the Galt report for soakwells and soakage basins on lot 46 Gaston Road. Maximum historical groundwater levels on this location during late spring may not be sufficient for appropriate stormwater drainage from this gradient.

There is no sewer connection to the site, the nearest available connection is north of Bullsbrook townsite (approx. 7 km away).Plants of this size with many truck drivers,employees and a 24 hour works operation will produce large volumes of waste water sufficient to warrant a connection to the waste water plant at Bullsbrook townsite as a requirement for the development . The high leaching qualities of the banksia and Bassendean sands will carry sufficient nutrient loads and effluent towards the Ellenbrook to warrant the sewer connection.

Banksia woodland contain fauna in the bark of the dead trees. Living within these dead banksia woodlands are species of native reptiles and arachnids, and without site inspection and study, endangered species maybe significantly harmed by Newco Mills development. Banksia woodland can regenerate after fire to once again grow as the natural seed bank still exists in the soils, awaiting the reliance on fire to enhance the probability of regeneration.

Aboriginal Heritage: Burgess Report states that the site does not contain any drainage lines that flow into the Ellenbrook from the floodplain. Lot 1663 has 2 creek lines that flow into Ellenbrook when heavy rain events cause temporary flooding during winter months, and this will have an effect upon aboriginal heritage site number 3525 and possibly detract from the natural resource values of the land and be contrary to the local indigenous culture and history.

☐












Presenter Details

Name Robert Lyons



YES ☐ NO ☒



Meeting Details

DAP Name MOJDAP/12

Meeting Date Thursday 18th June 2020

DAP Application Number DAP/MOJDAP/12

Property Location Click or tap here to enter text.

Agenda Item Number Click or tap here to enter text.



YES ☒










The presentation will address: Sensitive dwellings, Zoning, Odour, Noise, Environmental



presentation.

I am submitting this deputation because I do not share Mr Russell’s response to our issues and I do not agree with the Burgess Consultant report as I feel their assessments do not do justice to all receptors and the sensitive Swan Coastal Plain. As a concerned resident and ratepayer, I expect our councillors to represent all their constituents equally and fairly. Sensitive dwellings In the response, Mr Russell has portrayed that only 5 residential properties may be affected but each property is outside the “nominal separation distance guidelines”. I feel by Mr Russell pointing out that these 5 residences are outside the “separation or be it a ‘buffer zone’”, he has somewhat belittled our views towards this proposal and residences have now been perceived as a minority. I also feel these “nominal separation distance guidelines” have now determined that our amenities will not be affected. I feel it is unfair to determine our impact by these “guidelines” as they do not allow a fair and reasonable assessment of the impact it will actually create to our amenities, not to mention these are only guideline distances which are 500m for isolated dwellings and yet stated as 2,000m for a resident on a township boundary which ends at Rutland road. Where is the transparency and why are we discriminated against being an isolated dwelling? Zoning The classification of this manufacturing plant as Industry Rural, determined by Mr Russell’s assessment and the City of Swan is incorrect. The proposed Mill is designed to operate 24hrs daily i.e. conveyors, cyclones, boiler, fans, elevators, a series of silos and numerous heavy RAV 4 trucks can only be classified at minimum, ‘Light Industrial’, per the LPS-17 scheme 4.2.4. A high standard of environmental design is required to combat amenity, noise, emissions and vehicular traffic issues. This is a stockfeed manufacturing and wholesale activity, processing raw materials with the addition of other ‘additives’ to produce feed pellets. I refer to LPS -17 in which “Industry-Rural” definition states that clause (a); “an industry handling, treating, processing or packing rural products”. As such, this operation far exceeds processing and packing of rural products. It is a manufacturing line by means of milling, mixing, pelleting and steam conditioning of the once “rural” materials and by-products to create a separate product entirely, which falls outside of the City of Swans “Industry Rural” classification. The process can only be deemed a light industrial manufacturing operation, and therefore is Non-Compliant in this general rural zoning. Odour Mr Russell states, in council meeting dated 03/06/2020, there will be some odour and tallow will not be used. However, stated in the 360 Report to DWER, tallow will in fact be used. Communication with Mr Lamond, myself and others confirmed that 10% - 15% meat meal will be used, which is an animal by-product. Stated by the Responsible Authority Report – proposed Stock Feed Grain Mill DA190-20 (RAR) states a 500m zone will mitigate any impact during the plant 24/7 operation on receptors in response to community concerns is misleading; prevailing winds can carry odour up to 5km away. Under nuisance laws this can be considered

an offence even if the applicant thinks it’s not a problem. Why should we put up with an odour that isn’t here now? Industrial hubs When asked the question of available land in the designated Bullsbrook hub, Mr Russell stated that there is no shortage of land but none ready. This is also misleading. There is land available at the South Bullsbrook hub with a new access via stock road budgeted for this year and Muchea industrial hub also available. I feel that his statement that Lot 46 Gaston Rd is ready to go is also misleading as no current or real environmental impact, apart from a desk top assessment has been communicated by DWER on this sensitive area. This proposal has been based on guidelines and misleading information presented to the shire, DWER and the nearby receptors. Additionally, inadequate risk management plans, such as monitoring of pollution, be it noise, dust, die back control or flood plain management. Noise Vehicle noise impact has been somewhat disregarded. Although the RAV vehicle route assessment guidelines depicts that the noise generated from the RAV4 trucks on the road network is exempt from the proposal, the guide lines also states that noise modelling should form part of a noise management plan. Noise is a major community consideration when assessing the introduction of these vehicles to a new network. Considering the plants operation is proposed to run 24 hrs daily, with a total RAV4 vehicle movement of 3-4 trucks per hour, which equates to a truck braking, decelerating, turning then accelerating again every 15 minutes. This has been deemed to not impact our amenities. This assessment has complete disregard to all receptors. I know as a resident in the Bullsbrook Township or any other area would not accept this amount of trucks and 23 light vehicles (peak hours) accessing and exiting less than 300 meters from your front door. Nor would they accept a City of Swan planner, Mr Russell, state in council meeting dated 03/06/2020 that it’s no different from the North Link highway. Plant operating noise concerns the constant 24 hour / 5 day per week operation running noise. It is stated in W6368-2020-1_sd, Section 8.2.1 that “it is expected that the noise regulations will be met”. What this does not address is the elevation the plant is to be built upon (base 46m AHD to the top of the grain bucket elevator 74m AHD) and the continuous machine noise operation that will affect the surrounding area in regard to noise propagation from that height, weather conditions and wind direction affects. Environmental Mr Russell has not identified how the proposal will meet the City of Swan’s biodiversity strategy. A strategy specifically designed to protect the significant local natural areas across privately owned and local government-managed land within the City of Swan. I would like to remind you that the mill proposal, indicates that it will be built on environmentally sensitive land, wetlands, a regional ecological linkage and near a minor perennial watercourse that feeds into the Ellen Brook. It is also within 600 meters from a mound spring and near other mound springs in the area. Drawing out 30,000 KL of water a year risks the drying out of the mound springs that native flora and fauna of the threatened ecological communities depend upon in the region. I feel allowing this proposal to be approved in this location will contradict the strategy, and the trust in our local and state government should be questioned. Kind regards Robert Lyons

REF: DAP/20/01764 Proposed Use & associated development for a Stock Feed Grain Mill - Lot 1780

(No.46) Gaston Road, BULLSBROOK WA 6084.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting this deputation because I do not share Mr Russell’s response to our issues and I do

not agree with the Burgess Consultant report as I feel their assessments do not do justice to all

receptors and the sensitive Swan Coastal Plain. As a concerned resident and ratepayer, I expect our

councillors to represent all their constituents equally and fairly.

Sensitive dwellings

In the response, Mr Russell has portrayed that only 5 residential properties may be affected but each

property is outside the “nominal separation distance guidelines”. I feel by Mr Russell pointing out that

these 5 residences are outside the “separation or be it a ‘buffer zone’”, he has somewhat belittled our

views towards this proposal and residences have now been perceived as a minority. I also feel these

“nominal separation distance guidelines” have now determined that our amenities will not be

affected. I feel it is unfair to determine our impact by these “guidelines” as they do not allow a fair

and reasonable assessment of the impact it will actually create to our amenities, not to mention these

are only guideline distances which are 500m for isolated dwellings and yet stated as 2,000m for a

resident on a township boundary which ends at Rutland road. Where is the transparency and why are

we discriminated against being an isolated dwelling?

Zoning

The classification of this manufacturing plant as Industry Rural, determined by Mr Russell’s assessment and the City of Swan is incorrect. The proposed Mill designed to operate 24hrs daily i.e. conveyors, cyclones, boiler, fans, elevators, a series of silos and numerous heavy RAV 4 trucks can only be classified at minimum, ‘Light Industrial’, per the LPS-17 scheme 4.2.4. A high standard of environmental design is required to combat amenity, noise, emissions and vehicular traffic issues. This is a stockfeed manufacturing and wholesale activity, processing raw materials with the addition of other ‘additives’ to produce feed pellets. I refer to LPS -17 in which “Industry-Rural” definition states that clause (a); “an industry handling, treating, processing or packing rural products”. As such, this operation far exceeds processing and packing of rural products. It is a manufacturing line by means of milling, mixing, pelleting and steam conditioning of the once “rural” materials and by-products to create a separate product entirely, which falls outside of the City of Swans “Industry Rural” classification. The process can only be deemed a light industrial manufacturing operation, and therefore is Non-Compliant in this general rural zoning.

Odour

Mr Russell states, in council meeting dated 03/06/2020, there will be some odour and tallow will not

be used. However, stated in the 360 Report to DWER, tallow will in fact be used. Communication with

Mr Lamond, myself and others confirmed that 10% - 15% meat meal will be used, which is an animal

by-product. Stated by the Responsible Authority Report – proposed Stock Feed Grain Mill DA190-20

(RAR) states a 500m zone will mitigate any impact during the plant 24/7 operation on receptors in

response to community concerns is misleading; prevailing winds can carry odour up to 5km away.

Under nuisance laws this can be considered an offence even if the applicant thinks it’s not a problem.

Why should we put up with an odour that isn’t here now?

Industrial hubs

When asked the question of available land in the designated Bullsbrook hub, Mr Russell stated that there is no shortage of land but none ready. This is also misleading. There is land available at the South Bullsbrook hub with a new access via stock road budgeted for this year and Muchea industrial hub also available. I feel that his statement that Lot 46 Gaston Rd is ready to go is also misleading as no current or real environmental impact, apart from a desk top assessment has been communicated by DWER on this sensitive area. This proposal has been based on guidelines and misleading information presented to the shire, DWER and the nearby receptors. Additionally, inadequate risk management plans, such as monitoring of pollution, be it noise, dust, die back control or flood plain management.

Noise

Vehicle noise impact has been somewhat disregarded. Although the RAV vehicle route assessment

guidelines depicts that the noise generated from the RAV4 trucks on the road network is exempt from

the proposal, the guide lines also states that noise modelling should form part of a noise management

plan. Noise is a major community consideration when assessing the introduction of these vehicles to

a new network. Considering the plants operation is proposed to run 24 hrs daily, with a total RAV4

vehicle movement of 3-4 trucks per hour, which equates to a truck braking, decelerating, turning then

accelerating again every 15 minutes. This has been deemed to not impact our amenities. This

assessment has complete disregard to all receptors. I know as a resident in the Bullsbrook Township

or any other area would not accept this amount of trucks and 23 light vehicles (peak hours) accessing

and exiting less than 300 meters from your front door. Nor would they accept a City of Swan planner,

Mr Russell, state in council meeting dated 03/06/2020 that it’s no different from the North Link

highway.

Plant operating noise concerns the constant 24 hour / 5 day per week operation running noise. It is

stated in W6368-2020-1_sd, Section 8.2.1 that “it is expected that the noise regulations will be met”.

What this does not address is the elevation the plant is to be built upon (base 46m AHD to the top of

the grain bucket elevator 74m AHD) and the continuous machine noise operation that will affect the

surrounding area in regard to noise propagation from that height, weather conditions and wind

direction affects.

Environmental

Mr Russell has not identified how the proposal will meet the City of Swan’s biodiversity strategy. A

strategy specifically designed to protect the significant local natural areas across privately owned and

local government-managed land within the City of Swan. I would like to remind you that the mill

proposal, indicates that it will be built on environmentally sensitive land, wetlands, a regional

ecological linkage and near a minor perennial watercourse that feeds into the Ellen Brook. It is also

within 600 meters from a mound spring and near other mound springs in the area. Drawing out 30,000

KL of water a year risks the drying out of the mound springs that native flora and fauna of the

threatened ecological communities depend upon in the region. I feel allowing this proposal to be

approved in this location will contradict the strategy, and the trust in our local and state government

should be questioned.

Kind regards

Robert Lyons

☐


Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting Presentation Request Guidelines Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must first consider whether their concern has been adequately addressed in the responsible authority report or other submissions. Your request will be determined by the Presiding Member based on individual merit and likely contribution to assist the DAP’s consideration and determination of the application.

Presentations are not to exceed 5 minutes. It is important to note that the presentation content will be published on the DAP website as part of the meeting agenda.


Presenter Details Name Greg Neaves



YES ☐ NO ☒ If yes, please state any accessibility or special requirements: Click or tap here to enter text.

Meeting Details DAP Name MOJDAP/12

Meeting Date 18 June 2020


Property Location Lot 1780 (No. 46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook


Presentation Details I have read the contents of the report contained in the Agenda and note that my presentation content will be published as part of the Agenda:

YES ☒



Will the presentation require power-point facilities? YES ☐ NO ☒ If yes, please attach


Presentation Content* These details may be circulated to the local government and applicant if deemed necessary by the Presiding Member. Handouts or power points will not be accepted on the day. Brief sentence summary for inclusion on the Agenda

The presentation will address: Land zoning issues, odour, noise and visual impact of the proposed Industrial business and history in regards to the property location.

In accordance with Clause 3.5.2 of the DAP Standing Orders, your presentation request must also be accompanied with a written document detailing the content of your presentation.


I am a land owner located within 600 metres of the proposed plant. I am under the impression that the members of the JDAP board have viewed the 35 submissions of which 34 are objections. Firstly, land use. The property is now zoned “General Rural” and the applicants proposal is under “Industry – Rural” D. I would like to draw your attention to an action bought to the Supreme Court some months ago by Lavan Legal on behalf of the Harvest Group to challenge a JDAP decision to grant a Feed Mill Licence located at 757 Brand Highway, Muchea, reference number CIV2936, decision handed down 11 June 2020. This issue is similar to this proposed Mill application. The Supreme Court had to decide on General Rural to Industry – Rural (Part 1). The court found in clear favour of Harvest Group. The Mill was quashed. A precedent has now clearly been set. Secondly, under the proposal zoning Industry – Rural D is states in the local planning policy by City of Swan under Rural Pursuits (amongst other things) that:

1. keeping of pigs 2. poultry farming 3. the processing, treatment or packing of produce

can only be granted by approval of the Council. This proposal was debated by 12 or 14 Councillors on 3rd June 2020, 2 abstaining due to interest in the motion and it was rejected. The development is clearly Industrial and should be located in associated zoned areas of which currently exists in the South Bullsbrook Industrial area. I refer to the Bullsbrook Townsite District Structure Plan.

“Industrial

A recent MRS amendment rezoned a large area of land, located south-west of the existing commercial hub, from “Rural” to “Industry, and LPS17 was subsequently rezoned from “General Rural” to “special Use No. 22”. Local structure plans have been approved over this industrial area.”

This existing industrial area provides direct access to the The NorthLink - Tonkin Highway extension.

I refer to page 10 in reference to the South Bullsbrook Industrial Area - “That area is intended to accommodate a broad range of industrial uses, but particularly general industrial uses and large scale transport/freight logistics operations.” I argue that this Industry is a large scale transport/logistic operation.” I believe that two of the four objectives of the General Rural Zoning as applicable under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17 do not meet criteria, namely “4.2.16 (b) provide for a limited range of compatible support services to meet the needs of the rural community, but which will not prejudice the development of land elsewhere which is specifically zoned for such development;” (my points just previously mentioned) and “(c) ensure the use and development of land does not prejudice rural amenities, and to promote the enhancement of rural character”. Phil Russel in his answer to objections lodged, labours on the fact that silos are an asset and an element of rural life. No Phil, silos are used for local producers to put their grain into storage over a 6 week period, then transported out over a similar time frame. They are not used for processed feed material being transported in and out 6 days a week, 52 weeks of the year on RAV4 vehicles through their local area. A great deal of time and money has been put into developing these District and Council Plans and all for the greater good and future of the community. Approving this Application will set a precedent for future “General Rural” property owners to develop land under “Industry” codes, bypassing the Development Contribution Plans associated with existing Industry and Commercial zoned areas. ODOURS It states that “The applicant has subsequently confirmed that tallow or blood and will not be used in the process”, but there has been no new amended documentation to provide details of the materials that will be used in place of the removed raw materials, (meat meal). It is imperative that the JDAP board investigate this thoroughly as use of protein material is required and it is these products that produce odours. We require full disclosure of all ingredients to be used. Any conditions placed on the Mill in regards to odour and noise will be impossible to police as it is an integral part of this proposed Industrial business. It is also noted as of this point that DWER have not sent their approval, Main Road WA have not yet assessed or agreed on any upgrades to South Muchea Road to handle RAV4 vehicles. It would be premature for the JDAP to consider an Application for Development Approval for the ‘Stock Feed Grain Mill’ without these prior assessments and approvals. “MRWA have also provided comments which suggest that all road upgrade approvals be put in place prior to determination.”

☐












Presenter Details

Name Paul McQueen

Company (if applicable) Lavan


YES ☐ NO ☒



Meeting Details

DAP Name Metro Outer JDAP

Meeting Date 18 June 2020


Property Location 46 Gaston Road, Bullsbrook

Agenda Item Number 8.1



YES ☒










The presentation will address:

Why the development application must be refused in light of a recent Supreme Court decision



presentation.


See accompanying letter

3473-6770-7664_1165496, v.1

Our ref: AMG:PMQ:1165496

Your ref: DAP/20/01764

Contact: Alex McGlue

Direct Line: (08) 9288 6890

Email: [email protected]

Partner: Paul McQueen

Direct Line: (08) 9288 6943

Email: [email protected]

15 June 2020

Mr Ian Birch

Presiding Member

Metro Outer JDAP

140 William Street

PERTH WA 6000

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Mr Birch

DAP/20/01764 – legal submission to oppose development application

Executive summary

1 As a consequence of the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Harvis

Capital Pty Ltd v Mid-West/Wheatbelt Joint Development Assessment Panel [2020]

WASC 205, the Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) does not

have the legal power to grant development approval in this matter.

2 The development application must therefore be refused.

My client

3 Lavan acts for Harvis Capital Pty Ltd.

4 My client is the owner of land within the City of Swan, being:

4.1 Lot 300 Almeria Parade, Bullsbrook; and

4.2 2261 Great Northern Highway, Bullsbrook.

3473-6770-7664_1165496, v.1 AHC 2

5 My client’s land is zoned “special use” under the City of Swan Local Planning

Scheme No 17 (LPS17) and is identified as being part of the South Bullsbrook

Industrial Precinct.

6 My client is opposed to the development application that is currently before the

JDAP, because my client is generally opposed to industrial development occurring

outside of properly planned and recognised industrial precincts.

Supreme Court decision

7 My client has previously objected to a development application for a proposed

animal feed mill at 757 Brand Highway, Muchea, which is in the neighbouring Shire

of Chittering.

8 The Mid-West/Wheatbelt Joint Development Assessment Panel granted

development approval for that proposal at its meeting on 9 August 2020.

9 My client subsequently challenged that decision in the Supreme Court, including on

the ground that the development application was improperly characterised as being

an “industry – rural” land use, when in fact it was either an in “industry” or “industry –

light” land use and therefore legally incapable of receiving development approval in

the subject zone.

10 On 11 June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the development approval was

invalid, because the proposed animal feed mill did not fall within the “industry – rural”

land use definition.

11 The reasoning of the Supreme Court in this respect can be found at paragraph [86]

of its reasons, which reads:

The composite phrase, 'an industry handling, treating, processing or packing

rural products' refers to processes which occur in, or may be part of,

manufacture. But processing and manufacture are not synonymous. The fact

that different products are combined and treated would not necessarily exclude

the feed mill operation from being described as treating and processing rural

products. But the whole operation described in the application - milling, mixing

to mash, manufacture into pellets, crumbling and coating - is more than

treating and processing the grains and meals. It is the manufacture of a

separate product.

12 The Supreme Court then concluded at paragraph [87] of its reasons:

It follows that the application for development was not a use that could be

approved in the Agriculture Resource zone, as it was not within the use class

'Industry-Rural' properly construed.

Planning framework

13 The subject land for this development application is zoned “rural” under LPS17.

14 The land use definitions for “industry”, “industry – light” and “industry – rural” as they

appear in LPS17 are identical to the land use definitions that were considered in the

Supreme Court decision.

15 Although “industry – rural” land uses are capable of receiving development approval

in the “rural” zone under LPS17, the land uses of “industry” and “industry – light” are

prohibited uses in the “rural” zone under LPS17 and are legally incapable of

receiving development approval.

3473-6770-7664_1165496, v.1 AHC 3

16 If the development application does not propose an “industry - rural” land use, then

the JDAP must vote to refuse.

The proposal

17 The responsible authority report (RAR) at page 4 summarises the proposed

operation as follows:

The facets of the operation of the facility are as follows:

− employs 26 staff

− takes wheat, barley, lupins, sunflower, maize, canola meal, oats, muesli and

oat hulls, which are screened of impurities, stored in silos, processed through a

grinding mill into a meal to which small quantities of solid and liquid material is

added (eg canola oil, molasses) before being formed into pellets

− two separate processing lines operating in parallel - one line will produce for

the Non-Ruminant (monogastric) market and the other serving to the Ruminant

market.

− raw materials transported to site by trucks up to 27.5 metres in length with

approximately 140 vehicle trips per day utilising Northlink – Neaves Road –

Railway Parade/Muchea South Road and Morley Road into site.

18 The publicly advertised planning report that accompanies the development

application (which has not been appended to the RAR) at page 17 describes the

proposed “land use” as follows:

The application proposes construction of a Stock Feed Grain Mill on Lot 1780

(No. 46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook. The proposed Feed Mill consists of two

separate processing lines operating in parallel, both with a design capacity of

20 tonnes per hour, providing a combined capacity of 40 tonnes per hour. One

line will produce for the Non-Ruminant (monogastric) market and the other

serving the Ruminant market. A detailed description of the plant operation and

processes is provided in Appendix 2, Section 7.

19 The “detailed description of the plant operation and processes” as referred to in this

planning report was not included in the publicly advertised development

applications, nor is it appended to the RAR.

20 From a land use perspective, the development application proposes an operation

that seems to be materially indistinguishable from the operation the subject of the

Supreme Court decision, which was described at paragraph [22] of the reasons.

21 Indeed, the second bullet point in the above description from the RAR neatly aligns

with paragraph [86] of the Supreme Court reasons, where it was held that a proposal

that involves “milling, mixing to mash, manufacture into pellets, crumbling and

coating” does not fit the “industry – rural” land use definition.

22 From the summaries provided about the proposed land use, it is abundantly clear,

by reference to the Supreme Court decision, that the development application:

22.1 contemplates more than just the processing or treating of grains and

meals;

22.2 involves the manufacture of a separate product; and

22.3 does not constitute “industry – rural” land use as defined in LPS17.

3473-6770-7664_1165496, v.1 AHC 4

RAR

23 I would observe that the RAR was completed prior to the Supreme Court decision

being handed down.

24 The content of the RAR about land use must therefore be read in this context, as its

conclusions on land use have effectively been superseded by the Supreme Court

decision.

Conclusion

25 The recent Supreme Court decision stands as authority for the proposition that a

facility manufacturing animal feed cannot fall within the “industry – rural” land use

definition.

26 The JDAP accordingly cannot grant development approval under LPS17 and the

development application must be refused.

27 Please contact me or Alex McGlue if you have any questions.

Yours sincerely

Paul McQueen

General Counsel

Partner

Please notify us if this communication has been sent to you by mistake. If it has been, any privilege between solicitor and

client is not waived or lost and you are not entitled to use it in any way.

☐


Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting Presentation Request Guidelines Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must

metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda€¦ · ms sheryl chaffer (deputy presiding...

Documents