metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda... · 2020-06-17 · the presentation will...

Version: 3

Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel Agenda

Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, 18 June 2020; 9.30am Meeting Number: MOJDAP/12 Meeting Venue: This meeting is available for members of the

public to attend via electronic means To connect to the meeting via your computer - https://zoom.us/j/99047505892 To connect to the meeting via teleconference dial the following phone number - +61 8 7150 1149 Insert Meeting ID followed by the hash (#) key when prompted - 990 4750 5892 This DAP meeting will be conducted by electronic means open to the public rather than requiring attendance in person.

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 (No. 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 ........................................................................................................ 4

12 Meeting Closure ........................................................................................................... 4

https://zoom.us/j/99047505892

Version: 3

Attendance

DAP Members Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member) Ms Sheryl Chaffer (Deputy Presiding Member) Mr Jason Hick (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) Minute Secretary Mr Phil Goodwin (DAP Secretariat)

Applicants and Submitters Mr Mark Szabo (Burgess Design Group) Mr Stephen Lamond (Thompson & Redwood) Mr Stephen Dobson (EW Risk Management) Ms Jane Bennett (CLE Town Planning + Design) Mr Paul McQueen (Lavan) 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. In response to the COVID-19 situation, this meeting is being conducted by electronic means open to the public. Members are reminded to announce their name and title prior to speaking.

2. Apologies

Nil

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

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 Cr Rod Henderson 8.1 Impartiality Interest –

Cr Henderson participated in the prior council decision in accordance with his functions as a Councillor.

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.

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.

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

Version: 3

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications 8.1 Lot 1780 (No. 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

File No. & SAT DR No.

LG Name Property Location

Application Description

Date Lodged

DAP/19/01597 DR 174/2019

City of Gosnells

Lot 11 Southern River Road, Southern River

Development of Shopping Centre

30/8/2019

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

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

☐

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

mailto:[email protected]

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

☐





Presenter Details Name Greg Neaves




Meeting Details DAP Name MOJDAP/12

Meeting Date 18 June 2020


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



YES ☒






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.



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



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.

☐





Presenter Details Name Jane Bennett

Company (if applicable) CLE Town Planning + Design



Meeting Details DAP Name Metro-Outer JDAP



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



YES ☒






The presentation will address: The nature of the proposed development and its inconsistency with Local Planning Scheme No. 17.



Refer Attachment

3002Misc260

Metro-Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel Meeting – 18 June 2020: Item 8.1 – Presentation by Jane Bennett

CLE Town Planning + Design represent Harvis Capital Pty Ltd who own approximately 200 hectares of land within the South Bullsbrook Industrial Precinct, located 6km to the south of the application area. Our view is that first and foremost, the application is incapable of approval due to its improper classification as an ‘Industry – Rural’ land use as outlined in Lavan’s submission. However, there are a number of other relevant planning matters that if properly considered, further substantiate the case for why this application should not be approved. On this basis my deputation will cover –

- Harvis’ interests regarding industrial land uses in Bullsbrook; - A brief discussion on land use classification; and - A focus on the exercise of discretion within the context of the local planning scheme.

CLE has been working with Harvis to progress planning over this area since 2010. Through this period, we have worked with the City and the Department of Planning to rezone the South Bullsbrook Industrial Precinct under the MRS and TPS, prepare two structure plans, prepare a DCP and lodge a first stage subdivision application. Undertaking these processes has involved a considerable investment on behalf of our Client and provides certainty regarding the location of future industrial land uses in the region. Certainty is required so that the provision of infrastructure can be efficiently delivered commensurate with the requirements for industrial land uses. This in turn, guides investment decisions. Certainty regarding the location of industrial land uses is also required for landowners and prospective landowners within the surrounding rural areas. It is reasonable to expect that residents and landowners within rural areas will have their amenity protected from encroaching industrial uses, particularly when designated industrial areas exist in close proximity. The proposal before the JDAP cannot be considered in isolation of the South Bullsbrook Industrial Precinct which is approximately 6km down the road, zoned for industrial development and can be readily serviced. Allowing a manufacturing use of the scale proposed to be located outside of a designated industrial area will undermine the strategic planning objective to consolidate such uses into contained precincts and erode the character and amenity of rural areas. Land Use Classification As outlined above, we are primarily of the view that the land use does not satisfy the definition of ‘Industry – Rural’ and is more appropriately defined as either an ‘Industry – General’ or ‘Industry-Light’ – both of which are not permitted within the General Rural zone. This effective precludes the ability for the JDAP to consider the proposed development as outlined in Lavan’s separate legal submission made on behalf of Harvis as their solicitors. Notwithstanding this legal inability to consider the application, the proposal does not warrant approval within the context of a discretionary decision and we will outline the reasons why the proposal should also be refused on broader land use planning and amenity grounds.

3002Misc260

Exercise of Discretion In exercising discretion, there are a number of matters which must be considered, including the objectives of the zone as set out in the Scheme as well as the matters listed under clause 67 of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘the Regulations’).

- LPS 17 Objectives of the Zone The most obvious inconsistency with the objectives of General Rural zone is the requirement for a proposed use to “not prejudice the development of land elsewhere which is specifically zoned for such development”. The South Bullsbrook Industrial Precinct is zoned ‘General Industrial’ under the approved Structure Plan and is intended to accommodate a broad range of industrial uses. Allowing for industrial manufacturing uses to establish themselves in rural areas will prejudice development of designated industrial precincts such as South Bullsbrook. This is because it will set a level of expectation that other industrial and manufacturing uses could be accommodated under the ‘Industry – Rural’ definition and therefore seek to locate within the General Rural zone. Rural land is more attractive in this regard due to the lower land costs and lower development costs. Not only would this undermine the significant investment made by our Client, it undermines the strategic planning for industrial uses in the region. As far back as 2003, the North East Corridor Extension Strategy identified the need for an employment node of approximately 550 hectares within the north-east corridor. In 2010, Directions 2031 specifically identified South Bullsbrook as a ‘Priority Industrial Site’ to meet industrial land supply targets and provide employment opportunities. The State Government’s Economic and Employment Lands Strategy adopted in 2012 further identified South Bullsbrook as a designated industrial area. This long-standing strategic planning for South Bullsbrook as a designated industrial precinct led to the land being rezoned to Industrial under the Metropolitan Region Scheme in 2012. This background demonstrates that over the past 17 years, planning for industrial land in the region has gone through a range of both strategic and statutory planning processes to a point where our Client is progressing a first stage subdivision application for South Bullsbrook. We are at the point where the strategic vision for South Bullsbrook is being realised. Allowing industrial manufacturing uses to locate outside of the designated industrial area undermines years of planning to progress the South Bullsbrook Industrial Precinct to where it is today. Approval of this application will most definitely prejudice development of land specifically identified for industrial purposes and is therefore inconsistent with a key objective for the General Rural zone. Not only does the strategic planning provide certainty for investment, it also provides certainty that industrial uses will not encroach upon the character and amenity of non-industrial land. This is particularly relevant for rural zones which are often an attractive prospect for industrial uses due to their lower land values and ability to separate themselves from areas of concentrated population.

- Clause 67 of the deemed provision – matters to be considered by local government In determining all development applications, a decision-maker is required to have due regard to a range of factors, the following of which are considered most pertinent to this application.

- The compatibility of the development within its setting: The development proposes 38 storage silos at 23 metres in height. It is therefore not a question of whether the development will be highly visible rather, whether the visual impact is acceptable within its setting. The number of silos and their associated height is not compatible with its setting, which is predominately cleared rural land with minimal improvements or structures. The RAR states that grain silos of this height and scale are not uncommon within rural settings however, they are uncommon in rural areas within the Perth Metropolitan region and more specifically, Bullsbrook. Grain silos in the Wheatbelt and WA’s remote regional areas may be considered a common feature however, the subject site is located within the Perth metro area on the urban fringe – a place

3002Misc260

where people live in order to enjoy rural amenity whilst being in close proximity to the metro area. What may be acceptable in terms of visual impact in rural areas must therefore be considered in context. The subject site cannot be compared to remote regional areas used for large scale primary production where population densities are low and the predominant land use is apparent.

- The amenity of the locality, including the character – Following from the above, the incompatibility of the proposal in terms of its height and scale will alter the character of the locality. In addition to the visual impact, the land use itself will introduce an intensive manufacturing operation that is not consistent with the prevailing character. An industrial use that employs 26 staff, attracts RAV 4 category vehicles and operates 24 hours a day is not consistent with the local rural character and introduces an intensity of land use that is more appropriately located within an industrial precinct. Further, the visual impact cannot be dismissed on the grounds that Northlink is located to the west of subject site. There is a cumulative impact in terms of visual features and the fact that residents in proximity of Northlink must endure the existence of the highway does not translate to an ability to disregard the further loss of amenity that the proposal will have.

- The availability and adequacy of public utility services – As a result of its rural setting, the subject site does not have access to a reticulated sewer and proposes to dispose of effluent waste on site. With 26 staff proposed, the volume of waste water that will be generated is not insignificant and the proponent has not demonstrated as part of the application that it can be accommodated. The RAR recommends a condition requiring that further investigations are completed to demonstrate that on site wastewater can be accommodated however, this is fundamental to the proposal and should be demonstrated as part of the assessment and in accordance with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations guidance on the matter.

Conclusion In conclusion, based on the manufacturing nature of the proposal, we maintain that the correct use class for the proposed development is ‘Industry – General’ or ‘Industry-Light’ not ‘Industry – Rural’. The application should therefore be refused on the grounds that the proposed use is prohibited within the zone. In considering the broader planning context and the exercise of discretion, the proposal should also not be approved on the basis that:

- The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the General Rural zone and will prejudice the development of land specifically identified for industrial purposes; and

- The bulk and scale of the proposal is inconsistent with the prevailing character and would have a detrimental impact of the amenity of locality.

☐





Presenter Details Name Stephen Lamond

Company (if applicable) Thompson & Redwood


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

Meeting Details DAP Name MOJADP

Meeting Date 18 June


Property Location 46 Gaston Road, Bullsbrook



YES

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

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

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



The presentation will address: The decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the proposed landuse.



Attached letter from Hotchkin Hanly.

Form 1 – Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

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

Development Description: Use & associated development for a Stock Feed Grain Mill

DAP Name: Metro-Outer JDAP

Applicant: Burgess Rawson Design Group

Owner: Newco Mills Pty Ltd

Value of Development: $10 million

LG Reference: DA-190/2020

Responsible Authority: City of Swan

Authorising Officer: Philip Russell

DAP File No: DAP/20/01764

Report Due Date: 20 June 2020

Application Received Date: 23 March 2020

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): Attachment 1: Location Plan Attachment 2: Proposed RAV Route Attachment 3: WA art trail information Attachment 4: Site Plan Attachment 5: Elevations

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro-Outer JDAP resolves to: 1. Approve 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, and pursuant to clause 24(1) and 26 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. This approval is for 'Industry - Rural' (Stock Feed Grain Mill) as defined under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17 and the subject land may not be used for any other use without prior approval of the City.

2. The applicant/owner is to submit to the satisfaction of the City of Swan, on advice from Main Roads Western Australia:

(i) plans to provide for a sealed (bitumenised concrete) carriageway for that section of Morley Road from its intersection with Muchea South Road to the western crossover to the subject lot.

(ii) plans to provide for a sealed (bitumenised concrete) intersection of Morley Road with Muchea South Road.

(ii) plans to provide for a sealed (bitumenised concrete) intersection of Morley Road with Muchea South Road.

3. Prior to commencement of site works the applicant/owner is to complete the Morley Road construction works subject of condition 2 to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.

4. Vehicle access onto the site shall be restricted to that shown on the approved plans.

5. Prior to the commencement of site works, the applicant/owner is to submit to the satisfaction of the City of Swan, on advice from the Department of Health, a Site and Soil Evaluation Assessment as per Australian Standard AS/NZS1547:2012 to demonstrate the capacity for onsite effluent disposal.

6. Prior to commencement of any works on-site, the applicant/owner is to submit a Stormwater Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Swan, upon advice of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

7. The applicant is to install the stormwater drainage system subject of the approved Stormwater Management Plan and maintain it thereafter to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.

8. Vehicle parking areas, access and circulation areas must be sealed or compacted and drained in accordance with the approved Stormwater Management Plan.

9. Prior to commencement of the operations of the facility the applicant/owner is to submit a Noise Management Plan and a Dust Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.

10. All measures for noise and dust suppression contained in the approved Noise Management Plan and Dust Management Plan are to be installed or enacted prior to commencement of the operation of the facility and maintained thereafter.

11. All exterior lighting associated with the development shall comply with Australian Standard 4282:2019 ‘Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting’ for the duration of the development to the satisfaction of the City.

12. Prior to a building permit being issued, the landowner must contribute a sum of 1% of the total development construction value toward Public Art in accordance with the City of Swan Local Planning Policy for the Provision of Public Art (POL-LP-1.10), by either:

a) payment to the City of a cash-in-lieu amount equal to the sum of the 1% contribution amount ($105,220.59). This must be paid to the City prior to the date specified in an invoice issued by the City, or prior to the issuance of a building permit for the approved development, whichever occurs first; or

b) provision of Public Art on-site to a minimum value of the 1% contribution amount ($105,220.59). The following is required for the provision of Public Art on-site:

i. the landowner or applicant on behalf of the landowner must

seek approval from the City for a specific Public Art work including the artist proposed to undertake the work to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with POL-LP-1.10 and the Developers’ Handbook for Public Art (as amended). The City may apply further conditions in regard to the proposed Public Art;

ii. no part of the approved development may be occupied or used

until the Public Art has been installed in accordance with the approval granted by the City; and

iii. the approved Public Art must be maintained in compliance with

the approval granted by the City and any conditions thereof, to the satisfaction of the City.

13. Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the

application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.

Details: outline of development application

Insert Zoning MRS: Rural

LPS 17: General Rural

Insert Use Class: 'Industry - Rural' "D"

Insert Strategy Policy: State Planning Policy 2.5 – ‘Rural Planning’ Local Planning Biodiversity Strategy Local Rural Planning Strategy POL-TP-126 - Building and Development Standards – Rural Zones POL-TP-129 - Vehicle Parking Standards POL-LP-1.10 - Provision of Public Art

Insert Development Scheme: City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17

Insert Lot Size: 607,239m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Single House

Description of the proposed development: The Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) is requested to consider an Application for Development Approval for a ‘Stock Feed Grain Mill’ ('Industry-Rural') on a portion of Lot 1780 (No.46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook. The development will manufacture a pellet form livestock feed. The facility is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, producing 40 tonnes of stock feed per day. The facility will be developed within a 6.7239 hectare compound situated in the north-east corner of the lot comprising:

a 900m2 feedmill shed

a 2500m2 warehouse building

a 270m2 administration building

38 storage silos standing to a height of 23 metres

mixing station, utilities building and associated tanks and pumps

surrounding bitumen hardstand for truck access/egress and parking 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.

Site Details: The subject lot is located in the north-eastern extremity of the City of Swan in Gaston Road, West Bullsbrook. It is situated to the west of the Perth-Geraldton freight rail line and east of the new Northlink. The lot is predominantly cleared pastureland, contains no structures other than two rural sheds. An intermittent watercourse which is a tributary of the Ellen Brook extends through the lot approximately 50 metres south of the development compound. The development compound is located on the higher portion of the site (approx. 47.5 AHD). The subject site slopes from 48m AHD near the north western corner to 42m AHD to the south eastern corner. The property abuts Morley Road reservation to the north, General Rural zoned land to the east, Gaston Road to the South and General Rural zoned land to the west. The nearest dwelling is located approximately 510m to the west of the development area. The proposed development seeks to gain access from Morley Road. Surrounding land uses and development include minor agricultural and rural pursuits, Single Houses and associated rural sheds. Legislation and Policy: Legislation

• Planning and Development Act 2005

• Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011

• Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015

• City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17

State Government Policies

• State Planning Policy 2.5 – ‘Rural Planning’ Local Planning Strategies

• Local Planning Biodiversity Strategy

• Local Rural Planning Strategy Local Planning Policies

• Local Planning Policy POL-LP-1.10 - Provision of Public Art

• Local Planning Policy POL-TP-126 - Building and Development Standards – Rural Zones

• Local Planning Policy POL-TP-129 - Vehicle Parking Standards

Guidance Statements

• EPA Guidance Statement No.3 - Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (2005)

Consultation: Public Consultation The application underwent the following public consultation process for 21 days between 25 March 2020 and 15 April 2020:

• Written notification to affected properties within proximity to the site (1.5km);

• A sign on site; and

• Publication on the City's website and a hardcopy made available for inspection at the City's Administration Building.

35 submissions were received during the consultation period comprising of one (1) non-objection and 34 objections. A summary of the key issues raised in the objections is provided below:

# Issue Response Issue Count

1. The road network cannot accommodate the RAV vehicles and traffic volumes proposed and are therefore dangerous.

Disagree – Morley Road carriageway will need to be sealed to appropriate width. Balance of the road network to be used is of sufficient standard.

15

2. Dust emissions will negatively impact the amenity of surrounding residences.

Disagree – surrounding residences are all in excess of 500 metres from the location of the proposed facility. Distance and management measures should adequately mitigate against dust impact.

15

3. Noise emissions will negatively impact the amenity of surrounding residences.

Disagree – surrounding residences are all in excess of 500 metres from the location of the proposed facility. Distance and management measures should adequately mitigate against noise impact.

9

4. Odour emissions will negatively impact the amenity of surrounding residences.

Disagree – surrounding residences are all in excess of 500 metres from the location of the proposed facility. Distance and management measures should adequately mitigate against odour impact.

13

5. The subject site and the General Rural zone is not a suitable location for the 'Industry - Rural' land use.

Disagree - the use is permissible in a General Rural zone and the sites size and disposition to limited surrounding residential development mitigates impact of any emissions.

10

6. Noise generated from the RAV4 vehicles on the road network.

Noise generated on the public road network is exempt from the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

1

7. The Environmental report is deficient in its detail regarding Noise Emissions. No Noise Modelling is demonstrated.

Agree – noise modelling should form part of the noise management plan but distance from surrounding residences should ensure compliance.

1

8. Dwellings (sensitive development) are within the 500m buffer zone.

Disagree all residences are in excess of 500 metres from the proposed facility.

2

9. Negative Impact on ground water quality.

Disagree – effluent and stormwater discharge to be managed to capture pollutants.

4

10. Negative Impact on Ellen Brook via the tributary which traverses the site.

Disagree - stormwater discharge to be managed to capture pollutants.

2

11. The proposed development does not meet the definition of 'Industry - Rural' but rather 'Industry-General', 'Industry - Light' or 'Noxious - Industry'.

Disagree – proposal is properly classified as “Industry – Rural” pursuant to City’s LPS17.

4

12. The built form (height, scale and bulk) will negatively impact on the rural character of the area.

Disagree – the most visible part of the development – the tall grain silos - are considered to be structures far from uncommon in rural landscapes. Structures are reasonably distant from surrounding residences.

3

Other Referrals Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

A discretionary referral was undertaken to MRWA. The application requires the use of heavy vehicles up to 'Type 4 - Restricted Access Vehicles' (RAV 4) to service its pick up and drop off of product. These vehicles are defined by MRWA as being up to 27.5m in length and have a maximum load of up to 87.5 tonnes. Main Roads Heavy Vehicle Services (HVS) is responsible for administering road access for RAVs in Western Australia. RAVs can only operate on roads which are included in the RAV network or alternatively as approved by HVS, under either an order or a permit. Morley Road and 2.5km of Muchea South Road are proposed to be used by the RAVs however they are not included in the established RAV network. Therefore the application proposes to upgrade Morley Road and the intersection of Morley Road and Muchea South Road to the RAV 4 Standard. The applicant intends on applying to HVS to use the 2.5km portion of Muchea South Road which is not included in the RAV network so that the RAVs can connect to the current RAV network at Neaves Road and then finally onto the eventual North Link. Due to the above proposal a discretionary referral was undertaken to MRWA, who have provided the following comment:

1. The proposal relies on road speed limit change. Council will be required to endorse this change.

2. Once a speed limit has been agreed to and endorsed, intersection design modifications can then be considered.

3. RAV approvals are provided post speed zoning and construction activities. Once these are resolved, an application for RAV approval can be presented to MRWA.

4. Liaison is required between Local Government, HVS and MRWA Roads Speed Zoning Team; and

5. Should the above not be resolved by council prior to a determination being made, council is at risk that this development incorporating RAVs may be non-operational and ambulatory for RAV and road geometry approval.

While the comments above are noted, it is considered that the road designs, approvals from HVS and construction of these roads can be dealt with via the appropriate conditions of planning approval. Further detail of vehicle access, road upgrades and traffic volumes can be found under the 'Traffic and Access' section of this report. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) A discretionary referral was undertaken to DWER. The agency involved in the environmental assessment and management of emissions of the facility is DWER. DWER has advised that an unnamed minor perennial watercourse exists on the lot approximately 50m to the south of the development area and flows from the west into Ellen Brook to the east. DWER has provided comment stating that an appropriate setback to the waterway is required along with suitable stormwater management on the site to ensure there are no impacts on the Ellen Brook. No specific setback has been provided. Planning Assessment: Zoning, Land Use Classification and Permissibility The subject site is zoned 'Rural' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and 'General Rural' under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17 (LPS17). The application contends that the proposed stock feed grain mill should be classified as an ‘industry-rural’ land use pursuant to LPS17. Such a use is a discretionary (“D”) use within the General Rural zoning that applies to the land. A number of public submissions on the application contend that the application should be classified as an ‘industry-noxious’ land use pursuant to LPS17, which is a use not capable of approval in the General Rural zone, or in fact any other zone within LPS17. Another submission by Lavan Legal, acting on behalf of Harvis, owner of land within the South Bullsbrook Industrial area, contends that the proposal may well be properly classified as ‘industry-general’ or ‘industry light’ pursuant to LPS17 – again neither of which uses are capable of approval within the General Rural zone. Firstly the contention that the use should be classified as ‘industry–noxious’ is wrong.

The definition of ‘industry – noxious’ in LPS17 says:

“industry-noxious’ means an industry in which the processes involved constitute an offensive trade within the meaning of the Health Act 1911 (as

amended) but does not include wet fish shops or piggeries or a waste disposal process operation carried out by or under the direct management and supervision of the City.

A grain feed mill is not included as an offensive trade within the Health Act 1911 and so cannot fall within this use class. The Lavan submission advises that there is a case currently before the Supreme Court of Western Australia that is dealing with the lawfulness of an approval in the Shire of Chittering for a feed mill. It is understood that case concerns the proper land use classification of the proposal and whether or not the land use is approvable. Lavan claim that that facility and the planning scheme under which it was approved are similar to the proposal in this application and to the City’s LPS17. On the basis of these purported similarities they suggest that the assessment and determination of this application should be placed on hold pending the decision of the Supreme Court. City staff do not have the details of that case to consider whether in fact it is relevantly comparable; in any event there is no requirement, nor is it considered reasonable, to delay this applicant the facility of a timely determination of their application because of legal proceedings of other parties. LPS17 defines “industry” to mean “premises used for the manufacture, dismantling, processing, assembly, treating, testing, servicing, maintenance or repairing of goods, products, articles, materials or substances". So in order to be an industry, the premises must involve one of the activities listed. It is considered that the milling of grains into a meal is a “processing” activity and that the addition to the meal of additives is a “treating” activity. Accordingly what is being proposed is a form of industry. LPS17 defines “Industry-Rural” as:

(a) an industry handling, treating, processing or packing rural products; or (b) a workshop servicing plant or equipment used for rural purposes;

Clearly the consideration in this instance is whether the first limb of the definition encapsulates the subject proposal. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has considered the application of the “Industry-Rural” use class definition of LPS17 in Ecogrowth International Pty Ltd and City of Swan [2012] WASAT 109. Here the SAT determined that the definition focuses on the ‘inputs’ and what is done with them, rather than the outputs of the industry. The inputs themselves must be, or at least substantially must be, rural products. It would seem to be unarguable that the inputs in this proposal - raw grains – are not rural products, noting also that the SAT in Atwell and City of Albany [2009] WASAT 38 accepted the ordinary (dictionary) meaning of the word “rural” as:

“1. of, relating to, or characteristic of the country (as distinguished from towns or cities), country life, or country people; rustic.

2. Living in the country.

3. of or relating to agriculture: rural economy.” Notwithstanding the focus on the nature of the inputs, it is considered that the output, being a feed product for livestock, would also satisfy the above definition at 3 – livestock being a well-accepted and understood aspect of the rural economy in this country. On the basis that the proposal is considered to be specifically an ‘industry-rural’ use for the reasons outlined above, the operation of Clause 4.4.1 of LPS17 excludes from the general terms to describe any other use – that is it cannot be “industry-general” nor ‘industry-light’. Zoning objectives Whether approval should be granted to the proposal encompasses a consideration of the whether or not it complies with or prejudices the objectives for the General Rural zone. These are to:

a) ‘facilitate the use and development of land for a range of productive rural activities, which will contribute towards the economic base of the region;

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;

c) ensure the use and development of land does not prejudice rural amenities,

and to promote the enhancement of rural character;

d) ensure that development and land management are sustainable with reference to the capability of land and the natural resource values.’

These objectives are addressed below. Objectives a) and b) A facility that produces feed from grains specifically for the sustenance of livestock is considered to be a use in furtherance both of grain and livestock production. Where such production occurs in the locality of Bullsbrook and surrounds this facility should be considered as contributing to the economic base that that production provides. It is considered that approval of this facility in this location would not prejudice the development of designated industrial zoned land elsewhere in Bullsbrook, specifically the South Bullsbrook Industrial Area situated to the south-east of the subject site. That area is intended to accommodate a broad range of industrial uses, but particularly general industrial uses and large scale transport/freight logistics operations. It is considered that approval of the subject application will not prejudice the South Bullsbrook Industrial Area from being developed for those uses. Objectives c) and d) Compatibility with these objectives is a question of whether the proposal will adversely impact rural character and amenity and/or degrade the land on which it is

to be located by way of generation of noise, odour, dust, other particle emissions, stormwater runoff or its appearance. Dust Adverse impact by dust generated by the facility was raised in 15 submissions by the general public. Of those submissions made, the three closest to the subject site were from Lot 57 Almeria Parade to the north-east, 110 Gaston Road, Bullsbrook to the south-west, and 13 Fintown Street in the Bullsbrook townsite to the south-east, The latter is some 4.5 kilometres distant from the subject site. Lot 57 is some 540 metres away and 110 Gaston Road is some 715 metres away. The applicant has submitted an outline of measures to manage dust that include:

sealing or compacting all trafficable areas with low speed limits to prevent dust generation

wetting of trafficable areas to suppress dust during construction phase

use of extraction systems in enclosed processing areas

use of dust filters and dust suppression socks These measures are detailed in the documentation submitted to the Department of Water and Environment Regulation in support of the proponents application for a Works Approval and Licence pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1986. It should be noted that Morley Road, which is unsealed, is recommended to be upgraded with a sealed carriageway as a condition of any approval. This will mitigate against dust generation by truck movements to and from the site. The above measures would appear to be sufficient to ensure against dust having an adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties and especially those mentioned above, given the separation distances involved. It is worth noting that these distances exceed the nominal 500 metre separation distance from sensitive receivers indicated for this type of facility in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Guidance Statement No.3 Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses. This guidance statement is a point of reference in the application of the principles of State Planning Policy 4.1 – Industrial Buffer Policy to ensure that industrial uses do not adversely impact on surrounding sensitive land uses – in this instance surrounding residences. City staff are satisfied that the measures proposed by the applicant, coupled with the existing separation distances between the proposed facility and surrounding residences should ensure that there is no adverse impact on those residences from dust. Odour Adverse impact from odour generated by the facility was raised in 13 submissions by the general public. Lot 57 Almeria Parade to the north-east, 101 Morley Road to the west, 294 Muchea South Road to the east and 110 Gaston Road to the south- west are the only properties that raised concern with odour that are situated less than one kilometre from the proposed facility. Those properties are, respectively, 540 metres, 550 metres, 620 metres and 715 metres distant from the subject facility. Some submissions were specific in citing concern with odour arising from use of

blood and bone in the process and in fact the application as advertised to the public made reference to use of tallow as an additive. The applicant has subsequently confirmed that tallow or blood and will not be used in the process. The City therefore understands that there is nothing in the raw materials nor the process to which they are to be subject under this proposal that would give rise to any odour. Noise Adverse impact by noise generated by the facility was raised in 15 submissions by the general public. Similar to the circumstances of submissions raising concerns with dust and odour impact, all but four of the submissions citing concern with noise impact came from properties more than one kilometre distant from the subject lot. The four properties within one kilometre were again Lot 57 Almeria Parade, 101 Morley Road, 294 Muchea South Road and 110 Gaston Road. The applicant has submitted an outline of measures to manage dust that include:

installation of noise cladding to buildings

installation of noise silencers/hoods to production machinery

unloading activities to be undertaken within enclosed buildings as far as practicable.

They contend that the separation distances of the facility from the nearest residences will be sufficient to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is achieved. Whilst this is more likely than not, City staff recommend, as a condition of any approval, that acoustic modelling be undertaken as part of a Noise Management Plan to demonstrate compliance with the noise regulations and to outline any operational or infrastructure measures required to achieve this. Visual impact Submissions from Lot 57 Almeria Parade, 101 Morley Road and 110 Gaston Road contend that the appearance of the facility will have an adverse impact on the rural landscape. The City’s policy on building and development standards in rural zones sets out provisions for height, site coverage and boundary setbacks. Buildings should not comprise more than 10% of the lot area and within the General Rural zone should be setback 30 metres from front and rear lot boundaries and 20 metres from side boundaries. Height is generally recognised as being predominantly two storeys. With respect to site coverage the entire compound in which the facility is proposed to be constructed is, at 250m x 230m some 5.75 hectares out of the 60 hectare lot. The actual buildings, being the packaging/warehouse, feed mill shed and administration building in aggregate comprise some 3600m2 of area. That is less than 1% of the area of this lot. These buildings stand approximately between 5 and 10 metres in height. They are setback between 145 and 155 metres from the front lot boundary with Morley Road and the proposed packaging warehouse is setback 28 metres to the eastern side

boundary of the lot. Rear and western side setbacks are over 750 metres and 500 metres respectively. As to the visual impact of these buildings so sited, the warehouse, feedmill shed and administration building are considered to be of a scale that will not unacceptably impact the visual amenity enjoyed by distant surrounding residences. The taller array of silos, at 23 metres in height, will obviously be the far more prominent built feature in this open flat landscape. Two things should be said about this. Firstly the appearance of an array of grain silos should not be considered to be out of character with a rural landscape, more particularly an altered landscape of existing or former farmland of the type found here in west Bullsbrook. In the State of Western Australia grain silos are considered to be an intrinsic and ubiquitous feature of farmland environments. Secondly whilst these silos will undoubtedly puncture the view-shed for surrounding residences, the construction nearby to the west of the Perth-Darwin Highway with its embankments and lighting infrastructure, and likely future roadside advertising signage, will just as significantly do the same. For the reasons above City staff are of the view that the proposed facility is not inconsistent with rural character and will not adversely impact the visual amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents to a degree that is unreasonable and would warrant refusal of the application. Effluent disposal and stormwater run-off The subject lot drains naturally - there being no connection to a piped drainage system. Neither is there a connection to sewer. The applicant intends to install an Alternate Treatment Unit for the disposal of effluent onsite. The Department of Water and Environment Regulation have advised that the site is within a Sewerage Sensitive Area and that any such ATU would need to have a separation from the groundwater table of 1.5 metres and should be sited to achieve a setback of 100 metres from any watercourse. The development compound within which the facility is proposed affords ample opportunity to achieve such setback from the watercourse that traverses the lot and as the area is higher than the surrounding land should be able to achieve the vertical separation to the groundwater table. The Government Sewerage Policy requires that a Site and Soil Evaluation (SSE) be submitted to inform the land capability for onsite sewage management of the commercial development. It is recommended that such evaluation be prepared and submitted as a condition of any development approval. As regards stormwater - retention will obviously be onsite. DWER have recommended that any drainage system should be designed with reference to water sensitive urban design principles with detention and treatment measures for first flush. It is recommended that a stormwater management plan detailing a satisfactory drainage system be required as a condition of any approval. It is noted that no clearing of native vegetation is proposed. For the reasons detailed above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with objectives c) and d) of the General rural zone.

Traffic, Parking and Access In support of this application, the applicants have submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by GTA Consultants which sets out an assessment of the anticipated transport implications of the proposed development. The application requires the use of heavy vehicles up to 'Type 4 - Restricted Access Vehicles' (RAV 4) to service its pick up and drop off of product. The site is situated about 420m to the west of Muchea South Road, which will act as the main access route for the proposed development. Presently, Muchea South Road / Morley Road intersection is essentially a private driveway and as such, no formal carriageway or intersection treatments exist. However, Morley Road is a gazetted 20m wide road corridor for future construction. In order to address these restrictions, the applicants propose to:

1. Upgrade Morley Road and its intersection with Muchea South Road to a RAV 4 standard;

2. Apply to MRWA HVS to use the 2.5km portion of Muchea South Road so that the RAVs can connect to the current RAV network at Neaves Road and then finally onto the eventual North Link.

City staff advise that Morley Road seal widths will be required to be widened to a 9m wide total seal with 2 x 3m lanes and 1.5m sealed shoulders. In addition, the intersection will be required to be widened to accommodate lane correct turning movements. City staff advise that these road upgrades can be accommodated within the current 20m wide road reservation. In addition, the applicants swept path diagrams contained in the TIS demonstrate that the future road and intersection designs can accommodate lane correct RAV 4 vehicle movements inside the current road reserves. Swept path diagrams have been included as an attachment. MRWA have provided comments which suggest that all road upgrade approvals be put in place prior to determination. City staff consider that these upgrades and HVS approvals can be dealt with via the recommended conditions of planning approval. The City recommends conditions of approval which require engineering drawings for the road upgrades be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit and all road upgrades completed prior to occupation and commencement of the development. The City also recommends that a condition be applied which requires HVS approval be obtained by the applicant and provided to the City prior to prior to occupation and commencement of the development. Vehicle Movement As per the TIS, in a worst-case scenario, combining the peak hour of the staff vehicle movements and the peak hour of the heavy vehicle movements the TIS states that the development will generate a maximum of 23 vehicle movements in the AM peak (6am - 7am) and 22 vehicle movements in the PM peaks (4pm - 5pm and 5pm - 6pm).City staff advise that this will not impose an undue load on the proposed and existing road network.

Parking The City's Local Planning Policy POL-TP-129 Vehicle Parking Standards requires one (1) bay per employee or 1 bay per 100m2 of GLA whichever is the greater. Therefore based on the GLA the minimum number of car parking bays required is 38 bays. The development proposes a total of 30 bays on site which creates a technical shortfall of eight (8) bays. The 30 car bays proposed are considered to be adequate given that a maximum of 26 employees will be on site at any one time, resulting in a surplus of four (4) bays. The maximum number of cars that the car park can accommodate is 30 vehicles. The site is not expected to generate a high level of visitors as it does not attract customers. The heavy vehicles do not require parking spaces as the development site includes a separate access, unloading area, loading area and manoeuvring area to accommodate the manoeuvrability of these vehicles. The City has reviewed the TIS and the matters relating to road upgrades, traffic volumes, parking and access to the site and has no objections to its conclusions. It is considered that the proposal together with the above mentioned conditions will be able to be accommodated. Provision of Public Art Local Planning Policy (POL-LP-1.10) Any development with a development cost of at least $2 million within the City will generally be required to provide public art to a value equivalent to 1% of the cost of the development, where the prescribed development meets one or more of the criteria set out in section 5 of the policy. Based on the development cost - the proposed development would attract a public art contribution amount of $105,220.59. The applicants have requested that the art contribution be waived, providing the following justification: "Whilst the landowners and applicants agree that the provision of public art in urbanised areas is appropriate and supported, it is suggested that it is not as appropriate in these circumstances. The general understanding when a landowner makes a contribution towards public art is that the art is provided on the site of the subject development or spent by the City in close proximity to the relevant development. In this instance the site is isolated and will gain no benefit from the expenditure of art funds on the site or within close proximity." The City recognises there is significant community benefit in the provision of Public Art. Public Art has the potential to improve and enhance the wellbeing of people in the environments where they live, work and play. Therefore - it is considered that the public art contribution is for the benefit of employees, visitors and the public realm alike. The policy states that any development which will cause at least 20 people to become part of or to interact with, the locality in which the prescribed development will be located triggers the need for a contribution.

The policy recognises that developments which generate a low level of attendance should not be included in the application of the policy's requirements as an art contribution in those circumstances would not achieve a feasible cost benefit ratio. The proposed development will cause at least 26 employees to interact with the locality, not including the heavy vehicle operators. In this instance, the development meets the policy's requirements for a contribution. It is not uncommon for rural-industrial developments of this nature to include a contribution to public art. A strong example of this type of art installation is Western Australia's 'Public Silo Trail' which is a permanent, open-air, public ‘gallery’ of silo art installations which link rural and coastal towns across Western Australia’s southern regions. Information of these installations is included in the attachments. It is also considered that a public art installation will be highly visible from the new north-link situated 1km to the west of the development, meaning the development will be viewed by traffic in transit along North-Link. In addition, submissions received by the City contend that the built form of the development will impact the rural character of the development's context. It is considered that a public art contribution will improve the quality and attractiveness of the built environment by adding to the appearance, vibrancy, character and amenity of development and its surrounding environment. Council Recommendation The Council of the City of Swan considered the application at its meeting of 3 June 2020 and resolved unanimously to: 1) Advise the Metro-Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel that the

Council of the City of Swan recommends that the application for a Proposed Stock Feed Grain Mill on a portion of Lot 1780 (No.46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook be refused for the following reasons:

1. It is considered that the proposed use of the land falls within the use class of “Industry-General” as defined by the City of Swan Local Planning Scheme No.17 and such use is a use not permitted within the “General Rural” zoning applicable to the land.

2. The proposed use is not considered to be a productive rural activity contributing to the economic base of the Bullsbrook locality.

3. The proposed use is not considered to be a compatible support service to meet the needs of the (Bullsbrook) rural community.

Conclusion: The City recommends approval for the proposed ‘Stock Feed Grain Mill’ ('Industry-Rural') on a portion of Lot 1780 (No.46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook for the following reasons:

• The proposed development is considered to meet the definition of the 'Industry - Rural' land use which is a 'D' use within the ‘General Rural' zone, and can be considered for approval;

• The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives for the General Rural zone – it should contribute to the rural economy and should not adversely impact the rural character and amenity of the area nor degrade the land upon which it is proposed; and

• The proposed traffic can be accommodated within the local road system subject to construction of a section of Morley Road.

It is recommended that the Joint Development Assessment Panel approve the application subject to the recommended conditions.

DISCLAIMER: Information shown here on is a composite ofinformation from various different data sources. Users are warned that the information is provided by the City of Swan in this format as a general resource on the understanding that it is not suitable as a basis for decision making without verification with the original source.

Location Plan

1/05/2020

1:36112

NEWCO MILLSPlan 9 - RAV Route

Bi-directional RAV Route

Morley Rd.M

uchea Sth R

d.R

ailway P

de.

Neaves Rd.

NorthLink

Mill Site Lot 1780 #46

Gaston Rd. Bullsbrook

lyn-l

Revised Plans

2

P U B L I C S I L O T R A I L - T H I N G S W E F O U N D O N T H E T R A I L

A L B A N YThe Yok and SheryoViewing from - Boatshed Carpark & Old Town Jetty, Princess Royal Drive, Albany

In March 2018 acclaimed Brooklyn-based street art duo the Yok & Sheryo spent 17 days and more than 180 litres of paint on silos in Albany. Taking inspiration from two species of seahorse found in the coastal waters off South-Western Australia, the Ruby Seadragon and its Leafy Seadragon cousin, the 35 metre high and 50 metre wide mural now sits proudly across the giant silos at CBH Group’s Albany Grain Terminal.

In August 2016 Fremantle artist Amok Island created Six Stages of Banksia baxteri, a 25 metre high wildflower inspired mural painted across three CBH Group silos in Ravensthorpe. The project entailed 31 days, 338 litres of paint and countless trips up and down the silos in a knuckle boom.

Native Western Australian wildlife took centre stage in sky-high silo art at Newdegate in June 2018 as Perth muralist Brenton See took just under a fortnight to paint the region’s western bearded lizard, mallee fowl, thigh spotted tree frog and red-tailed phascogale on four towering CBH Group silos over 13 days.

Due to be completed in September 2018. Find out more at publicsilotrail.com or watch it unfold by following @FORMWA on Instagram or Facebook.

In November 2017, FORM’s PUBLIC Silo Trail stopped off at Katanning, lighting up a series of Western Power electrical transformer boxes and walls in the city centre with murals by Karim Jabbari, Brenton See, Chris Nixon, Darren Hutchens and Mel McVee.

200 litres of paint, 14 days, 168 hours, two lifts, 80 rollers and 10 brushes. That’s what it took for Western Australian street artist Kyle Hughes-Odgers to complete artworks across four 35-metre high silos outside the Wheatbelt town of Merredin in August 2017. The carefully researched artwork concept tells a story about Merredin, its natural environment in the colours, its diverse community in the artwork’s abstract forms and figures, its landforms and agricultural history in the symbols.

In March 2015 internationally renowned artists HENSE (USA) and Phlegm (UK) transformed eight , 38 metre silos (an area of roughly 5500 square feet) over 16 days and using around 740 litres of paint, creating Australia’s first ever silo mural. The mural translates the landscapes of Northam through a vibrant colour pallete combining Phlegm’s signature whimsical characters in impossible flying machines, with HENSE’s abstract patterns in explosive blocks of patterned fluoro colour.

N O R T H A M HENSE and PhlegmToodyay Road, Northam

M E R R E D I NKyle Hughes-OdgersGreat Eastern Highway, Merredin

K A T A N N I N GVarious mural artistsVarious locations within the townsite

P I N G R U PEvoca1Jolley Road, Pingrup

N E W D E G A T EBrenton SeeMaley Street, Newdegate

R A V E N S T H O R P E Amok IslandDance Street, (off South Coast Highway) Ravensthorpe

230 m

250

m

LIGHT VEHICLE PARKING

VERANDAH

ADMINISTRATIONFUTURE EXPANSION

ENTRY

UTILITIES

FEEDMILL SHED

PACKAGING / WAREHOUSE

MIXING STATION

WEIGHBRIDGE

FIRE TANKPROCESS WATER

LPG Tank

MORLEY ROAD

Title Site Plan Rev: 4

ClientNEWCO MILLS PTY LTD, Bullsbrook Feedmill

Location 46 GASTON ROAD, BULLSBROOK

Scale 1:1000 @ A3

Date 5 / 03 / 2020

Fire Pumps

30 m

9 m

30 m

3 m

10 m

10 m

30 m

30 m

50 m

50 m

INT

AK

E

TRUCK PARKING

BITUMEN HARDSTAND

STANDBY PARKING

28 m

45 m

88 m

145

m

155

m

SILOS

FIRE BREAK

SILOS

47.50

47.00

46.50

46.00

45.50

45.00 44.50

44.00

43.46

47.52

47.50

47.00

46.50

46.50

46.00

46.00

46.00

45.50

45.50

45.00

44.50

46.50

46.00

47.00

E3

E2E1

FFL: 46 m

FFL: 46 m

FFL: 46 m

INCOMING GRAIN SILOS

Hea

vy V

ehic

le E

ntry

/ E

xit

Ligh

t Veh

icle

Ent

ry /

Exi

t

Tank

AHD 56.50

AHD 46.0

AHD 69.0

AHD 46.0

AHD 50.5

Admin Building

8 m

4.5

m

Sunflower Beyond

Packaging / Warehouse

Feedmill Shed

23 m

Pellets

Clean Grains Beyond

Bi ProductsWhole Grains

Incoming Grains Beyond

Packaging / Warehouse

23 m

Whole Grains Beyond

Incoming Grain

Feedmill Shed

4.5

m

Bi Products Beyond

Clean Grains Sunflower

Admin Building Beyond

AHD 69.0

AHD 46.0

AHD 56.5

AHD 46.0

20 m

Pellets Beyond

8 m

AHD 50.5

20 m

ELEVATION E1

ELEVATION E2

Title Site Elevations E1 E2 Rev: 3

Client NEWCO MILLS PTY LTD, Bullsbrook Feedmill


Scale 1:500

Date 28 / 01 / 2020

Grain Intake Hopper

Grain IntakeOutloading

Utilities

Utilities Beyond

Bulk Bags

Bulk Bags Beyond

AHD 74.0

AHD 74.0

Fire Pumps

Title Site Elevations E3 Rev: 3

ClientNEWCO MILLS PTY LTD, Bullsbrook Feedmill


Scale 1:500

Date 28 / 01 / 2020

23 m

AHD 46.0 9 m

ELEVATION E3

20 m

4.5

m

AHD 50.5

AHD 56.5

AHD 69.0

Admin Building

OutloadingBulk BagsPelletsWhole GrainsPackaging / Warehouse

Sunflower

Incoming Grains Beyond

Bi Products Beyond

Clean Grains Beyond

Feedmill Shed

Utilities Beyond

AHD 74.0

Taken from Hart Architects

metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda... · 2020-06-17 · the presentation will...

Documents